OT: The film �An Inconvenient Truth�� [Archive]

Kevan

06-03-2006, 05:17 PM

I suppose I should know better than bring up such a topic steeped in politics, but it�s my hope we can carry on a conversation here that stays clear of Bush vs. Gore, red vs. blue, Republican vs. Democrat. So please�let�s try.

My question regarding this recently released film is simple: is it true? Is everything Al Gore states true regarding our planet�s future, as it pertains to increased CO2 emissions and global warming, to the extend and increased progression he foretells?

Here�s my problem with the film, while I am in agreement with him, I have a problem with fire and brimstone type lectures. Always have. Nothing turns me off more than demands for repentance and I feel this film did just that. In addition, I think Gore took advantage of some of the opposing camp�s details, used them out of context, and certainly wanted to stress, most heavy-handedly, his position on the Earth�s future. Being that he�s a politician� like any politician, it doesn�t surprise me that �party� tactics were used to get his beliefs across, but what does bother me is, where and what happened to the truth?

The truth lays somewhere between the two camps, I�m guessing. And I know we�re talking forecasting here so maybe truth can�t be a component until all the events have had a chance to play themselves out. Truth is like a marriage vow; we promise to keep true, we envision to be true, but yet divorces happen. So where�s the truth in love? We already know our relationship with the Earth is on a rocky road, but is she going to bail on us? Or we, her?

I would enjoy seeing someone from the other camp pick apart this film bit-by-bit and convince me otherwise. Or at the very least tone-down its threatening music score. If they don�t, I�m moving inland. Howdy Dave Kirk, I�m your new neighbor! (He's now converted!)

Will this movie change our society�s current direction? Based on the amount of cheers and lack of jeers I heard at the theater last night, it seemed more like preaching to the choir to me. Will people from the other camp attend this film out of curiosity and open-mindedness? I doubt it. So where are we left? Has he convinced anybody? Is there progress?

It saddens me to think that if Gore is right, us humans will be left to act reactively, after the chips have fallen. Maybe the argument is we�re already being proactive. My argument would be... we ain�t moving drastically or fast enough. We need immediate and viable solutions, if he�s right.

In light of our current events, and America�s involvement in some select actions that have tainted our good name to some of the other citizens of this planet, how are we going to present ourselves to these same nations in order to persuade them to join us in a drastic and preemptive course? Many nations and their citizens are going to be so drastically and permanently affected by the oncoming sequence of global warming events, the likes we�ve never seen before? If Gore is right, the events of Katrina and the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake which led to the monster tsunami will simply be cataclysms at an appetizer level.

What's the truth?

keno

06-03-2006, 05:21 PM

Kevan. How could you possibly think that this would not get out of hand in this group - mildew? Not to mention http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm.

keno

Bill Bove

06-03-2006, 05:23 PM

95* here today, I believe in global warming! Seriously though, did he just talk about the problem or did he offer some solutions too? I don't like when somebody complains about something and doesn't offer a possible solution. Is it possible to watch the movie without falling asleep? I like Al but...

Serpico

06-03-2006, 05:27 PM

...

Jason E

06-03-2006, 05:28 PM

The truth may lay between the two camps, but unfortuneately it sure is a hell of a lot closer to the "Global warming is real" camp and FAR, FAR away from the "Global warming is a fantasy" camp.

Honestly, one of the most ewncourageing things I've seen in a long time is a group, I believe the Latter day Saints, though I am not sure, had a commercial finally saying that it is G-d's earth and it is the responsibility of everyone to be Stewards... That THAT is G-d's way.....

Honestly, if we get the right wing religious zealots on board we are set.... What a funny pairing that would be...

Fixed

06-03-2006, 05:29 PM

bro I thought he was good in it seemed like he had passion .

mike p

06-03-2006, 05:30 PM

I've never known Gore to lie and besides we all wouldn't be able to talk on this internet thing if Al hadn't invented it.

Mike

mike p

06-03-2006, 05:32 PM

that flat-earth conservatives don't even believe in evolution, their disinformation campaign is already gearing up against this film

should be interesting

(just noticed Keno posted a link from Rupert Murdoch's NY Post, nice source--right-wing AND a tabloid :beer: :rolleyes: )

Don't tell me your one of those" round earther's".

Mike

Serpico

06-03-2006, 05:34 PM

...

we all wouldn't be able to talk on this internet thing if Al hadn't invented it.

...

yeah, but in the 2004 debates Bush said "I heard people have been talkin' on the internets"--so possibly Gore just invented one of them, not all

Kevan

06-03-2006, 05:41 PM

please guys, no Bush/Gore references. I'd enjoy your comments about the film and what's happening to our mothership.

Jason E

06-03-2006, 06:29 PM

please guys, no Bush/Gore references. I'd enjoy your comments about the film and what's happening to our mothership.

It is hurtling through space, and currently, I believe, no one is at the helm.... :confused:

:D

obtuse

06-03-2006, 06:31 PM

lie, lie, lie.......
the full moon is rising over dark water
and the fools below are picking up sticks
and the man in the gallows lies permanently
waiting for the doctors to come back and tend to him,

the flat earth society is meeting here today,
singing happy little lies
and the bright ship humana is sent far away
with grave determination....
and no destination, lie, lie, lie

yeah, nothing feels better than a spray of clean water
and the whistling wind on a calm summer night,
but you'd better believe that down in their quarters
the men are holding in for their dear lives,
the flat earth society is somewhere far away,
with their candlesticks and compasses
and the bright ship humana is well on its way
with grave determination.....
and no destination, lie, lie, lie, ad infinitum

abstruse

06-03-2006, 06:45 PM

lie, lie, lie.......
the full moon is rising over dark water
and the fools below are picking up sticks
and the man in the gallows lies permanently
waiting for the doctors to come back and tend to him,

the flat earth society is meeting here today,
singing happy little lies
and the bright ship humana is sent far away
with grave determination....
and no destination, lie, lie, lie

yeah, nothing feels better than a spray of clean water
and the whistling wind on a calm summer night,
but you'd better believe that down in their quarters
the men are holding in for their dear lives,

the flat earth society is somewhere far away,
with their candlesticks and compasses
and the bright ship humana is well on its way
with grave determination.....
and no destination, lie, lie, lie, ad infinitum

Achlisatis koch'tik selafir'tek 'doulous' .... ?

abstruse

06-03-2006, 06:49 PM

gdw

06-03-2006, 07:07 PM

mike p

06-03-2006, 07:09 PM

Kevan

06-03-2006, 07:14 PM

The truth lays somewhere between the two camps, I�m guessing ??? ???

Mendifastis elesh'tik mimanisti'tek soranin.

translation please.

Lifelover

06-03-2006, 07:28 PM

I don't camp very much but when I do it is always with the other side and I have not seen the film. That said:

Is Al a scientist or a politician? What back ground does he have to present this information as fact?

About the only thing more compicated than the human body is the global environment.

Doctors often disagree and so to scientist. I'm of the belief that most of these "the sky is falling" types" are really "hollier than thou" types. They like to think that they and the human race have a much larger say in things than we really do.

If we do have that kind of major affect on things we need not worry. In a few hundred milions years we will evolve and adapt to it.

catulle

06-03-2006, 08:02 PM

I haven't seen the movie. It is the first time I hear of it. I'll just say, though, that for the last few years I have been advising the thesis of a young man who graduates this year from Harvard (his major is environmental policy), and from what I have learned so far from been exposed to him and others in the field, it is hard to exaggerate the poor environmental health of the planet.

As a matter of fact, the world is in such poor shape that in time men will have to transform the very foundations of the prevailing economic and political system in order to save the planet and ourselves. A system based in short-term self-interest where businneses are fueled by yearly bottom-lines, and politicians by elections every four years, will have to give way to a longer term sense of direction. Hey, that's what the guys with the pointy heads are saying; please don't shoot the messenger, atmo. There migtht be light at the end of the tunnel after all, iirc.

" Then the sands will roll
Out of a carpet of gold
For your weary toes to be touchin'
And the ship's wise men
Will remind you once again
That the whole wide world is watchin' " (B. Dylan, When the Ships Come In)

glc

06-03-2006, 08:06 PM

If we do have that kind of major affect on things we need not worry. In a few hundred milions years we will evolve and adapt to it.

thing is dude, i think we are traveling now days a little faster than evolution at the moment. but after it all goes to hell sure we'll adapt, if you have ever read kurt vonnegut's galapagos im all for his vision. after the world as we know it ends and basically floods we devolve. cant wait. hell im more into swimming and surfing everday than madmaxin' out in montana. actually i reckon some big swells will push through the midwester flatlands and starting building up in colorado, cool.

gore has been a longtime, passionate environmentalist and yes a politician but hell someone's gotta do it. the movie is worth seeing just to get to see some new facts. and he promotes cycling so . .. . nova has a global warming program that is a wee bit more in depth and not all hell and brimstone that puts a more intellectual scare into ya. if it is ever showing on pbs watch it.

even more scary is that the 5th sun cycle beginning in 2012 but thats another topic...

atmo

06-03-2006, 08:08 PM

" Then the sands will roll
Out of a carpet of gold
For your weary toes to be touchin'
And the ship's wise men
Will remind you once again
That the whole wide world is watchin' "
(B. Dylan, When the Ships Come In)

atmo asks -
so, did this letter arrive at the time the
door knob broke, or was it actually a
letter about the time the door knob broke?

Yes, I received your letter yesterday
(about the time the door knob broke)
When you asked how I was doing
Was that some kind of joke?
All these people that you mention
Yes, I know them, theyre quite lame
I had to rearrange their faces
And give them all another name
Right now I cant read too good
Dont send me no more letters no
Not unless you mail them
From desolation row

catulle

06-03-2006, 08:08 PM

velodadi

06-03-2006, 08:17 PM

Don't Be Very Worried

The truth about "global warming" is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think.

BY PETE DU PONT

Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.
But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:

� The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.

� The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

� While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.

� Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."

Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down.

But now comes the carbon dioxide alarm. CO2 is not a pollutant--indeed it is vital for plant growth--but the annual amount released into the atmosphere has increased 40% since 1970. This increase is blamed by global warming alarmists for a great many evil things. The Web site for Al Gore's new film, "An Inconvenient Truth," claims that because of CO2's impact on our atmosphere, sea levels may rise by 20 feet, the Arctic and Antarctic ice will likely melt, heat waves will be "more frequent and more intense," and "deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years--to 300,000 people a year."
If it all sounds familiar, think back to the 1970s. After the first Earth Day the New York Times predicted "intolerable deterioration and possible extinction" for the human race as the result of pollution. Harvard biologist George Wald predicted that unless we took immediate action "civilization will end within 15 to 30 years," and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people--including 65 million American--would perish from famine in the 1980s.

So what is the reality about global warming and its impact on the world? A new study released this week by the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts" (www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285) looks at a wide variety of climate matters, from global warming and hurricanes to rain and drought, sea levels, arctic temperatures and solar radiation. It concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21rst century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

There are substantial differences in climate models--some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--but the Climate Science study concludes that "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase." The National Center for Atmospheric Research's prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is.

What warming there is turns out to be caused by solar radiation rather than human pollution. The Climate Change study concluded "half the observed 20th century warming occurred before 1940 and cannot be attributed to human causes," and changes in solar radiation can "account for 71 percent of the variation in global surface air temperature from 1880 to 1993."

As for hurricanes, 2005 saw several severe ones--Katrina and Rita both had winds of 150 knots--hitting New Orleans, the Gulf Coast and Florida. But there is little evidence linking them to global warming. A team of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists concluded that the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995 "is not related to greenhouse warming" but instead to natural tropical climate cycles.

Regarding Arctic temperature changes, the Study found the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend: The "average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987." Add in Russian and Alaskan temperature data and "Arctic air temperatures were warmest in the 1930s and near the coolest for the period of recorded observations (since at least 1920) in the late 1980s."

As for sea ice, it is not melting excessively. Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans concluded that "global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." The U.N.'s IPCC Third Assessment Report concluded that the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated during the last century, which is supported by U.S. coastal sea level experience. In California sea levels have risen between zero and seven millimeters a year and between 2.1 and 2.8 millimeters a year in North and South Carolina.

Finally come the polar bears--a species thought by global warming proponents to be seriously at risk from the increasing temperature. According to the World Wildlife Fund, among the distinct polar bear populations, two are growing--and in areas where temperatures have risen; ten are stable; and two are decreasing. But those two are in areas such as Baffin Bay where air temperatures have actually fallen.

The Climate Science study concludes that projections of global warming over the next century "have decreased significantly since early modeling efforts," and that global air temperatures should increase by 2.5 degrees and the United States by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. The environmental pessimists tell us, as in Time magazine's recent global warming issue, to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," but the truth is that our environmental progress has been substantially improving, and we should be very pleased.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

catulle

06-03-2006, 08:25 PM

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

He's a du Pont. You won't expect him to pee to the wind, will you?

catulle

06-03-2006, 08:40 PM

atmo asks -
so, did this letter arrive at the time the
door knob broke, or was it actually a
letter about the time the door knob broke?

[I]

" Well, my telephone rang it would not stop
It's President Kennedy callin' me up
He said, 'My friend Bob, what do we need to make the country grow?'
I said, 'My friend, John, Brigitte Bardot
Anita Ekberg
Sophia Loren'
(Put 'em all in the same room with Ernest Borgnine!) " (B. Dylan, I Shall Be Free)

atmo

06-03-2006, 08:43 PM

" Well, my telephone rang it would not stop
It's President Kennedy callin' me up
He said, 'My friend Bob, what do we need to make the country grow?'
I said, 'My friend, John, Brigitte Bardot
Anita Ekberg
Sophia Loren'
(Put 'em all in the same room with Ernest Borgnine!) " (B. Dylan, I Shall Be Free)

always with the quips (http://www.mortystv.com/showcards/mchales_navy.jpg) atmo!

catulle

06-03-2006, 08:57 PM

always with the quips (http://www.mortystv.com/showcards/mchales_navy.jpg) atmo!

" All across the telegraph
His name it did resound
But no charge held against him
Could they prove
And there was no man around
Who could track or chain him down
He was never known
To make a foolish move " (B. Dylan, John Wesley Harding)

67-59

06-03-2006, 09:00 PM

What velodadi said, plus...

Long before there were humans, there were global climactic shifts that make the last century seem like child's play (ice ages, anyone?). The reality is that our earth's climate is far more complicated and powerful than we currently have the capacity to understand, and for anyone to profess that they KNOW the recent warming of temperatures will have this effect or that is roughly the equivalent of scientists once telling people that the earth was flat....

atmo

06-03-2006, 09:02 PM

" All across the telegraph
His name it did resound
But no charge held against him
Could they prove
And there was no man around
Who could track or chain him down
He was never known
To make a foolish move " (B. Dylan, John Wesley Harding)

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way atmo!

catulle

06-03-2006, 09:14 PM

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way atmo!

" How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind " (B. Dylan, Blowin' in the Wind)

My best to the family, bro.

bcm119

06-03-2006, 09:30 PM

Just to put that into perspective, heres where NCPA is coming from:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysi s
Its the right wing counter to Gore's argument, as politically charged as Gore's. Neither one should be paid the slightest bit of attention to since this is a complex scientific issue rather than a political one. But just for fun-

When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:
This is not the point- its a global problem, not just a US problem. Developing countries are the biggest concern- they don't have the technology to clean up their industry/agriculture practices like we do, and their population is exploding.

� The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."
This is irrelevant, the statistic is based on a land-ownership designation, not a forest health designation. National forest service land has increased, but logged/degraded forests have increased within them, this is a no-brainer.

� While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.

Another mis-use of statistics. What has increased is the wetland areas as classified by the Dept. of Ag., which has a liberal definition of wetlands, to say the least...eg., it includes man-made ponds in agricultural areas.

� Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."
Irrelevant again- their protection was drastically increased in 1967, of course they came back. Who cares?

Any politically-charged discourse on this is not worth reading, its purely manipulation of statistics, and both sides are guilty.

BumbleBeeDave

06-03-2006, 09:39 PM

. . .Frank Sinatra, but here goes . . .

I think you said it, Kevan . . .

<<The truth lays somewhere between the two camps, I�m guessing.>>

A good guess, indeed. The truth always lies somewhere in between the two extremes. I think Gore is leaning toward the Liberal extreme, but not nearly as far as many people would have you think he does. But as another said, Hell, SOMEONE has to sound the alarm and make a stink.

I personally think global warming is real, though its effects will not be as suddenly extreme as many would want you to believe. It will not happen in the next 50 years, but will almost certainly make its effects felt in the next few hundred. That's plenty of time for most people to be moved out of immediate harm's way, but not a time scale that people with average lives of 70 years (or much less in most of the world) can really get their mental grips around. And not a time frame that humans have shown themselves adept at acting in.

But I approve of what Gore and others like him--the "dire crisis" preachers--are trying to do because the usual sequence of events I have seen as an observer in the media is that with many, MANY problems, unless someone stands up and DOES make a stink, nothing gets done. That is, until there is a precipitating disaster--exactly what happened with New Orleans flood protection and Katrina.

Keep in mind that not only the earth's climate has changed many times of over millions of years, but the actual CONTENT of the atmosphere has also changed. I have read several places that if even if we DID have H.G. Wells' prototypical "time machine" and could journey back a hundred million years to the time of the dinosaurs, we wouldn't be able to breathe because the makeup of the atmosphere was significantly different at that time.

I have also read another article that advanced a theory of several climatologists based on their own research that many of these climactic and atmospheric changes that have taken place over the earth's history have done so in relatively very short periods of time. There has been little change over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years as the precipitating elements changed until a critical mass "tipping point" was reached and--BAM!--over a thousand years or less everything changed.

The danger here as I see it is that this situation is a total unknown. Mankind has faced many total unknowns over its history, but we could always rest assured that no matter how badly we f*cked up, the world would not end. Well, now we are in a situation where there is a reasonable possibility that if we f*ck up . . .

The. World. WILL. End.

At least the world that has a climate we can adapt to or atmosphere that we can breathe will end. It would not end overnight. It might take 500-1000 years for the change to take place. But if we carry on heedless of the passing of that "tipping point," we could find ourselves doomed as surely as if we had all put guns to our heads and pulled the trigger.

So go right ahead and sound the alarm, Mr. Gore, whether you are Democrat or Republican or Mormom. SOMEBODY needs to--and must.

BBD

Lifelover

06-03-2006, 09:40 PM

You would think with all the genius and the brilliance of these times, we might find a higher purpose and a better use of mind. - Jackson Browne, Say It Isn't True

atmo

06-03-2006, 09:51 PM

The danger here as I see it is that this situation is a total unknown. Mankind has faced many total unknowns over its history, but we could always rest assured that no matter how badly we f*cked up, the world would not end. Well, now we are in a situation where there is a reasonable possibility that if we f*ck up . . .

The. World. WILL. End.BBD

Doctor in Brooklyn: Why are you depressed, Alvy?
Alvy's Mom: Tell Dr. Flicker.
[Young Alvy sits, his head down - his mother answers for him]
Alvy's Mom: It's something he read.
Doctor in Brooklyn: Something he read, huh?
Alvy at 9: [his head still down] The universe is expanding.
Doctor in Brooklyn: The universe is expanding?
Alvy at 9: Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything!
Alvy's Mom: What is that your business?
[she turns back to the doctor]
Alvy's Mom: He stopped doing his homework!
Alvy at 9: What's the point?
Alvy's Mom: What has the universe got to do with it? You're here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!
Doctor in Brooklyn: It won't be expanding for billions of years yet, Alvy. And we've gotta try to enjoy ourselves while we're here!

catulle

06-03-2006, 09:54 PM

Doctor in Brooklyn: Why are you depressed, Alvy?
Doctor in Brooklyn: It won't be expanding for billions of years yet, Alvy. And we've gotta try to enjoy ourselves while we're here!

Ommmmm.... Love and kindness, bubba, atmo.

catulle

06-03-2006, 09:56 PM

Ommmmm.... Love and kindness, bubba, atmo.

Oh, er, and a red bike. Hell, a blue would do just fine too, atmo.

froze

06-03-2006, 10:10 PM

Having attended a number of parties* with scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), I have found that there is a lack of agreement among the rank and file on whether global warming is actually occuring. The politicians, whether republican, democrat, Green, etc, just pick and choose studies to support their agendas.

*NCAR has group rides on Tuesdays but the pace discourages serious conversation.

Finally someone with common sense and knowledge!

Gore? give me a break; what is his college degree in? Oh that's right a degree in Government from Harvard, then attended (note no degree) at Vanderbelt University Divinity School and attended Vanderbelt Law School; odd question why not Harvard School of Law? probably wouldn't been able to pass the classes! Anyway, do you see one degree or even a minor degree or track of study in any field of science? And yet somehow we are suppose to believe he knows all about global warming when even the scientist don't know! Yet Gore did maintain his political roots by doing what all politicians do and that was to give us no thoughts or agenda as to how to combat this supposely man created global warming problem.

Sounds like to me a politician trying to get votes!

Ray

06-03-2006, 10:29 PM

Finally someone with common sense and knowledge!

Gore? give me a break; what is his college degree in? Oh that's right a degree in Government from Harvard, then attended (note no degree) at Vanderbelt University Divinity School and attended Vanderbelt Law School; odd question why not Harvard School of Law? probably wouldn't been able to pass the classes! Anyway, do you see one degree or even a minor degree or track of study in any field of science? And yet somehow we are suppose to believe he knows all about global warming when even the scientist don't know! Yet Gore did maintain his political roots by doing what all politicians do and that was to give us no thoughts or agenda as to how to combat this supposely man created global warming problem.

Sounds like to me a politician trying to get votes!
I'm sure he's not right on all of it, but give the guy a bit of credit. He's doing what good politicians have always done - he's developed expertise in a few areas and has pushed his agendas in those areas pretty effectively. Although he didn't "invent" the internet (and never actually claimed to), he was very active in the legislation that helped enable the early governmental steps. On global warming, he may be right or wrong, but he's not just jumping on a popular bandwagon - he's been there longer than any of them. If he's wrong he's wrong, but if it turns out he's right, he deserves some credit for sticking to his guns. If he's exagerating some of his claims to make his points, he's doing what politicians have always done to 'raise' public awareness. The Republicans have been incredibly effective at this over the past several election cycles. And, yeah, Democrats do it too and I personally hope they get a lot better at it.

I don't know if he's running for anything or not - don't care. I believe global warming is real and problem we need to address far more seriously than we have. I'm glad he's out there blowing his horn about it because I can't convince anyone and if he can, more power to him.

-Ray

bcm119

06-03-2006, 10:30 PM

And yet somehow we are suppose to believe he knows all about global warming when even the scientist don't know!

No, we are supposed to use our heads and read the research if we are interested in climate change. Don't hate the playa, hate the game- politics is no place for a discussion of science.

FWIW, my experience with NCAR is different from GDW's; a friend there paints a picture of overwhelming agreement that global warming is occuring.

davep

06-03-2006, 11:06 PM

Kevan

06-03-2006, 11:09 PM

The addition of "I'm guessing" I suppose was perfunctory in nature, and seemingly undermined what I was trying to get at here. What is the normal course in looking for truth between two opposing opinions is to weigh the facts presented by both and establish an opinion for yourself. Then if we're to establish trust at some level of either one or the other ideologies, we can decide how close do we want to come to be in their camp? Is Gore 100% correct, so we stand in his tent, or is he only 80%, so we share a seat by his campfire, but bring our own food? What of the other guys? We can certainly hazard a safe bet that Al isn�t wholly correct, by the same token the other opinion is to some percentage wrong, too.

What is a bit worrisome to me is the distance of opinion (It looks like a long hike to me.) and wondering if the ground we�re hiking on, while we are trying to make up our decision, remains secure. I don�t know about you� but the signs mother nature�s been exhibiting lately suggests to me that Al�s camp has the edge. So �I�m guessing" I�ll stand closer to him, roast my marshmallows, in support for what we need to be doing to protect our footing.

