I warned you about it earlier. Crank science sites across the internet feature news of another cheap hit on Rachel Carson and science in movie form.
“Not Evil, Just Wrong” is slated for release on October 18. This is the film that tried to intrude on the Rachel Carson film earlier this year, but managed to to get booked only at an elementary school in Seattle, Washington — Rachel Carson Elementary, a green school where the kids showed more sense than the film makers by voting to name the school after the famous scientist-author.
The film is both evil and wrong.
Errors just in the trailer:
- Claims that Al Gore said sea levels will rise catastrophically, “in the very near future.” Not in his movie, not in his writings or speeches. Not true. That’s a simple misstatement of what Gore said, and Gore had the science right.
- ” . . . [I]t wouldn’t be a bad thing for this Earth to warm up. In fact, ice is the enemy of life.” “Bad” in this case is a value judgment — global warming isn’t bad if you’re a weed, a zebra mussel, one of the malaria parasites, a pine bark beetle, any other tropical disease, or a sadist. But significant warming as climatologists, physicists and others project, would be disastrous to agriculture, major cities in many parts of the world, sea coasts, and most people who don’t live in the Taklamakan or Sahara, and much of the life in the ocean. Annual weather cycles within long-established ranges, is required for life much as we know it. “No ice” is also an enemy of life.
- “They want to raise our taxes.” No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
- “They want to close our factories.” That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.
- The trailer notes the usual claim made by Gore opponents that industry cannot exist if it is clean, that industry requires that we poison the planet. Were that true, we’d have a need to halt industry now, lest we become like the yeast in the beer vat, or the champagne bottle, manufacturing alcohol until the alcohol kills the yeast. Our experience with Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Air Acts and the Clean Water Act is that cleaning the environment produces economic growth, not the other way around. A city choked in pollution dies. Los Angeles didn’t suffer when the air got cleaner. Pittsburgh’s clean air became a way to attract new industries to the city, before the steel industry there collapsed. Cleaning Lake Erie didn’t hurt industry. The claim made by the film is fatuous, alarmist, and morally corrupt.
When the human health, human welfare, and environmental effects which could be expressed in dollar terms were added up for the entire 20-year period, the total benefits of Clean Air Act programs were estimated to range from about $6 trillion to about $50 trillion, with a mean estimate of about $22 trillion. These estimated benefits represent the estimated value Americans place on avoiding the dire air quality conditions and dramatic increases in illness and premature death which would have prevailed without the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and its associated state and local programs. By comparison, the actual costs of achieving the pollution reductions observed over the 20 year period were $523 billion, a small fraction of the estimated monetary benefits.
- “Some of the environmental activists have not come to accept that the human is also part of the environment.” Fatuous claim. Environmentalists note that humans uniquely possess the ability to change climate on a global scale, intentionally, for the good or bad; environmentalists choose to advocate for actions that reduce diseases like malaria, cholera and asthma. We don’t have to sacrifice a million people a year to malaria, in order to be industrial and productive. We don’t have to kill 700,000 kids with malaria every year just to keep cars.
- “They want to go back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” No, that would be the film makers. Environmentalists advocate reducing filth and ignorance both. Ignorance and lack of ability to read, coupled with religious fanaticism, caused the strife known as “the Dark Ages.” It’s not environmentalists who advocate an end to cheap public schools.
- The trailer shows a kid playing in the surf on a beach. Of course, without the Clean Water Act and other attempts to keep the oceans clean, such play would be impossible. That we can play again on American beaches is a tribute to the environmental movement, and reason enough to grant credence to claims of smart people like Al Gore and the scientists whose work he promotes.
- “I cannot believe that Al Gore has great regard for people, real people.” So, this is a film promoting the views of crabby, misanthropic anal orifices who don’t know Al Gore at all? Shame on them. And, why should anyone want to see such a film? If I want to see senseless acts of stupidity, I can rent a film by Quentin Tarantino and get some art with the stupidity. [Update, November 23, 2009: This may be one of the most egregiously false charges of the film. Gore, you recall, is the guy who put his political career and presidential ambitions on hold indefinitely when his son was seriously injured in an auto-pedestrian accident; Gore was willing to sacrifice all his political capital in order to get his son healed. My first dealings directly with Gore came on the Organ Transplant bill. Gore didn’t need a transplant, didn’t have need for one in his family, and had absolutely nothing to gain from advocacy for the life-saving procedure. It was opposed by the chairman of his committee, by a majority of members of his own party in both Houses of Congress, by many in the medical establishment, by many in the pharmaceutical industry, and by President Reagan, who didn’t drop his threat to veto the bill until he signed it, as I recall. Gore is a man of deep, human-centered principles. Saying “I can’t believe Al Gore has great regard for real people” only demonstrates the vast ignorance and perhaps crippling animus of the speaker.]
