Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
Chicago Sun Times ^ | 30 June 07 | James Taylor

Posted on 06/30/2007 10:30:56 AM PDT by NavVet

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: algore; climatechange; environment; global; globalwarming; gore; gorebullwarming; revolutionaryact; warming; weather
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
“Global warming is not a theory, it is a religion. It could be snowing in Miami every summer for a decade and the believers will still believe.”

Ahhh... the voice of sanity. Well put. I congratulate you!

51 posted on 06/30/2007 3:58:42 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
<rant type="frustrated geologist">

Things like this drive me nuts...


--"Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

--Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades.

--the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain."

As demonstrated by the Kilimanjaro example,* there is so much oversimplification made when discussing these "ice-retreat" or "ice-thinning" reports. Sometimes, warming leads to higher snowfall, which can lead to glacial advance. Sometimes, there's a transition between dry-base and wet-base glacial conditions, which can lead to changes in thickness/extent. There are many factors that can't be taken in isolation!


</rant>


*"Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

52 posted on 06/30/2007 4:34:57 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
This is why the scaremongers have switched the terminology to “Climate Change”. Under this terminology, no matter what happens, they can claim to be right. It is the ultimate in a non-theory.

ROTFLOL! Here I have been slamming the whole "Global Warming" bit for nearly two decades, pointing out that "Climate Change" is the proper scientific discussion and "Global Warming" is the eco-buzzword they tried to push...and now you're saying the scaremongers have reversed themselves?!?

53 posted on 06/30/2007 4:40:56 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

Does this mean Gore will have to give back his Academy Award?


54 posted on 06/30/2007 4:51:44 PM PDT by lrvp99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker; 75thOVI; AFPhys; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; BenLurkin; ...
There's only room for one and here it comes...
 
Catastrophism
 
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·
 

55 posted on 06/30/2007 9:37:42 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 28, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

BUMP!


56 posted on 06/30/2007 9:39:36 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

Florida 2000 : 501 for Bush vs 500 for gore, the american guardian angels were hard at work then, hope they still are. With gore as the dem candidate in ‘08, once again we’ll have a republican president. And yet a LOT will happen between now and next november.


57 posted on 06/30/2007 9:49:12 PM PDT by timer (n/0=n=nx0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Dudukaka has been a joke in politics for 20 years. Sheesh.

He had a race and name change and now he's gender neutral. (Actually, he's race neutral, too, like Obama.) Not only that but, his neurotic wife took a "leave of absence" about two weeks after he was elected. Same guy, though.

58 posted on 07/01/2007 4:54:57 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (I never consented to live in the Camp of the Saints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

At most, sea level would rise about a meter: over a 1000 year period.

Irrelevent compared to the natural up & down movement of the LAND that is being measured: for example, areas near Houston dropped 4 feet when water was pumped out.

LA is subsiding into the Gulf, but north areas are still “rebounding” (rising several feet) because the galcier melted 12,000 years ago.


59 posted on 07/01/2007 8:41:02 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

>>At most, sea level would rise about a meter: over a 1000 year period.

Irrelevent compared to the natural up & down movement of the LAND that is being measured: for example, areas near Houston dropped 4 feet when water was pumped out.

LA is subsiding into the Gulf, but north areas are still “rebounding” (rising several feet) because the galcier melted 12,000 years ago.
<<

Based on the state of the Cryosphere report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (a joint effort of NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation)its closer to a foot per hundred years rights now. 2.5 mm per year x 100 = 9.84 inches.

The concern is the rate of increase since 1980 and how that will project and if will continue.

Rational people don’t want to confuse this with Gore’s apocalyptic visions but at the current rate of increase it could have a coastal effect in low lying areas. A few feet over the next hundred years is looking quite possible based on the government data.

How we move shift the discussion from “apocalypse imminent” to we need to watch this and study it ...well that may be hard.


60 posted on 07/01/2007 9:13:44 AM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but even they note that there are severe problems with even the low (2mm/year) estimates of sea-level rise

< a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise, "but severe limits are imposed by the observed perturbations in Earth rotation. (Munk 2002)"

Further comments on the physics of the maximum 1.1mm/year increase is found here: Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence The article makes the point:

"1.1 mm per year? That means that if this were to continue for 1000 years, sea levels would be 1.1 meters higher. Doesn’t sound very catastrophic, does it?"

So, in the next 100 years, we can expect a 4 inch rise. And by 2050, we'll be at the bottom of the 40-year sun cycle and at a better place to look at the whole phenomenon with better information.

61 posted on 07/02/2007 11:03:32 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard work to be cynical enough in this age)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Since the Reagan administration we’ve had agencies studying the rise in sea level. Over the next century, if the current trend continues this can become a problem for low lying coastal areas.

What trend? The guys who actually study sea levels for a living can't find a trend.

62 posted on 07/02/2007 2:02:51 PM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson