PDA

View Full Version : Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny



Celtkin
07-01-2007, 07:20 AM
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore's science debunked? (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)

There are a few other Gore claims that are brought into question in the linked article.

Sponge
07-01-2007, 11:27 AM
Any article that characterizes those who are concerned about global warming as "alarmists" clearly has an agenda, just as any article by the other side would if it referred to those who don't believe global warming is dangerous as "head in the sanders". Very yawn-inspiring.

ATLFINFAN
07-01-2007, 06:25 PM
Gore.....being questioned??????????................NO WAY.

PhinPhan1227
07-02-2007, 11:58 AM
Any article that characterizes those who are concerned about global warming as "alarmists" clearly has an agenda, just as any article by the other side would if it referred to those who don't believe global warming is dangerous as "head in the sanders". Very yawn-inspiring.

There's a difference between the folks who say, "the earth is warming, we should be concerned", and the folks who say, "the earth is warming, it is a human caused catastrophe which we must do anything and everything to prevent".

http://www.ametsoc.org/

The AMS is a well respected group. Hardly what I would call "agenda" laden towards to non-global warming crowd. Probably the opposite.

George Beauchem
07-03-2007, 07:29 AM
Please do not Circumvent the Profanity Filter.

Sponge
07-04-2007, 10:46 AM
There's a difference between the folks who say, "the earth is warming, we should be concerned", and the folks who say, "the earth is warming, it is a human caused catastrophe which we must do anything and everything to prevent".

http://www.ametsoc.org/

The AMS is a well respected group. Hardly what I would call "agenda" laden towards to non-global warming crowd. Probably the opposite.

I agree that the second phrase is slightly further down the same "Alarmed" line than the first. The point is that the article characterized the people who are very concerned as "alarmist" likely for the purpose of marginalizing them. Exactly the same way that many use the term conspiracy theorist, as a tool to marginalize those who believe differently than them on a variety of subjects.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 03:07 PM
I agree that the second phrase is slightly further down the same "Alarmed" line than the first. The point is that the article characterized the people who are very concerned as "alarmist" likely for the purpose of marginalizing them. Exactly the same way that many use the term conspiracy theorist, as a tool to marginalize those who believe differently than them on a variety of subjects.


To be honest, I agree with marginalizing those who are at the fringes of the Global Warming movement. They have argued for stifling debate on the issue and that to me is dangerous. When Al Gore goes in front of Congress and says that the debate is over and the scientific community is unanimous, that to me is alarmist and deserving of marginalization.

Sponge
07-06-2007, 01:38 AM
To be honest, I agree with marginalizing those who are at the fringes of the Global Warming movement. They have argued for stifling debate on the issue and that to me is dangerous. When Al Gore goes in front of Congress and says that the debate is over and the scientific community is unanimous, that to me is alarmist and deserving of marginalization.

So, when Rumsfeld went on tv and said that there is no doubt that Iraq had WMD's, was that alarmist and dangerous too? Is that also deserving of marginalization? In that case, there was no proof at all, whereas a great many scientists have declared that they believe humans are causing global warming. Does the pendulum swing both ways?

Also, if you marginalize those at the fringes, does that include those who believe global warming isn't dangerous?