@qix77, Well all of us can be full of ourselves at times no matter what our views may be. I agree with the approach that civil people will reply civilly.
I'll keep that approach when I respond in the future.
@qix77, No problem, I'll always trust those in the legitimate Sciences then those paid by Corporations like those who paid Scientists & Doctors to say cigarettes don't cause cancer.
You're the guy with the whole in his throat trying to breath because cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Scientist don't make up shit just to make it up. They have to have supporting data regardless of what one may thing of Gore and I ain't no fan of Gore.
Hey Numb Nuts, The earth was once thought flat, & the sun rotated around the earth. You can't compare religion to science. As far as earth, things do not happen overnight. I would trust science anytime over ancient myths. Scientist (paid) told us that cigarette smoke was not harmful.
Science in a given time is not absolute. As time passes more information & data allows for more accurate theories. Reversing global warming may be impossible at this time but no need to speed it up for laughs.
NCAR: Scientists can't measure all heat trapped on Earth
Half of the energy captured by greenhouse gases isn't accounted for
About half of the total amount of heat entering the atmosphere is unaccounted for, according a study in Science that suggests the oceans are absorbing energy that will haunt us sooner or later.
A study published in 2008 reports that China (which was excluded from the Kyoto requirements) became the largest emitter of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in 2006. (Gregg, J. S., R. J. Andres, and G. Marland, China: Emissions pattern of the world leader in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production, Geophysical Research Letters 35, 2008
Here's a great expose of what the GATT expansion to the WTO (orchestrated by Clinton/Gore) has produced in terms of environmental damage by moving manufacturing in the West that had Environmental laws to pollute with impunity in the Socialists/Limousine Liberals current favorite failed utopia, China
Al Gore's previous policies that he helped to implement when he was VP, was to exaggerate Global Warming if its real. He helped engineer the NAFTA & GATT expansion which, besides destroying multiple tens of millions of good jobs in the US, how did relocating US industry that had Environmental & Human Rights laws to countries that have little to none of either, & then have to ship the junk back here emitting loads of GHG's help reduce GW?
Al Fraud Gore:Goldman Sachs's point man for the GW scam
Have you ever heard about NAFTA or you were too busy rallying with the tea-baggers? NAFTA forces Mexico to do whatever we want. They have to deregulate businesses, privatize their state industry and let foreign (US) investors in. Greedy business owners took american jobs to Mexico and overseas.
@akucsai Are you retarded? Why don't go to China & pick rice for Gore's friends at 1 dollar of a 16hr work day. Maybe you will get dog meat on Sundays as China slaughters dogs & cats.
Input on youtube China Fur Trade
Maybe Akucsai has inspirations to own a rice patty or disgusting Chinese fur operation you sicko. You come near my dogs I'll knock the taste out of your mouth, you little bitch
I guess you brake into tears for the chinese people everytime you turn on your HD tv, iPod or your cellphone. They built those too, and get paid in "beans". How can you believe in lies like a $1 for picking rice. Have you ever been outside your city ? China has minimum wage law and the cost of living is way different there. You can eat in a restaurant for $1 a day. China's fur operation not much disgusting than any slaughterhouse in the US. Think about it the next time when you eat your BBQ.
@akucsai Yeah disck for brains, I certainly liked it better when products were made in the usa, where we have environmental & Human Rights laws, unlike China. Yeah well Clinton/Gore & the DNC got loads of campaign dollars from the Dog & Cat torturers from China. Thats some sick barbarities on man's best friends, but then China treats their the Ugyars, Tibetans, Christians, Muslims, & political dissidents terribly.
People input "China Fur Trade" & see the sadistic torture of Akucsai's comrades
i love this type of comedy; when views and opinions on a subject are examined, and then apply logic to make them look incredibly stupid. this reminds me of one of my favorite short bits by George Carlin, called, "the planet is fine". you MUST check it out!!
i took 3 years of hostorical geology at university of houston, we are IN an ice age right now and were coming out of it. We wont be going into another ice age for tens of thousands of years. sea level is consistently rising
Yeah I often want to ask, "Who are you ultimately trying to protect with this appeal for attention to global warming? Humanity? Umm....why? What's so great about people? Well if you ARE one, I understand...but c'mon. People come and go, and that's probably for the best. The universe certainly doesn't need us, and that speaks volumes.
look up George Carlin "The planet is fine" GREAT bit, and shuts up a lot of tree huggers and environmentalists who actually think we have an effect on the earth
Carlin had no clue about a single thing, he was a pinhead. According to him we have to let die endangered species gracefully, while our irresponsible behavior is the reason that they become threatened. The other thing is that he talked about the earth itself. Of course, there will be earth after we all die too. So "The planet is fine".
Much of the theory(notice i said theory as NOTHING is proven yet)is based on temperatures taken at the turn of the last century.Sorry if i dont take global temp measurements from a time before we accurately tell the temp in ONE location to the .10 of a degree. So please give everyone a break and at LEAST admit that there is room for debate.
In 2005, 2006, 2007, the total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) was 248, 78.5, 67.5. You see a clear decreasing trend here: ACE even indicates that 2007 was even weaker than 2006. The median ACE index and the mean ACE index for the 1951-2005 period are 89.5 and 102.3, respectively. It means that according to ACE, both 2006 and 2007 were below the average.
23 inches is less than 22 feet, but it's also alarmism. It's IPCC (for gods sake!).
Right now the ocean rise slows down. It's not only colder on Antarctica (except West Antarctica; 5 percent of Antarctica where alarmists are crowded "proving" human made global warming) but it's also more precipitation and the glacier increases rapidly!! Has done that 30 years now. Next solarcycle are tiny and we'll soon get a colder climate than in the last 150 years!
yeah, the IPCC kicked out all the decenters. They also used their names on reports they didn't agree with. I think the goal of global warming is more government control over our lives.
Brilliant! I've written quite a lot on this global warming hysteria craziness. This about sums it up.
Remember global cooling of the 1970's? We were heading for the next ice age. Then it was very cold in 1978 and 79, "see, told you so". We see how long that lasted.
Ugh. Yes, ozone is a greenhouse gas. No one has said that greenhouse gases should be eliminated, and ozone in the upper atmosphere filters damaging ultraviolet light. Which is part of the reason why we need to reduce human carbon emissions, because by adding more GHGs we are destabilizing the climate.
WTF? A 6 and a half minute screed about how scientists made up global warming to get back at the cool kids? Is ExxonMobil one of this guy's sponsors? Hell, if you want to make fun of Al Gore, go ahead. He's a politician and can take it. But when it comes to the environment, I'm going to listen to the people who actually *study* the subject. Not a comedian who can't tell the difference between a televangelist nut-job and nerdy undersexed scientists who know what they're talking about.
Um, if you had any education, you would know that there is no evidence that Hurricanes are causes by Homosexuals or SUVs.
Both scenarios are scientific nonsense. There is no athropomorohic signal in Hurricane activity, and Science has been unable to come to any consensus on the matter of hurricanes. So if Robertson is an Idiot, Al Gore is too.
Except that Robertson didn't flunk out of Divinity school, and he's never claimed to be a Scientist.
Ummm, according to the experts, there is a link between storm intensity and AGW. The IPCC stated that there has been a trend over the last 50 years for more heat waves and intense rain events and that this is more likely than not caused by global warming.
And other than the fact that Al Gore has increased awareness of the climate change, he's not the issue. In fact, don't listen to the Al Gore if you don't like him. But do listen to those Ramen-soup eating scientists.
I don't think that's true of the hurricane cycle. They use satellite data, which didn't exist until the 60s, when the last peak was in the 40s. I specifically remember one report saying GW resulted in the "first ever South American hurricane" (based on the satellite data) when there are eyewitness reports of South American hurricanes in the 1940s.
And as I said, a lot of scientists are saying there are balancing factors with these effects as well.
The IPCC was pretty careful about how they classified the likelihood of certain claims, and with regards to hurricanes, their review of the data concluded it was more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some increases in hurricane intensity. So it's far from certain.
The IPCC and the real scientists have been a lot better about this. But the politicos like Al Gore distort the facts every bit as much as Bush and the deniers do.
I disagree, but heck, if you don't like Al Gore, don't listen to him. I don't know anyone who thinks that global warming is real and requires action because Al Gore says so. All he did was increase awareness. Check out IPCC, NAS, AAAS. Visit NCAR in Boulder. Listen to the nerds.
I have. And they're pointing out serious concerns. My problem is with the environmentalists who have taken this and turned it into "The sky is falling! We're all gonna die unless we pass into law the agenda we've been trying to get passed for 20 years before anyone even MENTIONED Global Warming!"
