Sorry, Drudge
I’d hardly characterize this as “NYT Plans Hit on Gore”. It’s more like a poke in the side with a dull thermometer.
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
And I count one “he got it right/has enormous credibility” for every “what a weasel”.
Nanny State | tree hugging sister | 
March 12, 2007 8:55 pm
Subscribe
I’m wondering, what is it that people who deny climate change get out of it? I mean, apart from these people http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html
what does the average person gain from denying climate change?
For a start, how about maintaining a strong economy instead of destroying it based on nothing more than dubiously constructed computer models.
For another, people think rationally, and don’t go into hysterics about an impending doom that isn’t to be. At least, not as Algore claims it will be.
BTW, citing George Monbiot on global warming is like asking OJ Simpson to endorse orange juice. Just so you know.
What is it to “deny” that is so disturbing? The non-belief in Eco-religionists? Or the stronger belief in un-politicized Science?
The IPCC is a political entity functioning at the whim and command of the UN.
That, and the rate of C02 alarmism that drives a lot of it is just plain bogus: http://forum.iservio.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=196
http://fichierforum.iservio.ca/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
For one thing: “1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration since preindustrial times but a varying CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2 -concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2 -concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942.
4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.
5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big part of available technical papers and selected only a few values to get a validation of their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without having dealt with its chemical basis. ”
Science, not Religion.
And yet the highly influential Stern Report in 2006 calculated climate change could shrink the global economy by 20%.
So really, there is no material basis for opposition to action on climate change. Therefore it must be purely ideological. Mystical even, and fanatical in its vehemency…like some kind of, oh I don’t know, anti-environment Taliban.
And what’s more puzzling is that its adherents, unless they actually own one of the industries that may suffer a momentary decline in profits (oil, mining etc) stand to gain nothing by supporting their anti-environment cause.
In fact, there is every reason to believe that global temperatures will go down again, as they have over and over for millions of years. There is absolutely nothing about current temperatures that is out of line with past temperatures.