ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 09/17/2014 03:32 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Science
Prostate Cancer Risk Higher for Bald Men
NASA to Launch 3D Printer Into Space
Study: Children Who Learn an Instrument May Be Better at Language Comprehension
"Extreme" Solar Storm Heading for Earth
Marijuana-Smoking Teens 60 Percent Less Likely to Finish School
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you support stricter gun laws?
  Latest Events
09/17/2014 12:52 PM
Michael Bettua receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Rare Blood Type May Increase Dementia Risk'
09/17/2014 12:49 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Psychology Professor Pleads Guilty in Slaying of Alleged Rapist'
09/17/2014 11:58 AM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Prostate Cancer Risk Higher for Bald Men'
09/17/2014 11:40 AM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Eva Mendes and Ryan Gosling Become First-Time Parents'
09/17/2014 10:42 AM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Apple to Launch New Operating System, iOS8, on Wednesday'
09/17/2014 10:16 AM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Audi Gets First Permit to Test Self-Driving Cars in California'
09/16/2014 06:55 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Kanye West Halts Concert After Disabled Fans Wouldn´t Stand up'
09/16/2014 06:54 PM
Valkyrie123 receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Kanye West Halts Concert After Disabled Fans Wouldn´t Stand up'
  1.097 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/15/2011 08:43 PM ID: 90503 Permalink   

Conservatives Beat Chests Over Gore´s Climate Speech, But He´s Right

 

Fox News and others in the conservative movement pounced on Al Gore´s impassioned speech against climate change deniers (ShortNews reported), repeating the same misleading claims Gore decried in his address in Aspen.

The science is on Gore´s side, though. Houston Chronicle science writer Eric Berger wrote, "The notion that there´s a significant debate about this fundamental view of climate science is just wrong." He said disbelievers should talk to scientists.

"I have," he added. "There are very few active, publishing scientists who do not believe elevated levels in greenhouse gases from human activities are primarily responsible for rising temperatures during the last century."

 
  Source: newmexicoindependent.com  
    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  15 Comments
  
  there is no climate debate  
 
There is no debate there is one group trying to explain and address a situation and another group sticking there fingers in their ears and saying it not happening ´nanannananna´. This is simply a group of very rich trying to keep their prerogatives to the detriment of everyone else (Unfortunately this group also pays for advertisements to convince fools and there are no shortage of those)
 
  by: veya_victaous     08/16/2011 12:13 AM     
  It´s a Scam  
 
CO2 is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living things and even comes from nocturnal emissions by plants. It forms the bubbles in your soda, wine and beer. Standard air has 370 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which 93% cmes from natural sources which are all beyond human control. These sources include decomposition of organic matter, exhaling by living things and volcanic vents, which is by far the greatest atmospheric source. The climate change hoax is based on faulty science.

Our democracy depends on informed consent. Informed should not be limited to lies told by a political movement. When the full scope of the scientific errors involved in this hoax are exposed everyone will realize this has been the greatest folly since the flat earth theory. We deserve a real debate. In this case, the truth will be very inconvenient. http://www.infowars.com/...

[ edited by antihec ]
 
  by: antihec   08/16/2011 11:50 AM     
  Yes  
 
CO2 is needed, but that doesn´t mean that there should be a lot of it the atmosphere.

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/...
 
  by: Kaleid   08/16/2011 11:59 AM     
  @antihec  
 
that carbon dioxide exists is not at issue here;

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth´s atmosphere is approximately 391 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. 40 years earlier, the rise was only 0.9 ppm/yr, showing not only increasing concentrations, but also a rapid acceleration of concentrations.
 
  by: jamesmc   08/16/2011 12:10 PM     
  God is in control  
 
1) Carbon dioxide is neither toxic, nor pollutant. Its emission is an inevitable and necessary result of any combustion with composites of carbon (oil refined, coals, natural gas, etc). It is also an essential gas to life on earth because when they breathe, all living beings inhale a mixture of oxygen and CO2, and then exhale the latter.

2) There is no evidence that CO2 emissions of anthropogenic origin (i.e., man-made, which excludes all other natural emissions of this gas) have any significant effect on global warming. Many scientists consider that the human contribution to global CO2 emissions occurring on the planet is absolutely negligible.

3) Empirical data has shown that the renowned global warming foreseen by computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not been happening since 1998. So, opportunistically, they have changed the expression "global warming" – which no longer corresponded to the factual truth – to the more ambiguous term of "climate change" (which always existed throughout the history of the Earth).

