IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths'

LizzyTish
post Oct 11 2007, 09:03 PM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 8-November 06
Member No.: 215



Al Gore's 'Nine Inconvenient Untruths'
By Sally Peck
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/10/2007

Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.


Watch the trailer for An Inconvenient Truth
The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global warming because "humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb".

But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming.

His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, to block the Government's plan to screen the documentary in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.

The father of two claimed An Inconvenient Truth included "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush".

The film's distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

But the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.

It is, he ruled, a "political film".

The nine alleged errors in the film

• Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."


• The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.


• The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.


• Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".


• Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.


• The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."


• Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".


• Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".


• Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

A Government spokesman said he would not make any further comment on the case today.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../scigore111.xml
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 12 2007, 07:48 AM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



This of course does not mean that anthropogenic induced climate change is not a reality.

TBH I am not sure what Gore is about. Every scientist knows that overstating cases can lead to total disbelief and thus Gore is either trying to score political points or derail the real arguments for humans changing their habits before it is too late.

Two recent books on the topic are worth reading:

High Tide by Mark Lynas, see:

http://www.marklynas.org/books

and

The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, see:

http://www.theweathermakers.com/

I have been discussing the pros and cons of the numerous arguments and also the myths that naysayers like to expound for many years, somewhat longer than with the official 9/11 myths. Such myths have been dealt with by a number of authoritative bodies including the UK Met' Office Hadley Centre:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...yths/index.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guinan
post Oct 12 2007, 08:50 AM
Post #3


Location: Netherlands


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 72



The truth didn't prevent him getting the Nobel-prize though...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10126641

Just goes to show how much the truth is worth these days if you're in the top echelon of power/politcs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Oct 12 2007, 09:29 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
TBH I am not sure what Gore is about. Every scientist knows that overstating cases can lead to total disbelief and thus Gore is either trying to score political points or derail the real arguments for humans changing their habits before it is too late.


He's talking to the masses. When doing that presentation is the key not so much substance.

Anyway It's not about us, it's about not letting those Two billion people without electricity get it and start burning our coal, their role is to plant trees to compensate for our Lear jet use and give us a warm fuzzy feeling as we picture a noble savage tending our carbon offset plants. Of course It's daytime in my picturing, otherwise you can't see them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 12 2007, 11:29 AM
Post #5


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Source:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMaste...0&tstamp=200709







Polar ice cap gone by 2030?
July's huge drop in Arctic sea ice extent continued into August 2007, according to figures released this week by the National Snow and Ice Data Center. August 2007 sea ice extent plunged 31% compared to the average from 1979-2000. As of September 4, 2007, the sea ice extent was a full 17% below the record minimum that occurred on September 20-21, 2005. Although the rate of melting is starting to slow down as the days grow shorter, more melting is expected this month.

The difference in sea ice extent between August 1979 (the beginning of the data record) and August 2007 was a startling 37%. University of Illinois Polar Research Group presented similar estimates this week. They measure sea ice area--not extent. Sea ice area does not include all the long, narrow cracks in the ice, and so the numbers for sea ice area are different (lower) than for sea ice extent. Their sea ice area estimate for September 5, 2007 (Figure 1) was 42% less than for the same date 28 years ago.

Released 8 October 2007


Executive summary


• Climate change impacts are happening at lower temperature increases and more quickly than projected.

• The Arctic's floating sea ice is headed towards rapid summer disintegration as early as 2013, a century ahead of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections.

• The rapid loss of Arctic sea ice will speed up the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, and a rise in sea levels by even as much as 5 metres by the turn of this century is possible.

• The Antarctic ice shelf reacts far more sensitively to warming temperatures than previously believed.


• Long-term climate sensitivity (including "slow" feedbacks such as carbon cycle feedbacks which are starting to operate) may be double the IPCC standard.

• A doubling of climate sensitivity would mean we passed the widely accepted 2°C threshold of "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate four decades ago, and would require us to find the means to engineer a rapid drawdown of current atmospheric greenhouse gas.

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are now growing more rapidly than "business-as-usual", the most pessimistic of the IPCC  scenarios.

• Temperatures are now within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.

• We must choose targets and take actions that can actually solve the problem in a timely manner.

• The object of policy-relevant advice must be to avoid unacceptable outcomes and seemingly extreme or alarming possibilities, not to determine just the apparently most

likely outcome.

• The 2°C warming cap is a political compromise; with the speed of change now in the climate system and the positive feedbacks that 2°C will trigger, it looms for perhaps billions of people and millions of species as a death sentence.
• To allow the reestablishment and long-term security of the Arctic summer sea ice it is likely to be necessary to bring global warming back to a level at or below 0.5°C (a long-term precautionary warming cap) and for the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases at equilibrium to be brought down to or below a long-term precautionary  cap of 320 ppm CO2e.

• The IPCC suffers from a scientific reticence and in many key areas the IPCC process has been so deficient as to be an unreliable and dangerously misleading basis for policy-making.