Serious concerns from whome? About what? That AGW is real? That it needs serious action? Name one reputable scientific organization that denies that AGW is real and that immediate action is warranted. "Data trumps politics" Michael Shermer
Well, you said "they're pointing out serious concerns." I'm not sure what you are saying here, so I was hoping you would clarify. I just pointed out that all the reputable scientific organizations agree that AGW is real and warranted serious action. So if you are in agreement that AGW is real and warrants serious action, then I guess we agree. But if that's your view, what's your beef? It's not alarmist if the threat is real.
There's a difference between wanting to look rationally at it from a risk/benefit standpoint, the way Bjorn Lomborg goes, and being alarmist, the way Al Gore is.
I haven't seen any reputable group of climate scientists that accept Lomborg's analysis, and I've seen many challenge it. On the other hand, most climate scientists who have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" say that is mainly correct.
Actually, he does. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty stated that The Skeptical Environmentalist was clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice because of his systematic biased choice of data. Scientific American also featured mainstream scientist who state he "misrepresented the actual positions of environmentalists and scientists."
I remember that, and I remember that it was basically a joke that no one in the scientific realm took seriously.
Look at his recent appearance on Real Time: After he left, the guests were trying to make out like he was denying GW when he wasn't, that he was saying more research into GW was needed when he was talking about research into alternative fuels, etc. THAT'S the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Were any of the guests scientists? He does accept AGW, but he minimizes its impact and claims efforts to mitigate it are prohibitively expensive. I haven't seen any significant agreement among scientists with that claim. And the DCSD is part of a committee of eminent scientists somewhat analogous to the NAS.
No, he says SOME efforts to mitigate it are expensive, but there are others that are more effective and more worthwhile.
I really hate these false dichotomies that the non-thinkers constantly come up with. Either you're for or against ALL efforts to act against the problem, right?
Come on, now. Lomborg is the one who wrote the article "Save the world, ignore global warming". Now maybe he was using hyperbole, but he isn't for the type of serious action advocated by IPCC or other scientific orgs.
Now, I will grant you that he is not as extreme as the global warming deniers, who claim that we shouldn't do anything at all. But just because he is for throwing a pebble at the problem doesn't constitute serious action.
Ah, so now you're quote-mining. Congratulations; you've just become a creationist.
The article was about doing a risk/benefit analysis on GW and prioritizing it with other problems such as fighting AIDS...Which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID HE DOES.
Quote mining? No, not even close. I am aware of what the article was about and I never implied anything different. I know what his argument is. But the fact remains that he doesn't think that we should take significant action against global warming. Since that is the reason I used the quote (and heck, there's a 500 character limit), I did nothing to misrepresent what he says.
I also love the way you classify those who advocate significant action as "non-thinkers". And this is when you are advocating a video where a guy who attempts to denigrate climatologists because they are supposedly jealous of all the rich guys who drive SUVs.
And I love the way you classify alarmism as "significant action."
I have a question for you: given that it was the failure to consider the unintended consequences that got us into this mess, shouldn't we be careful to weigh the unintended consequences of the proposals to get us out of this mess?
Of course. And given that there still are a lot of unknowns about the climate, it is almost inevitable that any actions we take will require some course corrections in the future.
Absolutely, but this is the point: government doesn't work that way. You're still paying taxes on the Spanish-American War. Roads are being built based on traffic analyses from the 1960s. Government economic policy is based on economic theories debunked in the 1970s.
If we allow government policy to be in charge of the solution, what makes you think it'll be any different? Government doesn't do "course corrections."
Because I see no alternative. This isn't the type of problem that free markets can fix on their own. Of course, there is plenty of room to debate what government should do, and in this area, Lomborg at least promotes spending money on alternative energy options. So the debate between Lomborg and Stern, for instance, isn't whether government should get involved but to what degree.
"Because I see no alternative." Argument from personal incredulity.
"This isn't the type of problem that free markets can fix on their own." Tell that to the guys making the carbon fiber car.
How about just this: get rid of subsidies to oil companies, and get rid of restrictions on nuclear power. Two positive things the government can do RIGHT NOW that would have a positive effect while costing NOTHING.
No, it comes from an understanding of how markets work and what they are capable and incapable of accomplishing. I don't think even Adam Smith would consider this something that markets alone could fix. Tragedy of the commons.
No, you didn't. Of course there are lots of companies that are producing green products, and yet the carbon emissions in the US continue to go UP, much more than those participating in Kyoto. Because green prods are more expensive and can't compete yet with nongreens. We need tech breakthroughs like those by RMI, and giving incentives to companies like them while also having a carbon tax to account for the neg. externality (ala Friedman) of warming will only speed the pace of innovation.
Either you're trying too hard or not hard enough, I'm not sure which. This is no different than the deniers finding a few years where temperature doesn't go up and claiming "See, global warming isn't real." From the same article, it went UP from 2000-4 3%-year and using admin. estimates is projected to go up 25-30% over the next 25 years.
Correction: looks like the 2000-4 estimate is for the world, not the US. Nevertheless, if you read the article, you will note that we aren't making the decreases necessary to avoid any of the global warming impacts. Since 1990, we went up, even if lately our per capita usage has stabilized. That's not enough. It needs to go down.
But hell, from Pascal's Wager to Gore's mansion to sea level rises being the SOLE concern to my supposed opposition to CBAs, all I see is just an effort to throw up lies and factoids of questionable relevance. Really unfortunate. I expected better.
No, what I'm asking for is honesty. Pascal's Wager: debunked. Gore's mansion: debunked. Sea level rise SOLE concern: debunked. Opposition to CBAs: debunked. Quote mining charge: debunked. No link to hurricane intensity: debunked.
What's left is an unsubstantiated charge of economic doom contrasted with the expected impacts of global warming. Of course, such a comparison is necessary but all you are doing is minimizing the GW impacts while exaggerating economic harms.
Someday, I want a definition of "Debunked." Because in the context I've most often seen it used, it seems to mean: "I refuse to acknowledge your point."
As far as Pascal's Wager, you didn't even see the irony intended in that remark. Your belief in a Great Impending Deluge is no more Scientific, than another man's belief in Heaven, yet you are both willing to bet on the side of Faith.
Nonsense. The stability of the ice sheet is a scientific question that is being actively investigated, unlike God's existence. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet is happening at a greater rate than they thought and there are scientists could rise over 2 to 5 meters over the next century (Mark Chandler, Columbia University). So you are confusing a hypothesis with a little evidence with a proposition that can't even be scientifically investigated at all.
Gore DOES use a hypocritical amount of electricity, the Sea Level rise is the topic of this thread (I don't remember anyone saying it was the SOLE concern) you DID quote mine, and if you think there is a scientific link to hurricane intensity, you need to go back and read the report, particularly the footnote "f" on "likely:" Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies."
Since he uses green sources and buys carbon offset, where's the hypocrisy? The goal isn't primitive living; it's reducing carbon emissions, which he has done. (And as I pointed out, it wouldn't matter anyway. There are many doctors that smoke, that doesn't mean they shouldn't warn their patients about the risk.)
Not surprisingly, you ignored the fact that he has a carbon footprint of zero.
But even if we used your strained analogy, it *still* wouldn't be hypocritical. Perhaps he is addicted to smoking and wishes that we would live in a society where it isn't a temptation. He may also recognize that it causes harms to others as well.
As for the closet homosexual, same thing, but then I would disagree with his presumed assessment that homosexuality is wrong.
But we are talking about *hypocrisy* here, so whether the offsets actually work or not is irrelevant. Just like I wouldn't accuse a Christian of hypocrisy for praying for my soul even though I believe it is of no value whatsoever.
Sigh. No. I'm saying that regardless of whether carbon offsets work, if Gore thinks that they do, he isn't being hypocritical.
And if you equate accepting that something might happen based on some evidence from scientists as "belief", I guess I can't help you. But that's not Pascal's Wager.
(And what is this "global warming is like a religion" stuff? I thought that we were at least agreed on the fact that AGW is real.)
Do you REALLY think Gore believes his offsets are doing something? Or is he just trying to avoid taking public transit, driving a smaller car, and actually living a "Green" lifestyle?
I would suggest that if he thought his carbon footprint were "paid in full" he would have no problem opening up his carbon records to an independent audit.
I'll believe he thinks it's real, when hes's willing to expose himselff to scrutiny. I would bet he's never even calculated his footprint.
The statement was that my case was SOLELY based on a worst case scenario, implying that I'm only concerned about the 20 foot sea rise. That's not true. It's based on all the impacts. Quote mining is using a quote to give the impression that the person holds a different position than he actually does; I didn't do that.
And I guess your point on hurricane intensity is that the anthropogenic contributions were not assessed. I guess the theory behind that is that the hurricane intensity could be attributed to the non-anthropogenic warming. But if there is a link, there is a link. All the footnote means is that the exact impact isn't known and further study is needed.
First off, there has been no documented increase in Hurricane intensity. There has been an increase in damage, but that's because more people live on the beach than ever before.
Secondly, before sattellite doppler technology, there was no way to measure hurricane intensity. So there isn't much aof a historic record.
Finally, the footnote says that scienists who suspect a link, are just guessing.
Hence, there is no science to indicate a link between Huricanes and Global Warming
=== Finally, the footnote says that scienists who suspect a link, are just guessing. ===
No, it's what I love about science. They are conscious to give caveats about how certain they are about their conclusion. But to interpret these caveats as just pure guesses it to misunderstand what they are saying. They are saying there is some reason to believe there is a connection, but we aren't sure.
Yeah, I knew it was a throwaway argument. But apparently, you don't understand the reason why I defer to the consensus. It isn't that scientific truth is determined by majority vote; it is because it's a complex subject and they are the ones that are most qualified to make these types of assessments.
And you know that ID biologists are a small religiously-motivated minority. Unless you are planning on making your "GW = religion" argument, they aren't even remotely analogous.
" they are the ones that are most qualified to make these types of assessments"
That''s not how it works. A Scientist's guess isn't any more reliable than one from a Theologian they are both still guesses.
It isn't the Scientists that give an argument its weight, it is is the Science. So if they make a remark with no Science behind it, it is just a remark. No more valid than either of our opinions.
=== So if they make a remark with no Science behind it, it is just a remark. No more valid than either of our opinions. ===
There is a vast difference between "very likely" and "no science". There is science behind it. There is evidence that hurricanes over warmer water intensify. Is it proven? No. But just a guess, no better than the average person's on the street? No.
Meanwhile you ADMITTED there will be an economic impact, My assessing the magnitude of "Doom" to that impact, is no more inaccurate than your assessment of the environment being "screwed."
To summarize our positions then: Neither of us can truly see the fuiture, so we're both speculating here.
You're willing to sacrifice prosperity for the environment, I'm willing to sacrifice the environment for prosperity.
The economic hit comes from the fact that right now at least it costs more to use alternative energy than it does to use fossil fuels. So I'm talking about the economic hit we have at the start. After we have used alternative fuels for a while and prevented some of the impacts predicted by the IPCC, then those costs are offset. So the hit is short-term. Longterm, both the environment and the economy are affected negatively impacted by failure to act.
Even Lomborg, who contends that most efforts to combat global warming aren't cost-effective, doesn't make claims that they will impoverish everyone. So who is being alarmist? I'm saying action is justified based on the agreed upon likely impacts of the best scientists in the world. You're the one claiming the sky will fall if we even try to do anything (economic doom, impoverishment, can't escape a hurricane, etc.)
Don't know a lot about them. I do know that hybrids and electrics aren't competitive with gas-powered cars. People buy them because they are concerned about the environment.
=== Subsidies to oil companies / nuclear power ===
Agree with the first. Don't know enough about current nuke technology for the second. As long as we can manage the waste and it's safe.
Pretty exciting technology. Of course, RMI is a not-for-profit that depended on angel money for it's funding. And of course, if we did have a carbon tax, it would only strengthen the incentive to continue investment in companys like RMI. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by that. If it's that we should increase our funding for promising technologies like this, I agree.
Did you miss the point about the car companies in the video? Did you watch the whole thing? They could easily make back their investment and then some if they choose to.
Carbon taxes make NO sense. That's Al Gore's excuse for using more carbon than 20 families--he pays for it. So, what, all of a sudden that doesn't cause GW anymore?
Yes, at this point they probably can make their investment back. But it took some time to get to that point.
The Gore mansion? I can't believe you went there. Ignoring the fact that he spends more to use green energy and carbon offsets to begin with, what difference would it make if he didn't? If a antismoking lecturer smokes, does that invalidate the science?
Stick to debunking astrology. This is just about as irrational as it gets.
"Yes, at this point they probably can make their investment back. But it took some time to get to that point."
That's the market for you. If people didn't do that, we'd never have ANY innovation. And yet, the free market innovates all the time. So when you say the free market can't do this sort of thing, you're only showing your profound ignorance.
You seem to be missing the point. It was primarily angel money that got this going to begin with. There is a limited amount of this. (And I'm not sure how big of an impact this will have anyway. It's exciting technology, but how big of a difference this will make has yet to be shown.)
Now, I've seen your bogosity videos (which are great by the way) so I know you're a smart guy. But I haven't seen you make one reasonable statement concerning global warming. My hope is that you will research the subject and do a bogosity video against the AGW deniers.
If I do a Bogosity video, it'll be against BOTH the deniers and the alarmists. The REAL science is neither. And I HAVE been researching it, for several years.
Example: By every rational analysis, Kyoto will cause more harm than good; even a lot of climate scientists reject it. Yet the GW politicos cling to it like it's the savior of all mankind, and anyone who's against it is a "denier."
It's a given that there aren't going to be any perfect protocols. So you have to ask why they reject it. Some reject it because they believe the costs are too high but others believe it doesn't go far enough! The Stern Review is an economic analysis that shows that the costs of inaction would drastically outweigh the costs of action.
"It's a given that there aren't going to be any perfect protocols." No one's asking for perfection. But how about one that at least solves more problems than it creates?
Again, the false dichotomy. When have I EVER posited inaction?
You directly accused Lomborg of wanting inaction, which IS NOT TRUE EITHER. He has specifically mentioned things like doing more research into alternative fuels. NO ONE is saying do nothing.
THAT'S why you're not being rational. You wear the label, but you don't live up to it.
Apparently, you aren't reading what I'm saying. We can play semantic games all day. Remember, he or his editor is the one who chose to title his article "Save the world, ignore global warming." So on the spectrum of proposals concerning how much action we should take, his recommendation, while not "nothing at all", is "not much".
And since we are talking about being rational, did you listen to the video? This is about as irrational as it gets. The 9 planets/8 planets thing was plain stupid. So even though you aren't as extreme as he is in your views (at least not in your comments), it makes you wonder why you would favorite and defend such an asinine anti-science screed. He starts by attacking Gore and then spends the rest of the time attacking scientists. If this is what you consider rational, count me out.
I'm going to say this to you again, slowly so maybe you'll get it: THIS...IS...A...STAND...UP...COMEDY...ROUTINE. His job is to be funny while offending as many people as he can. And he's one of the best in that regard.
Yeah, whatever. It's supposed to be serious observational comedy, so he is trying to make a point. So hiding behind "it's comedy" isn't going to work. He attempts to make fun of enviros by showing how nerdy the scientists are and how they are losers who drive small cars. It's funny to the bigots because they don't want to take the science seriously to begin with.
Actually, he said 9 "errors", but the judge also said ""Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
It's worth pointing out that Galileo wasn't reputable. Reputable is determined by public opinion which is determined by who is the best at spin. Clearly Al Gore wins at that game.
And by the way, I'm aware that text replies can sometimes come across as flippant, but if I misrepresented your view, it was not intentional. I really just don't understand what you are saying. I think you believe that Al Gore is alarmist, but I just don't see where he has said anything that most scientists don't agree with. Even the 20 ft. sea rise is acknowledged to be possible by the IPCC when read in context.
"[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m..." From the IPCC report (sorry, I don't know which one.) That's what Gore said. He didn't give a timeframe. And there are some scientists who believe that it could happen much quicker, although the evidence wasn't strong enough to include in the IPCC report.
Fine, but that wasn't what Gore said, so you can't accuse him of dishonesty for a statement he didn't make. He said if they go, which the IPCC agrees with. I also think that there are reputable scientists who say that the ice sheet could go much earlier, but I'll have to find the reference.
Okay, but even if he did mean WAAAY off into the future, it's STILL not true that most of SF would be flooded because the average elevation in SF is more like 60 feet. And he DID say that explicitly in his movie.
I don't remember him saying "Bay," and the map he showed was the whole of SF. But if he just meant the bay, well, that's not quite so alarming now, is it? Not since Katrina. And despite the efforts of many to link Katrina to GW, the origins of it lie more with domestic policy and the failings of government. I think we're at FAR greater risk from that than we are from GW.
Once again, not true. He said San Francisco Bay. (He showed a map with SF labeled, but not all of it underwater.) It would also affect the Netherlands, Beijing, Calcutta, Florida, etc.
