35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth


See also Global Warming is Unfactual for more updates on the no-show of global warming.

So last you heard, Al Gore’s propaganda film, ‘A Collection of Convenient Outright Lies’ ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was found to contain at least 9 serious errors… By the British High Court no less.

Now, ramp that up to at least 35 serious errors.

As I’ve learnt from Is It Getting Warmer, the Science and Public Policy Institute has reviewed all of Al Gore’s convenient misrepresentations and determined 35 key facts that Gore portrayed wrongly. The blog host also meticulously researched each of the SPPI’s criticisms and gives a rundown of the accuracy of each claim at this link.

Gore could have gotten his facts through his scientific incompetence, or perhaps by getting his information from only certain biased sources.

But my personal opinion is that Gore INTENTIONALLY LIES throughout the film. He is dishonest, manipulative, sneaky and utterly self-serving.

If you think my remarks are unfair and unfounded, just remember that Al Gore has been shown to change his stance 180-degrees and lie for personal political gain, he stands to profit immensely if governments enforce carbon offsets out of fear, and he totally does not subscribe to his own directives to us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So yes, I do think he intentionally lies throughout his film, in order to spread hysteria and panic about global warming.

Below are the 35 errors pointed out by the SPPI article, with my short summary of the actual truths behind each dishonest fib. See the full explanations at Science and Public Policy Institute article:

THE 35 BLATANT ERRORS OR LIES IN ‘AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH’

1. Sea level “rising 6 m”
Even the IPCC’s maximum estimate is a mere 59cm… In the year 2100.

2. Pacific islands “drowning”
They aren’t. The sea levels around the Maldives haven’t changed for 1250 years. Same goes for Vanuatu.

3. Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
In reality, it is strengthening.

4. CO2 “driving temperature”
It is a clear and well accepted fact that temperature drives CO2 levels.

5. Snows of Kilimanjaro “melting”
Temperature at the summit never rises above freezing. Most of the melt occured before 1936.

6. Lake Chad “drying up”
It also dried up in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC. Where was our carbon-polluting human industry then?

7. Hurricane Katrina “man made”
Maximum hurricane wind speed and number of hurricanes has not increased.

HurricanesNoWorse

8. Polar bears “dying”
Four bears died in a storm. Four. Measly. Bears. Meanwhile, there are 25000 polar bears today compared to 5000 in 1940.

9. Coral reefs “bleaching”
It was caused by an unusual El Nino pattern, not global warming.

10. 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
Gore overstates the effect of CO2 ten times greater than even the IPCC’s highest estimate.

11. Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
Air temperatures in the area were the coldest in 25 years, not warmest.

12. Japanese typhoons “a new record”
Tropical cyclone frequency has fallen in the past 50 years.

13. Hurricanes “getting stronger
They haven’t in 60 years.

14. Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
Insured losses in hurricane-prione areas were lower in 2005 than 1905.

15. Mumbai “flooding”
There’s been no increase in rainfall over 48 years.

16. Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
Severe tornadoes have fallen in frequency for the last 50 years. Tropical storms are also at the lowest frequency in decades.

USTornadosDecreasing

17. The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
The ocean emits more heat than it receives from the sun.

18. Arctic “warming fastest”
It’s actually 1 degree cooler now than in 1940.

19. Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
The ice sheet did not break up during the last three times when the temperature was 5 degrees hotter than today.

20. Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
The snow melt which provides water has not decreased in 40 years.

21. Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
For the past 10,000 years the Peruvian ‘glacier’ region has been mostly ice free.

22. Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
Human CO2 output has had no effect on the already-present glacier shortening trend.

HydrocarbonUseNotEffectGlacier

23. Sahara desert “drying”
In the past 25 years, the Sahara shrunk by 300,000 square kilometres due to increased rainfall.

24. West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
Antarctic ice is at its thickest in nearly 28 years.

25. Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
Gore concentrates on the 2% of Antarctica that is experiencing some warming, while conciously neglecting to mention the 98% of Antarctica that is cooling.

26. Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”
The ice shelfs have been breaking up since 10,000 years ago.

27. Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
The graph says it all: Wrong.

MalariaLowerAltitudes

28. Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”
None of the diseases quoted are tropical, none are affected by increasing temperature, and some even cause more harm at colder temperatures.

29. West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”
West Nile virus flourishes in any climate, from desert to ice.

30. Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
Forests are thriving due to the increasing CO2 levels.

31. The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000″
Cold snaps kill people, but the IPCC does not include the number of lives that would be saved due to less cold weather.

32. Pied flycatchers “cannot feed their young”
A few tens of kilometres north, and there is no notable difference.

33. Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
Gore plays fast and loose with falsely used images.

34. The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
It is closed to retain tidal water in the Thames.

35. “No fact…in dispute by anybody.”
Do I even have to mention these?

  • Climate Audit
  • Climate Skeptic
  • Global Warming Hysteria
  • Is It Getting Warmer?
  • Global Warming Fears
  • CONCLUSION: It’s clear that Al Gore and his film have got the facts totally wrong, reversed, upside-down and etc on almost every count. An Inconvenient Truth is truly an amazing piece of bullcr@p, and it’s even more amazing that anybody still trusts anything it and Gore have to say.


    Tags: , ,

    190 Responses to “35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth”

    1. Sean O Says:

      Great post! I like how you were much more concise than I was, however, we obviously disagree on some of the minor points. I say the list is about 22-24 errors long which is still pretty terrible for a film that won multiple awards and led to the man getting a Nobel.

    2. Scott Thong Says:

      All hat-tips to you for your digging up the SPPI article. I listed down the criticisms as they were delivered by the SPPI, and noted that your blog has an analysis of which are accurate. Kudos again!

    3. JW Says:

      You and the SPPI have to be two of the biggest bozos in existence. Talk about cherrypicking facts and skewing them to your own agenda. To be so critical of facts from Gore because of your political agenda and trying to pass them off as science is no better than what you are accusing him of. Also, if you’re going to be critical, it’s KATRINA, not CATARINA, dumb ass. It should also be 34 items and not 35 since you duplicated items number 7 and 11, misspelling Katrina in number 11. The SPPI article basically said Gore’s party was the cause of Katrina. You are all idiots with your heads up your asses and like all Republicans are more tied to the dollar than the planet. Don’t try to pass yourself off as champions of the truth when you are clearly not. Every day REAL scientists are coming out with REAL science proving that if we stay on the track we are on we are going to screw this world up more than we already have. Until we don’t have any water, food, animals, plants, you just won’t get it and even then will spin your lame arguments to blame someone else.
      You are pathetic.

    4. Jamie Says:

      LOL you sound like a cult member trying to defend your “faith”. You accuse people of things but have not shown proof that they did so, you use so many ad hominem attacks, and you claim intellectual superiority over those who challenge you. Keep at it, cultist, you always make me laugh.

    5. Scott Thong Says:

      Not a very observant or well-educated cult member either…

      Point 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

      Point 11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Catarina

      Even the SPPI article clearly states that Katrina hit New Orleans and Caterina/Catarina hit Brazil. Cyclone Catarina was named for Santa Catarina where it hit close to. Eyes wide shut, JW, eyes wide shut.

      Apparently this particular convert to the Temple of the Goracle didn’t even watch his holy prophet’s movie properly, let alone carefully read the SPPI article and considered its arguments. And he has the testicular fortitude to call us fact cherrypicking bozos?

      Take note loyal readers: The majority of global warming scream-head-offers are about as well educated in science and the facts about climate change as this guy – who seems to have gotten his information solely from one theatre film… And he didn’t even stay awake through the whole thing.

      That should tell you a lot about the amount of truth this global warming hysteria actually carries.

      PS. The guy who is REALLY tied more to the dollar than the planet: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/follow-the-clues-is-al-gores-promotion-of-global-warming-hysteria-merely-a-scam-to-make-him-money/

      As evidenced by his very clear disregard for obscene energy consumption and polluting the environment with the very CO2 he demonizes: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/al-gore-high-priest-of-global-warming-hypocrisy/

      Goracle worshipers, feel free to use logic, facts, reason, references, Internet links and anything OTHER than name-calling to disprove my allegations.

      YA RITE!!! LOLZ!

    6. max Says:

      Lol, holy crap. first off great post, i caught a few of those things but 35 jesus. Second scott and jamie nice work stickin it to the “cultist” suprising how similar this whole global warming movement is to a cult.

    7. Scott Thong Says:

      Cult you say?

      Prayer of Gore

      Al is my Shepherd

      He is only aware of what he wants
      He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion

      He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
      He restores my doubt in brain dead liberals

      He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
      His lies give children sleepless nights

      Though i walk dark in my house
      his 4 are lit like Vegas

      Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life
      And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever

      – letzfaceit, YouTube, April 8, 2007

      http://www.goracle.org/prayer_of_gore.php

      http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/ann-coulter-junks-global-warming-too/

      http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/al-gore-high-priest-of-global-warming-hypocrisy/

      See also http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/global-warming-editorial-cartoons/ and search for the cartoons mocking global warming’s cultish religious overtones (search for the word religio)

    8. George Bush Says:

      Y’all stoopid asses. Ah oppose to ahll this shit

    9. Scott Thong Says:

      Y’all heard it from the President’s mouth, Gore supporters are Democrat donkeys and he’s opposed to all this global warming hooey.

    10. ga be Says:

      he also lied about the evaporation rate going up it is actually going down!

    11. ODB Says:

      Whoever wrote this is a totally stupid a$$ b1tch with no brain mothafukk@

    12. Scott Thong Says:

      Uh, did ODB just cuss at himself for writing the above comment? lolz!

    13. ODB Says:

      I meant who wrote those 35 errors and says that we have nuthin to worry about. Believe him if you will…..

    14. Scott Thong Says:

      Hahaha! Just playing with you dude.

      The guys who wrote the 35 errors are from the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). They based their conclusions on official raw data, that they give citations and links to so you can check it out for yourself.

      Of course we have to worry about the environment. But global warming is most probably not anywhere near the threat that Al Gore and the IPCC make it out to be.

      Here are some links:

      Arctic ice may be melting, but Antarctic ice is increasing (98% of it is gettign colder) – so the seas won’t be rising anytime soon – http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/irrefutable-it-is-a-fact-global-warming-causes-all-time-high-antarctic-ice/

      In fact, sea levels at low-lying islands have been measured over the decades, and NO rise was detected – http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200512%5CCUL20051207a.html

      There are fewer violent storms in this decade than in the decades before global warming allegedly took effect – http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/10/despite_goracle.html

      These are all data backed by official scientific surveys and measurements, not just wild opinions. That’s why I will believe them that the world is NOT in immediate peril.

      How’s about you?

    15. JOSEPH F. YATES Says:

      AL GORE IS A BIGGER THREAT THAN GLOBAL WARMING. MICHAEL SAVAGE HAS IT RIGHT ” LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER ” AND IT`S KILLING THIS COUNTRY.

    16. Mr. Scientific Says:

      Yo, although Gore is wrong in some points, your arguing is the most pathetic thing I ever seen. On most points you are simply saying “no, it’s not” even more than Al Gore says “Yes it is”

      Even thinking that global warming is bullshit kinda states what kinda idiot you are. and btw, If you have lived in a place with polar bears since you were born ( loooong time ago) you would’ve know the population has decreased dramatically.

    17. Scott Thong Says:

      What, like YOU live in the Artic regions? Cause if you did, you’d know that polar bears numbers have INCREASED FIVE FOLD over the past few decades.

      http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/03/environazis_pus.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Conservation_status

      Earliest preliminary estimates of the global population were around 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s, and this was revised to 20,000–40,000 during the 1980s. Current estimates put the global population at between 20,000-25,000.

      And as the increasing Artic ice spreads (caused by global warming of course!), the bears are even looking at humans for food:

      http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/growing_ice_for.html

      Anyway, there are countless more arguments against anthropogenic global warming. Your mindlessly believing what the lie-beral mainstream media feeds you shows how Net unsavvy you are. Do some browsing – find out why the numbers of global warming skeptics are growing.

      You can start here, brainiac:

      http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
      http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com/
      http://www.climateaudit.org/

    18. Amber Brown Says:

      HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
      I am giggling as I type this. I found a website like this that supports global warming!
      I typred in and posted a huge long hillarious comment on it too. You should see it!!!
      It lists all the major mistakes in his movie.

      GUESS WHAT!!!!!!!
      THEY LET ME POST IT!!

      HA HA HA!

      It gets better though. I started arguing with this dumb (donkey’s but) “Sally.”
      It was soo funny.

      you should post a comment too.
      I would laugh
      a lot.
      I’ll check the website for your comments.

    19. Amber Brown Says:

      Awww man!!! They deleted our argument.

      THEY BETTER NOT DELETE MY POSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    20. Amber Brown Says:

      btw- the website is-

      http://tingilinde.typepad.com/starstuff/2006/05/turth_in_an_inc.html

    21. Amber Brown Says:

      Oh, yeah. And to that “Mr. scintific” dude.

      I live in Alaska and, well, there’s a TON of polar bears. Whever believes that $#*%!! is *&#$.

    22. Sally Says:

      I HATE YOU AMBER!!!

    23. Scott Thong Says:

      Amber, what you can do is to press Print Screen on your keyboard while viewing your comment.

      Then open Microsoft Paint and Paste the copied image. Save that as a jpeg, and you have everlasting evidence of your comment!

      Then send it to me if you want me to post it, I’ll help you show up those global warmists!

      Btw, polar bear mockery video below for you. Enjoy!

      http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/03/a_seals_take_on.html

    24. paul Says:

      So what I want to know is when is the Nobel society going to call up their buddy Al and ask for their prize back! It should be a crime for this level of fraud.

    25. Scott Thong Says:

      Well they still haven’t recalled the Prizes they gave to Lee Duc Tho even after the Vietcong massacres, or Yasser Arafat after yet more Intifada, or to Dhimmi Carter after he went wooing terrorist group dedicated to the genocide of all Jews Hamas last week…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Controversy

    26. Donovan Says:

      Will you please send me the references where you found all of this information? I would like to review the facts myself. Please just post it.

    27. Scott Thong Says:

      The SPPI website where I got the contents of this post has references at bottom.

      I’ll dig up other references for you later.

    28. 400,000 Years of Climate Change Was Caused By… « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT Says:

      [...] 35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth [...]

    29. sam Says:

      seriously? You think just because you state all of your facts on a website, it makes it all true? I’ll be the first to note that Mr. Gore did make some exaggerations, but do you honestly believe temperature drives CO2 levels? It’s common scientific knowledge that combustion (something imperative in the burning of fossil fuels) produces Carbon Dioxide.

      Read a book

    30. Rusty Says:

      Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”

    31. Rusty Says:

      I understand that you didn’t create the chart for number 27. Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes” but when you examine it it shows no decreases in malaria becuse it never shows the difference between where it was and where its come to becuse each place is different on the chart, so for all I know it could be higher

    32. Hindu Sage Says:

      I approve this.

