Ice Caps Melting at HALF the predicted Rate.

[Gadawg73]

You're approaching it from the wrong direction Jillian. We don't want science to be "wrong".

We respect science. We despise the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION of science. When we call into question the malpractices of the climatologists we are following a time honored tradition of challenging the "norms". Think Galileo and Copernicus for instance. They challenged the Church mandated Earth centric theories of the day. We are merely following in that time honored tradition.

You should ask yourself if there is so much consensus why are there so many questions about how the climatologists are deriving their suppositions. Why won't they release their data? Why will they never test their theory in a lab setting (instead they rely on computer models that are incompetant at best), why is it that when their data is finally released there are ALLWAYS problems with it?

Look at their evidence from the viewpoint of a lawyer preparing for trial. So far wherever AGW has been tried in a court of law...it has lost.

I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.

Well lets see here. The Al Gore flick An Inconvenient Truth was brought to trial by a English truck driver. Yes he recieved some funding (but not from Big Oil) help but he believed that the movie was not telling the truth and he didn't want his kids to watch propaganda. He sued and even with the backing of the government of the UK (I will hazard a guess that they had more money than Mr. Dimmock) and the best representation that Al Gore could provide them the court ruled that there were 11 major errors of fact.



Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

The English suit brought by the truck driver was on the partisan political view case law.
NOT on the fact that the globe is warming.
Section 406(1)(b) English Education Act 1996
The burden of proof for the plaintiff in an English court, far different than American civil procedure, is to show that the MANDATORY showing of this film WITHOUT a similar film that showed exactly the opposite was against the statute that reads "schools shall take such steps to secure that they are offered opposing views"
They won on that ALONE.
Nice try but next time get your facts straight.

 

[Gadawg73]

You're approaching it from the wrong direction Jillian. We don't want science to be "wrong".

We respect science. We despise the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION of science. When we call into question the malpractices of the climatologists we are following a time honored tradition of challenging the "norms". Think Galileo and Copernicus for instance. They challenged the Church mandated Earth centric theories of the day. We are merely following in that time honored tradition.

You should ask yourself if there is so much consensus why are there so many questions about how the climatologists are deriving their suppositions. Why won't they release their data? Why will they never test their theory in a lab setting (instead they rely on computer models that are incompetant at best), why is it that when their data is finally released there are ALLWAYS problems with it?

Look at their evidence from the viewpoint of a lawyer preparing for trial. So far wherever AGW has been tried in a court of law...it has lost.

I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.

Oh yes I almost forgot your tobacco analogy, there were no tobacco trials I can find till 1900, and they lost. Tennessee outlawed the sale of cigarettes along with three other states and the SCOTUS upheld the ban. It took until 1918 for most of the bans to be lifted at the request of the smokers and the tobacco industry. No trial just the usual purchasing of your local legislater.

The next trial occured in 1950 with P. Lorillard Co. v. FTC. Lorillard makers of Old Golds. It was a advertising complaint....and they lost.

The next case is PRITCHARD VS. LIGGETT & MYERS: in 1954 and the plaintiff lost because he was tring to prove negligence on the part of the tobacco companies.

After that there are a lot of cases filed and lost because the litigants kept trying to prove negligence. The only negligent people were the smokers. Then finally a "hacker" (ooooh you only like them when they work on your side) released internal docs that showed the companies weren't negligent they were actively suppressing evidence (sound like someone else we know?) manufacturing data to support their pre-concieved notions (now who else do we know who is doing that?) and otherwise engaging in other nefarious activities to further their aims while ignoring the impact on the people involved.

Wow, you're correct, the TOBACCO companies behaved JUST LIKE THE AGW CONSPIRATORS ARE NOW!

LOL, do you know what the burden of proof is? A tobacco banning is not a negligence case against a defendant tobacco company.
If you do not know that selling hazardous products while claiming they are good for you and have no proven health risks IS negligence then this discussion is over.
Big tobacco behaved like you do.

 

[westwall]

I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.

Well lets see here. The Al Gore flick An Inconvenient Truth was brought to trial by a English truck driver. Yes he recieved some funding (but not from Big Oil) help but he believed that the movie was not telling the truth and he didn't want his kids to watch propaganda. He sued and even with the backing of the government of the UK (I will hazard a guess that they had more money than Mr. Dimmock) and the best representation that Al Gore could provide them the court ruled that there were 11 major errors of fact.



Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

The English suit brought by the truck driver was on the partisan political view case law.
NOT on the fact that the globe is warming.
Section 406(1)(b) English Education Act 1996
The burden of proof for the plaintiff in an English court, far different than American civil procedure, is to show that the MANDATORY showing of this film WITHOUT a similar film that showed exactly the opposite was against the statute that reads "schools shall take such steps to secure that they are offered opposing views"
They won on that ALONE.
Nice try but next time get your facts straight.

Nice try yorself there bucko. Gore's minions claimed it was not a PARTISAN POLITICAL VIEW and thus exempt from the law. Mr. Dimmock disagreed and had to prove it in court. He did so by proving the many errors of fact which then provided the Justice with the neccessary burden of proof that it WAS in fact a partisan piece.

Here is the relevant passage from the ruling. The "science" was very much put on trial, otherwise it wouldn't be in the ruling now would it

The 'Errors'

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."
This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc

The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.

In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

8. 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.

In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.

9. 'Error' 13: Coral reefs.

In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

The Guidance

As set out in paragraph 14 above, I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website. The format of the Guidance Note put on the website is helpful, in splitting up consideration by reference to the three different categories of teachers who may make use of the film, those teaching science, geography and citizenship, and to include a chart, by reference to the various scenes of the film, which both includes descriptive passages and raises questions for potential discussion. I have no doubt that some teachers of science or geography will have a much broader knowledge of the subject than is simply contained in the film and in the existing Guidance Note, and will be in a position to assist in the stimulation of such discussion. However, as set out in paragraph 13 above, that is plainly not so for the majority of teachers. In any event it is important that, in such guidance, any serious apparent errors should be identified, not only so as to encourage informed discussion, but also so that it should not appear that the Defendant, and, as a result of the Defendant sending the film to schools, schools, are promoting partisan views by giving their imprimatur to it. That is not to say of course that there needs to be comment on every single aspect in the film in the Guidance Note nor discussion of every scientific dispute. However, it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation.

 

[Ozmar]

Well there they go again! Yet another slap in the face of the alarmists. A 50% miss rate is pretty sad.

Ice caps melting at half the speed that had been predicted | Mail Online

So we'll all drown in 20 years instead of 10?

 

[westwall]

I prepare cases for trial weekly for 30 years.
Take a guess who funds fights against environmentalists. How many tens of millions do they pay their lawyers?
How many trials did big tobacco lose from the late 1800s to the 1990s, 90 years?
Hint: Less than 1.
Guess why.

Oh yes I almost forgot your tobacco analogy, there were no tobacco trials I can find till 1900, and they lost. Tennessee outlawed the sale of cigarettes along with three other states and the SCOTUS upheld the ban. It took until 1918 for most of the bans to be lifted at the request of the smokers and the tobacco industry. No trial just the usual purchasing of your local legislater.

The next trial occured in 1950 with P. Lorillard Co. v. FTC. Lorillard makers of Old Golds. It was a advertising complaint....and they lost.

The next case is PRITCHARD VS. LIGGETT & MYERS: in 1954 and the plaintiff lost because he was tring to prove negligence on the part of the tobacco companies.

After that there are a lot of cases filed and lost because the litigants kept trying to prove negligence. The only negligent people were the smokers. Then finally a "hacker" (ooooh you only like them when they work on your side) released internal docs that showed the companies weren't negligent they were actively suppressing evidence (sound like someone else we know?) manufacturing data to support their pre-concieved notions (now who else do we know who is doing that?) and otherwise engaging in other nefarious activities to further their aims while ignoring the impact on the people involved.

