Response to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
Environment Wednesday, June 14, 2006 . This is a SciScoop post by jdoe
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
Options
Comment Form
About
SciScoop Science News is a forum for news, views and controversial conjectures. Please contact us if would like to submit a guest post.
SciScoop Top Authors
- Total posts: 3177
- David Bradley (416)
- Bunyip (35)
- Chad (85)
- Drog (407)
- DV8 2XL (25)
- Wayne Goode (69)
- Gpmap (27)
- Ricky James (1367)
- Mertero (22)
- Mtigges (34)
- AP Smith (171)
- Sweetwind (64)
7 Responses to Response to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
jdoe
June 15th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Here it happens again. The subject is controversial and no one votes for it – not for, not against, not even abstain. Remember – if you vote on an article, you are not voting for or against the views expressed there. You are just saying if the article is worth a discussion.
Why is everybody here afraid to vote on anything even a little bit off mainstream? Can anyone explain please? The whole point of Scoop sites (as opposed to blogs) is that the posts can be discussed. Controversy draws discussion. Debate is good.
Slashdot posted it to the front page:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/209235
People are not afraid to discuss the subject there.
koreth
June 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
This article first started showing up a few days ago on other news sites, and it was quickly discovered to have been written by an employee of an oil industry PR agency. Google the author’s other publications — he’s not even a climate researcher. Here’s Technocrat’s explanation of why they pulled the article.
Find an article about a scientist who’s not on the oil industry’s payroll who disagrees that humans contribute to climate change, and it will be newsworthy.
babasyzygy
June 18th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
It’s a troll that has already been hashed over on Slashdot.
If you want to see what real climatologists think of it, read the entry on Real Climate.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:43 am
I’ll leave this up until lunchtime to make sure visitors know why it will suddenly disappear thereafter
db
babasyzygy
June 20th, 2006 at 7:17 am
Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground is another actual climatologist, he specializes in hurricane and topical weather analysis. I live in Florida and operate a 76-bed assisted living facility near the coast – I rely upon his analyses for disaster planning.
Here’s his take on Al Gore’s movie.
In short, he gives it a B- on the science, and mentions the distortions of the Killimanjaro data that Crichton and the oil industry PR flacks have been perpetrating.
SEWilco
June 25th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
First a complaint about a lack of voting.
Later the votes for the front page are forced to go away.
So why complain about votes which will be ignored?
So why bother voting?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Voters come and go. Everyone seems totally mesmerized by Digg these days, despite the fact that Scoop sites have been around since at least 2000 and SciScoop since November 2002 offering a much better service. One of the pros of Scoop sites of course there’s no need for users to keep voting on stories once they’ve hit the headlines. To my mind that’s a big con in Digg in that famous stories get even more famous simply because they are famous, leaving B-list stories, to lig, like B-list celebs.
Anyway, what is your specific complaint, I don’t quite get it…we’d like more voters and if you have ideas on how to draw in a new crowd, I’d love to hear it. SciScoop is almost up to 2000 members, but if we could double that, I’m sure the site would become even more effective.