Is Al Gore Misrepresenting Global Warming? - Patrick Michaels

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/03/12/Climate_of_Extremes

Patrick Michaels argues that, when discussing climate change, "people accept the strangest things without really fact checking." Michaels argues that many of Al Gore's claims and presumptions about global warming are false.

-----

There's a whole new world of global warming science today-but few ever hear about it. In recent years, an internally consistent body of scientific literature has emerged that argues cogently for global warming but against the gloom-and-doom, apocalyptic vision of climate change.

Not that you would know. Consult the daily newspaper or evening newscast: dire predictions are nearly all we see or hear.

In their new book, "Climate of Extremes", coauthors Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. illuminate the other side of the story, the science we arent being told. This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed and far from catastrophic. However, because it is not infused with horrific predictions and angst about the future, regardless of its quality it is largely repressed and ignored.

This in-depth exploration illustrates the crucial unreported forecasts: that changes in hurricanes will be small, that global warming is likely to be modest, and that contrary to daily headlines, there is no apocalypse on the horizon - Cato Institute

Pat Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers, for the demonstration that urban heat-related mortality declined significantly as cities became warmer. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science; and his articles have appeared also in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and the Journal of Commerce.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• inconvenient
• truth
• rebuttal
• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• environment
• polar
• ice
• caps
• melting
• oceans
• weather
• hurricanes
• environmental
• research
• science
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[DrHowbeit]

In case you haven't figured out already – Michaels has acknowledged that 40% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources. He has received $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Research has been financed by Western Fuel Association among others.

[ReduceGHGs]

@bw01a .

Rather than focus on richard lindzen from MIT that has no study to back up his opinion read what MIT has been saying. "...we emphasize that slowing or stopping the progress of anthropogenic global warming is necessary."

Google: Mission 2011 : Saving the oceans

You have no credible evidence to support denials of human-caused climate change. I recommend doing some research. Read what our respected scientific institutions have been saying. NAS, NASA, AAAS, AGU, SOCC, NCAR, and others.

[ReduceGHGs]

@bw01a No, you'll never see me angry.

The petition you refer to is the Oregon Petition also known as the Petition Project. It was debunked as corporate propaganda years ago. The author, Art Robinson, ran for Oregon Senate. I asked him if he had a study to back up his denials. He didn't.

.

Google: What if the Oregon Petition names were real?

.

Bjorn Lomborg: "Yes, it's a problem and it's man-made because of the burning of fossil fuels. We need to fix it but we need to fix it smartly."

[bw01a]

@ReduceGHGs

Yeah except 31,487 American scientists signed a petition saying they are not on the global warming band wagon, same goes for the head of the meteorology department at MIT, plus the top scientist in New Zealand, plus Bjorn Lomborg, and the list goes on and on but none of it means anything to you because you are plugged into PMSNBC 24/7.

[bw01a]

@ReduceGHGs

Well your angry ranting is the only proof we need, let the great reorganization of the global economy begin!! Now...where to get a few trillion dollars.......

[ReduceGHGs]

@bw01a I hope you're not as stupid as that post.

Ten of thousands disagree with Gore??? What that?

.

Gore has nothing to do with the science. He's been telling us what the experts have been saying for years. EVERY respected scientific institution that considered the issue found that yes, HUMANS are warming the planet. So what do you deniers have to rely on? Some trumped up Oregon Petition that was debunked years ago? What? There's no credible debate no matter how much you fools say there is.

[bw01a]

@Antithropocentric

Sorry but I'm not in favor of spending trillions of dollars to reorganize the world's economy because the fraudster Al Gore (a politician, not a scientist) says we need to. Tens of thousands of scientists disagree with Al Gore's nonsense but for some reason the libtards always tell me there is a "scientific consensus" on this mater.

[Antithropocentric]

It's hard to say which AGW deniers are the most dangerous; the ignorant masses who get "ejukatud" by Rush Limbaugh, or shills like Michaels who probably understand the science is true, but choose to lie about the seriousness of the problem.

[Antithropocentric]

@WingChunGeologist, you're a geology teacher, eh? For what grade and what school? Any serious teacher of the sciences wouldn't make such a mindless statement.

As a "geology teacher" do you understand the importance of CONTEXT when discussing levels of minerals in rocks (to identify them), or levels of gases in the atmosphere relative to the baseline where they don't affect equilibrium?