Global warming "expert" Al Gore used fictitious images from "The Day After" in his film, and portrayed them as "the truth" :

"It was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster 'The Day After Tomorrow.' "
http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042208/content/01125113.guest.html

I dont see why eveyone goes to such great lengths to discredit Al gore/ global warming. I mean the things he is suggesting we do are good for our planet so what does it really matter if the earth is warming up or not shouldnt we still take better care of it?

His fictional images probably pale in comparison to the real thing:

March 25, 2008—New satellite images reveal what scientists call the "runaway" collapse of an enormous ice shelf in Antarctica as the result of global warming.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/images/080325-antarctica-photo.jpg

Edit: Well, the CG graphics of a glacier calving are pretty spectacular, but his point didn't depend on showing glaciers calving. Everyone knows that happens. Real footage would have looked virtually the same. It was something to look at while he explained that this phenomenon is happening at an ever increasing rate.

His fictional images probably pale in comparison to the real thing:

March 25, 2008—New satellite images reveal what scientists call the "runaway" collapse of an enormous ice shelf in Antarctica as the result of global warming.

Edit: Well, the CG graphics of a glacier calving are pretty spectacular, but his point didn't depend on showing glaciers calving. Everyone knows that happens. Real footage would have looked virtually the same. It was something to look at while he explained that this phenomenon is happening at an ever increasing rate.

I'm sure ice shelves have been breaking off Antartica for millions of years.
They just didn't have satelites to image them 20+ years ago.

Yes it may be global warming, but until there's a real televised public scientific debate between the "human caused" global warming scientists, and the natural caused global warming scientists, I'll continue to be a skeptic.

The small pic of Antarctica above left shows the size of the "enormous" ice shelf. Quite insignificant to the whole of Antarctica. It is well know that the Antarctic Peninsula is warming, where the rest isn't (see NASA's Earth Observatory).

Al is going to be a billionaire by the time they catch up to this farce. In the meantime the entire industrialized world will be in economic straights, negatively affecting hundreds of millions of lives.
But don't worry about AL, he'll still be able to fly his jet when and where ever he likes in order to "save the polar bears".

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17838

A map of a satellite temperature record of the surface of Antarctica, best info available, past twenty years or so.

Note that there is no direct link between net glacial melting and temperature - in some places warmer temps lead to more snow and increased accumulation, in other places warmer temps lead to faster melting and loss of accumulation.

Note that the loss of a floating ice sheet often leads to open water, which is warmer itself and absorbs radiant heat - "positive feedback".

Note that the loss of ice along the edge of the continent has speeded up the flow of a few glaciers downhill into the sea - that is a change whose effects are yet to be felt.


Yes it may be global warming, but until there's a real televised public scientific debate between the "human caused" global warming scientists, and the natural caused global warming scientists, I'll continue to be a skeptic. If it isn't on TV, it hasn't happened - third generation effects.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17838

If it isn't on TV, it hasn't happened - third generation effects.

I wouldn't go that far. It would just be nice to finally see a live world-wide televised debate between scientists on this "Global Topic".
"Human Caused" Global Warming scientists are good at pumping out hype. Lets see how good they are at proving their hype under some debate heat.

Since virtually all climate scientists agree, it would be a one-sided debate.

Since virtually all climate scientists agree, it would be a one-sided debate.


Sure about that ?
Perhaps you should take a look at these :
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1002
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006737.cfm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

The Washington Times is a far-right publication owned by the Reverend Moon, and your own article mentions that many of these people are paid by Exxon. I've been through all this before with our local nuts. The consensus is that what Gore reports is basically true, and possibly underestimates the problem. Science works on doubt and skepticism, so naturally, there are still some older holdouts.

I wouldn't go that far. It would just be nice to finally see a live world-wide televised debate between scientists on this "Global Topic".
"Human Caused" Global Warming scientists are good at pumping out hype. Lets see how good they are at proving their hype under some debate heat. The debate has already taken place, and more debates are yet to come, in the venues and peer-reviewed publications and conferences and so forth. That's what the IPCC was - part of exactly that kind of debate.

An the audience was experts, the debaters were experts, everyone involved knew what they were talking about. Much more intense, and informative, than silly crap on TV.

A map of a satellite temperature record of the surface of Antarctica, best info available, past twenty years or so. There's another map here: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

Both from the same website and still quite different.

Anyways, whatever nice photoshop picture, the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is at it's highest point ever since 1978 (arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg)

The Washington Times is a far-right publication owned by the Reverend MoonIrrelevent, unless you check Gores ties with GIM. Now why don't you adress the arguments in the article instead of irrelevant ad hominem nonsense?

public scientific debate between the "human caused" global warming scientists, and the natural caused global warming scientists, I'll continue to be a skeptic.

But here comes the stupidity of the deniers, when they deny even the warming ITSELF. You can argue that it is natural, but do not deny that it is happening.

Now the right wingers and the government first denied it, then when it was so fucking obvious that they became a laughing stock, they switched to the "it is natural" argument. Too late boy!

But here comes the stupidity of the deniers, when they deny even the warming ITSELF. You can argue that it is natural, but do not deny that it is happening.