4) Computer models are themselves unreliable. The modelling theory tells us that, to be useful, models should be relatively simple, with a limited number of variables. Trying to apply modelling to the climate is a pathless effort because then the number of variables (and the assumptions that have to be made) is huge. In climatology, little use can be obtained from computer modelling, no matter how powerful the computers may be (although the same does not apply to the weather forecast).

5) It becomes even worse if a bad method such as computer modelling is based on an obsolete theory. This is precisely what is happening with the climatologic models used by IPCC, designed in the early twentieth century (thus, before the existence of Meteorological Satellites). The modern climatologic theory was established by the great French scientist Marcel Leroux (1938-2008), from the Université Jean Moulin in Lyon. Professor Marcel Leroux´s opinion about this supposed warming is summarized in his article "A scientific sham ":
http://www.revuefusion.com/... (French)
http://resistir.info/... (Portuguese)

6) The IPCC is not an organization of scientists but of bureaucrats appointed by governments and usually well-paid. It is a lie that the IPCC has three thousand scientists specialized in climate, as has been so often proclaimed. And it is also a lie to say that there is a "scientific consensus" in regard to the heating dogma.

7) It would not be bad for mankind if there was some degree of global warming on Earth. Many regions of the world would start having fruitful farming. Greenland, for example – the "Green Earth" as the Vikings called it – had agriculture in the Medieval Warm Period. One might even say that the cradle of Western civilization on Earth was in an extremely hot land: Mesopotamia (now Iraq) between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Egyptian and Aztec civilizations flourished in warm climates.
 
  by: antihec   08/16/2011 12:33 PM     
  Yeah God..sigh  
 
Now there´s a helpful tool to find out reality. Faith is useless, especially in laboratories.
 
  by: Kaleid   08/16/2011 12:40 PM     
  @antihec  
 
I heard that God drives a hummer, that true?
 
  by: jamesmc   08/16/2011 01:32 PM     
  @antihec  
 
"even comes from nocturnal emissions by plants"

Wow! I didn´t know plants had those too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/16/2011 02:55 PM     
  @ veya_victaous  
 
There is a climate debate just as there is a debate in quantum physics. Widely accepted scientific theories have been proved wrong throughout history.

Science doesn´t shun debate, it welcomes it. Science also doesn´t ignore data just to promote a certain theory.

But that´s exactly what the IPCC´s global warming theory does. They don´t take into account major climate changing factors like cosmic rays.

And then they want intelligent people to believe that their theory is the correct one?

Considering they censor at least one major climate changing factor from their theory, just about the only thing a scientific minded person can believe about their theory is that it remains incomplete.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/16/2011 06:41 PM     
  @QA  
 
"There is a climate debate just as there is a debate in quantum physics."

Not on the basics of the theory -- that man-made greenhouse gases are warming the planet. There are disagreements as to how much, what precise mechanism or how soon we´ll see the effects, and how severe the effects will be. But there is no serious disagreement that anthropogenic global warming is happening. If you disagree with that, please provide a link to one peer-reviewed scientific paper that contends that either global warming isn´t happening or that man is not the cause.

"Widely accepted scientific theories have been proved wrong throughout history."

The key word being "history." The nature of science itself has changed dramatically, particularly in terms of the sheer size of the scientific community and the introduction of peer review, which tends to debunk bad science much more quickly than was done in the past.

"Science doesn´t shun debate, it welcomes it. Science also doesn´t ignore data just to promote a certain theory."

See again the quote I´ve posted from skepticalscience, which nails the true nature of this so-called AGW skepticism:

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn´t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming."

That´s absolutely right. That is what every so-called skeptic of AGW does, particularly on SN.

"But that´s exactly what the IPCC´s global warming theory does. They don´t take into account major climate changing factors like cosmic rays."

The IPCC isn´t the sole source of AGW research. That´s not how science works these days. You have scientists from many different countries double- and triple-checking the work of other scientists. The IPCC is no more of a monolithic global warming oracle than is Al Gore.

"And then they want intelligent people to believe that their theory is the correct one?"

Let me ask you this -- have you ever even entertained the notion that AGW theory is correct? Because I, for my part, have looked at every serious attempt to debunk it I could find.

"Considering they censor at least one major climate changing factor from their theory, just about the only thing a scientific minded person can believe about their theory is that it remains incomplete."