That’s a whopper about every 15 seconds in the trailer — the film itself may make heads spin if it comes close to that pace of error.
Where have we seen this before? Producers of the film claim as “contributors” some of the people they try to lampoon — people like Ed Begley, Jr., and NASA’s James E. Hansen, people who don’t agree in any way with the hysterical claims of the film, and people who, I wager, would be surprised to be listed as “contributors.”
It’s easy to suppose these producers used the same ambush-the-scientist technique used earlier by the producers of the anti-science, anti-Darwin film “Expelled!“
Here, see the hysteria, error and alarmism for yourself:
Ann McElhinney is one of the film’s producers. Her past work includes other films against protecting environment and films for mining companies. She appears to be affiliated with junk science purveyors at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an astro-turf organization in Washington, D.C., for whom she flacked earlier this year (video from Desmogblog):
Remember, too, that this film is already known to have gross inaccuracies about Rachel Carson and DDT, stuff that high school kids could get right easily.
Anyone have details on McElhinney and her colleague, Phelim McAlee?
More:
- A few sane, scientific-minded people have noted the film, too.
- Ecorazzi had some sharp words
- Update, October 12, 2009: One of movie’s producers acting badly, as Al Gore provides evidence of the movie’s errors
Related posts, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
- The killer CO2 cloud climate change “skeptics” don’t want you to know about
- Monckton will lie about anything
- Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a practicer of fictional science
- Post-film premiere update, here
Please spread the word:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
The ultimate defense from a guy who plagiarizes a site that sells college papers to cheaters, who claims against chemistry and physics that CO2 doesn’t absorb energy at the frequencies it does, and who has been sucked in by hoaxes spun by people he idolizes.
Hex, you oughtta sit back and let people who really know carry the ball for you.
Review your high school chemistry here, and learn the facts about CO2. Or here, from the Department of Energy. Or here. Or here, at the University of Michigan. Or here, from the American Institute of Physics. Or any place that dispenses good, basic level science.
You genuinely don’t think CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas?
Wow! How many bridges do you own?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Is that something you’re claiming, Hexmate Munchausen, or more plagiarism of somebody’s work you can’t explain and don’t understand?”
Ed this seems to be your common cop out statement whenever there is an opposing point of view. It’s getting old Ed… old and empty. Just like you Ed, and your clanging around again. I can hear you rattling all the way over here.
LikeLike
Polar Ice
*Antarctica’s represents 90% of the world’s ice and 70% of its fresh water. Antarctica’s sea ice volume was the largest ever recorded in 2008.
*Antarctic sea ice extent in 2008 exceeded 1979 in ten of eleven months. Average ice extent was over 17% larger than in 1979. Sea ice thickness was also larger.
*In October and early November 2008 the Arctic sea ice grew at the fastest rate ever recorded (43,804 square miles per day)
*Arctic Sea ice is increasing at a record rate in 2008, early 2009
*While it is true there has been generally less Summer Arctic Sea Ice in the past two decades this loss has been entirely offset by the growth of ice in the Antarctic. When you combine both poles, there has been no net reduction in global ice!
*The volume of Antarctic ice in 2008 was averaging one million square kilometers more than normal. Summer ice melt was 40% below the average.
*The 2008 Summer Arctic ice melt was 9% less than the record of 2007. 1,700,000 square miles of Arctic ice did not melt this year.
*There is evidence that the Artic sea ice completely melted at least four times before man first walked the earth. Tropical turtle fossils have been found in the Arctic, proving this area was once much warmer than today.
*On Oct 15, 2008 Arctic sea ice had grown 29% larger than in the previous year.
*Arctic sea ice was 220,000 square miles larger in Nov ’08 than Nov ’07
*Greenland’s temperatures today are cooler than those of the 1940’s NASA GISS
*recent studies have shown that winds have a larger impact on polar ice formation than does temperature. Changes in winds and sea currents at both poles have caused an increase in ice formation, even though there has not been significant temperature variation in this period.
*The Winter of 2007-2008, had most ice between Greenland and Canada in 15 years.
*If all the floating ice in the world melted, what would happen to the sea level? Answer: The sea would not rise but could go lower, since ice has more volume than water. The melting of floating sea ice can not raise sea levels, no matter how much ice there is.
*If land based ice, such as the 650,000 cubic kilometers of ice on Greenland melted the seas would rise considerably. But, in even the worse case, only one tenth of one percent of Greenland’s ice could possibly melt in the 21st century. It would 10,000 years or more to melt under the worst scenarios. (since most of Greenland is well below freezing much of the year, and most likely this melting would be interrupted by another Ice Age, don’t worry, Greenland’s ice won’t melt like some say it will).
*When the glaciers of the ice age melted the sea levels only rose one meter per century. If Greenland was to melt at the same rate today sea levels would only rise 4 inches per century according to Prof Morner. There is no possibility of coastal flooding from global warming.
*There was considerable ice melt in Greenland during the Medieval warm period (this is when the Vikings colonized it), yet sea level did not rise higher than the sea level found today! How do we know this? The Tower of London was built at sea level in 1150 AD, the sea is the same level today as depicted in paintings from the time it was built.
*The warmest temperatures ever recorded in Greenland were in the 1930’s.
*If all the land based ice melted, yes the seas would rise, but there would be about the same amount of livable land than there is today since Antarctica and Greenland would become habitable. (but don’t worry, this won’t happen).
LikeLike
Ed said: “Calculate the collapse of 60% of the world’s fishing industry. Calculate the impact of that collapse on beef, pork and poultry; calculate the impact of that on grains — and while you’re at it, scratch all the grain production from Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas and Indiana (is there any chance that could be replaced by simply plowing up the Canadian Territories?).”
Ed are writing that science fiction stuff again for that new movie you are going to produce? You are such a stich Ed!
LikeLike
Ed said: “I think I begin to see why you don’t see much value in preserving the nation we’ve got, if you think it’s populated by parasites.”
No Ed just you not anyone else – JUST YOU!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Bullshit. Nobody in their right mind could make a claim like that.”
No Ed you are spewing out bullshit and now you are getting it back and you don’t like it. Cry me a river Ed!
LikeLike
Ed said: “We’re still not buying. Our military works better without people who regard Americans as parasites. Take your retirement, and be glad there are others who defend America because it’s worth defending.”
Ed this all about you isn’t Ed? You sit on your fat behind and shoot your mouth off at the expense of those who gave you that freedom do it. However you don’t take any responsibility for that so I am taking you to task for it. You can’t even spell freedom Ed much less know what it takes to preserve it. Your words are hollow Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Civilians as parasites — like the parasite who packed your parachute, and the parasite who donated the blood for the plasma that saved your life when after you ran into that claymore . . .”
Ed you don’t have clue! The closest you ever came to a claymore is something you read somewhere about it. Same with donating blood or packing a parachute… you are nothing more than a bunch of hot air Ed and you are heating up the planet with it.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Where’s the citation?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas — the chemical and physical facts cannot be denied by sane people. Greenhouse gases cause temperatures to rise when there is too much of the stuff in the air.”
Ed this all conjecture on your part. You don’t have any proof!
LikeLike
Bullshit. Nobody in their right mind could make a claim like that. Insurance actuaries make Americans pay for climate change every month. Farmers and ranchers have had to adjust their crops, schedules, and everything else, because of climate change.
How many legs does a calf have, if you call her tail a leg? Four. Calling her tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.
Is that something you’re claiming, Hexmate Munchausen, or more plagiarism of somebody’s work you can’t explain and don’t understand?
LikeLike
Civilians as parasites — like the parasite who packed your parachute, and the parasite who donated the blood for the plasma that saved your life when after you ran into that claymore . . .
We’re still not buying. Our military works better without people who regard Americans as parasites. Take your retirement, and be glad there are others who defend America because it’s worth defending.
I think I begin to see why you don’t see much value in preserving the nation we’ve got, if you think it’s populated by parasites.
LikeLike
Which era? Where’s the study? How much higher was the CO2? How much deforestation was there? What were the methane levels?