Now, if you want to criticize him for giving the impression that this is something that will happen in the near future, that would be fair. But he didn't say that.
Al Gore showed pictures of cities submerged under 20 feet of water. He even showed a picture of the World Trade Center SIte. He used CURRENT population data to estimate the amount of refugees from such a deluge.
So the implication is clearly that it is going to happen sooner rather than later. And since the next census is in 2010, one mifght suggest that he was expecting such a catastrophe before then.
Why? Even if we are talking about millenia, it's still likely that populations will be as high or higher than they are now.
Of course it was meant to be a dramatization. And there are scientists who do think that shelfs could fail much sooner than millenia, and the IPCC specifically excluded those possibilities because they aren't known. But even if the odds are low, it's perfectly reasonable to take action to prevent it.
"Even if we are talking about millenia, it's still likely that populations will be as high or higher than they are now."
Nonsense. Many cities from 1000 AD are either abandoned or underwater. As the ocean moves inland, so will the people. Nobody will remember where the World Trade Center was in 3007 either.
So Gore was obviously implying that the 20 foot rise was probably in our lifetimes
there are scientists who do think that shelfs could fail much sooner than millenia, and the IPCC specifically excluded those possibilities because they aren't known"
Right. They excluded it, because there was no SCIENCE to support it, nor any Scientific Consensus. Just a lot of apocalyptic speculation.There are Scientists who believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but the IPCC report didn't bother to mention that either.
There was enough to focus on while including things that were likely to happen than to include poorly understood contingencies like the ice shelfs failing. But there is science to support that those shelfs are weakening, so I fully expect that we will have more information about them in future IPCC reports.
From the IPCC: "Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise"
So Science can't even guess if the Ice Shelf melting is even LIKELY. And can't even estimate an upper bound (beyond 23 inches).
Translated: Anyone who thinks Science beleives 20 feet is possible, is just Nutsy Koo Koo.
" But even if the odds are low, it's perfectly reasonable to take action to prevent it."
That is probably the craziest thing I ever heard. There is Nothing "reasonable" about wrecking the economy based on an improbable "maybe." Plunging the US into a recession, because a couple self important pinheads are afraid of a little melting. Who's been serving you the Kool-Aid?
I'm much more optimistic about our ability to find solutions to this problem than you are. Will there be an economic hit? Sure. But there will also be a hit if we don't take action and it could be much greater. And even if we focus in on economic impacts that the IPCC classifies as likely are greater by 2100, action is justified.
But let's just assume that the odds of the ice shelfs failing in the next century are 1 in 100, which is a way lower threshold than what IPCC would include in their report. Why would it be unreasonable to take action? I mean, companies have Disaster Recovery plans even though the odds of them having to use them may be that low or lower. So why is it unreasonable for our country to do the same thing?
"But let's just assume that the odds of the ice shelfs failing in the next century are 1 in 100, which is a way lower threshold than what IPCC would include in their report. Why would it be unreasonable to take action?"
Yes, you do, as evidenced by your comment above. Your SOLE criteria for taking action was based on what the consequences would be if the worst-case scenario were true.
There was ZERO regard for the fact that this would take money, time, and resources that would otherwise be spent elsewhere.
@qix77, Well all of us can be full of ourselves at times no matter what our views may be. I agree with the approach that civil people will reply civilly.
I'll keep that approach when I respond in the future.
Later
casyatbat 9 months ago
@qix77, No problem, I'll always trust those in the legitimate Sciences then those paid by Corporations like those who paid Scientists & Doctors to say cigarettes don't cause cancer.
You're the guy with the whole in his throat trying to breath because cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Scientist don't make up shit just to make it up. They have to have supporting data regardless of what one may thing of Gore and I ain't no fan of Gore.
casyatbat 9 months ago
Hey Numb Nuts, The earth was once thought flat, & the sun rotated around the earth. You can't compare religion to science. As far as earth, things do not happen overnight. I would trust science anytime over ancient myths. Scientist (paid) told us that cigarette smoke was not harmful.
Science in a given time is not absolute. As time passes more information & data allows for more accurate theories. Reversing global warming may be impossible at this time but no need to speed it up for laughs.
casyatbat 11 months ago
i want my money back,i thought this was gonna be blood and gore
areyoulookinatmepal1 11 months ago
This video is a testament to stupid. Dangerous stupid, the worst kind.
meadowsirl 11 months ago
@meadowsirl
please explain to the class who is the stupid one
areyoulookinatmepal1 11 months ago
Al Gore: The reason we can't have nice things...
vspqbd 1 year ago
Climate science news
NCAR: Scientists can't measure all heat trapped on Earth
Half of the energy captured by greenhouse gases isn't accounted for
About half of the total amount of heat entering the atmosphere is unaccounted for, according a study in Science that suggests the oceans are absorbing energy that will haunt us sooner or later.
BOULDER DAILY CAMERA
COLORADO
By Sarah Horn For the Camera
Posted: 04/15/2010 06:18:49 PM MDT
Nightversionn 1 year ago
Gore's pals China leading emitter of CO2
A study published in 2008 reports that China (which was excluded from the Kyoto requirements) became the largest emitter of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in 2006. (Gregg, J. S., R. J. Andres, and G. Marland, China: Emissions pattern of the world leader in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production, Geophysical Research Letters 35, 2008
Cap & Tax on China? Yeah right. AGW=tax scam
Thisawareness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's a great expose of what the GATT expansion to the WTO (orchestrated by Clinton/Gore) has produced in terms of environmental damage by moving manufacturing in the West that had Environmental laws to pollute with impunity in the Socialists/Limousine Liberals current favorite failed utopia, China
Graphic pictures of the environmental horrors
chinahush(dot)com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
Thisawareness 1 year ago
Al Gore's previous policies that he helped to implement when he was VP, was to exaggerate Global Warming if its real. He helped engineer the NAFTA & GATT expansion which, besides destroying multiple tens of millions of good jobs in the US, how did relocating US industry that had Environmental & Human Rights laws to countries that have little to none of either, & then have to ship the junk back here emitting loads of GHG's help reduce GW?
Al Fraud Gore:Goldman Sachs's point man for the GW scam
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Have you ever heard about NAFTA or you were too busy rallying with the tea-baggers? NAFTA forces Mexico to do whatever we want. They have to deregulate businesses, privatize their state industry and let foreign (US) investors in. Greedy business owners took american jobs to Mexico and overseas.
akucsai 1 year ago
@akucsai Are you retarded? Why don't go to China & pick rice for Gore's friends at 1 dollar of a 16hr work day. Maybe you will get dog meat on Sundays as China slaughters dogs & cats.
Input on youtube China Fur Trade
Maybe Akucsai has inspirations to own a rice patty or disgusting Chinese fur operation you sicko. You come near my dogs I'll knock the taste out of your mouth, you little bitch
Thisawareness 1 year ago
I guess you brake into tears for the chinese people everytime you turn on your HD tv, iPod or your cellphone. They built those too, and get paid in "beans". How can you believe in lies like a $1 for picking rice. Have you ever been outside your city ? China has minimum wage law and the cost of living is way different there. You can eat in a restaurant for $1 a day. China's fur operation not much disgusting than any slaughterhouse in the US. Think about it the next time when you eat your BBQ.
akucsai 1 year ago
@akucsai Yeah disck for brains, I certainly liked it better when products were made in the usa, where we have environmental & Human Rights laws, unlike China. Yeah well Clinton/Gore & the DNC got loads of campaign dollars from the Dog & Cat torturers from China. Thats some sick barbarities on man's best friends, but then China treats their the Ugyars, Tibetans, Christians, Muslims, & political dissidents terribly.
People input "China Fur Trade" & see the sadistic torture of Akucsai's comrades
Thisawareness 1 year ago
dude he nailed it right on the head
79pensacola 2 years ago
its funny when logic is applied to everyday problems
Bradbssargdons 1 year ago
HES A FRAUD!!!!!!!
DrUK2008 2 years ago
What's the difference between Al Gore and Tim Slagle?
Al Gore can win an award for what he does.
Sorry for the bad joke, it's just that I've been turned dumb in 6 minutes.
mondaycurse 2 years ago
No the difference between Gore and Slagle is, Gore lies.
arubberball 2 years ago 6
keep in mind that ice age cycles are hundreds of thousands of years. magnetic reversal of the poles also happens approximately at that rate
Bradbssargdons 2 years ago
Yeah, fuck science! When has science ever predicted anything?
BustedLine 2 years ago 2
Al Gore has no basis in reality or science.