And what if he is wrong? Well, anything that clears us from a dependence of fossil fuels and turns both the national and international interests to planet survival can�t be a bad mistake. Can it?

BBD, I don�t believe we have 50 years to get our act together, certainly not 100. I think we best start modifying our behavior this moment.

BCM, Politics shouldn't get involved in the analytics, but it certainly needs to be in place in order to change direction.

froze

06-03-2006, 11:24 PM

From my reading I think that most scientists agree that global warming is happening. The BIG disagreement is whether it is natural climate change, or whether it is caused wholly or in part by human activity. That is the scientific question. After the science is settled (if something as complex as the environment can ever be completely figured out), the political question (and it will have to be a political process) is what to do about it, if anything?

Is it really happening? or just a change in general? Some places of the world have recorded the COLDEST tempertures in over 20 years this last winter! Some of the hottest temps recorded in history of Indiana where recorded in the 20's not now! But scientist have also discovered (or at least acknowledged) recently a change in the temperture output of the sun and the color of the sun has gone from a more yellowish hue 20 years ago to more of a whiter hue today. Or is it the fact that the magnetic north pole has shown signs of weaking and fluctuating and could be perhaps ready for a magnetic pole shift? How can man change any of those things? Pollution levels were far greater 10,000 years ago and more when Volcanoes were more active then they are today as witnessed by ice core samples taken in the artic regions.

It's too bad we as "intellegent" human beings find better hugely more expensive higher tech ways to kill each other then to try to find answers to problems such as these. I cannot imagine where we as a race of people would be today if we used are intellegence God gave us to pursue peaceful endeavors instead of weapons.

cydewaze

06-03-2006, 11:25 PM

Too volatile of a thread to spend much time in, but I do plan to see the movie.

bcm119

06-03-2006, 11:27 PM

BCM, Politics shouldn't get involved in the analytics, but it certainly needs to be in place in order to change direction.
You're right...and thats the kicker. How do you convince the masses without presenting mis-information? 99% of the public will never fully comprehend how the global climate works, and a lot of the "truths" contradict people's anecdotal observations. Its kinda like the economy. Politicians can't present research because its over everyone's head, and even the layman's version doesn't make sense to most. So we're left with extremist mis-information, and people generally decide who to believe based on partisanship. Again the quote comes to mind- "the American lifestyle is non-negotiable"- until that changes, nothing will be done about global warming. Thats a huge challenge.

keno

06-04-2006, 03:32 AM

same as I said before. But to your topic, certainly more heat than light was generated.

Kevan, and any others who are truly curious and not willing to take conclusions fed to them, read the following for what appears to me to be a scientific attempt to get into the subject at hand. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ For those willing to dismiss its contents by reason of the title of the website I would say you don't really care about the issues.

A thought I had was how many of us give thanks to those who were unable to hold off the Great Ice Age as we ride our bikes and live our lives. A more important thought was how many of us have actually changed our driving habits and modes of transportation and thermostats as a result of currently higher gasoline and fuel prices, or just jawed about the prices, expecting our government to do something about that which they have virtually no control over.

Why am I even bothering?

keno

victoryfactory

06-04-2006, 06:53 AM

A clean sandbox is a nice thing to have.
clean food, water, air, great goals for people to work for.
But why do the political types need to attach this more than worthy cause
to the chicken little / global warming thing?

Our Mother (Earth) has more than shown that she has the power to
kick our butts whenever she wants to, irrespective of our poisonous contributions.

Just another example of the human need to have everything explained,
well ordered and the blame placed.

Folks need to learn what they can and can't control. Let's clean up our air,
water, and food, lets help the less fortunate, share the wealth.
That's our job as humans.

Let Mother Nature do her job.

VF

dbrk

06-04-2006, 07:27 AM

The truth "somewhere between the two views"? I think not. Mutatis mutandis: A biologist colleague at the University of Rochester recently said, "I don't oppose Intelligent Design on theological grounds. I oppose it because it's bad science." To think humans are not radically influencing the course of the planet towards _our human_ ruin seems to me indisputable. The issue is not whether the planet will survive, it will change, but will we?

dbrk

flydhest

06-04-2006, 08:24 AM

Taking the esteemed professors views and elaborating, an amazing feat I've seen achieved in many disputes, be they political or otherwise, is for those with a vested interest in a position that is flat out wrong to get people who like to think of themselves as moderate and reflective to espouse the view "the truth must be in the middle." In fact, that view is not always accurate. Most people like to be reasonable, I think, or at least they like to believe that they are being reasonable. This attitude is so often and cleverly co-opted in the "he said-she said" way news is discussed. What I find interesting in this particular case is that there have been some interesting, though not well publicized news reports that document that the energy lobby had as an intentional plan to introduce whatever uncertainty they could muster--legitimate or otherwise--into the debate precisely so that the majority of folk would take a step back and assume that neither polar case could be close to the truth. It was a coup of extraordinary proportions and they earned their money well.

My favorite topics for this, however, are economic topics. In the cases where I know the evidence and arguments well, it is simply amazing to see public discourse so easily swayed. Reporters are not experts in their fields, usually, and to avoid being labeled biased (which happens anyway, so why do they bother?) they present "both sides of the story" even when one side is utterly and completely without merit. Giving the reader no understanding of how fallacious an "opposing view" is in effect gives credence to that view.

Whatever the phrase is about being able to fool some of the people some of the time, what seems interesting to me is that you can actually fool the majority of the electorate all the time.

Onno

06-04-2006, 08:37 AM

Another clear effect of current climate change is on other species. We are already killing off species at an alarming rate by destroying habitat. Climate change is speeding up this process; species that are already teetering on the brink will be pushed over when changing climage conditions eliminate or decrease food sources, and bring on other stresses. Witness what's happening to coral reefs, or to salmon.

The world and life in general will certainly continue no matter what we do, and it has gone through much worse than we're giving it now. I find it very depressing, though, to realize that we are the first species to knowingly destroy so much other life on the planet. Global warming is a part of this picture. We are now knowingly creating conditions that will cause the death of countless plants and animals, and entire species, and will cause death and extreme hardship to poor people in the world.

Yes, America and Americans will survive, content that our economy has not suffered too much. I think the myopia and greed of this generation will be viewed with anger and astonishment by future generations. It's a great irony to me that the folks who preach family values so callously ignore what they are doing to the environment they intend to hand on to their glorious kids.

Wow this is a depressing topic. Time to get on the bike.

Tom

06-04-2006, 08:43 AM

Lull Brook had brook trout in it.

Now it doesn't.

Tom

06-04-2006, 08:54 AM

Oh yeah, I love the part where they run ads that say "Don't worry about CO2, it's necessary for plant life..."

I wish I had the money to run an ad showing somebody chained to a cement block under water and voice over "Don't worry, water's good for you! You need to drink a lot to stay healthy!"

Follow the money, people. That is an immutable law that we can debate a lot less than whether climate change is happening. Who's protecting what pile of cash? Answer that and you start to get your insights.

catulle

06-04-2006, 09:05 AM

Lull Brook had brook trout in it.

Now it doesn't.

There is a Spanish saying that roughly translated goes: Bread for today, hunger for tomorrow. We are living off the fat of the Earth, which in turn is getting leaner and leaner. Someone will have to pay the consequences of the myopic nature of our present economic and political system, ATMO.

Sorry to hear about Lull Brook.

oldmill

06-04-2006, 09:06 AM

What dbrk, flydhest and Tom said. The whole "middle ground" argument has strong shades of the tobacco lobby's successful efforts to forestall legslation by creating doubts about the harmful effects of smoking. But here's what always gets me: Why would anyone think that 16 zillion tons of pollutants going into the air WOULDN'T have a negative effect?

atmo

06-04-2006, 09:12 AM

oldmill

06-04-2006, 09:17 AM

Assemble them in bike form and UPS them to DC ASAP, atmo. I will PM you my P.O. Box. 10-4

Lifelover

06-04-2006, 09:18 AM

...
Follow the money, people. That is an immutable law that we can debate a lot less than whether climate change is happening. Who's protecting what pile of cash? Answer that and you start to get your insights.

I don't buy into the "rich, corporate types are all evil" either. If morality is inversly propotional to wealth than this board is slam loaded with some awful folks.

atmo

06-04-2006, 09:20 AM

Assemble them in bike form and UPS them to DC ASAP, atmo. I will PM you my P.O. Box. 10-4

if oldmill is the screen name for a DC cat from penn ave, i
have two words for him : "get to end of the line, bud." atmo.

atmo

06-04-2006, 09:22 AM

If morality is inversly propotional to wealth than this board is slam loaded with some awful folks.

thread drift -
the demographic here is one of monied well-to-do's atmo?

William

06-04-2006, 09:25 AM

oldmill

06-04-2006, 09:33 AM

atmo - different cat, but with all the military helicopters, sniffer dogs and cameras down here, the tubes should be well-protected no matter what the calamity.
--Oldmill, whose air space is inviolable. Or so he tells himself.

1centaur

06-04-2006, 09:47 AM

The middle ground argument is in fact reasonable most of the time because people with strong and early agendas tend to be on the fringes of the complete picture. In the case of tobacco, that presumably was not so because the statistics were clear and simple - political agendas were not part of those scientists' thinking and the solution to the problem was not inherently political.

In this case the point missed so often is that scientists are not pure as the driven snow while people on the other side are in it for the money or working at the behest of those that are. Scientists are looking for grants and looking to get positions and seeking the favor of their colleagues and, as academics in many cases, are likely to have developed the liberal worldview that restrains full discourse with smug hypocrisy. These scientists may bicycle to work and wear Birkenstocks and eat granola and...see in warming statistics the evil they sensed in the first place when they voted for Jimmy Carter and his moral equivalent of war. To the extent these scientists are not in the US, you can add in to the mix the almost universal jealousy/begrudgment of our power and success.

If you have not observed the patterns in the last paragraph you have not lived long enough. If you have, it would be difficult, as a business or as a country that stands to lose its place in the world, to just roll over and accept the statistical interpretations of scientists which, let's face it, started with computer models that are highly likely to have been flawed. Those with an incentive to resist the building scientific view looked at statistics and came up with other views and rationales. Were those analyses more wrong than those of the scientists? That's what we need to figure out and we are doing so in a political manner (unlike tobacco) because the consequences of being wrong either way are huge. Should we decimate the US economy (and thus reduce our power) to the detriment of poor people here and now while China and India get a free pass in the hope that poor people will be better off in 100 years? Is it too late already and we'd be better off working on adaption techniques than on cutting greenhouse gasses? Will high oil prices push us to solar and wind naturally without government's club mauling our economy in stupid and unexpected ways?

This list of questions could go on and on. Few of us have spent time reading 1,000 page studies on climate change, and those of us who have read scientific studies in general might know that perfectly well intentioned and rational people can come up with opposite conclusions. As I have said here before, the backbone of society's belief in cholesterol lowering pills is very shaky and built on a lot of fatuous me-tooism in the medical community. History will show the truth to be otherwise.

So I think the truth is likely to contain part mankind's fault and part natural variations, which I would call a middle ground. What we should do about it is a separate question. I could be like Al Gore and spend 1,000 hours reading everybody's view, but it would not change the outcome for the world. Without that time sink, which almost nobody will do, the future will be driven by gut feel of the masses, and I can see what that gut feel is likely to be from reading this thread. Slow attempts to cut greenhouse gasses, partly justified by lowering our reliance on fossil fuels for poltical purposes, will be the outcome.

Time to ride.

catulle

06-04-2006, 10:49 AM

when exactly is the shet going to hit the fan? i have another lug project in
the works and i also want to have at least one great 'cross season before
i leave the age group i'm in. ps if the sky does fall in the next four years,
who gets all these tubes and dropouts atmo?

