Link to Thread

The original poster has posted an excellent take on all of this that points out, historically, the dangers of the consensus/we think it’s true so it is approach to science using the example of the Aristotelean Conceit.

Oh, by the way Al, Sister Toldjah found out that not only are you and your Calamity Climate buddies causing hysteria in the media, you’re freakin’ little kids out too.

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. …

…

As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare.

Link

The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as “a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised.”

HALF of children between the ages of seven and 11 are anxious about the effects of global warming and often lose sleep over it, according to a new report.

….

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

….

While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it’s affecting the welfare of kids now.”

The message of environmental destruction being delivered by Gore – and a host of others in recent months – is proving too much to handle for some who feel helpless controlling the forces of nature.

….

Tears. Sleepless nights. Rage. They’re all part of a thought-provoking anxiety over the environment that’s being likened to the feeling many had a half-century ago when nuclear war appeared imminent.

….

One mother, unable to get tickets to the show, called U of T and lamented that her daughter, a high-school student, has been unable to sleep since seeing Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and hoped seeing him live would make her feel better.

….

“There’s an anger and a rage,” said O’Neill, a self-described passionate environmentalist and U of T lecturer whose practice includes the link between ecology and personal as well as communal transformation. “They’re asking what are the people doing who are supposed to be protecting us.

“I think it’s more than anxiety. I think it’s terror.”

Link

IF, and I say if, what Gore and others are doing have been found to be over exagerated or proven false, what would you think about it then?

Just think about it.

Don’t react, just THINK.

I am putting it out there for you to think about, that is all, whether what you come to in your conclusions is right or wrong, that is your take on it then.

That’s all I am going to say about it.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”

Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993″ according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”

According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

“Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.

Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming — and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.

It is, rather, “Idiot adults scaring the pee out of the kids with their stupid hysteria.”

So Marie Horrigan writes this winner of an article for the faithful inside the Global Warming religion and gets just about everything wrong: Although the scientific community has long been aware of the problem, recent studies indicating the speed of…

I’ve concluded Al Gore is bad for your environment.