Wow, you're correct, the TOBACCO companies behaved JUST LIKE THE AGW CONSPIRATORS ARE NOW!

LOL, do you know what the burden of proof is? A tobacco banning is not a negligence case against a defendant tobacco company.
If you do not know that selling hazardous products while claiming they are good for you and have no proven health risks IS negligence then this discussion is over.
Big tobacco behaved like you do.

I was merely showing you that contrary to your assertion of Big Tobacco defeating case after case from the 1800's to their eventual defeat that in fact there were NO cases in the 1800's. Thus you are guilty of hyperbole...nothing too uncommon on this board I find. Further you claimed (in effect) that they never lost and I pointed out to you that yes in fact they had lost. Finally the cases were brought against the tobacco companies for negligence. That clearly is not the case. They weren't negligent, that would imply they actually cared about their customers and screwed up (or don't you understand the meaning of negligent?). When in point of fact it was quite the opposite they KNEW they were poisoning and sickening people.

They are guilty of crimes far worse than mere negligence (are you sure you are an officer of the court? I am, and can't wrap my head around the fact that you don't really know to what you are referring) the executives involved should have been tried for Voluntary Manslaughter at the very least.

 

[westwall]

Well there they go again! Yet another slap in the face of the alarmists. A 50% miss rate is pretty sad.

Ice caps melting at half the speed that had been predicted | Mail Online

So we'll all drown in 20 years instead of 10?

No, more like 32,000 assuming we don't get any colder than we are now.

 

[Dr Grump]

Uh, Dr. Grump......uh here's a little history for you. 10,000 years ago there was a whole butt ton of ice on the continent. Then 10,000 years ago it got a lot warmer and the ice all melted away, though it took a long time to do it.....in fact it's still going on, and that is where we are today. the ice is STILL melting from the end of the Ice Age. Every now and then there is a little burp like the Little Ice Age or the 6th century climate catastrophe when the temps drop back down and people freeze and starve, but then we've been lucky and the planet warmed back up to the current pleasant (and even in some times MUCH warmer than the present day) climate we get to enjoy today!

That is not what Climotologists are saying - you know, the guys who study this stuff. I note in subsequent posts that you deride scientists who specialise in such information on the grounds that they don't actually 'do' anything (with no proof on your part). If that is your starting point on this discussion, then there is no point continuing. I'd suggest you have a lot more in common with those who derided Copernicus for saying the Earth moved around the sun....

 

[Charles_Main]

But they ARE melting, right? We know these are estimates, so the fact that some differ isn't unusual. Of course, you probably cherry-picked the estimate with the greatest error. Do you consider THAT to be good science? Seems you're doing the same thing you accuse the "Climategate" scientists of doing.

News flash, They have been melting since the end of the last ICE AGE. the only debate is about the rate of melting.

That is what happens when you are not in an ICE AGE. the ice recedes until the coming of the next ICE AGE.

God you people are so Dense.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well there they go again! Yet another slap in the face of the alarmists. A 50% miss rate is pretty sad.

Ice caps melting at half the speed that had been predicted | Mail Online

So we'll all drown in 20 years instead of 10?

Wow someone watched AL's movie one to many times.

No reasonable Scientist is predicting anything like People drowning in 10 or 20 Years. The lowest REASONABLE estimates by REAL scientist have always been over 200 years or more, and the real number now with this new INFO is like 35000 Years. Only we will surely enter another ICE AGE Well before then.

The Word Operates on cycles. Ice Coverage and melting is just one more Cycle.

Do Human Emissions effect it, sure, but they are not the Driving Factor as Alarmist would have you think.

 

[westwall]

Uh, Dr. Grump......uh here's a little history for you. 10,000 years ago there was a whole butt ton of ice on the continent. Then 10,000 years ago it got a lot warmer and the ice all melted away, though it took a long time to do it.....in fact it's still going on, and that is where we are today. the ice is STILL melting from the end of the Ice Age. Every now and then there is a little burp like the Little Ice Age or the 6th century climate catastrophe when the temps drop back down and people freeze and starve, but then we've been lucky and the planet warmed back up to the current pleasant (and even in some times MUCH warmer than the present day) climate we get to enjoy today!