You're cool, dude. And Spence and the lovely. I got an island in the Pacific with plenty of vines where to hang from, atmo. Only cross bikes need apply, though; bummer. Coconut, avocado, mango, and fish and lobster for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Scarlett and rhum for midnight reveries. Peter W can drive the boat, iirc. On hindsight, maybe we should scratch the W from Peter's name, atmo. A Pacific Provo.

atmo

06-04-2006, 10:59 AM

You're cool, dude. And Spence and the lovely. I got an island in the Pacific with plenty of vines where to hang from, atmo. Only cross bikes need apply, though; bummer. Coconut, avocado, mango, and fish and lobster for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Scarlett and rhum for midnight reveries. Peter W can drive the boat, iirc. On hindsight, maybe we should scratch the W from Peter's name, atmo. A Pacific Provo.
.

a_esome atmo.
i'm leaving for a 4+ hour ride.
if the _orld is still here _hen i
return, _e'll develop the plan.

catulle

06-04-2006, 11:02 AM

.

a_esome atmo.
i'm leaving for a 4+ hour ride.
if the _orld is still here _hen i
return, _e'll develop the plan.

Watch out for incoming traffic, atmo.

atmo

06-04-2006, 11:06 AM

_atch out for incoming traffic, atmo.
.

i _ill.

mike p

06-04-2006, 12:26 PM

oldmill

06-04-2006, 02:16 PM

"The middle ground argument is in fact reasonable most of the time..."

I agree the middle ground is reasonable most of the time. Just not every time. By your logic we would have to wait until scientists are 100% in agreement on an issue before we took any action. In that case, all someone with a vested interest in the status quo would have to do is raise some doubts by finding a few scientists who say they disagree, which is exactly what the tobacco lobby did and, it appears, is exactly what's happening with the global warming issue. And the tobacco battle wasn't political?? Your memory of this is diifferent than mine. It became political precisely because of the lobbying, which enlisted sympathetic lawmakers and stalled legislation for decades. No one is saying scientists are "pure" (or that all corporations are evil), but when you have this many scientists from this many different backgrounds -- whether those going to work in Birkenstocks, penny loafers or wing tips -- saying essentially the same thing, the middle ground doesn't cut it. Even Bush said global warming is most likely happening. And while I too am extremely wary of the blunt and sloppy hand of government in most matters, I'm not sure why this has to be an either/or propostion for the economy. There would be losers, but there will be winners as well and they don't have to be chosen by the government. It's becoming increasingly apparent that there's a huge market for green technology. DuPont and General Electric, for example, which don't seem to be staffed by a lot people wearing Birkenstocks, have bet their futures on it.

spiderlake

06-04-2006, 03:21 PM

Not sure if this has been covered in the thread but there is a cool story on the Apple website about the film and how they incorporated Keynote (think of PowerPoint but better) into the film.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2006/05/inconvenienttruth/

BumbleBeeDave

06-04-2006, 03:49 PM

. . . with global warming, but it sure is nice to see this long an intelligent discussion on a charged subject like this without flames erupting . . .

I'm proud of us! ;)

BBD

1centaur

06-04-2006, 06:21 PM

"By your logic we would have to wait until scientists are 100% in agreement on an issue before we took any action."

I disagree. The rest of my post made clear that I think action will be taken without consensus, and I don't think that's unreasonable. I am wary of what the big corporations are REALLY doing re: global warming. Yes they are trying to make money, but cynics might say that little gestures are being made to cover up bigger negatives.

The gut of the masses is developing based in part on the length and depth of the debate and the numbers of scientists on both sides. The masses are saying where there's smoke there's fire, but are unlikely to approve moves that radically alter THEIR society based on supposition, especially when there actually are scientists who don't look like shills who can be convincing on the other side.

As to the tobacco argument, I did not want to weigh down an already long post with all sorts of clarifications. Yes politics was long and drawn out on labeling and fining/extorting/exploiting the addicted masses for alternative governmental revenues, but the actual solution was not political: people could see what the truth was for themselves and stop smoking or not start. Such a simple solution is not possible re: global warming, unfortunately.

oldmill

06-04-2006, 08:00 PM

We may be in more heated agreement than I realized. And you're right: this is different than the tobacco case in that it's not really posible to solve on an individual level, which in some respects the tobacco case was (I say some because the apparent targeting of minors opens a can of worms, but that's getting beyond the scope of the discussion, and the point remains that they purposely mudied the waters and created the debate). I guess I would only say that if the scientists are correct, and it looks to me like it's a lot more than supposition, then tough crap for the masses: governments will have to take action. There doesn't necessarily have to be a drastic economic downside to that action. And if the scientists are right, then in X number of years there wouldn't be any economies to protect anyway.

Kevan

06-05-2006, 07:50 AM

I enjoyed your participation and everyone's ability to prevent a food fight. It was fun taking this risk and sidetracking the major theme of this site. To the folks at Serotta, I hope this thread didn't add any angst to your weekend.

I certainly encourage everyone to see the film and come to your own conclusions. In the meantime, I'll continue to ride my bike to work as much as I can comfortably do, expelling CO2 the whole way. I'll do my best to keep to tree-lines streets so that our friends can take up my exhaust.

Russell

06-05-2006, 12:49 PM

I'm of the belief that most of these "the sky is falling" types" are really "hollier than thou" types.

I'm afraid the "Holier than thou" types are on both sides of the coin.

arsegas

06-06-2006, 08:08 PM

For those looking for a concise, readable look on this subject, I recommend the following book: "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery.

- Eric

itsflantastic

06-07-2006, 09:17 PM

I just got back from seeing an Inconvenient Truth. I also read that review by the New York Post guy who bashes it. I can say that that particular viewer misinterpereted a lot of what was going on based on the movie I saw. . .but that is neither here nor there.

Whatever party you share allegance with, please see the movie and get educated on the subject. If you don't think it is a threat after you leave the theater, so be it. There were things I didn't care for about his presentation occasionally, and there were "facts" that were in opposition to "facts" that I'd already learned. But the bottom line is this, even if HALF of what he says is true, we are in it . . . deep. Let me rephrase - consequenses are grave if half of the information presented is false, skewed, or politicized. It doesn't matter, it needs to be addressed.

There are two books to read on the topic that I can recommend. One is Politicizing Science by Michael Gough (which i didn't care for. . .not because of content, but the writing is rather poor), and the other is the Republican War on Science by Mooney. Both sides of the issue (not global warming specifically, but science and politics. . .Mr. Gore is of course mentioned).

My reaction to the movie???
It was necessary and important.

I'm not having kids unless people take this on.

I just graduated. I'm riding my bike across the country (to take a break, and hey, zero Carbon emissions). When I'm done, I'm going into environmental policy. (no Mr. Gore did not inspire me to do this, but his movie has reaffirmed my previous inclination towards that field.)

That being said, if anyone currently works in that area and wants to hire a bright college graduate with degrees in English, Biology, and History, send me a PM. I'll be available come Sept. 1st. :beer:

-Dan

catulle

06-07-2006, 09:39 PM

Guilty as charged, atmo...

Grant McLean

06-07-2006, 10:00 PM

The yellow line is where ice was in 1978.....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050928/arctic_sea_ice_050928/20050928?hub=CTVNewsAt11

The data show that on Sept. 21, 2005, the area covered by ice shrank to 5.32 million square kilometres, the lowest recorded since 1978, when satellite records became available.

"In 2005, it's the lowest on the record. We've watched that retreat from year after year," Environment Canada climatologist Tom Agnew told CTV News in Toronto.

Scientists estimate that the current rate of decline in end-of-summer Arctic ice is now approximately eight per cent per decade.

If the current rates of decline continue, the Arctic in the summertime could be completely ice-free well before the end of this century, researchers say."

When most of the ice is gone, I expect the USA to invade Canada, and start
drilling for oil.

g

catulle

06-07-2006, 10:07 PM

Grant McLean

06-07-2006, 10:26 PM

There is a big debate presently about the wisdom of spending six billion dollars in the expansion the Panama Canal because ships will soon be able to travel from one US coast to the other by way of the so called Northern route, thus, the Panama Canal will become obsolete. Your picture is very eloquent, and the problem very real. Thank you for posting it.

There have been serious discussions in Canada about what this country is
going to do when others start showing up and "claiming" parts of "our" northern
territories as theirs. Denmark recently planted their flag on an island that
Canada has always believed was sovereign land. When the ice is gone, it's
going to get complex.

Canada expects to have to ramp up our military to be able to enforce our
sovereignty in the north, something that I would never have imagined growing
up in Canada. Who would have thought anyone in the world would care
about what's up there.

g

texbike

06-07-2006, 11:13 PM

I lean toward the tree-hugger side, but have doubts about the impact that humanity is having on global warming. Sure, we're increasing CO2 emissions, but we do not have enough long-term climate data to determine that we are indeed having significant impact vs this just being a natural climate cycle.

In the grand scheme of things can we really have that large of an impact in less than 200 years? Think about it: we've had fossil fuel-based societies creating these emissions for around a century. With developing nations creating an ever-increasing demand on an essentially fixed amount of fossil fuels, can we expect those supplies to last beyond the end of this century? We will have to create and adapt technologies that will by their nature reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. So, can 200 years of human-produced emissions (that sounds bad) have a significant impact on our global temperatures? My un-scientific observation and gut-instinct says no.

Now, what we SHOULD be paying attention to is deforestation along with air and water quality. THESE are items that humanity is having a huge, adverse impact on and that directly affect our health along with that of our planet�s animal species.

Even if I don�t believe in human-driven, global warming, I�m glad to see viewpoints like Al�s being expressed to make people think. Even a movie as bad as "The Day After Tomorrow� helps raise awareness of environmental issues in the minds of the general populace.

Texbike

froze

06-09-2006, 10:17 PM

[url]If the current rates of decline continue, the Arctic in the summertime could be completely ice-free well before the end of this century, researchers say."

When most of the ice is gone, I expect the USA to invade Canada, and start
drilling for oil.

g

Who cares if the ice is there or not?! what did I just say? Have I completely lost my mind? Or perhaps that has happened in the past? YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION IN YOUR LAST SENTENCE! How do you think that oil got there? from tropical plants and animals that thrived there millions of years ago BEFORE there was ice...obviously since tropical plants don't do well in frozen areas of the world. Did humans cause that global warming? Of course not; it was just a natural cycle the Earth goes through ever so often and the earth "appears" to be heading back in that direction.

So to make the statement that the ice could be completely gone by whenever is just ignorance working hard to make us all fearful that we are somehow to blame and now we're all going to die. If humans can survive now in the colder northern regions as well as the hotter equater regions, I don't think humans are going to have any problems adjusting to the new climate.

Don't let fear mongers run and ruin your lives. I can tell you stories about the cold war that ran fear in millions of people in the USA and USSR, while the goverments of both countries had no fear yet they instilled it upon their own people. The stories are real but the reasons are unclear. And these governments are still up to the same old tricks today.

yeehawfactor

06-09-2006, 10:30 PM

i think that all the attention that global warming gets is a bit unfortunate. what you have, in essence, is rising temperatures coupled with a human caused change in the balance of atmo-spheric gases. you then have one side that sees these two as linked while the other side thinks that these two are coincedences. while tremendous amounts of resources are used by each side to prove their point, larger environmental and environmentally rooted issues that often have a greater tangible impact on people and their lives are lost in the now fever pitched argument over climate change. i think if those arguing to stop global warming went about things in a different manner they could achieve the results they are looking for while causing a lot of changes elsewhere.

stuttgart6

06-11-2006, 11:00 AM

To my dearest Liebschen,

Dis ist Doris of Luxembourg. It hass been such a longing time when I last talked mit you. I wass still in Holland tryink to make a business wiz my friend Helga, but is vasnt vorking out goot.

So, now I am back home in Luxembourg and haff regards to send to you from Dadoo who is fooly cured from his accidental and from the rest of his family too. My, how time is flyink!

Anyvay, my friend Beatrice told me she hass been reeding ziss forum and zer is some qvestions of lately about "globule warming". Of course here in Luxembourg we are conciderd ze best chefs on ze planet so my friend Olaf who is the Chef Saucier at ze Best Western-Luxembourg (he makes de sauces mit lots of butter) told me some advices to give you about ziss subject of ""globule warming", specia;lly wit butter.