No, the debate is over. There are smaller debates yet to be settled and finer details yet to be discovered, but the basics of human-created climate change are known and well-proven.

The irony of this is that the science isn´t even really that difficult. I offer as proof of this:

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/16/2011 10:16 PM     
  Many of the skeptics  
 
shouldn´t be called that but instead called denialists.
 
  by: Kaleid   08/16/2011 10:20 PM     
  Water Isn´t Toxic...  
 
...but can kill you.

http://www.snopes.com/...

The man in the sky is out to get us...lol
 
  by: teapublican   08/16/2011 10:45 PM     
  @ antihec  
 
Are you really as dumb as you appear to be??? I only ask because i find it hard to believe that you believe your own statements.
 
  by: incubusphan   08/17/2011 12:14 AM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
"Let me ask you this -- have you ever even entertained the notion that AGW theory is correct?"

* Haha of course I have. You act as if I were a mental midget. In fact, I used to argue for and defend the IPCC´s theory here at shortnews.

For example (in the comments section):

"Even if we stopped all pollution and greenhouse gas emissions now, it will still rise past .8 degrees. Anyone with any intelligence on this issue understands that what we´re seeing is a huge change in temperature on a global scale. Only 6 degree increase may wipe out the human race. This isn´t even taking into consideration an increase of 1,2,3,4, or 5 degrees which are progressively damaging and deadly. We´re about 1/6th of the way to our destruction. The time is now to do everything humanly possible to stop this increase. Our survival as a species may depend on it."

http://shortnews.com/...


I later found that I was largely being influenced by all the global warming media hype and not hard science. I want hard proof, not more hype or speculation.


----------------------

In a couple areas either I didn´t make myself clear enough or you didn´t understand what was written. So I´ll add to what you responded to.

There is a climate debate just as there is a debate in quantum physics. That means no matter how small the dissent from other scientists, the dissent remains (naturally, as the IPCC theory has not been proved).

Widely accepted scientific theories have been proved wrong throughout history. In the late 1800´s there were many in physics who thought just about everything about physics had been discovered. Then someone named Albert Einstein came along and turned physics on its head.


---------------


"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn´t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming."


* While some may do that, I disagree with this because it´s too generalized. I am sceptical of the IPCC theory because it´s unproven and incomplete, but I do not deny scientific findings. I want the plain truth, not hype or speculation.

----------


"No, the debate is over. There are smaller debates yet to be settled and finer details yet to be discovered, but the basics of human-created climate change are known and well-proven.

The irony of this is that the science isn´t even really that difficult. I offer as proof of this:

http://www.youtube.com/...



* No the debate is not over and that´s ridiculous. When the debate is over, science instantly subsides and dogma takes over.

I agree that we´re likely warming the earth, but the earth is not some glass jar like in that video. It was recently found that more heat was escaping from the atmosphere than predicted.

It was also recently found that cosmic rays have a significant impact on global temperature, something which the IPCC theory doesn´t account for at all.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/18/2011 03:41 PM     
  Insane  
 
This is plain and simple. Despite anyone´s views on the upcoming questionable increase in temperatures, the fact shows that man kind can effect the environment. Just look at Egypt. Look, quibbling over who said what is stubborn. We need to change the way we live. Food is becoming more scarce. Animals are faces habitat changes that will ultimate be there doom. I sat in 110 degree weather in NYC and slept on a bag of ice as a pillow this year. Things are warming up. Who cares where its coming from, "Global Warming," "Cyclonic Inevitable Weather Change," who cares. Its a fact. If we don´t decide to change the way we live, its gonna be the end of the way of life that we have seen for so long. Can anyone on here tell me that money isn´t an issue now? These are issues that fall in the same realm. Energy waste is a major problem and is directly related to this subject. Re use, energy capture, and active food production needs to occur, immediately. I don´t understand the passion in most of Western Society to sit around and argue with each other over who said what nonsense. If this is what you like go talk on the View, or talk at the next local Tupperware party. For me, I actively pursue reuse, guerilla gardening, water collection, and any other inventive aspects of current technology. While you girls are arguing about your cup size, I am actually putting money where my mouth is. If each one of you closed the loop on your life (ie Cradle to Cradle), you would start having a net gain in your life instead of a negative impact. I frankly could careless what Al Gore has to say, but I do like that he is making an attempt. His direction might not be the best, but at least its for good intentions. Next time your in NYC, look out on the city and ask one simple question "Why is it not green?"
 
  by: quirkdee   08/22/2011 05:42 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com