News Updates:

The news Al Gore should read.

Consensus? What Consensus?

Chill out. Get Informed.

Scientist Dissents: Gore’s 'laughable' claims are 'appallingly riddled with mistakes and outlandish exaggerations'

By Marc Morano, Climate Depot

By Brian Pratt, P.Geo., a sedimentologist and palaeontologist at the Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan and a member of Northern Light, the Canadian Mars exploration project. Link to Pratt's full bio:

Excerpt of March/April 2009 analysis via www.IceCap.US: When you stop and think about it, the apocalyptic predictions don’t quite make sense scientifically. Alongside the enormity of the sun and what we know of the scale and power of natural processes, to imagine humans being able to make any difference to global climate would seem like the most preposterous conceit. [...] Even though I consider myself a dedicated environmentalist I cannot accept the claims of anthropogenic—humancaused—global warming. My research involves deducing climate back in what we call “Deep Time” – geological eras of millions and billions of years ago - so I think I have enough background to understand the evidence. I know that the factors controlling climate work as an extremely complex, integrated system that cannot be resolved by debate and exchange of opinion. Therefore the suspicions of any scientist should be aroused by glib assertions like “the science is settled” or “there is a consensus,” because this is not how scientists and engineers operate. Al Gore’s movie and books are so appallingly riddled with mistakes and outlandish exaggerations that they would be laughable if they weren’t taken so seriously by so many. [...]

Globally averaged temperature data—imprecise, it must be admitted—show that temperature has not risen in the past 10 years: we are not in the midst of global warming at all. The famous “hockey-stick” graph wielded by Al Gore and the IPCC reports that claimed to show a dramatic rise in global temperature in the latter 20th century turns out to be a methodological and statistical chimera.
Some have even suggested that it was a deliberate fraud. Temperature fluctuations and regional variations in the last few decades do not track rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. So, if anthropogenic CO2 is not driving climate change, why do most Western governments—with the notable exception of Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic—continue to fall over themselves in support of the belief of anthropogenic global warming, and try to best each other in promising to cap CO2 production, designing carbon taxes and cap-and-trade legislation, and throwing huge sums of money at alternative energy schemes, CO2 sequestration projects and climatological research? Sure, certain individuals stand to make a lot of money out of these measures, but some of them arguably will amount to economic suicide. Well, what politicians do “passeth all understanding” for most of us in the trenches, but it does illustrate the power of the green lobby and, in my opinion, a dearth of real leadership. [...]

As James Hutton said in 1795, the Earth has “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end” and this holds true for climate change. Does reducing our dependence on fossil fuels justify promulgating scientific lies? I don’t think so. But it is inescapable that coal, oil and natural gas are finite natural resources and when they are burned up they are gone. Period. Profligacy with these precious commodities is what needs to change.

Professor Pratt's full climate analysis available here