Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Scientists Respond to Gore on Global Warming

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the climatologist-pit-fighting dept.

1496

ArthurDent writes "For quite a while global warming has been presented in the public forum as a universally accepted scientific reality. However, in the light of Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth many climate experts are stepping forward and pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence to support global warming as a phenomenon, much less any particular cause of it."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Some bold statements from this article (4, Informative)

IntelliAdmin (941633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535369)

Wow. This is a bold line from the article:

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science"

Strangely enough this is from a website that is sporting anti-bush t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers

Windows Admin Tools [intelliadmin.com]

Re:Some bold statements from this article (5, Funny)

thefirelane (586885) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535396)

Strangely enough this is from a website that is sporting anti-bush t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers

Wait a minute, are you telling me someone can be for truth and against Bush?! We'll see what Bill O'reilly has to say about that!

Re:Some bold statements from this article (0, Flamebait)

Nicholas Evans (731773) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535400)

How can you so viciously slander the man who invented the Internet!

Re:Some bold statements from this article (2, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535599)

He created it, this much is true. Maybe you could go look up the actual thing he said?

Re:Some bold statements from this article (4, Funny)

mustafap (452510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535418)

>an embarrassment to US science

As opposed to world science?

Re:Some bold statements from this article (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535419)

This really makes no sense: a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science

What? If they are scientists, and they "know" something, then surely they must have some very solid scientific evidence for their assertion, and thus should feel comfortable publishing it in a scientific journal. I'm always skeptical of claims that hundreds or thousands of supposedly respectable scientists hold a non-mainstream view but can't express it because some shadowy cabal is forcing them to stay quiet.

If they have solid scientific evidence to refute the solid scientific evidence in support of global warming, then they should publish it. If they don't, then as scientists they should know better than to spout off without any proof of their claims.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (1, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535451)

If they have solid scientific evidence to refute the solid scientific evidence in support of global warming

That's not how the scientific process works. You can't prove a negative. The onus is on the supporters of the global warming theory to come up with extremely strong evidence for their claims, they just haven't done so. Those opposed to the idea of global warming have to responsiblity to do anything here.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (0)

MythMoth (73648) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535502)

You can't prove a negative... Those opposed to the idea of global warming have to responsiblity to do anything here.

Oh really? Well, then the earth is not round. Those opposed to the idea of a round earth have no responsibility to do anything here.

Oh, wait, there's heaps of evidence that the earth is round, disproving the "negative" opinion that it's flat. Much like there's heaps of evidence that global warming is going on, disproving the "negative" opinion that it is not.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535519)

Prove us you're *not* talking out of your ass.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (2, Informative)

NuShrike (561140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535588)

The scientific process, especially in a PhD dissertation, requires you to prove a negative in order to prove the positive.

You prove:
o component A by itself has no effect (negative)
o something A by itself has no effect (negative)
o component A mixed with something A has an effect (positive)
o component A mixed with anything else B has no effect (negative)
o anything else B mixed with something A has no effect (negative)

Re:Some bold statements from this article (5, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535621)

Those opposed to the idea of global warming have to responsiblity to do anything here.

Yes they do. They have to point to flaws and holes in the current theory, otherwise they're just gasbagging.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (3, Insightful)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535531)

From the grandparent: This really makes no sense: a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science

From the parent:
I'm always skeptical of claims that hundreds or thousands of supposedly respectable scientists hold a non-mainstream view but can't express it because some shadowy cabal is forcing them to stay quiet.

From me: There's a lot of difference between publishing (which is what very many scientists do) in reputable journals, and stating things publicly. There shouldn't be. But even people with open access to journals can pick and choose about which evidence to support. Just because one faction is outspoken and has flashy "evidence" to support a view, and another faction has supposedly solid evidence to support a contrary view but stays relatively quiet does not mean, unfortunately, that the better evidence will win. It means that people will hear the loud, flashy stuff, and (for the people who have a sense of curiosity, but perhaps not a driving need to delve into the literature on their own) just wonder why the other side hasn't said much: Gosh, perhaps the flashy, outspoken side IS right. Why haven't I heard much from the contrary viewpoints?

Re:Some bold statements from this article (4, Interesting)

Becquerel (645675) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535562)

If they have solid scientific evidence to refute the solid scientific evidence in support of global warming, then they should publish it. If they don't, then as scientists they should know better than to spout off without any proof of their claims.