If you wil go to:

http://webexhibits.org/butter/churning.html you can read zat the fat globules in butter need to ge to a certin tempertur, 55� to 65�F (12� to 18�C).

Here is ze qvote from zat site:

"Exactly how churning works is still unknown. Current theory runs along these lines: just as happens in whipped cream, some air is incorporated into the liquid, bubbles form, and the fat globules collect in the bubble walls. But where whipping cream is kept cold, and the agitation stopped when a a stable, airy foam is produced, churned cream is warmed to the point that the globules soften and to some degree liquify. The ideal temperature range is said to be 55� to 65�F (12� to 18�C)".

So, I hope zat ansers ze qvestion.

I am happy to be in contect with all of you Lieschen and hoping to hear from soon . We haf a sayink here in Luxembourg which says "Good friends are hard to beat like all the eggs we put in a souffle". And if you sink about it why not?

Best of wishing,

Doris

bcm119

06-11-2006, 01:30 PM

Who cares if the ice is there or not?! what did I just say? Have I completely lost my mind? Or perhaps that has happened in the past? YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION IN YOUR LAST SENTENCE! How do you think that oil got there? from tropical plants and animals that thrived there millions of years ago BEFORE there was ice...obviously since tropical plants don't do well in frozen areas of the world. Did humans cause that global warming? Of course not; it was just a natural cycle the Earth goes through ever so often and the earth "appears" to be heading back in that direction.

It appears that you've fallen victim to some government tricks yourself. The over simpified explanations you cite are good examples of the kind of "seeds of doubt" the gov't is planting, and it works because these "explanations" make sense out of context.
First, tropical plant matter does produce oil over millions of years; however, over those millions of years the tectonic plates of the earth move significant distances. The plants that produced that Canadian oil didn't grow at the latitude they are located at now. Even if the climate was significantly warmer at one time in Canada, sun angles and diurnal characteristics (which haven't changed) would not support tropical plant species. Second, while the earth has seen many natural climate changes, they have all occurred at much slower rates than what we're seeing now. We know the past rates from ice core studies and geologic techniques.
Scare tactics are nothing new, but you have to look at who is raising the red flag (no pun intended) and why; in this case the red flag was first raised by the scientific/academic community and later disputed in the political forum because the science was at odds with the economy.

arsegas

06-11-2006, 06:02 PM

Article about the movie in recent issue of Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0608/p14s02-sten.html

gasman

06-11-2006, 09:33 PM

Article about the movie in recent issue of Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0608/p14s02-sten.html

This thoughtful review corroborates what I have read the past couple years in Scientific American and Science News. Human induced global warming is occurring and will continue accecerate over time unless something changes.Large animal species like Polar bears will be more impacted by later, shorter winters than say insect species with short reproductive cycles.Great-lots of bugs that will adapt to changes.
I look forward to watching the movie

froze

06-13-2006, 10:18 PM

[QUOTE=bcm119]It appears that you've fallen victim to some government tricks yourself. ]

Actually your the one that has fallen victim to the fear tactics of liberial politicians and far left scientist who have some sort of agenda yet unknown!!

Here is a web site comprised of many scientists and their research that prove the errors of your ways (extensive reading but worth it if you want to learn something): http://www.globalwarming.org/

Also the sun has been changing in the last 20 or 30 years see: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

We, or rather the scientist have to little research going back only 40 or 50 years to substantiate anything half way believeable! Heck we've been making cars for over 100 years and still cannot make a car for the masses that gets over 100mpg and/or dependable, how do you expect scientist who have had less then half that time to understand something far more complex with far more variables then a car to understand what-if anything is happening?

bcm119

06-13-2006, 11:42 PM

Froze-

This horse has been beaten to death, but I'll make one more post on this.

I guess I don't understand what you're saying. What I said in my previous post is not disputable- I was explaining why oil is found in Canada. My reference to "the sun not changing" was in the context of sun angles, i.e. the earth's axis angle, not solar output. Solar output has cycles and you correctly pointed that out.

Anyway, you would be wrong to assume I buy into liberal scare tactics, if thats what you're calling them. I don't get my information about global warming from politicians. My degree is in physical geography and I've taken many courses in meteorology, climate, and climate change, one of which was co-taught by climatologists with opposing views of human induced climate change. I'm well aware of the controversy, the BS, and the facts. The media has issued lots of bad information about global warming, and I happen to know enough about the subject to know the alarmist stories from the truths. For instance, the recent increase in hurricane activity has nothing to do with global warming, and neither do the recent droughts, heatwaves, or many of the melting glaciers. All the alarmist BS that graces our tv screens almost nightly is weakening the case for climate policy change, atmo. However, when you sift out all the BS, which is a good 90% of what the average person hears about global warming, you are left with a large amount of research that indicates a probability that humans are influencing the climate. Ignoring that for the sake of the economy is irresponsible, thats all I'm saying. And by the way, the agenda of "far left scientists" that is "unknown" to you is, as it turns out, a concern for the well being of the earth that they have devoted their lives to understanding.

Brian

06-14-2006, 02:29 PM

If you measure the energy striking the Earth from the Sun and balance it against the amount of energy radiated into space by the Earth (the Laws of Physics require this balance), then the surface temperature of the Earth should be around 0 degrees F. Obviously it�s not. And we all know that�s because of our atmosphere and the greenhouse gases in it that trap the infrared wavelength energy being emitted by the Earth.

It is these same types of greenhouse gases (in different quantities albeit) that cause the surface temperature of Venus to be twice that of Mercury, even though Venus is twice Mercury�s distance from the Sun.

Now� Have the greenhouse gases that man is dumping into the atmosphere caused the temperature of the planet to increase? The honest answer seems to be that humans simply haven�t been poisoning the planet long enough to tell whether we are the cause or whether it is the normal fluctuation of the Earth�s temperature. What I can guarantee based on the laws of physics and chemistry is that if we continue to pour greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, it will just be a matter of time until we clearly determine that man HAS caused the temperature of the planet to rise.

Fortunately, our distance from the Sun will prevent the 890 degree F surface temps Venus enjoys. But realize that a mere 10 degree F rise will be catastrophic.

keno

06-15-2006, 05:33 AM

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

keno

93legendti

06-15-2006, 06:28 AM

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

keno

"...Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: 'Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.'...Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, 'The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.'..."

1centaur

06-15-2006, 12:56 PM

I was about to post this (the canadafreepress article) myself. It's articles like these that make it hard to say this is a black and white issue. So many scientists, so many statistics, so many interpretations, so many agendas. That's why we will end up in between, with choices that tend to reduce greenhouse emissions, but less than if everyone believed and more than if nobody was afraid. It's possible that Gore is 100% honest, thoughtful, well read, and completely wrong. It's also possible he's a pandering politician with knee jerk emotional reactions to selected statistics, a C student, and a stubborn bias against being even handed when he hears opposing views.

catulle

06-15-2006, 01:04 PM

a C student,

Well, you know what they say about C students, don't ya? A students teach, and B students work for C students...

fiamme red

06-15-2006, 01:19 PM

"...Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: 'Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.'...Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, 'The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.'..."Ho hum...

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

Go on, continue to bury your head in the sand.

93legendti

06-15-2006, 01:26 PM

Ho hum...

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

Go on, continue to bury your head in the sand.

Hey, as soon as someone figures out a way to limit China and India's contributions to this "problem" I am on board. They have almost 1/2 of the world's population, so even if there was a problem, and even if the USA did everything Al wanted us to do, unless India and China play ball, it won't make a difference.

I am still waiting for the Y2K meltdown and the bursting of the real estate bubble! Gotta hand it to Al, he picked a subject some people want to hear from him about--the timing is of course to try to gather momentum for a Pres. bid. But, even Bob Shrum knows the environment doesn't win the big one.

gone

06-15-2006, 02:11 PM

bcm119

06-15-2006, 02:12 PM

Hey, as soon as someone figures out a way to limit China and India's contributions to this "problem" I am on board. They have almost 1/2 of the world's population, so even if there was a problem, and even if the USA did everything Al wanted us to do, unless India and China play ball, it won't make a difference.
That strikes me as an odd philosophy. Surely developing nations are a part of this problem- in fact a large part. The reason is that they don't have the technology to clean up their industrial and agricultural practices like we do. But like everything else, technology trickles down to them from us. Combatting emmissions is a matter of applied technology; its our responsibility to set the precedent and create the market for green technology so it will eventually become available to them.

Bradford

06-15-2006, 02:26 PM

even if I were completely unconvinced that global warming was real the consequences are so horrendous, far reaching and long lived that I'd have to ask myself "what if I'm wrong" and act accordingly.

That is the most rational thing that has been said so far.

93legendti

06-15-2006, 02:33 PM

That strikes me as an odd philosophy. Surely developing nations are a part of this problem- in fact a large part. The reason is that they don't have the technology to clean up their industrial and agricultural practices like we do. But like everything else, technology trickles down to them from us. Combatting emmissions is a matter of applied technology; its our responsibility to set the precedent and create the market for green technology so it will eventually become available to them.

Right, we can set a precedent that India and China and their 2.5 billion citizens are unable/refuse to follow.

OK, let's try this:
Who among the worried forum members have converted to solar power, or installed a geothermal heating and cooling system?
Who have sold their old energy inefficient homes for newer energy efficient homes?
Who has moved closer to work so they can commute or drive less?
Anyone sell their foreign SUV's?
Anyone sell their home so they could buy/build a home that is oriented optimally for energy efficiency?
Anyone downsize their home?
Has anyone changed their behavior as a result of this movie?

(BTW, my office is in my home and I use a bicycle for 90% of my errands--but not because I believe Al Gore!)

Wonder what kind of car Al Gore drives...probably has a Suburban like John Kerry.

fiamme red

06-15-2006, 02:41 PM

Right, we can set a precedent that India and China and their 2.5 billion citizens are unable/refuse to follow.

OK, let's try this:
Who among the worried forum members have converted to solar power, or installed a geothermal heating and cooling system?
Who have sold their old energy inefficient homes for newer energy efficient homes?
Who has moved closer to work so they can commute or drive less?
Anyone sell their foreign SUV's?
Anyone sell their home so they could buy/build a home that is oriented optimally for energy efficiency?
Anyone downsize their home?
Has anyone changed their behavior as a result of this movie?

(BTW, my office is in my home and I use a bicycle for 90% of my errands--but not because I believe Al Gore!)

Wonder what kind of car Al Gore drives...probably has a Suburban like John Kerry.Again, an ad hominem argument. Stock-in-trade of global-warming deniers.

(By the way, I drive on average less than 1,000 miles a year. In 2005, less than 500 miles in a car. In 2006, January through March, 0 miles in a car. Not that it matters.)

Grant McLean

06-15-2006, 02:56 PM

93legendti

06-15-2006, 03:17 PM

i'm not sure I follow your logic...

g

Read a little more about how fast India and China are marching towards energy uses like ours. I am pretty sure China recently signed a $40 billion dollar contract with Iran for oil. I wonder what for? The point is not where we have been, but where we are going. China and India have almost 10 x as many people as the USA. When their economies mature, they will be buying cars and building homes like crazy. Then what? How are we going to force China and India to do what Al Gore wants?

gone

06-15-2006, 03:30 PM

Go on, continue to bury your head in the sand.
The good news is that if he's wrong there will be more sand to do it in :)

flydhest

06-15-2006, 04:25 PM

It's not just the sticking of the head in the sand, it's also the (occasionally not subtle) change of the debate. First, "it's not a problem, because 'all of the science' isn't in or in agreement." Carter, who is cited often, has also been debunked often. The notion that "since experts in the field" aren't in agreement is the defense shows that the "look to the middle ground" argument has worked. BTW, a former head of NOAA is a family friend (and, incidentally a Republican in that appointed position); sifting through the research isn't completely black and white, for sure, but the preponderance of the evidence can sure push an open-minded person to a certain conclusion.

Second, I love the question "who has sold their foreign SUV?" Why foreign? What is a domestic car these days anyway? Are foreigners bad, and that's the reason?

The "OK, let's try this" is a reflection of the underlying logic, in my ho.

