An inconvenient Truth -- update

The movie is quite good. And at the end one of the suggestions to reduce
our personal carbon load is to ride our bikes to work!

rms

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few
decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in
the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National
Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

Quoted message said:

"The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last
year over surface temperature reconstructions published by
climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The
researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in
the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past
thousand
years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest
decade, and 1998 the warmest year.

So does Gore deplore his own administration's abominal record? Fascinating.

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few
decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in
the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National
Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

Bush is getting old?

Sorni said:

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few
decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in
the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National
Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

Err, that's not what it said. At all. Essentially - what it said is:
"In the last 400 years that we have *good* data for, it is now warmer
than it has ever been." Full stop. It's not making inferences (which
other reports do) about what the other data they have says for any time
longer than 400 years ago.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
It seems a little silly now,
but this country was founded as a protest against taxation.

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few
decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in
the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National
Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

Reading and comprehension not on your top ten list of qualities.
Self expression is.

JP said:

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last
few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable
period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the
National Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

Reading and comprehension not on your top ten list of qualities.
Self expression is.

There's a reason they picked 400 years you know. (Hockey stick...yeah,
right.)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sorni said:

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few
decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in
the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National
Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

^^^^^^

errmm ... I think you meant to say: "cooler".

Anyways, AIUI there is quite comprehensive expert concensus that
global warming is indeed currently taking place. The dispute is
over the cause -- human or natural.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sorni said:

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last
few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable
period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the
National Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

^^^^^^

errmm ... I think you meant to say: "cooler".

No. If the earth is warmer today than at any time in the last 400 years,
that certainly /implies/ that some time before that the earth was warmer
than today. (Otherwise, why didn't they say 600 years? Or a thousand
years?)

Quoted message said:

Anyways, AIUI there is quite comprehensive expert concensus that
global warming is indeed currently taking place. The dispute is
over the cause -- human or natural.

Indeed. And also whether unprecedented (many "real" scientists say not).

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyways, AIUI there is quite comprehensive expert concensus that
global warming is indeed currently taking place. The dispute is
over the cause -- human or natural.

Indeed. And also whether unprecedented

It is certainly unprecedented on an Earth where climate change will so
profoundly effect so many people.

Quoted message said:

(many "real" scientists say not).

"Real" scientists don't make inferences in public.

RichC

"Dane Buson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sorni said:

Peter Cole said:

<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676>

"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings,
boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few
decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in
the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National
Research Council."

So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating.

Err, that's not what it said. At all. Essentially - what it said is:
"In the last 400 years that we have *good* data for, it is now warmer
than it has ever been." Full stop. It's not making inferences (which
other reports do) about what the other data they have says for any time
longer than 400 years ago.

They did go farther than 400 years, but not in the direction Sorni
implies -- there's weaker evidence that it's warmer now than any time in the
last 2000 years.

See for instance,this AP headline for the same NAS study: "Earth hottest
it's been in 2,000 years "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming_11

"Sorni" wrote: (clip) If the earth is warmer today than at any time in the
last 400 years, that certainly /implies/ that some time before that the
earth was warmer than today. (Otherwise, why didn't they say 600 years?
Or a thousand years?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point.
Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence.
Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same trend.

Besides, there are clear scientific explanations for what is going on, that
are consistent with the observed data. Trying to ignore global warming is
like pretending you don't feel the pain of a cancer--sure, you can fool
yourself for a while, and then it's too late.

Rich Clark said:

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyways, AIUI there is quite comprehensive expert concensus that
global warming is indeed currently taking place. The dispute is
over the cause -- human or natural.

Indeed. And also whether unprecedented

It is certainly unprecedented on an Earth where climate change will so
profoundly effect so many people.

Climate changes happen pretty rapidly in geological terms. There's
absolutely nothing unprecedented about the current warming trend, and
certainly no indication (much less proof) that mankind is responsible for
it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(many "real" scientists say not).

Quoted message said:

"Real" scientists don't make inferences in public.

Huh? I'm not even an unreal scientist. However, many /genuine/ ones
disagree completely with this current global warming fad.

I just saw a small segment of an Al Gore interview (as much as I could
stand). It was absolutely comical when the interviewer quoted professors,
researchers and other /true experts/ and all ol' Al could say was "they're
wrong". He might as well have followed with "I'm Al Gore" as his offer of
proof.

But hey, we'll all know when the earth melts in, what, *10 years*, right?!?
LOL

Leo Lichtman said:

"Sorni" wrote: (clip) If the earth is warmer today than at any time
in the last 400 years, that certainly /implies/ that some time
before that the earth was warmer than today. (Otherwise, why didn't
they say 600 years? Or a thousand years?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that
point. Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong
evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates
the same trend.

Another /possibility/, Leo: they picked 400 years because that was a "cold
point", making the infamous "hockey stick" graph look much more forboding
than is really the case.

