Debate is over, the results are in

What? Why just the other day, Pickle cited an organization that 'proved' that this second-hand smoke thing was just a liberal myth! Of course, he was quoting them because they also 'proved' that Global Warming was a myth.

In other words - you can find people who will say anything at all to make a buck, and you can't believe everything you read on the Internet.

- Bob T.

'Bob'

You sure can't. I did not think that you were that dishonest, Bob ... that was pretty slimy.

I hope you don't think I was saying _you_ were trying to make a buck off of something! I was just poking fun at you (perhaps excessively) for your poor choice of 'experts' to cite as Global Warming skeptics.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a nutcase 'thinktank' that has, among other things, argued that second-hand smoke does not hurt anyone and that Global Warming is not really occurring.

To sum up, I believe that Pickle found these people in a quick web search, and quoted them without checking them out. I was not accusing Pickle of trying to make a buck off anything. My last comment was a vague warning to all of us to beware of believing what we read, right-wing, left-wing or 'scientific'.

- Bob T.

'Bob'

I didn't get or like the 'joke' ... if you want to reopen the global warming thread, have at it. You string statements together that are each individually true and find causation in the correlation of the individual comments. You then find some sort of 'consensus' among one or two of them individually and that means that the erroneous conclusion is proven.

At the present time, there is almost complete consensus among theoretical physicists that string theory is 'the theory' of the day ... if you want to get into this area at all as a grad student, you had better get on board. For almost two decades is has been 'the theory' and now there are some old **** (Nobel laureates) that have finally said enough is enough ... just because something is the theory for a long time and many have gotten on board and get their grant money from the honey wagon does not mean that they are correct.

Al Gore just said that overstating the case is OK because the thing is real and if the actual facts are not good enough, then we need to scare everyone with shoddy reasoning. This is end justifies the means and that seldom works out well in the long run.

If Gore said that, I am sure you can provide a link to the quote...

The only quotes from Gore I found in today's news were in the article below.

- Bob T.

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

'Excellent,' said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. 'He got all the important material and got it right.'

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

'I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate,' Corell said. 'After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error.'

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised 'because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right.'

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, 'far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue,' said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

'I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus,' said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

'They are quite literally afraid to know the truth,' Gore said. 'Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day.'

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: 'My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair.'

Mr. Borenstein then goes on to define 'top climate scientists' as:

Interesting set of criteria.

'Bob'

You are amazed that people can be fooled by a politician?

'Bob'

Bob, you have started going straight to ad hominem these days ... what's up?

I remember Penn and Teller did an episode of ****! about the secondhand smoke 'myth.'

It's a good episode mostly because it demonstrates very clearly how full of **** and wrong they are much of the time.

Still a good show.