Now the right wingers and the government first denied it, then when it was so fucking obvious that they became a laughing stock, they switched to the "it is natural" argument. Too late boy!

Who denied global warming was happening ? Some people "deny" it simply because the increase in temperature is hardly significant. Then there's your stereotype of "right-wingers"; I thought only "right-wingers" were stereotypers ? :rolleyes:
And how many verifiable examples do you have of specific people "switching" to "it is natural" arguement ? Care to name a few people, and proof they switched ?

Both from the same website and still quite different. They look pretty similar to me - hot spots around the edge, especially where shelf collapse has opened up the water, cooling in the interior. Mine was more detailed.

Your point ?
Anyways, whatever nice photoshop picture, the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is at it's highest point ever since 1978 That was last July and August. Then it melted almost back to standard, now it's beginning to expand as winter sets in.

Again: your point ?

Who denied global warming was happening ?

US government (the jury is still out), Fox News, etc.

Since right wing radio gets their talking points from the above, the same applies to them...

And how many verifiable examples do you have of specific people "switching" to "it is natural" arguement ? Care to name a few people, and proof they switched ?

Sure:

US government, Fox News, etc.

P.S.: The same shit with peak oil, just watch now they are denying it, 2-3 years down the road they will be acknowledging it...

US government (the jury is still out), Fox News, etc.

Since right wing radio gets their talking points from the above, the same applies to them...

Sure:

US government, Fox News, etc.


Fox News has provided views proving Global Warming may not be caused by humans, they haven't outright denied Global Warming.....or do you have proof they have ?

Humans = climate fodder. Bo!

The Washington Times is a far-right publication owned by the Reverend Moon
”
Irrelevent, unless you check Gores ties with GIM. Now why don't you adress the arguments in the article instead of irrelevant ad hominem nonsense? I'm not busy, I'll do it.

OK, and along the way we will note that the shorthand version - the Moonie paper prints garbage most of the time - would be a lot less work. I will quote-mark stuff I lifted from various places that doesn't need linking, and quotebox stuff that's linked.

For starters: the article in the paper is the uncredited work of publicist Marc Morano, planted in the Mooniepages to resemble journalism. " Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."
- - - - - - -
Continuing with a brief quote illustrating the problems with such "journalism" :

The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. No doubt the article is correct, and several of the scientists surprised to find themselves misrepresented in this fashion will object. But Marc's marks and Mooniepress readers are forewarned - those scientists are being pressured by the evil Kyoto Konspirators. And we see the careful qualification "varying degrees of criticism" - a quick glance yields the impression that the most severe comes from the least qualified. Might be just an impression. But regardless, that is not the main dishonesty here - the main one is the implication, from clever writing, that those 400 scientists are all currently accredited in those relevant fields. I've seen the list, and they aren't. Only some are. And those are not the ones featured in the selected quotes, for some reason.

Lacking time and space, we consdier carefully only the first three, foremost and featured, of the selected quotes representing this gathering of experts.

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming: A Republican report on global warming ? Oh well:

•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences Really? More quotes from Professor Sorochtin:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground.
-
As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.
-
Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones.
-
Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. OK, they have good drugs in Russia too.

Moving right along:
•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute OK, if not for apparently not having seen the movie and reacting to a strawman, that would be a reasonable point. He seems a nice guy, an engineer by background, and he thinks modelers should be humble, and I agree, but he's been retired for some time, and doesn't seem to be up on the latest in the denialist's repertoire: http://climatesci.org/2007/02/28/unlicensed-engineers-part-1-by-hendrik-tennekes/
•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates." If you recall from this forum, the latest is that the surface - the ocean - is cooling while the atmosphere is warming. The opposite. But maybe that pendulum will swing back - Tennekes will be there to greet it, the Dutch are long lived.

Next:

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Well, not really the most informative description: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1174

Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh (1974). Specializing in Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis. Doctoral thesis was an analysis of scientific and technological revolutions. B.S. in Civil Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University (1964). Not a climate or metereological or weather-related background of any kind. When he's not expertly reviewing for the UN, he has a couple of good gigs at:

Greening Earth Society 333 John Carlyle Street, Suite 530 Alexandria, VA 22314
-
A project of the Western Fuels Association founded to promote the idea that global warming is beneficial to the planet.

A 1988 report by the Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research showed how "Greening Earth Society and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization." Both are located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. They share the same leader, Fred Palmer, several WFA board members serve as the board for GES, and they have the same "manager of communications and governmental affairs," Ned Leonard. Leonard and Palmer are both registered lobbyists for Western Fuels Association. and
The Heartland Institute 19 South LaSalle St., Suite 903 Chicago, IL 60603 -

Founded in the early 1990s, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally, Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement." http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=HEA100
- - -
The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America. - - - -

Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf

The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section.

So in the first three, most prominently featured, selected experts quoted, we have a crackpot, a reasonable but elderly and retired engineer with a specific technical complaint that appears to be outdated, and a corporate shill with little relevant expertise in the science.

Now, about the arguments allegedly present in the article: there aren't any. It's not that kind of article. So we're done with that one ?

Wow, amazing post iceaura. Well said!