LavaMountainKat 2 years ago
i love this type of comedy; when views and opinions on a subject are examined, and then apply logic to make them look incredibly stupid. this reminds me of one of my favorite short bits by George Carlin, called, "the planet is fine". you MUST check it out!!
i took 3 years of hostorical geology at university of houston, we are IN an ice age right now and were coming out of it. We wont be going into another ice age for tens of thousands of years. sea level is consistently rising
Bradbssargdons 2 years ago
LOL @ that is Darwin man. Bst punch line ever.
marjan15 3 years ago
He's my uncle!!!
MountainDove77 3 years ago
Anyone know where I can find a full uncensored version of this bit?
gpshaw1987 3 years ago
Yeah I often want to ask, "Who are you ultimately trying to protect with this appeal for attention to global warming? Humanity? Umm....why? What's so great about people? Well if you ARE one, I understand...but c'mon. People come and go, and that's probably for the best. The universe certainly doesn't need us, and that speaks volumes.
aajoeyjo 3 years ago
look up George Carlin "The planet is fine" GREAT bit, and shuts up a lot of tree huggers and environmentalists who actually think we have an effect on the earth
Bradbssargdons 2 years ago 2
Carlin had no clue about a single thing, he was a pinhead. According to him we have to let die endangered species gracefully, while our irresponsible behavior is the reason that they become threatened. The other thing is that he talked about the earth itself. Of course, there will be earth after we all die too. So "The planet is fine".
akucsai 1 year ago
Well done.
meanjean29 3 years ago
very funny and true
eric144144 3 years ago 8
Much of the theory(notice i said theory as NOTHING is proven yet)is based on temperatures taken at the turn of the last century.Sorry if i dont take global temp measurements from a time before we accurately tell the temp in ONE location to the .10 of a degree. So please give everyone a break and at LEAST admit that there is room for debate.
beak1972 3 years ago
In 2005, 2006, 2007, the total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) was 248, 78.5, 67.5. You see a clear decreasing trend here: ACE even indicates that 2007 was even weaker than 2006. The median ACE index and the mean ACE index for the 1951-2005 period are 89.5 and 102.3, respectively. It means that according to ACE, both 2006 and 2007 were below the average.
ventana54 4 years ago
I accidently marked my own video as spam and you can't unspam it. It just said 5 stars.
goose1077 4 years ago
This guy is dumb.
angela1894 4 years ago
23 inches is less than 22 feet, but it's also alarmism. It's IPCC (for gods sake!).
Right now the ocean rise slows down. It's not only colder on Antarctica (except West Antarctica; 5 percent of Antarctica where alarmists are crowded "proving" human made global warming) but it's also more precipitation and the glacier increases rapidly!! Has done that 30 years now. Next solarcycle are tiny and we'll soon get a colder climate than in the last 150 years!
magnusea 4 years ago
yeah, the IPCC kicked out all the decenters. They also used their names on reports they didn't agree with. I think the goal of global warming is more government control over our lives.
goose1077 4 years ago
Indeed. And refused to remove some of the names until they threatened to sue.
RockinRickChicago 4 years ago
5 stars
goose1077 4 years ago
I love your solution at the end. Just back up.
goose1077 4 years ago
Brilliant! I've written quite a lot on this global warming hysteria craziness. This about sums it up.
Remember global cooling of the 1970's? We were heading for the next ice age. Then it was very cold in 1978 and 79, "see, told you so". We see how long that lasted.
RockinRickChicago 4 years ago
The cooling was due to CFCs. Once they were drastically reduced, they no longer had the cooling effect and the greenhouse warming took over.
shanedk 4 years ago
Please.
Actually CFCs attack ozone, a greenhouse gas. I thought we wanted more ozone, but it's a greenhouse gas, don't we want less?
Aerosols were the subject of global cooling.
It's all hysteria.
RockinRickChicago 4 years ago
Ugh. Yes, ozone is a greenhouse gas. No one has said that greenhouse gases should be eliminated, and ozone in the upper atmosphere filters damaging ultraviolet light. Which is part of the reason why we need to reduce human carbon emissions, because by adding more GHGs we are destabilizing the climate.
Fat is good too. Obesity is not.
RationalRat 4 years ago
WTF? A 6 and a half minute screed about how scientists made up global warming to get back at the cool kids? Is ExxonMobil one of this guy's sponsors? Hell, if you want to make fun of Al Gore, go ahead. He's a politician and can take it. But when it comes to the environment, I'm going to listen to the people who actually *study* the subject. Not a comedian who can't tell the difference between a televangelist nut-job and nerdy undersexed scientists who know what they're talking about.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Um, if you had any education, you would know that there is no evidence that Hurricanes are causes by Homosexuals or SUVs.
Both scenarios are scientific nonsense. There is no athropomorohic signal in Hurricane activity, and Science has been unable to come to any consensus on the matter of hurricanes. So if Robertson is an Idiot, Al Gore is too.
Except that Robertson didn't flunk out of Divinity school, and he's never claimed to be a Scientist.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Ummm, according to the experts, there is a link between storm intensity and AGW. The IPCC stated that there has been a trend over the last 50 years for more heat waves and intense rain events and that this is more likely than not caused by global warming.
And other than the fact that Al Gore has increased awareness of the climate change, he's not the issue. In fact, don't listen to the Al Gore if you don't like him. But do listen to those Ramen-soup eating scientists.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Except that we're also at the peak of the 60-year cycle for these kinds of weather.
shanedk 4 years ago
Except that climatologists are aware of these cycles and that they do not account for the temperature increases we are currently seeing.
RationalRat 4 years ago
I don't think that's true of the hurricane cycle. They use satellite data, which didn't exist until the 60s, when the last peak was in the 40s. I specifically remember one report saying GW resulted in the "first ever South American hurricane" (based on the satellite data) when there are eyewitness reports of South American hurricanes in the 1940s.
And as I said, a lot of scientists are saying there are balancing factors with these effects as well.
shanedk 4 years ago
The IPCC was pretty careful about how they classified the likelihood of certain claims, and with regards to hurricanes, their review of the data concluded it was more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some increases in hurricane intensity. So it's far from certain.
RationalRat 4 years ago
The IPCC and the real scientists have been a lot better about this. But the politicos like Al Gore distort the facts every bit as much as Bush and the deniers do.
shanedk 4 years ago
I disagree, but heck, if you don't like Al Gore, don't listen to him. I don't know anyone who thinks that global warming is real and requires action because Al Gore says so. All he did was increase awareness. Check out IPCC, NAS, AAAS. Visit NCAR in Boulder. Listen to the nerds.
RationalRat 4 years ago
I have. And they're pointing out serious concerns. My problem is with the environmentalists who have taken this and turned it into "The sky is falling! We're all gonna die unless we pass into law the agenda we've been trying to get passed for 20 years before anyone even MENTIONED Global Warming!"
shanedk 4 years ago 2
Serious concerns from whome? About what? That AGW is real? That it needs serious action? Name one reputable scientific organization that denies that AGW is real and that immediate action is warranted. "Data trumps politics" Michael Shermer
RationalRat 4 years ago
Did I SAY there were any that denied it? I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth.
shanedk 4 years ago
Well, you said "they're pointing out serious concerns." I'm not sure what you are saying here, so I was hoping you would clarify. I just pointed out that all the reputable scientific organizations agree that AGW is real and warranted serious action. So if you are in agreement that AGW is real and warrants serious action, then I guess we agree. But if that's your view, what's your beef? It's not alarmist if the threat is real.
RationalRat 4 years ago
There's a difference between wanting to look rationally at it from a risk/benefit standpoint, the way Bjorn Lomborg goes, and being alarmist, the way Al Gore is.
shanedk 4 years ago
I haven't seen any reputable group of climate scientists that accept Lomborg's analysis, and I've seen many challenge it. On the other hand, most climate scientists who have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" say that is mainly correct.
RationalRat 4 years ago
What problem do they have with Lomborg? He doesn't challenge any of the science, only the way we go about implementing solutions.
Of course, a lot of people are putting denialist claims in Lomborg's mouth, but that's not his fault.
shanedk 4 years ago
Actually, he does. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty stated that The Skeptical Environmentalist was clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice because of his systematic biased choice of data. Scientific American also featured mainstream scientist who state he "misrepresented the actual positions of environmentalists and scientists."
RationalRat 4 years ago
I remember that, and I remember that it was basically a joke that no one in the scientific realm took seriously.
