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

On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:15:39 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap:


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. . .


When Lief Ericson established a colony in Greenland, trees grew there.
Otherwise they couldn't have built houses, or heated them during the
winter. The colony failed when trees weren't being replaced.





This post is 100% free of steroids

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.

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...

"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