Scientists Debate The Accuracy Of Al Gore’s Documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”

The discussion uses several terms that all mean most of these individuals live or die off of resources that promote the psudo science (read ‘bad’ science) used by individuals involved in the ‘man-made’ global warming discussions.

Their statements are all couched in verbiage that allows them to affirm or deny what ever was just said.

e.g.

“Gerald North … concludes the debate by stating that although there are some inaccuracies and exaggerations in the film, on the whole it represents mainstream scientific views on global warming.”

Mainstream - meaning those living off grants (not the generally retired or individually funded who all generally agree global warming - if it exists, is not man made or caused.)

Living or dying off of grants, means that their lips sync the chorus of the funding. In fact, if they don’t, they are rapidly with out fundings, invitations, free lunches etc.

Reading how much snow/ record low temps/ and often data that is inconvenient to ‘AlGores’ diatribe (yes, I believe the only inconvenient truth, is his ability to get such tripe in the media - which has less veracity than he).

The whole of world climate, does not reflect the 3 out of the last 10 years. It totals out at all of the last 4+ Billion.

In those years, included are sun hot and sun very hot years (and temps in between). Included are times when the oceans were higher or lower than now, because of land mass movement (techtonic plates shuttling about raising the Himalayan gulch to its current level) and times when Antarctica was a tropic.

When Antarctica was tropical, man did not exist, as we know ‘man’ now. But, by theories propounded by ‘man-made global warming and AlGore, that was mankind’s fault, since MANKIND is the only cause of Global Warming.

Do I doubt? Yes.

Does the media/funding driven ’scientist’ cause me to question their findings?

Until they take a definitive stand, staking their reputations with no quibbling words to save their necks, I whole heartedly doubt them.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe we should find good and reasonable developments to all our current ways of living. Mercury laden pig tailed fluorescent light bulbs, starvation causing ethonol and other get solved quick schemes aside, the current ideas and answers are all loaded guns aimed towards our heads. Frozen Menthonol, Shale oil, even certain forms of atomic energy pose more realistic near terms answers, rather than raising the cost of food (to starve the masses with over priced corn, soy, mean and poultry) just to produce ‘environmentally correct’ alcohol fuels that cost as much energy to make as they save? while using up our water resources (note why Georgia ran out of water this year) and raising the cost of food?

For that conference to have had any weight in credibility, real antagonists to the issue, and real discussion of causal relationships to the source of warming, and results of current solutions needed to be presented.

It is amazing Hillary was not there dodging snipers…

(sorry, that was almost uncalled for).

I am a doubter of man-made global warming. I am not a scientist. I have read too much, and seen too many of the fallacies of all the ‘pro man-mades’ to come close to believing any of them.

I have read enough of the ‘anti man-mades’ to be filled with cause to question… both sides.

That means neither side ‘wins’.

But, the man-mades have an agenda. That gives all that they say a very deep tarnish.

“it represents mainstream scientific views on global warming” does not mean it is right. Mainstream scientific views are often wrong or slanted for political or commercial interests. Vioxx, anyone?

“An Inconvenient Truth has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report” says it is powerful propaganda. Is that good?

“the real ‘inconvenient truth’ is that science has no idea how much of recent warming is natural versus the result of human activities” This is the meat of the thing for me. If recent warming is mostly due to the Sun, will decreasing CO2 do much? If not, why bother?

Soon enough, anyway, we will run out of oil and coal and have to run on solar, nuclear, etc. Nobody is thinking in terms of developed and developing countries going backwards into the “dark ages.” Energy conservation, efficient light bulbs, alternate energy sources could be just good business, not part of a poorly defined panic.

The most recent news is China and India have been underestimating the amount of carbon they emit so in order to fix things things to the standard Gore proposes everybody would have to stop creating CO2 within decades! Panic squared. What are the odds of this happening? Now we are having a little slump, perhaps for 2-5 years, while high prices for corn otherwise “required” for running autos will soon cause riots, etc. all over the developing world: that should speed expensive CO2 avoidance technology development! Geez, another “inconvenient truth.”