heads up....hit piece on Gore coming out... .per sludge report.

NY TIMES PLANS HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: 'Scientists argue that Gore's warnings are full of exaggerated claims and startling errors'... Reporter William Broad filing the story... Developing...


betcha can guess which scientists...

Al Gore, my President.

Don't you touch my hero, Al Gore. I get mad when you do that.

ExxMob

The MSM was supposed to pretend to love Gore until he declared his candidacy, and THEN savage him.

They must have missed the memo.

All geared at getting Al to decide NOT to run...

Rolling in shit was not what he wanted to do with his life anymore, and so gave up pure politics.

Too bad. The other potential candidates for the White House are midgets at best, by comparison.

This country could use a new way to conduct politics.

I'm hoping a wee bit that he might be. But, whatever he does is fine with me.

He's a good man.

The scientific comments I've seen are that Gore's facts are dead-on accurate.

> that's odd -- the scientific comments I've seen are
> that Gore's facts are dead-on accurate.

Does that matter?

It's been clear for more than a decade now that one
of the Right Wing's favorite tactics is to fabricate
something from whole cloth, put it out there, spread
it broadly, and accept that the left will eventually
debunk it, but only after the Vast Right Wing Noise
Machine has already convinced everyone that it's the
commonly accepted truth.

In other words, they just make shit up.

And they do it time after time after time after time
after time after time...

Tesha

:rofl:

I think Al Gore's tougher than this TIMES piece (if that's what comes down the pike) and Sludge put together.

The world's scientists appear aligned with Al on this one.

I bet they rise to Gore's defense.

sadly...

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
-Winston Churchill

...makes something out of nothing. Other times he makes shit up. I haven't been to that slog since 2004.

doesn't seem very pleasant.

called Germs. The book pushed the bio-warfare scaremongering.

Oh well, Drudge, FauxNews and the cable guys will spread the Gore shit even though they know it is shit.

. . . hurricane season.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=Global%20Warming%20Swindle&hl=en



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x148598

A much more detailed response from Carl Wunsch

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nsch-responds/


In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

more at the link....

oh yeah and heres a great overview of the film...

http://earthfamilyalpha.blogspot.com/2007/03/swindling-of-earth.html

. . . they are fools (at least) twice:

United Kingdom: Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4

This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'

Source: Copyright 2007, Independent (UK)
Date: March 11, 2007
Byline: Geoffrey Lean

It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."

More: http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=70678

Grrrrrrrrr.

Even within the scientific community that buys into global warming there's plenty of bickering. Fer instances include the rate of sea level rise, the net loss of ice from the poles and Greenland, historic trends in CO₂, strong correlations between CO₂ and temperature, and many other points that Gore addressed in his film.

It will be interesting to see if it's a discussion of some of the scientific uncertainties or, as stated, a pseudoscience hit piece.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.


Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

--the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
--the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
--the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
--if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences


In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

Even within the non-dissenting opinions within IPCC there is a spectrum of opinions.

This is why it will be interesting to see the nature of the article. If the article says, in essence, that global warming is a flimflam and those who support it are either naive or willfully ignorant, then we have a hit piece. If it truly addresses scientific issues and areas where we don't have much knowledge, it could be useful and informative.

We will see.

You don't see hit pieces like this about James Hanson or any of the producers of An Inconvenient Truth... and that is because there is no unsubstantiated political speculation and gossip being circulated by operatives about them. This is most definitely for the most part political due to political speculation that is taking the onus off of the crisis and action. Here we should be joining together to find solutions and all people can do is attack and deflect proving that when you make this a political issue you get nowhere.

Oh, I forgot they don't have to use scientific methods any more after all Exxon says their science is good and why would such a successful company like Exxon promote someone who wasn't credible?

ball
lindzen
etc...

It is one thing to have a degree in science and another thing to get your work peer reviewed. Just having a degree does not make everything a person says valid.

... and has published in very respectable peer-reviewed journals.

As for what's coming in the NYT, we will see.

EDIT: William Broad, who will be authoring the article, majored in the history of science at U of Wisconsin. Not exactly a scientists, but not exactly a novice when it comes to writing about science.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/


Sceptic in demand

Closer to home, one of the 19 Canadian signatories to the skeptics letter is Tim Ball, a retired professor of climatology from the University of Winnipeg, now living in Victoria. As a global-warming sceptic, he is in high demand by the front groups sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.

Ball's particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world's climate has actually been cooling. The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reached by over 2,000 climate scientists, that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used "distorted records."

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He's a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. In the past year, he's given policy briefings to the Fraser Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg.

But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in these articles.

He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here ) that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.

Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look here , you'll find a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball's former industry front group, the Friends of Science , offers this clumsy admission: " not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die

My apologies.

it won't get anywhere up here. By the way, try this argument out

http://www.publicbroadcasting.ca/pbl/fake/2007/02/global-warming-burden-of-proof.html

gore is being very effective and his message has been heard
at the highest corporate levels.
Broad has a recent history of iffy articles on
climate change

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/

Just when we were beginning to think the media had finally learned to tell a hawk from a handsaw when covering global warming (at least when the wind blows southerly), along comes this article 'In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming' by the New York Times' William Broad. This article is far from the standard of excellence in reporting we have come to expect from the Times. We sincerely hope it's an aberration, and not indicative of the best Mr. Broad has to offer.

... but I didn't find Broad NYT article all that misleading. In my mind, he was simply highlighting one aspect of the debate and actually mentioned some of the uncertainties and criticisms against the Phanerozoic correlations.

I guess I'm so used to seeing such totally ridiculous arguments from the likes of junkscience.com, co2science.com, and Patrick Michaels that Broad's piece seemed actually balanced.

Wouldn't want them spilling the beans about the hypocracy of his buying carbon credits from his own company to be neutral. :(

There's another one I can think of where you might feel more at home.

NYT is losing ground, their profits and everything else...just like John McCain. Now it sounds as though they are attempting to find a base (whatever that is) with an absurd and irrelevant claim about Gore.

:shrug:

Of course those of us who know what this is all about don't believe their crap, but many aren't as informed and savvy as we are which is the point. This kind of garbage hurts the momentum we can get on this movement, and it is time to speak out against it and for this planet. It's time for more than Mr. Gore's voice to be heard out here.

PLEASE AL. PLEASE.

Sign the petition: www.draftgore.com



http://healthandenergy.com/images/Scientists,%20frogs,%20and%20global%20warming.gif

Perhaps if more actually JOINED HIM in standing up to these thugs now by joining him in this cause to address this truth they would have no leverage in these attacks. PLEASE AL, what? Run in this AIPAC/ military industrial complex/ whoring system with the threat of being assasinated hanging over his head? WAKE UP already. This isn't about "draftgore" and their little ego parade to use this bs for their own ends. I blame them in part for all of this happening.

Not much there, frankly, some scientist disagree others agree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?8dpc

Is this a pre-emptive strike on Gore by the Republicans?, by Hillary Clinton? Who knows.

Has Gore offended the Press Lords? Probably.

like Warren Kimbro, who managed to get a scholarship to Harvard and became good friends with none other than Al Gore.