| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2006 11:26:12 AM |
| Object: |
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the
truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since
Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts
actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a
surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak
that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his
film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny
cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast
majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental,
non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the
hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing
significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative
term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is
immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in
the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of
climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from
insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled
researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the
causes of global climate change," explains former University of
Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us
only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they
conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate
change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the
causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on
designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures.
"These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,"
asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not
"predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in
letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making
forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to
understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and
extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community,
there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist
Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation
between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time
frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they
are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of
the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson
asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone
still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels
would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and
"hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very
good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial
phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological
Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of
Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers
collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally
occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,"
says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to
prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has
to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough
icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography
and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some
small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just
like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of
Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change
in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive
- more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball
explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice
dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When
Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is
considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not
much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of
years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the
foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous
drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice
cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore
cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the
month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the
cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of
September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska
professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where
rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed
fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several
published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. ***** Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological
Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K.
gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in
the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The
Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was
average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a
sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to
slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30%
occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady
increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out
that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of
cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of
the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean;
the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New
Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the
IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year
average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator
(which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the
Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in
balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all
time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy
Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in
Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the
thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,"
he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in
the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an
embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of
whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda
crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime
Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of
climate change, something that has never happened in Canada.
Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you
believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his
opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "Nosmo_King" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
14 Jun 2006 11:42:49 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the
truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since
Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts
actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the
research base which underpins the exploration for and development of
sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy resources of
coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "What, Me Worry?" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
14 Jun 2006 12:35:49 PM |
|
|
"Nosmo_King" <Marlboro@WinstonSalem,.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97E282E01321Acoughcough@38.119.106.50...
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the
truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since
Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts
actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the
research base which underpins the exploration for and development of
sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy resources of
coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
Wow! I never could have seen that coming! ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
14 Jun 2006 01:38:46 PM |
|
|
Nosmo_King wrote:
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the
truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since
Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts
actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the
research base which underpins the exploration for and development of
sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy resources of
coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
Hmm? Quoting out of context, are you?
Here's the complete section of Industrial Relevance from Professor
Carter's profile. Do show us where it says he works for the fossil fuel
industry.
_Industrial Relevance_
Bob Carter's climate change studies are relevant to the wider societal
discussions of this topic that occur with respect to "global warming."
His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the research
base which underpins the exploration for and development of sedimentary
mineral deposits, including the important energy resources of coal, oil,
gas and uranium.
Bob Carter's research career has been supported by grants from
competitive public research agencies, including especially the
Australian Research Council. He receives no research funding from
special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosmo_King" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
14 Jun 2006 06:50:55 PM |
|
|
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:WIYjg.5705$lf4.4947@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present
the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto
since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate
experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards
the research base which underpins the exploration for and development
of sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy
resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
Hmm? Quoting out of context, are you?
Here's the complete section of Industrial Relevance from Professor
Carter's profile. Do show us where it says he works for the fossil
fuel industry.
_Industrial Relevance_
Bob Carter's climate change studies are relevant to the wider societal
discussions of this topic that occur with respect to "global warming."
His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the research
base which underpins the exploration for and development of
sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy resources
of coal, oil, gas and uranium.
Bob Carter's research career has been supported by grants from
competitive public research agencies, including especially the
Australian Research Council. He receives no research funding from
special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
OK how's this:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station, TCS
ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change
Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the
Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.
KEY PEOPLE: Among others....
Bob Carter
Contributing Writer
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving statement in "myprofile"
about receiving no "research funding from special interest organizations
such as environmental groups, energy companies or government
departments." OK they don't pay me to research, just write what they tell
me to. Sheesh!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
15 Jun 2006 02:17:42 PM |
|
|
Nosmo_King wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:WIYjg.5705$lf4.4947@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present
the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An
Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto
since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate
experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards
the research base which underpins the exploration for and development
of sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy
resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
Hmm? Quoting out of context, are you?
Here's the complete section of Industrial Relevance from Professor
Carter's profile. Do show us where it says he works for the fossil
fuel industry.
_Industrial Relevance_
Bob Carter's climate change studies are relevant to the wider societal
discussions of this topic that occur with respect to "global warming."
His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the research
base which underpins the exploration for and development of
sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy resources
of coal, oil, gas and uranium.
Bob Carter's research career has been supported by grants from
competitive public research agencies, including especially the
Australian Research Council. He receives no research funding from
special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
OK how's this:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station, TCS
ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change
Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the
Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.
KEY PEOPLE: Among others....
Bob Carter
Contributing Writer
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving statement in "myprofile"
about receiving no "research funding from special interest organizations
such as environmental groups, energy companies or government
departments." OK they don't pay me to research, just write what they tell
me to. Sheesh!
Really? You're quoting from a source called www.exxonsecrets.org and
you think it's unbiased, what with its obvious opinions instead of
attributions and citations? At least it does list all of the public
knowledge about "Tech Central Station", including the 62 people who have
contributed to it.
Look at the "Tech Central Station" funding. Exxon/Mobil donated about
$95,000.and you somehow think that's enough to keep a well respected PhD
on the leash and able to continue his research? IOW, you think the
editor gets nothing, the Assistant Editor gets nothing, there's no costs
of publication, etc., etc., ad conspiracy theory nauseum?
Here's one of the two articles Dr. Carter wrote for the TCS. Knowing
his stance on Global Warming, it's not surprising about what he has written:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050504A
Look at the TCS funding list. In addition to Exxon/Mobil, other little
known corporations such as Microsoft, McDonalds, Merck, Qualcomm, and
others have donated to it. Yet exxonsecrets.org thinks so little of
these corporations that exxonsecrets doesn't bother to list the amounts
of these other contributions. What does that tell you about
exxonsecrets.org?
In any case, being a contributing writer for a poorly funded technical
rag might net Dr. Carter what, peanuts for his articles? The man _is_ a
full professor at a university so it's not surprising that he would
write articles for poorly funded rags. Surely you've heard the old saw
about how to succeed in academia, "Publish or perish"?
Look instead to the big players listed in his bio, such as the
Australian Research Council, which is a mainstay of Dr. Carter's funding.
http://www.arc.gov.au/arc_home/default.htm
Here's a snapshot of what the ARC has funded:
http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/discovery_summer05_attachment.pdf
So stop looking for the bad; there _is_ good out there.
Unfortunately, so many Americans have such a terrible technical
education that they are unable to sort out the "X-Files" from reality!
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosmo_King" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
15 Jun 2006 05:28:53 PM |
|
|
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:qnikg.6230$lf4.1068@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:WIYjg.5705$lf4.4947@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present
the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film
"An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in
Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world
climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes
towards the research base which underpins the exploration for and
development of sedimentary mineral deposits, including the
important energy resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
Hmm? Quoting out of context, are you?
Here's the complete section of Industrial Relevance from Professor
Carter's profile. Do show us where it says he works for the fossil
fuel industry.
_Industrial Relevance_
Bob Carter's climate change studies are relevant to the wider
societal discussions of this topic that occur with respect to
"global warming."
His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the research
base which underpins the exploration for and development of
sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy
resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium.
Bob Carter's research career has been supported by grants from
competitive public research agencies, including especially the
Australian Research Council. He receives no research funding from
special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
OK how's this:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station, TCS
ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change
Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the
Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.
KEY PEOPLE: Among others....
Bob Carter
Contributing Writer
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving statement in "myprofile"
about receiving no "research funding from special interest
organizations such as environmental groups, energy companies or
government departments." OK they don't pay me to research, just write
what they tell me to. Sheesh!
Really? You're quoting from a source called www.exxonsecrets.org and
you think it's unbiased, what with its obvious opinions instead of
attributions and citations? At least it does list all of the public
knowledge about "Tech Central Station", including the 62 people who
have contributed to it.
Look at the "Tech Central Station" funding. Exxon/Mobil donated about
$95,000.and you somehow think that's enough to keep a well respected
PhD on the leash and able to continue his research? IOW, you think
the editor gets nothing, the Assistant Editor gets nothing, there's no
costs of publication, etc., etc., ad conspiracy theory nauseum?
Here's one of the two articles Dr. Carter wrote for the TCS. Knowing
his stance on Global Warming, it's not surprising about what he has
written: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050504A
Look at the TCS funding list. In addition to Exxon/Mobil, other
little known corporations such as Microsoft, McDonalds, Merck,
Qualcomm, and others have donated to it. Yet exxonsecrets.org thinks
so little of these corporations that exxonsecrets doesn't bother to
list the amounts of these other contributions. What does that tell
you about exxonsecrets.org?
In any case, being a contributing writer for a poorly funded technical
rag might net Dr. Carter what, peanuts for his articles? The man _is_
a full professor at a university so it's not surprising that he would
write articles for poorly funded rags. Surely you've heard the old
saw about how to succeed in academia, "Publish or perish"?
Look instead to the big players listed in his bio, such as the
Australian Research Council, which is a mainstay of Dr. Carter's
funding. http://www.arc.gov.au/arc_home/default.htm
Here's a snapshot of what the ARC has funded:
http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/discovery_summer05_attachment.pdf
So stop looking for the bad; there _is_ good out there.
Unfortunately, so many Americans have such a terrible technical
education that they are unable to sort out the "X-Files" from reality!
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
As I stated, "Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving statement...."
regarding the not taking of funds from energy companies. Carter is,
nonetheless, a very minor voice in the debate and very much in the
minority in his opinions. The collected handful of dissenters worldwide
all have impressive credentials but have been overwhelmed by those with
equally impressive credentials across a pretty broad spectrum of
expertise. Every arguement that they bring up produces a crescendo
opposition that undermines their opinions. But that's what science is all
about. Mr. Carter should hold onto his belief that he's right and
perhaps he will be shown to be correct when it's all said and done. But
I happen to believe the other side has more evidence and is more
convincing.
BTW I have plenty of technical and scientific education to understand the
debate and can seperate X-files from reality just fine, thank you.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
16 Jun 2006 12:06:56 AM |
|
|
Nosmo_King wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:qnikg.6230$lf4.1068@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:WIYjg.5705$lf4.4947@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present
the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film
"An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in
Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world
climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James
Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes
towards the research base which underpins the exploration for and
development of sedimentary mineral deposits, including the
important energy resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
Hmm? Quoting out of context, are you?
Here's the complete section of Industrial Relevance from Professor
Carter's profile. Do show us where it says he works for the fossil
fuel industry.
_Industrial Relevance_
Bob Carter's climate change studies are relevant to the wider
societal discussions of this topic that occur with respect to
"global warming."
His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the research
base which underpins the exploration for and development of
sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy
resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium.
Bob Carter's research career has been supported by grants from
competitive public research agencies, including especially the
Australian Research Council. He receives no research funding from
special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
OK how's this:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station, TCS
ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change
Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the
Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.
KEY PEOPLE: Among others....
Bob Carter
Contributing Writer
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving statement in "myprofile"
about receiving no "research funding from special interest
organizations such as environmental groups, energy companies or
government departments." OK they don't pay me to research, just write
what they tell me to. Sheesh!
Really? You're quoting from a source called www.exxonsecrets.org and
you think it's unbiased, what with its obvious opinions instead of
attributions and citations? At least it does list all of the public
knowledge about "Tech Central Station", including the 62 people who
have contributed to it.
Look at the "Tech Central Station" funding. Exxon/Mobil donated about
$95,000.and you somehow think that's enough to keep a well respected
PhD on the leash and able to continue his research? IOW, you think
the editor gets nothing, the Assistant Editor gets nothing, there's no
costs of publication, etc., etc., ad conspiracy theory nauseum?