Quoted message said:

Besides, there are clear scientific explanations for what is going
on, that are consistent with the observed data. Trying to ignore
global warming is like pretending you don't feel the pain of a
cancer--sure, you can fool yourself for a while, and then it's too
late.

I'm not disputing that we're in a warming trend -- only that it's nothing
special, and not caused by man.

In the 70s they were decrying the coming Ice Age, fergawdsake...

BS

"Leo Lichtman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sorni" wrote: (clip) If the earth is warmer today than at any time in
the last 400 years, that certainly /implies/ that some time before that
the earth was warmer than today. (Otherwise, why didn't they say 600
years? Or a thousand years?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point.
Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence.
Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same
trend.

400 years ago Al Gore said we would be past the point of no return in 410
years, then he went out and invented the Internet. And that's where to 400
years came from.

"Leo Lichtman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that
point.

Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence.
Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same
trend.

I think that's an aggressive characterization of the report, based on my
reading of the executive summary, including a chart going back to 1000 A.D.,
that plots the results of a half dozen secondary theories for establishing
probable temperatures before 1600.

The Report labeled only as "plausible" the argument that the medieval "warm
period" (whose existence is likely but whose extent is difficult to
establish) was cooler than today. No effort was made to argue a long term
trend. It was fairly clear that there was a distinct cooling period for 150
or more years prior to 1850.

More recently, there was distinct warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from
1940 to 1970, and warming from 1970 to 1998; those 1998 temperatures haven't
since been equaled. As another poster has noted, by the 1970s, some
"experts' had seen enough "global cooling" to predict a coming ice age, with
30 years data to support them. (30 years during which a lot of fossil fuels
were burned, BTW). I'm not in a hurry to embrace the equally speculative
assertions of today that go in the opposite direction. But it's a plausible
enough theory to provide a reason for bike commuting, as I do, though I'd be
lying if I said global warming was a big factor in my decision to do that.

Sorni said:

Another /possibility/, Leo: they picked 400 years because that was a "cold
point", making the infamous "hockey stick" graph look much more forboding
than is really the case.

The movie shows data going back thousands of years (obtained via ice
core samples from the antartic). The evidence of global warming is very
convicing.

You might not believe now, but I'm guessing if you're still around in 20
to 25 years you'll believe then, if not much sooner.

Rich

Rich said:

Sorni said:

Another /possibility/, Leo: they picked 400 years because that was
a "cold point", making the infamous "hockey stick" graph look much
more forboding than is really the case.

The movie shows data going back thousands of years (obtained via ice
core samples from the antartic). The evidence of global warming is
very convicing.

You might not believe now, but I'm guessing if you're still around in
20 to 25 years you'll believe then, if not much sooner.

So what if a panel of -- let's be conservative here -- 20 highly respected
scientists and climatologists and researchers said unanimously that the
movie is pure hysteric [censored]? Would you even listen, or is YOUR mind made
up?

Let's discuss it in 20-25 years...

BS

Ron Wallenfang said:

"Leo Lichtman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that
point.

Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong
evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but
indicates the same trend.

I think that's an aggressive characterization of the report, based on
my reading of the executive summary, including a chart going back to
1000 A.D., that plots the results of a half dozen secondary theories
for establishing probable temperatures before 1600.

The Report labeled only as "plausible" the argument that the medieval
"warm period" (whose existence is likely but whose extent is
difficult to establish) was cooler than today. No effort was made to
argue a long term trend. It was fairly clear that there was a
distinct cooling period for 150 or more years prior to 1850.

More recently, there was distinct warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling
from 1940 to 1970, and warming from 1970 to 1998; those 1998
temperatures haven't since been equaled. As another poster has
noted, by the 1970s, some "experts' had seen enough "global cooling"
to predict a coming ice age, with 30 years data to support them. (30
years during which a lot of fossil fuels were burned, BTW). I'm not
in a hurry to embrace the equally speculative assertions of today
that go in the opposite direction. But it's a plausible enough
theory to provide a reason for bike commuting, as I do, though I'd be
lying if I said global warming was a big factor in my decision to do
that.

So where's the criticism of Clinton for that toasty 1998? (Was that the
summer when all those mostly poor and black Chicagoans died in a summer heat
wave? You know, the kind of thing that would cause all manner of outcry
today with you-know-who in office?)

Oops, sorry. It was 1995:

http://thomasgalvin.blogspot.com/2005_09_08_thomasgalvin_archive.html

http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_08_12_a_heat.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/19/134917.shtml

http://katrinacoverage.com/tag/bill-clinton/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sorni said:

So what if a panel of -- let's be conservative here -- 20 highly respected
scientists and climatologists and researchers said unanimously that the
movie is pure hysteric [censored]?

I don't think "20 highly respected scientists and climatologists and
researchers" would use the words "pure hysteric [censored]." It would blow
their respectability.

--
*Help Animals, the Earth and Your Health! *
*Find out how:* www.VeganStarterPack.com <http://www.veganstarterpack.com/>