Artic Sea Ice

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Rob71

I see your scientists, and raise you with other scientists.

There is nowhere near a consensus on this subject, in fact more and more scientist are coming out against it every day.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e10...ts_dissent.pdf

First off, there has been reports that the Bush Administration put political pressure on scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Here's another government report that admits global warming is a real problem: OUR CHANGING PLANET: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. (This was a supplement to the President's Fiscal Year 2004 & 2005 Budgets.)

Here is also an article on Climate Change Denial from Wikipedia.

It states in part: "Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 'strategy memo,' set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and 'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.' The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication 'leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature.'" (Emphasis added.)

"Newsweek has reported that:
Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to 'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,' and to sow doubt about climate research."


"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan 'to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases.' As part of a US$ 5,000,000 strategy to 'maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences...'"

So increased solar radiation doesn't have an effect on temperature?

That theory's been debunked by a study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

"There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures." (Emphasis added.)

Also, from Grist.org:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed."

I don't have a problem with reducing pollution, I would just like to see less hypocrisy from it's advocates.

The hypocrisy comes from the other direction, from those who deny climate change exists. Finally, some of them are starting to admit that it is real, like Newt Gingrich, for instance. Even President Bush has mentioned the problem in speeches.

He only "rents" one. Why can't Mr. Environment fly coach, or even 1st class?

How is flying coach better for the environment? It still uses lots of fuel.

(Here is a site that debunks the urban legend that Gore is an energy hypocrite.)

Even if it were true that Gore were a hypocrite, would that invalidate his message as false? If your doctor told you that smoking cigarettes was bad for your health, would you ignore his advice if you knew that he lit up once in a while? Would his hypocrisy mean that smoking is healthy?