Thread: Leading Scientists Speak Out Against Gore's Global-Warming Film

I am amused by the frontrunning democrat male's obsession with reinventing himself as an electable candidate.

His latest agitprop comedy advocates destroying western economies in the name of the green extremist movement.

Global warming has been discredited so much that its now only good for conversations in public schools (where liberals still control).
Here is the latest press release (June 5, 2005) from Dr James Dobson's group:

http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0040754.cfm

Leading Scientists Speak Out Against Gore's Global-Warming Film

Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has some of the nation's top scientists poking holes in the theory of global warming.

A columnist for The Denver Post reported that Bill Gray, a professor at Colorado State University (CSU) and a top researcher best known for his forecasts at the beginning of hurricane seasons, said the only inconvenient truth about global warming is that scientists have not had a genuine debate on the issue.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," he said. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data."

Gray, who has studied the Earth's climate for more than 50 years, said if humans have contributed to warming, it is a very small contribution.

"Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going," he said. "My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

He added that media hype, opinionated politicians and uninformed environmentalists perpetuate the myth.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," he said, "starting with the nuclear winter and now with global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15 to 20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Roger Pielke Sr., state climatologist and professor at CSU's department of atmospheric science, said Gray is right and media is also the perfect way to dispel the myth.

"If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change," he said. "There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions. A lot of scientists out there are very capable of presenting other views that are not being heard."

Uninformed environmentalists perpetuate the myth. Yes, they do! I find that a hoot! No wonder thinking people are turning away from leftwing liberals.

Yeah, you're right Christian, fuck the planet. The Rapture is coming soon, we don't have to worry about pollution for our children's well being and health. Fuck pollution.

The scientist they quoted begins to indirectly argue against the certainty of his own position toward the end of the article.

"There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions. A lot of scientists out there are very capable of presenting other views that are not being heard."

His is just one opinion, out of that range that he speaks of. The title of the article says "leading scientists" and then goes to quote a single man and provide an offhand comment by someone who agrees completely.

Also, by providing the quote, "If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change," people reading may tend to think: well, since he is speaking of the media like that here, and this is media, what he says is probably true. However, instead of giving his scientific argument, he gives his "belief," a word used by him. Also, there isn't much evidence in the article that this man is "one of the nation's top scientists." It simply tells us that he works at a university and has been studying the climate for 50 years - yes, impressive, but what else is there that constitutes the title "leading scientist?"

I don't disagree that the topic of global warming is becoming very politicized, but so are most other topics out there. The fact that it is so politicized is very apparent in your using this article as "proof" to discredit "green extremists" and "leftwing liberals" (which is somewhat redundant, btw). However, the actual comments by the scientist don't point to either party - even the article didn't seem to lean left or right. However, it is you that threw in your partisan curve, and Sam took the bait.

Originally Posted by Luap

....His is just one opinion, out of that range that he speaks of.......

Global Warming Petition


We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ....

....During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition. .....

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

Originally Posted by Samantha

Yeah, you're right Christian, f___ the planet. The Rapture is coming soon, we don't have to worry about pollution for our children's well being and health. F___ pollution.

So I can count you in as a strong supporter of nuclear power then,.... right?

Originally Posted by Samantha

Yeah, you're right Christian, fuck the planet. The Rapture is coming soon, we don't have to worry about pollution for our children's well being and health. Fuck pollution.

LOL, I always love your eloquence Sam .

I great quote I once heard was "The world was not given to us by our parents; it was loaned to us by our children." I had the fortune to attend a dinner with Dr David Suzuki last year, and he was without question the best public speaker I had heard (and in my role, I've heard a few). He spoke about global warming; over-population; renewable energy, et al.

I'm also with you Sam. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about global warming. You don't need to be a scientist to grasp its most basic points. Imagine the world is simply a tennis ball inside a plastic bag. Every single gas, etc that is released in that bag, can't actually go anywhere (ie for those that don't know, the plastic bag in this analogy refers to the atmosphere), so after time there has to be a build up, etc.

Originally Posted by noahath

...... Imagine the world is simply a tennis ball inside a plastic bag. ......

The plastic "grass" on the tennis ball does not react the same the way that plants do in the real world. No disrespect- but that really is a pitiful analogy.

I believe there is a consensus not only among the international community, but also among our own national academy of sciences that global warming exists. Sounds like tz is just pulling it out of the ole poop chute again.

Originally Posted by glockmail

The plastic "grass" on the tennis ball does not react the same the way that plants do in the real world. No disrespect- but that really is a pitiful analogy.

Yeah it is, but what I was trying to put across was that all the gases et al that have been released into the atmosphere, actually don't go anywhere - they're not able to. They don't drift out into space. We're stuck with all of 'em.

the immediate problem we have here is that we also have some self-syled scientific experts here on the panel that are absoutely positive that global warming is just a bunch if hogwash.