Skeptical scientists on Gore's film forget at least one major issue...

[zulchzulu]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

I was reading some of the scientists' explanations why Gore's movie is so over the top and they tried to disprove any notions of global warming. Here are some samples:

Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Conveniently forgetting that Homo Sapiens came on the primordial scene about 400,000 years ago, 450 million years ago would be a tad irrelevant.

Other examples in the article seem to hold the view that we should do nothing...it's all a cycle...no need for reform...just move along now...

The author of the article has a profile here: http://www.highparkgroup.com/tharris.htm

[SteppingRazor]

1. That's a laughable claim, if you know what happened 450 million years ago.

488 million years ago -- The Cambrian extinction -- mass extinction in the seas, the death of almost all trilobytes. At the time, the most numerous species on Earth

444 million years ago -- The Ordovician extinction -- sea levels lower dramatically, then raise dramatically...


You see my point? Two of the Earths greatest mass extinctions, occuring very close to one another (relatively speaking, in geological time). Yes, the Earth was cold and CO2 levels were high. But that's because gas and cloud cover had reached such levels that the sun's rays were disbursed or reflected in the atmosphere, resulting in glaciation -- and killing off most life on Earth.

And this doctor is saying that this was a fine period in Earth's history?
There reaches a critical point, beyond global warming, when gas cover is bound to result in extreme decreases -- not increases -- in global temperature. Impact events -- often cited as the reason for mass extinctions -- would result in both massive increases of CO2 and a sort of "nuclear winter" at the same time. This man being a paleoclimatologist, I'm sure he's well aware of that fact. No doubt the piles of cash he was paid to say this ward off any guilt he may feel.

[greyl]

2. Harris has an interesting history

"He has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies."

I'm sure being sponsored by Imperial Oil and Talisman Energy has no effect on Tim Patterson's objectivity.

[bluerum]

3. Head in the sand environmentalists make me puke.

Sceptical

- is that like skeptical?

FYI - three buttons at bottom of message post window: one is "Check Spelling."

Sorry zulu - could not resist.

Mr.Patterson fails to consider, or at least mention, environmental dynamics. There may have been more CO2 450 million years ago, but there were probably fewer factories spewing chemicals into the environment.

I also strenuously challenge his statement. I want to know what the temperatures were 450 million years ago. Is he talking about an ice age? Well there may have been fewer plants to moderate CO2 levels. Oh - and what happened AFTER the ice age when there were elevated CO2 levels? Seems to me plants flourished and the planet warmed up considerably.

On balance the greater levels of CO2 450 million years ago were produced over a long period of time. Nature compensates for environmental imbalances slowly over many thousands of years. One does not have to be a paleoclimatologist (sheesh, use THAT title at party sometime) to understand that dumping tons of pollutants a day into the environment does not allow natural restorative processes to take place.

Although Mr.Patterson speaks eloquently in defense of environmental pollution, his position that our environmental transgressions will go un-noticed by nature is the epitome of denial.

[unc70]

6. Sceptical; also Skeptical (US) -- Sorry - could not resist!

Same word, same meaning.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. I wouldn't call that guy a skeptic.

This is a skeptic.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000

[Odin2005]

5. The "sceptics" allways like to pull that BS

People with a good knoledge of climate history know that geologic timescales are on scale too long to be relavent do the discussion. Also, the Ordovician Ice age may have been caused by the effects of a gamma ray burst, that why there was no drop in CO2 levels 450mya. All other cool periods in the last 700 million years (Late Precambrian, Carboniferous, and the modern climatic regime) were associated with low CO2 levels caused by periods of mountain building. also variations in methane levels and humidity (water vaopr is a greenhouse gas) would have made deviastions from what would be expected from CO2 levels alone.