Absolutely. I attended a lecture at the Tyndall centre, Manchester a few weeks ago. In a room full of climate change experts, in the UK centre for climate change research, nobody was even remotely sceptical about the realism of Global Warming.

In fact, the point that shocked me most was that some of them were quite content that it was already too late to mitagate the effects, by a token reduction in our emissions. Argueing that the global strategy should be to prepare for the change that will happen rather than waste money trying to stop it!

Re:Some bold statements from this article (3, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535598)

I'm always skeptical of claims that hundreds or thousands of supposedly respectable scientists hold a non-mainstream view but can't express it because some shadowy cabal is forcing them to stay quiet.

There are some topic that are just off limits for political reasons. Look at the debate over the Bell Curve or Holocaust revisionism. It doesn't matter that the proponents are ultimately wrong, what's important is that they aren't even allowed to publicly state their positions.

Climatology is a field in which you will get less money if you say that everything's ok. No one gives a damn if the world is fine. People donate huge sums of money to save the world.

LK

Re:Some bold statements from this article (2, Interesting)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535607)

"Global Warming" as a scientific topic has many problems. Here are my questions:

(1) If the world heats up, is it bad?
(2) If the world cools down, is it bad?
(3) Are the natural cycles pushing us toward warmer or cooler conditions?
(4) If the natural cycles push us toward cooling (I've heard that we're due for an Ice Age any century now), is human-caused global warming still bad? Or does it just keep the planet a better climate for longer?
(5) If we're not really sure where the climate is going overall, is it better to err on the side of "too hot" or "too cold".

As you can see, I really don't care whether it is human caused or not. The only thing that matters is that we have a comfortable climate to live in for a while. And the last thing I want is for us to be thinking in 300-400 years "Wow. This Ice Age is cold. Too bad we can't think of a way to warm up.".

To me it seems more likely that humans would be hurt by global cooling than global warming. I understand that global warming can cause some areas to be colder (like Europe), but on the whole it seems like it would promote more life.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (1)

The Famous Druid (89404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535460)

Strangely enough this is from a website that is sporting anti-bush t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers

... because he's not right-wing enough for them, the website clearly has a far-right agenda.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (0, Troll)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535526)

It's easy to be bold when you're paid by Exxon Mobile to be that way.

Re:Some bold statements from this article (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535550)

"Strangely enough this is from a website that is sporting anti-bush t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers "
I find that a good sign. Your a fool if you think that both sides will not lie and abuse science to push their agendas.
One of the founders of Greenpeace has now come out and said that Greenpeace's protests and statements about nuclear power where all wrong. AKA they lied but they probably did believe their lie. Now he is all pro nuclear and he has lies again. Here he states that no one has died in the use civilian power program. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188481 &op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pi d=15535369 [slashdot.org]
I guess you can claim that. The truth is four men died in a reactor malfunction in Idaho in 1961 the reactor the SL-1 was a power reactor being developed for the army. Notice how by adding the word civilian it gets you off the hook and makes it look like the only deaths where involving weapons development. http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul96/letter_Jul96.h tml [atomicinsights.com]
I am pro nuclear but I am even more pro truth.
Both parties lie, the envirmentalists lie, the unions lie, corperations lie. I try not to lie but I doubt that I manage to always tell the truth. As Regan said, "Trust but verify".

Re:Some bold statements from this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535573)

It's stupid to say "no one died in a nulear power program". People die working for the garbage company. Shit happens. I'm sure people have died in coal powered power plants but I bet they have.

Re:Some bold statements from this website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535617)

Rachel Marsden [wikipedia.org] is one of the columnists featured on this site. Click the link to learn more about her unusual past. I've been checking it out, off and on for a couple of years, and simply can't take Canada Free Press [canadafreepress.com] seriously for numerous reasons. The global warming debate is just that, as many other posters have noted. Shouldn't the "debate" be over scientific issues and not ideological talking points?

Gore already covered this on SNL (5, Funny)

lecithin (745575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535372)

Announcer:
And now, a message from the President of the United States.

President Al Gore:
Good evening, my fellow Americans.

In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.

In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack.

As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history.

We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting.

I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.

I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.

On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today.

But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.

And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.

Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.

But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.

There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand?

What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop.

But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox!

As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job.

There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.

Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!"

In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real.

Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East?

And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is ... Live From New York, its Saturday Night!

