Steve,
Al Gore is not a climate scientist, but I have no problem with that because he did not create the data or conduct any of the experiments. He is the 'student' of many of the scientists performing state-of-the- art research. When he was VP and post-VP, I know that he often consulted with the top climate scientists [he would consult with folks at my institution somewhat regularly]. I've seen the data he presents presented by the scientists who performed the investigations. There are only a couple of places in that part of the data where I would quibble, but I am actually pretty comfortable with the climate science portion of the movie. Not much has been discredited by the science community. Some [a lot?] has likely been replaced since the movie was made. Science is a moving target like that; actually, some of the data he presented was somewhat old. In fact, he stated that in the movie that in 50 or so years the Arctic Pole would be free of ice. Within a yr of the release of the movie, scientists had cut that estimate by 60%. Recent research suggests that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer in 12-20 yrs. So, some of that movie is out of date. The real problem with the movie is that many people do not like Al Gore. They cannot separate the personality/politician from a very nice, data-driven presentation that is based upon the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists. In no way am I confusing him for a science researcher. He is simply the person who presented the information, a person who has the ability to get such a movie made and to get many people to watch it. If any of the scientists wanted to do this, they would have trouble getting it made and then have trouble getting more than a few thousand people to see it. So, in that sense, Al was quite successful. So, as much as I did not think I would like the movie [and I waited more than a yr to see it], I did. Al Gore did a decent job in presenting the data. I have problems with some of the ecology he presents and much of the invasive issue connection to warming - that is actually a pretty poor connection. But, for the climate science, it is pretty true to the data. neil On Jun 8, 9:36 am, "Steven Springer" <[email protected]> wrote: > Neil, > > Thanks for your concern for my future health :). No, I would probably want > someone to perform such an operation that is considered best in the field. > How do you feel about Al Gore representing and fighting for the Global > Warming theory? He is quite the climate scientist, is he not? > > Steve Springer > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of neil > Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:38 PM > To: ENTSTrees > Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and > other factors > > Steve, > > 31k is impressive. However, it be more impressed if we knew what > their specialties were in and where they conduct their studies. For > example, I see many DVMs & MDs on this list. I've seen other claims/ > lists like this full of people with little experience in climate > science. > > So, if this is valid for you, would you like to have Dr. Jim Hansen > perform your heart or brain surgery [heaven forbid that you need it]? > > neil > > On Jun 7, 6:07 pm, "Steven Springer" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Mike, Ed, All: > > > Here is a link to ~31,000 American Scientists > > (http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm) who would disagree with the > > statement "that any legitimate debate on the subject of global warming is > > over"; there is also the infamous list of 600 World Scientists (UN > > affiliation) that also disagree with the Global Warming theory. > > > Sorry, as has been noted in previous posts, the Global Warming theory is > > not unanimous among "creditable" scientists, nor is the proof submitted for > > support able to substantiate the conclusion of this theory. > > > Steve Springer > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [email protected] on behalf of Edward Frank > > Sent: Sun 6/7/2009 4:37 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and > > other factors > > > Mike, > > > I believe that any legitimate debate on the subject of global warming is > > over, but you can disagree. I also agree with you and feel that many of > > the "solutions" being pushed in Washington are more for political show than > > anything. Some may even make things worse. We should be striving for > > better emission standards, more efficient burning, and whatever else can > > reasonably be done to lower our environmental footprint, but sending money > > to third world countries in order to pollute more is a useless transfer of > > wealth that does not accomplish anything but hurting our own economy. > > > Ed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
