Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I didn't ask what the ozone hole has to do with CFCs, I asked how an ozone hole over the poles might affect the ice packs there. Nice try at deflection.

And again, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Why are you changing the subject?

We were discussing whether your web page proves CFCs destroy the ozone layer.

Denny said:
This WWW page, and many like it, explain that there's a chemical reaction that goes on with CFCs and ozone that is guaranteed to happen. There's no argument based upon observed data, observations, hypotheses, consensus, etc. Nothing needs to be peer reviewed even. It's as basic a fact as 1+1 = 2.

It's actually not that basic a fact, that's why a (fake) denier was able to poke (fake) holes in it. The chemical reaction by itself isn't proof of the atmospheric effects. Your web page proves nothing, you just choose to believe it, just as you choose not to believe in CO2.

Again:

By the mid 1980s, scientists had become expert in measuring the concentration of chlorine-containing compounds in the stratosphere. Some monitored the compounds from the ground; others used balloons or aircraft. In 1986 and 1987, these scientists, including Susan Solomon and James Anderson, established that the unprecedented ozone loss over Antarctica involved atomic chlorine and chlorine oxide radicals.

At the same time, measurements in the lower atmosphere established that CFC levels had increased steadily and dramatically since the first recordings taken by Lovelock in 1970. The conclusion was clear: The prime sources of the ozone-devouring chlorine atoms over Antarctica were the CFCs and two other pollutants, the industrial solvents carbon tetrachloride and methylchloroform.

A satellite operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration appears to have removed any possible doubt about the role of CFCs. Data collected over the past three years by the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite revealed these compounds in the stratosphere. Moreover, the satellite has traced the worldwide accumulation of stratospheric fluorine gases, a direct breakdown product of CFCs. The quantitative balance of CFCs and its products eliminates the possibility that chlorine from volcanic eruptions or other natural sources created the ozone hole.

Why did they bother to do all that when it is as simple as 1+1=2? They should have just looked at that web page. Silly scientists. Besides, we all know data from NASA can't be believed.

You realize I'm not actually arguing that CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer? I'm merely pointing out that you believe whatever you want to believe. You aren't actually analyzing the data.

barfo
 
And again, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Why are you changing the subject?

We were discussing whether your web page proves CFCs destroy the ozone layer.



It's actually not that basic a fact, that's why a (fake) denier was able to poke (fake) holes in it. The chemical reaction by itself isn't proof of the atmospheric effects. Your web page proves nothing, you just choose to believe it, just as you choose not to believe in CO2



Why did they bother to do all that when it is as simple as 1+1=2? They should have just looked at that web page. Silly scientists. Besides, we all know data from NASA can't be believed.

You realize I'm not actually arguing that CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer? I'm merely pointing out that you believe whatever you want to believe. You aren't actually analyzing the data.

barfo[/QUOTE]

Read the damned link. They basically did look at the WWW page that proved what CFCs do to ozone:

If Rowland and Molina had ended their CFC study with these findings, no one other than atmospheric scientists would ever have heard about it. However, scientific completeness required that the researchers explore not only the fate of the CFCs, but also of the highly reactive atomic and molecular fragments generated by the ultraviolet radiation.

In examining these fragments, Rowland and Molina were aided by prior basic research on chemical kinetics--the study of how quickly molecules react with one another and how such reactions take place. Scientists had demonstrated that a simple laboratory experiment will show how rapidly a particular reaction takes place, even if the reaction involves the interaction of a chlorine atom with methane at an altitude of 18 miles and a temperature of -60 degrees Fahrenheit.

Rowland and Molina did not have to carry out even a single laboratory experiment on the reaction rates of chlorine atoms. They had only to look up the rates already measured by other scientists. Basic research into chemical kinetics had reduced a decade's worth of work to two or three days.
 
Read the damned link.

That would be hard since you didn't provide a damned link for that quoted material.

Edit: Ah, I see, you edited the link into a post 8 or 10 back. I didn't see that edit.

barfo
 
Last edited:
There are zero pages that prove CO2 warming, that's the thing.

As for CFCs, look at the formulas again and see how the free radical affects the reaction. Hell, I'll do it for you:

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=89

When chlorine and ozone react, they form the free radical chlorine oxide, which in turn becomes part of a chain reaction. As a result of that chain reaction, a single chlorine atom can remove as many as 100,000 molecules of ozone.

