Cool It!

[999969999]

Finally this movie is making its way to the theatres...

http://coolit-themovie.com/videos


Take that Al Gore!

[bigboab]

Finally this movie is making its way to the theatres...

http://coolit-themovie.com/videos


Take that Al Gore!

For once I agree with you. Global warming is happening. It has been going on for thousands of years, otherwise we would still be in the ice age. We wont stop it, but we could help by not using it as a tip heap. See there! Just proves that I have an open mind and think before I speak(sometimes :whistling).

[clocker]

Finally this movie is making its way to the theatres...

http://coolit-themovie.com/videos


Take that Al Gore!
The fact that you think Al Gore is the face of global warming shows how ignorant you really are.

Presumably the new class of Tea Party morons in Congress can legislate global warming away by simple virtue of continuing to deny it.

Take that Michelle Bachman!

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Presumably the new class of Tea Party morons in Congress can legislate global warming away by simple virtue of continuing to deny it.

Well, according to Obama he can lower sea levels and heal the planet, so....

[clocker]

Presumably the new class of Tea Party morons in Congress can legislate global warming away by simple virtue of continuing to deny it.

Well, according to Obama he can lower sea levels and heal the planet, so....
When did he claim that?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Well, according to Obama he can lower sea levels and heal the planet, so....
When did he claim that?

After he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee for presidency he stated:

"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation…

As an aside, if the nation is so great why does he want to remake it....?

As a second aside, I don't think the sea is level to start with. What I've seen is wavy and irregular. How are you going to measure what the level is when it won't sit still.

[devilsadvocate]

When did he claim that?

After he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee for presidency he stated:

"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation…

So he never actually said he could lower sea levels then.

As an aside, if the nation is so great why does he want to remake it....?

Well he wouldn't want to remake something that was crap, would he? Seems a pretty standard phrase for a political speech, other terms could be "return", "restore" "rebuild"

As a second aside, I don't think the sea is level to start with. What I've seen is wavy and irregular. How are you going to measure what the level is when it won't sit still.

I have to guess the last was a joke.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

So, him saying that his nomination is the point the sea levels went down....

[devilsadvocate]

So, him saying that his nomination is the point the sea levels went down....
When did he say it? Because what you "quoted" doesn't say that.

[clocker]

I'm surprised that HMPL actually went to the trouble of finding a quote to misread.
Usually Republicans just make things up from whole cloth (see Michelle Bachman) with no root in reality (again, see Michelle Bachman).

The quote doesn't say what you think it does Heavy.
Your interpretation is based on fallacious preconceptions.

[999969999]

Finally this movie is making its way to the theatres...

http://coolit-themovie.com/videos


Take that Al Gore!

For once I agree with you. Global warming is happening. It has been going on for thousands of years, otherwise we would still be in the ice age. We wont stop it, but we could help by not using it as a tip heap. See there! Just proves that I have an open mind and think before I speak(sometimes :whistling).

And for once, I agree with you, too.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

So, him saying that his nomination is the point the sea levels went down....
When did he say it? Because what you "quoted" doesn't say that.

After he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee for presidency he stated:

"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation

Seems to me that he is saying that because he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee this will happen. Would he have said that if Billary had won the nomination?

I am sorry but coming from this man, I actually think he believes he has this power. He apparently has lost touch with reality, I mean he even states the democrats lost their majority do to "miscommunication" not people being opposed to his policies.

[999969999]

Take that, Clocky and Lucifer (devilsadvocate) !

[devilsadvocate]

After he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee for presidency he stated:

this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

Seems to me that he is saying that because he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee this will happen.
That's just your opinion and you are entitled to it. This however is a different charge from your initial statement of what Obama claimed he could achieve.



What you have interpreted those words into what you think he said and what he actually said are two different things.

Pay attention, because rewording statements is why people think AL Gore (I'm using him as the example because he was part of the OP's thread for some reason) claimed he invented the internet.


Perhaps you mean something different to what you actually said, but I only have your exact words to go on.

[devilsadvocate]

Take that, Clocky and Lucifer (devilsadvocate) !Living off the sweat of others again?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

After he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee for presidency he stated:

this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

Seems to me that he is saying that because he was confirmed as the Democrat nominee this will happen.
That's just your opinion and you are entitled to it. This however is a different charge from your initial statement of what Obama claimed he could achieve.



