Reason as the Leading Motive

Green is For Danger

Posted by Jerry on October 26, 2007

From Galileo Blogs on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth:

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age. The Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

The modern environmentalist movement is just a bunch of reds who have dyed their stripes green.

Exploit the Earth or DieHere’s more from elsewhere:

Junk Science: The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge — $125,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.

TCS Daily: Gore Dodges Calls to Debate

“Gore’s reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the – from the standpoint of climate change alarmists – unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a “crisis.” At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.”

Australian Financial Review (PDF paper):

One of the more vocal local dissidents is Bob Carter, a research professor and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Townsville. He says that there is no established theory of climate as there is, say, of gravity and planentary motion, which can be used to make predictions.

“We have a hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide increase temperatures, but that hypothesis fails all tests. Global average temperatures are known to have varied little since 1997 – just moving up and down – but in that same period carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 15 parts per million or 4 per cent.”

Stewart Franks, an associate professor in hydroclimatogy at the University of Newcastle, says the alarm over climate has grown sharply in the past 10 years, “but in that time temperatures have been stable, so it’s a case of never mind the evidence”.

Global Warming Hoax: A constant monitoring of all climate-change related news

Science Magazine:

Lowell Stott,1* Axel Timmermann,2 Robert Thunell3

1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.
2 International Pacific Research Center (IPRC), School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

“We determined the chronology of high- and low-latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by radiocarbon dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and magnesium/calcium records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming.”

Wall Street Journal: Global Warming Delusions

“Global warming doesn’t matter except to the extent that it will affect life — ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.

You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I’ve developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life — I’ve used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.

I’m not a naysayer. I’m a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. “Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?” one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.”

Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:

“Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected. The computer climate models upon which “human-caused global warming” is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex.”

For those Greenies who love a consensus to prove their beliefs, here’s a consensus of scientists holding the opposing, non-alarmist view:

Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition that states:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

16 Responses to “Green is For Danger”

  1. Scavenger said

    Lets hope this environmental silliness dies out soon. Its costing our governments
    billions of wasted tax dollars for nothing.

  2. […] even Shakira. Just when global warming seemed like it was a personal experience rather than a scientific scam, I found bubbles of water exploding beneath me, with a million and a half bubbles, large and […]

  3. Wow, and Gore just got the Nobel peace prize, didn’t he?

  4. […] Comments PhysicistDave on The Target of Ideological OutreachL’Innommable on Green is For Dangertigerarmy on Dissecting the Indian MaleWATER SPORTS IN BALI « A Twist of Word and Mind on […]

  5. anand said

    Are there arguments that ice caps aren’t melting and glaciers aren’t disappearing and that satellite pictures are false? 🙂 I’d love the argument that glaciers are disappearing because temperatures are falling and not because they are rising :))

  6. Bull said

    Mainstream scientists say –
    The world’s leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, … . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame

    And you cite Galileo blogs and a bunch of unqualified sources? LOL.

    As for the english judge’s “reservations”, he himself has admitted that the movie is founded substantially on scientific research and fact, and only required guidance notes to be altered to indicate that scientific fact could be partially used to make a political point. This does mean that environmentalists claims about global warming are entirely wrong.

    See here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconvenient_Truth#English_High_Court_case

  7. BelieveInScience said


    Rather than going by Galileo blogs, you should increase your depth of knowledge about the science. Get it from the scientists, with the caveats, uncertainties, and careful statements at http://www.realclimate.org/

  8. Ergo said

    Ummm… as a general announcement to any greenies reading this: Don’t waste your efforts in trying to dig out links to Wikipedia or other “scientific consensus” sources. I’m not interested in your cultist lunacy, and you’ll be wasting my precious comment space. I might choose to delete your links in the future.

    However, since this is my blog–and here, I am the boss–I will continue to pester you with more links to expose the cult of environmentalism for what it is (I just updated the post with more links!). And since you choose to linger around here, you’ll have to deal with it. 🙂

  9. anand said

    Dude, delete that update on deglacial warming before anyone not dumb about science sees it. We are not in the middle of a deglacial warming!!!!! Earth orbit precession, solar insolation are irrelevant for this century’s climate change!!!!!

  10. Ergo said

    Hehehee… I like how I can tickle you crazy! :o)

  11. anand said

    Oh you really did tickle me man! I am still laughing.. we are not coming out of an ice-age, dear!

  12. Ergo said

    Ahh, glad to know that, Pappu! 🙂
    Oh, hey, since you’re around… check out the new links I added to my post.

  13. I'm a Liar said

    erm, just one feedback, the govt citings/ repudiation mentioned in blue actually validates below,


    I dunno who owns The Boston Globe, but then pls blame that on my naivete.

    Hope this clears the site blog censors,;)

    [Admin: Comment edited as per my wishes. Don’t like it? Don’t comment. :)]

  14. I'M A LIAR said

    Oh I like it alright, else why wd i be here.,

  15. rambodoc said

    This may be of interest to you:
    (apologies for referring you to my own post)

  16. Hub.Docker.Com

    Green is For Danger

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: