My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« On yer bike, mate | Main | Is NOAA in denial too? »

Comments

CM

Still waiting for your correction Ian, so you can avoid further accusations of being deliberately misleading.....

>>>>Of course I was happy to use the Maktoob story to have some fun at Gore’s expense. I’ve already said this.<<<<

And we've already explained how that makes no sense.

>>>>His Inconvenient Truth was littered with errors, many of which I’ve dealt with in Air Con and Air Con the video, and more of which were dealt with by a British judge.<<<<

Poor attempt at distraction. You can't have dealt with many if it was less than the judge (who found 9 'errors', with 'errors' simply being statements that could be arguable). You've either not read the actual judgement, or you're being deliberately misleading yet again. Which is it?
I'd be willing to bet a significant amount of money that your book contains at least five times as many 'errors' (using the same definition). We already know Plimer's book is riddled with them.

>>>>And for all of you poor outraged Al Pollo Loco followers<<<<

Typical. And boring. Pointing out obvious ridiculousness and how you've shown yourself to be a Gore alarmist doesn't make anyone a Gore lover. It's simply not a binary exercise Ian.

>>>>Greenland would take at least a thousand years to melt enough to raise sea levels 6-7 metres. Not ten years. Not a hundred years.<<<<

Source? (Please don't say 'Air Con')

>>>>Antarctica is still 40 degrees C below zero and can’t really be honestly accused of “melting”.<<<<

Warming is happening - how it affects specific areas is complicated. It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomenon. The Antarctic Peninsula in Western Antarctica has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century".

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=91

Over the last few years, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites have been able to comprehensively survey the entire ice sheet. Using measurements of time-variable gravity, Velicogna 2007 determined mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet from 2002 to 2005. They found the overall mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year (equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year). Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Also check out Zhang 2007.

CM

>>>>Yep - until the politicians and strident professional protestors stay away and let the science be debated by real scientists under the gaze of the public I will be suspicious. Only a fool trusts a politician. Ian, right or wrong, is a necessary balance in this shambles because there's no real debate in the MSM.<<<<

Um, science has and is being continually 'debated' by the scientists in the most transparent way it's even occured. Via peer-reviewed pubished research in journals. WTF are you talking about?
Ignore the politicians by all means. They're only there to determine and implement public policy after being informed of the science. Deniers/skeptics always need to rely on conflating the science from the politics though. There is a good reason for that.

CM

>>>>The fact that any of you a defending such a shameless liar as Gore is proof enough of the lack of integrity among AGW believers.<<<<

As a purely intellectual exercise (not being much of a Gore fan myself, but endlessly interested in the arguments and Gore Derangement Syndrome), can you refer me to these 'shameless lies'?

Shunda barunda

"Um, science has and is being continually 'debated' by the scientists in the most transparent way it's even occured. Via peer-reviewed pubished research in journals. WTF are you talking about?"

The peer-review process has had some glaring failings of late and is clearly not the rock of truth you suppose.
The sciences are slowly but steadily being corrupted as "truth" becomes more relative than absolute.
Enter a massive political incentive for a certain position and bingo, the truth becomes confused and largely irrelevant to the debate.
There is no moral high ground that scientists can hold over anybody else, science wars anyone?

CM

Um, I never said the process was 'the rock of truth' or anything of the sort.

Can you support that theory with evidence? You're essentially accusing thousand and thousands of scientists of being, at best, unprofessional or, at worst, incompotent. I'm afraid you need some pretty hard evidence to back that up. So what have you got?

The BBC environment editor invited people to submit examples of supressed science and got nothing of any substance back.

If the research doesn't stack up, then scientists can point out why. It's all there in the open.

I agree that scientists don't hold any 'moral ground'. Morality is irrelevant to science.

Shunda barunda

CM, in a field such as the climate system of a planet there are huge holes in our understanding of such a complex system. While certain areas of research will be legitimate they cannot be considered the final word on the subject.
AGW is an attempt to be the final word (the science is settled?)when it is nothing of the sort, it is just a possibility.
When combined with political ideals and enviro-socialism we have an interesting mix of agendas, political forces fill the vacuum of knowledge very nicely.

CM

>>>>While certain areas of research will be legitimate they cannot be considered the final word on the subject.<<<<

Who has claimed anything was 'the final word'? That's a misrepresentation.

>>>>AGW is an attempt to be the final word (the science is settled?)when it is nothing of the sort, it is just a possibility.<<<<

That makes no sense at all. AWG can't be an attempt to be anything. And you're misrepresenting 'the science is settled'. Find the quote and context.

The comments to this entry are closed.