You telling me that you don’t know anything about his”Rising Sun”?

I can’t comment much more about global warming.However Gore’s doc was nine “inaccuarcies”according to UK court,but they also don’t think that would dismiss the whole point.

There’s no finer example of media coverage than this:

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Notice the introductory paragraph. That alone puts most of the scaremongering in the dumpster, while the article pretty much does the rest.

Here’s another “scientific prediction”:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to ’stretch’ the carrying capacity of the earth by increasing food production and providing for more equitable distribution of whatever food is available. But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control.”

The book sold 3 million copies.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html

The above link pretty much tells you all you need to know, and it’s not about global warming specifically. It’s about what people think should be true, but IN FACT isn’t.

“The…debate…is an opposition between fact and bad theory, a case of empirical reality versus abstract principles that purport to define the way things work but don’t.”

ACEFACE: It’s not about Crichton. (And I don’t know what he said about Japan.) The first person speaking in the debate isn’t even him.

You can also be an environmentalist and not believe any of the horror stories about global warming.

Why would you believe an IPCC projection for 2100 when you now know they deliberately hide data?

We also know for their previous report, they issued the conclusions first and said they would release the data later when they were finished, and if the data didn’t match the conclusions, they would change the data.

We also know, from one of the links I uploaded before, that Al Gore’s movie has at least a half-dozen examples of incorrect facts.

Sorry to cut you in Albion,But this is a blog and Bill is simply expressing his opinion just as me and you.And all this as I understand is matter of interpreting science into politics and social matters,No? And I think all of us are not talking about “RAW DATA” since few of us are atmospheric scientist….

Here’s some interesting opinion on media bias on global warming.Ikeda’s criticism is quite accurate on NHK.Although I can’t speak much since I’m no schientist either.
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikedanobuo/e/f4ebd3172c222e69bc9916e4a87701e8

I hope you restrict that comment to the global warming issue (and even then the comment is ridiculously simplistic). The right in the US has been colossally wrong about pretty much everything in Iraq, and they — from George W. right on down — seem to have no problem manufacturing “facts” whenever they want to.

Once again, things are not as cut-and-dried as you portray them.

The science regarding the human causal factor of global warming, from the most unbiased, objective viewpoint, is: “we are unsure of the extent to which human activity accounts for the current global warming, as the available data is insufficient.”

Yes, solar activity, etc account for “some measure” of global warming, maybe even the majority, but human activity seems to be playing a part as well.

Unless Ampontan is an atmospheric scientist (I suspect he is not), then he uses the same standards that the rest of us do to judge the available data: those of a layman struggling to understand a complex issue that even professional scientists have trouble understanding.

Ampontan, if you yourself are not an atmospheric scientist who thus has access to raw data and has the capacity to interpret it, then how do you KNOW for a fact that the data said to be wrong by the writer of the Junk Science article are in fact wrong?

Not that I disagree about “the left”,but there is a growing trend in both in Japan and the U.S that “the right” are not always “conservative”.They too can get pretty much carried away by their causes as you would see in Yasukuni/female emperor in Japan and Post 9/11 security and intelligent design in the U.S.

I wouldn’t use grapes as indicator. There are vineyard in Iceland where they grow grapes in the field.And I take words from Michael Crichton with grain of salt.I know you are a fan but I also know what he’s been saying about Japan.

And I must add that I used to be an avid member of World Wide for Fund Nature Japan and worked as a volunteer for monitoring petshopd for CITES related exotic pets,mostly turtoise and parrots. So I have actually an environmentalist of a sort.

Archaeological evidence in England has found that they grew grapes to make wine in places 1,000 years ago that are too cold now to grow grapes. In those days, Greenland actually used to be green.

There is a lot of science out there to show that this is not primarily man-made, and is cyclical.

Also, take a look at the two Telegraph articles at the stunts the environmentalists have been pulling.

It breaks down into a left-right issue overseas because the left is always emotionally getting carried away by some cause or another and expects everyone else to do the same. The right usually is more interested in the facts before the emotion. The facts aren’t there, regardless of what the left says.

As you see from the Telegraph article, the UN has been trying to HIDE the fact of Medieval warming (when England grew grapes). Nobody around here is addressing that.

Nor are they addressing the fact that the changes in global temperature PRECEDED the changes in CO2 levels.

If you have the time, here is the transcript (pdf) of a recent debate in NYC, a left-leaning city, on the topic, Global Warming is Not a Crisis.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/pdfs/GlobalWarmingDebate.pdf

The author Michael Crichton is one of the participants, who agrees that there is no crisis.

They took an audience survey before the debate; the majority thought it was a crisis. After the debate, they changed their minds. The majority thought there was no crisis.

You can see one of the reasons in the first two speakers. One man is talking all facts, figures, and science, and the other is wondering why some people think the way they do.

Guess which side is which.

But I find it disturbing that the majority of sources claiming that “claims that global warming are due to human activity” are false are politically conservative.

The first link Ampontan lists above (Junk Science) has links to other news stories that “support” the notion that human caused global warming is a sham. Most of them are FoxNews stories and the rest are Washington Times and other conservative media.

The Telegraph is also a well-known conservative newspaper in the UK.

There is a broad range of scientists who are warning that global warming is a. caused to a large degree by human activity and b. will have devastating effects on human health, economic activity and ultimately, politics.

On the other hand, known conservative media sources are putting claims to the contrary front and center.

Sound a bit like the “Intelligent Design” (that is, anti-evolution) camp’s strategy of trying to discredit the science? Does to me.

Do I think the IPCC is a flawless organization that is providing us with immaculate information? No. But , my skeptical side makes me look at the respective sources of both sides of the story and “consider the sources,” as they say.

It seems there are those who think the UN is plotting to create a world socialist government that will enslave us all and that it is using global warming as its “wedge” to get that plan going. Seriously, how far-fetched does that sound?

On the other hand, we have people who are deeply invested in the global economy and who therefore stand to lose quite a bit if their economic activities are curtailed. Maybe it’s just a teeny bit more likely that they are involved in a campaign to trash the science in order to protect their economic interests? You know, like the cigarette companies did for years to protect theirs? It’s not like there isn’t precedent, you know…

Maybe, but how many governments in the world are democratically elected? The human world itself maybe a sham.