Look at his recent appearance on Real Time: After he left, the guests were trying to make out like he was denying GW when he wasn't, that he was saying more research into GW was needed when he was talking about research into alternative fuels, etc. THAT'S the kind of thing I'm talking about.
shanedk 4 years ago
Were any of the guests scientists? He does accept AGW, but he minimizes its impact and claims efforts to mitigate it are prohibitively expensive. I haven't seen any significant agreement among scientists with that claim. And the DCSD is part of a committee of eminent scientists somewhat analogous to the NAS.
RationalRat 4 years ago
No, he says SOME efforts to mitigate it are expensive, but there are others that are more effective and more worthwhile.
I really hate these false dichotomies that the non-thinkers constantly come up with. Either you're for or against ALL efforts to act against the problem, right?
shanedk 4 years ago
Come on, now. Lomborg is the one who wrote the article "Save the world, ignore global warming". Now maybe he was using hyperbole, but he isn't for the type of serious action advocated by IPCC or other scientific orgs.
Now, I will grant you that he is not as extreme as the global warming deniers, who claim that we shouldn't do anything at all. But just because he is for throwing a pebble at the problem doesn't constitute serious action.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"So action on global warming is basically a very costly way of doing very little for much richer people far into the future." Lomborg
Not exactly a manifesto for the urgent action being advocated by the science orgs.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Ah, so now you're quote-mining. Congratulations; you've just become a creationist.
The article was about doing a risk/benefit analysis on GW and prioritizing it with other problems such as fighting AIDS...Which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID HE DOES.
I think we're done, pseudo-skeptic.
shanedk 4 years ago
Quote mining? No, not even close. I am aware of what the article was about and I never implied anything different. I know what his argument is. But the fact remains that he doesn't think that we should take significant action against global warming. Since that is the reason I used the quote (and heck, there's a 500 character limit), I did nothing to misrepresent what he says.
RationalRat 4 years ago
I also love the way you classify those who advocate significant action as "non-thinkers". And this is when you are advocating a video where a guy who attempts to denigrate climatologists because they are supposedly jealous of all the rich guys who drive SUVs.
RationalRat 4 years ago
And I love the way you classify alarmism as "significant action."
I have a question for you: given that it was the failure to consider the unintended consequences that got us into this mess, shouldn't we be careful to weigh the unintended consequences of the proposals to get us out of this mess?
shanedk 4 years ago
Of course. And given that there still are a lot of unknowns about the climate, it is almost inevitable that any actions we take will require some course corrections in the future.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Absolutely, but this is the point: government doesn't work that way. You're still paying taxes on the Spanish-American War. Roads are being built based on traffic analyses from the 1960s. Government economic policy is based on economic theories debunked in the 1970s.
If we allow government policy to be in charge of the solution, what makes you think it'll be any different? Government doesn't do "course corrections."
shanedk 4 years ago
Because I see no alternative. This isn't the type of problem that free markets can fix on their own. Of course, there is plenty of room to debate what government should do, and in this area, Lomborg at least promotes spending money on alternative energy options. So the debate between Lomborg and Stern, for instance, isn't whether government should get involved but to what degree.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"Because I see no alternative." Argument from personal incredulity.
"This isn't the type of problem that free markets can fix on their own." Tell that to the guys making the carbon fiber car.
How about just this: get rid of subsidies to oil companies, and get rid of restrictions on nuclear power. Two positive things the government can do RIGHT NOW that would have a positive effect while costing NOTHING.
shanedk 4 years ago
== Personal incredulity ===
No, it comes from an understanding of how markets work and what they are capable and incapable of accomplishing. I don't think even Adam Smith would consider this something that markets alone could fix. Tragedy of the commons.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"No, it comes from an understanding of how markets work"
Except that, obviously, you DON'T understand how they work. And I pointed you directly to one example of how they WERE working.
shanedk 4 years ago
No, you didn't. Of course there are lots of companies that are producing green products, and yet the carbon emissions in the US continue to go UP, much more than those participating in Kyoto. Because green prods are more expensive and can't compete yet with nongreens. We need tech breakthroughs like those by RMI, and giving incentives to companies like them while also having a carbon tax to account for the neg. externality (ala Friedman) of warming will only speed the pace of innovation.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"and yet the carbon emissions in the US continue to go UP"
Not once you account for population growth.
shanedk 4 years ago
Per capita.
RationalRat 4 years ago
washingtonpost dot com /wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301510.html
Yeah, you're staying informed, aren't you?
shanedk 4 years ago
Either you're trying too hard or not hard enough, I'm not sure which. This is no different than the deniers finding a few years where temperature doesn't go up and claiming "See, global warming isn't real." From the same article, it went UP from 2000-4 3%-year and using admin. estimates is projected to go up 25-30% over the next 25 years.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Correction: looks like the 2000-4 estimate is for the world, not the US. Nevertheless, if you read the article, you will note that we aren't making the decreases necessary to avoid any of the global warming impacts. Since 1990, we went up, even if lately our per capita usage has stabilized. That's not enough. It needs to go down.
RationalRat 4 years ago
But hell, from Pascal's Wager to Gore's mansion to sea level rises being the SOLE concern to my supposed opposition to CBAs, all I see is just an effort to throw up lies and factoids of questionable relevance. Really unfortunate. I expected better.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Again and again the Rat tried, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."
KerryOakley 4 years ago
No, what I'm asking for is honesty. Pascal's Wager: debunked. Gore's mansion: debunked. Sea level rise SOLE concern: debunked. Opposition to CBAs: debunked. Quote mining charge: debunked. No link to hurricane intensity: debunked.
What's left is an unsubstantiated charge of economic doom contrasted with the expected impacts of global warming. Of course, such a comparison is necessary but all you are doing is minimizing the GW impacts while exaggerating economic harms.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Someday, I want a definition of "Debunked." Because in the context I've most often seen it used, it seems to mean: "I refuse to acknowledge your point."
As far as Pascal's Wager, you didn't even see the irony intended in that remark. Your belief in a Great Impending Deluge is no more Scientific, than another man's belief in Heaven, yet you are both willing to bet on the side of Faith.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Nonsense. The stability of the ice sheet is a scientific question that is being actively investigated, unlike God's existence. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet is happening at a greater rate than they thought and there are scientists could rise over 2 to 5 meters over the next century (Mark Chandler, Columbia University). So you are confusing a hypothesis with a little evidence with a proposition that can't even be scientifically investigated at all.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Gore DOES use a hypocritical amount of electricity, the Sea Level rise is the topic of this thread (I don't remember anyone saying it was the SOLE concern) you DID quote mine, and if you think there is a scientific link to hurricane intensity, you need to go back and read the report, particularly the footnote "f" on "likely:" Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies."
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Since he uses green sources and buys carbon offset, where's the hypocrisy? The goal isn't primitive living; it's reducing carbon emissions, which he has done. (And as I pointed out, it wouldn't matter anyway. There are many doctors that smoke, that doesn't mean they shouldn't warn their patients about the risk.)
RationalRat 4 years ago
"There are many doctors that smoke, that doesn't mean they shouldn't warn their patients about the risk."
Warn, yes. But when that doctor starts asking for laws to ban smoking, there is something wrong.
A better analogy, is a closet homosexual, that wants sodomy laws strictly enforced.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Not surprisingly, you ignored the fact that he has a carbon footprint of zero.
But even if we used your strained analogy, it *still* wouldn't be hypocritical. Perhaps he is addicted to smoking and wishes that we would live in a society where it isn't a temptation. He may also recognize that it causes harms to others as well.
As for the closet homosexual, same thing, but then I would disagree with his presumed assessment that homosexuality is wrong.
RationalRat 4 years ago
It's not the same thing. Warninig about the health implications of a Homosexual lifestyle, is a LOT different than arresting and incarcerating them.
I don't mind Gore's warnings, it's his call for legislation that spooks me.
And I disagree with your presumed assessment that burning carbon is wrong.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
=== And I disagree with your presumed assessment that burning carbon is wrong. ===
There is a negative externality associated with it. I'm not saying it is wrong; I'm just saying we should account for the true cost.
RationalRat 4 years ago
And how can we know the "True Cost?"
I suggest that cost, is a number iknown only to the gods, and anyone who claims they can make even a rough estimate is a charlatan.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Then that would include Lomborg, wouldn't it?
RationalRat 4 years ago
Please show me where I said ANYTHING positive about Lomborg.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
OK, fair enough. Just thought it was interesting since shanedk does.
RationalRat 4 years ago
don't know why this didn't post the first time:
Gore's "carbon offsets" have been totally debunked. They are nothing more than a private mutual fund where he invests in Green Technologies.