Re:Gore already covered this on SNL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535444)

I need to start watching that show again.

Re:Gore already covered this on SNL (1)

rollomatto (860924) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535503)

What was forgotten there was annexing Canada to replace Cali.

Encore! (0, Offtopic)

turgid (580780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535508)

Encore! I say, "Encore!"

Bravo!

Can I hire you for our knitting society Christmas dinner?

Finally... (-1, Troll)

BeatlesForum.com (545967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535375)

The environmentalists are getting shut down.

Can we drill in ANWR now???

Re:Finally... (3, Informative)

DeviceDriver (962219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535504)

Look at who is the basis for the article, Professor Bob Carter. This man is effectively a spokesman for the energy industry. He gets support from the Australian Institute of Energy. The membership of this agust body is a who's who of the oil, gas, coal, and power companies in Australia. No wonder he thinks the global climate is doing just fine.

Re:Finally... (1)

spankfish (167192) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535553)

mod parent up. man, i wish i had some points.

Re:Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535540)

Getting shut down, yes. By ExxonMobile. This Carter scientist isn't exactly unbiased, given the oodles of dollars our friendly gas giants have placed in his pockets.

And we can start drilling in ANWR right after we sink a mine in your lawn.

The worst thing about the global warming debate... (5, Funny)

bombadier_beetle (871107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535379)

... is that it inspired one of the worst novels I've ever read, Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

Re:The worst thing about the global warming debate (3, Funny)

HardCase (14757) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535471)

... is that it inspired one of the worst novels I've ever read, Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

I guess you didn't read Prey.

-h-

Re:The worst thing about the global warming debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535516)

It's not so bad. The actual plotline of State of Fear [amazon.com] might be total crap, but at least the book does contain a bibliography of interesting works to consult on the global warming debate.

As a rule of thumb (2, Informative)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535381)

I don't consider any site that has over 50% of the page content taken by ads as an authority in the matter. Especially dancing cursors. Yuck.

Re:As a rule of thumb (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535417)

And that left-right column justification is AWFUL! It must be a pack of lies!

Re:As a rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535440)

Way to deflect and ignore there, bud.

Re:As a rule of thumb (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535525)

Sounds to me like you don't trust or read any news....ever...

Welcome to the internet young pup.

Even newspapers are 50% advertising... You don't think it only costs then a quarter to put that thing together do you?

Re:As a rule of thumb (1)

zxnos (813588) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535533)

yeah, i was fearing picking up some malware off that site mearly by visiting it. intersting article though. i recently read in the denver post how over the last 100 years or so there have been fears of warming [freerepublic.com] followed most recently in the 70s by cooling [denverpost.com] followed by warming...

The climate of the earth (-1, Flamebait)

dubmun (891874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535383)

We are at near-iceage temperatures right now and in the grand scheme of things the planet is much colder now than the average. I could go for a little warmer weather myself.

It's "The Buzz" (2, Interesting)

Himring (646324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535403)

I found it interesting a bit back when it was reported the ice caps were diminishing on Mars due to its own "global warming." When a scientific issue becomes politically charged it is the most vulnerable to misconstrued notions. Perhaps scientists should leave politics to politians (which they mostly do) and, indeed, politicians should leave science where it belongs too. There are plenty of other reasons to want to end the usage of fossil fuels without mentioning global warming. Mr. Gore, please stick to what's sure and not what's "the buzz"....

source? (0, Offtopic)

ArmenTanzarian (210418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535406)

I have to doubt any source that has ads for Matt Furey Combat Conditioning [mattfurey.com] and big TAKE THIS SURVEY popups.
When did Slashdot turn into a Fark flamewar?

Re:source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535485)

Yeah, it seems there are a lot of people out there who immediately disregard anything that opposes their ideas simply for shallow and stupid reasons. They're called idiots.

Re:source? (1)

CupBeEmpty (720791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535563)

Ads!? Popups!?

My question is this:
Why the hell are there so many people on Slashdot that haven't heard of the incredible [mozilla.com] fruits [mozdev.org] of OSS?

Yup, check some of the authors they hilight (3, Informative)

sterno (16320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535619)

I always find it helpful to track the sources of information they are siteing. For example, there's Professor Bob Carter. This is a professor who claimed that global warming stopped in 1998 [tinyurl.com] when it turns out that 2005 was the hottest year on record (since we began tracking such things).

I saw a similar article making similar claims yesterday and the "experts" they sited weren't even in the field of climatology, and had gone so far as to fake a letter from the National Academy of Sciences to give their position a supposed credence.

Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that says anything other than global warming is happening and it's caused by human emissions of CO2. To my knowledge, this does not exist. I recognize that peer review is somewhat prone to group think, and in that you might expect a leaning one direction or another. But to have ZERO? That seems rather dramatic to just be a group think issue.

A lot of the "scientists" that I've seen taking a position on this are clearly hucksters working for the likes of Exxon Mobile, etc. I have little doubt that there are some scientists who are legitimate who don't buy into the common thinking, but that doesn't mean the common thinking is wrong. They need to back up their beliefs with sound evidence and method. But they don't.

The debate will never end (5, Insightful)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535407)

As long as certain groups stand to profit, and as long as certain people might look like idiots if proven wrong, the debate on this topic will never end. I'm talking about people on either side of the issue. The tough part is that global warming is difficult to prove either positively or negatively, so it's a prime vehicle for unrelated agendas.

We'll know in a thousand years.

Re:The debate will never end (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535581)

As long as certain groups stand to profit, and as long as certain people might look like idiots if proven wrong, the debate on this topic will never end. I'm talking about people on either side of the issue. The tough part is that global warming is difficult to prove either positively or negatively, so it's a prime vehicle for unrelated agendas.
We'll know in a thousand years.

In Venice they already know. Not only is the city sinking, but rising sea levels are compounding their problem.

Let it happen. With less land, we'll have shorter distances to drive.

I _hope_ Gore is right... (3, Funny)

rthille (8526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535420)

_And_ I hope we don't do anything about it.

Just so we can get rid of Florida. Serve them right for 2000...

Re:I _hope_ Gore is right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535481)

> Just so we can get rid of Florida. Serve them right for 2000...

Uh, you do realize that it means Floridians invading all the other states.

But hey, maybe it'll dilute 'em.

Coagulating heart liberals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535593)

So you're hoping to drown millions of gore voters to pay for the "sins" of the 537 voters who tipped the election to bush?

All I can say is, they sure don't make bleeding hearts liberals like they used to!

20 years ago, it was Global Cooling! (-1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535422)

It was the coming of the second Ice Age.

The EPA began taking air pollution measurements in 1969. Since they began taking readings, there has never been a year to date where the air did not measure cleaner then the year before.

The only thing that is warming again, is Al Gore's Presidential ambitions. He says he's not running, but come on, he also said a few other things of note that would cause me to doubt him.

Re:20 years ago, it was Global Cooling! (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535523)

Hey, give Gore a break!
He invented the Internet, for gosh sakes!
He can't be good at EVERYTHING!

Re:20 years ago, it was Global Cooling! (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535528)

If Al Gore wants to run for President in today's political climate, I don't think making a documentary about global warming that leaves him vulnerable to being called a far-left enviro-hippy is really the best strategy. Despite Bush's falling popularity, this country is still too far to the right to elect someone like that.

Re:20 years ago, it was Global Cooling! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535600)

You know this is all bullshit!

Al Gore knows all about it, because before he invented the Internet, he already invented global warming!

Demonstrably Factually Incorrect (3, Insightful)

JohnWilliams (781097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535424)

From the story: "For quite a while global warming has been presented in the public forum as a universally accepted scientific reality." This is plainly not true. For as long as the global warming issue has been in the public consciousness, it has been referred to as "the global warming debate". There has always been strong opinion and evidence on both sides of this issue. Where have you been, Arthur Dent?

Amazed! (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535428)

This sort of dissent has existed for years, ignored by 'all right thinking people', but out there. Looks like Gore's movie has goaded a few of the dissenters to go on the record and risk destroying their careers. Gotta salute the poor brave but doomed bastards.

But what I'm amazed at is Slashdot actually accepting a dissenting opinion as an actual article submission instead of this being posted as a reply to a glowing review of the film.

For another whack at Gore's credibility try this one:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDE3ZTkyOWYxY TEzYmUwZmQ0ZjNmOTViM2Q1ZWM5ODA= [nationalreview.com]

And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (5, Informative)

goMac2500 (741295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535430)

Why Exxon Mobile of course!

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.p hp?id=1134 [exxonsecrets.org]

The website he writes for also did a great piece on how McDonalds was good for you, after they took a bunch of cash from McDonalds.

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535536)

I think I'll believe the scientists who aren't in somebody else's pocket or beholden to some special interest. Oh, wait...

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (5, Informative)

RugRat (323562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535580)

The "article" is not an article, but a press release written by an employee of a public affairs company.

"Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company."

How this made the front page of ./, I have no idea. Oh, wait.

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535583)

I'm amazed that it's taken this long for someone to point that out.

It'd be in teresting to hear from some scientists who don't believe in global warming who AREN'T funded by big oil, but unfortunately that is not possible, since they don't fucking exist.

right. credibility (5, Informative)

conJunk (779958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535591)

a quick google for the researcher the article focuses on [google.com] shows that he doesn't publish. his main credits are online opinion pieces, and the closes thing to a publication i found (the second page of the google) is a .doc file on his labratory's webspace

if anyone can find anything peer-reviewed by this guy, i'd be keen to see it

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (0)

Morinaga (857587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535594)

With all due respect, that's simply an ad hominem attack. What are the criticisms of the content of his findings? It seems to me he clearly cites named sources, instead of "climate experts". I don't know where the truth lies with global warming. I suspect it lies somewhere in the middle of the crusaders on both sides.

It seems to me this criticism of funding is a common theme with scientists that offer rebuttals on climate change. I guess my question in response to that is don't the proponents of existing global warming have funding as well? Would it surprise anyone to find donations from pro-environment groups? I'm not sure there is anything wrong with getting funding from whoever you can to continue your research. Unless, of course you're suggesting that the source of funding insinuates that their scientific results are compromised. In that case I believe you can disprove the science behind their conclusions rather than ad hominem accusations that suggest a compromise of their believability.

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (0, Offtopic)

MrLint (519792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535622)

Ahh exxon. If I may reminisce for a moment. Back a number of years ago I went to Disney in FL with my father and brother. We ended up going thru the revamped 'Universe of Energy' (or something). At the time it had narrators of Bill Nye and Ellen DeGeneres. Which I felt was a detriment to the original I saw as a child, which I don't recall being politically charged). However, Ellen brought up the issue of global warming, and Bill Nye *THE SCIENCE GUY* gave a mealy mouthed half hearted, clearly manipulated answer of something like 'That is an important topic and is in need of a lot of study.' Or something, I was too appalled to really remember. However we have him quoted as saying "Call it "global cooking," Nye suggested, or "really hot ... really fast." Even a modest change from "global warming" to "global heating" might spur people to action." [cornell.edu]

Why such a BS statement at the Disney exhibit? Sponsors: Exxon (later ExxonMobil) sponsored the pavilion from the day it opened in 1982 until early 2004. [mouseplanet.com]

 

Paid Off (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535434)

As was pointed out in the Digg discussion, Bob Carter gets his funding from Exxon...

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.p hp?id=1134 [exxonsecrets.org]

Article Contents (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535441)

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

TOTAL CRAP - Read How seasons switched in europe (1, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535452)

Im in Antalya, Turkey. In mediterranean coast, western turkey.

This is a tourism spot, a mediterranean riviera if you will, no, not like italy, or spain, not like forest-deprived or barren lands, but lush, green, VERY HUMID, VERY HOT places. In winter warm and rainy.

Normally, at 15 June, we should be SWELTERING OURSELVES OUT, EVEN WITH AIRCONDITIONING ON, 99% humidity, 38+ degrees celsius IN SHADOW, HOT breezes and etc.

At least, this was the way since 2 years ago. Then things started going, as they wish, if you will.

As of this moment i can sit in front of this pc only with having fall gear on, long sleeves, even a polar shirt, although it is thin. Wearing socks, underwear and such. Normally i should be wearing only a short in this time of season. But im not. Its odd. It rains, it is cool, tourism industry, which is very big, is appalled with the situation.

Whereas, in netherlands, which is a cold country by definition, my cousin is sweltering in heat in 33 degrees celsius. I should note here that, friends in germany reported that they were able to see the face of the sun only 1.5 months last summer, rest being cloudy and rather cool.

To hell with the 'scientists' that trash gore's documentary.

I am MYSELF first hand witnessing the global warming and its awkward effects. I dont need nobody to tell me it is happening, certainly no business-interest-funded researches are going to change my view.

Last summer was hot as hell. Last winter, was WARM unusually. This summer, it is ABSURDLY COOL.