Here's one of the two articles Dr. Carter wrote for the TCS. Knowing
his stance on Global Warming, it's not surprising about what he has
written: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050504A
Look at the TCS funding list. In addition to Exxon/Mobil, other
little known corporations such as Microsoft, McDonalds, Merck,
Qualcomm, and others have donated to it. Yet exxonsecrets.org thinks
so little of these corporations that exxonsecrets doesn't bother to
list the amounts of these other contributions. What does that tell
you about exxonsecrets.org?
In any case, being a contributing writer for a poorly funded technical
rag might net Dr. Carter what, peanuts for his articles? The man _is_
a full professor at a university so it's not surprising that he would
write articles for poorly funded rags. Surely you've heard the old
saw about how to succeed in academia, "Publish or perish"?
Look instead to the big players listed in his bio, such as the
Australian Research Council, which is a mainstay of Dr. Carter's
funding. http://www.arc.gov.au/arc_home/default.htm
Here's a snapshot of what the ARC has funded:
http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/discovery_summer05_attachment.pdf
So stop looking for the bad; there _is_ good out there.
Unfortunately, so many Americans have such a terrible technical
education that they are unable to sort out the "X-Files" from reality!
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
As I stated, "Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving statement...."
regarding the not taking of funds from energy companies. Carter is,
nonetheless, a very minor voice in the debate and very much in the
minority in his opinions. The collected handful of dissenters worldwide
all have impressive credentials but have been overwhelmed by those with
equally impressive credentials across a pretty broad spectrum of
expertise. Every arguement that they bring up produces a crescendo
opposition that undermines their opinions. But that's what science is all
about. Mr. Carter should hold onto his belief that he's right and
perhaps he will be shown to be correct when it's all said and done. But
I happen to believe the other side has more evidence and is more
convincing.
BTW I have plenty of technical and scientific education to understand the
debate and can seperate X-files from reality just fine, thank you.
Whether Dr. Carter is wrong or right remains to be seen. But since the
best of the computer models cannot be used to "forecast" the past known
climates, I'd say that what is needed is a LOT more open research. I
say "open research" because there appear to be GW researchers who want
to guard their data a little too zealously.
I do agree that we should use less fossil fuels. There are better uses
for petrochemicals than soccer mom SUVs. But this also implies that we
have acceptable forms of energy to power our cars and heat our homes.
Let's put our energies into solving these latter issues of alternative
energy sources - and continuing to study the GW data. Then we can
decide what to do about GW, once we know exactly how it is caused, as
well as ways to do a little Global Cooling. But let's not try for GC
until we can predict the consequences of our actions.
Although putting NYC under a mile-thick ice sheet might not be such a
bad idea...
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nosmo_King" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe |
16 Jun 2006 06:52:28 AM |
|
|
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:Q%qkg.6585$lp.729@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:qnikg.6230$lf4.1068@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote in
news:WIYjg.5705$lf4.4947@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Nosmo_King wrote:
Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in
news:vfd092tjebhja8u1tqivem3usp3vklt7t4@4ax.com:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and
present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in
his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4
Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what
do world climate experts actually think about the science of his
movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at
James Cook University, ......
Bob Carter- "His more general stratigraphic work contributes
towards the research base which underpins the exploration for and
development of sedimentary mineral deposits, including the
important energy resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium."
hmm. Works for the coal, oil, and gas industry, does he?
Hmm? Quoting out of context, are you?
Here's the complete section of Industrial Relevance from Professor
Carter's profile. Do show us where it says he works for the
fossil fuel industry.
_Industrial Relevance_
Bob Carter's climate change studies are relevant to the wider
societal discussions of this topic that occur with respect to
"global warming."
His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the
research base which underpins the exploration for and development
of sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy
resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium.
Bob Carter's research career has been supported by grants from
competitive public research agencies, including especially the
Australian Research Council. He receives no research funding from
special interest organizations such as environmental groups,
energy companies or government departments.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
OK how's this:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station, TCS
ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change
Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool,
the Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.
KEY PEOPLE: Among others....
Bob Carter
Contributing Writer
Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving statement in
"myprofile" about receiving no "research funding from special
interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments." OK they don't pay me to
research, just write what they tell me to. Sheesh!