That is not what Climotologists are saying - you know, the guys who study this stuff. I note in subsequent posts that you deride scientists who specialise in such information on the grounds that they don't actually 'do' anything (with no proof on your part). If that is your starting point on this discussion, then there is no point continuing. I'd suggest you have a lot more in common with those who derided Copernicus for saying the Earth moved around the sun....

Really? And here I thought you actually were well read. Oh dopey me! Climatologists have been attempting to REWRITE the history that they found inconvenient but if you read any legit geology website or paleoclimate site, or paleo geography site, or any archeology site, or...well I think you might get the idea. Try reading something other than the partisan nonsense you're stuck on.


All sciences dealing with the past will agree to the basics I outlined above. Now that is scientific consensus for you

And you're correct if you can't discuss things with more than a middle school knowledge basis then yes you have no point in continuing here.

 

[Old Rocks]

Uh, Dr. Grump......uh here's a little history for you. 10,000 years ago there was a whole butt ton of ice on the continent. Then 10,000 years ago it got a lot warmer and the ice all melted away, though it took a long time to do it.....in fact it's still going on, and that is where we are today. the ice is STILL melting from the end of the Ice Age. Every now and then there is a little burp like the Little Ice Age or the 6th century climate catastrophe when the temps drop back down and people freeze and starve, but then we've been lucky and the planet warmed back up to the current pleasant (and even in some times MUCH warmer than the present day) climate we get to enjoy today!

That is not what Climotologists are saying - you know, the guys who study this stuff. I note in subsequent posts that you deride scientists who specialise in such information on the grounds that they don't actually 'do' anything (with no proof on your part). If that is your starting point on this discussion, then there is no point continuing. I'd suggest you have a lot more in common with those who derided Copernicus for saying the Earth moved around the sun....

Really? And here I thought you actually were well read. Oh dopey me! Climatologists have been attempting to REWRITE the history that they found inconvenient but if you read any legit geology website or paleoclimate site, or paleo geography site, or any archeology site, or...well I think you might get the idea. Try reading something other than the partisan nonsense you're stuck on.


All sciences dealing with the past will agree to the basics I outlined above. Now that is scientific consensus for you

And you're correct if you can't discuss things with more than a middle school knowledge basis then yes you have no point in continuing here.

For sure you are one dopey asshole. It is not just climatologists that have been measuring the melt of glaciers, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. How about geologists, geophysicists, and biologists, just to name a few.

One article claiming the isostatic rebound is creating a false signal concerning the rate of ice melt is not proof that is the case. The people that did the original work will reply in time.

 

[Dr Grump]

Climatologists have been attempting to REWRITE the history that they found inconvenient but if you read any legit geology website or paleoclimate site, or paleo geography site, or any archeology site, or...well I think you might get the idea. Try reading something other than the partisan nonsense you're stuck on.


All sciences dealing with the past will agree to the basics I outlined above. Now that is scientific consensus for you

And you're correct if you can't discuss things with more than a middle school knowledge basis then yes you have no point in continuing here.

Oh, please post these 'legit' websites and the applicable data. Please site the peer reviewed data while you're at it...and take your time.

As for you thinking the variables of climate change and the scientific theory thereof are discussed at middle schools around your nation, then that just adds to your (vastly diminishing) credibility.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well lets see here. The Al Gore flick An Inconvenient Truth was brought to trial by a English truck driver. Yes he recieved some funding (but not from Big Oil) help but he believed that the movie was not telling the truth and he didn't want his kids to watch propaganda. He sued and even with the backing of the government of the UK (I will hazard a guess that they had more money than Mr. Dimmock) and the best representation that Al Gore could provide them the court ruled that there were 11 major errors of fact.



Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

The English suit brought by the truck driver was on the partisan political view case law.
NOT on the fact that the globe is warming.
Section 406(1)(b) English Education Act 1996
The burden of proof for the plaintiff in an English court, far different than American civil procedure, is to show that the MANDATORY showing of this film WITHOUT a similar film that showed exactly the opposite was against the statute that reads "schools shall take such steps to secure that they are offered opposing views"
They won on that ALONE.
Nice try but next time get your facts straight.

Nice try yorself there bucko. Gore's minions claimed it was not a PARTISAN POLITICAL VIEW and thus exempt from the law. Mr. Dimmock disagreed and had to prove it in court. He did so by proving the many errors of fact which then provided the Justice with the neccessary burden of proof that it WAS in fact a partisan piece.

Here is the relevant passage from the ruling. The "science" was very much put on trial, otherwise it wouldn't be in the ruling now would it

The 'Errors'

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."
This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc

The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.

In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

8. 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.

In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.

9. 'Error' 13: Coral reefs.

In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

The Guidance

As set out in paragraph 14 above, I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website. The format of the Guidance Note put on the website is helpful, in splitting up consideration by reference to the three different categories of teachers who may make use of the film, those teaching science, geography and citizenship, and to include a chart, by reference to the various scenes of the film, which both includes descriptive passages and raises questions for potential discussion. I have no doubt that some teachers of science or geography will have a much broader knowledge of the subject than is simply contained in the film and in the existing Guidance Note, and will be in a position to assist in the stimulation of such discussion. However, as set out in paragraph 13 above, that is plainly not so for the majority of teachers. In any event it is important that, in such guidance, any serious apparent errors should be identified, not only so as to encourage informed discussion, but also so that it should not appear that the Defendant, and, as a result of the Defendant sending the film to schools, schools, are promoting partisan views by giving their imprimatur to it. That is not to say of course that there needs to be comment on every single aspect in the film in the Guidance Note nor discussion of every scientific dispute. However, it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation.

Of course they did and I am not defending Al Gore. I believe he is an idiot.
But I M right on the case law and you just admitted it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well lets see here. The Al Gore flick An Inconvenient Truth was brought to trial by a English truck driver. Yes he recieved some funding (but not from Big Oil) help but he believed that the movie was not telling the truth and he didn't want his kids to watch propaganda. He sued and even with the backing of the government of the UK (I will hazard a guess that they had more money than Mr. Dimmock) and the best representation that Al Gore could provide them the court ruled that there were 11 major errors of fact.



Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

The English suit brought by the truck driver was on the partisan political view case law.
NOT on the fact that the globe is warming.
Section 406(1)(b) English Education Act 1996
The burden of proof for the plaintiff in an English court, far different than American civil procedure, is to show that the MANDATORY showing of this film WITHOUT a similar film that showed exactly the opposite was against the statute that reads "schools shall take such steps to secure that they are offered opposing views"
They won on that ALONE.
Nice try but next time get your facts straight.

Nice try yorself there bucko. Gore's minions claimed it was not a PARTISAN POLITICAL VIEW and thus exempt from the law. Mr. Dimmock disagreed and had to prove it in court. He did so by proving the many errors of fact which then provided the Justice with the neccessary burden of proof that it WAS in fact a partisan piece.

Here is the relevant passage from the ruling. The "science" was very much put on trial, otherwise it wouldn't be in the ruling now would it

The 'Errors'

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."
This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc

The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.

In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

8. 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.

In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.

9. 'Error' 13: Coral reefs.