Re:TOTAL CRAP - Read How seasons switched in europ (2, Interesting)

HardCase (14757) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535547)

Last summer was hot. Last winter was warm. This summer (which has not started yet) is cool.

So...extrapolate your observations into a long-term trend.

I'm not saying that you're not seeing the effects of global warming. I'm just saying that based on three observations in Turkey, one in Germany and one in the Netherlands over the course of less than a year, you can't really draw a conclusion. And that's part of the problem of the whole global warming "debate".

-h-

Re:TOTAL CRAP - Read How seasons switched in europ (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535586)

Um....as you described it, you are witnessing first hand "cooling" how the hell do you know if it's tied to global warming or not. Let alone whether said warming (or in your case, cooling) is due to man's activities or fluctuations of the sun (which have been recorded for millenia)

Re:TOTAL CRAP - Read How seasons switched in europ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535592)

Great, you just described localized cooling.

Global warming refers to a change in temperature across MANY years, not just one summer. And GLOBALLY. Your shithole "tourist spot" is NOT global

I was wearing t-shirts in March in Rochester, NY, but that doesn't mean global warming was hitting Rochester. IT MEANS WE HAD ONE FUCKING MILD WINTER.

What RealClimate.org thought about it (5, Informative)

ChrisRijk (1818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535453)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 /05/al-gores-movie/ [realclimate.org]

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate.

There's lots more in the actual article.

And this is the guy who wrote the above entry:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 /12/eric-steig/ [realclimate.org]

Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

Interesting Crichton speech (1)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535456)

Stumbled across this relevant speech from Michael Crichton. The upshot is that he laments the emergence of science and scientific critique shaped by politics rather than rigorous scientific method.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_q uote04.html [michaelcrichton.com]

What Gore Said Was... (4, Insightful)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535457)

... that of a huge sample of 900+ *peer reviewed* papers about climate change, 0 contested that it was occuring or that it was a result of humans.

It would be almost impossible to say that no scientist disagreed with these claims. There will always be somebody. There are still some "scientists" who claim that the Sun revolves around the earth because of their positions in whatever religious institutions they belong to.

If they want to contest the points in his movie, that's obviously fine... but also let them publish their claims in a peer reviewed journal so that people smarter than most of us can judge them.

That boat has sailed (4, Interesting)

pq (42856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535467)

It is too late for this argument; global warming is here. Salon is running a great series called Reports from a Warming Planet [salon.com] . They provide a free daypass - please read a couple of the reports, at least.

I'm sure I'll hear that the plural of anecdote is not data, that it is too expensive to fix, that we should throw up our hands and accept things. Global warming is not happening; and even if it is, we didn't do it; and so what if we did, so what - we should write off Bangladesh [sepiamutiny.com] , forget the polar bears, and be happy to grow wheat in Canada instead. Sure. But please, read some of these stories [salon.com] .

AW Fuck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535468)

I bought all of this real estate in the FL pan ahndle with the hopes that it'll be the next beach front. And now I find out that it may not happen!

Well, back to the drawing board. I think I'll steal some nuclear missles, send them in the San Andreas fault, and when the massive earth quake hits, all that land I bought in AZ, NV, etc... will be worth a fortune! I can recoup my losses with the FL land!!

Re:AW Fuck! (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535517)

I bought a tiny plot of land in Otisburg.

Faith ... (2, Insightful)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535476)

yes but al gore like so many people on both sides of the isle from the materialistic atheist to the born again Christian is a man of faith.

He has faith that WE are the cause of global warming far beyond what the science can support. Just as a Christian has faith in a God that cannon be proved and the materialistic atheist has faith that God does not exist beyond what can be proved.

My point is much of the action we take is based on faith not science.
Politics is about emotion not science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ... er.. playing politics ;)

I sometimes thing the environmental issue is as much a religious war as so many other issues from copy write to abortion seem to really be.

The interesting thing is that Gore as a born again Christian is bond by his ethics to seek what is real and true. An atheist has no such moral obligation.

Re:Faith ... (1)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535576)

Lame. Its BECAUSE I'm an Atheist that I have a moral obligation to seek what is real and true. Poster demonstrates a completely off-topic fundamental misunerstanding of all the issues involved.

about time... (1)

stoolmaster (688834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535482)

... no wonder interest in science is declining with all these pseudo-sciences being shoved down our throats with absolutely no or very little evidence (global warming, darwinism, etc). Good to see some real intellects and true scientists speak up. I wonder if our hero Algore can even solve d(e^x)/dx.