Uh huh.
 
Ok, I read it. It's a nice story. If you believe it. Why do you believe it?

I'm pretty sure I could find you a nice story about some climate scientists working diligently to show the earth is heating up, too. What would that prove, exactly?

barfo
 
Ok, I read it. It's a nice story. If you believe it. Why do you believe it?

I'm pretty sure I could find you a nice story about some climate scientists working diligently to show the earth is heating up, too. What would that prove, exactly?

barfo

There is no silver bullet, like the chemical equation for CFCs, that leads me to believe in the man made global warming hypothesis. Maybe most of the scientists who believe in man made global warming are looking at WWW pages hyping the hypothesis, since it's now clear that the real data has been filtered and not made public.

Certainly the guys who figured out the CFC and ozone hole relationship didn't need to resort to climate models, and they didn't even need to run any experiments since the 1+1=2 nature of the chemical equation is as close to fact as Science gets.

Not only is there a compelling fact/equation in the case of CFCs, the scientists were able to make predictions and those predictions came true and held up. To me it's as plain as day, and irrefutable. As much so as our using similar (as near as possible) facts to launch a satellite, have it slignshot around two inner planets and then rendezvous with Neptune 8+ years later.

Not only were the predictions about CFCs spot on, they continue to be spot on. We stopped putting CFCs into the atmosphere and the ozone holes are shrinking.

On the other hand, the small man Al Gore is removing slides from his Nobel/Oscar winning powerpoint presentation as prediction after prediction fails to hold up.

The guys sounding the alarm over CFCs didn't tell us to stop using aerosol sprays, refrigerating our food, or enjoying the comfort of air conditioning. There were numerous practical alternatives to CFCs and we're still getting the benefits of those technologies.


I was asked what it would take to make me believe it, and I pointed to the incontrovertible evidence that CFCs damage the ozone layer.
 
I was asked what it would take to make me believe it, and I pointed to the incontrovertible evidence that CFCs damage the ozone layer.

Which you basically take on faith. Which is ok, since you are probably right in this case. But, you know, there could be a conspiracy to fake that data. Maybe the concentration of CFC's in the troposphere has been vastly overstated by people who wanted to get their grants funded. Maybe the shrinking of the ozone hole has been faked. Maybe the ozone hole was fake in the first place. You don't know. You haven't seen the data. You just believe what you want to believe.

Me, I think I'll believe Oden didn't hurt his knee tonight. Because that's what fits with my worldview. So it must be right.

barfo
 
I don't take it on faith anymore than the original researchers did.

Link, please, to how many and big the grants were to study CFCs and ozone.
 
I don't take it on faith anymore than the original researchers did.

Of course you do. Have you even read their papers, much less looked at the data?

Link, please, to how many and big the grants were to study CFCs and ozone.

You think they were doing it pro bono?

barfo
 
Of course you do. Have you even read their papers, much less looked at the data?



You think they were doing it pro bono?

barfo

Actually, I did read their papers at the time. There isn't any data about it, it's 1+1=2. The papers were written in 1974 and they started measuring the ozone hole in 1978 (therefore no data).

I don't think they were out to perpetuate getting grant after grant to study the one effect, to spend $1.7M/year each on a big staff and super computer time to run simulations (play video games or whatever).
 
Actually, I did read their papers at the time. There isn't any data about it, it's 1+1=2. The papers were written in 1974 and they started measuring the ozone hole in 1978 (therefore no data).

They measured the ozone hole with no data? Interesting. Sounds like a fish story "It was thiiiiiis big".

I don't think they were out to perpetuate getting grant after grant to study the one effect, to spend $1.7M/year each on a big staff and super computer time to run simulations (play video games or whatever).

You don't think so, but you don't really know, do you? You haven't bothered to follow up on their careers and how much money they've gotten. You haven't read their emails. Basically, since you like their conclusions you are giving them a pass.

barfo
 
They measured the ozone hole with no data? Interesting. Sounds like a fish story "It was thiiiiiis big".



You don't think so, but you don't really know, do you? You haven't bothered to follow up on their careers and how much money they've gotten. You haven't read their emails. Basically, since you like their conclusions you are giving them a pass.

barfo

"Like" their conclusions has nothing to do with it.