Download full report


 




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
will52
post Oct 12 2007, 12:50 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 25
Joined: 30-January 07
Member No.: 523



Thank you Painter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Oct 12 2007, 06:42 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
Dr. Mark Serreze, and Arctic ice expert with the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice, then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our children's lifetimes." While natural fluctuations in wind and ocean circulation are partly to blame for this loss of sea ice, human-caused global warming is primarily to blame. In the words of Dr. Serreze: "The rules are starting to change and what's changing the rules is the input of greenhouse gases. This year puts the exclamation mark on a series of record lows that tell us something is happening."


Why in hell are they so quick to blame the carbon cycle? To me It's not even a secondary factor as in the dust on mars. Everything is blamed on CO2 without consideration of changes brought on by solar radiation. dunno.gif

QUOTE
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 13 2007, 02:48 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Timothy Osman @ Oct 12 2007, 05:42 PM)
Why in hell are they so quick to blame the carbon cycle? To me It's not even a secondary factor as in the dust on mars. Everything is blamed on CO2 without consideration of changes brought on by solar radiation. dunno.gif

That is not quite true. Did you visit that UK Met' Office site that I pointed at?

As for what happens on Mars this is not all that relevant considering the massive differences in gravity and ecosystems, if indeed Mars qualifies as having one of the latter.

Tectonic events and movement, ocean and atmospheric currents on earth all have a huge impact on the total ecosystem but with the exception of tectonics the other systems can be appreciably modified by human activity providing a trigger for other effects to kick in. Effects such as a change in local albedo from ice melt or deforestation, an increase in methane production (already massively increased since the dawn of the agricultural revolution due to the 99 percent increase in biomass of humans and the animals they breed for food production) as the permafrost melts and methane hydrates locked up in the sea bed boil off.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Oct 13 2007, 09:14 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
That is not quite true. Did you visit that UK Met' Office site that I pointed at?


Yes I did, I found it the most bias piece of crap I've seen in a while so I thought I best not comment.

The bottom line statements should make any objective person question everything they're pushing. That's the bottom line.

QUOTE
The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.



QUOTE
The bottom line is that the range of available information is now consistent with increased warming through the troposphere (the lowest region of the atmosphere).



QUOTE
The bottom line is, even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.


QUOTE
The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 14 2007, 09:25 PM
Post #10


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16








Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film


Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth




Jamie Doward, home affairs editor

Sunday October 14, 2007

The Observer



The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.
Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.


A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics.
The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.


Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.


Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.


The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.


The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.


In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.


Martin Livermore, director of the alliance, confirmed Durward continued to support its work. 'He provides funds with other members,' Livermore said.


In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls to the association requesting an interview were not returned last week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals and roads.'


He later clarified his comments saying he was merely pointing out that the army had done a 'fantastic job' in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis. He has also asked whether there has been a 'witch-hunt against drunk drivers'.


Dimmock also received support from a new organisation, Straightteaching.com, which calls for politics to be left out of the classroom. The organisation, which established an online payment system for people to make contributions to Dimmock's campaign, was set up by Tipp and several others. Its website was registered last month to an anonymous Arizona-based internet company.


Tipp, who is described on the website as having been a science teacher in the Seventies and Eighties, declines to talk about who else is backing it. 'There are other people involved but I don't think they want to be revealed,' he said.


He said he thought his organisation could bring more cases against the government. 'There are a lot of people who feel the climate change debate is being hyped up,' Tipp said. 'To try to scare people into believing the end is nigh is not helpful. We've been contacted by other teachers who raised concerns. There's a lot of interest, especially from people in the US.'


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wingmaster05
post Oct 15 2007, 12:56 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 568
Joined: 23-January 07
From: where the lorax sleeps
Member No.: 487



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 12 2007, 06:48 AM)
This of course does not mean that anthropogenic induced climate change is not a reality.

TBH I am not sure what Gore is about. Every scientist knows that overstating cases can lead to total disbelief and thus Gore is either trying to score political points or derail the real arguments for humans changing their habits before it is too late.

Two recent books on the topic are worth reading:

High Tide by Mark Lynas, see:

http://www.marklynas.org/books

and

The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, see:

http://www.theweathermakers.com/

I have been discussing the pros and cons of the numerous arguments and also the myths that naysayers like to expound for many years, somewhat longer than with the official 9/11 myths. Such myths have been dealt with by a number of authoritative bodies including the UK Met' Office Hadley Centre:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...yths/index.html

nice post, thanks. B)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 16 2007, 08:01 AM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Timothy Osman @ Oct 13 2007, 08:14 PM)
QUOTE
That is not quite true. Did you visit that UK Met' Office site that I pointed at?

QUOTE

Yes I did, I found it the most bias piece of crap I've seen in a while so I thought I best not comment.

So then you went and did just that anyway, comment that is.

These statements, from serious scientists using a vast array of computers and mountains of processed data do not agree with you so they are biased.

Have it your way. ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Oct 17 2007, 08:37 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
These statements, from serious scientists using a vast array of computers and mountains of processed data do not agree with you so they are biased.


My opinion is irrelevant since I'm not a scientist. If I was a scientist I would be even more concerned because the actual cause of climate change has been hijacked and politicized.
It seems not all the top meteorologists are as quick to hit the C02 bottom line as they and if I seemed a little blunt in my post I apologize, I had been reading either this or similar articles.

QUOTE
One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."



QUOTE
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."


http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gor...1696238792.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2019 - 08:35 AM