Web site not credible (2, Interesting)

ewg (158266) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535486)

This website hosting this article is just not very credible. It uses popup windows and hosts ads for dubious anti-aging products and precious metals investments.

I'm all for a debate on global warming, but this source doesn't pass my personal credibility filter.

IANAClimtologist (1)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535489)

and i don't know that human co2 is causing global warming, but it can't hurt to reduce emmisons. I do know that we can't use fossil fuels forever.

Re:IANAClimtologist (1)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535499)

It can hurt to reduce emissions. It hurts our pocketbook...

Re:IANAClimtologist (1)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535539)

well refusing to get off oil will hurt a whole hell of a lot more.

The essence of proof (4, Insightful)

99luftballon (838486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535493)

There's no conclusive proof that smoking causes cancer either, but there is strong evidence.

well, there's a good (dutch) book on this (1)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535505)

Fot those amongst you that can understand Dutch, there's a good book by geologist Salomon Kroonenberg on this.
In the book he argues that the timescale of significant climate changes is on the order of ten thousand years, not the meagre hundred we are so obsessed about. Quite a good read.
The book is called "De menselijke maat".

B.

Moore's Law (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535623)

But we double the rate of climate change every 2 years, so now it only takes 10 years.

This guy is an oil company shill. (5, Informative)

Ryan C. (159039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535509)

Exxon pays his salary. Here's another of his gems: Global warming is good for plants! [tcsdaily.com]

It's funny how I get a hopeful feeling when I see that there may still be some credible debate on this topic. Sadly the truth really is inconvenient, and depressing.

Monthly Carbon Dioxide Measurements (5, Interesting)

Ed Pegg (613755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535522)

Here is a chart of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, going back to 1973.

ftp://140.172.192.211/ccg/figures/co2_mm_obs.png [140.172.192.211]

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html [noaa.gov]

I consider myself a scientific conservative -- I don't want to find out what happens when CO2 hits the 430 ppm mark. Some people say that nothing bad will happen. They could be cataclysmically wrong.

CFP Bias (4, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535529)

Be aware that the website hosting the article is a far-right broadsheet, the Canadian equivalent of Free Republic [freerepublic.com] . Their agenda is strongly anti-global-warming, which doesn't necessarily discredit the article, but does suggest that one should view it with the same scepticism as one views the recent 'ads' by the Competitive Enterprise Institute [cei.org] .

Says who? (1)

plnrtrvlr (557800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535537)

Just as soon as you read someone saying that we aren't responsible for global warming, remember that you can go on over to Google and find plenty of respectable scientists that say we are. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686 [sciencemag.org] Maybe Bob Carter disagrees with the conclusions that Al Gore has drawn, but to say that he has done the entire scientific comunity a disservice is exaggerating things a tad bit. Perhaps Mr. Carter should look around and check out some viewpoints besides his own before glibly dismissing those other viewpoints as "junk science"

You mean many "scientists" (1)

dulcemrb (978840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535542)

Most of the "scientists" that are comming foreward debunking global warming are funded by special interst groups. These groups consist of oil companies, car manufacturers, and other large corporations. Hmm, connection? Nah.

That article (1)

Laser Lou (230648) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535549)

is clearly written just to show what the "other side" says. There is not nearly enough information in it to draw any conclusions about global warming.

Par for the course (1)

matthewcharles2006 (960827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535551)

The first 'scientist' mentioned, Bob Carter, has a history of denying human impact on the environment. More Carter opinions here. [onlineopinion.com.au]

In his response (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535552)

However, in the light of Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth many climate experts are stepping forward and pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence to support global warming as a phenomenon, much less any particular cause of it.

In which Al Gore responded,

But I'm cereal ! Come on guys, I'm super cereal !

Qualified response (2, Insightful)

azav (469988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535560)

I'm a computer programmer but a formally trained Marine Biology major. In that, I took a season of Oceanography. What is IMPORTANT for the layman to understand here is that we have these cycles that one must understand FIRST. Every 10 years or so, there is a drying pattern in California that leads to drought. There are 10, 20, 50 and 100 year overlapping cycles of temperature, moisture, etc... cycling that happen everywhere in the world. Some areas have droughts every 10 years, some every 20. And sometimes, areas that have 100 year cycles and 10 year cycles overlap to be particularly worse. These time-scales are so large that 1 or three bad years do not definitely mean "OMG! Global warming is here!" It is very important for people to know that, especially when it is June and and already 100 degrees every day in Texas. There are also years where there are more hurricanes and hurricanes of greater severity as well as years with less.

It would do everyone well to look up a book on Oceanography and read how the ocean affects climate. It's just one chapter. Hit your local library.

Now, with that understanding under your belt, animal populations in the aquatic world (read: schools of fish) are fed by the ocean conveyor belt bring nutrient depleted hot water down to the bottom and causing the nutrient rich cold water to flow up. This feeds the krill and shrimp and plankton and they are eaten by bigger fish and so on. If this conveyor is stopped, all fisheries dependent upon it in the world are screwed and we don't know what will happen but it's most likely not good.

Climate (hotness, moisture, rainfall) affects food growers the world over. If the climate patterns change, it will mostly be destabilizing to farmers and that is bad. Less food, rising prices.

Everything we are doing to influence climate change builds up momentum towards that change. It may be slow but once it is started, it is hard to slow down and reverse. 1 degree difference in the entire ocean is a huge difference. Also, unlike us, water temperature in many parts of the ocean is constant to a few degrees. If it changes faster then the critters can handle, they die.

Once you know the rules upon which the ocean works and how it creates climate, running fast and lose with stuff that might change it is hugely dangerous and irresponsible to take a chance on. More moist warm air in places it wasn't before means more tornados and hurricanes in places they haven't been before. More extreme weather in general. This means more insurance claims and that means higher insurance costs factored into the economy.

Most of the times in America, we wait for disasters to happen before we spend enormous amounts off money and time to fix them. I don't want to be a betting man with our affect on the entire climate of the Earth. Calving icebergs the entire size of Rhode Island is not something normal. If we want Florida, New Orleans, Manhattan, Holland or those small islands in the pacific to be around in 50 years and have enough food to eat, I would not expect it to be if we (the US) and China (the largest emerging polluting market)do not take radical steps to curb global warming pollutants. It's that simple.

Interesting rebuttal/attack piece on Tom Harris (2, Informative)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535561)

Find it here [sierraclub.ca] . Google is our friend.

Questionable Source? (4, Informative)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535564)

Bruce Perens pulled the same story over at Technocrat because the author is "from a paid political PR agency." link [technocrat.net]

Read, but read with caution. The author is paid to have his opinion.

What do you expect? (0, Flamebait)

katorga (623930) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535572)

According to Gore, global warming will end it all in 10 years. Yet he felt no need or responsibility to do anything about it when he was a Senator or Vice President. He felt no need to campaign on the issue in 2000, and he feels no responsibility to run for president in 2008 in order to get the power necessary for him to save the world.

He is an "activist" which means he can complain and grouse and content himself with believing that creating "awareness" equates with actually doing something concrete.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

robertjw (728654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535596)

Ummm... He wrote a book [amazon.com] while he was senator. I hear it sucks, but he wrote it.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535614)

Of everything you said, only the fact that he didn't campaign on climate change during the 2000 election is true.

He did a huge amount both as a senator and as VP (or at least as much as he could given the opposition.)

Global Warming is a HOAX by the Illuminati! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15535595)

The reptilians that control the DNC and the media created this hoax to try to make us think that we should use less oil. Why? It's simple, they need oil to survive and without it they shrivel up and die. All this so-called "environmental" stuff is all part of thier plot to destroy man, cause they want to rule the planet again like they did 10,000,000,000 years ago. Think about it, they talk about overpopulation and conservation, it's all cause they want to reduce the human population to a size where they can just kill us off. Getting back to the oil, if we use up all the oil they're dead, thats why they are going to have the governments force switches to "alternative" energy sources, which will be are downfall! It is every humans duty to buy an SUV so we can conquer the Illuminati! MOD THIS COMMENT UP IF you care about humanity!

- Typical Global Warming Skeptic

Presenting scientific facts.. (2, Funny)

cryptomancer (158526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535604)

"In this envelope I have the research that PROVES this so-called 'global warming' effect is not an unusual phenomenon to the Earth. Here, I'll read some excerpts- Hm, a stack of $100 bills. Guess I brought the wrong envelope..."

( question marks ) ??? (1)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15535611)

Is this a joke or something? Grow up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?