French physicist calls Al Gore a 'crook' over global warming issues
US News
By M&C US News Dec 28, 2007, 18:36 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
Music to my ears! I can't wait to hear the responses!
Imagine somebody dismissing global warming because it is supposed to be a judeo-*christian guilt complex.Hardly scientific.Reminds me of somebody calling atheism a religion.Always good for a joke .Some people use whatever arguments they find,some are ready to believe anything as long as Al Gore is in the cross hairs.
BY the way ,I googled in vain to find the news in question in the french press,found nothing,presumably just another fart in a bottle brewed by a marginal site,not worth mentionning in the mainstream press.No controversy in France at all.
You can find it here
amazonDOTfr/v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9-sur-plan%C3%A8te-Claude-All%C3%A8gre/dp/22 59206751
The Financial Post reported that American scientists who support the global warming 'hype' receive $1.7 billion in grants every year.
So why are the skeptics skeptical?
According to Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, who once supported the theory of global warming, he told the Financial Post in February that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.”
Even if carbon dioxide increased by only 50 percent, “the expected reduction in the rise in global temperature would be less than .5 degree centigrade,” Shaviv said. “This is not significant.”
Second, any increased global temperature reflects intensified solar activity, which increases not only the overall radiation that warms the earth but also the ultraviolet radiation that forms and destroys ozone, thus releasing heat. Such solar activity ebbs and flows in cycles.
“The Sun contains 99.8% of the mass of solar system,” said meteorologist John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel. “Its constant hydrogen-fueled atomic fusion consumes more mass in a second that all the fossil fuel ever burned on Earth. It is difficult to imagine man's activities overwhelming the heat from the Sun. But, that is exactly what global warming advocates want you to believe.
“If you plot average annual temperatures on Earth, solar cycles and mankind's supposed most significant climate altering activity, the burning of fossil fuels, the solar cycles and temperatures match and the use of fossil fuels seems to be unrelated.”
Such dissenting scientists as Dr. David Evans of Australia are trying to make themselves heard at the Bali conference, which features the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Evans – a mathematician and electrical engineer who served as a carbon accountant for the Australian government – is promoting a peer-reviewed team study published in the December edition of the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology. The study showed that increased atmospheric temperatures have natural causes, not man-made ones.
“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming,” Evans said. “We have the missing (human) signature (in the atmosphere), we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years.”
Dr. Vincent Gray, a climatologist who reviewed all of the IPCC’s drafts since the panel was formed in 1990 and who shares a Nobel Prize awarded to the panel, was even more emphatic:
“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails. It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics.”
Perhaps the most prominent skeptic is a scientist who helped lead the original charge against global warming. French geochemist Claude Allegre – an expert in atmospheric chemistry who belongs to the National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science – first proposed the idea in the mid-1980s and joined nearly 1,500 other scientists in signing the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning To Humanity,” which predicted “spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.”
But Allegre’s research into the increase of ice in Antarctica and the diminishing snow caps on Tanzania’s Mt. Kilimanjaro caused him to change his mind. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” Allegre wrote for the French magazine L’Express in September 2006.
Since then, Allegre has been blunt about global warming’s fear mongers, as the Financial Post reported in March:
“Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change ‘simplistic and obscuring the true dangers,’ Dr. Allegre especially despairs at ‘the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.’ His dream, he says, is to see ‘ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear.’”
There IS no controversy in France! They look like they've pretty much decided!
Now, science is going to occur. They will start debunking, point by point, each shred of evidence.
This, curiously is not a bad thing, because it just might SUPPORT the science. This is all folks like myself really want is to verify some of the outragous claims made by these scientific interlopers.
'vahce president Gore......well, isn't this a sur prahse! Ah wuz jes tellin ol Dick abouut in vahtin ya to a quail shoot soon....nah, y don't have t evin bring a gun.....ol Dick l' have enuf fer both o you!'
'what?....global climate change.....uh...yeah, sure! Ah...uh...jes got done gitten it offa them uropeeen leadahs backs....well...ree negotiatin they call it....or sumpin. Al...they kept sayin somethin lahke,,'gee Prez ee dent Buush, heeelp us out here!'....or sumpin lahke thit, ya knoow? Kinda made me feel a little uneasy ya knoow?'
'well....congrats t rebuildin yur career sir....a reel stroke o genius! God, Ol Karl couldn't have done it bettah if you'd been a swift boat cap'n or sumpin....jes kiddin aboot thim swift boatahs sir. Well...gotta go o sum meetin aboot nucular power....no green house gases thire huh?...heh heh heh...bah th way...RSVP on thit quail trip with ol Dick, he's foamin at th mouth boyh! Laura an mah best...happy new yeah! Oh yeah, ol Dick found a couple o brief case with sum chinese letterin on it unda his desk when he moved in...ah told him not t open it an only handle thimm with gloves. N' if'n ya need em boyh, send ol Sandy Bergah over with thim pahnts o his an he'll bring em to ya forthwith.'
Folks, carbon dioxide CONDUCTS heat. It is NOT an insulator. Anybody who says that carbon dioxide is not a conductor of heat has a political ax to grind or is a misanthrope or both!