That Gore is fallible (how the hell did he throw that election away???) is beyond doubt. His shortcomings are manifold. I'm not sure that's part of the debate, is it?

bcm119

06-15-2006, 05:05 PM

Right, we can set a precedent that India and China and their 2.5 billion citizens are unable/refuse to follow.

These countries' exploding populations are a problem, no doubt. But citing their contribution to the global emmissions problem is not an excuse to not do anything about it here. It will take time but eventually all industrial nations' technology, which can include emmissions control technology, will trickle down.

Has anyone changed their behavior as a result of this movie?

The movie is not the point. I haven't even seen it and I don't really have an interest in sitting in a theatre full of cheering environmentalists. A good rule of thumb is not to use politicians as a source of scientific information. Gore's goal seems to be raising awareness, but if the movie is too alarmist I don't know how much good it will do. The bottom line is that the net body of research indicates there is a good probability we are influencing the climate, so its time to plan for that and start making changes.

keno

06-15-2006, 05:11 PM

without regard to global warming specifically, while it is high-minded to set precedent, it seems to me that most items I buy these days have a "Made in China" label clearly because they don't see actions in the US as precedent applicable to them (unions, free economy). I see no reason why it would be different in this case.

With regard to global warming specifically, the US did not sign Kyoto because developing nations, China and India most importantly, were given a pass on key provisions and put us at a great disadvantage economically. Australia did not sign, either, and, while I don't know their reasons, I assume that they are the same as ours, not to mention being a whole lot closer to China and India. Kyoto is more pr than anything else.

The what happens if I turn out to be wrong argument reminds me of why medical care is so costly.

keno

PanTerra

06-15-2006, 05:15 PM

the flat-earth conservatives don't even believe in evolution, their disinformation campaign is already gearing up against this film

should be interesting

(just noticed Keno posted a link from Rupert Murdoch's NY Post, nice source--right-wing AND a tabloid :beer: :rolleyes: )

Gore's argument, however, would look at evolution and suggest that it was caused by man. :crap: And I don't know of any flat-Earth conservatives. I do know some creationist conservatives, and no, they do not believe evolution occurs.

Grant McLean

06-15-2006, 05:31 PM

The point is not where we have been, but where we are going. China and India have almost 10 x as many people as the USA. When their economies mature, they will be buying cars and building homes like crazy. Then what? How are we going to force China and India to do what Al Gore wants?

Per capitia, we're energy pigs in north america.

It doesn't really seem right to point the finger at the rest of the world,
at the very least, lets get our house in order first.

g

catulle

06-15-2006, 05:38 PM

Per capitia, we're energy pigs in north america.

It doesn't really seem right to point the finger at the rest of the world,
at the very least, lets get our house in order first.

g

Speaking of pigs, don't throw pearl to swine, Grant, atmo. Ain't worth it.

keno

06-15-2006, 07:13 PM

that would be the kind of incisive, persuasive thinking that is sure to sell your point of view. Would that be the "when all else fails, throw something" technique in the sales manual?

keno

Kevan

06-15-2006, 07:15 PM

Kevan,

Since experts in the field (which certainly excludes me and, I believe, everyone else on this forum) haven't reached consensus on the topic of global warming I can't help but wonder at the sort of response you are hoping to receive to your question. Having said that, I'll offer my opinion. Were I a "policy maker", even if I were completely unconvinced that global warming was real the consequences are so horrendous, far reaching and long lived that I'd have to ask myself "what if I'm wrong" and act accordingly.

is that this thread was going to illustrate that a third camp would be established. What I was very pleased about, short of a few heated comments, was a reasonably civilized debate about our planet's future. To have over 2,400 viewings and 100 postings on this thread and not blow it up is a credit to the talent and intelligence of you Serotta fans.

I'm glad that most people are taking stock of our future, keeping in tune with the debate, thinking about modifying their lifestyles, selecting more efficient means to get around and performing other deeds such as recycling to minimize our impact on the planet. We are only beginning to become fully aware of our potential impact on earth; there is a lot to be done going ahead. The tunafish cans and newspapers I place on the curb may not amount to much now, but it is a beginning for something that will become much bigger, I'm certain.

The bike rides I do to work amount to nothing, but they don't add anything either. I'm just one guy, sick about $3 gas, wants to avoid hitting crazed squirrels, stay upright and enjoy the day in a way that too few do.

bcm119

06-15-2006, 07:23 PM

Your logic is sound but defeatist and reactionary in nature, imho- no offense, just my pov. Kyoto will not work unless everyone signs it, of course, and because there is no economic incentive to sign it, many countries refuse. No big surprise. The answer is not to restrict current industry, its to create new industries. If we continue to make policy for the sole interest of the current economy we will end up fighting more battles for diminishing resources. An industry for clean energy will eventually develop; the sooner we make that leap, the sooner the technology will grow, and the sooner everyone else will follow due to economic incentive. Making that leap is not easy; it requires us to act on long term concerns rather than short ones. Making the leap is what scares most of us, and that fear drives the backlash against the global warming research, even amongst many scientists. However, like I said, the net research indicates that making that leap may be the lesser of two evils, considering the long term consequences of each.

catulle

06-15-2006, 07:35 PM

that would be the kind of incisive, persuasive thinking that is sure to sell your point of view. Would that be the "when all else fails, throw something" technique in the sales manual?

keno

First, I don't sell anything. I'm not for sale. I'm not selling anything. However, I believe the harm being done to the environment by irresponsible business practices is quite self-evident. Moreover, it is also evident that self-interest keeps politicians from taking appropriate action to curtail the damage being done. Lastly, it is also evident that there is no one more blind than the one who doesn't want to see. That is, when someone responds to Grant's arguments saying that the Chinese just contracted 40 billion dollars in oil, what else is there to be said? The war in Irak so far has gulped over 340 billion dollars.

Actually, I'll heed my own advice and cut it short. I appreciate and respect your observation but I believe that our environment is too serious an issue to negate and be flippant about how myopic and self-defeating we are being about taking care of it. It is all about our children and their children. It is all about life as we know it. Again, I'm out of this thread.

Hey, thank you for reading.

93legendti

06-15-2006, 07:45 PM

..That is, when someone responds to Grant's arguments saying that the Chinese just contracted 40 billion dollars in oil, what else is there to be said?...Hey, thank you for reading.

I guess I was unclear. I was trying to illustrate that China's purchase of that much oil illustrates that solving any global warming problem is not just on the shoulders of USA and Europe. In my mind, $40 billion worth of oil being consumed in China in the next few years (or whatever the length of the contract), indicates that any solution to global warming that leaves out China (and India) is not a solution. I think it is a real concern. You may not, and I respect that.

shinomaster

06-15-2006, 08:57 PM

If humans keep reproducing like rabbits, buying suv's, consuming mass quantities of wastefully packaged comercial goods, burning oil, chopping down the forests, polluting the oceans and rivers, and land, running businesses with only the goal of making as much profit as possible regardless of the impact it may have on in the earth (let's de-regulate everything again) then we are all ****ed. Maybe not us now but our kids and their kids will be. If governments continue to be run by special interest groups, and corporate lobbies, we will always put the economy before anything else.
Look how quickly humans have covered the earth, like a plague. It's not getting any better. Our pollution really is a problem...How many fish do you think are still out there? Guess how many are full or mercury? I was in Trader Joe's yesterday and there was a sign up by the fish that said pregnant and nursing woman should not eat swordfish! Guess why? I'm not pregnant yet, but as far as I'm concerned NO amout of mercury in OK in my tuna salad sandwich.
I think convincing Americans that there is problem is very difficult. Convincing populations that likely don't care in third world countries where the problems are only getting worse will be impossible.
end of rant..

Tony Edwards

06-15-2006, 09:09 PM

To some extent I think it's unfortunate that Al Gore has become the (or at least a) mouthpiece for the environmental movement. I think he's actually a remarkably bright guy, but he brings a lot of baggage and he's obviously not a scientist, making it far easier for people to pooh-pooh what he has to say on the subject.

I haven't seen this movie (though I plan to), but it seems perfectly clear to me that global warming is real and will predictably have a drastic effect on our world. As dbrk cannily points out, the issue isn't so much the planet - the planet will be fine, and even if we become extinct it will work things out within several million years - the issue is whether it will remain habitable by humans. It seems improbable to me that we can really stem the damage until we run out of oil, which will happen in the foreseeable future (though not in my lifetime). We are, as a culture and a species, short-sighted and impatient - we will have to be smacked in the face with a rolled-up newspaper before we'll learn.

arsegas

06-15-2006, 11:08 PM

Some random thoughts based on recent postings, in no particular order:

1) There's been a lot of talk on China. China's an interesting energy study. In recent years (particular in recent months), China has moved aggressively to develop a comprehensive energy policy, with provisions to meet tactical demands (Unocal takeover attempt, etc), but also to aggressively invest in strategic programs around fuel efficiency standards (particularly strict for a developing country), alternative energy research, production technology, etc. They have a long way to go, but Beijing clearly is focused on this issue. The strong central govt will be a huge advantage in shaping their energy policy. And in recent years, Beijing has rarely failed to deliver on its govt-stated goals. I personally think we're going to see some unique energy policy and advances come out of China in the next 10 years.

http://pdf.wri.org/china_the_high_road.pdf
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/media_coverage/NewYorkTimes/ChinaPledgesToIncreaseUseOfAlternativeEnergySource s/index.shtml
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/releases/2006/0208Chinastudy.htm

2) Did anyone read the article about Arnold's green strategy in Newsweek? The article talks about how he was reportedly "deeply impressed" by the Gore movie. It'll be interesting to see how this will play, given his Hummer history.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13249201/site/newsweek/

3) There's been an implication in some postings that environmental restrictions will lead to adverse economic impacts. There is no doubt an economic sacrifice is needed, but challenges like this also present longer-term economic opportunities for societies or companies that capitalize on technology advances. (e.g. Toyota licensing its Hybrid system to Ford)

4) "Think globally, act locally" -- Global actions/blame is no excuse sit idle on an individual or local level (if it's an issue you believe in).

keno

06-16-2006, 06:33 AM

One subject directly related to this issue is the use of atomic reactors as a significant source of power. This appears to be in the US the most obvious source of alternative power (water power has been pretty much fully expoited, and wind power has limited potential) that does not produce the feared CO2 emissions as part of the solution to CO2 emissions. Yet, in the US the fears surrounding its use, raised in large measure by environmentalists (particularly Greenpeace), makes its greater use practically impossible. Groups objecting to its use make it wholly uneconomic for a power company to build such plants, so why should they? Given that some countries (while France is not at the top of my personal list as a good example on most subjects, food excluded, in this case it is a good example relying for 70% of its power production on atomic energy while the US is at 20%) embrace its use, the US is not in that camp by reason of environmentalists. While significant parts of the rest of the world are embracing nuclear power, the US is towards the end of the list by reason of those who want mutually exclusive results, in this case curbing CO2 emissions without nuclear power.

What I find most frustrating about the global warming debate is that the very people who most promote the likelihood, if not its certainty, not only of its existence but dire consequences to follow, are the very same people who make it virtually impossible to pursue obvious potential solutions, in this case nuclear power.

Here is a piece that speaks to some of the issues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

keno

JohnS

06-16-2006, 07:50 AM

flydhest

06-16-2006, 08:05 AM

Some of the posts in this thread remind me of a sociology professor I had once. He taught at Kent State for years before he came to my school. He was still living in 1968. All he did was rail about how terrible the US was and how we went to war in Kuwait over oil. Then, the next minue, he was telling us that he had a private pilot's license and had flown somewhere the weekend before for no important reason. He never did see the irony in his "save us from ourselves" attitude. Read arsegas's fourth point again.
Oh yeah, Keno, +1 on the nukes.

What JohnS said. In someways, this point harkens back to the discussion of teachers salaries. "I want them to be higher and I want lower taxes." I want the US to be responsible about energy policy and foreign policy, but I want to drive an SUV.

