Is Al Gore, hitching his reputation to a lie?
Most reputable scientists think so.

Here is another opinion.

************************************************** *****

Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW
The Timaru Herald
Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke
in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer
told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury
Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases
was so small we couldn't change the climate
if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going
to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided
science, media hype, and political spin had
created the current hysteria and it was time to
put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming,"
he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent
of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was
vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet
would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do
have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C,
all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others
including CFCs, contributed only five per cent
of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the
greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's
activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence
only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in
total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide
and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule
contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and
0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there
and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if
we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such
as "The planet is groaning under the weight of
CO2" and Government policies were about to
hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you
because you put out 49 per cent of the countries
emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of
what? Does anybody know how small that number
is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,"
he said.

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Is Al Gore, hitching his reputation to a lie?
Most reputable scientists think so.

Here is another opinion.

************************************************** *****

Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW
The Timaru Herald
Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke
in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer
told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury
Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases
was so small we couldn't change the climate
if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going
to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided
science, media hype, and political spin had
created the current hysteria and it was time to
put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming,"
he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent
of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was
vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet
would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do
have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C,
all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others
including CFCs, contributed only five per cent
of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the
greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's
activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence
only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in
total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide
and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule
contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and
0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there
and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if
we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such
as "The planet is groaning under the weight of
CO2" and Government policies were about to
hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you
because you put out 49 per cent of the countries
emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of
what? Does anybody know how small that number
is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,"
he said.


But, Nancy Pelosi saw first-hand evidence of global warming in
Greenland. I believe her. She's at least as much as an expert as Gore
is. . .

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070528/D8PDMFK80.html

Wilbur Hubbard

MORE

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists
worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition
which says that there is no evidence for man-made
global warming theory nor for any impact from
mankind's activities on climate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

I'd like to see Al Gore stand up in front of these
guys and answer their questions...hehehehe

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

Al Gore is a hypocrite

Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"
Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An
Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best
documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy
Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for
hypocrisy.

Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area
of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month
than the average American household uses in an entire
year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on
Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity
consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656
kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the
Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly
221,000 kWh-more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh
-guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month
than an average American family uses in an entire year.
As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average
monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's
energy consumption has increased from an average
of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per
month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his
electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and
guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming
movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk,
not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy
use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research
President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined
electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville
estate in 2006.

Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global
Warming is Ridiculed

By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 07, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A Science Magazine essay claiming
there is a "scientific consensus" about human-caused
"global warming" was ridiculed Monday by a British
scientist, who compared such a "consensus" to the
near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union.

On Monday, Benny Peiser, a United Kingdom social
anthropologist, called the Dec. 3 essay, "The Scientific
Consensus on Climate Change," a "disturbing" study.

"A one-hundred-percent record of 'scientific consensus'
on anthropogenic climate change would be a sensational
finding indeed. In fact, such a total result would be even
more remarkable than any 'consensus' ever achieved in
Soviet-style elections," Peiser noted sarcastically.

The Science Magazine essay analyzed 928 abstracts
containing the keyword "climate change," all published
in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and
2003. The essay found that not a single one of the
studies showed climate change to be naturally occurring.

The essay was written by University of California professor
Naomi Oreskes, a member of the University's Department
of History and Science Studies Program.

According to Oreskes, "None of these (928) papers
argued that [current climate change is natural]."

"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the
peer-reviewed literature agree with [United Nations]
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
the National Academy of Sciences, and the public
statements of their professional societies," Oreskes
wrote.

"Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may
have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or
discord among climate scientists, but that impression
is incorrect," she added.

"The question of what to do about climate change is
also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on
the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate
change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to
make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen,"
concluded Oreskes.

But Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology &
Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University
and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference
Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a "disturbing
article.

"Whatever happened to the countless research
papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed
journals that show that temperatures were generally
higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today,
that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver
of any significant climate change and that the methods
used in climate modeling are highly questionable?"
Peiser asked.

"Given the countless papers published in the
peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that
implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of
anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude
that all of these were simply excluded from the
[Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a
100 percent consensus!" he added.

According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is
a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not
backed by science.

"Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself
did not take consensus politics to such extremes,"
Peiser explained. "In the Soviet Union the official
'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99 percent.