Anyway, the idea of Carbon Offsets are quite suspicious as this article attests:
businessweekDOTcom/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001DOThtm
KerryOakley 4 years ago
But we are talking about *hypocrisy* here, so whether the offsets actually work or not is irrelevant. Just like I wouldn't accuse a Christian of hypocrisy for praying for my soul even though I believe it is of no value whatsoever.
RationalRat 4 years ago
So you're admitting that belief in global warming is like a religion, and carbon offsets are a form of prayer?
And EXACTLY how was that Pascal's Wager analogy TOTALLY DEBUNKED?
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Sigh. No. I'm saying that regardless of whether carbon offsets work, if Gore thinks that they do, he isn't being hypocritical.
And if you equate accepting that something might happen based on some evidence from scientists as "belief", I guess I can't help you. But that's not Pascal's Wager.
(And what is this "global warming is like a religion" stuff? I thought that we were at least agreed on the fact that AGW is real.)
RationalRat 4 years ago
Do you REALLY think Gore believes his offsets are doing something? Or is he just trying to avoid taking public transit, driving a smaller car, and actually living a "Green" lifestyle?
I would suggest that if he thought his carbon footprint were "paid in full" he would have no problem opening up his carbon records to an independent audit.
I'll believe he thinks it's real, when hes's willing to expose himselff to scrutiny. I would bet he's never even calculated his footprint.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
All gore doesn't care about global warming. I'm not sure what he is up to.
goose1077 4 years ago
US$ 100,000,000 in seven years.
RyanFireball 4 years ago
GW is real, AGW is only 90% likely,
AGW Apocalypse is religion.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
The statement was that my case was SOLELY based on a worst case scenario, implying that I'm only concerned about the 20 foot sea rise. That's not true. It's based on all the impacts. Quote mining is using a quote to give the impression that the person holds a different position than he actually does; I didn't do that.
RationalRat 4 years ago
And I guess your point on hurricane intensity is that the anthropogenic contributions were not assessed. I guess the theory behind that is that the hurricane intensity could be attributed to the non-anthropogenic warming. But if there is a link, there is a link. All the footnote means is that the exact impact isn't known and further study is needed.
RationalRat 4 years ago
First off, there has been no documented increase in Hurricane intensity. There has been an increase in damage, but that's because more people live on the beach than ever before.
Secondly, before sattellite doppler technology, there was no way to measure hurricane intensity. So there isn't much aof a historic record.
Finally, the footnote says that scienists who suspect a link, are just guessing.
Hence, there is no science to indicate a link between Huricanes and Global Warming
KerryOakley 4 years ago
=== Finally, the footnote says that scienists who suspect a link, are just guessing. ===
No, it's what I love about science. They are conscious to give caveats about how certain they are about their conclusion. But to interpret these caveats as just pure guesses it to misunderstand what they are saying. They are saying there is some reason to believe there is a connection, but we aren't sure.
RationalRat 4 years ago
" there is some reason to believe there is a connection, but we aren't sure."
I once heard Intelligent design explaained, with the same EXACT rationale.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Point me to a qualified group of biologists that make that claim and I'll consider it.
RationalRat 4 years ago
And no, the Discovery Institute doesn't count.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Nice Catch 22.
Any Biologist who believes in intelligent design is unqualified to offer an opinion.
Therefore: no Qualified Biologists Believe in Intelligent design.
Anyway, I didn't bring up ID because I want to argue for or against it. I'm just poinitng out the similarities in your arguments.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Yeah, I knew it was a throwaway argument. But apparently, you don't understand the reason why I defer to the consensus. It isn't that scientific truth is determined by majority vote; it is because it's a complex subject and they are the ones that are most qualified to make these types of assessments.
And you know that ID biologists are a small religiously-motivated minority. Unless you are planning on making your "GW = religion" argument, they aren't even remotely analogous.
RationalRat 4 years ago
" they are the ones that are most qualified to make these types of assessments"
That''s not how it works. A Scientist's guess isn't any more reliable than one from a Theologian they are both still guesses.
It isn't the Scientists that give an argument its weight, it is is the Science. So if they make a remark with no Science behind it, it is just a remark. No more valid than either of our opinions.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
=== So if they make a remark with no Science behind it, it is just a remark. No more valid than either of our opinions. ===
There is a vast difference between "very likely" and "no science". There is science behind it. There is evidence that hurricanes over warmer water intensify. Is it proven? No. But just a guess, no better than the average person's on the street? No.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"very Likely" with an asterisk:
"Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies"
In other words: good guess, but no science.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Sorry, my bad. It isn't "very likely". It's "more likely than not".
RationalRat 4 years ago
Meanwhile you ADMITTED there will be an economic impact, My assessing the magnitude of "Doom" to that impact, is no more inaccurate than your assessment of the environment being "screwed."
To summarize our positions then: Neither of us can truly see the fuiture, so we're both speculating here.
You're willing to sacrifice prosperity for the environment, I'm willing to sacrifice the environment for prosperity.
I'm guessing that you don't have a lot.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
The economic hit comes from the fact that right now at least it costs more to use alternative energy than it does to use fossil fuels. So I'm talking about the economic hit we have at the start. After we have used alternative fuels for a while and prevented some of the impacts predicted by the IPCC, then those costs are offset. So the hit is short-term. Longterm, both the environment and the economy are affected negatively impacted by failure to act.
RationalRat 4 years ago
So your claim that the idea that it is the environment vs. the economy over the longterm is a false dichotomy.
RationalRat 4 years ago
I'm guessing that you don't have a lot.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Don't have a lot of what?
RationalRat 4 years ago
Money.
Those without are usually less concerned about a bad economy.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
I don't know how appropriate it is to give details about my personal finances, but suffice it to say, your line of reasoning couldn't be more off.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Even Lomborg, who contends that most efforts to combat global warming aren't cost-effective, doesn't make claims that they will impoverish everyone. So who is being alarmist? I'm saying action is justified based on the agreed upon likely impacts of the best scientists in the world. You're the one claiming the sky will fall if we even try to do anything (economic doom, impoverishment, can't escape a hurricane, etc.)
RationalRat 4 years ago
=== Carbon fiber car. ===
Don't know a lot about them. I do know that hybrids and electrics aren't competitive with gas-powered cars. People buy them because they are concerned about the environment.
=== Subsidies to oil companies / nuclear power ===
Agree with the first. Don't know enough about current nuke technology for the second. As long as we can manage the waste and it's safe.
RationalRat 4 years ago
OK, here we go, see what I'm talking about:
watch?v=8D-uhKHy7mk
While you sit in your own little reality bawling about how it can't be done, other people out there are DOING IT.
shanedk 4 years ago
Pretty exciting technology. Of course, RMI is a not-for-profit that depended on angel money for it's funding. And of course, if we did have a carbon tax, it would only strengthen the incentive to continue investment in companys like RMI. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by that. If it's that we should increase our funding for promising technologies like this, I agree.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Did you miss the point about the car companies in the video? Did you watch the whole thing? They could easily make back their investment and then some if they choose to.
Carbon taxes make NO sense. That's Al Gore's excuse for using more carbon than 20 families--he pays for it. So, what, all of a sudden that doesn't cause GW anymore?
shanedk 4 years ago
Yes, at this point they probably can make their investment back. But it took some time to get to that point.
The Gore mansion? I can't believe you went there. Ignoring the fact that he spends more to use green energy and carbon offsets to begin with, what difference would it make if he didn't? If a antismoking lecturer smokes, does that invalidate the science?
Stick to debunking astrology. This is just about as irrational as it gets.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"Yes, at this point they probably can make their investment back. But it took some time to get to that point."
That's the market for you. If people didn't do that, we'd never have ANY innovation. And yet, the free market innovates all the time. So when you say the free market can't do this sort of thing, you're only showing your profound ignorance.
shanedk 4 years ago
You seem to be missing the point. It was primarily angel money that got this going to begin with. There is a limited amount of this. (And I'm not sure how big of an impact this will have anyway. It's exciting technology, but how big of a difference this will make has yet to be shown.)
RationalRat 4 years ago
Now, I've seen your bogosity videos (which are great by the way) so I know you're a smart guy. But I haven't seen you make one reasonable statement concerning global warming. My hope is that you will research the subject and do a bogosity video against the AGW deniers.
RationalRat 4 years ago
If I do a Bogosity video, it'll be against BOTH the deniers and the alarmists. The REAL science is neither. And I HAVE been researching it, for several years.