Really? You're quoting from a source called www.exxonsecrets.org
and you think it's unbiased, what with its obvious opinions instead
of attributions and citations? At least it does list all of the
public knowledge about "Tech Central Station", including the 62
people who have contributed to it.
Look at the "Tech Central Station" funding. Exxon/Mobil donated
about $95,000.and you somehow think that's enough to keep a well
respected PhD on the leash and able to continue his research? IOW,
you think the editor gets nothing, the Assistant Editor gets
nothing, there's no costs of publication, etc., etc., ad conspiracy
theory nauseum?
Here's one of the two articles Dr. Carter wrote for the TCS.
Knowing his stance on Global Warming, it's not surprising about what
he has written: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050504A
Look at the TCS funding list. In addition to Exxon/Mobil, other
little known corporations such as Microsoft, McDonalds, Merck,
Qualcomm, and others have donated to it. Yet exxonsecrets.org
thinks so little of these corporations that exxonsecrets doesn't
bother to list the amounts of these other contributions. What does
that tell you about exxonsecrets.org?
In any case, being a contributing writer for a poorly funded
technical rag might net Dr. Carter what, peanuts for his articles?
The man _is_ a full professor at a university so it's not surprising
that he would write articles for poorly funded rags. Surely you've
heard the old saw about how to succeed in academia, "Publish or
perish"?
Look instead to the big players listed in his bio, such as the
Australian Research Council, which is a mainstay of Dr. Carter's
funding. http://www.arc.gov.au/arc_home/default.htm
Here's a snapshot of what the ARC has funded:
http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/discovery_summer05_attachment.pdf
So stop looking for the bad; there _is_ good out there.
Unfortunately, so many Americans have such a terrible technical
education that they are unable to sort out the "X-Files" from
reality!
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
As I stated, "Sort of puts some doubt on his self serving
statement...." regarding the not taking of funds from energy
companies. Carter is, nonetheless, a very minor voice in the debate
and very much in the minority in his opinions. The collected handful
of dissenters worldwide all have impressive credentials but have been
overwhelmed by those with equally impressive credentials across a
pretty broad spectrum of expertise. Every arguement that they bring
up produces a crescendo opposition that undermines their opinions.
But that's what science is all about. Mr. Carter should hold onto
his belief that he's right and perhaps he will be shown to be correct
when it's all said and done. But I happen to believe the other side
has more evidence and is more convincing.
BTW I have plenty of technical and scientific education to understand
the debate and can seperate X-files from reality just fine, thank
you.
Whether Dr. Carter is wrong or right remains to be seen. But since
the best of the computer models cannot be used to "forecast" the past
known climates, I'd say that what is needed is a LOT more open
research. I say "open research" because there appear to be GW
researchers who want to guard their data a little too zealously.
I do agree that we should use less fossil fuels. There are better
uses for petrochemicals than soccer mom SUVs. But this also implies
that we have acceptable forms of energy to power our cars and heat our
homes.
Let's put our energies into solving these latter issues of alternative
energy sources - and continuing to study the GW data. Then we can
decide what to do about GW, once we know exactly how it is caused, as
well as ways to do a little Global Cooling. But let's not try for GC
until we can predict the consequences of our actions.
Although putting NYC under a mile-thick ice sheet might not be such a
bad idea...
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Now, come on, NYC not such a bad place to visit, though I wouldn't want
to live there.
On the subject of GW and who's right and who's wrong as to cause and
effect, I think that the debate should be more to what can we do in terms
of long term planning to mitigate the affects on the human population.
(Reducing the population wouldn't be a bad start.) I think it's
happening. And whether it's the result of natural progresstion or
whether the natural order is being exacerbated by human activity doesn't
matter much because I think that there is little one can do at this point
to stop it. First we should stop developing along the water's edge. To
have life and personal property wiped out year after year, and the
taxpayer asked to foot the bill is rediculous. Anyone developing beach
front property should have to assume full responsibilty for everything
including their own safety and well being. The list of "things to do" is
obvious long and subject to endless discussion. But that's where I
believe the discussion should go. Not "is it happening and what's causing
it?"
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