I reworded nothing at all. Please show me where I did. There is video of him saying this.
What you have interpreted those words into what you think he said and what he actually said are two different things.

Pay attention, because rewording statements is why people think AL Gore (I'm using him as the example because he was part of the OP's thread for some reason) claimed he invented the internet.


Perhaps you mean something different to what you actually said, but I only have your exact words to go on.

Please show where I reworded it. There is video to back up what I quoted.

Maybe this will clear up what I am trying to say. He just accepted the nomination. He says we will look back and see that THIS was the moment the sea levels began to lower. He is saying that his nomination is the cause of the sea levels lowering. Not a whole lot to misunderstand.

Anyways that is my take on it. Right or wrong.

[devilsadvocate]

Please show where I reworded it. There is video to back up what I quoted.
1. (missing text) America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we (WE) are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.



2. You changed "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow" into "he can lower the sea levels" slowing the amount of acceleration and reducing speed are not the same thing.
Maybe this will clear up what I am trying to say. He just accepted the nomination. He says we will look back and see that THIS was the moment the sea levels began to lower. He is saying that his nomination is the cause of the sea levels lowering. Not a whole lot to misunderstand.

Anyways that is my take on it. Right or wrong.

He never claimed to be Canute. He was talking about challenges that we ALL have to WORK for if we want to address them.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d912vd200&show_article=1

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Again you accuse me of rewording the quote. It is exactly as he said. In fact what you highlighted is the same as I highlighted.

[devilsadvocate]

Again you accuse me of rewording the quote. It is exactly as he said. In fact what you highlighted is the same as I highlighted.

No. You "quoted" with a sentence deleted, removing the part where he said if "WE work/fight/believe in.." leaving only the "I". In doing so you changed the implication from WE can, to HE can

Now when you put the "quote" up you did correctly use the words "the rise of the oceans began to slow", but when you stated what he said you reworded it




Well, according to Obama he can lower sea levels and heal the planet, so....


So, him saying that his nomination is the point the sea levels went down....

When Churchill said "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour." " Was he talking about a specific 60 minutes or a general span in history?

[clocker]

Give it up DA, HMPL was predisposed to dislike Obama and will parse (i.e., misread) anything he says for ammunition to fortify his preconception.

The eight year Bush administration must have been absolute hell for him.
After all, we had a President who claims that God told him to run and Jesus advised him on the war.
So, in essence, the most powerful man in the world was taking advice from imaginary beings.
HMPL must have been livid for nearly a decade.

[megabyteme]

9's, it is your skepticism towards global warming that makes me doubt mine. With your track record, I may seriously have to rethink my long-held position. :unsure:

[Quarterquack]

Saying the rise of the sea level will slow down is not tantamount to saying the sea level will drop. Two completely different things, and if you fail to see the difference, you should really read into/distort Obama's words slower, next time.

Anyway, I guess what's wrong with the world (that no movie will change) is that people will not care or care enough to care no matter the consequences. A thread about a serious debate is started and it degenerates into a battle of semantics. Priorities/Survival - 0. Humans - 1.

[999969999]

9's, it is your skepticism towards global warming that makes me doubt mine. With your track record, I may seriously have to rethink my long-held position. :unsure:

That's a stupid thing to say.

If you're skeptical of MAN-MADE global warming for valid reasons and then you change your mind based on the fact that someone you dislike is also skeptical of it, you are too easily swayed by emotion.

Humans have a small role in global warming and can do very little about it besides adapting to it and preparing for it. We're not going to stop the earth from going through natural warming periods in between ice ages, mainly caused by the sun-- which is completely beyond our control. If we must worry about something, the thing to really worry about is the return of a new ice age. We are due for one. And it will kill far more people than global warming.

[999969999]

Take that, Clocky and Lucifer (devilsadvocate) !Living off the sweat of others again?

A sweat vampire, perhaps?

[Quarterquack]

Humans have a small role in global warming and can do very little about it besides adapting to it and preparing for it. We're not going to stop the earth from going through natural warming periods in between ice ages, mainly caused by the sun-- which is completely beyond our control. If we must worry about something, the thing to really worry about is the return of a new ice age. We are due for one. And it will kill far more people than global warming.

I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to get your gears wound up or anything, but can you cite any sort of respectable (unaltered) research that backs up any of this? As far as I know, most "real" research has been inconclusive on both sides of the argument, and research done thereafter, "proving" that the sun was the source of the problem entire, has been outright flawed. I'd be duly indebted if you could point me to any sources that say otherwise.

