Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle

[Greybird]

MSK wrote:

> Let's do it this way because you seem to be resistant to my point and insist on attributing

> all kinds of things to me that I did not say and do not think.

I'd appreciate one actual example of this, Michael. As to what I have actually "attributed to you" incorrectly, forthrightly, on a substantive issue. (And not hypotheticals, as to "if this, then that.") I can only go by, and describe, and evaluate, what you have said.

As for "your point"? I can't discern very clearly what "your point" is. It's entirely fuzzy. It seems to be in the nature of not liking the state of rhetoric on all sides, but I can't even be sure of that. You appear to be disdaining all "forms" of discussion as such, and simply protesting that you're misunderstood, with little to nothing as to specifics.

> [...] Do you see any redeeming value at all in Gore's film?

That's really an indeterminate question, as such. Value to whom and for what? (As, again, The Lady asked long ago.)

I'm still not convinced that you want open discussion — or, at least, not as yet — but I'll respond anyway.

To Gore? Certainly. It's garnering him, as has been true of his parasitical ways all his life, unearned prestige. Starting with "Gore's film," which is a misnomer. He neither produced it nor directed it, nor did he receive that Oscar. He was the star performer, such as it was. Yet it's also keeping him, for now, off the government payroll. (Until politically linked "carbon offsets" pour corporate CYA money into his businesses.)

To raising the profile of this issue? Not really. Again, he's being a parasite, and not a particularly efficient one. The politicized scientists in and supporting the IPCC (again, read what I linked to, if you would) are getting much more bang from their coerced bucks, as to inadequate attention to research canons and glossing over the limitations of computer models. Media types dote on Gore out of his being a photogenic and familiar face as to these controversies, not out of assessing his personal competence.

To the general public gaining genuine enlightenment about this issue? No. What he marshals as evidence omits context and, again as to vivid but inaccurate graphs, provides dramatic images at the expense of detail. Nothing is admitted, as genuine scientific inquiry does, about plausible alternative explanations. No debate is undertaken. It uses emotional appeals as substitutes for discussion. It makes a political peroration that is both dangerous, in how his prescription tramples on individual choices, and astoundingly hypocritical.

To those who are parasites or propagandists, or who want to shape the debate without keeping a strict fidelity to openness and thoroughness, it's quite valuable. To those who are wanting to obtain a genuinely objective view of the controversies, it's worse than valueless, as it actively misleads where it doesn't bore the viewer silly. (Or at least this one.)

Edited March 25, 2007 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

> [...] Do you see any redeeming value at all in Gore's film?

That's really an indeterminate question, as such. Value to whom and for what? (As, again, The Lady asked long ago.)

I'm still not convinced that you want open discussion — or, at least, not as yet — but I'll respond anyway.

To Gore? Certainly. It's garnering him, as has been true of his parasitical ways all his life, unearned prestige. Starting with "Gore's film," which is a misnomer. He neither produced it nor directed it, nor did he receive that Oscar. He was the star performer, such as it was. Yet it's also keeping him, for now, off the government payroll. (Until politically linked "carbon offsets" pour corporate CYA money into his businesses.)

To raising the profile of this issue? Not really. Again, he's being a parasite, and not a particularly efficient one. The politicized scientists in and supporting the IPCC (again, read what I linked to, if you would) are getting much more bang from their coerced bucks, as to inadequate attention to research canons and glossing over the limitations of computer models. Media types dote on Gore out of his being a photogenic and familiar face as to these controversies, not out of assessing his personal competence.

To the general public gaining genuine enlightenment about this issue? No. What he marshals as evidence omits context and, again as to vivid but inaccurate graphs, provides dramatic images at the expense of detail. Nothing is admitted, as genuine scientific inquiry does, about plausible alternative explanations. No debate is undertaken. It uses emotional appeals as substitutes for discussion. It makes a political peroration that is both dangerous, in how his prescription tramples on individual choices, and astoundingly hypocritical.

To those who are parasites or propagandists, or who want to shape the debate without keeping a strict fidelity to openness and thoroughness, it's quite valuable. To those who are wanting to obtain a genuinely objective view of the controversies, it's worse than valueless, as it actively misleads where it doesn't bore the viewer silly. (Or at least this one.)

Steve,

Thank you for that reply. Your position is clear. Frankly, this is the message I have been receiving in general from my (our) side.

I saw Gore's film and I did not get that impression at all (well, some of it made my antenna wiggle). I am very much attuned to hype and slick presentations from having lived in Brazil where they are masters at this sort of thing, so I do not think lack of familiarity with global warming is the only issue with my impression.

Let me be clear. I have nothing wrong with a person arriving at the conclusions you did and I might even arrive at them myself. What I did not like was this position contradicting what I saw with my own eyes, when that position is all I have relied on for my own information.

I don't blame anybody for arriving at their own conclusions. I blame myself for putting my trust in others without getting first-hand information. I took the conclusions of others as fact because I agree with most everything else with them. This is what made the shock so strong.

Like I said, I will view both films once again, taking notes, and present my honest views. I am doing this for myself because it is a great place to start and will give a method to the madness. I also think discussion of the points, both good and bad, can be fruitful for anyone who wishes to join in.

From the outset, at this moment, I cannot agree with your appraisal after viewing the film myself. Nor do I agree with a similar appraisal of The Great Global Warming Swindle from the other side (and I have read a few doozies). I intend to do what I am doing with Islam: getting the facts on the table in a balanced manner and seeing what is what (I have another very good thing coming on that).

Then I will make my own evaluation and know that it is from my own mind.