"So how did the results published in Science achieve
a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the
article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?]
study itself, let alone the methodology on which the
research was based. This makes it difficult to check how
Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added.

'Easily debunked falsehood'

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free market
environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute,
also criticized the idea that there is a "scientific
consensus" on "global warming."

"Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in
an erstwhile reputable, peer-review publication
(Science Magazine) demonstrates either a new low
in desperation or a new generation believing there
are no checks and therefore no limits," Horner told
CNSNews.com.

After all, past nonsense brought increasing taxpayer
funding for decades. What would make them think
they can't just make things up?" Horner added.

Iain Murray, a senior fellow in International Policy at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a letter to
the editor of Science Magazine questioning why the
study was even published.

"I was surprised to see Science publish an article
crowing over the existence of a scientific consensus
on global warming and then advancing the non-sequitur
that political action is therefore needed. Neither is a
point worthy of consideration in an objective, scientific
journal," Murray wrote in his letter to the editor, dated
Dec. 6.

"...the message of the article -- that politicians must
act on the basis of the science -- is clearly a political
point rather than a scientific one," Murray continued.

"...the argument advanced by the author that 'our
grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that
we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate
change and failed to do anything about it' is barely
economically literate and has no place in a scientific
journal," he added.

See Related Articles:
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to
'Religious Belief' - (Dec. 2, 2004)

John McCain's 'Global Warming' Hearings Blasted by
Climatologist (Nov. 19, 2004)

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'

By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 02, 2004

Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist
Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human
induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious
beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious
question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or
a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology
professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100
people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be
supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to
understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go
back to treating it as a matter of religious belief,"
Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate
Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was
sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall
Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department
of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming,
"you never have to defend this belief except to claim
that you are supported by all scientists -- except for
a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been
trying to push the idea that there is scientific
consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind
the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source
of authority and that authority increases with the
number of scientists [who agree.] But science is
not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly
effective approach of inquiry and analysis.
Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus
is foreign," Lindzen said.

Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the
catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of
the global poles and even the plunge into another
ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be
afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response
to the fear, they want us to do what they want,"
Lindzen said.

Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were
dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media
taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."

"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is
that it is an extremely variable part of the world,"
Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on]
now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the
[19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a
section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance
of the past," he added.

'Repetition makes people believe'

The climate change debate has become corrupted
by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen.

"It's a sad story, where you have scientists making
meaningless or ambiguous statements [about
climate change]. They are then taken by advocates
to the media who translate the statements into
alarmist declarations. You then have politicians
who respond to all of this by giving scientists more
money," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement
on everything. So if you make a statement that you
agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse
gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end,"
he added.

"There can be little doubt that the language used to
convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen
said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and
his famous observation that even a lie will be believed
if enough people repeat it. "There is little question
that repetition makes people believe things [for]
which there may be no basis," Lindzen said.

He believes the key to improving the science of
climate change lies in altering the way scientists
are funded.

'Alarm is the aim'

"The research and support for research depends
on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com
following his speech. "The research itself often
is very good, but by the time it gets through the
filter of environmental advocates and the press
innocent things begin to sound just as though
they are the end of the world.

"The argument is no longer what models are
correct -- they are not -- but rather whether
their results are at all possible. One can rarely
prove something to be impossible," he explained.

Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to
conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And
if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a
problem,' we have to figure out a better reward
than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple
as that," he said.

The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on
the issue of climate change is the impact of the
Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit
greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.

Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global
warming regardless of what one believes about
climate change," Lindzen said.

"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto
is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive
regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned,"
he added.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified,
aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases
to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims
global warming proponents ultimately want to see a
60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses
from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be
economically disastrous, he said.

"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions,"
then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a
shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Is Al Gore, hitching his reputation to a lie?
Most reputable scientists think so.

Here is another opinion.

************************************************** *****

Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW
The Timaru Herald
Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke
in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer
told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury
Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases
was so small we couldn't change the climate
if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going
to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided
science, media hype, and political spin had
created the current hysteria and it was time to
put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming,"
he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent
of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was
vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet
would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do
have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C,
all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others
including CFCs, contributed only five per cent
of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the
greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's
activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence
only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in
total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide
and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule
contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and
0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there
and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if
we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such
as "The planet is groaning under the weight of
CO2" and Government policies were about to
hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you
because you put out 49 per cent of the countries
emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of
what? Does anybody know how small that number
is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,"
he said.



Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your worth.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 29 May 2007 13:26:19 -0700, Bart wrote:

Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology &
Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University

"Sport Sociology"?

I suppose you will be quoting The Timaru Herald next...

It's always sad when seemingly intelligent people ignore serious
environmental problems simply because they don't like the people who
are involved in trying to fix them. Most major scientific
organizations, including my father's friends at The Museum of Natural
History know what's happening They have a research station in
Greenland and it's downright scary.
Talking about Kyoto vs. the economy is truly sad. Nothing should come
before the health of this planet and there are trillions to eventually
be made off of new energy processes. The folks fighting all of this
have their hands in the old technology and they don't care about
future generations.
It's absolutley staggering to me that anyone who sails could ever
think that the economy should come before an issue like this.
Staggering.

http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris...emelt_2002.jpg

You can google up all the pics you want. They all show the same
thing.

As for the Oregon Petition....

In 2005, Scientific American reported:

" Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories
claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we
were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed
with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others
had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal
evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did
not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer
repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters
include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable
number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological
community.

and better yet....

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate
names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the
petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names
without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal &
Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently
phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major
weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the
names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g.,
institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?



Nice work, Bart. You're a ****ing idiot. Notice the latest twice a
year accidental dumping in the LIS? I guess you don't believe that
either.



RB
35s5
NY

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,"
he said.



Well, if that's what you believe, I suggest you pollute for all your
worth.

While I'm something of an agnostic on the whole GW thing, it's hard to
miss
the fact that there's a high correlation between those pushing its cause
and
those who historically have insisted on regulating others' behavior and
reaching into others' pockets to pay for their own pet causes of one sort
or
another.


You mean like the Bu****s wrt to wiretapping, anti-abortion, and torturing
people by proxy?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On May 29, 10:03 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
It's always sad when seemingly intelligent people ignore serious
environmental problems simply because they don't like the people who
are involved in trying to fix them. Most major scientific
organizations, including my father's friends at The Museum of Natural
History know what's happening They have a research station in
Greenland and it's downright scary.

Nice work, Bart. You're a ****ing idiot. Notice the latest twice a
year accidental dumping in the LIS? I guess you don't believe that
either.

RB
35s5
NY


Instead of discussing things like a gentleman, you are vulgar,
hateful, nasty, and mean spirited. How could anyone take you
seriously when you act like a kook.

Too bad you are not a gentleman Rob. You would see that
there is more to the argument that one side. I believe that
we should take reasonable measures to protect the environment
I just don't agree with all the BS associated with your liberal
views on how it is caused.

Study the Little Ice Age and consider all the ramifications.
Ask also what was the period just before the Little Ice Age like?
Warm eh? Very warm? With bountiful crops? How could that be?

The Earth has gone through warmer phases than this and not
so long ago. We should not expect the Earth to stay exactly
as it is. It never has and it never will be static. Man didn't
start
it and we can't stop it short of taking extreme measures. There
is nothing that Kyoto would do that would have any significant
impact on global warming. I read that. However, I do support
preserving our environment is intelligent well-thought out ways.
I don't support radicalizing it and making hate speech about it.

If you really want to take measures to prevent global warming, why
don't your support using a nuke to start a volcano and put some
dust in the atmosphere? That would solve the problem overnight.
If you really believe Global Warming needs to be stopped that would
work and could be done right now, this year, unstead of the inevitable
warming change everyone is saying will occur.

10,000 years ago, the coastline was at what is now 60 fathoms. Why
not get all that coastline back they way it used to be. We should
have walrus off the coast of LI again! That makes as much sense
as your kook views.

You take the view that man is responsible for all evil. I take
a more hopeful view. You further take the view that the US is
the root of all evil. I disagree with that also. What does Kyoto
Require of China or India? They should keep polluting? I don't
think we should be tied to a different standard than everyone
else. I do think we should find ways to mimimize human
impact on the environment that make sense. To do that we
need open and honest discussion without the hateful language.
It would be better to help developing countries that are cutting
corners with cleaner technologies and by providing tax exemptions
for companies that develop such technologies.

Now go take a Valium and try to be polite next time.