Like I said, they could measure how many gallons of CFC were made and used, they had a fact in the form of a chemical equation, they made predictions, and then by taking measurements, their predictions were proven true. Beyond a doubt.

There was no "consensus" to it.

They had been measuring that there was ozone in the atmosphere for much longer, but never went out looking for how it was affected by CFCs. As I said.
 
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

The Fiction Of Climate Science
Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM ET
Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.
 
You don't think so, but you don't really know, do you? You haven't bothered to follow up on their careers and how much money they've gotten. You haven't read their emails. Basically, since you like their conclusions you are giving them a pass.

barfo

Link me to anything like this that's specific to Ozone Hole research:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms
Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so
far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology.

"Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.
 
Link me to anything like this that's specific to Ozone Hole research:

Good point. The number of limos and hookers used by a conference attended by politicians, press, and celebrities is an excellent benchmark to use in deciding scientific questions.

barfo
 
Good point. The number of limos and hookers used by a conference attended by politicians, press, and celebrities is an excellent benchmark to use in deciding scientific questions.

barfo

It does represent the kind of spending on the issue.

Gosh, if the hoax' cover is blown, no more hookers and limos!
 
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record

Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

(Thanks to readers Sinclair and Peter.)

UPDATE

Reader Barry:

Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.

UPDATE 2

Could those carefully vetted journalists who are allowed an audience with the Great Green Guru please - for once - confront him with his exaggerations, distortions, fake evidence and absurd predictions? I’ve done this myself over this issue, and can guarantee you will get a far funnier and more interesting reaction than another of his sermons. You may also get something rather closer to the truth.
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”
 
How long are you going to keep flogging that dead Gorse, Denny? Everyone acknowledges that Gore is no scientist, but merely a celebrity spokesmodel for climate change.

If you go to an auto show, does it really matter if the girl in hotpants next to the car knows a supercharger from a Dodge Charger?

barfo
 
Last time I flogged Al Gore, he said "stop it some more, it hurts so good!"
 
How long are you going to keep flogging that dead Gorse, Denny? Everyone acknowledges that Gore is no scientist, but merely a celebrity spokesmodel for climate change.

If you go to an auto show, does it really matter if the girl in hotpants next to the car knows a supercharger from a Dodge Charger?

barfo

Al Gore is proposing and advocating massive carbon taxes. Coincidently, he also has a huge stake in the carbon trading business.

He's Bernie Madoff on a global stage. When will you stop defending the Bernie Madoff who profits off of taxpayers instead of investors?
 
Al Gore is proposing and advocating massive carbon taxes. Coincidently, he also has a huge stake in the carbon trading business.

He's Bernie Madoff on a global stage. When will you stop defending the Bernie Madoff who profits off of taxpayers instead of investors?

He's a private citizen. He's entitled to propose and advocate for whatever he wants to. I guess I'm defending his right to do so? I'm not sure I get the Bernie Madoff comparison. Madoff was engaged in a criminal enterprise. Gore isn't, so far as I know.

barfo
 
He's a private citizen. He's entitled to propose and advocate for whatever he wants to. I guess I'm defending his right to do so? I'm not sure I get the Bernie Madoff comparison. Madoff was engaged in a criminal enterprise. Gore isn't, so far as I know.

barfo

He's telling lies, as Crane's article illustrates. You are advocating Gore's right to tell lies to enrich himself in the private sector? Interesting stance you're taking, barfo.
 
He's telling lies, as Crane's article illustrates. You are advocating Gore's right to tell lies to enrich himself in the private sector? Interesting stance you're taking, barfo.

Denny's article illustrates that Gore sometimes gets facts wrong. Whether he does that intentionally or not is a matter of interpretation.

There is no law against misstating facts. If there was we'd have to shut down this board.

I still don't see a comparison with Madoff.

barfo
 
Denny's article illustrates that Gore sometimes gets facts wrong. Whether he does that intentionally or not is a matter of interpretation.

There is no law against misstating facts. If there was we'd have to shut down this board.

I still don't see a comparison with Madoff.

barfo

He's lying. Legally, as of now, but he's still lying, and still profiting off of it. We'll see what happens as "ClimateGate" advances, since it's clear that nothing substantive is going to result from the Copenhagen scam.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top