Michael

[reason.on]

RCR

[reason.on]

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19358

Two of the worst deceptions in "An Inconvenient Truth" involve the global temperature record and rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Gore walks across the stage as red lines plot temperature and CO2 concentrations, showing a close correlation across many years and a rapid increase in the past century. It is a triumph of data manipulation.

Viewers can't tell from the film whether temperature increases follow or precede rises in CO2. If they precede, then Gore's entire thesis is disproved. In fact, the historical record shows temperature increases often have preceded increases in CO2. No mention of that inconvenient fact in this movie.

Viewers also can't see the scales Gore is using for his graph. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over time, but by only 87 parts per million since 1870 (according to the United Nations Environment Programme). If the vertical scale of Gore's graph started at zero, the increase would have been too small for viewers to see.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

Nicolas Caillon,12* Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,2 Jean Jouzel,1 Jean-Marc Barnola,3 Jiancheng Kang,4 Volodya Y. Lipenkov5

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (~240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'd appreciate one actual example of this, Michael. As to what I have actually "attributed to you" incorrectly, forthrightly, on a substantive issue.

Steve,

Just so you don't think I am avoiding the issue, I already gave you an example of one thing you incorrectly attributed to me.

There is an enormous difference between "pretty good overview of the pros and cons" (my words) and "'objective' in-depth resource" (your opinion of what I think).

There are quite a few other examples, but I prefer not to get into them. This kind of thing usually degenerates into quibbling, "I said, you said," then bickering.

I don't want to go there. Let's stay with the ideas in themselves.

Michael

[reason.on]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html

Executive summary: Al Gore's new book and movie, both titled An Inconvenient Truth, have been hailed by environmentalists--despite being filled with false or misleading claims about the science of global warming and related issues. This page details errors in the book (2006, Rodale Books), which in summary include:

• Misleading links between weather events and climate change: Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action: a European heatwave, record daily highs in U.S. cities one summer, hurricane Katrina, floods in Europe and China, and more. To address the issue of climate change, all such events must be considered over time. As it turns out, in several cases such analysis refutes any claims of recent trends (for example, with regard to floods).
  In other cases, the scientific community is engaged in much research and debate. Gore claims that there is "an emerging consensus" that hurricane activity is on the upswing due to global warming. The reality is that this is the subject of much debate in the scientific community: different researchers have produced contradictory conclusions, but the factors involved are far more complex than Gore admits, and research is continuing.
  
• Misrepresentation of data: Of the various graphs and other data Gore presents, some of it is misrepresented. Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies. The broader claim is questioned by many scientists as well--much research suggests that temperatures around 1100-1300 AD were about as warm as today--as well as the methodology used to support such claims. Gore uses another set of ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide concentrations have driven global temperatures for the last 600,000 years. He admits the actual relationship is "complicated", which is as close as he comes to admitting the fact that the temperature changes came first, and probably helped drive the carbon dioxide changes.
  These aren't the only cases of sloppiness with data: Gore claims the hottest year on record was 2005, but in reality existing observations don't have the accuracy to discriminate between, say, 2005 and 1998, a hot year due to an extreme El Nino event. He claims that the increasing closures of the barrier's on Britain's Thames River show sea level is rising, but doesn't mention that the British government recently changed the rules for such closures, including closing the barriers to deal with low sea level; and he claims that a particular bird species is "in trouble" in the Netherlands due to climate change, but researchers report no change in this bird population. He cites a peak in tornadoes in 2004 as further evidence, but this peak came from new technology permitting the counting of more weak tornadoes than ever before; comparison of consistent data shows no trends in tornadoes.
  
• Exaggerations about sea level rise: Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community. Most research indicates that such melting, even if it could occur, would take 1,000 to 5,000 years; the minimum timescale described by any researcher for such melting is still centuries. Even the United Nations' IPCC, source of the "consensus" analysis which still overestimates future warming, only predicts sea level rise of 0.1 to 0.8 meters (4 to 30 inches) in the next 100 years.
  
• Misleading claims about effects of climate change: Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate. Even in the case of malaria, a disease with a stronger link to climate, health experts cite the management of human infrastructure and health systems as far more important factors. In other cases Gore neglects the strong influence of human resource management, as with linking occurrence of wildfires or pest outbreaks to global warming. He also claims global warming is causing a "significant" number of polar bear drownings, based on a report of four drowned polar bears; however, other researchers report the polar bear population is generally unchanged. Melting of glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro and in Glacier National Park are cited as consequences of global warming, but in both cases these glaciers have been melting since the 1800s, when the Earth emerged from a period of global cooling.
  
• Reliance on worst-case scenarios: An underlying problem is that Gore seizes upon worst-case scenarios and presents them as fact--sometimes omitting important qualifiers. Much of the claims about the consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the correct ones. More generally, climate change should be considered at the regional or local level, where impacts would variously be positive or negative--especially depending on how we choose to respond. Gore consistently discusses the most negative impacts, and even minimizes the possibility of positive change.
  
• False claims about scientific views on global warming: Gore asserts that the scientific community is in essentially unanimous agreement with his interpretation of global warming, and dismisses skepticism of global warming as an energy industry conspiracy. Not only are such claims false, they severely misrepresent the very process of science. Gore cites a flawed editorial from a science journal to claim that all published research agrees with the "consensus" view on global warming; in reality, much published research contradicts Gore's position on global warming, and a recent survey of climate scientists found the community fairly split on the claim that there is an imminent threat from human-caused global warming. Despite the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific community--and can't even get the facts right on those. To add insult to injury, Gore repeatedly impugns the motives of scientists and non-scientists who question his "consensus" on global warming. Rather than confront the scientific facts, he stereotypes the critics and dismisses them based on imagined motives.
  
• Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States: Gore says the United States is particularly to blame for the claimed global warming crisis, but doesn't give a fair view of the issues. He makes misleading comparisons of fuel economy standards in the U.S. and other countries; also, he criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. He also understates the economic adjustments required to attain the goals he sets.
  
• Conceptual errors: Gore's explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors. He may indeed have a correct understanding of these issues, but what he communicates serves to perpetuate misconceptions on these subjects. Combined with the low reading level of the text, this tends to convey the lowest expectations of his readers.
  

Gore's portrayal of the subject of global warming is scientifically unsupportable; even some scientists who accept the premise of global warming have been willing to call him on some errors. His portrayal of scientific skepticism regarding global warming is shameful; science requires healthy criticism to progress. The effect of attempts by Gore and others to silence dissent is harmful to scientific understanding as well as its application by society. The effort to use such twisted science to further a political agenda is such a harm.

What follows in this article is a comprehensive point-by-point analysis of the falsehoods from Gore's book & movie (I've not found a colder, more comprehensive rebuttle of Al Gore's claims, and highly recommend a detailed reading).

For example (italics=Gore):

"The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of human-caused carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." (p. 27)

The Earth's atmosphere is not thicker as a result of increased greenhouse gases; rather, the effects of changes in these gases are associated with the different absorptive properties of these minor constituents.

"Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed 'the park formerly known as Glacier'." (p. 46)

Glacier retreat has been ongoing in Glacier National Park since 1850 (USGS, 2003a) due to natural climate variations; the USGS suggests that with no additional warming the glaciers will likely be gone by 2100, with one model assuming continued warming predicting their disappearance by 2030 (USGS, 2003b). Even without the current warming blamed by some on humans, the glaciers of Glacier National Park would be disappearing since they have been out of equilibrium with the local environment ever since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

"This graph charts the actual measurements of global temperature since the Civil War... And in recent years the rate of increase has been accelerating... The hottest year recorded during this entire period was 2005." (pp. 72-73)

Gore does not give a source for this graph, but reportedly it is based on the GISS temperature series from NASA (Hansen et al., 2006), which only goes back to 1880. These and other similar series are composite averages based on ground-based and sea-based measurements, adjusted and averaged in various ways. Such series cannot absolutely specify the "hottest" year because the precise temperature values are highly dependent on the methodology used to average measurements and the selection of stations to be included in the averages. For example, the GISS series gives the three successively hottest years as 2005, 1998, and 2002. The UK Climate Research Unit series (Jones et al., 1999) instead gives 1998, 2005, and 2002, with 1998 0.1° C warmer than 2005 due to the 1998 El Nino event (Jones and Palutikof, 2006). The Global Historical Climate Network series gives 2005, 1998, and 2003 as the hottest years (NOAA, 2006). All of these series, however, show much greater warmings in the last three decades than more uniform sampling from satellite-based observations. This post-1970 warming bias may result from local effects such as the urban heat island effect, or from problems with the selection of stations used in the average and the adjustments applied to this data. With such relative extremes so heavily dependent on the particular methodology used, Gore is incorrect to make such an absolute claim without qualification.

"But scientists who specialize in global warming have been using evermore accurate computer models that long ago predicted a much higher range of ocean temperatures as a result of man-made global warming... The actual ocean temperatures are completely consistent with what has been predicted as a result of man-made global warming. And they're way above the range of natural variability." (pp. 78-79)

The global circulation models (GCMs) referred to still fail to replicate observed temperature changes from first principles; several phenomena are not well understood but are incorporated with empirical factors to produce the apparent agreement between models and past observations. But as more such empirical adjustments are applied, the models can be forced to reproduce a particular result without necessarily reproducing the physics correctly. Still, on several points, GCMs continue to fail the basic scientific test of making predictions which are subsequently verified (Pielke, 2006). The predictions from these models tend to be larger than empirical predictions for a given change in atmospheric CO2 (Lindzen, 1997). Indirect solar effects, which are highly correlated with climate, are ignored by these models. Any claim that observed changes are outside the range of natural variability necessarily assumes that natural influences have been constant, an assumption which has been questioned.

"Swiss frost days...invasive species..." (p. 154)

The graph is reproduced from National Geographic, 2004, which in turn reproduced it from Walther et al., 2002: both of these use the more accurate label "exotic species", while Gore uses "invasive species". Gore does not identify these species or the nature of this measurement: this represents broad-leafed plant species imported by humans to gardens and parks in southern Switzerland, which have subsequently spread from these locations. The actual methodology used to produce this data is discussed elsewhere (Walther, 2000; Walther, 2002) and may not be a linear indicator of the spread of such plant life. While such spread is influenced by milder local climate, it is also influenced by the selection and frequency of plants imported.

(map, p. 59)

The white areas on the map represent high elevations, not glaciers; only a small fraction of this area (less than 10%) is covered by glaciers.

"In the summer of 2005 many cities in the American West broke all-time records for high temperatures... And in the East, a number of cities set daily temperature records..." (pp. 76-77)

Individual local highs and lows always occur, due to the chaotic variations in weather; when discussing climate, this is not an appropriate measure. (Note that Gore dismisses local measures of climate on p. 321.) Such highs are likely attributable to the urban heat island effect, not to global warming. According to the GISS-compiled temperature series for the lower 48 states, 2005 tied as the 9th hottest year on record; the hottest years, from hottest to cooler, were 1934, 1998, 1921, 1931, 1999, tie between 1953, 1990, and 2001, and tie between 1987 and 2005; 2005 was a full 0.4° C cooler than 1934 (Sato and Hansen, 2006).

"The map to the left shows what is projected to happen to soil moisture in the United States with the doubling of CO2, which would happen in less than 50 years if we continue business as usual... Moreover, scientists are now telling us that if we do not act quickly to contain global warming pollution, we will soon ... more toward a quadrupling, in which case, scientists tell us, most of the United States would lose up to 60% of its soil moisture." (p. 121)

These models are based on some questionable assumptions, including dominance of positive feedbacks in a perturbed climate state. The particular model used, the GFDL model, produces a greater sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 than either the median IPCC projection (GFDL, 2004) or recent empirical studies (Annan and Hargreaves, 2006). Further, while Gore's only reference to the time needed for these changes is the claim that CO2 doubling could happen "in less than 50 years", the depicted model results are for a doubling in 70 years followed by a few centuries' climate stabilization, or a quadrupling in 140 years followed by a few centuries' climate stabilization. Results are also seasonally dependent (summer is shown). Recently, greenhouse emission growth rates have slowed, so assumptions of a CO2 doubling in less than 50 years or a quadrupling do not appear appropriate. Hansen et al., 2000, suggest that non-CO2 greenhouse gases are the principal causes of recent warming, in which case the assumptions regarding accelerated carbon dioxide emissions are also inappropriate.

"The graph below shows the steady increase in major wildfires in North and South America..." (p. 229)

Such wildfires are less a reflection of any climate change and more a reflection of increases in population, poor historical management practices by the U.S. government of woodlands and grasslands, and increased use of fires for clearing forest in Latin America.

RCR

Edited March 25, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Rodney]

Apart from the bad science, another thing that should concern us is the slowdown, and even reversal, of economic and technological progress that is proposed by environmentalists as the solution. Should we even think about doing such a thing, knowing that it will make us unable to deal with an asteroid that may one day be detected hurtling toward Earth?

It's considerations like this that confirm my belief about the true motive of the environmentalist leaders.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

Inconvenient Truths Indeed

By Robert C. Balling Jr.

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week...

. . .

Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect.

Christian,

I don't want to do this, but due to the flood of articles, I feel it is necessary to show the other side to demonstrate what the problem is. (I certainly will not be convinced solely because there exists a bunch of articles from one side on a subject where there are just as many on the other side.) While doing some reading, I came across this by Judd Legum on a liberal think-tank blog:

Rebuttal To Gore Movie, Enthusiastically Embraced By The Right, Grossly Distorts Scientific Facts

Here is the text (but there is an enormous number of links throughout the article on the linked version, so a proper reading would probably be on that site with a look-see at some of the other embedded links.

Rebuttal To Gore Movie, Enthusiastically Embraced By The Right, Grossly Distorts Scientific Facts

An article published on Tech Central Station is buzzing around the right-wing blogosphere as the definitive rebuttal to Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It’s written by Dr. Robert Balling, a climatology professor at Arizona State University who has received over $400,000 in funding from ExxonMobil, OPEC and the fossil fuels industry over the last decade.

In return, Dr. Balling has done whatever he could to cast doubts on the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. For example, in 1997 he was arguing “the planet has actually cooled over the past few decades.” His arguments have moderated somewhat since that time, but are no more accurate. You can find a full debunk of the misleading scientific arguments in Dr. Balling’s recent article – cleverly titled “Inconvenient Truths Indeed” – below.

(I recently debated Dr. Balling on many of these issues on the Jim Bohannon Show. You can listen to a portion of the debate.)

BALLING: “Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya’s Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming.”

THE FACTS: Dr. Balling is distorting the scientific data. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain studies of Kilimanjaro “only support the role of precipitation in the initial stages of the retreat, up to the early 1900’s.” Moreover, “the Kilimanjaro glacier survived a 300 year African drought which occurred about 4000 years ago.” The most likely explanation for why it has almost completely disappeared this time is “anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change.”

BALLING: “Many of Gore’s conclusions are based on the ‘Hockey Stick’ that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago.”

THE FACTS: First, as Dr. Balling acknowledges, Gore does discuss the “Medieval Warm Period” and other temperature fluctuations in the last thousands years. Gore simply illustrates that these changes were fundamentally different than what has occurred at the end of the 20th century. Scientific studies back this up. Realclimate.org explains, “Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context.”

BALLING: “You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable ‘Summary for Policymakers’ in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that “No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed.”

THE FACTS: The IPCC report cited by Balling is from 2001, before Katrina or many of the other extreme weather events cited by Gore occurred. Moreover, Gore is careful not to assert that Katrina or any specific weather event was caused by global warming. Gore notes that climate models predict that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases the frequency of extreme weather events increases. This is exactly what we’ve seen over the past several years.

DR. BALLING: “Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”

THE FACTS: The quote cited by Dr. Balling continues :”This is not inconsistent with model results [predicting accelerating sea levels] due to the possibility of compensating factors and the limited data.” The IPCC study also notes that over the last 3,000 years, sea levels have increased “at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr” which is “about one tenth of that occurring during the 20th century.” Moreover, “The last time the planet may have been a degree or so warmer than today (about 120,000 years ago), sea level was around 5 to 6 meters higher.”

Posted by Judd May 26, 2006

For every article you cite, there is a companion like this one out there. btw - Just because I put this here does not mean I endorse it (I certainly don't haunt liberal think-tank blogs), but neither do I endorse Balling's article either at this time.

My opinion for now is my original one. Until I get enough information in my head about climatology to make a responsible opinion, I must simply observe that whenever experts disagree with this level of vehemence, there's a lot of money involved somewhere—and both are after it.

I am going to go at my own pace and make my little outlines, summarize properly and look at both sides of each issue, and then mention where I find the issues decided or doubtful. I don't have much to say about Balling's allegations or the rebuttal at this time. I merely wanted to show that this kind of rebuttal exists and it is in abundance on the web and much of it is from people with far more credentials than Judd Legum. (I merely quoted this guy because I saw his rebuttal linked in an article on Salon by Katharine Mieszkowski called Did Al get the science right?.)

Michael

[Greybird]

MSK wrote:

> Greybird wrote:

>> I'd appreciate one actual example of this, Michael. As to what I have actually "attributed

>> to you" incorrectly, forthrightly, on a substantive issue.

> Just so you don't think I am avoiding the issue, I already gave you an example of one thing you

> incorrectly attributed to me. "There is an enormous difference between 'pretty good overview

> of the pros and cons' (my words) and '"objective" in-depth resource' (your opinion of what I think)."

That you did. I don't regard that as substantive, though, in regard to the topic at hand. Indicative, perhaps — I see anyone who relies on Wikipedia even for only an "overview" as still risking being reckless, especially if no other source is used.

Nor do I believe I attributed the whole of the latter phrase to you, only "objective." Quotation marks do mean something. I see a claim of objectivity as, of necessity, implying a substantial degree of depth or intricacy, mostly in dealing with counter-examples — another notorious weakness of most Wikipedia articles. (And of, say, Rand's discussing the history of philosophy ... but that's another kettle of undercooked fish.)

Once again, though, if anything I said made it look as if I were attributing the whole of that phrase to you, that construction wasn't intended.

(I'm disappointed that the entire discussion as to the limits of Wikipedia has, thus far, gone entirely uncommented. It is, though, a subsidiary or sidebar topic to the current one.)

I've been frustrated that you've declined to be any more specific as to what you're decrying more generally about this debate — in substantive terms. You made an emotional outburst several posts back about "what makes me madder," but that was never followed up clearly, at least from where I sit.

> There are quite a few other examples, but I prefer not to get into them. This kind of

> thing usually degenerates into quibbling, "I said, you said," then bickering. I don't want

> to go there. Let's stay with the ideas in themselves.

I can understand that impulse. Yet you are the one who said that I was doing this, and you've now backed off providing anything else to support it. So the accusation of "quite a few" — many more than one, certainly — hangs there in the air about me, and now you want to leave it there.

If you're going to make a such a broader personal insinuation, please either back it up or withdraw it. This is only being fair. It may not be the plumb line of discussing ideas, and them's the breaks, but you're the one who's not being specific.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

It just ain't getting any better. You keep focusing on me as a person.

Normally I wouldn't mind. I do love to talk about myself. Frankly, I am one hell of an interesting topic. The endless facets of me are infinitely fascinating. I am wonderful. I am amazing. I am magnificent. I am much more than the greatest. I am sublime. If I wasn't me, I would want to be me. That's how incomparably outstanding I am.

But, alas, despite such important considerations, I am forced by circumstances to focus right now on discovering why both of these films are being so mis-characterized by the respective other sides. What is everybody hiding? This requires a lot of reading and study (just sifting though all that stuff to choose what to read is a major task), so this is consuming my time for the crucial task of talking about myself. That's a bummer and a damn shame, but some things just require sacrifice...

About Wikipedia, I disagree with your general appraisal, but that does not mean I find Wikipedia to be a final authority. Sometimes it is an excellent tool (especially in the overview I mentioned) and generally it is a good place to start. And yes I have had my experiences with moderation there (even though you claimed I have not). I don't think it is a big issue to quibble over. We disagree. So what?

Let's do the rest your way. You didn't misrepresent anything I ever said.

Ever.

There.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I really have to study so I can present my findings. Like I said, I no longer trust the information being fed to me by my side to be objective and I sure as hell can't trust the other side. I have to see it for myself. This has become much more important to me than this whole "us against them" atmosphere that surrounds this issue.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apart from the bad science, another thing that should concern us is the slowdown, and even reversal, of economic and technological progress that is proposed by environmentalists as the solution. Should we even think about doing such a thing, knowing that it will make us unable to deal with an asteroid that may one day be detected hurtling toward Earth?

It's considerations like this that confirm my belief about the true motive of the environmentalist leaders.

Rodney,

You may be surprised but I resoundingly agree with you about the importance of not allowing the impairment of economic and technological progress.

I have only 2 small quibbles. I am no longer sure about painting the whole shebang as "bad science." I lost my faith in our side to be objective and find myself forced to look into this personally for my own peace of mind, so I will have more to say later.

Also, I would add the qualification, some or most, to the phrase "environmentalist leaders." I don't think all of them have malicious intent toward technological progress and prosperity (but I admit that there are plenty who do). Some of them really believe in the correctness for mankind of what they are doing and are even working on high-tech solutions.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; You answered the question on technology so I wouldn't ask that. Is is true that Gore says anyone who does not think there is a problem with global warming is in pay of the oil and coal companies. If that statement is true what do you think of that statement? I haven't read the posts and I have not seen the movies and quite frankly think you're being beaten up so I haven't commented till now. I must also say that I delighted that Al Gore never became President.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is is true that Gore says anyone who does not think there is a problem with global warming is in pay of the oil and coal companies. If that statement is true what do you think of that statement?

Chris,

I don't remember that statement in the film. That doesn't mean Gore didn't say it, but I was attuned for this kind of rhetoric and there is nothing in my memory. After I see the film again, I will be able to say for sure.

If Gore said that in another place, I don't know. I haven't followed his career. (And this is what made the shock even more when I saw the film. I was expecting to see a typical politician hawking his position in generalities. But Gore has been doing the global warming thing ever since he was a young man and he presented a science lesson in the movie. He left politics to go back to global warming lectures after he lost the Presidency. He did this for several years, too. Now he is returning to politics. One may disagree with him, but he is not merely a politician jockeying for power—although undeniably he is a politician in addition to an idealist and all politicians jockey for power).

Gore sincerely believes in what he is doing. At least, this is my evaluation of him based on the film. After I look into this more, see some online interviews, etc., my opinion could change. I have to see what the man says to judge.

What I do remember him saying about the critics of global warming was much lighter than any outright accusations or mudslinging.

One thing I remember, for example: he was facing a huge chart with lines going up and down, from left to right, mapping temperature and CO2 levels over the centuries, then looking at the more recent lines on the right where they went up completely off the chart. Then he said the following (as I am going from memory, the words are probably a little different), "Critics of global warming have looked at this chart and they usually say something like, 'So?!!'" He made the proper rhetorical pause, proper inflection and shrugged his shoulders at the right moment, so he got a laugh.

That's about the worst thing I remember him saying about the critics.

There is one thing he mentioned that could be taken out of context. He said that people become used to ideas and products and they take a long time to accept new truths about them, especially when they have structured their lives around them. He gave tobacco as an example, where people used to believe that smoking was good for your health. Then they resisted the fact that it caused disease. Then, after years and much education, they finally accepted that smoking was a risk.

To emphasize this point, he presented a story about his father's tobacco farm and how he lost a beloved person in the family to lung cancer, and that it took something drastic like this to convince his father that tobacco was harmful. Then his father made his own decision to stop growing tobacco. During this story, Gore presented the good pleasurable side of tobacco farming (and growing up around it) to further show how difficult this decision was. Then to drive the point home, he quoted Upton Sinclair: "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

So I didn't get the impression that he was accusing critics of selling out to big oil or anything like that. This was merely a quip to highlight one reason why people are resistant to change.

I also remember he was a bit harsh with the Bush administration, but I was prepared for that and, of course, this was pure rhetoric to please the Democrats. Frankly, I would have been surprised if he didn't say anything about Bush. Still, he didn't harp on it and it was much less than I expected.

Incidentally, on RoR, one "our side" type poster presented two links to articles slamming The Great Global Warming Swindle (he merely presented them for informational purposes):

THE GREAT CHANNEL FOUR SWINDLE

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change

Now I saw that film and there is much to recommend it, despite the rhetoric and some information problems. It was not anything like the trash these people claim it was. And, I am sure there is some sound and important information in these articles, but look at what you have to wade through to get it. This is precisely what I am objecting to. Our side does this plenty, too (look at most of the articles Christian posted, for example).

This is why I am taking an "I'll see for myself, thank you," approach. When people need to resort do this kind of argument, reason is the last thing they are interested in.

But it is the only thing I am interested in.

Michael

[reason.on]

Our side does this plenty, too (look at most of the articles Christian posted, for example).

For the record, I disagree.

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christian,

I don't want to be misunderstood, so let me go on record saying that I have no doubt there is much sound information in those articles.

I don't see how you can deny a bias, though. All of the articles are squarely against the global warming people's work. At least I didn't see any article highlighting the correct points in Gore's movie for balance, for example.

Michael

[reason.on]

I don't see how you can deny a bias, though. All of the articles are squarely against the global warming people's work. At least I didn't see any article highlighting the correct points in Gore's movie for balance, for example.At least I didn't see any article highlighting the correct points in Gore's movie for balance, for example.

You should look again, then. It is not true that all of the articles I've posted in this thread are "against global warming"; some have nothing to do with global warming (the information I posted about population growth, for example), others support AGM but not Gore's exaggerated presentation (the Reason article, for example), and one in particular is just a presentation on how climate systems work, which doesn't reference Gore at all.

For anyone else who is following this thread, I do hope you'll read the final piece I posted, which tackles Gore's science fiction point-by-point. From where I am sitting, Gore has no more a grasp on how the Earth's climate work, than LP does of physics.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html

RCR

Edited March 27, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Brant Gaede]

Christian,

I don't want to be misunderstood, so let me go on record saying that I have no doubt there is much sound information in those articles.

I don't see how you can deny a bias, though. All of the articles are squarely against the global warming people's work. At least I didn't see any article highlighting the correct points in Gore's movie for balance, for example.

Michael

Science has nothing to do with balance.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I should not have stepped outside of my plan.

If I allow myself to fall for this trap, I will get flooded with one-sided facts and figures and never get to the information I seek. This is trying to convince a person by flooding him with details to make him give up thinking and succumb to intimidation. It reminds me of the way people tried to argue for intelligent design. It works for a while, but the facts do tend to surface.

The whole comical thing from where I sit is that there is just as many details by just as many highly credentialed scientists on the other side that claim the absolute contrary. All I have to do is raise my head on that side and I will get flooded there, too.

Back to my original plan: outline both films, present the different sides of each issue, first from the films, then from the least biased (or at least most serious) sources of info possible, make comments and try to arrive at a conclusion. This has to go point by point and let facts fall where they may. WARNING: I intend to GO SLOW.

I anticipate that in the hotheaded environment of this debate, this will be a painful experience with great amounts of info flooding (which I tend to ignore for lack of time) and inflamed rhetoric repeated ad nauseam (which I tend to ignore for lack of interest). Still, I think it is worth a shot.

Christian: The article you just linked by Wm. Robert Johnston from September 14, 2006 is a prime example of biased detail flooding. From a skim, I saw mostly different interpretations of events presented as proof of falsehood. Not different facts. Different interpretations. Or different facts from different sources, with countless quibbles about using this source instead of that one as proof of falsehood. Or quibbles about a source's methods or date span as proof of falsehood. There is even a category of falsehood called "conceptual errors" where the guy actually admits that Gore does have a correct understanding of the different events, despite insinuating strongly elsewhere that he does not. Etc., etc., etc.

Frankly, this style reminded me a bit of PARC. (Maybe Johnston could lend Valliant a hand in his new Bible project. They certainly think using the same method.) If you like, I can find an article just like Johnston's on the other side saying the exact opposite. Is all this worth it? I personally don't have time to read the equivalent of telephone books.

Michael

[reason.on]

Christian: The article you just linked by Wm. Robert Johnston from September 14, 2006 is a prime example of biased detail flooding. From a skim,

That's your opinion of the matter, I understand, and do not agree (I agree with much of what Steve has written in responce to this overall line of thinking). I also believe that Ann Coulter is a prime example of uniformed "bias" driven drivel, and none of the articles I've posted come anywhere near that kind of useless rhetoric.

As Brant said, science has nothing to do with balance, further, skeptics of a particular thesis aren't obliged to point out every little truth or half-truth in the foundation, they are only obliged to poke holes in the THESIS. A thesis is like a building, it has key supports, and if you can knock out those supports the building falls, even if the walls were built and painted properly (or truthfully). Al Gore's thesis (AGM and the supposed disasterous consequences of recent observed warming trends) and subsequent action plan, in my opinion, have both been completely discredited by what we both know and don't know about the Earth's climate and how it works.

Regardless, the only reason I've written anything further (the facts about climate change that I've posted from various sources speak for themselves) is because you blatantly mischaracterized the nature of the materials that I've posted on this thread, MOST of which, in reality, have nothing to do with Al Gore's science fiction; less than half address Gore's falsehoods specifically.

For anyone actually intersted, here is a summary of what I've posted on this thread.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8021 (substantively critical of Al Gore's thesis)

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C (substantively critical of Al Gore's thesis)

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F (substantively critical of Al Gore's thesis)

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19358 (substantively critical of Al Gore's thesis)

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html (point-by-point critique of Al Gore's supposed "facts")

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html (pro AGM, anti Gore's presentation)

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/21/...al-gore-debate/ (why won't Gore debate, simple statement of fact)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/novem...6suvjupiter.htm (general info, warming on other planets)

http://gsociology.icaap.org/report/demsum.html (general info, population growth)

http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/tooling...0400/0400fu.asp (general info, population growth)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm (general info, population growth)

http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/class/aoss605/...em_20060119.pdf (general info, climate science)

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spence...bal-warming.htm (general info, climate science)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/posto...ncer.htm?page=0 (general info, climate science)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728 (general info, climate science, does warming actually precede rises in CO2, rather than follow?)

RCR

[reason.on]

Frankly, this style reminded me a bit of PARC.

That's pretty funny, 'cause it reminds me of Neil's point-by-point debunking of PARC's supposedly air-tight facts and objectivity.

RCR

[cjsmall]

Michael:

It seems to me that you are missing an important aspect of this climate change debate. You talk about the "two sides" as if they each had an equal and opposite agenda to push. This is not true. The position of the radical environmentalists is that there is a great man-made global catastrophe looming in our near future and that drastic changes must be made (through the political imposition of regulations) in our behavior to try and avert or minimize the devastating impact. They then attempt to back up this position with cherry-picked scientific data. This is the side asserting a positive position. The other group, which you somewhat derogatorily label as "our side", isn't pushing an agenda at all, but is simply reacting and responding to the radical environmental position by examining their claims and then showing where and how they are fundamentally flawed, or worse, outright misrepresentations and lies. And while it has not been difficult to do this, the response is a bit late to the party, exactly because it is a response to the other side's agenda - not some competing original theory. What fundamentally separates these two approaches is that one asserts a positive position while the other simply argues against it. And as I know you are aware, you cannot prove a negative. Since they make the positive assertion of impending doom, it is incumbent on the environmentalists to prove their case. They have not done a good job of this, and when you peer beneath the curtain you see the real political agenda which the "Swindle" video accurately identifies. The error I believe you are making is that you approach both sides of the issue in the same manner, expecting the same sort of methodology, when two quite different methodologies are necessitated by the difference in asserting a position vs. analyzing those assertions.

Like you, I would be happy if this entire debate could be framed in a rational and honest examination of all the scientific data devoid of agendas, but that is not what is happening on the public stage today. Policy regulation is going to be enacted based more upon public perception and pressure rather than scientific fact, and this leads to the spectacle of hyperbolic statements and presentation in service of influencing that public rather than a more reasoned debate. So, I suggest that you take a deep breath, think about this for a moment, and hopefully realize that you haven't been misled by "our side". They are performing a task different from what you may have been assuming. It is not their job to analyze the scientific data and prove that global warming (or cooling, or climate "change") is not occurring. Their job is to identify the misuse of scientific data by the environmentalists and stop damaging legislation from being enacted, and for that, I extend my gratitude.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[reason.on]

Michael:

It seems to me that you are missing an important aspect of this climate change debate...

Very nicely put, Jeff!

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It seems to me that you are missing an important aspect of this climate change debate. You talk about the "two sides" as if they each had an equal and opposite agenda to push.

Jeff,

Unfortunately that's the way I see them acting. Maybe you don't see it from already having reached your conclusions. But it is plain as daylight to a person seeking to understand. I don't even want to be involved in any side as I seek to understand. (btw - You made an error when you said "somewhat derogatorily label as 'our side.'" I actually am on our side and the only reason I think you perceived "derogatory" in there somewhere is from the inflammatory nature of of the issue itself. Certainly not from any of the words I wrote.

It is true that I am disappointed with the approach to transmitting information of our side and I was very clear about that. I have been very specific as to why. But I certainly do not consider it derogatory to be on our side.

Like you, I would be happy if this entire debate could be framed in a rational and honest examination of all the scientific data devoid of agendas, but that is not what is happening on the public stage today.

. . .

It is not their job to analyze the scientific data and prove that global warming (or cooling, or climate "change") is not occurring. Their job is to identify the misuse of scientific data by the environmentalists and stop damaging legislation from being enacted, and for that, I extend my gratitude.

Here we might have a difference in appraising tactics. I don't think the best manner to fight a slanted agenda is to present another slanted agenda, committing the same errors in reverse. Denying that this is what is happening doesn't help, either. Denial certainly will not make the slanted agenda errors go away.

I am firmly convinced that the best way to combat a slanted agenda is to present the objective truth. All of it, with the good and the bad. That's what ALWAYS wins out in the end, anyway.

For a great example, consider Mr. Randi's million dollar offer to psychics. That has done more to promote reason than all the ranting against charlatans in the world, including all those expose books, dissections and proofs and whatnot that are openly trying to debunk psychic phenomena. Randi simply opened himself to accepting the paranormal from psychics if it existed. Nothing ham-fisted.

Now back to global warming. If you think the present tactic is working, look around you. From what I see, it ain't working at all. I see a lot of preaching to the choir on our side but not too much convincing of doubtfuls going on. Mis-characterizing a well presented film as if it were nothing but a pack of lies (and this goes for both films) only serves to alienate those who only want information—who don't want to be forced into an "us against them" scene. I know this approach alienated me. And I know that there are many, many others like me, only they keep quiet. (I am pretty sure many read something like this, though.) You know why they don't speak up? Simply because they don't want the hassle of all the hostility.

Think about it. You have Joe Six-pack going about his life. He decides to look into global warming just to see what it is all about. He sees a film like Gore's and it is in a form he can understand. It's pretty and its understandable. It even won an Oscar. But he wants to be fair. So he looks around to see if there is anything else he should know. He comes across an article that says the film he just saw was all a pack of lies. There are long lists of technical information that he doesn't quite understand. Then he looks some more. He sees long lists of technical information supporting the film, too. He looks to see who is the accredited scientist. Then he sees that both are.

So he asks someone. Suddenly people are questioning his motives and pushing him hard to go one way or another. He learns very early that he dare not ask for a simple explanation or express a simple common-sense opinion unless he wants to become embroiled in a lot of bickering. He thinks, "To hell with this." He has a life to live. Maybe something will come up on the news on TV to inform him a little more. If not, well... not. Notice that he is not convinced of anything. He simply walks away from the bickering.

Do you know what policy this kind of person is going to vote for at voting time? He is going to vote for the policy of those who were less irrational. Mind you, not the most rational in his perception. The less irrational.

Now what if there is an explanation in layman's language that points him to what is good and what is bad on that film by Gore he liked so much, cautioning him to not allow the good stuff he saw to influence him into accepting the bad, and showing how it was done in an easy to understand, step-by-step manner?

Unfortunately (for the encroachment of environmentalists), that is exactly what Gore did from the outset and our side is too caught up in the crusader spirit to see it. I guarantee you that Joe Six-pack is not going to read a 15 page report on divergences in scientific language. And if someone tells him he didn't really see what he saw, and when he complains that he really did see that and he is shouted down, he won't fight it. He will stay silent, like he is doing right now. But he will vote. And I assure you he will not vote for the one who tells him he didn't see what he just saw.

I wish I could get people on our side to see that.

So my purpose in setting this little thing up is to try to find that non-hostile language to reach the silent ones and see what happens. OL is a small site and the influence will not be great, anyway. But I have to try. Besides, I am a sort of Joe Six-pack on this issue, myself. So I want to understand, too. Unfortunately for the agenda of our side ("their job" as you put it), for this approach the facts have to fall where they fall. Nothing can be distorted, strategically omitted, exaggerated, manipulated, etc. Even so, in the long run, I strongly believe in this approach (full objective truth) to convince people to do the right thing—much more than what I have perceived so far. You, who have studied the data and claim it is used in a manipulative manner, have nothing to fear from a rational mind if it is as you say. Joe Six-pack is much more rational than people give him credit for.

And I presume that convincing people is the goal. I repeat, if you think the present strategy is really convincing people, look around. I don't see it. As I start to develop this, I think you will start to understand what I am doing.

I don't care if any of the more vocal people disagree with me. I'm still going to do it. I think it is important. And I think many people will be glad I did in the end.

Michael

[cjsmall]

Very nicely put, Jeff!

Thanks Christian. I see that you touched on this same area in your post #44 which crossed in the either with mine.

--

Jeff

[reason.on]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm

Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist

Global warming

By Judi McLeod

Monday, March 12, 2007

Warning: Debating global warming from science rather than politics could be a challenge to your health. In fact death threats come in fives to scientists who write that global warming is not man-made.

Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, who has been questioning man-made global warming for 30 years, has received five death threats by email.

Resentment toward Ball escalated when his Canada Free Press (CFP) February 5th column, "Global Warming: The Cold Hard Facts?" was posted by the Drudge Report.

"We're worried about him," Ball's wife told CFP on Thursday.

[snip]

The proverbial cat seems to have been sent in with the pigeons last week when Ball and his colleagues appeared in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", a British Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists, claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who also appeared on the documentary recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." (Telegraph.co.uk, 11/03/07).

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.

RCR