[Stoner]

Context?

I just linked to your original post and gave the immediate paragraphs before and after.
If you want to discredit Gore on his scientific claims...have at it.

But what you posted is clear to me and there for everyone to read.
If you wish to reconsider and clarify your thoughts, have at it, too, because I do think you need to restate your thoughts if you did, indeed, mean otherwise.

I can lie all I want about global warming and make no difference in the scheme of things.

Anything I say on the matter is irrelivant, whether I have told the truth or lied about it, which I haven't

You might consider that it is relevant to me. And others.

[Ciberblade]

*The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
*The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

[Stoner]

Thank you CB for the clarification.

Looks like I posted correctly to context, and the circumstances were the rationale for it

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Thank you CB for the clarification.

Looks like I posted correctly to context, and the circumstances were the rationale for it

Your welcome

* Something that serves to explain or clarify
*The act or process of removing physical impurities

[LANMaster]

What ev

[bassetman]

This one is for you Lan!

Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To "Confuse and Mislead"
The Competitive Enterprise Institute runs ads saying "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker." A professor objects, saying CEI deliberately misrepresents his research.

May 26, 2006
Modified: May 26, 2006

Summary

The business-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released two ads last week to "counter global warming alarmism."

One of the ads says research shows "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. . . Why are they trying to scare us?" Actually, scientists say increased snowfall in Antarctica's interior is evidence that global warming is taking place. Scientists also say that the ice sheet is melting at the ocean's edge and a recent report says it is shrinking overall.

The ads drew a protest from a University of Missouri professor who says they are "a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." He said one of them misuses a study he published in Science magazine last year on the Antarctic ice sheet. An editor of Science also said the ads misrepresent the findings of that study as well as a second study on Greenland's glaciers.

The second CEI ad notes that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "essential to life," and says, "they call it pollution. We call it life." That ad fails to mention that too much CO2 can cause global temperatures to rise or that there is more of it in the atmosphere than any time during the last 420,000 years.

CEI, which gets just over 9 per cent of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation, said it was only trying to make sure the public hears "both sides of the story."


Analysis

CEI released two ads last week as part of a $50,000 ad buy in 14 cities scheduled to take place from May 18th to May 28th.

Misrepresenting Conclusions

The CEI ad "Glacier" quotes two studies in Science magazine, one as saying " Greenland’s glaciers are growing, not melting" and the other as saying "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." That drew quick objection from an editor of Science and from the author of the Antarctica study.

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor at Science, complained in a May 19 news release that CEI was misrepresenting both the studies and also the general state of scientific knowledge:

Hanson: The text of the CEI ad misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers and our current state of knowledge by selective referencing.

The lead author of the Antarctica study, University of Missouri professor Curt Davis, said in the same release that CEI was twisting his findings deliberately to mislead the public:

Davis: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public.

For one thing, the release said, Davis' study only reported growth for the East Antarctic ice sheet, not the entire Antarctic ice sheet. More importantly, it said that growth of the interior ice sheet is just what scientists had predicted would happen as a consequence of global climate warming, bringing about more snowfall in previously arid regions of the continent.

Davis's study indicated the increased ice accumulation in the interior might be offsetting the loss of ice at the coastal regions, or might not. It said that whether the entire ice sheet is shrinking "will depend on the balance between mass changes on the interior and those in coastal areas."

What CEI Says

CEI posted a rejoinder to this criticism on their website. In it, they say:

CEI: Professor Davis admits that he doesn't know whether the coastal losses offset or outweigh the gains in the interior. This is precisely our point - the public needs to hear both sides of the story not just the coastal loss, if they are to judge whether we face an imminent catastrophe justifying policies that would drastically affect our way of life.

Actually, a more recent study (also published in Science magazine) says satellite measurements show that the ice sheet as a whole is in fact shrinking "significantly," and that most of the loss is taking place in the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet.

...http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

It was totally out of context, and you know it.

The context is clear to anyone who has an ounce of integrity.

Anything I say on the matter is irrelivant, whether I have told the truth or lied about it, which I haven't.
Al Gore spouts his junk science and it makes a difference in the scheme of things.

I have now explained the context clearly.....AGAIN.

Show that you have an ounce of integrity and stop misrepresenting what I have said.




For what?

Lan, integregirty is something that Bush supporters are losing fast!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Lan, integregirty is something that Bush supporters are losing fast!

I can't believe you have the nerve to talk about enyone else's integrity. What about your allegation that Lay and Arnold had a "secret" deal to screw California out of energy! Here--let's remind you about the author you quoted (who is the same guy that ran the false story on Rove being indicted):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Mar8.html

Jason Leopold got a journalistic black eye three years ago when Salon retracted a story the freelancer had written about a Bush administration official, saying it could not authenticate the piece.

Now the former Los Angeles Times and Dow Jones reporter has written a book, "Off the Record," that criticizes journalists as lazy. Oh, and by the way, Leopold says he engaged in "lying, cheating and backstabbing," is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life.

The person with no integrity here is you, John--for quoting garbage and sources that have no credibility. After running nonsense like that, you should have apologized and conceded your mistake, but instead, you did nothing! You can NEVER question anyone else's integrity here!

[GoneForNow]

Very interest article today in the Washington Magazine which is a Sunday feature put out by the Washington Post. Unfortunately, you have to register to read it but it's worth the effort:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05.html?sub=AR

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I can't believe you have the nerve to talk about enyone else's integrity. What about your allegation that Lay and Arnold had a "secret" deal to screw California out of energy! Here--let's remind you about the author you quoted (who is the same guy that ran the false story on Rove being indicted):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Mar8.html



The person with no integrity here is you, John--for quoting garbage and sources that have no credibility. After running nonsense like that, you should have apologized and conceded your mistake, but instead, you did nothing! You can NEVER question anyone else's integrity here!

