GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP

MEDIA MATTERS DOESN'T BUY DRUDGE BULLSHIT !

Back to this story | Home
http://mediamatters.org/


Drudge "exclusive" on Gore questions repeated discredited theory on global warming

Summary:

On March 19, the Drudge Report, a website run by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, posted the banner headline "EXCLUSIVE: GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP," and purported to reveal several "[p]roposed questions" that former Vice President Al Gore will have to answer when he testifies on the impact of global warming before two congressional committees on March 21. Drudge exclaimed in his "exclusive" report that the questions "could lead [sic] Gore scrambling for answers!"

But one purported question is based on a theory that has been debunked by the scientific community:

In fact, the claim that global warming on uninhabited planets suggests that global warming on the Earth is not likely caused by human activities has been dismissed by scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a report it released in February, concluded that both greenhouse gases and solar radiation are contributing to global warming. The report included a section titled "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change," which noted that "[c]hanges in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system."

The claim that the sun -- rather than human activities -- is responsible for global warming has been trumpeted by nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin, who wrote in his March 2 Washington Times column that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." In fact, the National Geographic News article, to which Drudge linked, did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that the claim that the sun is largely responsible for global warming is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that it "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now." The article further reported that "the biggest stumbling block in" the theory is the "dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."

Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim on September 21, 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph on July 18, 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."

Drudge also noted that Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, invited Bjørn Lomborg to "appear at the hearing." As Media Matters for America has noted, Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Lomborg purported to conduct a "non-partisan analysis" of environmental data in the hope of offering the public and policymakers a guide for "clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems." His conclusion was that the concerns of scientists regarding the world's environmental problems -- including global warming -- are overblown. But in January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists who lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that they said were "poorly researched and ... rife with careless mistakes."

As Media Matters has previously noted, ABC News political director Mark Halperin has claimed that Drudge "can influence the news like Walter Cronkite did" and said that "f Drudge has a siren up, people know it's something they have to look at." Halperin's book, The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (Random House, 2006), which he co-wrote with Politico Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris, includes a chapter titled: "How Matt Drudge Rules Our World."

"Matt Drudge is a Moron" - Chana

That's always their game. "It's 20 degrees outside, where's your global warming now?"

They just never seem to get it. It's not about the current temperature outside your house, it's about the overall temperature around the world, the average. If a dumbass like me can understand it, anyone can.

Right wing nuts -- getting "stupider" everyday

beltman713 said:

That's always their game. "It's 20 degrees outside, where's your global warming now?"

They just never seem to get it. It's not about the current temperature outside your house, it's about the overall temperature around the world, the average. If a dumbass like me can understand it, anyone can.

Click to expand...

I understand just fine. I just don't believe it is human related. we are at the end of a 10,000 year long ice age. This is just the cycle completeing itself. How do you account for spikes in greehouse gasses that occurred millions of years ago resulting in concentrations higher than those found today, when there were no humans?

In my research, it appears such spikes may have increased 6% due to human inhabitance. So if the earths temp rises 1 degree, we account for .06 of that 1 degree.

AuGmENTor said:

...we are at the end of a 10,000 year long ice age. This is just the cycle completeing itself. How do you account for spikes in greehouse gasses that occurred millions of years ago resulting in concentrations higher than those found today, when there were no humans?

Click to expand...

You are referring to natural cycles that occur over hundreds of thousands of years.

Climate changes of the past, unlike today, have been initiated by variations in the Earth's orbit and other minor atmospheric shifts. Such variations have triggered CO2 feedback mechanisms in the oceans, causing prolonged warming and cooling periods. The scientific community, including the IPCC, has fully taken into account these natural cycles, and ruled them out as a cause of the warming trend we are currently experiencing.

Natural cycles do not explain the sudden and rapid correlating increases in CO2 and temperature we see today, because, as many climate skeptics are quick to point out, it takes hundreds of years for natural warming cycles to trigger ocean degassing. Furthermore, it has been scientifically proven, using isotopic analysis, that the CO2 presently being emitted into the atmosphere is not from the ocean, but is rather due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.

Eckolaker said:

In my research, it appears such spikes may have increased 6% due to human inhabitance. So if the earths temp rises 1 degree, we account for .06 of that 1 degree.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but your "research" is dead wrong.

According to your so-called research, "only the sun has the ability to effect global temperature," "humans attribute only 6% to global warming," and "global mean temperature at the beginning of industrial revolution was hotter than it is now." You have even claimed that the IPCC backs up these absurd statements, but as I pointed out in this thread, you're full of it.

Furthermore, it has been scientifically proven, using isotopic analysis, that the CO2 presently being emitted into the atmosphere is not from the ocean, but is rather due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.

Click to expand...

Really, a I watched the global warming comittee on CSPAN, and the scientists there would not commit to that particular fact. They were unwilling to lock down on an actual percentage caused by man vs. natural cycle. This was part of coverage that went on during the week of february 5-10th. Looked to me like some comittee or another debating the issue.

BuckShot said:

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but your "research" is dead wrong.

According to your so-called research, "only the sun has the ability to effect global temperature," "humans attribute only 6% to global warming," and "global mean temperature at the beginning of industrial revolution was hotter than it is now." You have even claimed that the IPCC backs up these absurd statements, but as I pointed out in this thread, you're full of it.

Click to expand...

No you didn't.

You linked a bunch of biased articles, heresay speculation, and newly presented theories to explain away the sun being the common denominator in planetary warming trend.

Your graphs seem to follow a pattern, none of which fluctuate at the onset of the American Industrial Revolution anyway. Not to mention that even the ICPP admits that some of their current graphs are based on old out of date research and data.

I don't buy the NWO hype.

Eckolaker said:

No you didn't.

You linked a bunch of biased articles, heresay speculation, and newly presented theories to explain away the sun being the common denominator in planetary warming trend.

Your graphs seem to follow a pattern, none of which fluctuate at the onset of the American Industrial Revolution anyway. Not to mention that even the ICPP admits that some of their current graphs are based on old out of date research and data.

I don't buy the NWO hype.

Click to expand...

TESTIFY Brotha! (seriously though....)

It all comes down to this. The NWO crowd is going to say we need to put caps on our emissions and consumption. The will start enacting laws that effect you as an individual. They will attempt to limit travel by claiming it will cut down on overall emissions. They will start telling us how much electricity we can use out our homes. They will tell us where we can buy food, and what food we can buy based on how much energy it takes to produce. (insert synthetic food here) They will then begin with population control.

Meanwhile the global elite will still be living it up in their private jets, and strecth limosines. Eating whatever foods they want, flaunting the wealth and stature.

Global Warming is the catalyst for all of this. What a better way to control the globe then with a fear that can be understood by everyone.

amirite?

AuGmENTor said:

Really, a I watched the global warming comittee on CSPAN, and the scientists there would not commit to that particular fact. They were unwilling to lock down on an actual percentage caused by man vs. natural cycle.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about!?

From the IPCC:As I have pointed out several times now, the scientific community has thoroughly evaluated this issue. Trust me, climatologists are well aware of the planet's natural cycles and they have always taken such cycles into consideration when conducting their research. You aren't exposing anything.

Read the IPCC report...or read a book on climate...or simply conduct a basic internet search. The argument you are presenting has been deconstructed time and time again using numerous methods.

For example, CO2 burned from fossil fuels contains different isotopes then CO2 released from the ocean, therefore by analyzing the isotopes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, scientists are able to determine their source. Do you understand?

The oceans are absorbing carbon, not giving it off.

Eckolaker said:

No you didn't.

Click to expand...

This is what you said exactly:Nowhere in the IPCC report do they make any such statements. In fact, as I noted on the previous thread, they say the complete opposite.

Eckolaker said:

You linked a bunch of biased articles, heresay speculation, and newly presented theories to explain away the sun being the common denominator in planetary warming trend.

Click to expand...

No, I linked to the report that you cited.

Eckolaker said:

Your graphs seem to follow a pattern, none of which fluctuate at the onset of the American Industrial Revolution anyway.

Click to expand...

On the contrary...



This is exactly what you said:Like I said: No, we are not.

As I have pointed out several times now, the scientific community has thoroughly evaluated this issue. Trust me, climatologists are well aware of the planet's natural cycles and they have always taken such cycles into consideration when conducting their research. You aren't exposing anything.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but then again, who the hell ARE you exactly, that I would put any validity at all behind statements you make? OOOOO You can make a flow chart? Color me impressed. You've been here for 12 days nearest I can tell. I must have missed the post that listed your credentials. Here's a thought. You can believe whatever the hell you want. So long as you understand that whatever the rest of society does, is what I have a right to do as well. All of this aside, what is your global answer to this problem?

Eckolaker said:

It all comes down to this. The NWO crowd is going to say we need to put caps on our emissions and consumption. The will start enacting laws that effect you as an individual. They will attempt to limit travel by claiming it will cut down on overall emissions. They will start telling us how much electricity we can use out our homes. They will tell us where we can buy food, and what food we can buy based on how much energy it takes to produce. (insert synthetic food here) They will then begin with population control.

Meanwhile the global elite will still be living it up in their private jets, and strecth limosines. Eating whatever foods they want, flaunting the wealth and stature.

Global Warming is the catalyst for all of this. What a better way to control the globe then with a fear that can be understood by everyone.

amirite?

Click to expand...

I at least understand you man. What I want to know is why is bucky pushin his agenda so HARD? So I will turn off my lights? So that ppl like Al-the hypocrite -Gore can own four mansions? and fly private jets? He'll have to sell it a bit better than this.

AuGmENTor said:

Yeah, but then again, who the hell ARE you exactly, that I would put any validity at all behind statements you make?

Click to expand...

Chill out, friend. You don't have to take my word for anything. All this information is readily available to the public, much of it on the internet.

AuGmENTor said:

OOOOO You can make a flow chart?

Click to expand...

The graphs are based on widely accepted figures. I did not make them.

AuGmENTor said:

You've been here for 12 days nearest I can tell. I must have missed the post that listed your credentials.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that anybody here had scientific credentials, yourself included. This is why I provided a link to somebody who does.

The burden of proof now lies with you.

If you're going to contradict widely understood and well-documented scientific facts, you should be expected to explain why.

AuGmENTor said:

Here's a thought. You can believe whatever the hell you want. So long as you understand that whatever the rest of society does, is what I have a right to do as well.

Click to expand...

Just because we have differing opinions, does not mean we should be afraid of debating. That is how we learn.

AuGmENTor said:

All of this aside, what is your global answer to this problem?

Click to expand...

Localize communities and economies, increase self-sufficiency, increase energy efficiency, reduce consumption, reduce waste...you know, the basic New World Order agenda.

Just because we have differing opinions, does not mean we should be afraid of debating. That is how we learn.

Click to expand...

About this you are absolutely correct. I apologize if I jumped you a bit. I had an experience in here that kinda soured me on the whole point of view you share with the person I am speaking of. And yet here I am, guilty of the same thing. *hangs head in shame*

Localize communities and economies, increase self-sufficiency, increase energy efficiency, reduce consumption, reduce waste...you know, the basic New World Order agenda.

Click to expand...

LOL, okay, point taken. But most of the people pushing this are the type who want ME to stop consuming, while they take limos to accept awards at ceremonies that are blatantly consumer driven. IMO if you got rid of all THAT shit, we'd be alot better off. I'll go ya one better. If you really want to save some rescorces, eliminate the production of ALL TV shows/ movies. What would you guess the resulting surplus would be? hate ALL forms of media with the exception of The Simpsons and radio. It is all pointless spending for the sheep to entertain themselves.

A wow! A graph that shows the use of Fossil fuels has gone up in North America since the industrial revolution. Brilliant!

I never once disagreed with anyone that suggest our planet is warming up. My point is that we have little effect on it.

The graph you showed on page one shows a correlation of about 800 years after temperatures rise CO2 levels do, and about 800 years after temperatures fall, so does CO2 levels. How does that explain that CO2 emissions are the main cause for global mean temperature rises?

High school Chemistry teaches us that our atmosphere can absorb more CO2 when the temperature is higher.

For the record Volanic activity accounts for billions of tons of carbon emissions each year, or each time we have an eruption somewhere.

Eckolaker said:

A wow! A graph that shows the use of Fossil fuels has gone up in North America since the industrial revolution. Brilliant!

I never once disagreed with anyone that suggest our planet is warming up. My point is that we have little effect on it.

The graph you showed on page one shows a correlation of about 800 years after temperatures rise CO2 levels do, and about 800 years after temperatures fall, so does CO2 levels. How does that explain that CO2 emissions are the main cause for global mean temperature rises?

High school Chemistry teaches us that our atmosphere can absorb more CO2 when the temperature is higher.

For the record Volanic activity accounts for billions of tons of carbon emissions each year, or each time we have an eruption somewhere.

Click to expand...

You'll have to get him dood. I tapped out due to lack of intelligence. Just ask Chana! I'll be over here cheering for ya though!
:ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1:

Further more, CO2 is a horrible Greenhouse gas, all things considered. NO2 or CH4, and even plain water vapor perform far better as a greenhouse gas then CO2.

Interesting read on water vapor as a green house gas.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142