This is just about as goofy as it gets. Why this silly scam has not been seen through by now is a complete mystery to me.
...how fast this one went off the front page!
The vast majority of scientists, receiving funding or not, are in agreement that it's a future crisis. No one is willing to take sufficient actions, and the melt in the polar regions is clear evidence that problems are looming, which will cause noticeable climatic changes in a few decades. Even a few degrees make a difference. There's always one loudmouth to get headlines by disagreeing, but since the entire planet bears some risk (to what degree no one can quantify), it would be straightforward enough to fund alternative energy research as DARPA did in its areas, as well as explaining pebble-bed and other modern nuclear alternatives. There are even plans for orderly disposal of waste materials. What's needed is effort, not publicity-seeking yahoos looking for a platform.
Of particular concern is ocean warming, which adds strength to tropical storms. We are already seeing increased activity and increased hurricane strength.
www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,,2232599,00.html
The United Nations office that sends expert teams around the world to help governments deal with natural disasters was busier than ever in Latin America this year, a fact it at least partially blames on climate change. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, said in a statement that a record nine missions were dispatched to the region during 2007, among 14 sent around the globe, itself a higher than usual number.
Of the 14 global missions, 70% were in response to hurricanes and floods, the OCHA statement said, calling this 'possibly a glimpse of the shape of things to come given the reality of climate change.'
In Latin America the proportion was even higher.
There were the rains in November that left most of the southern Mexican state of Tabasco under water for weeks, including large parts of the city of Villahermosa.
In October, Tropical Storm Noel triggered flash floods in the Dominican Republic that killed dozens. In September, Honduras faced the category five Hurricane Felix, just as Jamaica and Belize had been battered by the similarly strong Hurricane Dean the month before.
In South America, Uruguay suffered its worst flooding in 50 years and hundreds of thousands of Bolivians were inundated and their crops ruined at the beginning of the year, warranting two UN missions alone.
Claude Allegre has some pretty serious bona fides.
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14 da388
Notice, if you will, that the good Doctor is from Tonny's end of the political spectrum. No greedy capitalist at work here, Tonny. Strangely enough, he seems to be hinting that this global warming scare is nothing more than a capitalist plot to rip more money out of the helpless masses. He might be right in a way, but I would argue that it is a MERCANTILIST PLOT. Mercantilism should NOT be confused with Capitalism.
Southern Hemisphere Winter Sea Ice area is the highest it's been in 30 years:
Why?
Yes, there was record low Arctic sea ice last summer, but according to NASA's report, the melting was enhanced by an unusually high number of clear days and unusual winds which blew the sea ice out to warmer waters. This melting may not occur again next summer to the same extent. Also, according to a Environmental Defense 411 scientist, a lot of the Arctic melting was also enhanced by black soot coming from Europe.
I have links to support these statements.
Trying to find short-term cause-and-effect is just silly - the trends have been in place, and the additional pollution coming from industrial activity in China, India, and other countries without U.S. levels of pollution controls is a recent addition.
Give it a decade, and many more scientists will be in agreement. It will also be another 10 years wasted listening to a minority of scientists like this one, still blinded by their own agendas, and refusing to understand the science and the impact of globalization.
This is somewhat like waiting for Bush to admit that he screwed up Iraq.
The author of this link is also 'about the politics of it', but he still has a point to make insofar as climate change.
www.alternet.org/environment/71873/
Globalization is to global warming what warm water in the Gulf of Mexico waters was to Hurricane Katrina. And, unless we wisely limit rapidly accelerating global trade, we will see equally disastrous and deadly results -- worsening global warming and a continued chemical poisoning of our world.
For nearly a generation, the mainstream pro-globalization forces have ignored climate change. Instead we've been bombarded with the virtues of liberalized trade: It drives down prices, increases efficiency, lifts nations out of poverty, and contributes to overall global prosperity. Those who questioned NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the like are derided as 'protectionists,' who force artificially high prices on the rest of us while making our economy less competitive. Manufacturing unions attempting to stop the destruction of millions of middle-income, U.S.-based factory jobs are vilified as elitists who are more concerned about the privileged few than about the poor who gain new jobs in developing nations.
But the elephant in the room is hyper-development. Expanded trade indeed has contributed to the enormous economic growth rates in China (and India). As a result, China's appetite for fuel and power has grown exponentially: As The New York Times reported (June 11, 2006), every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant comes online in China large enough to serve a major U.S. city.
I'll never bash the French again. Come on people, the scientific consensus is not all the doom and gloom feedbacks in computer models that are not up to the task in predicting climate. We are a long way off from knowing how the variables interact (we don't even know if we have identified all the variables.) The consensus is that the mean temperature of the earth has warmed a little and that C02 can act as a greenhouse gas. For all of you who believe that arctic temperatures and summer melting is beyond what has happened in the past, take the time look at historical temperatures from the period of 1900 to 1940 on the NASA web site. You will be very surprised. The major difference between summer Arctic melting then and now is that we began taking satellite photos in 1979.
AGW is the new Socialism!