Marie might say, let them have their cake and eat it, too, on the way to the guillotine.

manet

06-16-2006, 08:36 AM

what do the french do with their newclure waste?

mgd

06-16-2006, 08:39 AM

regarding commercial nuke plants as a clean source of energy...umm, no.

1kw generated by a commercial nuke plants is the most expensive kw there is and requires more fossil fuel, releases more toxins (radioactive and otherwise) and releases more greenhouse gasses into the environment due to the extraction and transportation and all other processes needed to get a plant ready to run than any other source. and then you still have a horrible radioactive mess on your hands.

better to burn coal and coal's a nightmare.

sorry, no good answers there.

mgd

keno

06-16-2006, 09:19 AM

apparently populate their cycling teams.

keno

keno

06-16-2006, 09:21 AM

your contentions are thoroughly baseless according to the article I linked. What are you sources for your point of view? I'm always up for more authoriatitive information in a meaningful discussion rather than conclusory opinion.

keno

97CSI

06-16-2006, 09:37 AM

what do the french do with their newclure waste?Their solution is the same as ours. The big difference is that they don't squabble about it like we are. They/we are developing 'glass' encapsulation of the radioactive waste, which should help stabilize over the many, many centuries needed for safe storage. Everyone is/are also working on a method to concentrate the radioactive materials so that the volume is not as great. And, pebble-bed technology is the next big wave of nucular (to use an idiot's pronunciation) reactors, if one listens to the pundits. As someone who built and operated nuclear powered ships for 8-years in the USN, I find all of this quite interesting. When we kicked folks out of the program they were immediately snapped up by the civilian nucular folks. Doesn't that make you feel safe? As stated, the environmental cost to produce nuclear power is as high or higher than convential fossil fuels. And, considerably higher than fossil fuels done right. Same with ethanol, if left to ADM and its brethren. Time for a political comment...........nuf said.

keno

06-16-2006, 09:47 AM

As stated, the environmental cost to produce nuclear power is as high or higher than convential fossil fuels. And, considerably higher than fossil fuels done right.

What was stated, I believe, was the economic cost, much of which comes from the aggravated building costs engendered by anti-nuclear power advocates. What is the source of your contention as to environmental cost beyond your personal exposure to the issues? Incidentally, there is doubtlessly cost involved in any solution. As fly said, having your cake and eating it too is not on the table. My objective here is just to understand the underlying facts to the extent possible, so that, if a trade off is necessary to make, that it be done in a rational manner.

keno

97CSI

06-16-2006, 10:04 AM

Now I have to go dig up a few resources. The best would be the transcript from one of the last two Friday's 'Science Friday' show on NPR. Three folks were interviewed. One was a nuke-engineering prof from MIT (for it), the other an engineering/economics person (anti-nuke, don't recall from where, pehaps the Union of Concerned Scientists, a highly regarded outfit, but he was well known (first name basis) by the MIT prof) and I've forgotten who the third person was as he didn't offer much. Every economic model presented by the anti-nuke person which showed that nuke plants were not economically viable was NOT refuted by the MIT prof. In fact, he agreed with them. Same with the green-house emissions problems from mining and smelting the uranium and making the fuel rods, building the Inconel components, making the concrete (concrete plants are notorious polluters), steel reinforcing rod for same, transporting the materials, etc. In sum, the proponent conceded on almost every point. He made reasonable arguments based on need for power and the fact that we are running out of oil and, soon, natural gas. But none that were good based on either economics or environmental issues. Remember, the costs of Yucca Mountain are also ongoing for many centuries. Even though we, as tax payers, are carrying them, they are still costs of power generated by nuke plants. What's Yucca Mtn up to now. $13 billion? Ten times the original estimate? And the cost of developing new reactor technology? Not being paid for by the power companies. Regardless of EPRI propoganda. Is being paid for by us tax payers. Either way, still a cost of the power produced. Anyway, this is all from memory. I'll dig up the citations once I get the new rose bush planted.

keno

06-16-2006, 10:08 AM

97CSI

06-16-2006, 10:14 AM

I'll be interested to see it. Based on what you've said so far, it seems that we are between a rock and a hard place insofar as finding a solution is concerned if one is needed.
I think that you're priorities are well placed, i.e. rose bushes before nuclear power cost. In any event, they'll appreciate the CO2.
kenoYes...is definitely a difficult issue. Many trade-offs. Always made worse by our profligate ways (I have to drive halfway to NYC tomorrow just to catch a train - what sense does that make?) and refusal to give up our automobiles, etc.

And you are correct about my priorities. The rose will die if not taken care of. And nothing either of us can do today will change the course of the nuclear power industry.

mgd

06-16-2006, 11:33 AM

keno,

that 'article' you posted was not a news story, it was an editorial. an opinion. an opinion of a nuclear industry employee. a flak. a pr guy. there was no information in it that was not biased. there were not any truths, such as they are. follow the money...

no argument for nuclear power makes any sense. there is more than enough information out in the open for anyone willing to take the time to actually read it. starting with press release type things from the industries with a gigantic financial interest in the short-term spread of commercial nuclear power is probably not the best plan. and this is certainly not the place to discuss it, but my claims are certainly not baseless. baseless on that sell-out clown moore's contentions sure, but not baseless.

mgd

JohnS

06-16-2006, 12:39 PM

were they debating construction costs or operating costs?

Needs Help

06-16-2006, 01:15 PM

Sure, we're increasing CO2 emissions, but we do not have enough long-term climate data to determine that we are indeed having significant impact vs this just being a natural climate cycle.
We, or rather the scientist have to little research going back only 40 or 50 years to substantiate anything half way believeable!
I'm not sure where those statements come from. From what I've read, scientists have taken core samples of the polar ice, and from the samples they have been able to determine the content of the atmosphere for the last 400,000 years.

In the grand scheme of things can we really have that large of an impact in less than 200 years? Uh, yeah. It's called the Industrial Revolution.

In fact, some scientists think the effects of global warming are much worse than anyone has even imagined. I saw something on TV recently about an apparently newly discovered phenomena scientists are examining called "Global Dimming". The research into global dimming was spawned when some evaporation measurements did not correspond well with the rise in global temperatures. The scientists discovered that particulate pollution in the atmosphere is masking up to something like 50% of global warming. Interestingly enough, they were able to test their hypothesis immediately after 9/11 when all the flights in the US were grounded. At that time, the ever present contrails left by jets high in the atmosphere completely disappeared. The resulting changes in temperatures in North America provided some startling evidence. The scientists were shocked that eliminating such a small contributor to overall particulate pollution had such a dramatic effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Their conclusion was that if the world's polluters succeed in reducing particulate pollution, then global warming will rapidly accelerate.

Can the world keep dumping millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every year and not cause dramatic climatic changes? How many people believe the U.S., which is far and away the largest polluter in the world, will not only stop the rate of increase in pollutants it emits every year but will actually reduce them? Does anyone believe that India and China will forgo their Industrial Revolutions to help stop global warming?

Since experts in the field (which certainly excludes me and, I believe, everyone else on this forum) haven't reached consensus on the topic of global warming
Global warming is accepted as fact by an overwhelming majority of scientists--no matter how the Bush Administration tries to spin it. Unfortunately, I believe we are on a runaway train, and there is no stopping it--no way, no how.

For instance, the recent increase in hurricane activity has nothing to do with global warmingI'm curious why that is? Doesn't global warming cause warming of the oceans? And, isn't warm water the engine that drives hurricanes?

My objective here is just to understand the underlying facts to the extent possible, so that, if a trade off is necessary to make, that it be done in a rational manner.
You might want to read the stories about the plume of radioactive and highly toxic nuclear waste that is seeping out of the Hanford Nuclear site in Washington and extending towards the Columbia River. Also, read about all the fraud involved in the building of the permanent storage tanks for the hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic nuclear waste that need to be secured. You also might want to consider the very real possibility that terrorists can exploit nuclear sites in the U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) has a piss poor record in the U.S., and most nuclear sites in the U.S. have laughable security--even when they border large populations. Why? Because the NRC is in the pocket of the nuclear industry. It's well documented.

Whenever billions of dollars are required to build and operate something, fraud and corruption will become inextricably intertwined in the project. In theory, nuclear power is great, in practice it is an abomination.

Bradford

06-16-2006, 01:28 PM

and from the samples they have been able to determine the content of the atmosphere for the last 400,000 years

How can this be?

Many of the same people who say global warming doesn't exist say that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Are you trying to tell me the earth is older than that? :confused:

97CSI

06-16-2006, 01:34 PM

How can this be?

Many of the same people who say global warming doesn't exist say that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Are you trying to tell me the earth is older than that? :confused:Where's that rolling laughter icon when you need? Same folks who want to bring you the nucular industry.

And, the same fiscal conservatives (now if that hasn't proven to be an oxymoron) that have brought your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, ad infinitum, this obscene national debt. What?!? me worry?

bcm119

06-16-2006, 03:27 PM

I'm curious why that is? Doesn't global warming cause warming of the oceans? And, isn't warm water the engine that drives hurricanes?

If you're really curious I'll give you some background but its sorta beyond the scope of a bike forum imho... basically, warm water (sea surface temps-SSTs) are only one factor determining hurricane frequency. Global warming refers to the mean temp of the planet, and we're talking about a small area of ocean in the western Atlantic and Gulf... the ocean is unbelievably complex and local SST anomalies are related to cycles of varying time/space scales of both the water and atmosphere, so they are effectively independent from a global mean difference of less than 1 degree C. Water temps off the east coast are in a warm cycle, although these things change much faster than one might expect. SST anomalies are related to large ocean circulations, both horizontal and vertical, and the east coast is vulnerable to fast changes due to its broad, shallow shelf that extends so far east. Just last spring it was cooler than usual, and now it has switched again. Mean global surface air temps have much less effect, if any, on SSTs than circulations within the ocean itself.

Other factors that determine hurricane frequency are the state of ENSO (degree of el nino/la nina), the QBO (quasi-biennial oscillation of equatorial winds at high altitude) and mean pressures over sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, plus many more local factors. Hurricanes need more than just warm water- they need upper level ventilation or else they collapse like a fire with a blocked chimney. They also need a lack of shear, which is wind that changes direction with height. Wind shear will disorganize a hurricane and weaken it. During certain parts of the QBO cycle and ENSO cycle (which are independent of each other), there is a mean decrease in shear in the Gulf and Caribbean, allowing more and stronger hurricanes to form. Finally, hurricanes can't form out of thin air- they need an initializing mechanism. Often that mechanism is tropical waves coming off Africa, and during periods of higher than normal activity in that area, more hurricanes form. Periods with mean low pressure over the southwest Atlantic also result in more hurricanes trying to form closer to the coast- the "homegrown" hurricanes of the Gulf being examples. However, none of these factors can be taken individually and said to cause more hurricanes- it has to be a combination of them all coming together. Since about 1999, many of these large scale oscillations are coming into a pattern similar to the 1930s- 1950s, a period of higher hurricane activity on the US coast than the period of the 60s-90s. Obviously the human impact is much greater now due to coastal population growth. We can only imagine what would happen if another "Long Island Express" hurricane (1938) happened today- that storm brought 186-mph gusts to near Boston. But saying that global warming causes more hurricanes is a double stretch- first that global warming causes SST rises at all, and where, and second, how does global warming affect the other meteorological factors in hurricane development.

Anyway, its obviously an interest of mine, and I don't want it to obscure the severity of global warming- a very real problem- but certain facts are worth explaining, imho. All of the above mentioned cycles and circulations are overly generalized, basic climatological phenomena that have been known and accepted since the 60's and 70's. And you wonder why the newpaper doesn't bother going into this- would you rather read that climate jargon or read that "global warming causes warm water which causes hurricanes" and be done with it? The latter is more satisfying because it makes sense to anyone.

arsegas

06-16-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by keno
Here is a piece that speaks to some of the issues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6041401209.html

That's a great article, keno. I recently took an extension class from a Stanford prof that basically makes the same points that as the article. For those interested, his wrote a book exploring our energy options:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471772089/sr=8-1/qid=1150517473/ref=sr_1_1/002-4574406-7502433?%5Fencoding=UTF8

It's an academic and engineering-oriented read but a very detailed discussion on the subject.

