Gore: Polar ice may go in 5 years

His science is flawed in making that prediction.

Even his scientists agree with you

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=52786

There's a few things wrong in this story. #1, of course, is Gore's prediction of the Arctic being ice free in five years. Last I heard the Arctic was supposed to ice-free in 2005 and 2008. Except it wasn't. It won't be in five years, either.

#2 is the thing about how a glacier speeding up means it's warmer. Uh, nope. Glaciers speed up and advance because they have more mass and that is not related to them being warm or cold. It's related to the volume of precipitation. They retreat and slow down when they have less mass. A faster-moving glacier means quite the opposite of what Algore wants to make it mean. With logic like his then droughts are caused by too much rain.

Even a quick Google search indicates that just about every study on glacier movement and speed suggests that melting glaciers move faster, due to their liquid water content. What slides better on your counter top? A completely frozen ice cube or one slightly melted with a layer of water under it for lubrication?

What is rather surprising is that Gore still gets media attention.

Idiots get lots of attention, remember Bush?..the guy Gore couldn't beat!


the bigger idiot is still in the limelight.

Facts simply get in the way when the lefties grab for their new green religion and anyone that dosen't believe must be inprisoned and re-educated.

Certainly true, for those political activist types who have little knowledge of science (the Greenpeace gang, for exmaple). But equally true for the activists on the right. Neither have much understanding of the issue and they just parrot the talking points given to them by their demagogue leaders.

The left are wringing their hands and pronouncing the Apocalypse from rising sea level. The right are wringing their hands and pronouncing Apocalypse from socialism, and the religious right have rekindled their age-old enmity with science.

The science is being wielded by the left with nothing less than religious fervor. The Climategate scandal shows what happens when you try to deify human endeavour: you'll inevitably be disappointed.

Both sides are looking for a silver bullet that will slay the other side, with each new science report, and with each new scandal or controversey. But that is not likely to happen. The truth or fallacy of anthropgenic global warming will become more evident, but it will never become certain.

Frankly, like many debates in contemporary North america, its unravelling as the press hands control of the debate to the most extreme, the most controversial. The Rush Limbaughs, the Greenpeacers. The voice of reason in the middle is lost amid all the screaming from the far left and right.

This happenes a lot these days. Maybe it was always like that, but I find that more andmore, aour public policy debates are dominated by demagogues and clowns.

Meanwhile all we hear from the greenies is disaster after disaster if we don't act immediately, because the science is settled and anyone who doesn't agree hates the earth, kittens and pie.

Every glacier advances upon a thin sheet of water. The ice melts under pressure and lubricates the passage of the glacier. The greater the mass of ice, the greater the pressure and the greater the volume of lubricating water.

When glaciers are affected by warming they melt and retreat. When they are affected by reduced precipitation they simply retreat or cease to advance.

The Juneau ice fields are an excellent study for this. You have several glaciers feeding from the exact same ice field and some advance and some retreat all at the same time. The temperatures are essentially the same across the ice field but what varies are the localized precipitation amounts across the ice field. Consequently you get different values of mass for each glacier and thus you get different speeds.

I think Gore will not live to see this happen.

oh really!!!!

He's MIA now!!!! Wonder why? This is just as bad as bre-x or y2k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bre-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem

Most of the Bre-x people are gone!!!!!! Sammy

Certainly true, for those political activist types who have little knowledge of science (the Greenpeace gang, for exmaple). But equally true for the activists on the right. Neither have much understanding of the issue and they just parrot the talking points given to them by their demagogue leaders.

The left are wringing their hands and pronouncing the Apocalypse from rising sea level. The right are wringing their hands and pronouncing Apocalypse from socialism, and the religious right have rekindled their age-old enmity with science.

The science is being wielded by the left with nothing less than religious fervor. The Climategate scandal shows what happens when you try to deify human endeavour: you'll inevitably be disappointed.

Both sides are looking for a silver bullet that will slay the other side, with each new science report, and with each new scandal or controversey. But that is not likely to happen. The truth or fallacy of anthropgenic global warming will become more evident, but it will never become certain.

Frankly, like many debates in contemporary North america, its unravelling as the press hands control of the debate to the most extreme, the most controversial. The Rush Limbaughs, the Greenpeacers. The voice of reason in the middle is lost amid all the screaming from the far left and right.

This happenes a lot these days. Maybe it was always like that, but I find that more andmore, aour public policy debates are dominated by demagogues and clowns.

If Climategate teaches one thing, it should be that (as Rex Murphy pointed ou) science should not get in bed with politics and activism.