Canadian Weather Community Forums

This page describes some 35 errors made by Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth".http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...rrors.html

Interesting , makes you re-think some of what we have been hearing.
Thanks for the link Shawn :)

There in back to the same problem. That particular site has perceived 35 errors. I know with in a couple of minutes I could probably find some other organization to refute those 35 errors. Then another group to refute that one..........etc.

As I said this thing is getting way too political.
The issue is so complex that even science can not mutually agree.
Then on top of that let the politicians in the ring, at that point it is not only the weather that operate on chaos theory.

Indeed, the more I read the article, the more I realize it was biased. Some of the errors still have merit, though.

Thanks for the link Shawn, I am not going to argue one way or the other about what's in that article, but who wants to make bet it was a 'closet' republican who wrote that? :rolleyes:

The guy who wrote it is the 3rd viscount Monckton of Brenchley, certainly a wealthy and an important sounding title (he probably is a British conservative). I do agree CSM, most Republicans do not believe climate change is a problem, most likely because it puts pressures on big business, but I think that it is healthy that there still is some debate over the issue so that we don't overreact. The economy is a very sensitive thing, and we are already seeing some signs of trouble with skyrocketing oil/gas prices and now even food prices are starting to skyrocket. We need to make sure that the transition to more renewable forms of energy does not leave the less wealthy nations behind, because of the costs of such technology.

Absolutely, I could not agree more.

Again I totally agree.

Much of this is being blamed on climate change, and to a point I will agree it probably is.
However, a lot of it is being fueled by profit taking and speculation on futures markets.
You have to admit that the fuel prices are basically out of control. It is such now, the market will react to such
things as perceived threats. If they simply think something will happen it will have a direct reflection on the price of fuel.
This is insane, and I think to a point quite risky.

There are no if ands or buts ; there will have to eventually be a transition to alternate energy forms.
The problem I am having with this is the general perception most are having regarding energy.
I think there is a general consensus they want to keep the same lifestyle and just do some sort of energy shift.
Unfortunately, there will be a point at which this will not work, because of global population and our good old 'laws of thermodynamics'.

Take hydrogen for instance. It's not free. Yet so many think that this is the key to the future.
You can split it from the oxygen atom using lithium which is totally prohibitive for any quantity, or use an electrical current.
The power to accomplish this on large scale has to come from power plants.
If there is heavy loads put on them, then they have to ramp up their output. This then equates to higher fuel consumption and more CO2 and other pollutions into the atmosphere.
Many of theses 'so called' alternatives are not all they seem to be. They may work for Western ideologies and good profit margins, but energy wise they are no better and sometimes worse than we have now.

"Conservation of energy"


I'll leave this alone, it's a whole other (interesting) topic.
I'll have the moderators whipping me.;)




It is sort of looking to me that some of these 35 errors are on a bit of 'thin ice'. Although I am still not sure if Gore is using this to try to gain some political leverage or is genuinely concerned for the planet.
Things are being twisted on both sides here.
I have heard the argument here and other places that in the 70s the thought was we were going into global cooling. Many are using that premise today and saying it was all wrong, so don't trust the global warming crowd.
Point is (as far as I know) the science was totally correct and there is no secret today for the reasons.

In the early 70s we were quite an affluent society. Building booms, automotive heaven and gadgets coming out our ears.
Crude was cheap, coal was cheap and in general everything was cheap.
Industry was going full tilt. Problem was they were using cheap coal (high sulfur content), cheap crude (high sulphur).
There was much sulphur aerosol pumped into the atmosphere (that's why we got into kaka with acid rain).
The sulphur in the atmosphere also reduced the amount of sunlight, thus making a slight temperature drop.
When regulations came into effect to counter this problem the atmosphere drop the excess sulphur and the temp started to climb again.
So, science was right all along and picked up the temp differential. The same way now it is looking at a warming trend.

As opposed to the 35 errors my personal view that this will continue for some time yet. The temperature rise being both anthropogenic and natural. Just like a wavefunction sometime I think the changes we make only tend to raise the amplitude of the natural ones.

I may appear biased here but I really am not. I try like h*ll not to take either side, just call the game the way I see it.
I agree I think the 35 errors are definitely skewed to one side.


Ron

Thanks for your input and knowledge Ron. Great opinions. I agree , the seventies were booming ,...and at that time , that is all that mattered. Big cars with big engines ,....as you say , new stuff being built. Now I guess we are paying for some off that.