Scientists' stark warning on reality of warmer world

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
It's funny, because there's obviously HUGE money in global warming not existing. Yet no one but no one has been able to discount it. Mmhmm. You GW-skeptics can have your "I'm so cool because I'm bucking the trend" circle-jerk, while the rest of us actually support useful causes.
 

teclado

Member
May 26, 2006
41
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Ummm, many of those 2500 "scientists" had little more than a high school diploma. Those that were worthy of being called scientists were added to that list without their consent. That "wacky" video explained this, but evidently you've already made up your mind about global warming, so don't bother watching it.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: Butterbean
They are reading that Mars is getting warmer, glaciers are thickening at the top, polar bear deaths were mis-reported etc
The stuff about Mars warming is BS. Guess how many ice cores we have on Mars.

And I can tell you for sure that we have a LOT less data on Mars' climate than we do of Earth's. Our first records on Earth came from people living here writing down what was going on, well over 100 years ago. Our first good records from Mars started when we put an orbiter there in 1971.


Something else in the Nature.com article:
Paige notes that the data for the study come from two different sources: the albedo map from the 1970s was produced by the Infrared Thermal Mapper onboard the Viking mission, and the more recent map comes from the Thermal Emission Spectrometer aboard Mars Global Surveyor. Perhaps differences between these two instruments might make it inappropriate to compare their data directly, he says.
Two different sources, on probes built over 20 years apart.


Oh, and this:
"The warming on Mars is likely to be seized by climate-change sceptics here on Earth - if Mars is hotting up even without any cars or pollution, then perhaps the Sun or some other natural, Solar-System-wide factor is to blame. But to infer that would be "crazy" says Christensen.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: teclado
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Ummm, many of those 2500 "scientists" had little more than a high school diploma. Those that were worthy of being called scientists were added to that list without their consent. That "wacky" video explained this, but evidently you've already made up your mind about global warming, so don't bother watching it.

You have a link that demonstrates this fact I presume? I'm not sitting thru some propaganda video, link me to the facts, please.
 

Butterbean

Banned
Oct 12, 2006
918
1
0
I just got done reading an MIT professor restating what has become clear to many more people.

"Why So Gloomy?"

By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

"April 16, 2007 issue - "Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentatorsand many scientistsseem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes..

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes downnot upthe more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature risea dubious propositionfuture increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/



That followed an article from a few days ago:

"Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming"

"NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html


Science Daily also had a recent analysis of warming models

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

"Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."


Even the New York Times is running articles about the blatant un-scientific hysteria:

"From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien...1176264000&en=5d2044778a3c3be1&ei=5070

"But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gores central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

I dont want to pick on Al Gore, Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for getting the message out, Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were overselling our certainty about knowing the future."

Even Michael Crichton (a friend of Gore's) said the facts don't support anthropomorphic global warming and that Gore Misuses data - like the UN people do.

The cracks in the "convienient lie" are showing.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
You should know Mars' ice-caps are frozen CO2 gas, not more then inches deep and evaporates in a temperature range measured in hundreths of a degree. It would only take a small change in orbital radius, solar energy, or the sand storm patterns to produce enough heat to melt the Martian poles.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: teclado
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: teclado
*WARNING* The following may present information contrary to the staus quo. View at your own risk.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&hl=en

It's long, hour and sixteen minutes, but it's very interesting.


And if you believe anything in it that shows how gullible, let alone stupid, you are.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

AND

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar...2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

I don't see how your sources are any more credible than mine. It's scientists vs. The Independent and Carl Wunsch. Either side has plenty of reasons to lie. This is starting to look like a "who do you trust more" issue.

Oh, and yes, I am very gullible and stupid because I disagree with your assessment of the credibility of one source over another. My apologies, great omnipotent and liberal-biased news trusting one.

Did you even read it? Durkin who wrote and directed the film even admits he pretty much flat out changed the data to support what he wanted it to.

"Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said."

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

"Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years."

and so on... he made it up, even he says so.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
What evidence is there?

I have never seen any expert on global warming that could back up his claims. Their conversation goes like this:

You are dumb and I am smart and gloabal warming blah blah.
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: piasabird
What evidence is there?

I have never seen any expert on global warming that could back up his claims.

Useless comment of the day award goes to...

 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,515
585
126
We all think we are all so smart until Yellowstone Super Volcanoes and kills us all.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
What evidence is there?

I have never seen any expert on global warming that could back up his claims. Their conversation goes like this:

You are dumb and I am smart and gloabal warming blah blah.

Isnt that..like...every thread in P&N? :laugh:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Your clergy are infallible I see.

I love the transformation of the GW crowd from fring elemtent truely worried about our planet to mainstream religion where people must be converted, you can pay for your sins and be forgiven(carbon credits), and everybody else is wrong and must be silenced.

Of course it has its own version of revelations with floods, disease, and death. And its own insitutions and of course corrupt preachers.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Aisengard
It's funny, because there's obviously HUGE money in global warming not existing. Yet no one but no one has been able to discount it. Mmhmm. You GW-skeptics can have your "I'm so cool because I'm bucking the trend" circle-jerk, while the rest of us actually support useful causes.

That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in this so called debate yet. There is more money in GW existing and scaring the masses to act.

Govt funded research tops billions.
Carbon Credit Business to sell forgiveness for sins is worth billions
Then you have the alternative energy business that gets money through govt worth billions.

If we determined global warming made by man was bogus tomorrow and have the evidence to prove it. All those billions vanish.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Your clergy are infallible I see.

I love the transformation of the GW crowd from fring elemtent truely worried about our planet to mainstream religion where people must be converted, you can pay for your sins and be forgiven(carbon credits), and everybody else is wrong and must be silenced.

Of course it has its own version of revelations with floods, disease, and death. And its own insitutions and of course corrupt preachers.

Nice rant, but as usual you ignored my questions. Where is your coalition of scientists who argue that GW is caused by normal earth climate cycles? Have you been able to gather more than 2 in a room who aren't on the energy company's payrolls? Where are your peer-reviewed articles putting forth an alternate theory? Where's the evidence supporting this alternate theory?

Got anything? Whatsoever?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Your clergy are infallible I see.

I love the transformation of the GW crowd from fring elemtent truely worried about our planet to mainstream religion where people must be converted, you can pay for your sins and be forgiven(carbon credits), and everybody else is wrong and must be silenced.

Of course it has its own version of revelations with floods, disease, and death. And its own insitutions and of course corrupt preachers.

Nice rant, but as usual you ignored my questions. Where is your coalition of scientists who argue that GW is caused by normal earth climate cycles? Have you been able to gather more than 2 in a room who aren't on the energy company's payrolls? Where are your peer-reviewed articles putting forth an alternate theory? Where's the evidence supporting this alternate theory?

Got anything? Whatsoever?

Let me get this straight. You have 2500 scientists who peer reviewed each other's work and called it good I should convert?

And we have already gone over the payroll situation. Politicians pull the purse strings of the majority of funding for climent studies. They need a crisis to push their agenda and grab more power.

btw I dont need 2500 scientists to show the earth has in the past gone through cycles of cold and warm. This has been proven by people on both sides of this debate. If you want further proof go visit northern MN on the north shore. What a beutiful area on lake superior. When you are up there you can read or take tours about the glaciers that used to cover that area upto 2 miles thick over 25,000 years ago. They were so heavy that when they retreated the land is still raising aout 6-12 inches a year.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the earth was much cooler back then, warmed up on its own without the help of fossil fuels, and melted those suckers away forming the nearly 12,000 lakes we have in this wonderful state.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,481
6,694
126
I should think that climate change that happens over thousands of years if very different than climate change that occurs in decades, and that, I think, is the issue.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Your clergy are infallible I see.

I love the transformation of the GW crowd from fring elemtent truely worried about our planet to mainstream religion where people must be converted, you can pay for your sins and be forgiven(carbon credits), and everybody else is wrong and must be silenced.

Of course it has its own version of revelations with floods, disease, and death. And its own insitutions and of course corrupt preachers.

Nice rant, but as usual you ignored my questions. Where is your coalition of scientists who argue that GW is caused by normal earth climate cycles? Have you been able to gather more than 2 in a room who aren't on the energy company's payrolls? Where are your peer-reviewed articles putting forth an alternate theory? Where's the evidence supporting this alternate theory?

Got anything? Whatsoever?

Let me get this straight. You have 2500 scientists who peer reviewed each other's work and called it good I should convert?

And we have already gone over the payroll situation. Politicians pull the purse strings of the majority of funding for climent studies. They need a crisis to push their agenda and grab more power.

btw I dont need 2500 scientists to show the earth has in the past gone through cycles of cold and warm. This has been proven by people on both sides of this debate. If you want further proof go visit northern MN on the north shore. What a beutiful area on lake superior. When you are up there you can read or take tours about the glaciers that used to cover that area upto 2 miles thick over 25,000 years ago. They were so heavy that when they retreated the land is still raising aout 6-12 inches a year.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the earth was much cooler back then, warmed up on its own without the help of fossil fuels, and melted those suckers away forming the nearly 12,000 lakes we have in this wonderful state.

I'll take that as a "No, no I don't have jackshit."
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
This whole debate is little different from the evolution vs. creationism debate. Science, fact, evidence, scientific theory vs. faith, hearsay.

I'll take Peer Reviewed for $800, Alex.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Your clergy are infallible I see.

I love the transformation of the GW crowd from fring elemtent truely worried about our planet to mainstream religion where people must be converted, you can pay for your sins and be forgiven(carbon credits), and everybody else is wrong and must be silenced.

Of course it has its own version of revelations with floods, disease, and death. And its own insitutions and of course corrupt preachers.

Nice rant, but as usual you ignored my questions. Where is your coalition of scientists who argue that GW is caused by normal earth climate cycles? Have you been able to gather more than 2 in a room who aren't on the energy company's payrolls? Where are your peer-reviewed articles putting forth an alternate theory? Where's the evidence supporting this alternate theory?

Got anything? Whatsoever?

Let me get this straight. You have 2500 scientists who peer reviewed each other's work and called it good I should convert?

And we have already gone over the payroll situation. Politicians pull the purse strings of the majority of funding for climent studies. They need a crisis to push their agenda and grab more power.

btw I dont need 2500 scientists to show the earth has in the past gone through cycles of cold and warm. This has been proven by people on both sides of this debate. If you want further proof go visit northern MN on the north shore. What a beutiful area on lake superior. When you are up there you can read or take tours about the glaciers that used to cover that area upto 2 miles thick over 25,000 years ago. They were so heavy that when they retreated the land is still raising aout 6-12 inches a year.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the earth was much cooler back then, warmed up on its own without the help of fossil fuels, and melted those suckers away forming the nearly 12,000 lakes we have in this wonderful state.

I'll take that as a "No, no I don't have jackshit."

QFT...I mean, what else can this type possibly say?

"I feel it in my bones, that I know more than thousands of experts...please love me."

Which would have been less annoying at least.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To the fine gents who reject GW as a man-made condition, I have one question: Where are your 2,500 scientists packing empirical data that can be peer-reviewed?

Oh yeah, you don't have any. :laugh:

What you DO have are wacky videos and the occasional oil company shill willing to spew whatever line of BS you've already dreamed up as the cause of GW.

Good luck with that.

Your clergy are infallible I see.

I love the transformation of the GW crowd from fring elemtent truely worried about our planet to mainstream religion where people must be converted, you can pay for your sins and be forgiven(carbon credits), and everybody else is wrong and must be silenced.

Of course it has its own version of revelations with floods, disease, and death. And its own insitutions and of course corrupt preachers.

Nice rant, but as usual you ignored my questions. Where is your coalition of scientists who argue that GW is caused by normal earth climate cycles? Have you been able to gather more than 2 in a room who aren't on the energy company's payrolls? Where are your peer-reviewed articles putting forth an alternate theory? Where's the evidence supporting this alternate theory?

Got anything? Whatsoever?

Let me get this straight. You have 2500 scientists who peer reviewed each other's work and called it good I should convert?

And we have already gone over the payroll situation. Politicians pull the purse strings of the majority of funding for climent studies. They need a crisis to push their agenda and grab more power.

btw I dont need 2500 scientists to show the earth has in the past gone through cycles of cold and warm. This has been proven by people on both sides of this debate. If you want further proof go visit northern MN on the north shore. What a beutiful area on lake superior. When you are up there you can read or take tours about the glaciers that used to cover that area upto 2 miles thick over 25,000 years ago. They were so heavy that when they retreated the land is still raising aout 6-12 inches a year.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the earth was much cooler back then, warmed up on its own without the help of fossil fuels, and melted those suckers away forming the nearly 12,000 lakes we have in this wonderful state.

I'll take that as a "No, no I don't have jackshit."

I get this vision of a child sticking his hands over his ears when he is presented with something he doesnt like.

Anybody who denies the earth goes through cycles of warm and cold is living in a different reality.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Of course I'm not denying the earth goes through cycles of warm/cold, but that wasn't my challenge to you, now was it?

[It's been shown that the recent temperature swings have been off the charts when compared to the climate record extracted from ice core samples.]
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Of course I'm not denying the earth goes through cycles of warm/cold, but that wasn't my challenge to you, now was it?

[It's been shown that the recent temperature swings have been off the charts when compared to the climate record extracted from ice core samples.]

Off the charts? The sea levels have been higher in the past than they are now, which seems to indicate warmer temperatures.

lets take this a step further. Lets assume everything you say is correct. How much does burning fossil fuels contribute overall? Is it 10%, 50%, 100%? If we stop consuming fossil fuels how much in terms of temperature and sea level rise can we stop?

What is the global temperature supposed to be? Warmer? Colder? The current temperature? I am assuming if it is warmer, you would want to help contribute to getting to that magical temp?

And if we dont do anything how long do we have until the worst case scenario?

 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
DealMonkey,
Why don't you respond to those who do post information? Are you trying to ignore this post?

Originally posted by: Butterbean
I just got done reading an MIT professor restating what has become clear to many more people.

"Why So Gloomy?"

By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

"April 16, 2007 issue - "Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentatorsand many scientistsseem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes..

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes downnot upthe more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature risea dubious propositionfuture increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/



That followed an article from a few days ago:

"Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming"

"NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html


Science Daily also had a recent analysis of warming models

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

"Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."


Even the New York Times is running articles about the blatant un-scientific hysteria:

"From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien...1176264000&en=5d2044778a3c3be1&ei=5070

"But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gores central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

I dont want to pick on Al Gore, Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for getting the message out, Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were overselling our certainty about knowing the future."

Even Michael Crichton (a friend of Gore's) said the facts don't support anthropomorphic global warming and that Gore Misuses data - like the UN people do.

The cracks in the "convienient lie" are showing.

No one really even argues that man and CO2 have an influence. Everyone questions the degree of influence and the results. So you say that is going to be catastrophic. Well, what happens if we cut emissions in half, will it still be catastrophic? What about 1/10? 3/4? The problem is, it is very difficult to predict. If there was sound data strongly indicating that we needed to reduce fossil fuel emissions by 1/2 or else half of life on the world would die, I'd be all for it. The problem is there are no details, only vague threats, there's going to be a catastrophe and we're all going to die! Science isn't very useful until it can provide quantitative information. So long as the predictions remain as qualitative as they are, they produce very little useful input for policy change. Sure, we should cut fossil fuel consumption. I've never met anyone that doesn't think that would be a good thing. But government passing policy stating we are going to cut fossil fuel emissions isn't going to do a thing. Until we have quantitative data indicating how much, how fast, and the consequences of failing, the science doesn't do a lot of good. That is why we refer to people like Gore as alarmists. They proclaim hellfire and brimstone when there is absolutely no quantitative data to support the claims they are making. There are broad statements, increased temperatures lead to more extreme weather, ice caps melting, rising oceans, etc. But show me a study that states, If we decrease fossil fuel emissions by x percent, warming will decrease by y percent, and storm intensity will only increase by z percent. Then, I'll complain that government isn't acting on the science. Until that point, the science cannot contribute significantly to government making appropriate changes.