global Warming          
  Oceans are heating,
  not the atmosphere
   

  atm stable since 1998
  What about Argo       
Earth Needs More CO2
 
Background Science Explained
     
Gary Novak

Global Warming:
Home
Crunching the Numbers
Absorption Spectra
Explanations
Oceans not Rising
Future Ice Age
Acid in the Oceans


Summary in Simple Words

Stefan-Boltzmann

Fake Equations—Fudge Factor

"Delicate Balance" Fraud

Heat-Trapping Gases

Firing Scientists

Thermometer Fraud

Fake Ice Core Data

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate

Climategate

Second Climategate

The Disputed Area

IPCC Propaganda

The Water Vapor Fraud

Back Radiation is Absurd

The 41% Fraud

The 30% Fraud

A Fake Mechanism

Global Dynamic

River, not Window

What about Argo

Heinz Hug Measurement

Hockey Stick Graph

Ice Melt


 

 

               

Review:
An Inconvenient Truth

(Al Gore’s movie claiming humans are the cause of global warming)

By Gary Novak

 

Al Gore trivialized the science of global warming in his movie and told us what a dastardly thing global warming is. He mentioned ice melting on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa, polar bears drowning in the Arctic and mosquitos flying farther north carrying malaria in Africa. Africa and the Arctic. The western world is spending trillions of dollars for that— 2 or 3 polar bears which might have drowned over the past 10 years, wildflowers instead of ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro and theorized malaria in Africa. If one tenth that amount were spent to solve problems in Africa, it would be a prosperous continent capable of solving its own problems.

If Al gore were telling us something about politics, maybe there would be a reason for it. Instead he is telling us something about science. He's the last person who needs to be telling us something about science. He's never studied an iota of science in his life, and he's exploiting the subject for money and power.

We can determine the worth of Hansen's* claims a lot easier without Gore telling us what to believe. If Gore were trained in science, he might be describing evidence instead of propagandizing the subject. Even the worst of scientists wouldn't think of making the claims of their stooges such as Gore.

And that's where his function enters the subject—he and nonscientists in the media butcher the subject in a way scientists dare not. It even applies to Hansen, who has to take up politics and sociology, because his claims are too absurd for the context of science. So Gore plays the scientist, and Hansen plays the politician.

Gore's basic procedure was to skip over the details of the science as if they were unquestionable fact and focus on dramatizations of consequences. That's crass propaganda. If a drowning polar bear is relevant, why isn't the extinction of Orangutan's due to biodiesel more relevant?

*(James Hansen—NASA scientist and chief global warming propagandist)

 

Society used to be highly educated in science. The largest part of university education used to be science, and high schools used to be totally functional, which included a heavy dose of science.

So why is someone who has never studied an iota of science spearheading the subject of global warming for society? Because "fools rush in where wise men fear to tread." Global warming is too complex and incongruous of a subject for anyone who knows anything about science to be speculating on. Al Gore doesn't know that. He assumes that any whim will do in drawing monumental conclusions on global warming.

Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. He politicizes what appears to be a majority view in science not having the slightest ability to determine the reliability of the information which he is given.

Persons who don’t have a background in science tend to assume that the first thing they encounter in science must be unquestionable fact. They don’t understand how treacherous science is.

Science explores the boundaries of knowledge in abstract areas. At the operating front of science, knowledge is extremely illusive.

The supposed majority view of humans causing global warming which he describes as total is nothing of the sort. Opposing scientists have been intimidated into silence. In 1998, before there was much publicity on global warming, 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying humans are not the cause of global warming. (External Link) Since then, scientists have been intimidated into silence. But a few are coming back into the open and speaking out.

Recently, Marc Morano, staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, published a list of 400 scientists who are speaking out against the propaganda claim that humans are the cause of global warming. (Source Page at Senate EPW)

Al Gore referred to the Naomi Oreske’s study of 2004 which reviewed 928 published articles in science and found that 75% promoted the human cause of global warming, 25% were indifferent and none claimed humans were not the cause. To Al Gore, none means none. That’s the difference between propaganda and science. None does not mean none in science. The quality of the study determines the validity of the conclusion. What the none really means is that bureaucrats refuse to fund scientists who do not promote their agenda of proving that humans are the cause of global warming. (See How Firing Works.)

The first item mentioned in Al Gore’s movie is sun rays striking the earth and humans preventing the rays from reflecting back into space due to a “thickening of the atmosphere.” That isn’t what happens. There are no sun ray frequencies which would go into space without human activity. In fact, there is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, as I explain in much detail elsewhere.

Greenhouse gasses absorb all radiation available to them in a few meters of distance. More greenhouse gas only shortens the distance. For analogy, a thick sheet of plastic does nothing more than a thin sheet of plastic.

There are two other major points of science which he mentions. One is whether oceans will rise 20 feet, and the other is whether ice core measurements prove that humans are the cause.

Nothing is easier to spin than predictions of weather including how ice might melt. So the movie produced more spin than fact on ice melting. One point was the melting of an Antarctica ice sheet. Ice over oceans has been melting rapidly—in fact, much more rapidly than Al Gore said it would. But this shows that it is not humans which are the cause. Warm ocean currents are the cause, and neither humans nor greenhouse gasses have the ability to add that much heat to ocean currents that rapidly.

Over the past few years, warm ocean currents have shifted, so ice is now accumulating around Antarctica and disappearing rapidly around the Arctic.

During the sixties, a concern was that oceans were rising, not due to greenhouse gasses but the natural warm-up between ice ages, and if ocean currents were to go over the Bering Strait, they would melt the Artic ice and trigger another ice age—not due to greenhouse gasses but due to the natural cycle between ice ages. That’s exactly what is happening now.

The movie focuses on ice melting and forming pools of water on both Antarctica and Greenland. The water then lubricates the flow of ice into the oceans. Actual measurements show that this effect is minimal at this time—ocurring near the shore—and is being counter-balanced by accumulating ice farther inland. (See Oceans not Rising.)

This is not to say what might happen in the future. Wild things happen during ice age cycles. This is saying that, one: existing evidence shows only seven inches of ocean rise per century, and, two: whatever happens down the road, it won’t be caused by humans putting carbon dioxide into the air, though it could be cause by dumping iron into the oceans and turning them into a cesspool, or flooding space with reflective materials which can‘t be removed, etc.

Gore describes ice core measurements as if they were a fine tuned instrument. In truth they are witchcraft to a point of fraud. (See Ice Core Measurements.) Ice core measurements supposedly show a major jump in atmospheric CO2 correlating with human activity. But more reliable evidence, which includes actual measurements in the atmosphere going back more than a century, show just as much CO2 in the atmosphere, with many variations, going back before human industrialization. See 30% Fraud

Al Gore’s movie put a political spin on a version of science which is too imaginative. That version of science relies upon weak and misleading evidence which needed to be evaluated against more reliable evidence, which is gradually occurring over time showing point after point that the human cause of global warming is an incorrect assumption. (See Recent Letter by Scientists to IPCC.)

The over-all problem with Al Gore’s approach is that he does not consider evidence of the causes for the effects which he mentions. He assumes there could be no other cause than humans putting carbon dioxide in the air. Assuming without evidence is a misrepresentation. It’s the difference between propaganda and science.

He mentions insects migrating, diseases developing and glaciers melting, as if they could not be caused by anything other than increased carbon dioxide in the air. Those forces are always changing. Insects are always migrating; diseases are always flaring up someplace and glaciers are always increasing and receding. Other critics and recent science have shown that there are other explanations for each of his points.

Criticisms

Criticism is needed wherever there is controversy; yet promoters of the global warming fraud do everything possible to prevent criticism from occurring claiming the science is settled while degrading opponents to a point of trying to criminalize opposition.

Real criticism is always valid, contrary to frauds who pretend that only the most qualified persons can criticize. Criticism adds evidence and logic, while truth always increases through the interaction of objective realities. The only problem is stepping out of the objective realm and into the subjective realm, which results from attack upon opponents.

In other words, Al Gore would need no qualifications to criticize on the subject. His ignorance would only reflect upon himself without corrupting the subject. But he does the opposite; he promotes the subject.

To a large extent, promoting a subject is the opposite of criticism, and it is more or less always a corruption generally qualifying for the label propaganda. It may seem so normal, but Al Gore and the promoters of the carbon dioxide fraud show how corrupt promotion is.

A proper representation is not a part of such promotion. A proper representation would be to explain, but promoters don't explain. Instead they use impressions, which are extreme in Al Gores visual antics.

Properly representing a subject is a social responsibility. Nonscientists cannot properly represent science. They could justifiably criticize, but there is no justification for the tactics they use to force the carbon dioxide fraud down everyone's throats.

It's not just that nonscientists are too often wrong; it's that they don't grasp the standards and purposes of science until they have studied it at a serious level. Real scientists know that every study has a different degree of quality, reliability and informativeness. An awful lot of study is needed to evaluate those factors.


Here's criticism of the finer details of the movie by Kristen Byrnes


Global Warming Main Page

 

           
 
scbr