In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

The Guidance

As set out in paragraph 14 above, I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website. The format of the Guidance Note put on the website is helpful, in splitting up consideration by reference to the three different categories of teachers who may make use of the film, those teaching science, geography and citizenship, and to include a chart, by reference to the various scenes of the film, which both includes descriptive passages and raises questions for potential discussion. I have no doubt that some teachers of science or geography will have a much broader knowledge of the subject than is simply contained in the film and in the existing Guidance Note, and will be in a position to assist in the stimulation of such discussion. However, as set out in paragraph 13 above, that is plainly not so for the majority of teachers. In any event it is important that, in such guidance, any serious apparent errors should be identified, not only so as to encourage informed discussion, but also so that it should not appear that the Defendant, and, as a result of the Defendant sending the film to schools, schools, are promoting partisan views by giving their imprimatur to it. That is not to say of course that there needs to be comment on every single aspect in the film in the Guidance Note nor discussion of every scientific dispute. However, it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation.

The errors are that there was NO offering of another point of view as required by law.
What about case law do you not understand?
I believe you are smart enough to understand but are too stubborn to admit it.
Ideology has clouded your judgement.

 

[westwall]

That is not what Climotologists are saying - you know, the guys who study this stuff. I note in subsequent posts that you deride scientists who specialise in such information on the grounds that they don't actually 'do' anything (with no proof on your part). If that is your starting point on this discussion, then there is no point continuing. I'd suggest you have a lot more in common with those who derided Copernicus for saying the Earth moved around the sun....

Really? And here I thought you actually were well read. Oh dopey me! Climatologists have been attempting to REWRITE the history that they found inconvenient but if you read any legit geology website or paleoclimate site, or paleo geography site, or any archeology site, or...well I think you might get the idea. Try reading something other than the partisan nonsense you're stuck on.


All sciences dealing with the past will agree to the basics I outlined above. Now that is scientific consensus for you

And you're correct if you can't discuss things with more than a middle school knowledge basis then yes you have no point in continuing here.

For sure you are one dopey asshole. It is not just climatologists that have been measuring the melt of glaciers, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. How about geologists, geophysicists, and biologists, just to name a few.

One article claiming the isostatic rebound is creating a false signal concerning the rate of ice melt is not proof that is the case. The people that did the original work will reply in time.

So tell me this (and thanks for taking the bait, you really are predictable) How can the ground be rebounding if it weren't warmer in the past with less ice upon it? For it to still be rebounding means that IT HAD TO BE HIGHER in the past. The only way I know for it to be higher is for there to be LESS ICE sitting on the subcontinent.

Or do you have a different theory?

 

[westwall]

Climatologists have been attempting to REWRITE the history that they found inconvenient but if you read any legit geology website or paleoclimate site, or paleo geography site, or any archeology site, or...well I think you might get the idea. Try reading something other than the partisan nonsense you're stuck on.


All sciences dealing with the past will agree to the basics I outlined above. Now that is scientific consensus for you

And you're correct if you can't discuss things with more than a middle school knowledge basis then yes you have no point in continuing here.

Oh, please post these 'legit' websites and the applicable data. Please site the peer reviewed data while you're at it...and take your time.

As for you thinking the variables of climate change and the scientific theory thereof are discussed at middle schools around your nation, then that just adds to your (vastly diminishing) credibility.

The only people that matter (the undecideds) are going my way so I guess you are wrong eh doc! Do your own research it's really quite simple and it will do you good.

 

[Old Rocks]

ScienceDirect - Earth and Planetary Science Letters : Effect of isostatic rebound on modelled ice volume variations during the last 200 kyr

Effect of isostatic rebound on modelled ice volume variations during the last 200 kyr

This article is not included in your organization's subscription. However, you may be able to access this article under your organization's agreement with Elsevier.

Michel Crucifixa, , , Marie-France Loutrea, Kurt Lambeckb and André Bergera

aInstitut d’Astronomie et de Géophysique G. Lemaître, Université catholique de Louvain, 2 Chemin du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

bResearch School of Earth Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, The Australian National University, Mills Road, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia

Received 11 July 2000; accepted 23 November 2000. Available online 1 March 2001.

