In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor, Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, has publicly stated, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.” In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they’ve been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year. At the end of his ‘documentary’ Al implores us to lower our carbon footprint, he didn’t, however, include himself in the equation!
Al Gore’s Movie Debunked And Ridiculed By Scientists. What Do You Think?
By WinPie Posted in: command
See More Infomations
New Articles in Category11
- Abdullah Bin Sabaa The Jew Who Founded Shiism? From Shias And Jewish Writings?
- Can You Train A Golden Retriever One The First Day?
- How To Pass A Variable From One Page To Another?
- Linux: How To Run The ‘patch’ Command To Patch Two Files At The Same Time?
- How Do You Get A Keyboard Out Of Command Only Mode?
- Perl Getopt::long Issue.?
More Interesting Things
©2011 Windows Pie, All rights reserved.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions.
Not having seen/read about this I am answering from a less knowledgable position than most will be.
Climate change is either real & relevant or not real & fabricated. Quite frankly, I am not sure but tend to lean towards not real.
Climate change pessimists need to show me the facts they wish me to believe that cannot be shot down by non believers.
I personally think that climate change is attributed to the natural evolution of our planet. Of course air quality changes, always did before we came along & pumped it full of pollution. Of course sea levels rise, it is called geomorphology. Animals species die out eventually & while we may not miss the dodo we realise now what can happen & have become more aware of the dangers.
As for his horrendous power consumption…. somebody needs to go there & teach him to turn his lights off when he leaves the room.
stop ranting–the information you provided is bunk. More than 95% of environmental scientists agree that climate change is occuring based on their studies. Most of your scientists have done no research on the subject and have degrees in other areas of science.
I felt like I was watching an infomercial for a new tax.
“In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie,…” and then you put forward a SINGLE scientist with a clear anti AGW adgenda who has no background in climate science. Where is this STORM?
Al Gores film is not a scientific portrayal of the AGW case. It is out dated and there are some weak and even false arguments and conclusions within it. It is primarily a movie for entertainment, but it does also have a serious message. It is not without its problems, but it did achieve one of its aims [apart from making money which was also obviously an aim] That is, it raised public awareness. Hopefully anyone who saw that then took the time to do some digging to find out what the truth is….that is a good thing.
Al Gore did not invent AGW, [because that is a reality that was not ‘invented at all’ he is not even its leading shinning light, he is a politician and a maker of a documentary.
I would not take my information on AGW form such a movie or any movie. I look for real information, evidence, data and serious analysis that is consistent with the logic and framework of existing scientific understanding. That is what I use to form my opinion on AGW, and I find the case to be beyond debate…its real.
The first time I tried to watch I feel asleep The second time I made it thru it.
Its not about Global Warming at all . First He talks about his son being in the Hospital
2 decades ago . Then He whines about the 2000 election . Boo hoo Tennessee did not
vote for him . And that idiot graph he climbs the ladder on .
Its all made up fiction .
No real scientist debates with Gore. If Carter was up to the task he would demonstrate his conclusions in the journals where real scientists talk to other scientists.
Gore is a publicistof the vast amount of climate research. Those who want to rant but are not expert on the subject complain about Gore rather than taking on the research itself.
Those who rant to rant but are totally ignorant on the subject put up nonsensical question one YA attacking Al Gore. An educated person would take on the published studies. An ignorant person would rant about Al Gore. You can easily identify the ignorant ranters that way.,
Now, if you have something to say, critique Harries (2001 Nature).
Hmmm… This is so familiar. Content copy and pasted from a website with no link or citation or quote marks. Here, I’ll help.http://www.takeaimatclimatechange.com/20…
I find it interesting that the person who wrote the article, James Nash?, claims to be a climate scientist, and also writes for a group that sells carbon offsets. The only name of anyone that I can find on this site is James R. Mead.http://www.greatestplanet.org/ (found in the blog)
The whole thing seems just a bit off to me.
As for the Oregon Petition… You’re joking right? For all you know, I could have signed that piece claiming to be Dr. H. Leonard McCoy or maybe Dr. Kelley DeForest. Or maybe both…
_
Bob Carter is someone with a long association with the denial movement (but I think you knew that)
So what do you have with scientists Bob carter and one other and if those are questioned you fall back on the old petition of X thousand, pathetic.
These so called experts seem to use the same set piece theories ordinary denier use this is supposed to be a statement from a scientist “I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago”
What is it with deniers and SUV’s and cavemen
And then of course these the usual rant about Polar Bears, again from a supposed scientist
“Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances”
Cool, just one small problem, unless this scientist has been asleep under a rock for the last decade the problem Polar Bears face is one of food supply, it is not and never has been about how far they can swim and I’m sorry but the comment about expanding populations is a lie the study in question (if they are quoting the real one) found that
“that 1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend.” and this is from the real expert on Polar Bearshttp://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-…
That deniers continue to spread these lies in the face of evidence (which they continue to ignore), show how little interest they really have in the truth.
From Sourcewatch:
“Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is “a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University”, Australia. [5] In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005, he was described as an “experienced environmental scientist” [6], but a March 2007 article in the same paper noted that “Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.” He is a well known climate change skeptic.”
In March 2007 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that “Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday [March 14th 2007] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. ‘I don’t think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,’ said Professor Carter. ‘I will address the evidence.”
And that is just a start.
So, when it comes to credibility it seems Mr Carter is not exactly beyond reproach.
***EDIT***
I named my sources genius.
TRY AGAIN!
Al Gores movie was nothing more than marketing tosh to help set up his Greentech empire… he has made zillions out of the religious fools that preach and follow AGW! Many of them vehemently supported Al Gore a few years ago however most of them have all since realised they were used as pawns as he made all the cash and won the Nobel prize. He is hiding in one of his castles now and cannot face the cameras again as his move had so many mistakes.
<>
aka The Oregon Petition. LMAO
The Oregon Petition list with its demonstrated fakes, flaws and lack of transparency by Frederick “Smoking Is Not Dangerous For Your Health ” Seitz?
How on earth does a pediatrician, to name just one of those PhD’s, qualify to know anything about climatology (Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics Temple University School of Medicine)? Or a medical doctor (Otilia J. Asuncion)?
If you sincerely believe that anyone with a PhD, no matter what he or she actually studied, knows absolutely everything there is to know about any other field of specialization, then perhaps you can save on medical expenses next time you need to see a doctor and visit a veterinarian instead. Or an aeronautical engineer.
And lets not forget about the amusing names on the list such as scientist ‘Drs. Frank Burns’ (M*A*S*H) and Spice Girl Geraldine Halliwel who appeared twice (as ‘Dr. Geri Halliwel’ and ‘Dr. Halliwell’). Asked about the fakes, the Oregon Project said: “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.”
Makes one wonder: if they cannot filter out the obvious fakes, how the hell are they gonna filter out the non-obvious ones?
I think you are a couple of years behind with your question.