You actually said "it was a "movie" that strengthened my determination that we have a problem and we need to act,"

Sounds to me like it moved you...


Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

It was a report written by someone high up in the NAS that was presented in a congressional hearing.


I take the conclusions of a "team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences." And the actions of Mann and the others that worked with him shows they were hiding something.



They are not false, the chairman of the NAS and several others validated McIntyre.

That didn't show me anything and if it was true, Briffa would have replied to McIntyre that 'I've already given you the data, quit bugging me.' But he didn't, the email trails listed on his site show this.



These graphs were used by Gore and others in your camp as proof of how CO2 drives temperature. I've asked a few people that have seen the movie what they thought those graphs meant and they told me (I'm paraphrasing) that when Co2 changes, temperature changes. They were shocked and somewhat in a state of disbeleif when I told them that the temperature changes hundreds of years before the CO2 changes. Now imagine the millions of others who have seen it (including school kids with malleable minds of mush) and not knowing that temperature changes first. These people are getting a mistaken impression.

You call that science? I don't, I call it fraud

They show a strong correlation to temperature driving CO2.

Those graphs were used by your side to give the mistaken impression that those Co2 changes were driving temperature. The fact is, they temperature drove those CO2 changes.


What I recall was that he had a whole lot more data available to him and when it was all used (instead of the choice trees), it gives a lowering of temperature.


I agree that there are other proxies and am not ignoring anything, just pointing out McIntyre's findings with those tree rings.



Yet CO2 emissions have continued to increase while the last 10 years shows a slight cooling trend. There are obviously other factors in play, for example, perhaps there are negative feedbacks?

And as far as the strength of CO2 being well understood, your side keeps changing the doubling power of CO2 and each time, it gets lowered. It's been lowered something like 5 times already.

Of course I have a political beef, there's a political component to AGW. The proposed schemes to reduce AGW are all leftist type schemes that involve redistribution of wealth and global management of the world's resources. I can't let these things coalesce without informing people who want to live in a free market society with minimal government.


That's why I said "it's almost as if."

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

Its all moot anyway, the hockey stick shape has been affirmed multiple times since, using multiple proxies, and has passed the peer reviewed checks and balances.

Its clear you have a beef, there is just no significance to it.


Yes, it showed you quite clearly a post from McIntyre's website where he says he had the data all along.

Again, disputes over ownership and access to data are common, its all been cleared up now and it did not prove anything. What is your point?


I'm not quite understanding how you talking to ignorant people proves that there is a fraud in the science. How the science explains the lag is fully in line with the theory of AGW.

I found a transcript of the movie and here is what Gore said in regards to the graph:

"When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside."

http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/blog/g...Transcript.pdf

What he said is absolutely true. Perhaps your problem is that he did not acknowledge the lag or the complex relations of feedbacks when he discussed the graph. Can you blame him? I mean your an adult and you can't seem to understand, me-thinks the average movie goer would have been equally confused had he lauched into a discussion on the finer points of the science.

But I don't see a lie anywhere in what he said. Perhaps you can point out to me where you think he lied?

for those who want a better understanding in regards to the lag:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)


My side is the science and the science never said what you are claiming here. The science has always said that the temperature change came first and then the CO2 rose, causing even further warming as a result of the feedback. This is quite clear in the graph. What you consistently fail to understand is that CO2 is both a result of higher temperatures and a cause of higher temperatures. This has been well documented in the science for years. Long before Gore's movie.

So why do you continue to make all these false accusations?

And he has been shown to be wrong, again. The entire data set confirms Briffa's result. Not that it matters anyway, the result is confirmed by multiple proxies and multiple lines of evidence that have nothing to do with graphs. Recent studies in the arctic show this very clearly.

A strong La nina just ended, the sun plays a role, and there are other ocean cycles that contribute to both cooling and warming in cyclical periods. All of this is superimposed onto the changes we have made to the atmosphere and the land over the course of the last century. No negative feedback has yet been confirmed or detected, other than global dimming due to particulate matter from industrial and airline emissions. The important thing to note is that last ten years are still warmer than the previous ten years.

Climate scientists do not consider anything shorter than ~30 years to be a long term trend.

Climate sensitivity is different than the radiative strength of CO2 as it exists in our current climate. You are incorrect about it being lowered constantly, its hovered around the 3 degree celsius mark for a doubling of CO2 for quite sometime now. The uncertainty is due to our lack of knowledge on the complete set of feedbacks that result from temperature increases @ 1 degree Celsius, 2 degree Celsius, and so on. Many climate scientists are now thinking that the actual long term climate sensitivity is much higher than 3 degrees celsius. This is due to positive feedback mechanisms. Nobody expected the arctic and greenland to melt so quickly and for the methane to begin escaping from the permafrost so suddenly. This has caused the climate sensitity to be revised upwards.

Sure, inform away, just quit misrepresenting the science. I does not bother me that you have an issue with the political response to AGW. I care only about the science of AGW and what we can do about it. I don't agree with cap & trade either, not because i care if some developed world wealth is transferred to the non-developed world, but because i don't think it will actually reduce our CO2 emissions.

You should read this book:

Climate Cover-up: Amazon.ca: James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore: Books

It will help you understand how and why you have been bamboozled by former tobacco industry lobbyists and paid liars into believing AGW is some sort of hoax or that there is a fraud being perpetrated. It names names and it backs up everything with the documented evidence.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Not really. to put it another way, nothing in the movie changed my opinion that I already held. But I felt the movie would be a good motivator for action and discussion.

__________________
The bush administration and bank lobbyists proudly killing our economic system - 2003.

The chairman of the NAS validated McIntyre's findings. It's significant.

Yet McIntyre still was asking for it and Briffa was still stalling. And it's not just Briffa, it's other people and organizations that have held back data and code.


He used those graphs because they give people the impression that those CO2 changes were driving temp changes. The fact is, the CO2 follows temperature in those graphs. Everybody I talked to that had seen the movie comes away with the mistaken belief that CO2 drove temperature.



Every thing I have ever read on AGW (up to a few years ago) never said the temp changes first. In fact, I was often shown or referred to those ice core graphs as proof of the power of CO2. No site or scientist ever said temp came first. If they did, I wouldn't have downloaded an ice core graph of CO2 and temp and enlarged it to check pixel by pixel to see what was coming first.


Just recently saw a slide from Lord Monckton that had 5 revisions for the doubling power of CO2. Each time, it was revised downward. It had the dates, people, and revisions.

I still don't believe the science of AGW is solid. I've told you that past (up to 500 million years ago) CO2 and temperature data show CO2 had no effect on temperature, in fact the temp was low when the Co2 as high and the temp was high when the CO2 was low. Those ice core graphs do not show the power of Co2, rather they show that some external force is causing warming and when the external forcing stops, the temp drops, then the CO2 drops. I don't dispute that there is some warming from the higher CO2 but it's only a small fraction of the external forcing. And isn't it odd that when this external forcing stops, the higher CO2 levels can't override the cooling effect.
On top of this, the activity of the sun increased over the latter part of the 1900's, we saw global warming on mars, and now the sun is quiet and the ice is growing in the Arctic and the earth is starting to cool.


I've got a few books on the docket right now:
The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever
David Rockefeller: Memoirs
Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment
The First Global Revolution


And as far as being bamboozled, don't you find it interesting that the US Chamber of Commerce want's to air this out in a courtroom while your side doesn't want to? You would think with the tens of billions of dollars spent by your side and the vast majority of scientist in consensus, your side would want to take this up and slap our side down.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007