Where’s the citation?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas — the chemical and physical facts cannot be denied by sane people. Greenhouse gases cause temperatures to rise when there is too much of the stuff in the air.
Suggesting that life would be sustainable with oceans 50 miles farther out than they are now is crazy talk.
Suggesting that life would be sustainable with ocean levels five feet higher is, similarly, crazy talk.
Oh, there would be humans. There would be cities. But there would be significant disasters beyond what anyone has yet imagined.
Take the Aral Sea catastrophe, and multiply it by the factor of the coastline of the oceans divided by the coastline of the Aral Sea — it’s a SWAG figure, but close enough.
Calculate the collapse of 60% of the world’s fishing industry. Calculate the impact of that collapse on beef, pork and poultry; calculate the impact of that on grains — and while you’re at it, scratch all the grain production from Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas and Indiana (is there any chance that could be replaced by simply plowing up the Canadian Territories?).
After the Chixculub incident, a few animals in North America survived, and after a few tens of thousands of years, more made it back.
Why should we stand by and let that happen, if we can do anything at all to reduce it, or mitigate it, or stop it?
LikeLike
No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate.
Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.
We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles
[Editor’s note: These words are not original here, and they have been repeated so often at crank science and hack political sites that it’s difficult to figure out where they came from. If you have the copyright on ’em, defend away.]
LikeLike
Ed said: “The facts are that CO2 levels are much higher than they should be to maintain our current planetary temperature, and humans put the stuff there.
No Ed you see you are wrong again. There seems to be no shortage of theories about how rising CO2 levels will destroy the planet, yet the geological record shows that life flourished for hundreds of millions of years with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Clever. I catch you plagiarizing a college theme cheat site, and you call me a “parasite.”
You defended our nation? You once took an oath. I hope you’ll live up to it.”
Ed I didn’t call you a parasite I identified you as a parasite which of course you obviously are. It’s okay Ed you are entitled to be a parasite. Now Ed you didn’t catch anything but if it makes you feel better you can claim anything you want to claim.
Sure did defend our nation Ed – what did you do Ed? I have always lived up to my oath that is why you as a parasite get to live here.
LikeLike
Clever. I catch you plagiarizing a college theme cheat site, and you call me a “parasite.”
As I noted earlier, we know now what we’re dealing with in Hexmate, but frankly, we don’t want to bother with the price. We’re not buying.
You defended our nation? You once took an oath. I hope you’ll live up to it.
LikeLike
If you now believe what you most recently wrote, that levels of CO2 cause the problem (“the dose is the poison” or whatever the old saw is), then yes, you are now right. If you’re keeping your original position that CO2 is somehow magically protected from being recognized as a pollutant because it’s “natural,” or that CO2 is not a problem because it’s been higher back when there was no oxygen available, or somesuch, you’re still wrong.
I hope you’ve come around. Have you?
That’s correct. CO2 is too high. We have to have some for human life, we need some for plants to be able to photosynthesize, but those levels are generally far below the levels of what we have now. We need that much, but not so much that the greenhouse effect overheats the planet, which kills the plants and people who need lower amounts of it.
Have you come around?
LikeLike
I called your error a boneheaded error.
If it’s not a boneheaded error, defend it.
By now I’m not sure what your complaint is. Are you claiming CO2 can’t be a greenhouse gas? Are you claiming we don’t have enough CO2? Are you claiming that a substance that also occurs naturally can’t be a pollutant?
The facts are that CO2 levels are much higher than they should be to maintain our current planetary temperature, and humans put the stuff there. You’ve complained all around the issue — what’s your real beef?
LikeLike
Ed said: “It’s only an important factor in noting that you don’t know beans about polar bears, and they can’t swim 200 miles, and maybe the Polar Bear Study Group who have dedicated much of their lives to the beasts may know a bit more than you do about them.”
Oops Ed you lose again. Just another little factoid that you didn’t know. Oh my!
Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2008 4:02:51 PM by Red Steel
A polar bear that swam more than 200 miles through near-freezing water to reach Iceland was shot by local police – just in case it posed a danger to humans.
LikeLike
Ed said: ‘No, I’ve never been in a live war zone.
But then, I’ve never plagiarized a professional cheater’s site before, either.
At the little old university I used to teach at, used of such material was grounds for summary dismissal, no refund of tuition, no excuse of student loans, no chance of re-entry.”
