Friday, June 02, 2006

My Predictions About "An Inconvenient Truth"

Al Gore is releasing a new movie about global warming and climate change called "An Inconvenient Truth". My guess is that this will be a highly researched endeavor including analysis from the world’s top scientists citing irrefutable facts that the Earth is getting warmer, that man is at least partly responsible for this and that the affects of this could change life on Earth as we know it.

My other guess is that like Fahrenheit 9/11, Conservatives and Republicans will line up talking about all the lies and inaccuracies and all the studies contradicting Gore's findings without actually citing any references. What they won't do, like Fahrenheit 9/11, is address each issue individually until every point is proven wrong in a scientific manner.

My guess is that because the American public is gullible and too stupid to read and research anything on their own, other than how many kids Brangelina are adopting, that this counter hype may just work. People will continue to buy SUV's and act as if melting ice caps wont affect them even though the majority of the worlds population and economies rest largely in coastal areas.


laurzeilei said...

You forgot...too lazy.

Nölff said...

yeah, but don't prove the bible wrong in a scientific manner. That would be wrong.

Grant said...

Having lived in Al Gore's state I'm more familiar with him than most, and I believe the political debate while ignoring his claims is exactly what he wants. Similar to the DaVinci Code, the free publicity should boost ticket sales.

Unitari said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unitari said...

I don't think Gore and Michael Moore are on the same level (At least I think gore is a bit smarter and more eloquent). But I agree with you. It seems like stupid hype always has more effect on people than any coherent and intelligent reasoning. It is also nice to have a government that can't really look too far into the future. as long as the rich guys are making enough money who cares.

(sorry, I accidentally earsed my comment and i had to repost it)

Ryan said...

Its already begun on winger "news" sites like Drudge and its been going on for months. Drudge will put up 'Scientist disagrees with claims in Gores movie'. I guess thats still breaking news to find one crackpot who disagrees with the entire scientific community, if your Drudge, but he represents it as if the entire movie is bogus.

I also saw an article up about the Oklahoma U Republican club staging 'Global Warming Beach Parties' supposedly to ridicule the movie.

I think the biggest problem in America today is that there is no agreeable truth anymore that people from both sides can acknowledge. All truth is spinnable when the people are too stupid to know the difference between bullshit and science.

Lady Hawk said...

Novitiate: Should I be a conservative or a liberal? Which are you?
Mentor: It is more important for you to choose for yourself. Which I am is immaterial.
Novitiate: How can I choose?
Mentor: Look at BLOGs from conservatives and liberals and tell me what you see.
Novitiate: Liberals believe in lies such as Global Warming and New York Times articles.
Conservative BLOGs use facts from respected experts and organizations.
Mentor: Who do liberals use to back up their opinions?
Novitiate: Celebrities such as Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, or
Al Gore who are not experts in politics nor science.
Mentor: Which will you choose?
Novitiate: Conservative! I seek the truth.
Mentor: Remember, you must look at liberals to test your beliefs. If you agree with
them, you are on the path to the dark side.

City Troll said...

Hey asshole I welcome a free and open debate on my site I've tolerated your occaisional visits because even though your an ass you are usually not a vulgar ass but this post linked to your site just got you banned....

This was your winning post....

" Looks like I hit a nerve there cuntface....

Whats the matter NSA got your tongue? Don't you have some minorities to go beat up or gay marriages to ban?

Eat Dick 2006
Lord Granderson | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 4:20 pm | # "

City Troll said...

Toad if that was not your post they did link to your site and this is the IP: that the post came from.... If it is not you I would trace the who on yoursite is speaking in your honor. If it that Ip is yours bye bye

Toad734 said...


I have no idea what your talking about. Sorry, I don't have memorized so I don't know whose IP address that is off the top of my head; Ill have to check my records.

Toad734 said...

Although I must admit, I do use the "eat a dick" line quite frequently. Cuntface just isn't my MO though.

Toad734 said...

Lady Hawk:

When you say "respected experts" are you referring to fat drug addicts with radio shows or old phone sex rapist/sexual harassers who have their own Fox show? And you want to put them up against an ex-VP?

Again, another conservative not addressing the issues, nearly saying that "global warming isn't a fact" and not citing any sources other than the same scientists who think the earth is only 5000 years old. Again, not experts.

If you have something to say come with some ammunition, address some issues.

Anonymous said...

CNN reports that Dubai is still controlling the ports, and that Congress silently killed legislation that would have helped ensure the ports stay American-owned. Lou Dobbs thinks the Republican Congress and the Bush White House have played a fast one on the American people.

BRUISER said...

LadyHawk = KKK Imperial Wizard

Fact: Her interests include telling people about the "old" south...her truth as it were

Fact: She/He listens to dixieland jazz?

Does She /He hate the truth?

ps- City Troll start out by calling the site owner an asshole? You fucking prick you should be so lucky to know the man. The myth. The Legend that is Toad.

michael the tubthumper said...

i still think gore is a tit

Lady Hawk said...

My dear Mr. Toad and Friends:
To continue our discussion on the issue of global warming and truthful sources. If a person is a vice-president of a country, this does not mean a person is a reputable scientific expert and can be valued as a valid source for global warming; anymore than because a person is “a fat drug addict with radio shows” is less valid if he studies and reports facts. (BTW Fox News is too liberal for my tastes.) I prefer to rely on experts who are trained scientists to instruct me about global warming as a natural and repetitive phenomenon that some ignorant people want to make a political issue. NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Association) is nonpartisan. Here is a link you may learn from:
It is regrettable that you and some of your commentator friends (who are not doctors as your comment link presupposes) did not receive proper home training. Calling people names is not nice and indicates intolerance for people who tell the truth. Y’all be sweet, now y’heah? You catch more bugs with honey than vinegar.