Based on what I've read and heard, I agree with keno that nuclear needs to be re-evaluated here in the US based on facts rather than false notions. It's too bad it's still probably political death to any politician broaching the notion at this time.

stuttgart6

06-18-2006, 06:58 AM

Dear Liebschen,

Mr. Gore's chicken little pronouncements are reminiscent of the rantings of Environmentalist Scientist Paul Ehrlich who published "The Population Bomb" in 1968, an era already addled by rampant drug abuse and primed to accept wacko beliefs and junk science. Our biking compatriot "Kinko" (I sink zats hiss name) has supplied several links to web sites support the notion that Gore has lost his marbling.

Environmental Scientist: Dr. Paul Ehrlich

"Dr. Paul Ehrlich is a Stanford University biologist and author of the best-selling book The Population Bomb. Since the release of this book in 1968, Ehrlich has been one of the most frequently cited "experts" on environmental issues by the media, despite the fact that his predictions on the fate of the planet, more often than not, have been wrong. In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich predicted that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation during the 1970s because the earth's inhabitants would multiply at a faster rate than world's ability to supply food. Six years later, in The End of Affluence, a book he co-authored with his wife Anne, Ehrlich increased his death toll estimate suggesting that a billion or more could die from starvation by the mid-1980s. By 1985, Ehrlich predicted, the world would enter a genuine era of scarcity. Ehrlich's predicted famines never materialized. Indeed, the death toll from famines steadily declined over the twenty-five year period. Though world population has grown by more 50% since 1968, food production has grown at an even faster rate due to technological advances.

Perhaps Ehrlich's best known blunder is a 1980 bet he made with University of Maryland economist Julian Simon. Dr. Simon, who believes that human ingenuity holds the answers to population growth problems, asserted that if Ehrlich were correct and the world truly was heading toward an era of scarcity, then the price of various commodities would rise over time. Simon predicted that prices would fall instead and challenged Ehrlich to pick any commodity and any future date to illustrate his point. Ehrlich accepted the challenge: In October 1980, he purchased $1,000 worth of five metals ($200 each) -- tin, tungsten, copper, nickel and chrome. Ehrlich bet that if the combined value of all five metals he purchased was higher in 1990, Simon would have to pay him the difference. If the prices turned out to be lower, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Ten years later, Ehrlich sent Simon a check for $576 -- all five metals had fallen in price.

Selected Ehrlich Quotes

"Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Quoted by R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992

"We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." - Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." - Ehrlich in his book, The Population Bomb (1968), predicting widespread famine that never materialized"

Need I say more, Liebschen?

Mr. Gore's thesis is one which is popular with the Left because it embodies it's core belief that the U.S. is the evil colossus in the World which is to blame for all of Mankind's ills with the rest of the World's nations being passive, pure, pristine and blameless.

Here in Luxembourg we used to have respect for Mr. Gore but have come to see him (using characteristic culinary verbiage) and his ideas as being "half-baked" at best.

Guten Abend meine Liebschen!

Doris

Birddog

06-18-2006, 02:45 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Rifkin

http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7126.htm

Birddog

stuttgart6

06-18-2006, 06:02 PM

Dear Liebschen Birddog,

Vot do I sink off him?

He sinks ze methane from ze cows farting vill destroy ze worlt. Ze man is out of his gourd.

Doris

Serpico

06-18-2006, 10:46 PM

saw it yesterday and thought it was pretty good

his main point is that global warming is being sold as a "debate" much like the link between smoking and health issues was pushed as a "debate" by those profiting from tobacco sales

say what you want about Gore but he's sincere about the issue, and it's one he's been at the forefront for decades

he also (indirectly) addresses some controversy about himself, particularly the way he has used his son's accident and sister's death to illustrate points over the years--he does it again in the film, but explains why and how these events were personally transformative for him (these anecdotes have always been explained by political opponents as crass opportunism in the form of an appeal to emotion)

keno

06-19-2006, 06:30 AM

For any who care, this is how the movie has done so far at the theatres. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/ You who have seen it are among the relatively few. It's hard to imagine that most viewing the fllm are not already among the believers. As for me, I'll be seeing Nacho Libre rather than.

It's not that I am uninterested in the subject of global warming (my personal jury is still out), but I would much prefer to read some scientific source material. None on this forum who have extolled so vociferously on the reality and world-ending consequences of global warming (along with nuclear power) have, as yet, come up with the references for their contentions that I've requested. I doubt that they will. You can even PM or email me with the objective, scientific references you claim support your points of view. Until then, your views remain in my mind as political positions.

keno

stevep

06-19-2006, 06:38 AM

right keno,
the jury is still out. yours maybe.
and the fact that i have seen photos of bicycle racers smoking cigarettes proves that smoking only helps you to breathe better and helps to clear your lungs.
no legitimate scientist denys the trend. almost none deny the cause. solution is a bigger problem.
give gore some credit..he is a little clumsy sometimes but he is legit for many years on this.
this is once again swift boat east...attack the messenger but offer nothing constructive toward a solution.
maybe the whole thing will just go away.

JohnS

06-19-2006, 07:18 AM

keno

06-19-2006, 07:26 AM

once again, many thanks for your personal opinion in lieu of the scientific references I seek. If you take it upon yourself to tell me what my own conclusions should be on this or any subject based upon your own point of view, don't bother. That is not honest discussion - it is hectoring lecturing.

keno

stuttgart6

06-19-2006, 09:41 AM

To my Dearest Liebschen,

I forget to menchun ziss in my last postink.
I vould like to be informink you zat we haff our own bunches of environmental nut casings here in Luxembourg just like you haff ze bloated Al Gore and his ilken.

For exempel, we haff Countess Ingeborg Flotsam, a very rich and lazy woman who runs around making scaring stetements to ze Press and who believes zat all ze waste from ze Culinary industry here will be poluting ze whole country.

She beleiffs zat boar entrails especially vill polute ze Nation killink all of us. Zer is also a Left-Wink Group called "Green-Peas" who thinks zat ze vaist products from vegtabels will pollute ze water supply here and in all ze Benelux nations.

So you see Libeschen, zer are many nut casings all ofer dee Weld, not just in ze U.S.A..

And if you sink about it, maybe I will!!

Regards,

Doris

bcm119

06-19-2006, 10:47 AM

All he's asking for is some citations for what people say. No need to imply that he's stupid, because he's not. You also didn't offer any unbiased reference sources.
What would you consider unbiased sources? What organizations/people would you accept as legit citations? Anyone can find a citation for anything they believe is true, but citing them often weakens their argument rather than strengthening it. Bringing citations into this debate would simply begin a new round of debate about source bias.

JohnS

06-19-2006, 11:44 AM

What would you consider unbiased sources? What organizations/people would you accept as legit citations? Anyone can find a citation for anything they believe is true, but citing them often weakens their argument rather than strengthening it. Bringing citations into this debate would simply begin a new round of debate about source bias.Ask Keno. I just didn't like his "tone of voice" implying that Keno was obtuse.

gone

06-19-2006, 12:03 PM

It's not that I am uninterested in the subject of global warming (my personal jury is still out), but I would much prefer to read some scientific source material.
keno
The problem IMHO is unless you're a climatologist, you want the Clif notes version that says on page 2 "Therefore there is no doubt global warming exists and it is caused by man-made pollutants emitted in the last 2 centuries". And the problem with that is everyone in the business of writing the Clif notes version has an agenda. By the time climate change becomes "common knowledge" you and I will have long since been dead my friend.

If you truly are looking for scientific papers on the topic (a google search on "climate change research" revealed 120,000,000 hits), an interesting place to start is here (http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/index.html), each of the tabs ("atmosphere", "hydrosphere", "cryosphere", "biosphere" and "global effects") has links to research and references for that area. And no, there isn't a bottom line summary on page 2.

keno

06-19-2006, 02:25 PM

JohnS, thanks. Other than by my wife, "stupid" has not usually been an adjective applied, directly or otherwise, to me, and some others whose hubris surpasses their intelligence.

ghsmith, I've added your reference to my Favorites and will spend time with it. Thanks.

keno

97CSI

06-19-2006, 02:46 PM

As this has degenerated into name calling and such, I thought I'd post a pic of the rose I planted. Thus far, the only 'stupid' responses are the childish, name calling ones from stuttgart6.

bcm119

06-19-2006, 02:59 PM

From my favorites to yours- more reading for you.

The IPCC report- sort of the standard Clif's notes on the subject as of 2001-
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf
and info on the membership of the IPCC-
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf

The NRC's publication from the same year-
http://fermat.nap.edu/html/climatechange/index.html

And lastly, a more recent document that reduces some of the uncertainties raised by the previous reports-
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease2may2006.htm

stuttgart6

06-19-2006, 03:44 PM

Dear Liebschen gpdavis2 ,

Vass is das? Vy do you reacting as such? Are you cranky?

Doris

"gpdavis2 As this has degenerated into name calling and such, I thought I'd post a pic of the rose I planted. Thus far, the only 'stupid' responses are the childish, name calling ones from stuttgart6".

keno

06-19-2006, 04:13 PM

I appreciate the references. I have quickly scanned them and will return to read them in detail.

keno

keno

06-20-2006, 06:59 AM

Last night, in addition to spending time with the reference links provided by ghsmith54 and bcm119, I aslo read pages 569-603, the last 20 being an annotated bibliography of approximately 200 sources, of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", which I came upon in my own search for information on many aspects of the subject of global warming. I have not read any of the preceding pages of the book.

If nothing else, the pages I did read make clear to me that anyone offering, with certainty, a picture of the future consequences of man-made global warming, if it exists at all, will be correct under only one circumstance - a lucky guess. Even good science has not reached a point where anything called accurate prediction is possible. This is a field so fraught with complexity, uncertainty, politics, ideology, psychology, decision making difficulties, and financial interests on both sides of the question, to name a few of the muddying factors, that bcm119 quite correctly asked, "What would you consider unbiased sources?" (His own answer as to why might be quite different than what Crichton suggests.) The inconvenient truth seems to be that the answer to bcm119's question is "precious few". Crichton's own conclusion is that some of the best thought on the subject comes from informed, retired professors, as some have extensive knowledge and first-hand experience, are quite intelligent, and, importantly, have nothing to lose by giving honest views. They no longer rely on grants for their livelihood given by those who represent a particular point of view or curry favor with colleagues to remain in good standing in the club.

Thanks, Kevan, for your original post which has helped to keep a retired guy off the streets who otherwise might get in a whole lot of trouble and to give him something else to think about rather than the length of his stem.

keno

stuttgart6

06-20-2006, 07:15 AM

Dear Liebschen,

I sink Kinko makes a very good points in his last postink. I sink also he is sik and tried of all zeese opinyuns. Vee should be changing ze topic.

Since vee are talkink about ideas of controversial, I vass vonderink vott you all tink about "stem sell research"?

For exemple, is it better to buy a new stem in a bike shop or in ze Internet? I vant to making sure I get ze right size for my bike.

Please commenting on this.

Regards,

Doris

Kevan

06-20-2006, 08:04 AM

This thread has had a good run, but it's time to retire it and move on to subjects like "Why do jerseys have 3 pockets?"

Thanks to everyone for the informative links. Keno apparently is a speed reader, I'm still cutting and hacking my way through the material that has been linked throughout. I'm sorry that on occasion emotions got the better of some and I appreciate the temperance others maintained. Anyway, I hope everyone got something out of this dialog. For most of man's existence, he has been an abuser of Earth's resources. He has polluted rivers, overworked soil, eliminated other life species, makes too much noise, and has unintentionally ruined our view of the heavens. Man makes his mark. The good thing is we're now more aware of it.

JohnS

06-20-2006, 09:17 AM

"Why do jerseys have 3 pockets?"
.
One for the minipump, one for the wallet, phone and keys and the third for the .38 snubby. :)

Serpico

06-23-2006, 09:05 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since Earth has run such a fever.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs. (Watch as lawmakers argue saving the planet could ruin our economy-- 2:24)

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters....