Do No Evil – Al Gore's "traveling global warming show," the award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," includes a long flyover shot of majestic Antarctic ice shelves. But this shot was first seen in the 2004 blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." Sculpted from Styrofoam and later scanned into a computer, the ice shelf "
FTA
"Karen Goulekas, the special effects supervisor for "The Day After Tomorrow" said the shot is a digital image. She was glad Al Gore used it in the documentary since "It is one hell of a shot." Both movies use the shot to convincingly portray global warming, but it is left to the audience to decide if this created image can both entertain and educate us about our changing planet."
These glow bull whiners will do anything to make you believe their religion. Even applaud putting make believe in a documentary and they don't even see anything wrong with it.
True believers, zealots, I'd say.
I'll vote on this story to help get it the attention it deserves, but I guarentee you that movies made that are against this point of view use shots that are also suspect.
"but I guarentee you that movies made that are against this point of view use shots that are also suspect."
I don't know if that is true or not, but either way, it doesn't excuse Gore for doing it, the "they did it too" way of looking at it doesn't make what Gore did any more honest, as many of us heard from our parents "Just because all your friends jumped off a bridge...."
BK: There are dishonest people with opposing ideas, but Al Gore? This truth is downright inconvenient! LOL
Certainly convenient & good to have a hay day! HAGD!
Nobody on all the threads has aptly answered why Mars & other planets are heating up at this time. No CO2 emissions there.
The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is minuscule compared to the overall mass of gases. -Rev. S
"Nobody on all the threads has aptly answered why Mars & other planets are heating up at this time. No CO2 emissions there. "
Dude, this is so old. Try using google rather than keep repeating asinine propaganda copied and pasted right out of the right wing extremist blog sites.
Here is that for which you asked, yet not right wing extremist blog sites:
"Scientists from NASA say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/articl...
"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturalâ;;and not a human-inducedâ;;cause..."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02...
These articles have disclaimers internally, but the jury truly is out. No good explanation has been given me on these threads.
As one journalist observes on this topic: "Creating group-think and mass behavior should be anathema to honest journalists. Otherwise, reporters become opinion makers rather than neutral observers." Instead, opposing thought is denigrated by ad hominem attacks, as do you. -Rev. S
it also has other links to explain in better detail for you...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-...
"There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument:
Not all planets are warming - some are cooling
The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950
There are explanations for why other planets are warming "
As I said for specifics click on the links at the above website...
you're also cherry picking from your own articles you provided. They're giving you some of the answers right there:
"In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet's temperature." theres more about this on your article
And then on you natl geo article it states:
"Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "
His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
thertes more there too, or did you choose to cherry pick your research?
Here's a nice link for the Global Warming believers:
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/s33p36.htm
"Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length."
Are you seriously bringing up Frederick Seitz again and this bogus petition? Are the spice girls still on there?
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactshee...
But Gore using a 5 second clip from a movie makes the entire doc false? Geez, you guys amaze me sometimes....
So instead of attacking his science you attack him and try to link him to big oil, all the while ignoring the hundreds of other scientists that signed off and agree with his report.
Nice scientific debate tactics...
Try proving his science wrong if you want to convince me you have a clue of what you're talking about.
how can you when he doesn't allow it to be peer reviewed and anyone can sign it with no proof?
"A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 "Oregon Petition"."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=480
Why do you completely ignore this?? Please explain...
"Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists."
Why? Have they countered with any science of their own or just "not received it well"?
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University."
So that means it's wrong? Again, no science to counter with.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
You mean the IPCC report that has been proven time and time again to be full of fallacies?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_original...
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/comment_...
I know its hard, but all you need to do is look at the scientific studies done and have been scientifically peer reviewed and published as such.. Go and google away. Its available to all......
The deniers will just continue to cherry pick info and cite nonpeer reviewed articles time and time again. Do you even look at the sources from the 2 articles you mention? Please do that and get back to us. Let us know what you find.
Speaking of google:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse
Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money"
More:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_pr...
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
I hope that you are so naive as to believe that something as complex as global temperature variations have only one cause.
You assertion that natural warming cycles are important is well taken, but is irrelevant to the argument that humans have, and are having, an impact on global temperatures.
I'd love to see proof that "humans have, and are having, an impact on global temperatures"
As a start you might want to take a look at the current mainstream scientific literature, not just the fringe faction.
Two excellent, and quite objective articles on the current problems in understanding the dynamics of the Northern hemisphere's ice are in last week's issue of the scientific journal Nature.
That's just too damned funny. I bet the left will still see him as a saint though.
No, no we are totaly disillusioned.
He used a CGI clip from a movie, as a background while talking about the Arctic!
The fiendish liar! The fraud! True, the rest of the movie stands as a lighthouse of truth bravely shining against the fog of conservative twaddle, but that is not good enough.
As you know, we leftist have rather, ah, 'higher' standards than the you of the right.
Adieu, Mr. Gore.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
MacBookForMe
starskii
RedRiverJ
alamala
kukuya
BronxBomber
sonofjohn
JessicaLaurie
pawfoots
george87
sh2010
engineer
nostalgia
sleepingbeauty2
_kam0_
thinkingserious
optimumself
jeepndave
newbie0420
jnbammer
L8again
peaquod
alexander1380
avpd85
DaveWingnut
Helixbuilder
dirtyfratboy
Shannonyork
Monte G
ningyo
Lifeoflava
pagey
lilianhellmann
tbkennedy53
BJTJ
BoBo in Texas
fredsaew
simonsez
grungeplunge
hurr1
bboldi
Dicax_Maximus
MidnightPrism
Silverghost
rabbitbebe
lizaveta
bunnykathy
DiffeeOnline
masteraud
bethlonely
102)
I wanted to post a different story on this, but the url is banned here at Propeller, but it's a good story, so anyone that would like to read it can email me at zaph22@hotmail.com and I'll send you the link.
Another fake but accurate "truth".
It never ceases to amaze me about the short straws which the anti-environmentalists will grab at....
They can't really go after the film on scientific grounds so they go after it on esthetic grounds....
Puleeeese!
Apparently for a True Believer fake but accurate is all that is required.
I just like how he called the al gore deniers "anti-environmentalists". I bet I do more for the environment on a daily basis than he has done in his life.
wow, thanks for letting me know I'm an anti-environmentalist just because I think Gore's, profit for Gore motivated, THEORY, not fact, on global warming, or climate change (take your pick on what to call it) is bull. But since you just informed me that I'm an anti-environmentalist for not agreeing with you and that nutcase Gore, I guess I can stop recycling, stop all the other things I do to conserve, I can now keep my home as warm or as cool as I like without considering the cost to myself and others, and to the planet. It's sure good that you let me know I don't care about the environment just because I believe the warming, and current global cooling is part of nature and I don't think we should mess with nature, and because my views are not the same are yours. I guess that's why all the things I do to pollute, and waste, as little as possible is all a waste of time since I don't agree with your point of view. So again thanks, no more recycling for me now,
(cont_
and I'll be using my AC a lot this summer, and all because you were kind enough to let me know that in spite of all my efforts to help keep our environment clean, it was all a waste of time since I'm an ANTI-environmentalist. Without you telling me I'd have never known, so thanks again!!!
err, why is the URL banned?
not that I am nervious or anything.
I have no idea, I can't get anyone at Propeller to explain it to me. I only know that I can't post it, can't put it in a comment, and when I tried sending it to someone in a private message the url was taken out and replaced with the words "banned url"
But if you would like to read the story, AC found the same story at a different url and sent it to me so I could post the story, it's at this link...
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/04/22/...
It crashed my computer and killed my cat!