Dr. Ryan Maynard, NewsBlog 5000 said...

Fox News is too liberal for my tastes.

Finally someone is talking sense. I do not believe in anything that comes out of the Zionist controlled media. I prefer to get my news from things I make up in my head. For instance, did you know that Global Warming is just a way for Zionists to get us to use less oil, so people in the Middle East starve? I for one will not be complicit with genocide. We must kill every Muslim on Earth, but if we don’t use conventional weapons, like aircraft carriers and tactical nuclear weapons, we're no better than them. But the most important thing is that we kill them all, praise Jesus, or else we'll just end up with Barbara Streisand burning flags and cowboys make out.

Lady Hawk said...

Mr. Maynard:
We owe the Jews a great deal. Kindly check this link which is a brave Arab woman exlaining what the Jews have done for civilization.

As far as killing all of the Muslims, many are converting to Christianity and are being tortured and killed for their conversions. Look up "Voice of the Marytrs" at I humbly request that you PRAY to God rather than PLAY God. I see no difference between your religious fanaticism and that of the Islamic terrorists.

Dr. Ryan Maynard, NewsBlog 5000 said...

I thought I had found a soul mate. Your liberal attitudes disappoint me.

Toad734 said...


Are you saying that greenhouse gases don't act as greenhouses and that they don't trap heat in the atmosphere? Are you saying that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas and that cars and power plants don't produce these gases and that the things that convert these gases into oxygen (trees) aren't being torn down at a rate of 6000 square miles per year in the Brazilian rainforest alone?

Everyone knows that the earth goes in cycles; hence the ice age and the end of the ice age but the temperature increases and rate of glacier melts coinciding with our industrialization is just too obvious to ignore.

If you hate your children and want their children to have to live in moon colonies then keep thinking the way you do. While you are at it, since you are so sure of yourself, I have some ocean front property in Louisiana that I would like to sell you. The walk to the beach gets shorter and shorter every year. Before you know it, you will be able to dive right into the ocean off your roof.

Lady Hawk said...

Brother Toad,
I would like to know why greenhouse warming is a political issue. Where do you get your info from? In the first source I gave you is the fact that"Greenhouse Warming is global warming due to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, etc.)...Although it is known for certain that atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases are rising dramatically due to human activity, it is less well known exactly how increases in these greenhouse gases factor in the observed changes of the Earth's climate and global temperatures."
Another source says,"Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge." Global Warming Lecture - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.htm. I am not a scientist, nor are you. You say ideas that I cannot find proof for, therefore, I disagree with you-at this point. Why do you get so negatively emotional? Can't we disagree without being disagreeable?

Lady Hawk said...

Mr. Toad,
Look at this BLOG! They have quite a debate about global warming. Look at the June 24th dated article and especially the comments. Both sides are well represented. I will no longer visit your BLOG, as I can find what I want to learn about from other BLOGs. Thank you for your time.

Anonymous said...

Oh, toadie dear, Yankee Christian
abolitionists killed Rebel Southerners as they sang "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" stifle your bull about only Moslems killing in the name of religion.

Baruch Goldstein mowed down
scores of Palestinians as they worshipped at a mosque so don't claim that only Moslems kill in the name of religion--check your Old Testament for where Baruch got his counsel from his Yahweh...Miller has censored this several times from his site, so revealing was my answer to your foolishness.

Toad734 said...


Sonic Reducer said...

Global warming is bullshit. It's freezing in my office right now and it's July.

Toad734 said...

Brilliant. AC has nothing to do with that.

Maybe you should try to figure out why we have had so much rain and flooding in the US this year

Anonymous said...

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. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, 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 KarlÈn 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," KarlÈn 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."

KarlÈn 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 KarlÈn

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

Global BullShit from the mouth of the Internet Inventor Al Bore.

Jack Hamilton said...

All I know is that 15 years ago it was Global cooling a new ice age was on the way damn I missed it some how and I am already in the new Global warming.What happened to Global Winter? When did they cure that and did they do it so well that they gave us the new Global warming? Just stop and think people it was not that long ago that the idiot that the media made an expert Carl Sagan who was wrong about everything was doing what Gorehole is doing now. Al Gore smokes a lot of bad pot so he has jumped on Global warming for an issue to try to have some kind of legacy that is not tainted by Willie and his willie.These people are morons and there will be a bunch of alarmist Americans fall for this crap evertime they bring up a new cataclismic threat. Next it will be Global wind storms created by excess gas from Michael Moore and Hillary.We are in the middle of a desperate war for our very survival against radical moslem terrorist that want to completely destroy us and people are focusing on this dumb crap.

Toad734 said...

Without going into who the these Australian experts are the fact is that the ice caps are indeed melting, the snow that used to be on top of mountains is now gone, the ocean levels are rising because of this, CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and we do put massive amounts of extra CO2 in the air and cut down massive amounts of trees which would have converted that into oxygen. Those are all facts.

Other than this one movie, what does anyone who has found that the earth is getting warmer have to gain by saying that? If the only people who claimed that the Earth was getting warmer were air conditioner salesman I would be skeptical.

There are plenty of monetary interests in saying that man is not causing global warming. These people are the same people who influenced us to go to war and persuade politicians to make laws allowing them to make more money; you don't think the auto makers, the utility or the oil companies have anything to gain by "disproving" global warming?

This may be a week example but did you happen to step outside yesterday? Have you noticed how much rain and flooding we have had recently?

Of course in a warming planet certain areas of the earth will actually cool due to the cold fresh water from the ice caps affecting ocean currents which warm places like the British Isles. I'm sorry but the average temperature of the rain forest dropping 2 degrees has zero impact compared to the temperature of the Polar Regions rising 3 degrees.