Example: By every rational analysis, Kyoto will cause more harm than good; even a lot of climate scientists reject it. Yet the GW politicos cling to it like it's the savior of all mankind, and anyone who's against it is a "denier."
shanedk 4 years ago
It's a given that there aren't going to be any perfect protocols. So you have to ask why they reject it. Some reject it because they believe the costs are too high but others believe it doesn't go far enough! The Stern Review is an economic analysis that shows that the costs of inaction would drastically outweigh the costs of action.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"It's a given that there aren't going to be any perfect protocols." No one's asking for perfection. But how about one that at least solves more problems than it creates?
shanedk 4 years ago
If the Stern review is correct, the worst possible option by far is inaction.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Again, the false dichotomy. When have I EVER posited inaction?
You directly accused Lomborg of wanting inaction, which IS NOT TRUE EITHER. He has specifically mentioned things like doing more research into alternative fuels. NO ONE is saying do nothing.
THAT'S why you're not being rational. You wear the label, but you don't live up to it.
shanedk 4 years ago
Apparently, you aren't reading what I'm saying. We can play semantic games all day. Remember, he or his editor is the one who chose to title his article "Save the world, ignore global warming." So on the spectrum of proposals concerning how much action we should take, his recommendation, while not "nothing at all", is "not much".
RationalRat 4 years ago
And since we are talking about being rational, did you listen to the video? This is about as irrational as it gets. The 9 planets/8 planets thing was plain stupid. So even though you aren't as extreme as he is in your views (at least not in your comments), it makes you wonder why you would favorite and defend such an asinine anti-science screed. He starts by attacking Gore and then spends the rest of the time attacking scientists. If this is what you consider rational, count me out.
RationalRat 4 years ago
I'm going to say this to you again, slowly so maybe you'll get it: THIS...IS...A...STAND...UP...COMEDY...ROUTINE. His job is to be funny while offending as many people as he can. And he's one of the best in that regard.
shanedk 4 years ago
Yeah, whatever. It's supposed to be serious observational comedy, so he is trying to make a point. So hiding behind "it's comedy" isn't going to work. He attempts to make fun of enviros by showing how nerdy the scientists are and how they are losers who drive small cars. It's funny to the bigots because they don't want to take the science seriously to begin with.
RationalRat 4 years ago
The courts in England found 11 major falsehoods in that fictional documentary.
goose1077 4 years ago
Actually, he said 9 "errors", but the judge also said ""Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
RationalRat 4 years ago
It's worth pointing out that Galileo wasn't reputable. Reputable is determined by public opinion which is determined by who is the best at spin. Clearly Al Gore wins at that game.
goose1077 4 years ago
And by the way, I'm aware that text replies can sometimes come across as flippant, but if I misrepresented your view, it was not intentional. I really just don't understand what you are saying. I think you believe that Al Gore is alarmist, but I just don't see where he has said anything that most scientists don't agree with. Even the 20 ft. sea rise is acknowledged to be possible by the IPCC when read in context.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"Even the 20 ft. sea rise is acknowledged to be possible by the IPCC when read in context."
In WHAT context? You must have read a different report than I have. The reports I've read say anything from 1 to 2 1/2 feet.
shanedk 4 years ago
"[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m..." From the IPCC report (sorry, I don't know which one.) That's what Gore said. He didn't give a timeframe. And there are some scientists who believe that it could happen much quicker, although the evidence wasn't strong enough to include in the IPCC report.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Ah, I was looking at the next 100 years, not the next 1000.
shanedk 4 years ago
Fine, but that wasn't what Gore said, so you can't accuse him of dishonesty for a statement he didn't make. He said if they go, which the IPCC agrees with. I also think that there are reputable scientists who say that the ice sheet could go much earlier, but I'll have to find the reference.
RationalRat 4 years ago
Okay, but even if he did mean WAAAY off into the future, it's STILL not true that most of SF would be flooded because the average elevation in SF is more like 60 feet. And he DID say that explicitly in his movie.
shanedk 4 years ago
I'm looking at an excerpt from the transcript, and he said San Francisco Bay, not all of San Francisco.
RationalRat 4 years ago
I don't remember him saying "Bay," and the map he showed was the whole of SF. But if he just meant the bay, well, that's not quite so alarming now, is it? Not since Katrina. And despite the efforts of many to link Katrina to GW, the origins of it lie more with domestic policy and the failings of government. I think we're at FAR greater risk from that than we are from GW.
shanedk 4 years ago
Once again, not true. He said San Francisco Bay. (He showed a map with SF labeled, but not all of it underwater.) It would also affect the Netherlands, Beijing, Calcutta, Florida, etc.
Now, if you want to criticize him for giving the impression that this is something that will happen in the near future, that would be fair. But he didn't say that.
RationalRat 4 years ago
It was definitely the impression people were left with; I asked a couple of other people who saw the movie and they were left with the same idea.
Gore's a master politician: he can give people the misleading idea he wants them to have without being technically dishonest.
shanedk 4 years ago
Al Gore showed pictures of cities submerged under 20 feet of water. He even showed a picture of the World Trade Center SIte. He used CURRENT population data to estimate the amount of refugees from such a deluge.
So the implication is clearly that it is going to happen sooner rather than later. And since the next census is in 2010, one mifght suggest that he was expecting such a catastrophe before then.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
Why? Even if we are talking about millenia, it's still likely that populations will be as high or higher than they are now.
Of course it was meant to be a dramatization. And there are scientists who do think that shelfs could fail much sooner than millenia, and the IPCC specifically excluded those possibilities because they aren't known. But even if the odds are low, it's perfectly reasonable to take action to prevent it.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"Even if we are talking about millenia, it's still likely that populations will be as high or higher than they are now."
Nonsense. Many cities from 1000 AD are either abandoned or underwater. As the ocean moves inland, so will the people. Nobody will remember where the World Trade Center was in 3007 either.
So Gore was obviously implying that the 20 foot rise was probably in our lifetimes
KerryOakley 4 years ago
there are scientists who do think that shelfs could fail much sooner than millenia, and the IPCC specifically excluded those possibilities because they aren't known"
Right. They excluded it, because there was no SCIENCE to support it, nor any Scientific Consensus. Just a lot of apocalyptic speculation.There are Scientists who believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but the IPCC report didn't bother to mention that either.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
There was enough to focus on while including things that were likely to happen than to include poorly understood contingencies like the ice shelfs failing. But there is science to support that those shelfs are weakening, so I fully expect that we will have more information about them in future IPCC reports.
RationalRat 4 years ago
From the IPCC: "Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise"
So Science can't even guess if the Ice Shelf melting is even LIKELY. And can't even estimate an upper bound (beyond 23 inches).
Translated: Anyone who thinks Science beleives 20 feet is possible, is just Nutsy Koo Koo.
KerryOakley 4 years ago
How did you get from our understanding is too limited to assess their likelihood to it's not even possible?
RationalRat 4 years ago
" But even if the odds are low, it's perfectly reasonable to take action to prevent it."
That is probably the craziest thing I ever heard. There is Nothing "reasonable" about wrecking the economy based on an improbable "maybe." Plunging the US into a recession, because a couple self important pinheads are afraid of a little melting. Who's been serving you the Kool-Aid?
KerryOakley 4 years ago
I'm much more optimistic about our ability to find solutions to this problem than you are. Will there be an economic hit? Sure. But there will also be a hit if we don't take action and it could be much greater. And even if we focus in on economic impacts that the IPCC classifies as likely are greater by 2100, action is justified.
RationalRat 4 years ago
But let's just assume that the odds of the ice shelfs failing in the next century are 1 in 100, which is a way lower threshold than what IPCC would include in their report. Why would it be unreasonable to take action? I mean, companies have Disaster Recovery plans even though the odds of them having to use them may be that low or lower. So why is it unreasonable for our country to do the same thing?
RationalRat 4 years ago
"But let's just assume that the odds of the ice shelfs failing in the next century are 1 in 100, which is a way lower threshold than what IPCC would include in their report. Why would it be unreasonable to take action?"
Um, isn't that just Pascal's Wager?
shanedk 4 years ago
--applause--
KerryOakley 4 years ago
No. You don't know the difference between risk management and Pascal's Wager?
RationalRat 4 years ago
Yes. You apparently don't, as you ignore the problem of allocating limited resources.
shanedk 4 years ago
No, I don't. But your starting to just throw stuff up and see what sticks. Because I said nothing at all that resembles Pascal's Wager.
RationalRat 4 years ago
"No, I don't."
Yes, you do, as evidenced by your comment above. Your SOLE criteria for taking action was based on what the consequences would be if the worst-case scenario were true.
There was ZERO regard for the fact that this would take money, time, and resources that would otherwise be spent elsewhere.
shanedk 4 years ago