050383421ed89bb14697…

via: Ace (Who’s site is fucked up right now…)
Global Warming Loon of the Day Winner is… Dr. McPherson:
Dr. McPherson has a bachelor’s degree in forest resources from the University of Idaho, a master’s degree in range sc…

It’s been a while since we’ve seen a completely meaningless gesture on behalf of the unsinkable global warming consensus. As such, it’s my pleasure to announce that the next meaningless gesture will occur… last Saturday?

Oops.
…

I think most people understand what he was trying to say, but the fact remains (and even snopes agrees) that Gore said he created the internet.

Politicians are routinely mocked for saying something incorrectly. I don’t see why Gore should be treated differently here.

Esthier on March 28, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Because we aren’t politicians.

The quote usually associated with him is ‘invented’ – which he most definitely did not say.

Vint Cerf went so far as to say that Gore had a huge part in the internet becoming what it has become.

There is the obvious lie (Hillary and head-ducking running), and the slightly skewed boast.

I’ve exaggerated many a times about little things and big things – often times in the heat of the moment I go a little bit overboard. We are humans, regardless of what you think of Gore, Bush, or anyone in between. If we cannot even allow fellow humans the slightest little boast … then we are truly lost.

People told me I had to watch his movie. I said I refused to give my money to Gore for his propaganda. So a friend actually paid me to watch the flick. It was exactly what I expected… a bunch of images of ice bergs melting with no evidence to demonstrate how mankind is responsible. When it came to that point all he did is show a graph of CO2 and temps moving up in tandem and say the “relationship is very complicated.” What he left out… temps go up first, then CO2 rises because the oceans released more CO2 when it’s warmer. That’s why they move in tandem. I guess he left that fact out because it was inconvenient.

That might be a little demeaning(as Al put it) to Gore and his merry band of “Chick Little” followers, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander….;-)

Thanks.

The movie shows glaciers calving into the water as Gore discusses the effects of warming on the glaciers. But don’t glaciers always calve into the water when they end there?

WALT: Yes, glaciers and ice streams that terminate over water are called tidewater glaciers. They are always calving ice into water; these chunks are one source of icebergs. If things are in equilibrium, there is no loss of ice because what is calved off is replaced by snowfall further up the glacier.

This is from a supporter of man-made global warming theories.

It’s logical that a growing glacier has to calve. Otherwise it would just extend out into the ocean as it grows. When I looked around, I saw lots of theories tying calving to warming, but if you read carefully they all were built on top of assumptions that weren’t proven.

Global temperatures have stopped rising in the last decade, contrary to the models. Ocean temperatures haven’t risen, contrary to the models. Atmospheric water vapor hasn’t risen, contrary to the models. The models haven’t been able to explain past temperature observations, much less 100 years into the future. Yes, there’s some warming going on, but the models can’t tell us why yet. Al Gore sure can’t, but he sure can make money off of his movie, lectures, and carbon credit trades.

Which is that you have a principled position on the issue of global warming: “I hate Al Gore”.

Not everyone who supports AGW thinks that Gore is helping. Frankly I’d prefer people who make incautious statements (like, say, Steve Schneider) stay as far from my research programme as possible.

Not sure I feel like defending Mr. Wood here, but that quote is taken WAY out of context. Gore was basically saying he was helping the internet reach its maturation … which is 100% true. More here: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

A Axe on March 28, 2008 at 1:04 AM

I think most people understand what he was trying to say, but the fact remains (and even snopes agrees) that Gore said he created the internet.

Politicians are routinely mocked for saying something incorrectly. I don’t see why Gore should be treated differently here.

That’s funny. I never knew that. Got a link? I’m not challenging you, I just would like to be able to quote this fact and have a source for it.

29Victor on March 28, 2008 at 3:00 AM

Vic

Take a look here http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html Even the liberal rag of the NYTimes
“Scientists who study the warming seas and complicated climate and ice trends around Antarctica got a big jolt in recent days as yet another great fringing, floating ice shelf jutting from the Antarctic Peninsula began to disintegrate.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf appears to be following a pattern seen in other parts of the peninsula, which has warmed markedly in recent decades and shed other fringing ice shelves. In each case, the removal of ice around the periphery seems to allow inland ice to move more readily toward the sea. While the floating shelves don’t raise the sea level, the interior ice can, in the long run.
Still, the frozen continent, being a continent, is exhibiting a broad array of climate conditions, with some parts cooling and adding ice through accumulated snowfall, and others, like the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, potentially poised to lose large amounts of ice to the sea in coming decades. In the meantime, the thin floating veneer of sea ice that forms each austral winter and fades in summer has been larger than usual lately, in contrast to the sharp summer sea-ice retreats in the Arctic.

Simply put, the earth is changing…AGAIN. We have had ice ages and warming trends in the past but unlike then, we have technology which can help mediate the effects on man.

Many people refer to the fact that China, India, Pakistan, even parts of the US are experiencing drought…anyone remember the period of US history known as the dust bowl? Or the fact that there is a limited supply of natural resources in any given area and perhaps China, India, and Pakistan have populations which simply have overburdened those resources?…No, wait, I’m channelling Al…my bad…it’s ALL global warming.

What’s that tell ya’?

It’s hard to believe that some Democrats are actually proposing giving Gore the nomination in a brokered convention. What are they thinking???

NuclearPhysicist on March 28, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Well, he could run on having the most energy efficient Presidential campaign ever…it required no expenditures whatsoever.

As a scientist, I find the current trend in the scientific community toward consensus-mongering to be disturbing. I would rather believe in a flat Earth model.

“I feel kinda bad for him. I don’t think he has any friends.”

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

-Michael Crichton