- For the record, I'm a skeptic myself; however, not enough to deny that we (as a species) are at least responsible for the 0.3% extra greenhouse gases we shit into the air.

[megabyteme]

9's, it is your skepticism towards global warming that makes me doubt mine. With your track record, I may seriously have to rethink my long-held position. :unsure:

That's a stupid thing to say.

If you're skeptical of MAN-MADE global warming for valid reasons and then you change your mind based on the fact that someone you dislike is also skeptical of it, you are too easily swayed by emotion.

Humans have a small role in global warming and can do very little about it besides adapting to it and preparing for it. We're not going to stop the earth from going through natural warming periods in between ice ages, mainly caused by the sun-- which is completely beyond our control. If we must worry about something, the thing to really worry about is the return of a new ice age. We are due for one. And it will kill far more people than global warming.

I'll add no discernible sense of humor to your long list of shortcomings.

[999969999]

Humans have a small role in global warming and can do very little about it besides adapting to it and preparing for it. We're not going to stop the earth from going through natural warming periods in between ice ages, mainly caused by the sun-- which is completely beyond our control. If we must worry about something, the thing to really worry about is the return of a new ice age. We are due for one. And it will kill far more people than global warming.

I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to get your gears wound up or anything, but can you cite any sort of respectable (unaltered) research that backs up any of this? As far as I know, most "real" research has been inconclusive on both sides of the argument, and research done thereafter, "proving" that the sun was the source of the problem entire, has been outright flawed. I'd be duly indebted if you could point me to any sources that say otherwise.

- For the record, I'm a skeptic myself; however, not enough to deny that we (as a species) are at least responsible for the 0.3% extra greenhouse gases we shit into the air.

Re-read my post which you quoted... "Humans have a small role in global warming" which you might say this way "we are at least responsible for the 0.3% extra greenhouse gasses we shit into the air." I would argue even by your figures, .3% extra greenhouse gasses are not going to make that much of a difference either way.

I read the following book which had a chapter devoted to effects of the sun-- you know, that thing in the sky that warms up planet earth?-- on global warming...

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
by Lawrence Solomon.

And just think about it for a few seconds. Try to use some logic. If ice ages have come and gone on this planet before humans were shitting extra greenhouse gasses into the air, then how can we know for certain that the same natural forces which warmed the planet in the past, without any help from humans, is not playing a major role in the warming of the planet right now?

[devilsadvocate]

Give it up DA, HMPL was predisposed to dislike Obama and will parse (i.e., misread) anything he says for ammunition to fortify his preconception.

The eight year Bush administration must have been absolute hell for him.
After all, we had a President who claims that God told him to run and Jesus advised him on the war.
So, in essence, the most powerful man in the world was taking advice from imaginary beings.
HMPL must have been livid for nearly a decade.
Bush was misquoted and misinterpreted just as often as Obama has been. This seems to have been ignored or simply forgotten now he's in the background.

I feel that if you are going to judge a person by their words then you need to judge them on what they said and not what you perceive they are saying "between the lines" because of a dislike of the person or preconceived notion.

HeavyMetalParkingLot even hinted that it was his view of the man that molded his interpretation.




I am sorry but coming from this man, I actually think he believes he has this power. This is birther conspiracy level crazy

[bigboab]

Does anyone in here actually believe what Presidents and PM's say?

Bush: 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7030383.stm

Bush 2010 http://www.thejournal.ie/bush-denies-waterboarding-is-torture-defends-invasion-of-iraq-2010-11/

I saw him on TV tonight saying that waterboarding saved lives in the U.K. and the U.S.A. Personally I am all for torturing people 'caught in the act' to save others. They have no compassion, why should we. If it is war, then you have to fight on their playing field.

[clocker]

I read the following book which had a chapter devoted to effects of the sun-- you know, that thing in the sky that warms up planet earth?-- on global warming...

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
by Lawrence Solomon.

So, your entire approach to global warming is based on the work of a charlatan?
Have you read more widely or is this it?

[999969999]

I read the following book which had a chapter devoted to effects of the sun-- you know, that thing in the sky that warms up planet earth?-- on global warming...

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
by Lawrence Solomon.

So, your entire approach to global warming is based on the work of a charlatan?
Have you read more widely or is this it?

Have you even read the book you are dismissing? I sincerely doubt it.