      The chat log shows many things. It shows just how mindless and unobjective some people are who believe global warming is exactly as Gore says it is. The bias of the bloggers here is shown as well with a subtle disdain for liberalism. This is not about liberalism or conservatism so ad hominem attacks and labelcalling is, for lack of a better way to express my frustration, fucking retarded, quite frankly.

      There is nothing wrong with thinking that global warming is what Al Gore (or anyone else for that matter) says it is. However to say that debate is over and to consider something an absolute truth takes more than highly subjective, unproven, and exaggerated claims by a politician.

      People who advocate Gore’s point of view tend to view anyone who disagrees with them as uneducated and intellectually inferior. I feel highly offended as the reason I doubt global warming is that I am a scientist and I look at facts, not what a politician says. It does not matter that he says his facts are backed up by scientists because they are obviously (numerically) not even close. He makes ridiculous statements like the sea level rising 6 meters.

      THE IPCC ITSELF HAS ITS HIGHEST WORST CASE SCENARIO AT 53cm sea level rise by 2100!!!! hello….

      I don’t agree with all the 35 mistakes but I do think that at the very least 24 of them are valid, with 6 being debatable and 5 being either pointless or biased.

      Basically I am tired of people saying that “its happening, you dont accept it we all die then whos to blame”

      Humanity has so much potential, why is it that 90% of people are fucking sheep? I never knew it was this easy to manipulate humans.

      The very fact that we think for ourselves and not accept a common view of the world is what makes us scientists. I have severe doubts that global warming is caused by us. I know it is happening but based on the facts it seems that
      1) if it were because of CO2, flatulance from cows does a hell of a lot more than all our fossil fuel burning, even china, india, and russia the coal burners combined.
      2) global warming has happened at a CONSTANT, LINEAR RATE starting BEFORE we even used fossil fuels, and stayed at the same rate as fossil fuel consumption exponentially increased

    33. Hindu Sage Says:

      I would also like to note for the record that BBC published a story denouncing the global warming myth, and an anonymous person blackmailed the journalist threatening to ruin his credibility with the ‘in’ crowd which is ‘green’. He of course complied, completely changed teh story after two weeks of insisting that it was based on notable climate change experts. Someone find this story, its a golden example of how pathetic the media-sheep interface has become.

      I am also a college student at university, and I do research in computational biology. I have seen grad students (especially in Physics and Engineering) competing for research funds sadly make up ways that their technology can be used for ‘green’ tech…to get funds. ‘If you can’t find a way to make it green, no one will fund it.’ Scientists can be made into sheep as well and I’m sure there are ‘green’ scientists going to be hella rich as a posse of Gore.

    34. Sungmin Yoo Says:

      hi. im doing a research paper on this too see exactly for myself whats true, false, exaggerated, or debatable. so if u have time can u please email me the links for where u found your information. no attachments. thank you very much

    35. elliottbatte Says:

      This is a pretty good post actually. It would be more convincing if, instead of spouting off short sentences you backed up some of your evidence with empirical proof. I am not doubting it’s validity, but a professional de-bunker would cite his information.

    36. Scott Thong Says:

      Hi elliott, I’m just summarizing what the SPPI article I read claims.

      And this link evaluates each claim from a netural stand.

    37. kyle Says:

      i am a very young conservative, only 15. I love getting into debates about this at school. Thank you so much for these!

      I think that is there is any global warming at all its only about 0.5% of what people make it out to be.

      it’s sad people just follow like mindless sheep…

      and Amber Brown, i clicked on the link and most the comments had been deleted… there were only 2 left, one was yours though. Did you get a screen shot of your previous comments before they were deleted?

    38. kyle Says:

      ohh wow, i didn’t even realize how old this post was…

    39. Scott Thong Says:

      Glad to hear kyle! There’s lots of resources scattered around my site… Try these on my blog:

      Five simple questions to ask anyone who believes that carbon dioxide causes global warming

      Historical data shows temperature rises BEFORE CO2 levels rise – and Al Gore’s film shows it the wrong way round

      BBQ pits are affecting temperature sensors

      Al Gore uses 22 times the energy as us commoners

      Global Warming Fears category

      Watts Up With That – excellent blog with lots of scientific data on climate

    40. golfer Says:

      Very simple solution…….. Pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the government to enact any type carbon use tax and the whole global warming cause dies.
      All this bullshit is about MONEY, take away the money, and presto all interest is lost, the crusade dies.
      If the donkey can’t get more tax money out of it, the donkey will look somewhere else.
      I GUARANTEE IT, NO MONEY equals NO PROBLEM.

    41. “Ever, Ever After” « Blackout is the New Pink Says:

      [...] (i.e. ME) falls in love with Wall-E and recontemplates Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth…briefly -A friend of mine introduces me to Smittens and all of a sudden, the world makes sense again -Teen [...]

    42. corey Says:

      I would like to know where you got your mini rubutle facts from ie newspaper articles and such? Not that i’m going against what you’re saying, just so that I can use it for a school project.

    43. Scott Thong Says:

      It is from this Science and Public Policy Institute article.

      You can also compare the British judge’s ruling at Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda.

      You can also see my meticulously researched (with links) article about polar bear lies at NST Letters: Al Gore Lied About Drowning Polar Bears.

    44. My Favorite Al Gore Lies « Another God Feering Conservative Says:

      [...] Here’s where I just read about all of this.  Even a English court said Al Gore is a lair.  And those English are deviants like Richard Dawkins and they had to admit it. [...]

    45. hutchrun Says:

      “Idiot” Hansen of NASA probly wants Obambi to invade Australia so the aussies stop using coal:

      AUSTRALIA’S miners have slammed a leading NASA scientist for warning US president-elect Barack Obama that Australia’s coal exports are contributing to the earth’s destruction, saying he has picked the wrong culprit.
      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24882059-16222,00.html

    46. Scott's Thong Says:

      #2. Pacific islands “drowning”
      They aren’t. The sea levels around the Maldives haven’t changed for 1250 years. Same goes for Vanuatu.

      Pacific islands ARE drowning. One good example is the Republic of Kiribati, “an island nation located in the central tropical Pacific Ocean.”

      Sea levels aren’t rising? Tell that to the people of Kiribati, who have asked Australia and New Zealand to accept them as permanent refugees.

      http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/

      http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/14/kiribati/

    47. Jeremy O Says:

      Scott –

      Thanks for the concise list of errors in Al Gore’s movie. Hopefully, the real truths about anthropogenic global warming will become more publicized and understood. Too bad we aren’t focusing on current environmental and public health problems that we know are real (third world sanitation, malaria etc.) instead of wasting so much time on this issue.

    48. Hamilton Physicist Says:

      As both a physicist and someone who lives in New Zealand I can assure you that we are not receiving Global Warming refugees. We are gainging a lot of Pacific Islander citizens as they can earn 3 to 5 times as much money in New Zealand.

      Also – I personally know a reviewer for the IPCC, (He was a supervisor on my thesis). His area of speciality is global sea water level change. His conclusions to the IPCC were that sea level change due to climate change by 2100 would be less than 20cm. For some reason the IPCC choose to change this to a much larger figure.

      Further, looking at temperature records adjusted for heat islands, in the Southern Hemisphere we haven’t had any global warming for the last 28 years.

      As a scientist I believe in using the scientific method. In summary 1) look at the data, 2) make a theory, 3) make a prediction from that theory and 4) test that theory. To date proponents of Anthropogenic Global warming have failed on steps 1 and 4. Until people like Al Gore present actual emperical evidence, then I must include Anthropogenic Global Warming with other theories like Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance, SETI, Nuclear Winter, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. If someone produces some compelling emperical evidence then of course I will change my mind. But nobody to date has, and I see no threat of this in the near future.

      Current data show a slight cooling trend and we can expect this to continue until about 2030 when we will no doubt have lots of articles about the coming ice gae.

    49. simon thong Says:

      Having lived in NZ for 6 years, I have met enough level-headed scientists to know that you’re the genuine article. You make sense, good sense, good scientific sense. You’re alright, mate!

    50. J Q Says:

      Well, I don’t agree with your critique on Gore’s documentary. Poltically speaking, I am not in favor of Gore, on a personal level I do not care for him. But these 35 “errors” you speak of are cr@p. You give half sentences the majority of the time and I respectfully disagree with your mate simon: You make no sense whatsoever to me, nothing of a scientific nature, just biased opinions against this documentary. I’m not saying that the things Gore stated are true you just did not have a convincing argument, mate!

    51. Scott Thong Says:

      Hm, mayhaps you should check out the origin link to the SPPI article before laying on the insults? As my blog post is but a tip to its full length.

    52. stephanie Says:

      You shouldnt trust politicians. Trust the Scientist! They know the facts. That guy is wierd anyways…

    53. Aaron Says:

      As a teacher of Environmental Science at a well noted University in Florida I have done alotof personal research on Global Warming. To start, the moron who began this lengthy blog is, as many have commented, a naive republican prat with about as much common sense and pertinent knowledge as the ever increasing meltwater now poring from our vanishing glaciers. I do agree that politicians AND scientists should never be taken at their word. Everyone has an agenda (especially scientists) and will say what is in there own best interests. Like it or not folks, global warming is a FACT. Just about every noted Scientist in the world now agrees (and yes I’m lucky enough to know quite a few, especially in the cryospherics field). World climate does, and has, follow erratic cycles of warming and cooling, but not like this. This time IS different, and the only reason it’s so tough to categorically prove it is because this level of anthropomorphic change has never happened before. Not only is it happening, it’s happening at an ever increasing rate never predicted by the scientific world. The signs are everywhere as long as the Western populations can tear their fat, lazy butts away from their TVs for a moment to realize OMG, there is a world outside my daily commute to work and back. Islands of the Phillipines HAVE been evacuated due to sea level rise (have many peer reviewed articles to prove it), polar bear numbers ARE dwindling, temperatures and CO2 emissions ARE increasing, glaciers ARE melting at amazing speeds, severe weather events ARE increasing in both power and regularity etc etc. I agree we have many other issues that mankind is directly responsible for and needs to solve, but don’t be naive; the world is warming and we are the major contributing factor! And by the way, being a Physicist (while a prestigious and commendable achievement), in no way gives you the right to make assertions as unfounded as the idiot who wrote this original garbage on the ’35 mistakes’. You should know better sir, shame on you for using your position to promote YOUR agenda.

    54. Aaron Says:

      Did I really spell pouring without the u?!

    55. Global Warming running into a monster…who’s green « FSC and SFI Green Printer in Dallas, TX Says:

      [...] I’ve seen more articles and video on Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth debunking the video than positive thoughts about his film: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenie… [...]

    56. Kevin Says:

      Aaron, regardless of his bias or “agenda,” pointing out facts isn’t immoral.

    57. I just don't know - Page 2 - Machine Underground -Tractor & Commercial Equipment Discussion Forum Says:

      [...] Originally Posted by jbrumberg AG and his followers having been laying pretty low recently . Jay 35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth BUUUUURRRRNING HOT [...]

    58. Anonymous Says:

      Just out of interest…how many facts do you admit are right?

      And are you telling me, that all the scientists, all the campaigners and the (tiny portion) of political figures are all telling lies for money or whatever childish reason?
      That it’s all wrong, not happening, and that there are really no major consequences to pumping millions, billions, of tonnes of co2 into the earth’s atmosphere, cutting down forests etc?

      60 years, or more. Normal people ( who do know whatt they are talking about – scientists) have been telling people what is happening to the planet. Huge Businesses and the Government deny it. Isn’t that, even if Global warming or cooling, since it could be either, isn’t that showing some unwillingness to beleiving something that could stop them earning money and make them look bad, and showing also some corruption?

      Why would soo many people have a reason to lie? If they have no way of gaining off of it???

      As the daughhter of an ecologist, as someone who DOES have their eyes open, and as a member of many anti-climate change campaign groups, of which do not take funding from ANYTHING besides membership donations (no government or businesses involved) namely greenpeace, i think you all need to just think about it

      Even if CC isn’t real, we would be handing down a more efficient, sustainable and a generally better world by stopping it, wouldn’t we. If Al Gore IS brainwashing people, it’s at least for the greater good isn’t it?!

      p.s. stop calling the person at the top a cultist. Jw’s just doing what everyone else is: speaking his mind (or her mind)

    59. Anonymous 2 Says:

      (Hey also, I’d like to see Scott Thong go out and COUNT the polar bears. Do you think he’d find many? ( maybe he’ll just freeze to death and we can all forget about this whole ridiculous argument!!!))

      Hey scott, up for a holiday?

      LOL so much easier to be mean. MWAHAHAHA

      (please ignore me)

    60. Scott Thong Says:

      And are you telling me, that all the scientists, all the campaigners and the (tiny portion) of political figures are all telling lies for money or whatever childish reason?

      No no no…

      Some scientists genuinely believe it, while I suspect that some others cynically use it as cover for their social justice agenda (many global warmists came from clinging to previous environmental scares). Some play along because their research grants are tied to climate change. And some (several tens of thousands) don’t believe it, but are somehow repeatedly ignored as non-existent by the UN.

      Most campaigners genuinely believe it, but that does not mean it is automatically true.

      And as for political figures… Have you really no idea at all how the Democrats work yet? (Hint: William ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson, Rod Blagojevich, Jack Murtha’s nephew, various others)

      To accuse me of lumping them all under the same group as I put Al Gore under is simply a straw man, as I don’t really believe that all global warming believers are being intentionally dishonest.

      ——————————————

      That it’s all wrong, not happening, and that there are really no major consequences to pumping millions, billions, of tonnes of co2 into the earth’s atmosphere, cutting down forests etc?

      Look at the first graph here for why CO2 has only a limited effect on global climate (hint: diminishing returns), and then pages 5-8 of here for why human produced CO2 is even less of a concern (hint: merely 0.28% of the greenhouse effect).

      I do believe that cutting down forests does cause negative consequences – again, you are using a straw man argument in alluding that I believe the opposite.

      Meanwhile, vast swathes of rainforest are being cleared to plant biofuel crops, all in the name of fighting global warming. How’s them camels for ya?

      —————————————

      60 years, or more. Normal people ( who do know whatt they are talking about – scientists) have been telling people what is happening to the planet. Huge Businesses and the Government deny it. Isn’t that, even if Global warming or cooling, since it could be either, isn’t that showing some unwillingness to beleiving something that could stop them earning money and make them look bad, and showing also some corruption?

      Well, considering that environmentalists have been warning about global cooling causing an ice age, population exceeding available resources, mass starvation killing us all by 1970, etc… I kinda have to give better odds that the ‘evil corportations’ are correct more of the time.

      Not everyone who does not believe in global warming is a ‘shill for the oil industry’.

      Look at the leading blogs opposed to global warming theory. (e.g. Watts Up With That) The vast majority are ordinary folk with run of the mill jobs. Heck, look at me! I’ve had dozens of letters denouncing global warming as a fallacy published, yet am not a cent richer for it.

      ————————————

      Why would soo many people have a reason to lie? If they have no way of gaining off of it???

      Most of them wouldn’t, however there actually IS a way to gain from it.

      Case in point: Al Gore, who has earned $35 million from people buying carbon credits to ‘stop Earth from getting a fever’.

      Case in point: Nancy Pelosi, who has earned a quarter million from her Wind Farm connections while opposing drilling for oil and pushing for carbon caps.

      ————————————

      (Hey also, I’d like to see Scott Thong go out and COUNT the polar bears. Do you think he’d find many? ( maybe he’ll just freeze to death and we can all forget about this whole ridiculous argument!!!))

      Counting done! Around 25000 of them, five times more than the 5000 counted in 1950. Yeah, they are sooooooo extincted.

      But sure, I’d like to head over to the North Pole (which as you admit, is full of freezing ice and is not melting). But unlike silly enviromentalists who think it’s all melting and end up getting frostbite, sleeping in ice and getting their boat stuck in ice, I’d prefer to hitch a ride on Al Gore’s personal carbon-spewing jet plane.

      ———————————–

      Even if CC isn’t real, we would be handing down a more efficient, sustainable and a generally better world by stopping it, wouldn’t we. If Al Gore IS brainwashing people, it’s at least for the greater good isn’t it?!

      I wrote whole, amusing essay on the subject of WHY NOT here:

      Believing in Global Warming is Like A Hole in the Head

      ———————————–

      p.s. stop calling the person at the top a cultist. Jw’s just doing what everyone else is: speaking his mind (or her mind)

      Okay. Not a cultist.

      But DEFINITELY a High Priest of Global Warming Hypocrisy.

      ————————————

      As the daughhter of an ecologist, as someone who DOES have their eyes open, and as a member of many anti-climate change campaign groups, of which do not take funding from ANYTHING besides membership donations (no government or businesses involved) namely greenpeace, i think you all need to just think about it

      As a trained scientist whose only income is from a day job not at all related to government, energy or environmental groups, I used to believe in global warming, until I read up more and ‘just thought about it’.

      That is why I’ve compiled this helpful, quick guide to why I don’t believe that CO2 is causing global warming that will doom us all. Even just looking at the pretty pictures is quite informative, without delving into the links to reputable news and science sites like AFP, Bloomberg and NASA.

      http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/

      A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU WILL FIND IF YOU DARE CLICK THE LINK

      - Global temperatures have been falling
      - Polar ice has been expanding at both poles
      - Record cold across various parts of the world
      - Snowfall in hot desert countries
      - CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere
      - Human produced CO2 is an even tinier fraction
      - Tens of thousands of scientists do not believe in global warming
      - More and more ordinary people no longer believe in global warming
      - Global warming caused by CO2 is a flawed theory
      - Even its scientific method is flawed (see these idiotically placed temperature sensors)

      Care to debate on?

    61. Guy Laliberté aura une tribune mondiale, depuis l’espace! - imtl.com Says:

      [...] Gore — le gars qui a MENTI à tout le monde avec son documentaire « An Inconvenient Truth » qui portait [...]

    62. MR. Artypants Says:

      Hi Scott,

      Id like to comment on some points from your previous post.

      “co2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere”

      Yes it’s true. CO2 fills up about 0.004% of air nowadays. But that surely doesn’t say anything about its effectiveness

      “human produced co2 is an even tinier fraction”

      Compared to.. what? I guess I know what you mean, because Ive seen it used by other anti-AGW’ers (but then, I also just use facts/arguments I see somewhere else)
      I’m guessing by this you compare the human co2 emissions to -the much larger – emissions of the oceans and the biosphere, am I right?
      Well then let me waste no time in stating my riposte: Those who use this argument neglect the fact that the huge numbers co2 coming from non-human sources, are also taken up by these same sources. The grand scheme that is called the carbon cycle.

      - And finally, the comparising of a hole in the head and the supposedly needless action on GCC is a bit .. ehm.. Well it doesnt work for me.

      -In this same post you said:

      “Wait until it’s necessary, what a profound idea!”

      Then this video is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

      I’m curious how you went over to the dark-side. What videos did you watch that made you go over?

    63. Scott Thong Says:

      I first read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”, which I thought was full of bunk because it was skeptical of global warming… And everyone knows global warming is real, right?

      So I started reading up for myself. My findings which led me to join the Empire are summarized here: http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/

      As for the effectiveness of that tiny amount of CO2, see page 13 of thie PDF here or the first graph here.

      Basically, the wavelength of radiation carbon dioxide has been shown to absorb is actually so narrow, it is already mostly absorbed by other gases such as water vapor. Once carbon dioxide and other gases absorb this radiation, then adding more carbon dioxide does not have any effect – the radiation is already being absorbed in full.

      (To visualize this, imagine a flashlight beam being blocked by pieces of black paper. Once there is are enough pieces of black paper to block the beam totally, adding more pieces does nothing. All the light is already being absorbed.)

    64. MR. Artypants Says:

      Well first, thanks for your explanation. And admitting that you are indeed on the dark side. But I believe there’s still some good in you.

      I don’t feel for going into discussing the site globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com as I thinks it’s a bit messy, fuzzy and hangs too much on the flaws in Al Gore’s movie, but thanks for pointing me to that site.

      This wavelength thingy is indeed interesting, as I had’nt heard of that one before. But then I’m kind of new in this whole debating. I’ve only just realized there’s so much skeptism! I enjoy discussing it all the same, cause you can only learn from it.
      Anyway, I’ve been looking around to make your statement out to be totally wrong and commie/liberal/extremist-ism-ish .. Well, none of the latter, but I’ve found the following:

      “we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation” http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html

      It’s not so much the incoming sunlight that’s being held up, it’s the infra-red-radiation(heat) reflected from the surface that gets captured by the GHG’s. CO2 is a very important one, apparently because of its infrared capturing capabilities and because of it’s abundance.

      And I think we’re happy that the radiation isn’t being absorbed in full. Cause else we couldnt take purty infrared pictures from space.
      Oh and we’d have a constant sauna here on earth.. but thatd be fine with me.

    65. Scott Thong Says:

      Oh… Well, thanks for the comments on the site, ‘cos it’s actually my own collection of quick facts on global warming. Just ignore the Goracle if you will, and focus on the record low temperatures and unmelted polar ice under the WORLDWIDE WEATHER heading. Where is the sweltering record heat and vanished polar ice we’ve been promised if global warming really is caused by CO2 emissions (which are increasing yearly)?

      You’re right on the CO2 absorbing infrared rays reflected from the earth – that’s why they’re called ‘greenhouse’ gases, because they trap heat inside the earth like greenhouse glass or a blanket. And as I mentioned, CO2 absorbs just a small area of this infrared rays – in fact, most of the area absorbed by CO2 overlaps with the area absorbed by water vapor (which is why cloudless desert is so cold at night), meaning that even with 0% CO2 in the atmosphere there would be little change to the greenhouse effect.

      My dark side reference comes from Star Wars fanboys http://mypetjawa.mu.nu, which quite idolizes the Empire and the Sith.

      In seriousness however, I sincerely believe I am on the ‘good’ side. It’s not like us skeptics hate the planet or are paid by big oil companies. We are skeptics because that is what we think the facts show. (And environmentalists have turned out to be the bigger polluters, by the way!)

      The reason globalwarmingisunfactual focuses on Gore a lot is because he is the most visible and outspoken proponent of global warming theory. But as I point out, he is chock full of hypocrisy with his huge energy use and CO2 emissions (while telling us to reduce ours), outright fibs in An Inconvenient Truth (as judged by the British High Court), and massive profiteering from the same carbon credits he tells us we must buy to save the planet (hundreds of millions of dollars worth). So if the head cheerleader for belief in global warming is a hypocrite, liar, wastrel and greedy, who is actually on the ‘dark’ side here?

      And the Democrat lawmakers who drafted, signed and defend the climate change bill that will reduce CO2 emissions in order to fight global warming – as the videos I posted show, they don’t even know what is in the important, multi-trillion dollar leglislation. Lazy, irresponsible and negligent – are these attributes of ‘good guys’?

      Meanwhile, other global warming believers include NASA researchers like James Hansen who have been proven to skew their data intentionally, the UNCCC which rejects any work that comes to conclusions not supportive of global warming theory, and the American EPA which squashed latest data that undermined its dire predictions of runaway global warming. More dishonesty – are they on the ‘light’ side?

      And on a more general basis, most global warming skeptics are found on the Conservative side – the same folks who have been pointing out Van Jones’ dishonest cover up of his past affiliations, Nancy Pelosi’s lying that the CIA did not brief her on ‘torture’, ACORN’s lies and lawbreaking, Obama’s ties to ACORN, Obama’s tax cheat nominees, Obama’s relation to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers… While the Liberal side continually denied that such things existed until they were finally forced to concede the point.

      In short, I believe that at least the Conservative bloggers I follow hold truth to be higher than agenda, while their opponents seem to take the opposite stance. And they are skeptics of global warming. Make your conclusion from there.

    66. Brijesh Patel Says:

      i think that its all a lie, i do believe in global warming but at the same time i dont, thank you for having this so i can submit all the information i know.

    67. timothy Says:

      this film “inconvenient truth”from AlGore is in fact sponsored by the propaganda arm of the U.N. panel on climate change has as its cornerstone the putting forth what is known as the hegelian-dialectic -reaction solution saying that the emission of carbon dioxide is man made WE are the problem since we are producing too much carbon dioxide and we should all welcome a globalcarbon tax and join together to worship the earth and become one upon on it and welcome the coming “man of peace” who is revealed in the scriptures to be the man of sin who is Antichrist remember if you will that the the U.N. are the ones who support population control and uphold abortion and eugenic policies and has an underlying totalitarian agenda the trilateral push for global governance and to desire to control the citizens of the world listen and hear Jesus is the Christ the messiah and the Saviour of the world he alone died for our sins and rose again and offers us eternal life and the forgiveness of sins and to be with him in heaven and with the Father in heaven and we will not suffer eternal separation REVELATION KING JAMES VERSION

    68. timothy Says:

      The road toward world government is being planned by powers that be draconian policies-UN style fascism eventually to be imposed upon the citizens of the world an integrated global carbon tax -based upon the premise that”we are the problem”since we created it as told to us by the agents of disinformation.It is for this very reason the NWO orwellian centralizaton of power is not truly understood even recognized by the who want to give their acquiesence to since that is this illusion of united power will cost us freedom and our very soul because behind it-is the spirit of antichrist anyone bringing the world together will want to be worshipped but only God is worthy of worship and hear this if you will that the Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God the Almighty only he can save you and ransom you from sin and satans godless power by the blood of the cross therefore DO NOT SELL YOURSELF SHORT BY TAKING THE MARK -it is not yet implemented but it will come and to take it is to damn your soul Forever….receive Christ and his Spirit will indwell you and endure to the end do not be deceived the mark of the beast will cut you off from Gods mercy

    69. timothy Says:

      The road toward world government is being planned by powers that be draconian policies-UN style fascism eventually to be imposed upon the citizens of the world even an integrated global carbon tax -based upon the premise that”we are the problem”since we created it as told to us by the agents of disinformation.It is for this very reason the NWO orwellian centralizaton of power is not truly understood even recognized by the who want to give their acquiesence to since that is this illusion of a united world is deception and can and will cost you your freedom and your very soul because behind it-is the spirit of antichrist anyone bringing the world together will want to be worshipped as God but yet is false and the Antichrist but only the LORD being a holy God is worthy of worship and praise and honour and hear this if you will that the Jesus Christ is God the Son the Son of the living God the Almighty and only he can save you and ransom you from sin death and satans godless power by the blood of the cross that he shed for you therefore DO NOT SELL YOURSELF SHORT BY TAKING THE MARK -it is not yet implemented but it will come and to take it on your hand or forehead is to damn your soul Forever…. you must receive Christ and his Spirit he will indwell you and endure to the end do not be deceived the mark of the beast will cut you off from Gods mercy this forementioned movie is orwellian progaganda perpetuated and is itself THE problem and is masterfully cunning do not be deceived by it….

    70. Suzanne Says:

      As a Member of the science community, I must say I am very entertained by all of this — As with all statical information I see both sides of this argument have skewed the information to make their point. Unfortunately, guys, the scientific data shows that there is an unprecedented rise in global temperature – never before in the history of this planet has such a large increase of global climate change been evidenced. In the future, make sure you know something about CO2 before you make claims that make all of your comments seem ridiculous.

    71. Adifferentview Says:

      Haha, here is another person, claiming superior knowledge simply because of her status as a Member of the science community. How condescending! Suzanne, scientists are no longer taken at face value. You may say what you say, so what? You say what SOME scientists say but OTHER scientists say the opposite. Or are you ignorant of those OTHER scientists? Go back into your ivory tower and remain there, and don’t even poke your long condescending nose out of the window to look down at us….bye.

    72. Scott Thong Says:

      Unfortunately, guys, the scientific data shows that there is an unprecedented rise in global temperature – never before in the history of this planet has such a large increase of global climate change been evidenced. – Suzanne

      What, you mean like the no rise in temperature in the past 11 years as the BBC reports?

      What happened to global warming?This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

      And hey… I am certified Scientist myself!

    73. Anonymous Says:

      Okay, so before hand, you seem to have a lot of counter arguements to back up all my previous claims (and yes, it’s me again) Of which, I could argue back a million more, and this could go on and on, just me and you, just like it could with me and a hundred others, and with you and a hundred others.

      Here’s a thought that has been repeated by lots of people.

      Who cares if it is all wrong?

      Treat Global Warming as a metaphor if you don’t beleive it, because from all the things causing potential global warming we’re losing out. Undoubtedly we are:

      1. Destroying the rainforests due to farming crops for leather and meat etc.
      [Do we want to destroy thousands of species' habitats and be left with nothing but infertile fields?] (even without the carbon emmisions it’s a bad thing to happen if we haven’t any rainforest left)

      2. Overfishing and making marine species endangered. [Only 0.6% of the oceans are marine reserves. Almost all the rest is free to fishing, and we are, again losing out] (No marine food supply, and 70% of the world dead)

      3. We have, among dispute, sent people into war for oil and fossil fuels. [for a reason we could avoid with solutions like the fuel cell technology from honda, and wind, hydro, solar etc; if we tried hard enough to achieve it] ( How many casualties from the Fossil Fuel Industry? How many more until we use every drop up (even if it’s in a hundred more years))

      We are faced with problems that could be solved if we solve climate change. If it isn’t real or serious, we are only creating a better world. Forget whether or not people have lied to get us there. Because in the end we have nothing to lose by reducing the effect of a potential threat.

      There will be consequences in some form, even iff in a hundred years, even if it’s some kind of revolt or the loss in species due to the industrial trade from developing countries to us, the consumers in europe, america and britain.

    74. Scott Thong Says:

      Not only do I have a lot of counter arguments, I also have long ago anticipated your current line of reasoning with a metaphor of my own: Believing in Global Warming is Like A Hole in the Head.

      Basically, I argue that yes – efforts to negate global warming could have potentially beneficial effects on other environmental issues, but these issues would be far better addressed directly instead of merely receiving the run-off from anti-carbon schemes.

      At best, combating global warming will have marginal effects on the environment for massive amounts of money, most of which would be wasted. How does pumping CO2 into undersea caverns or shooting sulphur into the atmosphere to block sunlight help the environment in any non-gloabl warming related way?

      At worst, the narrow focus on CO2-removal distracts from more pressing issues like the real, visible, choking air pollution in China that nobody seems to care about because smog isn’t CO2.

      Observe as I illustrate the above using your own points:

      1. Destroying the rainforests due to farming crops for leather and meat etc.
      [Do we want to destroy thousands of species' habitats and be left with nothing but infertile fields?] (even without the carbon emmisions it’s a bad thing to happen if we haven’t any rainforest left)

      Here’s an excellent example of how a focus on carbon-neutralness is achieving the exact opposite of what you claim it could:

      Global Warming Moonbats Sacrifice Orangutans to Gaia – The Orang-utans of Borneo are facing an unprecedented threat as their habitat is destroyed to satisfy increasing global demands for bio-fuel.

      In fact, it’s only after the massive surge of biofuel-plantings was underway that global warming campaigners realized that peat bogs cleared for planting release tons of CO2!

      Lose-lose scenario?

      2. Overfishing and making marine species endangered. [Only 0.6% of the oceans are marine reserves. Almost all the rest is free to fishing, and we are, again losing out] (No marine food supply, and 70% of the world dead)

      I fail to see the connection between global warming and overfishing. At best, I could link rising ocean temperatures with coral bleaching, except that there has been no warming in 11 years.

      3. We have, among dispute, sent people into war for oil and fossil fuels. [for a reason we could avoid with solutions like the fuel cell technology from honda, and wind, hydro, solar etc; if we tried hard enough to achieve it] ( How many casualties from the Fossil Fuel Industry? How many more until we use every drop up (even if it’s in a hundred more years))

      If you want to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for its oil (which btw saved 750,000 Iraqi lives to date), then I could argue it is the Democrats’ fault – they have been blocking oil and gas exploration, drilling and development for American-owned oil around the US coasts, Alaska, Utah, you name it!

      And lest anyone claim that they’re doing it to discourage fossil fuel use and protect the environment, they are at the same time letting China drill for American oil off Floria and funding oil drilling in Brazil. (I thought the US was in recession and owes 1.5 trillion in debt? Still so much money to throw around?)

      We are faced with problems that could be solved if we solve climate change. If it isn’t real or serious, we are only creating a better world. Forget whether or not people have lied to get us there. Because in the end we have nothing to lose by reducing the effect of a potential threat.

      In conclusion, we have a lot to lose by focusing on CO2 and global warming – even if it is real, and especially if it is not. But points to you for trying this line of reasoning – it’s what us religious folk sometimes use to persuade atheists that they have nothing to lose by signing up for afterlife-insurance with Jesus! :)

      I am all for protecting the environment, preserving biodiversity, and yes – even weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (for various reasons).

      But I am also for sound economic growth, betterment of human living standards, and sensible policies based on hard, politics-free science.

    75. Me again Says:

      Okay, I’ll clear that up a bit:

      You said: In fact, it’s only after the massive surge of biofuel-plantings was underway that global warming campaigners realized that peat bogs cleared for planting release tons of CO2!

      Lose-lose scenario?

      I say: Isn’t it also things like poverty (eased by selling of wood) and farming for crops that cause us to pull down trees? Biofuels are no where near in as big a market as fast food, leather and palm oil cosmetics. So don’t try saying that was the biofuel manufacturer’s fault completely, there are other things, anyway.
      Also, biofuels are a desperate, dangerous and quite frankly ridiculous argument. I am against biofuels completely. But have you researched fuel cell vehicles? needs no fuel besides hydrogen, no emissions besides h20. No catches either. The only problem is that we can’t store it well yet…Yup, no catches besides the lack of technology – but we will probably find a way, not like we haven’t progressed in that area recently.
      Biofuels on the other hand are very frustrating and a total waste of money, as are electric cars at the moment because of the lack of renewables that power the national grid – making them completely pointless. I’m pretty sure that most Climate change organizations are against biofuels too, most people have given up because there are more ethical options, and mainly because far better options. Jeez, I mean, whoever works out an easy way to store hydrogen as a gas is gonna be a millionaire.

      You said: I fail to see the connection between global warming and overfishing. At best, I could link rising ocean temperatures with coral bleaching, except that there has been no warming in 11 years.

      I say: The loss of fish has a direct effect on CO2. The first link is that fish droppings help absorb CO2 – proven by a paper submitted in January. The second is that overfishing now without recovery, means that later the one billion people who rely on fish for their main food source will be starving, (won’t be a good mix with things like the drought and flood sure to come our way… or in your opinion, not I suppose) And the fish industry could even become a victim if the oceans turn acidic as recent, okay, admittedly unsure predictions show. I wouldn’t chance it though, look it up, it’s quite convincing.

      You said: If you want to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for its oil (which btw saved 750,000 Iraqi lives to date), then I could argue it is the Democrats’ fault – they have been blocking oil and gas exploration, drilling and development for American-owned oil around the US coasts, Alaska, Utah, you name it!

      I say: Really mature of them then, to go start a war because “The stupid mean democrats stopped us dwilling in our countwy.” Call me stupid but I doubt that he saved 3/4 of a million iraqis. Just seems…Unlikely to me that war can do that. So was it the war against terror that made him invade? that’s a different argument, i know, but what evidence backs you up there besides political words, which I thought you were against using as evidence? Thanks, but I think I gain points for not needing politicians as a backup in my arguments too.

      You say:pumping CO2 into undersea caverns or shooting sulphur into the atmosphere to block sunlight help the environment in any non-gloabl warming related way?

      I say: Don’t need to do that to stop Global Warming. Those are just lazy inefficient solutions the rich, dishonest people who were getting pummeled by the activists thought up. One offs that everyone later realized wasn’t at all useful.

      You also said: In conclusion, we have a lot to lose by focusing on CO2 and global warming – even if it is real, and especially if it is not. But points to you for trying this line of reasoning – it’s what us religious folk sometimes use to persuade atheists that they have nothing to lose by signing up for afterlife-insurance with Jesus!

      I say: Well, you have a point. It just happens to escape the reason for which it belongs. Er, we do not have much to lose – apart from these super fun online debates. All the brand new technology that is foolproof will create new markets and jobs to replace old ones of similar profession to do with the ‘dirty’ kind of stuff that we are stopping. We are past the point where we replace poisonous problems with poisonous solutions. You can’t unite people who are only in it for money with real, informed climate activists as well, so don’t say we are using poisonous solutions.

      In MY conclusion, you seem totally oblivious to the fact that there are groups of people who are protesting against climate change:
      there are the people using it to promote their businesses, who you claim to basically be hypocrites, looking for the billion pound easy way out, that doesn’t really work.
      There are the curious but ill informed, who make mistakes, and who should not be penalized for that, the ones who make claims you then take the mic out of, even though their heart is in the right place.
      There are the scientists and people who listen to the facts without corruption.
      There are also loads of other people. So don’t stereotype please!!

      I’m not gonna bother writing anymore, since everyone says to me “some people just can’t be swayed” – You are, and I am one of those people. So I probably won’t be reading anymore debating. I’m quite literally exhausted, and I have school tomorrow.

    76. Scott Thong Says:

      I say: Isn’t it also things like poverty (eased by selling of wood) and farming for crops that cause us to pull down trees? Biofuels are no where near in as big a market as fast food, leather and palm oil cosmetics.

      Yes, it is, but the whole point of me citing biofuels is to rebutt your argument that a focus on stopping global warming would positively impact other environmental issues. In this case, the surge towards mandatory percentages of biofuels was triggered by fear of global warming and directly led to a worsening of the already bad deforestation problem. Do you disagree?

      The only problem is that we can’t store it well yet…Yup, no catches besides the lack of technology – but we will probably find a way, not like we haven’t progressed in that area recently.

      Totally agreed on this point. As I said before (and hope you noticed), I am all for progression away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. My own hoeps are on the Bussard Fusion Reactor aka Polywell, which is 100% clean, no-radiation fusion energy. The US Navy has recently pumped $2 million into the project.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

      I say: The loss of fish has a direct effect on CO2. The first link is that fish droppings help absorb CO2 – proven by a paper submitted in January.

      News to me!

      I say: Really mature of them then, to go start a war because “The stupid mean democrats stopped us dwilling in our countwy.” Call me stupid but I doubt that he saved 3/4 of a million iraqis. Just seems…Unlikely to me that war can do that.

      I was being snarky. I don’t believe Bush invaded Iraq primarily for its oil, but I do believe the Democrats are being insensible on the matter of drilling for oil. It’s a Tragedy of the commons – if the USA doesn’t utilize its own resources, someone else will anyway. And if we’re talking China, they’re far less stringent on their pollution standards – just walk around Beijing and collapse from the choking smog.

      I believe I linked to my calculations on the number or Iraqi lives saved. Here is is again: Bush Saved 750,000 Iraqi Lives. It is totally possible that Bush’ aggression prevented more deaths than it caused, as Saddam’s rule and the embargo under ‘peacetime’ were causing deaths at a far higher rate than today’s situation in Iraq (fyi, South Africa has a higher murder rate than Iraq now!).

      Of course wars cause a loss of life. But one of the reasons wars are fought is also to prevent a greater loss of life. For example, if the US had retreated into itself instead of plunging into World War II and the Nazis and Japan had not been defeated, how many more millions would have died in their concentration camps and death railways? How many Cambodians would have survived the ‘peacetime’ massacres if some great power had intervened and overthrown Pol Pot at the beginning? How many of the other 100 million victims of Communism would be spared if there had been a non-nuclear war and the West had come out on top? (Just compare North and South Korea today.)

      Thanks, but I think I gain points for not needing politicians as a backup in my arguments too.

      Wait… Dude, you were the one who brought up Bush and Iraq.

      Er, we do not have much to lose – apart from these super fun online debates. All the brand new technology that is foolproof will create new markets and jobs to replace old ones of similar profession to do with the ‘dirty’ kind of stuff that we are stopping.

      I contend. The current state of ‘new technology’ has not yet reached the point where jobs and production will not be lost from an artificial mandate barring ‘old technology’. At present, a forced switch to ‘green’ energy use and production would cause a massive hike in energy bills, undersupply of electricity and losses of far more jobs than would be gained. Solar and wind simply isn’t at the stage where they provide sufficient power for their highly subsidized cost yet.

      As I said before, I look forward to the day that fossil fuels are phased out. But that day just isn’t here yet, and panicking governments into kicking them out prematurely stands to lose a lot.

      You can’t unite people who are only in it for money with real, informed climate activists as well, so don’t say we are using poisonous solutions.

      Well, we coudl start by weeding out the climate activists who are only in it for a quick buck or ulterior motives and the scientists who will deliver any result their grant givers want.

      So don’t stereotype please!!

      And similarly, there are plenty people who do not believe in climate change based solely on factual data. We are offended by suggestions that we are all on the dime of big oil, or are religious nutters who think science is for heretics.

      I’m not gonna bother writing anymore, since everyone says to me “some people just can’t be swayed” – You are, and I am one of those people. So I probably won’t be reading anymore debating. I’m quite literally exhausted, and I have school tomorrow.

      For the record, it is possible to change my mind if the argument and facts are convincing enough. Two examples I can cite offhand: I believed in evolution, then disbelieved, and now am open to belief again due to the DNA link between therapod dinosaurs and birds cited by a commentor. I argued that theists have absolute morals while atheists do not, but was swayed by a commentor who made me see that both types rely on relativistic interpretation.

      Debating is exhausting, yes – think about how much effort I put into properly replying to the commentors on three or four separate threads daily!

      But there is no rush to do so – my blog has no time limit. And so if you ever wish to pick up the discussion again, please feel free to do so!

    77. Timothy Says:

      Wow, you guys have been arguing for 2 years, that’s kinda funny. I’m just going to say that there is hard scientific evidence that says that we only give off 250 parts per 10,000 of CO2 every 250 years, which is equal to a volcanic cough, and global temperature has always gone up and down, infact, during midevil times, there was a warming period much higher than what we’re seeing today, with only 0.8C increase of average world wide temperature.

    78. Timothy Says:

      And as for wars, Communism always turns into dictatorships because the government gets power hungry, and they kill people, the Vietnamese used toddlers to bomb our soldiers, and if we hadn’t intervened in WW2 Hitler would’ve eventually been able to us the V-22 rockets to take over the world, and there would be billions of lives lost and i can almost guarantee you the population of the world would only be about a billion, if that, compared to 6.8 billion.

    79. Scott Thong Says:

      It’s my hobby to attract and respond to commentors… Especially if it means debating/arguing with/mocking trolls! Try it sometime.

    80. An unreal climate for the manipulation of science « TWAWKI Says:

      [...] employee whose claim to fame is the now discredited and fraudulent hockey stick that Al Gore in an Inconvenient Truth. In the leaked emails RC’s role is [...]

    81. Robb Says:

      Good stuff. I enjoy your info cuz it’s based on factual empirical data, not lacking thereof. So, when I see someone write that they are not believing what you have posted cuz you don’t support it with factual data; I realize they are either blind or ignorant. The later being the most obvious answer cuz what you state flies into the face of what they trust to be true.
      Today, it’s a sad state of affairs. It’s not just global warming but if you disagree w/ anything they say you are uneducated and not hip. When in fact, they are the ones not educated on the facts. Hypocrisy continues, it has for all of my life and that makes me sad.
      In the end, we all love this planet and every effort must be made to decide the best course of action in helping Mother Earth. If that means rigorous debate then so be it.

    82. Robb Says:

      Oh one more thing and this did surprise me. I’m astounded that you ever waivered on evolution. My monotheistic beliefs contribute to how I view life but c’mon, evolution? Has there ever been a theory more time tested and proven in man’s existence?

      Great blog BTW

    83. Adifferentview Says:

      From my reading of Scott’s blog all this past year, my impression is that he makes a distinction between evolution as seen in the adaptation of species and the theory of evolution in which the simplest organism evolved into the most complex (Man). The first is science, and the second is philosophy. I think he accepts the first and rejects the second.

      I agree with you, Robb. I think he’s doing a great job.

    84. Scott Thong Says:

      Has there ever been a theory more time tested and proven in man’s existence? -Robb

      Hyperbole, surely. I have always thought that relativity and quantum physics are far ahead on the evidence scale. Unless anyone wants to argue that these are no longer just theories…

      But if you want to argue that evolution is well tested and proven on its own, I can debate on that point.

    85. Aaron Says:

      My my Scott
      As a teacher of Environmental Science I can only emphasize what I do to my students. There are those people who help and contribute to protecting our fragile planet and those who delight in twisting scientific information in order to ingratiate themselves and maintain the status quo that is destroying what we have left to hand down to future generations. You obviously fall into the latter. Whether you have decided to accept the science or reject it, even you know that the ecological balance of our planet is out of whack and WE are the reason. Why don’t you focus your obvious talents on promoting protection for our planet instead of convincing people we’re just fine! Scientific facts or not (they can be manipulated by both sides by the way), how can looking after our world be a bad thing? Shame on you and your narrow minded view of the big picture. I’m afraid attitudes like yours are the reason our children will be left with nothing but the dregs we decide not to consume or destroy. Stop being part of the problem and help contribute to the solutions we so desperately need.

    86. Adifferentview Says:

      The ecology is out of balance, the world is not fine, and we should do something about it. You, sir, a TEACHER of Environmental Science, prefer to accept the STATUS QUO, particularly Al Gore and the Global Warming elite, who pocket untold riches and contribute many times more to the pollution of our Earth than any of us! Shame on you! You are part of the problem. You are not helpful in contributing to the solutions we so desperately need when you swallow hook, line and sinker the ultra scare tactics of those who try to benefit from environmental protection.

    87. Scott Thong Says:

      Really, sir? You note that I oppose what I perceive to be inaccurate data about global warming, and jump to the conclusion that I am anti-environment? I thought you said you were a teacher, and likely have training in the scientific method. Don’t conflate global warming activism with general environmentalism.

      I have no problem with facts and truths. Are the rainforests being cut down? Yes – and I oppose that. Ironically, the rate of deforestation increased greatly thanks to the biofuel mandates passed to reduce carbon emissions!

      But is the planet actually heating up? The BBC reports that ‘For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures… even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.’

      Arctic ice is at the same levels as 1979 – meaning there has been no net melting.

      Antarctic ice is at the highest levels ever recorded since records began in 1979.

      NASA reports that the oceans have been cooling since 2003.

      Even climate researchers who support global warming theory themselves privately admit that there is no warming – and discuss how they can hide that fact when they release their results.

      Wait, what was that you mentioned about ‘twisting scientific information in order to ingratiate themselves and maintain the status quo’? I gues you must have been talking about the known liars of the global warming hysteria bunch, right? You tell me when was the last time global warming skeptics were exposed as fudging their hard data to win their case. I have a long list for the other side all prepared.

      So do tell, what irrefutable data and evidence do you base your Environmental Science lessons on global warming on?

      If there is no evidence that the planet really is warming, and that CO2 is causing it, then wouldn’t it be unfactual to teach students that? It would be comparable to teaching geocentrism… Or hey, Young Earth Creationism!

      As I said earlier, don’t conflate global warming activism with general environmentalism – if carbon dioxide doesn’t actually have any ill effects, then what the heck are we doing focusing all our time and money on it? Copenhagen after endless Kyoto, for what? While forests burn and children die of thirst.

      I am using my ‘obvious talents’ to try and show people that global warming is a red herring, a massive distraction from real environmental issues.

      You may argue that global warming suppression efforts will cause an overall improvement in the the environment. But I argue that REAL environmental efforts would benefit far more from a properly focused effort. After all, how does pumping CO2 into giant undersea caverns or launching sulphur into the atmosphere to block sunlight achieve anything apart from ‘fighting global warming’?

      Do tell, how do Al Gore, UN delegates and various A-List celebrities protect our environment by flying on their private jets and 20-limo motorcades to give speeches on how we must all reduce our consumption and carbon footprint.

      I can honestly say that I have far less of an impact on the environment than any of them with my moderate house and modest consumption of processed goods.

      Hey, you know what? I drive a 1.3 litre engine car running on 95 octane unleaded gasoline. What do you drive? I eat mostly vegetables and rice. How many steaks and burgers for you? My water is heated by tropical solar energy. Will you be bathing using electrically heated water this winter?

      Do I have a smaller carbon footprint than you, I wonder? Maybe it’s my turn to be holier than thou?

    88. Robb Says:

      Hey Scott, Again good stuff and I enjoy your rants LOL. I’m just one of many with opinions, no better no worse but hopefully always learning.

      Evidence of evolution – mere hyperbole??? Surely you jest? To me many confuse fact (the evolutionary process), w/ theory (how it works). Evidence in the fossil, microbiological, and animal worlds tell us life forms evolve (fact), but the specific mechanics (theory) of that law are unproven.

      By no means am I an expert of anything, the topic just fascinates me.
      I dig your blogs, they’re well done and informative to boot man.
      Thanx Robb

    89. Scott Thong Says:

      PS. Thank you, you have inspired a new post!

    90. Gary Says:

      Not saying I agree or disagree that some “lies” exist (ie, that some of the 35 are true), but I see a lot of so called facts that are based only on solid current numbers and not on statistics and trends (based off of those solid numbers of a period of time). I started to write this with the intent of pointing out a few things that were specifically ridiculous about Thong’s article, but after looking at some of his other petty posts I see that he just hates Gore. Facts written under a bias intent don’t usually end up being facts. Enjoy you’re hate-mongering.

    91. Jose Says:

      I usually vote Democrat and while I do not consider myself liberal conservatism is not my thing. That being said after a little research any one can find out for themselves that at best these scientists that purport that global warming is attributable to human activities really don’t know what is happening. The data is anything supports that the world is simply marching on despite how much we beat on it. Hurricanes aren’t stronger, tornadoes aren’t more devastating, oceans aren’t rising. Where is the evidence? Columbus had to prove the world was round right? Why should we allow Al Gore to dictate that something he can’t even explain? Let’s use our heads. This may be happening but look into instead of believing blindly. What is funny is that you have these liberals that usually never take anything on faith. They require proof of everything. Yet these are the people that choose to trust AL Gore blindly. It’s wild.

    92. Jose Says:

      excuse my terrible grammar. i was on a roll. thanks! haha

    93. Scott Thong Says:

      Gary… Totally true, the High Priest of Carbon Emitting Hypocrisy is one of my favourite targets. But does that mean that anything I say about him and his claims are automatically untrue?

      And it’s not really my article, per se – as I state, it is merely a rehashing of what the SPPI published.

    94. The Foolish Man Built His House Upon the Sand « InfoRodeo Says:

      [...] http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenie… [...]

    95. AGW Today: Students Say “How ‘Bout Some Balance?” | Right Wing News Says:

      [...] grammatical errors and how to use language to be overwrought and hysterical. Or perhaps the massive number of un-truths in the movie. I could see the movie being shown in Sociology class, where they [...]

    96. AGW Today: Students Say “How ‘Bout Some Balance?” : Stop The ACLU Says:

      [...] grammatical errors and how to use language to be overwrought and hysterical. Or perhaps the massive number of un-truths in the movie. I could see the movie being shown in Sociology class, where they [...]

    97. AGW Today: Students Say “How ‘Bout Some Balance?” » Pirate's Cove Says:

      [...] grammatical errors and how to use language to be overwrought and hysterical. Or perhaps the massive number of un-truths in the movie. I could see the movie being shown in Sociology class, where they [...]

    98. Tom Says:

      does anyone of the “cultists” who disputes the facts listed above realize what a hypocrite your “cult leader” Gore is. Do you know how many cars, private jets, boats, yachts, etc. this man owns. He even follows the exact format of a cult leader: someone who disfigures and distorts factual information on a large scale in order to confuse and conform the masses into one ideology based upon lies.

    99. The Himalayan Glaciers will be gone sooner or later? « Tim Garratt's Blog Says:

      [...] Some of this misinformation started with Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth – it is well established that much of the headline grabbing data was simply not true. For a list have a look here. [...]

    100. cultist Says:

      The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was founded by a long-time Republican staffer named Robert Ferguson. According to the SPPI website, Ferguson “has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002.”

      Until recently, Ferguson worked for an oil-industry funded think tank called Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom are one of the most active groups in the attack on climate science and have received over $1 million in grants from oil giant ExxonMobil.

    101. Lane Says:

      The third post to the top called the person who wrote this article a dumba$$ for some extremely stupid reasons. Number one, Cyclone Catarina is a real thing and you are just to ignorant to realize that. Also number 11 talks about temperatures, not wind speed.

    102. Adrian Bond Says:

      Crikey, came across this lot a bit late in the day (been going sinc Oct 07!), but only just watched the Film of the truth and decided to see if the information provided stood up to scrutiny over the interviening years (just like a Scientific Paper should be able to).

      Am I surprised by the 2 years worth of comments? Not really; a mixture of opinion, bar-science and occasional balanced comment.

      Well, here’s my 10 cents:

      Although I won’t go through the whole list (we’d be here all day) I have to comment on No 34 – The Thames Barrier. What exactly do you think it is for when you say “Keep tidal water in the Thames”? It’s designed to keep dangerously high tidal surges out of most of the Thames after increasingly severe flooding up river. The point in the film is a valid one; it is being used more than expected. Why? Well, as the surges are due to storms out to sea, then this must mean more storms. Why are there more storms…

      I also went to Scott’s page about 5 questions to ask someone who believes in Global Warming. Sorry Scott, you really do need to do better:

      CO2 accounts for 0.0383% and the top 20 nations add only 0.00034147% per year. Howe does that miniscule amount

      As for the leading comment that British courts found 9 serious errors, it was 9 “significant” errors. Semantics? maybe, but a significant difference in emphasis none the less (excusing the punn!). Funny how the Judges main finding was then conveniently left out of this article (well Scott wouldn’t want to give away the ending, would he?):

      “Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

      In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

      The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.” (London Times).

      So the presentation and film were hyped up, what a surprise, but the message remains the same: were capable of screwing up the planet, we are screwing up the planet, and we can do something about it.

      Sorry Scott, but I’m going to side with the British Judge on this one; how inconvienient…

    103. Adrian Bond Says:

      (who put that ‘submit’ button there!)

      Edit:

      I also went to Scott’s page about ’5 simple questions’ to ask someone who believes in Global Warming. Sorry Scott, you really do need to do better. You say that:

      CO2 accounts for 0.0383% of the atmosphere and the top 20 nations add only 0.00034147% per year. How does that miniscule amount of additional CO2 affect the entire global temperature? Well:

      In 10 years – 9%
      In 20 years – 18%
      In 30 years – 27%

      So in my lifetime we have uped the CO2 on the planet by a third. Since the industrial revolution we have more than doubled it.

      These are your figures Scott, how inconvinient…

    104. Scott Thong Says:

      Well Adrian, do note that that post is several years old. If you want an update on my arguments, head on over to http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/

      And catch up on Climategate, Climategate Darwin, Climategate Russia, Climategate USA, Glaciergate, Amazongate and so forth.

      But how did you arrive at your 10, 20 and 30 years estimates at +0.00034147% per year? (Even assuming that CO2 does not have a diminishing returns effect, see suggested site for more.)

    105. Simon Thong Says:

      Adrian can arrive at those estimates…after the appearance of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics several decades ago, anything is possible. But that doesn’t mean we are fooled.

    106. Jamie Says:

      u guys suck b*lls

      Global warming is fact not to half the Degree stated but FACT

      If your so sure with the increase in polar bears so much then you should join them in the artic and never return.

      peace out b*tches

      hope global warming gives you cancer

    107. BEN Says:

      I agree hope u all the deniers get cancer but thats likely to happen anyway as people this ignorant are likely to be ignorant in other areas of their lives…

      Even if he did fudge some things, the overall picture remains. Knowing how it takes humans to be in the thick of something before they react a little over reaction will only help action to be taken, something that already is happening too slowly.

      Action requires awareness through education and that is the first step to this major problem of the entire world, the average person can’t comprehend issues of this magnitude. I’m not blaming them I blame lack of quality education for all. That is something we all are responsible for and need to make a top priority.

    108. Scott Thong Says:

      What if it is not happening? Then would that make Gore a liar or misguided?

    109. Simon Thong Says:

      What’s wrong with the world? Solve it with education, or in the case of Mao and the Cultural Revolution, use re-education. Sorry, don’t believe that much in education for, what about the educationists? Do they know? How little do they know? You can be sure education is used to support the global warming alarmists…

    110. Smith Says:

      RE: Jw when you say REAL scientists do you even know what your talking about seriously

      From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
      “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

      The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

      great website on all of the FAKE scientists
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

    111. Globalwarmingsreal Says:

      You (guy who wrote this article) wasted your life. You’re just a stubborn person who can’t see past your own personal (biased) view of the world. You manipulate the facts just like you claim Al Gore is doing… no one will ever know the truth unless they see the REAL raw data and are able to analyse it themselves. Of course I would love to do that, but since I can’t, I gotta go with my instinct and common sense (something you seem to lack) and that leads me to the conclusion that GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING! Maybe not as dramatically as Al Gore is saying, but it is definitely there, you’d have to be completely obtuse and ignorant to not notice. I’m so glad I live in Canada where Liberals are supported, we’re actually working on repairing the damage we are doing to the environment. What is wrong with you? It’s like you don’t care about the future generations not having an Earth to call home, either that or you’re just a complete idiot who doesn’t understand… (I’m going to guess it’s the latter because I’m an optimistic person).

    112. Scott Thong Says:

      1) What do you actually ‘notice’ that leads you to conclude GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING? Is it the no net melting of Arctic ice since 1979 or the record high ice at the Antarctic? Or those reports by Reuters or BBC that there hasn’t been any warming in a decade? Maybe the record cold in China or Pakistan, or the snowstorms in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and United Arab Emirates? Do tell.

      2) Speaking of REAL raw data… No wonder you can’t analyse it, the global warmists have been doctoring, manipulating and outright destroying the raw data to fit their intended results. Or have you not heard of Climategate, Climategate Darwin, Climategate New Zealand, Climategate Russia, Climategate USA, Pachaurigate, Glaciergate (which Pachauri made a lot of money off), Mountain Icegate and Amazongate? (Btw, the man at the centre of the original Climategate scandal, Phil Jones, admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. So your views on GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING are contradicted by the experts here, fella!)

      3) Speaking of Gore… He’s made hundreds of millions off the global warming scare, and is maybe fifty times the polluter and energy consumer that I am. So you’re saying I should follow his example? Bwah ha ha ha ha! Anyway, why are his buddies suddenly selling off their shares in the Chicago Climate Exchange? Wouldn’t the exchange grow and be more profitable as more carbon caps and credits are utilized to fight global warming? It’s as if they don’t believe that carbon credits will be profitable in the future… But why, if global warming is so really real?

      4) Just because I don’t believe in human-caused global warming, you automatically assume I don’t care at all about the environment. That is like a witch doctor saying I don’t care about human health just because I don’t believe in his theory of sticking leeches on my face to cure my cold. I support clean water, weaning off fossils fuels, forest preservation, and more. Don’t you think it’s unfair to smear me as selfishly uncaring about the future just because I don’t share your views on ONE environmental issue, which is probably not even genuine? In fact, huge swathes of forest are being clear-cut to make way for biofuel crops and wind turbines to ‘fight global warming’ – some enviromentalism you’re supporting there, fella! I’ve said it before, global warming is a distraction from REAL urgent environmental issues.

      Seriously, most of those who come and tell me how uneducated and ignorant I am for not believing in human-caused global warming only serve to show their own lack of exposure to the latest news.

      http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/

      Refute if you can, Canadian genius.

    113. Simon Thong Says:

      Your commonsense? Your instinct? That’s all you’ve got? and you want us to believe you? LOL..and you accuse Scott of being stubborn? Get real, Globalwarmingsreal!

    114. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

      I hope we diffuse and release more and more CFC’s to the ozone layer, , cut down more jungles for developments, burn more carbon for our environment, use more plastic products, bags or so.. and multiple the use of herbicide and pesticide..so that the planet Earth will be called a home – nice conducive home for mankind!

      We may need more nuclear plants and factories to do this ‘noble’ job.

      I struggle to go asleep at night due to the sun heat that warmed my concrete walls. The 1.5 horsepower air-cond. could not cool down the hot air in my 10 X 12 feet room.

      I notice, a spate of eartquakes struck many parts of the world lately – Haiti, Chile, China, Indonesia, and the most recent off the Brazilian coast. Volcanoes also erupted. We (mankind) is doing a good job..for the sake of economy, we spoilt and damege our environment !). Until when will it stop? Next generetions will not suffer?

    115. hutchrun Says:

      Earthquakes did it, earthquakes will undo it:

    116. hutchrun Says:

      650 Million Years in under 2 minutes …what`s to come. Enjoy.

    117. Rob Says:

      Man made CO2 makes up 400′s of one precent
      or .00004%

      as for climate change global warming, there has always been more life and diveresty when the climate was warmer, and there has only been a coupe other times in history of our living planet that it has been as cold as it is now.

      Where as Al Gore is making millions on something that has never been owned in history.

    118. MGraham Says:

      The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) which is quoted over and over is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson.
      Robert Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
      The ‘Center for Science and Public Policy is described on its webpage as “a non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization.” However, it is not a separately incorporated non-profit group but a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

      The major donor of Frontiers of Freedom Institute: Exxon

    119. Derra Says:

      This article is completely bias against Al Gore. I’m not American, so I don’t really know who he is or what he did, but you can’t deny the fact that pollution of the Earth is caused by us.
      Think of it this way. Can you survive if you’re slowly being fed poison? Will you not get cancer after being exposed to nuclear radiation? Retribution. It’s gonna be payback time for nature.
      No matter whether The Inconvenient Truth was a pack of lies or not, it is our duty to help put a stop to whatever sh*t we’re doing to this planet. If not for your oh-so-wonderful self, do it for the things you love. Doesn’t it weigh on your conscience?? Give a little. It doesn’t hurt ya to take one less plastic bag when all you bought is a bottle of water, does it? You have hands, don’t you?
      I think Al Gore did the right thing alerting people to the proximity of the chaos that’s coming. Even if it’s false, you would tell a white lie to a person to save him/her even when you know it could be untrue, won’t you? You wouldn’t want that 0.000001% chance to happen, right?
      It is pretty obvious that you don’t like the guy. I don’t really give a damn whatever animosity you feel towards him, but you can’t downplay the reality of humans killing this place. Even without global warming, you can really see the difference between the landscape of now and 50 years ago. Who knows when something of nature that you love will be destroyed.
      Just think about it. Is self-inflicted ignorance worth it? Helping the world, even if the danger isn’t to you, is better than sittin’ there, wasting your time and energy doin’ nothin’.
      Le yu zu ren, ever heard of the Chinese phrase? There is joy in helping others.
      You may ignore this comment, or even get angry. I don’t blame you. No one likes getting told that their way of thinking is wrong. Neither do I. But I had to say something. And I hope it reached your heart.
      I hadn’t meant to be offensive in any way. Well, maybe at first I did. But if I did say somthing offensive, it was because it seemed to me that you were gonna ignore the facts just because Al Gore did something wrong to help the save-the-world-from-global-warming people. Whatever their names are. Even if he did it for himself or whatever.
      Derra

    120. Scott Thong Says:

      Think of it this way. Can you survive if you’re slowly being fed poison? Will you not get cancer after being exposed to nuclear radiation? Retribution. It’s gonna be payback time for nature.

      CO2 is a poison since when? Yes animals can’t breathe it, but without it plants cannot conduct photosynthesis.

      And if anyone deserves payback from nature, it’s rich eco-weenies like Al Gore who fly private jet around the world and have huge mansions sucking 20 times the electricity as a normal home. Wouldn’t you agree?

      http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/al-gore-high-priest-of-global-warming-hypocrisy/

      No matter whether The Inconvenient Truth was a pack of lies or not, it is our duty to help put a stop to whatever sh*t we’re doing to this planet. If not for your oh-so-wonderful self, do it for the things you love. Doesn’t it weigh on your conscience?? Give a little. It doesn’t hurt ya to take one less plastic bag when all you bought is a bottle of water, does it? You have hands, don’t you?

      Uh, Derra?

      No one is saying we should drive more, or use and throw away more plastic. You are, like so many others, confusing global warming activism (e.g. like Al Gore) and real environmentalism (e.g. like me). I support water conservation, forest conservation, biodiversity – all of these have been overshadowed by, and in fact damaged by, global warming taking away all the public’s attention.

      If global warming is NOT real, then those who distract public attention and funding away from REAL environmental causes are the villains!

      http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/global-warming-theory-is-to-environmentalism-as-blood-letting-is-to-healthcare/

      Did you know how many acres of tropical rainforest have been cut down to plant biofuel crops, in the name of reducing CO2 emissions?

      http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/biofuel_boondog.html

      And again, who is wasting more resources – middle class me, or super-rich globe-trotter Al Gore?

      Will you go scold him the way you are scolding me?

      I think Al Gore did the right thing alerting people to the proximity of the chaos that’s coming. Even if it’s false, you would tell a white lie to a person to save him/her even when you know it could be untrue, won’t you? You wouldn’t want that 0.000001% chance to happen, right?

      Is it okay to tell a white lie to prevent a 0.000001% chance of something bad? Let’s try it okay?

      QUICK DERRA!!! YOU MUST RUN NAKED DOWN THE ROAD AND POSE FOR EVERY SECURITY CAMERA YOU SEE, OR ELSE A GIANT METEOR WILL HIT THE EARTH IN ONE HOUR!!!!!!

      Maybe it’s a white lie, maybe there is only a 0.000001% chance of a meteor hit, but you wouldn’t want that to happen would you?

      Even without global warming, you can really see the difference between the landscape of now and 50 years ago. Who knows when something of nature that you love will be destroyed.

      Yeah, I can clearly see that with Al Gore’s giant mansion and seaside resort.

      http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Its-good-to-be-green–Al-Gore-buys-9-million-seaside-home

      Just think about it. Is self-inflicted ignorance worth it? Helping the world, even if the danger isn’t to you, is better than sittin’ there, wasting your time and energy doin’ nothin’.
      Le yu zu ren, ever heard of the Chinese phrase? There is joy in helping others.

      That is what I am doing by exposing Al Gore’s lies which damage the reputability and efforts of REAL environmentalism.

      But if I did say somthing offensive, it was because it seemed to me that you were gonna ignore the facts just because Al Gore did something wrong to help the save-the-world-from-global-warming people. Whatever their names are. Even if he did it for himself or whatever.

      All right Derra, how about this – you read this website I compiled, and then tell me whether you still think global warming is real. Or even just look at the pictures and graphs, like the snow in the Middle East desert or the record levels of ice in Antarctica.

      http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/

      Al Gore is doing nothing to save the earth – if he even really believes in global warming, then why is he emitting so much CO2 and using so much energy with his rich, wasteful lifestyle? If he really fears the rising ocean levels, why did he buy a seaside resort to live in?

      He is a greedy conman, one who pretends to be righteous and caring, who wastes so many resources while scolding us for using even a little. That makes him a hypocrite of the worst kind.

      Do you still admire one such as this?

    121. Derra Says:

      I never said that I knew who he is or what he does. I just thought he did good trying to tell people to stop polluting the Earth. If he believes it’s true, then he did good. I don’t care if he did what you say. I don’t know the guy. It’s not up to me to judge. Even if he’s a hypocrite.

    122. Scott Thong Says:

      I don’t know the guy. It’s not up to me to judge. Even if he’s a hypocrite.

      But you judge me?

      Gore does not tell people to ‘stop polluting the earth’. He tells them to stop emitting so much CO2 – a very big difference, since toxic waste and litter and smog are clearly pollution… while CO2 is a natural part of the entire atmosphere that all green plants rely on to live.

      You should care what he does. Let me put it this way: Would you respect and admire a man who says “Love the children!” while raping 9-year old girls? Would you listen to a man who preaches “End all wars, stop the violence!” who savagely beats his wife when he gets drunk – every night?

      Or maybe this one would work better – would you think highly of a man who says “Give a hoot, don’t pollute!” while driving around in a smog-emitting SUV, throwing non-biodegradable garbage on the street, and pouring crude oil into the local river? And then HE SCOLDS YOU for not recycling enough!!!

      Same reason I don’t believe Al Gore who tells me the CO2 is giving Earth a fever (while releasing so much of it jetting around the world) and advises me I must cut down on my consumption (while his house uses 20-22 times the energy of a typical home) and warns us that global warming will make the sea levels rise (while buying a seaside luxury home).

      I support REAL environmentalism, and I have very valid reasons to doubt Al Gore’s sincerity and truthfulness.

      If you persist in scolding me for my opposition and criticism of Al Gore – while at the same time refusing to look at the pollution and waste coming from his mansion, yatch, seaside resort and private jet – then you are completely biased in favour of Al Gore.

    123. Derra Says:

      Fine then, I’m sorry. But as I’ve already said before, I have no idea who the guy is or what he does or own. If he does pollute then it’s his problem. He’s gonna pay for it too.
      I didn’t mean to criticize you in saying so. I’m sorry.

    124. Simon Thong Says:

      Don’t you think you should find out about this guy, Al Gore? Surely, responsible person that you are, you can’t claim ignorance.

    125. Derra Says:

      Don’t really care. I’m not American. I don’t have to. And I never said I was responsible. You just assumed. I don’t even do my homework.

    126. Simon Thong Says:

      don’t care? al gorecares abt taking ur money…orisitsomeoneelse’smoneycozu’reabludger?

    127. osibisa Says:

      “…but you can’t deny the fact that pollution of the Earth is caused by us.”

      Thas y there should be forced castrations and vasectomies. That should learn them to do their homework

    128. Scott Thong Says:

      It’s okay. You don’t really need to know about who or what Al Gore is like.

      Instead, read up more on the latest facts supporting or debunking global warming. There is a reason Al Gore and others have become much quieter about global warming lately.

      Here are some reasons why:

      1) Climategate
      2) Climategate Darwin
      3) Climategate New Zealand
      4) Climategate Russia
      5) Climategate USA
      6) Pachaurigate
      7) Glaciergate (which Pachauri made a lot of money off)
      8.) Mountain Icegate
      9) Amazongate

    129. batman Says:

      Methane Man to pollute again:
      “Gore calls for major protests on government’s climate change inaction”
      http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/114717-al-gore-calls-for-us-protests-on-climate-change-inaction

      He must have lost money on those “green credits”

    130. koolaiddude Says:

      I love how people come here and attack the blogger… who is merely restating facts provided BY A SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION with commentary. Keep up the good work, all these lib’s will get whats coming to them when this stuff is exposed as fake next time the gov’t is right, and they actually report this stuff in the media. I’m going to love when these guys become the pariahs of their neighborhoods, laughed at by everyone.

      You bring this on yourselves by turning a blind eye to science, follow the links, they go to scientific websites, not blogs. You all look like idiots.

    131. Roger Says:

      I find it fascinating that many people do not agree that the human race have no ill effect on the environment. Because if that were true….why did SO many nations on this plane sign the Kyoto Protocol to control those hazardous emissions what the world produces?? The United States of America is the ONLY nation not to have signed it!! WHY!?!? If that doesn’t scream, “If I sign this I will lose MONEY” then I dont’ know what does!! Pretty much the ENTIRE world agreed to correct global warming and OUR nation, thats suppose to be the leader in world change/advancement and the likes….hasn’t. So for someone to say that Al Gore’s film is all a bunch of lies to get the uneducated masses to follow like sheep is absurd!! Really!! Its people like this that think the way they do that make me feel ashamed to call myself an american.

    132. Scott Thong Says:

      Well, Roger…

      Firstly, many people DO agree that human activities have a negative impact on the environment. It’s just that AGW skeptics like myself doubt that CO2 emissions are part of the problem. So yeah, I support protecting the rainforests and an end to whaling, but global warming? Pffft! In fact, I argue that by sucking up all the public awareness, funding and effort, global warming is depriving REAL environmental advocacy! The focus on global warming is actually hurting the environment!

      Secondly, why do we skeptics not believe that global warming will kill us all? Simply because of the evidence: CO2 levels have been rising but temperatures haven’t recently. The Arctic ice is not melting. The Antarctic ice is at record levels. See Global Warming is Unfactual for the proof. Did you know that throughout the known temperature record stretching back tens of thousands of years, temperature rises first – followed 800 years later by carbon dioxide? Warming first, THEN CO2 levels up. That is the reverse of what An Inconvenient Truth is saying! In fact, see Video: Refuting Al Gore on CO2 Levels and Temperature for proof that Al Gore lied about his graphs in An Inconvenient Truth.

      In contrast, more and more scientific reports ‘proving’ global warming have turned out to be flawed or frauds. For example: Climategate, Climategate Darwin, Climategate New Zealand, Climategate Russia, Climategate USA, Pachaurigate, Glaciergate (which Pachauri made a lot of money off), Mountain Icegate, Amazongate, Boiling Great Lakesgate, and GISS sensorsgate. Each is a scandal worthy of firing the scientists involved and tearing their data sheets into trash, but instead the IPCC keeps on bleating about the ‘indisputable evidence’ of global warming.

      Thirdly, yes many nations signed onto the Protocols. Many people also believed that the continents cannot move, that animals spontaneously generated from nonliving matter, that Communism would bring about utopia, and that the Stimulus would fix the economy. The number of people believing in something does not make it true! And for the record, more and more people no longer believe in global warming.

      Fourthly, speaking about money… Did you know that Al Gore has made tens of millions of dollars out of spreading global warming fear, and as mentioned above Pachauri has made his own millions out of promoting global warming panic? Kind of puts their advocacy into a different light, doesn’t it? Especially when you see that Al Gore uses 20 times the energy as other Americans, flies everywhere on CO2-spewing privated jet, and recently bought a seaside mansion. That’s pretty weird behaviour if he REALLY thinks that CO2-emissions and energy-use will cause the oceans to rise 20 feet, don’t you think? Won’t his house be underwater in a few years, if he really thinks global warming is happening?

      Fifthly, yes you are right – signing Kyoto causes nations to lose billions and achieve nothing: For Germany alone, in 2005 alone, adherence to the Kyoto Protocol cost 6.2 billion Euros in increased energy costs. Continued adherence is estimated to result in a loss of 18.5 billion Euros by 2010. Australia’s Kyoto-styled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is due for 2010. Starting steps towards it have already caused electricity prices to shoot up 22%, with a predicted doubling of energy costs by 2015. Since the Kyoto Protocol was enacted, the European Union only had a 1.5% decrease in carbon emissions, instead of the Kyoto Protocol target of 8% decrease. Signatory Japan even had an 8% increase, and Canada a 22% increase.

      So yes, everyone else has promised to ‘fight global warming’ – but it is all talk and losing money, and no real results.

      If that doesn’t scream ‘Stupid suckers wasting money so Al Gore can laugh while swimming in money at his seaside mansion’, I don’t know what does!

      So GET EDUCATED man!!! Or else you really WILL be just a part of the uneducated masses following like sheep! I mean, have you ever actually read up on the facts and looked at the data yourself?

    133. Why Do They Prey On The Young? | Real Science Says:

      [...] http://scottthong.wordpress.com [...]

    134. Vanessa Says:

      Just one thing …
      The Maldives are in the Indian Ocean.
      Vanuatu is in the Pacific Ocean.

    135. Simon Thong Says:

      # water liew Says:
      October 30, 10 at 10:06 am

      well…really took me some times reading all the post above. just wanted to say “mat ikhwan” and “chinaiswherewebelong” are the same person!

    136. Jeff Says:

      One of the things that suprises me is the claim by global warming alarmists that ocean levels are rising (or going to rise) due to the melting of artic ice.

      Since arctic ice is floating ice, Archimede’s principle applies. As the ice melts, the liquid water it produces exactly enought water to occupy the space formerly occupied by the floating ice. Thus there is no increase in the ocean levels due to the melting.

    137. Cecil Westrom Says:

      Your right this a market based aid programme, the poor countries sell their carbon credits, (selling… what exactly? an invisible gas) to rich countries. Maybe it has something to do with UN Conventions of the law of the sea, being able to carve up and claim new territories instead of being a global commons , based on ‘scientifc evidence’ of need. Climate Change.. metaphor for hot war as opposed to cold war, especially as they refer to the Arctic region as being the place most affected by ‘warming’. From what I’ve read, trade routes and enormous resource area? I don’t know, not an expert on any of this, but I don’t buy it, something very strange going on. Im afraid the opening video to Copenhagen totally lost me, who were they chanelling Creflo Dollar, should be ashamed of themselves. All seems like a bit of a joke on us, ha de haa ha ha.

    138. Chris Says:

      im in 9th grade and my AP human geography teacher is making us watch this movie. thanks to this post, i can now disregard anything and everything this movie says. thank you very much

    139. Scott Thong Says:

      Good on you Chris, here’s some more scandal for you to update your knowledge:

      Climategates List – Scientific fraud exposed
      Hide the Decline – Professor demonstrates how Climategate culprits falsified data to ‘prove’ global warming
      Global Warming is Unfactual – Collection of proof against global warming

    140. john Says:

      If Al Gores movie ” An Inconvenient Truth is truly an amazing piece of bullcr@p, and it’s even more amazing that anybody still trusts anything it and Gore have to say” then how come you only state 35 scientific errors within Gore’s research. If he’s lying about global warming as you claim to be saying how come you only point out specific points within his research and say there are un-true. How come only some things are untrue? and why dont you have any real proof from a credible website within your statements for each point? if you want to prove a point use credible facts to back up what your saying. Dont be a child and just hold opinion as fact. Im not saying Gore’s movie is credible information. however i have looked up some of his stuff and have seen credible proof for everything. If you want me to take you seriously then show me real facts.

    141. john Says:

      Where did all this come from?

    142. Simon Thong Says:

      I think you only had to click on any of the bullet points at the end of Scott’s article to log onto a credible sight. It’s incredible how you could have overlooked that, considering how much you value credibility.

    143. Simon Thong Says:

      In fact, there are lots of sites you could look at; try his other articles on this subject.

    144. Scott Thong Says:

      If you want me to take you seriously then show me real facts. – john

      How about these for real facts, with citations and links:

      1) The man at the centre of the Climategate scandal, head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit Dr. Phil Jones, admits that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years (Source: BBC interview via Daily Mail UK)

      2) Here is how he and his dishonest climate scientists did it, as explained by a global warming believer:

      3) Antarctic ice is at highest levels ever recorded and still expanding (Sources: The Australian, Heartland Institute)

      4) Glaciers have been increasing (Source: Nature Geoscience via The Telegraph)

      5) Gore’s graph in An Inconvenient Truth showing CO2 levels and temperature was real – however, he purposely did not zoom in, which would show that temperature rises first, followed by CO2! (Source: Six respected climate and environment scientists)

      6) Al Gore’s sob story about drowning polar bears was a complete fabrication (Source: the person who actually took the photograph of the ‘stranded’ bears)

      All of the above are from Global Warming is Unfactual, a handy quick collection I’ve compiled – with citations and links.

      Need I go on? Or is this enough to make you reconsider the skeptics’ position that anthropogenic global warming, with CO2 as the primary driver, is not a proven theory?

    145. john Says:

      forget Al Gore look at this body. honestly you do have sources im not discrediting you however, rather than media sources take a look at these peer reviewed scholarly sources made by scientists such as:
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
      http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/PEW_Climate%20101%20Intl.pdf
      http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/climate-science-misconceptions-and-facts-aug2009_0.pdf
      read them carefully then come back to me and also the copenhagen accord shows that the leaders of the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa aren’t debating whether global warming is real or not they have already decided its real and are trying to find ways to stop the eminent flodding that will occur at the end of this century if the pattern continues as it has. look at the first source to see what im talking about.

    146. john Says:

      Im sorry but whether or not me or you or a few people believe global warming the heads of countries have already decided that it does.

    147. john Says:

      also please dont tell me that these scientists are making up stuff because then this has gone from depiciting facts to depciting opinion as facts.

    148. Scott Thong Says:

      john, would that be the same IPCC report that contained the following non-facts, passed off as real research?

      1) 40% of Amazon rainforest will be wiped out – but the data came from a report by two green activists, not a proper scientific study

      2) Himalayan glaciers disappear by 2035 – but the data came from a casual interview in a magazine that the head of the IPCC later had to disown.

      3) Ice is disappearing from mountain tops – but the data came from a mountain climbing magazine’s interviews with climbers.

      4) The East Anglia Climate Research Unit – one of the foremost and most respected climate research sources, which the IPCC relies on – was exposed as FAKING THEIR DATA. The data showed no warming, and they changed it to show warming. This is the scientists making stuff up that you don’t believe is happening! Google for Climategate if you don’t believe me.

      Call me a denier if you wish, but these do not constitute ‘scientific studies’ in my book!

      How much more of the report is based on outright fabrications and utter nonsense? Will we ever know, if people just blindly accept the report’s findings without ever cross checking the claims within?

      If I claimed that I can turn sugar into gold and released a study about it, would people believe me – or would they check my data? And what if I called people who want to check my data, or who have checked it and don’t believe my cliams, as ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’ and ‘they are based on opinion not fact’? Do you think it’s correct for me to try and shut people up by insulting their intelligence? Because that is what you and other global warmists are doing – dismissing everyone who isn’t convinced by their shoddy ‘research’.

      We aren’t stupid. In fact, it is because we aren’t stupid that we question global warming!

      The sad truth is, as Climategate showed us, it is climate scientists who are passing their opinions (i.e. Earth is warming) as fact – by faking and changing the data.

      You tell me how record snowfall across the globe is ‘opinion’. I contend that it is fact.

      Am I accusing the IPCC and other climate scientists of fraud, incompetence and bias? Yes, I am. It’s not like just because someone is a ‘scientist’, they are free from all-too-human failings. Just look at what Lysenko did to the Soviet Union.

      Yes. global leaders ‘all’ believe the IPCC (except for a few notable examples, such as Czech Republic’s Václav Klaus). But once upon a time, they all believed things like spontaneous generation, and disbelieved things like evolution and tectonic shift. Who is right now?

    149. Simon Thong Says:

      It seems to me, john, that you are just too lazy to study and think. If you want to give up the right to decide for yourself, that’s up to you. Sure, heads of countries have decided; and they have decided many things, too and it doesn’t convince us that they know what they are doing. Same case here.

      When scientists pass off their opinions as fact, and then confess that they have been cheating, isn’t that a FACT?

    150. john Says:

      im sorry but i believe you two only looked at one of the sources I had written the ipcc is what it is. how about the other two sources??? Those sources aren’t “scientists making stuff up” they are peer reviewed. Which means at a juncture in time are given to random other scientists, people with ph.d’s or whatever peer’s they are given to and are therefore are reffered to as “scholarly”!!!!!! im not shunning anyones opinion or intelligencem, simply I have seen real reports of the Earth warming based on scientific study. Before your next reply please look over the science depcited in those sources. Also the Copenhagen accord created to limit global warming was an accord with 194 nations. This many nations I seriously!! doubt would put money and time into something that may not exist in the first place or is just be propaganda. If your saying that the world is wrong that is a more profound statement than i believe you know. The U.S. might be able to shift if you and “skeptics” protest however, I dont see how the world will just change there mind. I understand that the world seeing global warming is real may not prove global warming exists however, I’m pretty sure that so many people wouldn’t spend billions of dollars on nothing.

    151. john Says:

      As a side note I dont believe I made it clear but the other two sources arent ipcc just clearing that up.

    152. john Says:

      if you need help in how to tell whether something is peer reviewed just ask or look up if you dont believe me

    153. Simon Thong Says:

      peer reviw?
      How old are you, john? If you’re below 40, I would have heard of peer review before you could read or write.

      Peer review and global warming? Read
      http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620htm
      http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3600.htm
      http://www.inforrmath.org/apprise/a3010.htm

    154. Simon Thong Says:

      Correct websites are below:
      http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
      http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3600.htm
      http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3010.htm

    155. Simon Thong Says:

      A very important question to be asked is, “Says who?” Peers are not necessarily to be trusted. They’re in the same boat. “Don’t rock the boat!” Their research grants, reputations and future in the scientific community are dependent on toeing the line. In the case of global warming, toeing the line means tagging along or jumping on the IPCC bandwagon.

    156. Simon Thong Says:

      Peer review? Look at this:
      The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers
      Posted on January 24, 2010 by Anthony Watts

      All the years I’ve been in TV news, I’ve observed that every story has a tipping point. In news, we know when it has reached that point when we say it “has legs” and the story takes on a life of its own. The story may have been ignored or glossed over for weeks, months, or years until some new piece of information is posted and starts to galvanize people. The IPCC glacier melt scandal was the one that galvanized the collective voice that has been saying that the IPCC report was seriously flawed and represented a political rather than scientific view. Now people are seriously looking at AR4 with a critical eye and finding things everywhere.

      see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/

    157. Scott Thong Says:

      Those sources aren’t “scientists making stuff up” they are peer reviewed.

      So are these:

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-debunk-co2-myth.html

      http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/New-PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/

      http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/

      http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory%22

      http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

      And 900 papers here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      Also the Copenhagen accord created to limit global warming was an accord with 194 nations. This many nations I seriously!! doubt would put money and time into something that may not exist in the first place or is just be propaganda.

      john, the United Nations represent the vast majority of the world. Does that mean that everything they decide, we should agree with? I have dozens of issues I disagree with the UN on. A majority doesn’t make it automatically correct.

      I could give many likely reasons why the 194 nations signed on to Copenhagen – everything from seeing big money coming their way from the developed world (the third world nations), to their policy being heavily influenced by environmental lobbies, to financial gain on the personal level (like Rajendra Pachauri), to not knowing what they’re doing (seriously, you think a nation like Zimbabwe has the scientific knowhow to tell the difference?), to being pressured by other nations to jump on the bandwagon (due to people like you saying “Everyone believes it, why don’t you?).

      I’ll be straightforward – I think the world has been hoodwinked by a very cunning ploy by unethical ‘scientists’ partnered with buesinessmen (Al Gore) and enviromentalists. They’re in it for the fame, money (including research grants) and plain old keeping their jobs – where would the countless low level researchers be if one day, the public and governments refuse to pay for global warming research?

      I’m pretty sure that so many people wouldn’t spend billions of dollars on nothing.

      You underestimate the short-sightedness and greed of humans. Did you know that UN officials work hardly at all, but get paid huge wads of cash anyway? Or spend millions on painting an office ceiling with ‘art’? That is what happens with the largest public-funded bureaucracy in the world that is ‘above’ oversight!

    158. Simon Thong Says:

      Not peer reviewed, says one scientist: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/peer-review-in-ipcc.html
      (Roger Pielke Jr: I am a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I also have an appointments as a Visiting Senior Fellow, Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. I am also a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.)

    159. john Says:

      Ok first off I read your article and couldnt help but spot out terms such as “Gore’s political party”. You are implying the democratic party prevented the fixing of the dams in New Orleans??? I believe you are making political statements the same in which you said Gore was making. Allow me to brief you on not just Gore or the IPCC or people who ” tagging along or jumping on the IPCC bandwagon”. Because these people have spoken of Global warming before the IPCC was created or Al Gore had any say at all.
      In 1938 British Engineer Guy Stewart Callendar concludes that higher global temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels are probaly related.
      In 1938 Soviet researchers confirm that the planet is warming.
      In 1957 U.S. oceanographer Roger Revelle and Austrian physicist Hans Suess find that the oceans cannot absorb carbon dioxide as easily as thought, indicating that manmade emssions could create a “greenhouse effect,” trapping heat in the atmosphere.
      In 1958 U.S. scientist David Keeling begins monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, creating a groundbreaking record of their increase.
      In 1966 U.S. geologist Cesare Emiliani says ice ages were created by tiny shifts in Earth’s orbit, backing earlier theories that climate reacts to small changes.
      In 1967 leading nations launch 15-year program to study the world
      s weather.
      In 1968 Studies show Antartica’s huge ice sheets could melt, raising sea levels.
      In 1975 A National Aeronautics and Space Adminisitration (NASA) researcher warns that fluorocarbons in aerosol sprays could help create a greenhouse.
      In 1979 The National Academy of Sciences finds that burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures 6 degrees in Fahrenheit in 50 years.
      In 1981 U..S scientists report a warming trend since 1880 evidence of a greenhouse effect.
      In 1985 Sceintists from 29 nations urge governments to plan to warmer globe.
      In 1988 NASA scientist James Hansen says global warming has begun: he’s 99 percent sure it’s manmade.
      In 1988 Thirty-five nations from a global panel to evaluate climate change and develop a response.
      To be honest I dont beleive most of the things stated by the U.N. and alot of the news in America is completly fabricated to not allow us to see the truth about many things. Not only in the U.S. everywhere. The government doesnt state many of the things that happen. However the fact of the large amount of tornando’s occuring in the U.S. and many other things that are occuring are a little to “coincidental”. Also just the simple fact that I believe that the gases that are released into the atmpsphere against human nature will not have a positive effect on the Earth. Wheter global warming is real or not really its for you to decide because really we may be dead before we may know for sure whether or not global warming is real or not.
      On a side note some of the errors pointed out by could very well be correct but honestly im one of those people that dosent trust anyone. I look at all types of views all sides. Politics is to depressing to relate it to something such as global warming. NASA presented global warming as a maybe growing problem before the Kyoto protocol and all of that.
      However I do agree with you that information can be easily fabricated to make someone see one point of view. However, in your article you have not shown a drastic enough of a reason to disprove the amount of carbon dioxide going to the air is a lot nor did you state the actual effect it might have if not global warming. If you say NASA is wrong then honestly why do people go to school for???? why do people do jobs or research???? Also you state the british government found 9 errors in Gore’s information. Can you post a link for it im interested in what they found.

    160. john Says:

      worlds comin 2 an end 2012

    161. Hey Rob Krupicka! Where Is The Warming? « Red Alexandria Says:

      [...] the last few years. Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been shown to have as many as 35 errors in the film. Could Mr. gore be spreading the hysteria because he’s trying to make maney at [...]

    162. News For Rob Krupicka – More Than 125 Environmentalist Groups Blast UN For Global Warming Alarmism… « Red Alexandria Says:

      [...] few years in spite of the fact that Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been shown to have as many as 35 errors in the film. Could Mr. Gore be spreading the hysteria over global warming because he’s trying to make money [...]

    163. john Says:

      JFK was assassinated by the government

    164. dave Says:

      now its the year 2011 the sea level has not rised and i am freezing my a$$ off .

      Al Gore you are a evil evil man , you have slowed progress around the world our kids are running amok on the streets because they think the world is going to end soon.

    165. john Says:

      at dave: bro Al is not the only one who thinks theres global warming so ur statement makes no sense

    166. John Says:

      everyone special news report this just in simon and scott thong are communists! wow what a scoop

    167. Freedom Says:

      Why debate the experts? Well maybe because many of the so called truths of the past have been either proven to be false or exposed as intentional lies. What if everything that we know to be true will one day be proven false. What if the smart people are just the loudest in the bunch. Science should not be a religion that determines what is truth, but instead it should be a tool to expose the lies told by others seeking to reap unearned rewards.

    168. gradientblue Says:

      What kind of proof of any of these items do you have? Where is the evidence? If you’re going to prove the guy wrong, have some evidence!

    169. Scott Thong Says:

      What proof of global warming is there? Where is the evidence?

      If you’re gonna push the world into hysteria and make the developed nations throw away billions (as the Kyoto Protocol had already cost Europe and Japan), have some evidence!

      You know what evidence there is? CO2 levels have been rising, but the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit admit, no warming in 15 years! So what about your anthropogenic global warming theory, huh?

    170. john Says:

      In 1938 British Engineer Guy Stewart Callendar concludes that higher global temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels are probaly related.
      In 1938 Soviet researchers confirm that the planet is warming.
      In 1957 U.S. oceanographer Roger Revelle and Austrian physicist Hans Suess find that the oceans cannot absorb carbon dioxide as easily as thought, indicating that manmade emssions could create a “greenhouse effect,” trapping heat in the atmosphere.
      In 1958 U.S. scientist David Keeling begins monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, creating a groundbreaking record of their increase.
      In 1966 U.S. geologist Cesare Emiliani says ice ages were created by tiny shifts in Earth’s orbit, backing earlier theories that climate reacts to small changes.
      In 1967 leading nations launch 15-year program to study the world
      s weather.
      In 1968 Studies show Antartica’s huge ice sheets could melt, raising sea levels.
      In 1975 A National Aeronautics and Space Adminisitration (NASA) researcher warns that fluorocarbons in aerosol sprays could help create a greenhouse.
      In 1979 The National Academy of Sciences finds that burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures 6 degrees in Fahrenheit in 50 years.
      In 1981 U..S scientists report a warming trend since 1880 evidence of a greenhouse effect.
      In 1985 Sceintists from 29 nations urge governments to plan to warmer globe.
      In 1988 NASA scientist James Hansen says global warming has begun: he’s 99 percent sure it’s manmade.
      In 1988 Thirty-five nations from a global panel to evaluate climate change and develop a response.
      lol 2 the guy who says everything has been proven to be a lie lol so are u living a lie right now???? do u take medicine???? do u receive medical treatment???? or have u in ur life????? cus all i need is this one example to say that if u think science is all a lie then all the things we have today are all lies. u shouldnt take medicine cus it wont treat any sicknesses. science shouldnt be a religion???? who said it was a religion??? are u and this scott thong are the type of people who would believe that everything everyone tells us is a lie???? where is the hope for humanity then when trillions of dollars are going to things that dont exist???? scott thong is accusing people for being stupid. and whats funny to me is so many things in history were theories of the way everything was created based off science. or based off whatever and are all believed to be true to the people that believe them to be true. and at the times they were created everyone thought oo that person is insane!!! hooke was crazy theres no such things as that the human eye cant even see as being the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms??? oo no hes crazy and then how is it now??? these lies that all people who think government officials and the media always lie to satisfy hidden agendas, those same people would get and do everything that every other human does. and will protest hear and their with no success. instead of trying to actually make a difference and running for office by rising through ranks and becoming a person who can actually change things. this theory that global warming is a lie is funny cus the belief that doing anything unnatural, whether directly or indirectly to anything on earth or even out of space would cause a change or some sort of effect. based off that reason doing the things we do today that are unnatural such as killing off species of plants and animals; for example would have a negative effect. and unless theres some proof that all this carbon dioxide that enters the earths atmosphere unnaturally has a positive effect or even has no effect which doesn’t make sense cus then how would this even be a subject at all cus al gore wouldnt have been able to even begin to convince anybody about global warming. im gonna lean towards it having a negative effect and global warming having some sort of truth behind it.

    171. Scott Thong Says:

      Your citations seem thoughtful, but this is immediately dispersed by the run-on, unformatted, rambling sentences of the latter giant paragraph filled with ad hominems, red herrings, gross generalizations and straw men attacks.

      Rather than stoop down to your level of intellect and etiquette by addressing where your assumptions about global warming skeptics are flat out wrong, I will cite some news that is rather more recent than your above information:

      14 APRIL 2012: Data from Antarctic ice cores shows that CO2 levels continued rising for thousands of years – even as the planet cooled
      30 MARCH 2012: NASA via The Wall Street Journal confirms, no warming in 10 years
      1 FEBRUARY 2012: The UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit admit, no warming in 15 years; confirmed by various scientific experts on climate
      14 FEBRUARY 2010: Head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit Dr. Phil Jones, admits that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years
      2012: The Himalayas and nearby peaks lost no ice at all in the past 10 years
      2011: Despite increasing CO2 emissions, sea levels dropped by 1 inch

      All the above, and more, from Did You Know the Following Facts About Global Warming?

      So, john… What do you have to say now?

    172. Rigpi Yeshe Says:

      wow…

    173. Rob Krupicka – Dinosaurs Caused Global Warming Too You Know « Red Alexandria Says:

      [...] times the last few years even though Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been shown to have as many as 35 errors in the film. Could Mr. Gore be spreading the hysteria over global warming because he’s trying to make money [...]

    174. Rob Krupicka Is Right – The Climate Does Change « Red Alexandria Says:

      [...] times the last few years even though Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been shown to have as many as 35 errors in the film. Could Mr. Gore be spreading the hysteria over global warming because he’s trying to make money [...]

    175. Rob Krupicka – Global Warming Was Worse In The 1930′s Than It Is Today « Red Alexandria Says:

      [...] times the last few years even though Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been shown to have as many as 35 errors in the film. Could Mr. Gore be spreading the hysteria over global warming because he’s trying to make money [...]

    176. richard2009 Says:

      If you saw ‘Inconvenient truth” you should watch “Global Warm swindle” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647
      This is a deep diving documentary where scientist on each field gives there view about what is happen. The threats and rudeness some people respond on this article strength me in the thought that the the climate dialog is indeed a big scam.
      i.e. A volcano eruptions produce more CO2 the we all 6 billion people can produce in one year. And this total production is just fractional by the emission of the oceans. IF humans double or even triple there CO2 emission it’s still a fraction of 1% of the total co2 emission, nature produce.
      Then CO2 Increase after when the earth is warmed. So it can cause warming. See how this is proven in the video.
      I’m not good in writing all these facts, watch this well documented video. It completely changed my option about this topic. I told everybody to watch Al Gore’s movie. I belief what is claims. But I started to doubt and I’m convinced now that the ‘Inconvenient truth” is a ‘Convenient Lie”

    177. Scott Thong Says:

      Good on you for throwing off the blinkers of falsified science!

      See http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/ for a whole list of easy-to-digest, catchy to repeat facts refuting global warming.

    178. Godfather Of Global Warming Admits He May Have Been Mistaken – Red Alexandria Says:

      [...] the last few years even though Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been shown to have as many as 35 errors in the film. Could Mr. Gore be spreading the hysteria over global warming because he’s trying tomake money at [...]

    179. Climate change? Says:

      [...] [...]

    180. the real thang Says:

      It`s a massive con game.

      In 1900 the Great Hurricane wiped out Galveston and that led to the Hudson Port (2nd largest in the US). The hurricane caused great loss of life with the estimated death toll between 6,000 and 12,000 individuals
      Then came the dust bowl which made Steinbeck famous with “Grapes Of Wrath”

      Current “climate change” is hogwash. The Sun has been in a heightened state of activity for the past 10 years or so and next year (midway) will be the worst. After that it`s supposed to reduce (barring some event on Dec 21 when all the planets line up with the black hole.

      The best thing to do would be to put all these climate change believers into some space ship and blast them into the sun where they can do some good.
      I dunno, but it seems Samy Vellu said if it is done at night, there would be less heat :) :) :)

    181. the real thang Says:

      “In 1988 NASA scientist James Hansen says global warming has begun: he’s 99 percent sure it’s manmade.” – john

      From the James Hansen is just wrong department comes some inconvenient data, data that Dr. Hansen or anyone in the media could have easily looked up for themselves before writing irresponsible stories

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/12/nasas-james-hansen-is-just-wrong-proof-that-there-is-no-increased-drought-in-the-usa-tied-to-temperature/

    182. the real thang Says:

      Quadrant Online previously reported that the ABC had invited Bob Carter to contribute to an online debate on The Drum following their publication of a series of five articles by Clive Hamilton.

      Left internet newsletters and blog sites were outraged that sceptics were to be allowed to comment on their ABC.

      Professor Carter submitted his article, on James Hansen and the Hansenism cult, and the ABC has rejected his article – which Quadrant Online is privileged to publish.

      James Hansen is visiting Australia. We can only guess at the pressures which have been exerted on the ABC to close down criticism of Hansen – and the cowardice which saw them conform. So much for Australia’s brave freedom fighters of the press.

      http://www.climategate.com/the-anti-james-hansen-article-abc-tried-to-ban

    183. James Hansen: Abusing the Public Trust Says:

      Should James Hansen be forced to resign….. or be fired from NASA?

      “With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster?

      James Hansen needs to be relieved of his NASA duties. Show Mr. Hansen the door — for the sake of humanity.”

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/james_hansen_abusing_the_publi.html

    184. Al Gore Con Man Says:

      The great carbon credit con: Why are we paying the Third World to poison its environment?

      In the fields around this giant chemicals factory in Gujarat, the barren soil smells of paint stripper and the water from the well makes you gag. So why has it been given tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer-funded UN ‘green reward points’, which are traded hungrily on the financial markets at huge profit?

      ‘It’s a typical Western capitalist system, cash- and profit-based. In the East we think differently; caring for nature and the environment is something that comes naturally to us. But of course we’ll take the carbon-credits money if it is offered to us. Why wouldn’t we?’

      Why not indeed? To answer that question, the following day we take a battered local taxi out to some of the villages surrounding GFL, a three-hour journey. On the way we pass factory after factory, many of them new, some of them in receipt of carbon-credit money, lots of them belching out dirty black smoke.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1188937/The-great-carbon-credit-eco-companies-causing-pollution.html

    185. lilliputia Says:

      New US Govt. Regulation………..All Americans should be only 1 foot tall

      Environmentalists Push for Downsizing … to 200-Sq. Ft. Homes
      November 28, 2012

      The environmental movement had an idea on how to cut down your carbon footprint – live in a little house. This movement, often called the Tiny House Movement or micro living, is not new but had picked up steam recently, and not without some media support. However, the media have consistently left out that this idea of living small and downsizing had been pushed by environmentalists long before journalists decided to report on this “trend.”

      On the Oct. 22, 2012, broadcast of ABCs “World News,” anchor Diane Sawyer concluded the program with a segment on living small. “And finally tonight, we’re watching a trend here in America and around a crowded world: people ready to live in houses only a couple of feet wide,” she said. That summed up micro living perfectly.

    186. Jc Smarr Says:

      Greetings! Very useful advice in this particular article! It’s the little changes that make the biggest changes. Thanks a lot for sharing!

    187. The Smart Grid – Global Warming – Radio-Frequency – Chemtrail Connection « bcfreedom Says:

      [...] http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenie… [...]

    188. willhaas Says:

      Ferinc M. Miskokzi has done analysis to show that CO2 has no effect on climate. In the upper atmosphere where the earth radiates most of its IR radiation to space as CO2 increase H2O decreases with a net effect o global warming of 0. As the lower atmosphere increases in temperature the upper atmosphere decreases in temperature. The Positive H2O feedback in the lower atmosphere turns out to be a negative feedback mechanism in the upper atmosphere. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable. The earths climate has been stable to changes in green house gases for at least a billion years. Evidence of this is that there was time for life to evolve. We are here.

    189. liberalbasher1955 Says:

      The Global warming cult reminds me of a religious or Eco-terrorists outfit. Not a group serious about climate or getting anything right about it. But pushing an agenda. That agenda is about POWER not climate change. The greenpeace founder Patrick Moore quit the movement because known leftist AKA Communist had take over the greenpeace.

      “The Greenpeace founder has resigned. He says that initially his movment was for the best. But after the Berlin wall came down, Socialist and hard core Communist saw the Greenpeace movement as a platform to further their political ideology.”

      Our man Al Gore agrees with these socialist/communists. Not with their politics mind you. But with their attempt at grabbing POWER.

    190. BTF reviewed Says:

      I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and
      was curious what all is needed to get set up?

      I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny?
      I’m not very web smart so I’m not 100% sure. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated.
      Many thanks

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s


    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 118 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: