More on that consensus

Looks like not everybody is in awe of the Goracle’s Peace Prize.

Gore gets a cold shoulder

Steve Lytte

October 14, 2007

ONE of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory
that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and
the product of "people who don’t understand how the atmosphere
works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane
forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North
Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the
earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee
honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans
and global warming.

"We’re brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time
professor at Colorado State University. "They’re going to the Gore
movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It’s
ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo,
Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world’s
consciousness about exactly what we’re facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate
panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action
against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical
storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle
of ocean water temperatures – related to the amount of salt in
ocean water – was responsible for the global warming that he
acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling
would begin soon and last for several years.

"We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise
how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included
meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr
Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased
number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900
to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83
from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have
a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular
science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out
against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know
that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care
about grants."

Sydney Morning Herald

Crossposted at Grizzly Groundswell

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/more-on-that-co.html’;
button_type = 1;

 

How the Limeys see AlGore’s Movie on Global Warming

And now here’s how The Times of London reports on the UK court judgment requiring warnings about innaccuracies in AlGore’s movie if it is shown in British public schools.   The Court pointed to nine particular errors that must be mentioned.  I’ve bolded in a few places and I have added numerals to indicate the Nine areas. 

From The Times

October 11, 2007

Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment  

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration 

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

#1 – The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

#2&3 – A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

#4 – Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

#5, 6 & 7 – The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

#8 – The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

#9 – Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

— A High Court judge since 1998, Sir Michael Burton, 60, was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2002 to 2005. He stood in local elections for Labour in Kensington and Chelsea in 1971; Stratford upon Avon in the General Election in 1974; and for the SDP in Greater London Council elections in 1981. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, his wife died in 1992 leaving him to bring up four daughters

The speech, the film, the book

— An Inconvenient Truth is the third-highest grossing documentary ever in the United States, making more than $23 million (£12 million)

— It has so far earned $49 million at the box office worldwide It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and won an Oscar this year for Best Documentary, Features

— The film is based on a lavishly-illustrated public lecture that Mr Gore has given more than 1,000 times in the US and elsewhere It was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who has also directed episodes of the hit television shows Deadwood, The Shield and 24

— The companion book written by Gore has been on The New York Times bestseller list since June 11, 2006

— Mr Gore has been nominated jointly with Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming campaign, including making the documentary

— President Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: Doubt it"

— The documentary has featured on The Simpsons, South Park, Futurama and even in an Ozzy Osborne song, The Almighty Dollar

Source:  http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Go to the article itself and see a lot of background material on the trial, including a slide show of the 9 flaws and their take on "the inspiring but divisive" Gore.   There are also links to a story on the UK’s crackdown on cows’ burping and farting as part of its fight against climate change and to the latest in the McCartney-Mills divorce, if you like to read about those kinds of things.   And another link to a story that answers the proverbial question:  Why are lawyers miserable?  ha ha ha

Julia

 

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/how-the-limey-1.html’;
button_type = 1;

How the Limeys See Gore’s Nobel Prize Win for Peace

Here’s how the Times of London views AlGore’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize.   Next post will have The Time’s report on the English Court’s judgment about use of AlGore’s movie in its schools. 

From The Times

October 13, 2007

Al Gore’s Nobel peace prize is a rebuke for the President, claim Democrats

Tom Baldwin in Washington

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore yesterday thrust the former vice-president — and the Norwegian committee that honoured him — into the heart of the 2008 US election battle.

Mr Gore, who shares the $1.5 million (£737,000) prize with the United Nations climate change panel, was made a Nobel peace laureate for raising awareness about global warming through books, lecture tours and the Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

The award citation described him as “probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted”.

The decision has inevitably been interpreted as a rebuke to President Bush, who beat Mr Gore by the narrowest of margins to win the White House in 2000 and has since opposed binding international agreements for reducing carbon emissions.

Ole Danbolt Mjøs, the prize committee chairman, insisted that Mr Gore’s award was not aimed directly at the Bush Administration. He then added: “We would encourage all countries, including the big countries . . . to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global warming. The bigger the powers, the better that they come in front of this.”

The last American to win the prize was former president Jimmy Carter in 2002, when the committee chairman Gunnar Berge called it “a kick in the leg” to Mr Bush for planning a war in Iraq.

Mr Gore yesterday appeared at a brief press conference quoting African proverbs and promising to use his new status to hasten action and “elevate global consciousness about the challenges we face”. In an earlier statement, he said the climate crisis was a moral and spiritual challenge for humanity — “not a political issue”.

That did not stop Democratic presidential candidates stampeding to congratulate him and condemn Mr Bush’s stance on the issue. Within minutes of the announcement in Oslo, 5.15am in Washington, John Edwards was saying that Mr Gore’s leadership “stands in stunning contrast to the failure of the current Administration”. He added that the award “shines a bright light on the most inconvenient truth of all — the selection of George Bush as President.”

As dawn broke, Barack Obama was praising Mr Gore’s courage to “challenge the sceptics in Washington”, while the home page of Hillary Clinton’s website featured a photo of Mr Gore in Socratic pose alongside a headline saying: “CONGRATULTIONS!” There was a flurry of speculation that the former vice-president could be given a post as a roving environmental ambassador if the Clintons were restored to the White House.

Such adulation from fellow Democrats would swiftly turn sour if Mr Gore used the peace award as a springboard into the 2008 presidential race himself. This week supporters of a “draft Gore” movement took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times begging him to make another run for the White House. But long-time advisers reiterated that a Gore candidacy was extremely unlikely. “I don’t think he’s going to run,” said Carter Eskew. “Technically, he hasn’t ruled it out. But I can tell you he’s making no moves and no sounds to indicate to me that he’s going to run.”

At the White House, Mr Bush’s spokesman insisted, possibly through gritted teeth, that the President shared Mr Gore’s joy — but had no plans to speak to him. “Of course he’s happy for Vice-President Gore,” he said. “He’s happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also shared the peace prize.”

Those US conservatives still refuse to accept scientific evidence that global warming is man-made — or even a problem, were yesterday predictably furious, with what they regard as another political statement by the Norwegian committee.

Some highlighted this week’s ruling by a British High Court judge that the film was prone to “alarmism” and contained scientific errors, while Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing talk-show host, declared that the committee had long since “rendered themselves pure, 100 per cent joke”.

One internet blog suggested that Mr Gore’s award was part of a pattern of previous prize winners ranging from Yassir Arafat to Mr Carter — “a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about 20 years”.

Critics say the remit of the peace prize, which now includes democracy, the elimination of poverty, and improving the environment, has become too wide.

But Jan Egeland, a Norwegian former senior UN official for humanitarian affairs, defended the decision of his countrymen yesterday who decided Mr Gore’s work on climate change had “reduced a threat “to the security of mankind”.

He said: “It is a question of war and peace. We’re already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa.”

Source:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2648487.ece

Julia

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/how-the-limeys-.html’;
button_type = 1;

 

24% think ALGore knows what he is talking about

ONly 24% believe that AlGore has a clue about Global Warming science.  I am just wondering who these 24% are.  Almost all of ALGore’s Political Movie, An Inconvenient Truth Lie’s, science has been debunked and he still wins the Nobel Peace Anti-American Prize.  In Great Britain, a court has ordered anyone playing this film in a classroom had to say that it is a political film and say that there are wrong scientific conclusions in it.   ONly those that Are following in the Goracle’s Church of Global Warming are drinking his cool-aid. 

24% Consider Al Gore Global Warming Expert

Saturday, March 24, 2007

 

Former Vice President Al Gore (D) received a warm welcome on Capitol Hill last week for his testimony on the environment and Global Warming.
However, while he is now an Academy Award winner and celebrity
activist, just 24% of Americans consider Gore an expert on Global
Warming. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 adults
found that 47% say he is not an expert on the topic (see crosstabs).

In fact, just 36% of Americans say that Gore knows what he is talking
about when it comes to the environment and Global Warming. Thirty-one
percent (31%) say he does not know what he is talking about while 33%
are not sure. Women, by a 2-to-1 margin, say Gore knows what he is
talking about. Men, by a similar margin, say he does not.

Appearing before a Congressional Committee, Gore said that Global
Warming is “not a partisan issue; it’s a moral issue.” However, polling
data suggests that among the general public it’s a very partisan issue.
By a 65% to 9% margin, Democrats say that Gore knows what he’s talking
about. By a 57% to 11%, Republicans say he does not. Those not
affiliated with either party are evenly divided.

A survey conducted in December found that 45% of Americans consider Global Warming a Very Serious issue. But, there are partisan divisions visible throughout the data. Fifty-six
percent (56%) of Democrats say human activity is the cause while 51% of
Republicans identify long-term planetary trends as the culprit.
Overall, 47% see a conflict between environmental protection and
economic growth. Twenty-nine percent (29%) do not. Earlier surveys by
Rasmussen Reports have found that Americans strongly prefer development
of alternative energy sources rather than conservation efforts. Most also support development of new nuclear power plants.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans say that Gore is likely to run
for President in 2008. Fifty-four percent (54%) say he is not likely to
run.

In addition to tracking key issues Rasmussen Reports provides continuous updates on Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates. You can also check out favorables for Congressional Leaders, Journalists, and other Political Figures. Gore is viewed favorably by 50% of Americans, unfavorably by 47%.

Crosstabs are available for Premium Members only.

Rasmussen Reports

*** this is a older poll and I really don;t trust in polls that much anyway.

 

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/24-think-algore.html’;
button_type = 1;

All Hail the Goracle

The Goracle and the IPCC have won the Nobel Peace Prize.  If this does not show how idiotic and  irrelevant the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing will.  They gave the Peace Prize to Dhimmi Carter before, and not tho the Goracle.   The Dhimmi is the reason we are having troubles with the Mullocracy in Iran, and AlGore made a political film about Global warming that has so many flaws in it, if it is shown in a classroom in Great Britain, it has to have a warning that it is political and has many flaws in its science.  But the Looney Left are going to go gaga over the crowning of the Goracle with the Peace Prize. 

Al Gore, UN Panel Share Nobel for Peace
ct 12 11:50 AM US/Eastern
By DOUG MELLGREN and MATT MOORE
Associated Press Writers
OSLO, Norway (AP) – Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s climate change panel won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for spreading awareness of man- made climate change and laying the foundations for counteracting it.

Gore, whose film on global warming,
"An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award earlier this year, had
been widely tipped to win Friday’s prize, which expanded the Norwegian
committee’s interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts that
have traditionally been the award’s foundations.

"We face a
true planetary emergency," Gore said. "The climate crisis is not a
political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of
humanity."

The Nobel committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjoes,
asserted that the prize was not aimed at the Bush administration, which
rejected Kyoto and was widely criticized outside the U.S. for not
taking global warming seriously enough.

"We would encourage
all countries, including the big countries, to challenge, all of them,
to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global warming,"
Mjoes said. "The bigger the powers, the better that they come in front
of this."

Two Gore advisers, speaking on condition of
anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said
the award will not make it any more likely that he will seek the
presidency in 2008.

If anything, the Peace Prize makes the
rough-and-tumble of a presidential race less appealing to Gore, they
said, because now he has a huge, international platform to fight global
warming and may not want to do anything to diminish it.

One of
the advisers said that while Gore is unlikely to rule out a bid in the
coming days, the prospects of the former vice president entering the
fray in 2008 are "extremely remote."

"Perhaps winning the
Nobel and being viewed as a prophet in his own time will be
sufficient," said Kenneth Sherrill, a political analyst at Hunter
College in New York.

Gore, who was an advocate of stemming
climate change and global warning well before his eight years as vice
president, called the award meaningful because of his co-winner,
calling the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the
"world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our
understanding of the climate crisis."

Gore plans to donate his
half of the $1.5 million prize money to the Alliance for Climate
Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization that is devoted to
changing public opinion worldwide about the urgency of solving the
climate crisis.

In its citation, the committee lauded Gore’s
"strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films
and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is
probably the single individual who has done most to create greater
worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

The last American to win the prize, or share it, was former President Carter, who won it 2002.

At the time, then committee chairman Gunnar Berge called the prize "a
kick in the leg" to the Bush administration for its threats of war
against Iraq. In response, some members of the secretive committee
criticized Berge for expressing personal views in the panel’s name.

Mjoes, elected to succeed Berge a few months later, referred to that
dispute on Friday, saying the committee "has never given a kick in the
leg to anyone."

The White House said the prize was not seen as
increasing pressure on the administration or showing that President
Bush’s approach missed the mark.

"Of course he’s happy for
Vice President Gore," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "He’s
happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also
shared the peace prize. Obviously it’s an important recognition."

Fratto said Bush has no plans to call Gore.

Eighty-four percent in the U.S. believe world temperatures are rising,
according to a poll last month by The Associated Press and Stanford
University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. Yet while about seven
in 10 said they want strong public and private action to help the
environment, fewer than one in 10 said they had seen such steps in the
past year.

In its citation, the committee said that Gore "has
for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist
politicians" and cited his awareness at an early stage "of the climatic
challenges the world is facing.

The committee cited the IPCC
for its two decades of scientific reports that have "created an
ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human
activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials
from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty
as to the scale of the warming."

It went on to say that
because of the panel’s efforts, global warming has been increasingly
recognized. In the 1980s it "seemed to be merely an interesting
hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the
last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the
consequences still more apparent."

Rajendra Pachauri,
the IPCC chairman, said he and Gore really had 2,000 co-laureates—each
of the scientists in the U.N. panel’s research network.

"This
award also thrusts a new responsibility on our shoulders," Pachauri
said. "We have to do more, and we have many more miles to go."

But some questioned the prize decision.

"Awarding it to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Awarding it to the IPCC is well-founded," said Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist.

He criticized Gore’s film as having "some very obvious mistakes, like the argument that we’re going to see six meters of sea-level rise," he said.

"They (Nobel committee) have a unique platform in getting people’s
attention on this issue, and I regret they have used it to make a
political statement."

In his 1895 will creating the prize, the
Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel said it should be awarded for
efforts toward peacemaking and disarmament, and the award now often
also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty,
sharing resources and the environment. Last year, for example, it went
to the Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank for
pioneering the use of microcredit to spur creation of small businesses
in poor nations.

Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and
former senior U.N. official for humanitarian affairs, called climate
change more than an environmental issue.

"It is a question of
war and peace," said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute
of International Affairs in Oslo. "We’re already seeing the first
climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa." He said nomads and herders
are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought
drought and a shortage of fertile lands.

___

Associated Press writer Ron Fournier contributed to this report from Washington.

BREITBART.com

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/all-hail-the-go.html’;
button_type = 1;

 

The Return of ManBearPig & Super Awesome AlGore

It’s time for a re-run of South Park’s bit on AlGore and ManBEarPig !!!

Can you believe these little kids on South Park are smarter than the Nobel committee of distinguished left-wingers.   The plans to battle global warming are more dangerous than warming itself. 

Julia

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/the-return-of-m.html’;
button_type = 1;

The Return of ManBearPig & Super Awesome AlGore

It’s time for a re-run of South Park’s bit on AlGore and ManBEarPig !!!

Can you believe these little kids on South Park are smarter than the Nobel committee of distinguished left-wingers.   The plans to battle global warming are more dangerous than warming itself. 

Julia

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/the-return-of-m.html’;
button_type = 1;

The Return of ManBearPig & Super Awesome AlGore

It’s time for a re-run of South Park’s bit on AlGore and ManBEarPig !!!

Can you believe these little kids on South Park are smarter than the Nobel committee of distinguished left-wingers.   The plans to battle global warming are more dangerous than warming itself. 

Julia

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/the-return-of-m.html’;
button_type = 1;

The Return of ManBearPig & Super Awesome AlGore

It’s time for a re-run of South Park’s bit on AlGore and ManBEarPig !!!

Can you believe these little kids on South Park are smarter than the Nobel committee of distinguished left-wingers.   The plans to battle global warming are more dangerous than warming itself. 

Julia

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/the-return-of-m.html’;
button_type = 1;

The Return of ManBearPig & Super Awesome AlGore

It’s time for a re-run of South Park’s bit on AlGore and ManBEarPig !!!

Can you believe these little kids on South Park are smarter than the Nobel committee of distinguished left-wingers.   The plans to battle global warming are more dangerous than warming itself. 

Julia

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/10/the-return-of-m.html’;
button_type = 1;