the constant skeptic

I personally watched “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore, which just came out on June 16th… and I have to say that it was very convincing. Based on my past two years of research into both sides of this heated debate, there are many cases of exaggeration and plain bullshit… and I admit that some things mentioned in this documentary, like oceans rising 20ft in the next 100 years, the figure is actually more like 2ft; besides minor propaganda like that, the message is clear and true…. we need to be more proactive about switching to alternative energy sources and new technologies that are already available to stop our RAPE of this planet…. that is his point, all politicking aside…. i might even vote for the bastard in 2008! The following article is very ONE SIDED so be forewarned Constant Reader…

[following article provided by courtesy of our conservative skeptic, The Lizard Man, we will leave his opinions out of this until he chooses to comment himself]

“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.” read more here