Alas! Can't argue with the facts. The scientists who have diligently studied the causes may just be a tad bit more reputable than those who pass judgment due to their own prejudices.
Let us summarize here;the very few scientists trying to debunk global warming use these arguments;it is a capitalist plot,it is a judeo-christian guilt thing,;the scientists community gets billion dollar bonuses for predicting global warming (from who,by the way ? ) In a nutshell these are the arguments that are wielded by the lunatic fringe denying climate change .I'd like to add to that a new claim;carbon dioxide is a heath conductor...a new invention of a delusive brain,contrary to the laws of thermodynamics,more specific the first and the second laws.
Ignorance is a poor excuse when you post on the Internet but it never hinders the disabled peanut brains in the USA.
Against that I would like to oppose a few of your own domestic worries,as it seems the world ends at the borders of the USA for some of you:record drought in the South East,enormous forest fires in California,dwindling water supplies allover,the North Californa glaciers melting ,record average temperatures,the levels of the great lakes changing.Now for those of you with the capacity to look over the border,record temperatures allover the world,glaciers melting everywhere ,the artic ice losing 20 percent of it's surface in the last year,greenland rising slowly as a result of losing it's cover of ice,drought and inundations on the rise everywhere.Calculation from the International Red Cross figured out a raise in catastrophes with 20 percent in 2006.Statistics,recorded facts,etc are opposed to spin like judeo-chrisitan guild and capitalist plot.
Guess who I believe in this.At least I have a scientific education.THat disposes quickly of the 'carbon dioxide is a thermal conductor 'idiocy.
Some people need an education,perhaps spending a little bit less on a silly war might provide for it.Some are in dire need of it...
Now is the time todebunk all these deceptive issues of carbon-caused global warming. Human existed old enough not to be deluded by carbon emission hoax. Science is bound to humanity to explain its existence and not to connive with the acts of deceit.
Well-meaning scientists should come out and give their views and strive for truth.
Another fine example of the complete lack of understanding is to be found in the ridicule statement that the sun contains 99;8 percent of the total mass of the solar system and the thermonuclear processes providing heath can not be influenced bu human provoked global warming .What king of idiotic reasoning hides behind this ?Anybody actually believing this kind of fairy tales .It leaves out the most important element;how much of this energy is absorbed by our planet.Probably less than one millionth of it I guess,if not much less.Kind of tells you how stupid the people are that use these arguments...you were saying these were scientists?I guess you mean US scientists,right?
Here it is,the part of solar energy that actually reaches the earth's atmosphere :0.00000005% .At least that is part of a plausible mathematic equation influencing the weather,NOT the 99,8 mass of the sun compared to the total mass of the solar system.That figure means nothing but is spectacular and hence used to influence the feeble intelligence of SP4 and others.
Carbon dioxide is a very good conductor of heat. That is why it is often used as a coolant! It is NOT an insulator of heat. Again, let us look at the numbers here. Carbon dioxide by volume, .038%! Water vapor by volume (for the whole atmosphere) 0.25%. By volume there is about seven times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as there is carbon dioxide. In terms of mass, water vapor makes 26 times more of the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Every gas in our atmosphere, most of them far more abundant than carbon dioxide, are good conductors of heat. Carbon dioxide itself, is pretty good conductor of heat. You don't have to do much arithmetic to understand that this 'greenhouse gas' thing is a load of hooey!
In the very first paragraph of the IPCC's report, they stated flat out that they gave no consideration to water vapor in the atmosphere. This despite the fact that for every ten grams of hydrocarbons we burn, we produce 3.5 grams of water vapor not previously available to the atmosphere. The computer geeks have not been able to come up with a good model that deals with clouds, so they did not even try! This is science? My happy left cheek!
While we are about it, let's get something else straight. Democracy is not universally applicable and one of the fields were it is most decidedly inapplicable is in the fields of the sciences. Unfortunately, politics is never fully excluded from the realm of working scientists. In this particular case, on this particular subject, the politics to science ratio is something around a 100-to-1.
Have a look at this: 'Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers and books.'
What does Doctor Lindzen have to say about anthropogenic global warming?
'The summaries' distortion of the IPCC chapters compounds another distortion that occurred in the very writing of the scientific chapters themselves. Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: 'throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements.''
This is POLITICS, not SCIENCE. And, I might add, it is a particularly NASTY form of politics, the kind of which that Tonny has repeatedly shown himself to be a master.
Folks, we DO have global warming. I don't think anyone can argue about that anymore. The ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM is warming up! Earth receives more total energy from the sun than all the other planets except Venus. If the outer planets, from Mars to Pluto, are showing signs of heating up, then it isn't hard to understand why Earth is heating up. We receive eight times as much energy from the sun as Mars does. Thanks to the inverse square law, the other planets receive far less energy than Earth.
So yes, we most certainly DO have a problem, but wasting huge capital resources on limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide is not going to fix the problem. All that does is get in the way of the other things that we need to be doing RIGHT NOW!
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
- 2. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (2nd Roundup)
- 3. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (Roundup)
- 4. Senior US senator demands 'terrorism' probe into army killings
- 5. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting
USA
Your Talkback on this Story