Abstract
Deformation of the lithosphere under an ice load can be approximated using the hypothesis of local damped isostasy. This simple formulation has been systematically compared with a three-dimensional model of the crust–mantle system for simple ice-load scenarios with a period in the range 20–100 kyr. The comparison enables us to introduce the concepts of effective upper mantle density and effective relaxation time into the isostatic model for the response of the Earth to the ice sheets. These parameters depend on the Earth model considered, ice sheet size and the period of the load cycle. The local damped isostasy model has been implemented in the Louvain-la-Neuve climate model to assess the impact of isostasy on continental ice volume variations for the last 200 kyr. Results suggest that isostasy acts as a negative feedback for ice volume during the glaciation process and acts as a positive feedback during the deglaciation. Moreover, taking isostasy into account is necessary to simulate variations in Northern Hemisphere ice volume during isotopic stage 3. Lastly, the use of effective mantle density and effective relaxation time improves the model performance regarding SPECMAP reconstructions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lasers From Space Show Thinning Of Greenland And Antarctic Ice Sheets

Lasers From Space Show Thinning Of Greenland And Antarctic Ice Sheets
ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2009) — The most comprehensive picture of the rapidly thinning glaciers along the coastline of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has been created using satellite lasers. The findings are an important step forward in the quest to make more accurate predictions for future sea level rise.

Reporting this week in the journal Nature, researchers from British Antarctic Survey and the University of Bristol describe how analysis of millions of NASA satellite measurements* from both of these vast ice sheets shows that the most profound ice loss is a result of glaciers speeding up where they flow into the sea.

The authors conclude that this 'dynamic thinning' of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetrating far into the ice sheets' interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that has endured for decades.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.cost-es0701.geoenvi.org/archive/EGU Conference/EGU2010_GIA.pdf

Introduction
Glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) is the viscoelastic response of the Earth caused by changes in ice
loads during glaciations and deglaciations. Knowledge of the GIA signal is particularly important in
cryospheric applications of satellite gravimetry and altimetry, where the origin of the observed changes
must be separated into past and present response.
Modeling the present-day GIA signal must include knowledge of both the ice loading history and the
Earth’s rheology. Neither of these models are well constrained in Greenland, and hence the GIA
estimates here are uncertain.
We have implemented a loading history of the Greenland Ice Sheet derived from the ice sheet model
SICOPOLIS and we have studied the present-day vertical crustal motion derived from using this ice
history. The results are compared with those derived from the widely used ICE-5G ice history.
For calculation of the present day GIA signal, we assume the Earth’s rheology to be a simplified version
of the VM2 Earth model. The calculated GIA signal in Greenland, derived from the two ice loading
histories are compared with geodetic measurements of vertical crustal motion from GPS time series
corrected for present-day ice mass changes.
The freely available code SELEN is used to calculate the effects of the Earth model and the different ice
loading histories. This study is performed within the Working Group 4 of the ESF COST Action ES0701
“Improved constraints on models of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment”.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good science, but not a slam dunk. Further data could change the estimate, one way or the other.

Science Centric | News | Melting rate icecaps Greenland and Western Antarctica lower than expected

Researchers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena (US), TU Delft and SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research have now succeeded in carrying out that correction far more accurately. They did so using combined data from the GRACE mission, GPS measurements on land and sea floor pressure measurements. These reveal that the sea floor under Greenland is falling more rapidly than was first thought. One of the researchers, Dr Bert Vermeersen of TU Delft, explains: 'The corrections for deformations of the Earth's crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year. We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.' The average rise in sea levels as a result of the melting ice caps is also lower.

'The innovative aspect of our method is that we simultaneously matched the current changes in the ice mass and glacial isostatic adjustment to the observations, instead of assuming that a particular glacial isostatic adjustment model is correct,' says Dr Vermeersen. 'For Greenland in particular, we have found a glacial isostatic adjustment model that deviates rather sharply from general assumptions. But at present there are too few data available to verify this independently. A more extensive network of GPS readings in combination with geological indicators for the local and regional changes in sea level changes around Greenland over the last 10,000 years, will possibly be able to provide conclusive evidence on this matter in the years to come