Did Gore forget to consult with this climate expert??

Question

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year (2005), Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] 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?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

As of 2007, Patterson has published over 120 articles in peer-reviewed journals. His research emphasizes the dynamics of climate and sea level change through the last few thousand years. He also studies the environmental impact of land use change in agricultural and urbanized settings. In several recent publications he has presented evidence that cosmoclimatological drivers are the primary driver of climate change. He has stated that as a result of his research, he is sceptical of many of the climate change scenarios projected by the IPCC. In recognition of his research efforts Patterson was awarded a 2002-2003 Carleton University Research Achievement Award for 'outstanding research'.

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

Answer 1

Tim Patterson take a geological approach to climate change, which is something that most people that argue antropogenic global warming do.  I know this because I am a Carleton Alumni that had him as a professor which really helped give me a balanced outlook on global warming.

He is also not the only one that is "skeptical" of the IPCC and their climate predictions.  There are many people in the scientific community that support global warming but are skeptical of the IPCC.  For example, when you look at the distribution of the IPCC climate prediction outcomes, the vast majority of the scenerios predict a warming of less than 2.2ºC, yet the one that was published and received the most hype was the catastropic 5.0ºC+ warming, which even by their methods is a statistical outlier.

Gore has a political agenda and has done a lot to help politicize the research of global warming, which is something that we haven't seen at this scale since the time of the Soviet Union.  The IPCC is also a political body that relies on the necessity of research to continue, which could help explain why their confidence in the amount of global warming decreased from the TAR to the 4AR but their confidence in the possibility of human contribution increased.

Answer 2

The latest climate scare article never mentioned global warming, only "climate change".  And research spending needs to double or else bad-things-will-happen.  Like more severe weather.

How exactly more research spending is going to mitigate severe weather effects is not entirely clear.

It was known years in advance that New Orleans was a sitting duck, yet nothing happened.  Even when folks had planned for a massive evacuation, when the time came the state and local gov't froze up.

Answer 3

Why oh why is this one "climate expert" right and all the others are wrong?   That is the only reason a "consensus" matters.   One or two nuts don't make any difference, especially when we all know climate change happened due to natural variations before humans intervened.   Now, we are having a possible major impact.   Not saying we are, but you appear to have completely ruled out other possibilities than the one you believe.

Answer 4

450 million years ago, the Sun was 20% cooler than it is today. Without the large greenhouse effect from high levels of CO2, life would not have evolved.

Answer 5

yes.

Answer 6

They changed from Global Warming to Climate change because they could not prove it , and try to use the same data to prove it that failed to prove GW...

Answer 7

I have to agree with Peter Pumpkinhead in that the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility.  This is why so many people are turning to other sources.  It should also be noted that of the IPCC's 200 people, very few of them are actually climate scientists.

This in no way proves global warming to be a sham or prove it to be accurate, it just proves that the IPCC is not a purely scientific body.

As for Tim Patterson, I have read some of his stuff, and he does take a geological approach and I wish I was lucky enough to have had him as a prof.

Answer 8

Yes.  Gore only cares about scaring people into believing what cannot be proven by anyone.  Mother Nature doesn't even know we're here.  She's laughing right now at all the money we're spending on useless attempts to control the weather of the entire planet.  

Gore should direct his energies at China.  1/3 of the world's garbage - only 10% is recycled.

Answer 9

It is all too common for people to only consult the side that agrees with your opinion.  There is far too much politicization of these "apparent" global catastrophes.  There are many people that seek the truth, but I have a hard time seeing it in any in name calling and claiming premature victory (no more debate needed).  We are in a point in time that problems could be solved with technology and cooperation.  I think the more pertinent question is "why not?".  I don't see the most "liberal" Hollywood jet-sets changing their behavior in any substantial way, but all are willing to look at Bush as the demon.

Answer 10

So in your opinion, 1 scientist (a paleoclimatologist), trumps the opinion of these 200 climate scientists:

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/Ba...

I think I"ll stick with the 200 scientists who are knowledgeable about our recent climate, rather than a single scientist who makes an obvious ludicrous statement about conditions 1/2 billion years ago when both the sun and our planets geography were vastly different than today.

Answer 11

wasn't a matter of forgetting.

he didn't talk to thousands of people.

eg, it's unlikely that he contacted exxon and asked to talk to them about why oil was causing global warming.

or the coal industry either.

i suspect that he didn't talk to Tom Harris, Fred Singer, Tim Ball, or Richard Lindzen either.

however, sometimes you learn a lot about people by looking at the people with whom they associate.  who would that be?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...

and what kind of company does he keep?

Answer 12

What Al Gore says or does has nothing to do with the scientific fact of man made global warming.

There are a few "skeptics".  There are also "scientists" who say the Earth is 6000 years old, or that NASA faked the Moon landings.  They change nothing.