It profiles Penn professor of environmental Science Bob Giegengack, a geologist who's been studying the topic of climate change for some 50 years.
He has described Al Gore’s documentary as "a political statement timed to present him as a presidential candidate in 2008," telling his students, "Every single one of you knows more about this than Al Gore."
Gore supporter Giegengack says of Gore's film, "The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology."
Etc. Go read it all--it's good.
Then go read this post.
Both links are provided by ShopFloor.org (see blogroll at left).
Update: I've heard it said that even if global warming is just a natural phenomenon, we shouldn't pollute so much. That's a sentiment I can agree with. I've said many times that there's no good reason why, here in the Central Valley of California, we don't have more electrical power generated by the sun. Nuclear energy is another safe, clean alternative (hey, if it's good enough for France, it's good enough for you lefties). Until battery technology improves enough to make electric cars practical, hybrid technology needs to advance and conventional engines need to be improved so that vehicle mileage improves. Here's a small but simple improvement.
(Reuters) - Modern cars can reduce fuel consumption by more than 2.5 percent just by adding a piece of software to the engine computer, a Dutch scientist found in a university research project together with Ford...
Kessels's software dynamically switches the dynamo, which charges the car battery, on and off.
"Just by adding a piece of software and a simple cable, cars can save 2.6 percent of fuel consumption," he told Reuters.
The software is not proprietary to Ford and can be used in any car with an engine computer, he said. In general this applies to most modern cars.
Update #2, 2/9/07: Did the American Enterprise Institute really pay scientists to dispute global warming? Apparently not. Think the Senators who have accused them of doing so will apologize? Probably not.
Update #3, 2/9/07: Some of Greenland's glaciers aren't declining as previously thought. What does this mean? I'm not sure anyone knows for sure--which is part of the reason I'm skeptical about all this.
Update #4, 2/10/07: It's the Chicken Little nature of the global warming zealots that makes it hard to take their claims seriously. Well, that, and the fact that they have to keep downgrading their most dire predictions.
Update #5, 2/11/07: Carbon offsets? More like buying indulgences from the Church.
Update #6, 2/11/07: Mark Steyn gives us a little science, some flip-flopping headlines from the New York Times, and a lot of common sense.
Update #7, 2/11/07: Oregon's climatologist believes "Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations", and the governor isn't pleased.
Update #8, 2/11/07: Every time someone else with a credential says something against the global warming dogma, the zealots will squeal how we should believe "everyone" else, how this one person or factoid is irrelevant or is outweighed by "all the other evidence", etc. In my global warming posts I've linked to or mentioned dozens of people, all of whom have better credentials on the subject than does Al Gore; at what point does the evidence against man-caused global warming become more than individual, unrelated questions? Several more such unexplained-by-global-warming-zealots facts are mentioned in this piece, by the former editor of New Scientist.
Update #9, 2/16/07: Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is someone I've mentioned before. Here's a Wall Street Journal article on his support for nuclear power.
Update #10, 2/18/07: This January was the warmest January ever? Really?