Log In | Register
6 Votes
9 Comments
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
News Type: Event — Seeded on Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:21 AM EDT
Article Source: canadafreepress.com
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?"
Stop Tracking
- © 2005-2006 Newsvine, Inc.
Code of Honor- Company Info
- Contact Us
- Jobs
- User Agreement
- Privacy Policy
- Copyright Policy
I'm very skeptical of slick presentations like Gore's, so thanks for adding to the debate. It's hard to take
and his assessment of climate research very seriously when he calls people like himself into question:
Yes, especially when experts in the field of climatology feel that Gore got the majority of his science right (and here).
Gore makes a big accusation in his film: that certain scientists have been tagged by big energy companies to debunk Global Warming. I believe it! Ten years ago a lot of scientists still needed convincing, and they were exploited, leading to a skeptical public as well. But now, Gore's statement that most leading Climatologists are believers of Global Warming, is totally true. In the last four years, I too went from a skeptic to a believer as new data came out. Some scientists still deny Global Warming, but helll, there are people out there who still believe the world is flat! Should we listen to the "some" or listen to the majority?
I'll go with the majority.
I'll go with taking care of my world.
I'm no paleoclimatologist (or scientist, for that matter), but I believe Copernicus and Galileo were once part of the ''some'' you just denigrated.
Actually, I think the first scientists to propose the theory of global warming are more likely in the league of Copernicus and Galileo and the "some" of Jeremy's comment would equate to the last remaining hold-outs that swore the earth was the center of the universe or that earth was flat.
I'm not sure that I listen to the supporters of any scientific theory because they themselves are a majority. I listen to them because the majority believe that science to be sound once they are presented with the evidence.
It was not so many years ago that paid scientists were trotted out by media, appeared at hearings and testified before Congress and swore there was a debate about cigarettes and cancer. Money colored their ability to interpret the facts. No one is saying that is what happened here but there are follow up questions to go beyond every "expert" viewpoint.
Science doesn't always have "proof" when predicting future outcomes. Very often it is a best guess. Very often the best minds agree later they guessed wrongly. What is clear is that there are very powerful interests, with strong support in the media, who would like to have the facts "prove" that pollution and autos don't contribute to the problem. There is a clear benefit from that view.
It isn't clear who, but the public, stands to gain by exercising caution. If Al Gore's point is wrong and we reduce the effects what is lost? If Al Gore's point is correct and we ignore it what is the price? The question isn't always as simple as who is right or wrong but what is the price of the wrong choice?
Al Gore INVENTED climatology!
Al Gore contributed so much to computer science, that they named the algorithm after him!
Now that's funny right there. I don't care who ya are. That's funny!