How about your predictions of WMD's?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I can't believe you have the nerve to talk about enyone else's integrity. What about your allegation that Lay and Arnold had a "secret" deal to screw California out of energy! Here--let's remind you about the author you quoted (who is the same guy that ran the false story on Rove being indicted):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Mar8.html



The person with no integrity here is you, John--for quoting garbage and sources that have no credibility. After running nonsense like that, you should have apologized and conceded your mistake, but instead, you did nothing! You can NEVER question anyone else's integrity here!

Really? Here is some info on the CEI.org that was misusing the study:

Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will unveil two 60-second TV ads focusing on what it calls “global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions.” The ad, which will be aired in more than a dozen cities across the country, is being released just a week before the May 24th opening (in LA and NYC) of Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

Who is CEI? The Washington Post explains:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a “major donor” largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Exxon documents reveal the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for “global climate change and global climate change outreach.” Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998.

CEI’s general counsel Sam Kazman said, “I think what attracted [Exxon] to us was our position on global warming.” CEI’s position? The Institute believes the dangers of global warming are akin “to that of ‘an alien invasion.’”

Exxon’s spokesperson Tom Cirigliano has explained why the company is so dedicated to funding CEI’s pushback on global warming:

....

The science is not questioned because the science behind global warming is indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions. And the EPA has said that the recent warming trend “is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years…due mostly to human activities.”

For the oil industry, Al Gore’s film exposing the truth is perceived as a threat, and they have no shortage of funds to try to distort it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/

---------------------------------------

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-547-1010
Fax: 202-546-7757

Founded in 1984, CEI is a Washington-based conservative think tank "whose research on public policy reflects the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government." CEI is at the center of the global warming misinformation campaign.

CEI has tackled tough and contentious scientific issues such as global warming, carbon dioxide and fuel-economy standards, most recently expanding into the politics of food. It has become the go-to think tank in the fight against excessive federal government regulations, supporters say. (Beyond the Theories: Think Tank Debunks Popular Myths; Audrey Hudson, May 18, 2004, Washington Times) The organization mixes free-market ideas with the antiregulation and environmental movements, but unlike most institutes that are content just to think and speak, the CEI does not shy away from forcing action through the courts or the legislative process. CEI, among many other statements denying the seriousness of global warming, has argued that climate change would create a "milder, greener, more prosperous world" and that "Kyoto was a power grab based on deception and fear" (R. Brunet, "It Just Ain't So, Say These Reputable Scientists" Alberta Report, 10 November, v.24(48) 1997 p20-21). In addition to leading the campaign to convince the public that global warming is uncertain, CEI has weighed in on pesticide risk and endocrine disrupting chemicals - both of which pose no threat to human health, in CEI's view - and has supported regulatory "takings" measures. CEI supports eventual elimination of the Superfund and has advocated the complete privatization of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that species protection would meet the level of "demand," based on how much citizens are willing to pay for habitat preservation (CLEAR fact sheet). CEI has a long anti-environmental pedigree. CEI is a member of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition. CEI was a sponsor of the first Wise Use conference in 1988 and has had membership in the Get Government Off Our Backs coalition, the wise use umbrella group. CEI is also a network member of The Heritage Foundation, Alliance for America, and the anti-Endangered Species Act group, Grassroots ESA Coalition. CEI was also a co-sponsor of the 1998 NY State Property Rights Conference. With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil .....http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2

[GoneForNow]

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.

As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

~SNIP~

Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.

I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer
(aka 'Phil Jones')

Full Article Here:http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C

[bassetman]

...
Spencer acknowledged that other satellite experts have found two errors in how he and Christy processed their data. Christy, who has known Spencer for nearly two decades, called his colleague "one of those traditional weather nerds" who get excited every time there's a big storm.

Naturally, Spencer is less than popular with scientists who believe that industrialized nations need to take swift action to curb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"It tends to cloud the issue by playing media attention to the uncertainties," said Drew Shindell, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "In fact, we know a lot more about this issue than a lot of things we take action on."

But EcoEnquirer.com has its fans, too. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee counsel John Shanahan, whose boss, James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), has called global warming "a hoax," likes Spencer for his research as well as his wit.


...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052001151.html

[Littlefield]

If you're a global warming alarmist, you shouldn't read this. It will destroy your purpose in life.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list832167

Good News and a Puzzle

Earth's ozone layer appears to be on the road to recovery.

The good news: In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Right: The ozone layer is located about 15+ km above Earth's surface. [More]

The puzzle: In the lower stratosphere (between 10 and 18 km) ozone has recovered even better than changes in CFCs alone would predict. Something else must be affecting the trend at these lower altitudes.

The "something else" could be atmospheric wind patterns. "Winds carry ozone from the equator where it is made to higher latitudes where it is destroyed. Changing wind patterns affect the balance of ozone and could be boosting the recovery below 18 km," says Newchurch. This explanation seems to offer the best fit to the computer model of Yang et al. The jury is still out, however; other sources of natural or manmade variability may yet prove to be the cause of the lower-stratosphere's bonus ozone.

Whatever the explanation, if the trend continues, the global ozone layer should be restored to 1980 levels sometime between 2030 and 2070. By then even the Antarctic ozone hole might close--for good

I saw this on thebackpacker.com a thread

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

If you're a global warming alarmist, you shouldn't read this. It will destroy your purpose in life.

...............

Interesting read.
Are you claiming global warming is responsible for repairing the ozone layer?