I just wanted be certain I had detected a parasite Ed so thanks for confirming your identification for me. At least I know what I am dealing with. We can tolerate parasites like you though, we have learned to accept that for what it is. Thanks for another one of your diversionary comments Ed it is so eloquently written. Of course we already know you have no credibility so it offers up nothing other than a feeble attempt on your part to respond. Ed you don’t know what you have done from one post to another so it only stands to reason that you have no idea what is going on. At least we do know you can’t handle any of the posts that are put up here, as evidenced by your responses.
LikeLike
Ed you completely missed my point on CO2. If I agree with you, and you are right, then I am right. Right?
What I said is that the levels of CO2 are the issue not the existance of CO2.
In any case, continuing to call me names (I am boneheaded for my assesment of CO2, questioning my education etc.) shows a lack of character on your part.
This is becoming a pointless discussion, and in some ways I think you want it to be that way.
Let me break it down for you:
(1a) You put words in my mouth that completely misrepresent what I say.
(1b) Then you mock and insult me for these words or stance which in no way represent my actaul argument.
(2a) I post links which you do not read, claiming that the source is more important than the content.
(2b) Then you blame me for not knowing where certain quotes come from.
(3a) I write a few paragraphs detailing my point of view.
(3b) You respond to a few of the sentences, ignore the rest, and claim I dont explain my stance.
I am inclined to believe that you dont give your full attention to everything on this blog (I hope you have better things to do). But dont blame that on me.
Ed, some people might call you an arrogant a**hole (in a bad way ;) ). But I tend to keep my punches above the belt. Try and show the same courtesy.
Here is some interesting developments in the nuclear energy issue.
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27252040/what-a-waste.htm#q=nuclear+waste
Looks like Obama is ready to pull the plug on the storage facility after $13 billion has already been spent and increased taxes already paid. This could seriously affect our nations ability to produce nuclear energy.
LikeLike
Anyone who doesn’t object to too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a patsy. Natural substances can be poisonous, and any substance in too great a concentration, or in the wrong place, can be deadly. Your position on CO2 is analogous to your claiming that we should shut down the Red Cross Water Safety program, because after all, water is essential to life, so claims that people drown are foolish and damaging.
CO2 in too great a concentration is polluting. Too great a concentration is rather the definition of pollutant in atmospheric science.
Moreover, if you’ll take a look at EPA’s proposed rules to control greenhouse gases, you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
CO2 is not beneficial everywhere, all the time. EPA’s rules on CO2 are wise and sound, and generic claims that “CO2 can’t be a problem because it’s natural” demonstrate a lack of understanding about chemistry, physics and law — and a stubborness that is more rear end of the mule than front end.
LikeLike
Said when you cited the Heartland Institute, a group famous among denialist kooks for being hard-headedly wrong.
The problem there was your source. Their stuff will suck the brains right out of your head — but you know that, if you’ve read their reports on physics, you being a physics graduate student and all. Right?
Don’t blame me for assaulting you when I am indicting your source, please. If you won’t defend the source, don’t cite ’em, or apologize for having done so.
LikeLike
When I have students who stick to boneheaded claims and do not make their case clearly, they get the same response.
Did you want a less heated discussion? Come in with less heat. Do you want detailed responses on a point? Detail what your argument is that you want a response to, don’t just point me to an encyclopedia and claim I err. If you do, I’m liable to show you your error from that encyclopedia, with all the disrespect you mustered in your question.
Fair?
LikeLike
So, when you make a boneheaded claim about the chemistry of CO2, it’s an adequate response for me to simply link to the periodic table of elementss?
What did who from MIT say that you think is significant and deserves a response? You throw up a link, often to a trash site, and then you claim to have made all of those arguments, no matter what they are? I can’t read your mind. You shouldn’t expect me to pull magic tricks out.
My apologies for the confusion. You claimed I spent to much time talking polar bears, when all I did was correct an error. I see how you are! You don’t want any corrections of errors by anyone!
Too bad. That’s not me, that’s not this blog.
You’re right, I missed that you had a bigger point. Maybe you could state that point succinctly.
LikeLike
There is really very little purpose to arguing with Ed on his blog. He fails to realize that he represents a perspective, as we all do, and that his perspective is not automatically superior to other perspectives held by scientists who would disagree with his conclusions.