Science should be open to debate. The scientific method encourages sckepticism, not just blindly following some green ideology with an agenda.

Open your mind, read some books from opposing points of view.

Here are few others I have read...

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor by Roy W. Spencer.

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer


And here are a few scientists who do not agree that there is a consensus on global warming...

From the Publisher
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

And here are some reviews from people who actually read the book...

An excellent portrait of many world-class scientists skeptical of current global-warming alarmism and their reasons for doubt., March 9, 2008
By Lee Madland (Missoula, MT USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so (Hardcover)
To read what is published by most of the popular media, which have jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon almost en masse, one would likely conclude that the matter is settled -- indeed, that is presently the chief claim intended to squelch all argument on the matter. Hardly a day goes by that one interested in the question doesn't hear claims that practically all scientists agree that Global Warming is upon us and that mankind's technological overreach, especially in adding CO2 to the atmosphere, is the primary cause. (And we are seldom reminded of the fact that climate change, often of far greater magnitudes than anything human beings have seen, has been taking place throughout not only all of human history but virtually all of Earth history -- which goes back not mere millions but billions of years before the first humans trod the Earth.)

Lawrence Solomon of Canada's National Post newspaper ably puts the present-day picture into perspective; he focuses on several dozen top-tier scientists in relevant fields from around the world and very readably describes their reasons for doubt on these matters, and never forgets to summarize the scientific facts behind them. While I myself don't yet have a copy of the book, I've essentially read all of it online during the course of last year on the National Post website, in which a new article appeared every week or two. Though Solomon at first set out to write only a few articles on a handful of these "deniers," the more he looked the more world-class research scientists he discovered among their ranks, and somewhat to his own surprise found these were hardly a fringe element but on the contrary at or near the pinnacles of their professions worldwide -- notwithstanding being virtually ignored by much of the media and, importantly, by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But let Solomon speak on this in his own words:

"More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

"My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers [38 at last count], I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

"Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction." ...

"Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings -- some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these ... , I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among [them] welcome the term "denier" -- a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly. ... The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what's called 'the scientific method' and lauded."

In summary, one has to read Solomon's profiles one by one to fully appreciate his fact-based approach, each succinctly and very readably expressed. After finishing the chapters -- which can easily be read either serially or separately in one's own chosen sequence depending on particular preferences or interest -- one will be left wondering how much of the media hype one hears is believable and how much may be gauze either inadvertently or deliberately pulled over one's eyes. At the very least it should stimulate the reader to think about these matters to which many may not have given much attention beyond a bland acceptance of the usual commentary one hears in so much of the media.

Review of Deniers, April 6, 2008
By Walter H. Pierce (Cypress, Tx USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so (Hardcover)
The author, Lawrence Solomon, comes from an "environmentalist" background having worked as an activist against nuclear power expansion and world rain forest protection, and as a journalist or the National Post of Toronto. This book stems from a series of newspaper articles on individual scientists that disagreed in some way with the "conventional wisdom" or "political correctness" of Global Warming, specifically, man's role in Global Warming. It is evident at the conclusion of the book that Mr. Solomon has considerable respect for the 30+ scientists which he has interviewed for the book. There is little question that in Mr. Solomon's words the question of man's role in Global Warming is not settled science.

This is really a remarkable book. The reader is able to take advantage of an author that has been able to converse with a cross section of some of the most outstanding scientists, an author who is obviously devoted to environmental ethics, and an author that can write with the clarity of a experienced journalist. Reading this book is a real education. The scientific questions broached touch on multiple topics in science, ranging from glaciers to malaria, from Antarctic to hurricanes, from low clouds to the Sun and the way the Sun and the planetary system impacts cosmic radiation, from geologic history to the way science is done, and finally to a plethora of scientific approaches to understanding the physics, chemistry, geochemical distribution and history of carbon dioxide in the earth, oceans, atmosphere.

What is important here? Public policy will be formulated on the results of science. One of Solomon's major concerns is that poor public policy stemming from poor science or misinterpreted science will have a negative impact on the world's poor. In addition to the science itself Mr. Solomon is very concerned with the way the results of science are received and acted upon in our political world.

Mr. Solomon treats each scientist with respect, giving each a mini resume. His order of treatment makes pedagogic sense and thematic sense. A real challenge of the book is to cover the scope of the science in a responsible and understandable way. In my opinion he does that admirably and concisely way.

He begins with a discussion of the word, Deniers, explaining its derogatory usage. meaning and emphasizes that most of these scientists do not consider themselves deniers. My sense is that both Solomon and the scientists discussed would have preferred the word Skeptics to Deniers. The word Deniers does set up the context of the book into the tension and edginess, that present circumstances deserve. The first scientist depicted is Edward Wegman, who along with a group of select scientists was asked by Congress to critique the famous hockey stick graph. Selected important graphs and data displays are used in the text with comparisons and unusually complete captions. Each chapter contains references and highlights available articles and their web locations or urls.

After you finish this book you will have a better understanding of how the temperature of the earth is measured and how the temperature history of the earth is approximated. An understanding of the cycle, sources and sinks of carbon dioxide is crucial and selected scientists that have give their life work to study of carbon dioxide in ice, in the ocean, in the earth, in the atmosphere, and in the earths history are reviewed. Does carbon dioxide drive temperature or does temperature drive carbon dioxide? This is the all important question to answer, and must be answered before we attempt to use policy to "correct" global warming. Is the earth really warming or is it beginning to cool?

This is not an easy book to read. Frankly the scope of the science covered in the book is staggering. I will definitely re-read portions if not all of the book. But, because of the clarity of Solomon's language and the importance of the content he has amassed, I will. As scientist, myself, I am very impressed with what Mr. Solomon has done here. Even though this book's mission is to elucidate the view point of the skeptics, I believe this synthesis will help scientists and the public on both sides of the issue.

The book challenges, at the core, the case for man's impact on global warming as a consequence carbon dioxide emissions. Questions are raised as to whether the earth is actually warming. It is pointed out that the temperature record stations are un-representative of the earth's surface with the ocean being under-represented, and that measurements considered to be most representative (satellite-mounted microwave sounding units -- MSU) have not shown a record of warming since initiated in 1979.

There are critical comments about the management and agenda of the IPCC. The IPCC is self described as: "... a scientific inter governmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)" from the IPCC web site. In this book the IPCC stands accused of changing and dictating the conclusions of the scientists doing the work in their own organization. "

And as for the book Heaven and Earth...
Review
'... a damning critique of the 'evidence' underpinning man-made global warming.'—Wall Street Journal

'...a wonderfully comprehensive and fearless book...If there are any willing to hear some truly inconvenient truths on the stampeding advocacy of global warming, Mr. Plimer's book is a collection of some of the sternest.' —The Globe and Mail

'...a brilliantly argued book... /Heaven and Earth/ is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.'—Sydney Morning Herald

'Only a geological perspective can provide a proper view of climate change. Professor Plimer's book does a masterful job of demonstrating that Nature rules the climate, not human activity.'—S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

'...the best book on science and scientists I have ever read.' —Andrew Alexander, The Daily Mail (UK)

'This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book . . . [Plimer] convincingly criticizes the UN, the IPCC, U.K. and U.S. politicians, as well as Hollywood show business celebrities. He strictly distinguishes science from environmental activism, politics, and opportunism.'—Vaclav Klaus, President, The European Union
Book Description
"...a brilliantly argued book... Heaven and Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence."

More in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in green philosophy, May 7, 2009
By Roger McEvilly (the guilty bystander) (Sydney, NSW Australia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Heaven And Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science (Hardcover)
Ian Plimer is a Professor of Geology with a background in mining. He is a strong independent thinker, with a particular flair for interdisciplinary integration and overview, although his books are a bit hard to read. They contain a lot of dense information, but are perhaps weak on highlighting what is more important, and at times a little too emotional and bulldozing for some.

This is a timely book that attempts to survey ALL the basic data and debate related to climate change, rather than cherry-picking solely in the interests of green ideology. The book is very similar to Lomborg's `The Skeptical Environmentalist' (with just as many back-up footnotes-over 2000-so at worst it is at least a useful reference for alterative views and debates).

There are serious claims in this book; a general one being that data and debate about climate change is being suppressed by green ideology. Here are some assertions:

* There is no scientific consensus on the causes of recent (~last 150 years) global warming.
* Data and debate from solar physics, geological, archaeological, and historical circles is ignored in the media and within the political process.
* Gross, unscientific, major distortions of data and debate is occurring, largely due to ideological agendas, and parallels Soviet Union agricultural science and policies.
* Amongst other examples, scientific fraud has been committed with relation to the `hockeystick' graph of Mann et al. regarding temperature in the last ~1000 years, which has been widely circulated (eg IPCC 2001), and which shows distorted temperature trends.
* The influence of changes particularly in the sun, and in cloudiness, cosmic rays and volcanoes on climate changes has been under-estimated.
* There is a correlation between changes in solar activity and earth temperatures, including in the last 150 years of warming.
* Recent global warming since about 1850 is minor and largely not related to human activities, but is being driven by the sun and is part of a natural climatic variation since the Little Ice Age.
* There has been no global warming since 1998 (at May 2009), and analysis of solar activity suggests a natural cooling trend in coming decades, which has already begun.
* Influence of increase in C02 level on temperature in the atmosphere tapers off once a certain level is reached. (Rather than `runaway greenhouse', we have 'atmospheric buffer')
* The `precautionary principle' is not a scientific principle, it is a social and political one (I concur).
* There is no such thing as a `tipping point' in science (I disagree-e.g. the term `catalyst' comes to mind).
* IPCC climate models do not accurately model observed temperature trends since 1998, undermining their projected global warming models.
* Computer models used by the IPCC are `computer games', as global climate trends are too big and complicated to meaningfully forecast.
* The global climate is too big for humans to have any meaningful effect.

The books strength is the variety of data, the weakness is the convoluted writing style. At worst, one might contend that Plimer is guilty of obfuscation, but at least there is a broad overview, including real gems you won't hear from extreme greens:

* the very small size of the Amazon rainforest during the last ice age,
* Strong legal disclaimers about climate projections from the very same agencies that want to enforce major legal changes using such data,
* the strong correlation between sunspots and earth temperature
* solar activity has increased in the last ~few hundred years
* that warm periods in human history generally occur with human prosperity,
* Siberian Soviet-age historical temperatures were fudged below -15C because towns received a vodka levy when -15C was reached,
* Parts of Greenland have been cooling since the early 20th century,
* The US, France, Italy, and UK squabbled over ownership of a new volcano in the Mediterranean in the 1800s, which then promptly sank beneath the ocean (which Plimer hopes will happen to global warming advocates).
* Global temperatures have been warmer on several occasions in the last several thousand years, with no adverse effects, rather, they generally correspond to human prosperity.
* C02 has been much higher in longer geological history, with no adverse effects.
* The use of the `precautionary principle' in banning DDT use resulted in an estimated 40 million deaths from malaria
* Ice is a rock
* Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas
* Many western cities have water shortages because new dams are not being built due to green politics,
* `Being creative and riding the waves of change is the only way we humans have survived', `sustainable living', on the contrary `is such that with the slightest change in weather, climate or politics, there is disease, mass famine, and death'.

Suffice to say in short review, there are some good examples of environmentally-driven distortion and cherry-picking of data, in the worst cases fraud (e.g. Mann's hockeystick), but I suspect, there is also errors on his side.

An example which bugs me: new, unpredictably/spontaneously generated changes and processes can produce large, longer term effects, (classic catastrophism versus uniformitarianism). However, Plimer states: "there is no such thing as a tipping point in science". If I read him right, this shows to me a basic limit of perception (what about e.g. catalysts and saturation points in chemistry?). Charles Lyell, one of the early uniformitarians, couldn't see the `catastrophes' written into rocks that were staring him in the face, (new, unpredictable changes, can produce large scale effects)- and neither could Charles Darwin (one of his few errors of judgement); I suspect that Plimer may have a similar data analysis problem (but this is just my opinion).

All in all a good overview, and although I'm not sure I agree with some of his assertions, I see a lot of value in the books' broader discussion of data and debate than is typically found amongst all the hot air that surrounds and distorts climate science and policy.

[clocker]

Ah, you've learned to cut and paste.
Presumably you've spent a little more time checking your sources than J2 does.

[999969999]

Ah, you've learned to cut and paste.
Presumably you've spent a little more time checking your sources than J2 does.

And that's all you're going to say in response?

Liberals are supposed to be so open-minded, but they are the most closed-minded people of them all.



Brrrrrrrrrr! http://www.accuweather.com/us/az/eagar/85925/forecast-details.asp

[clocker]

Sorry, real life intruded for a bit.
I had just started to google some of the folks on your list.
Ironically, the very first one I checked, Dr. Sami Solanki, now repudiates the evidence used by your comic book and admits that his study doesn't show what he thought it did.

I wonder how many others feel the same way...