In this light, it is not surprising that he would attack the links I post as “propoganda” but fail to address specific comments in the links that are made by informed scientists (like the one from MIT).
Furthermore, he confuses me with Hexmate with regards to arguments about polar bears (yes Ed it was Hexmate who was arguing about polar bears, so maybe you should substitute your own apology for the accusation, but I wont hold my breath) and completely misses the bigger point that I tried to make.
He also fails to realize that I may actaully understand that back door insults like “you display only moderate honesty and integrity” (even with a lowercase M! it is a negative statement) or “you know less than nothing about this subject” (atleast I know that I dont know everything) or “youve lost every point so far” (in Ed’s mind hes never wrong) is still an insult and not part of productive discussion. I hope he showed better manners to his students. His arrogance is not something that I would respect in a classroom.
He also writes, “ah I spoke to soon. You know less than nothing…” when in fact he is typing and can change the words before he posts. Instead he chooses to use phrases that he imagines would be embarassing for me. A sign of a lack of restrain and even a lack of maturity in my eyes.
The fact is that I attend the physics graduate school program at a university that specializes in atmospheric science. But I imagine that Ed can find someway to hold this against me or prove my ignorance, instead of giving me any credibilty.
As for the impacts of CO2 being “hard science” I will say that yes it is a green house gas. But green house gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. Anyone who objects to CO2 is the atmosphere is a moron. We would all die if this was the case. So as I said before (I am growing tired of repeating myself) the existence of CO2 is not the problem, it is the level of CO2 that is a concern. I would disagree with anyone who uses the phrase “CO2 is a pollutant.” But this is really an issue of semantics. I will get to the real issue shortly.
With regards to the economic impact, I would assume Ed is not an economic expert and he should reread (or just read) the link that I posted which contains these quotes,
“sweeping climate regulations threaten the economy. Regulation of CO2 could become the most far-reaching regulatory grab in the history of EPA”
““The potential economic damage to an already-fragile economy is tremendous”
Or maybe Ed could study how cap and trade affected Spain’s aconomic situation. I mentioned this a week or more ago but havnt seen any specific response to it yet. (Ed says, “if I didnt respond to it I didnt think it deserved a response.”) So I may assume that a real life example of cap and trade isnt relevant?
Now while I have spent energy on the above comments, they are really only to defend my character and not part of an interesting debate.
The real issue (as Ed is beginning to recognize) concerns the most appropriate thing to do now and in the future. We could focus specifically on CO2 emissions since this is Al Gore’s main talking point.
The fact is that we dont know what level of CO2 is unacceptable. This is why I dont call it “hard science.” With hard sceince you could say “at this level we will have these conditions.” If I am mistaken, please describe the exact relationship between the conditions and levels for me (I am open to persuasion). But for the moment lets move forward with the assumption that it doesnt fit my defintion of “hard science.” (since I am a scientist this seems like a reasonable course.)
So we dont know exactly how CO2 will affect temperatures (sepcific levels coresponding to specific global conditions) and we dont know how other factors such as the sun will behave in the future (this comment about the sun is according to Ed’s reference). What we do know is that CO2 levels are rising due to human activity and that this tends to increase the temperature.
SO we have a situation of uncertainty. This is where philisophical differences play a role.
Some people will argue that there is a “tipping point.” More precisely they speculate about such a point. They are saying that the response will be nonlinear in the sense that instead of gradual decay, we will have a catastrophic decline (fall off the cliff). I call this the “meteor theory.” By the time it arrives we are all doomed. Although we dont know when or where this point occurs, these people argue that we must make immediate and radical changes. This would be ok with me if there alternate technologhy had been developed to the point where we could make a smooth transition, but this is not the case. So instead of enacting policies that will increase the cost of electricity and lose jobs, I suggest we focus on developing these new technologies and work on a plan of transition that is most practical. Because there is also uncertainty in the progress of technology. We could potentially lose a decade of prosperity because we were not patient enough to wait for the right solutions.
There is also the issue of the global community. There is no guarantee that countires like China will adopt the same policies as us, or that they we honor commitments to policy. So we risk adpoting policies that put us at an economic disadvantage with the rest of the world and also have little impact on gloabl conditions assuming other countries continue to pollute.
On the other hand, if we become the gloabl experts on clean energy, we are in a position to improve our economic situation and to have a large impact on global conditions.
This is an approach that I believe is reasonable.
Let me also provide a quote here since Ed is fond of them.
“Be the change you want to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi
So anyone who claims to be a environmental activist with moral fortitude should look first into the mirror before poiting their finger at others. Sometimes I feel that people are not willing to make the sacrifice unless others do the same. But somehow they claim that they are taking a moral stance. It is disingenuous.
LikeLike
Ed:
Are you still at it trying to defend Man Made Global Warming. It is very amusing that as diligent and sure as you think you are, you fail to see that so many people have made valid points against APGW.
Lets look at how ridiculous the IPCC is when they talk about CO2. Man emits emits about 35 billion tons of CO2 worldwide each year. The IPCC claims 1 Trillion tons of CO2 equates to 1 degree F increase in temperature.
So we would have to stop all CO2 production for about 30 years just to stop the Planet from increasing 1 degree F. Of course the IPCC claims the temperature will rise 6 degrees. Which means at least 200 years of living in the stone age to stop APGW.
Nevermind that we are going to have a very difficult time preventing volcanos from dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Maybe we should pass a law and ban volcanos.
The only Inconvenient Truth that Al Gore’s claims are completely wrong and only aimed at making lots of money for himself and his carbon credit corporations.
I know ED, you will undoubtedly have some sort of retort. Fact is you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Face it, APGW is a dying cause and the tide has shifted toward real science and the truth, APGW does not exist.
LikeLike
If I’d meant it as an insult, I’d have capitalize “Moderation.” As it is, it’s a double or triple entendre, based off the advice of the Greek philosophers: “Everything, in moderation.”
I regret that you took it as an insult, and not as an embarrassing (to you) revelation. Now you’ll dig your heels in and keep it up, no matter how ignorant and unvirtuous it is, I’m sure.
I’d ask you to stick to the facts, but you’ll be insulted instead of noticing that you’re not posting any facts.
You were the one who argued that polar bears can swim 200 miles without a sweat. I regret that you missed the point: You were wrong, and you owe polar bears and every Tenderfoot Scout many apologies.
It’s only an important factor in noting that you don’t know beans about polar bears, and they can’t swim 200 miles, and maybe the Polar Bear Study Group who have dedicated much of their lives to the beasts may know a bit more than you do about them.
I’ll concede any point you win. You’ve lost ’em all so far.
The music afficianado met Fritz Kreisler backstage, and gushed, “Oh, Mr. Kreisler! I’d give my life to play the violin like you do!” Kreisler smiled, and said, “Madame, I have given my life to play the violin the way I do.”
Go spend some time with the Polar Bear Study Group. You might see something of interest.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/issues/threats/climate-change.html
They have dedicated their lives to getting the science right about the polar bear.
I ask because when I looked at the rule, I didn’t see any heavy regulation of CO2. The cost-effect studies show modest increases in cost.
So should I be surprised that you don’t refer to the rules and make any specific complaint?
How will the rules raise the cost of electricity for everyone? What is the “heavy regulation” that you protest?
So, you deny the physical properties of CO2 to act as a greenhouse’s glass panes? On what science do you base that absurd and exactly wrong claim?
Or is there another claim?
Or do you know anything at all about the science of the atmosphere?
Ah, I spoke to soon. You know less than nothing about the air — you pay attention to the Heartland Institute’s public relations campaign for air pollution. May God save us.
There are signficant unknowns, but they pale beside what we know. We know the climate is warming, exactly in lock-step with the emissions of greenhouse gases including CO2 from human endeavors. We don’t know for certain where the doomsday point-of-no-return is, and we don’t know how quickly civilization will collapse when we pass it.
I think it’s unwise to rocket past that point just for the sake of research.
LikeLike
Ed says, “Everything in moderation, except honesty and knowledge, and virtue, please.”
What do you mean by this Ed? because it seems like a personal attack on my honesty, knowledge, and virtue. Although I have stated respect for your knowledge on global warming issues, I do not respect your personal insults.
I was making the simple point that on your blog you spend too much time arguing about how far a polar bear can swim. Like somehow this is an important factor when it comes to climate change. Maybe you think it is, by then I would suggest that you are missing the bigger picture. In any case, you seem to be intent on not conceding a single point to your “opposition.” (This is a sign of someone who worries too much about “scoring points” and is not totally focused on the truth) If a polar bear could swim 3000 miles, I dont see how that would change the science of global warming or how it should affect the policies.
Maybe if these researchers cared so much about polar bears, they would help them survive instead of watching them die.
Ed says, “What part of EPA’s rule do you object to?”
Well if you read what I have already written and dont automatically assume that I am an idiot you will realize what I object to: namely heavy regulation of CO2 emissions that will most likely raise the cost of electricity for every single American.
I also object to the EPA suggesting that the impact of CO2 emissions is “hard science” as Ed might say.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25502/EPA_Rules_CO2_a_Danger_Prepares_to_Regulate.html
The article contains this quote,
“Assertions that the science is settled and that climate impacts will be severe are used to justify an extreme set of policy responses,” Kueter added. “An objective review of the available information leads instead to a conclusion that significant unknowns and uncertainties remain in our understanding of the climate system and what the potential impact of change might be.”
which is a summary of what I have been saying for many days now. I previously posted a quote by an MIT scientist who basically said the same thing.
LikeLike
What part of EPA’s rule do you object to?
LikeLike
I’d be inclined to agree — except, what fault can we really find with the report of the Polar Bear Study Group? It’s a group dedicated to studying polar bears, from the five nations that have polar bears living within their national boundaries, some of which states favor hunting the bears heavily and some of which favor halting all hunting. The group has been working the issue for about 30 years, longer than any other group, with the biggest collection of active polar bear researchers anywhere.
And yet, when this group notes what is known, the “climate change skeptics” ridicule the group, claim they don’t know their own area of expertise, and ask us to ignore their findings until “further research is done.”
Everything in moderation, except honesty and knowledge, and virtue, please.
LikeLike
Ed seems to have a lot of experience and knowledge on this subject. And I would like to acknowledge that for what its worth. Often these types of discussions degenerate into personal attacks and I see examples of that from both sides here.
My position on global warming is fairly clear. It is not a fixed position, but is flexible and can adjust to new events and new understanding of complicated systems. I agree with thousands of intelligent and informed scientists who beleive that the current evidence and analysis of that evidence is not sufficient to justify “emergency solutions to avoid catastrophe” – Al Gore. I also believe that I am being reasonable when I say that the rhetoric that is used to push the global warming agenda is often misleading and distasteful. Some will use pictures of dying polar bears or children swimming in waste to awaken the emotional response in people. Some will use fear tactics such as “the sky is falling” approach or “catastrophe is near”.
It is no secret that a crisis is often generated or exaggerated in order to pass legislation. Look at the Patriot Act or this years Healthcare bill. Instead of asking “what is the best thing to do”, we are told that drastic and immediate action is the only answer and that nothing we do can be worse than doing nothing.
During this years Olympic bid for the 2016 games, the prime minister of Japan was promoting his city by declaring a “green” approach to the event. He also insisted that 2016 would be the last Olympics if global warming isnt taken more seriously (a very irresponsible remark from such a powerful person.) One country in Europe began printing the carbon footprint of food items on boxes and menus. They recommended choosing chicken over beef. They also admit that the footprint can vary by an order of magnitude depending on specifics (something that was not accounted for on their scale.) In Al Gore’s speech he says that the global warming cause is a moral obligation that is comparable to fighting the Nazi’s during WWII. In this light, we are not only being “stupid” but also “immoral” by questioning the global warming agenda. Instead of changing minds, resentment is created.
We cannot of course categorically label CO2 as pollution. Plants need CO2 to live and mammals generate CO2 with every breath. The environment needs a balance of CO2 with other stuff to be healthy. The CO2 that is produced by humans has greatly increased and therefore the levels in the atmosphere have also increased. But I dont see this as a meteor that is approaching the earth and is about to end life as we know it. CO2 levels need to be measured and managed to avoid creating a substantial imbalance. I dont see cap and trade as being the best response to the issue. I dont see how associating arbitrary costs with the production of CO2 is “fair” or justifiable at this point. And considering the economy, it will be hard to manufacture much support for the legislation from moderate democrats.
In the meantime, everyone would be better off if the less energy was spent on propoganda and more was spent or research and development. If less time was spent on details (how far can a polar bear swim?) and more was spent on the big picture. We would be better off if people did more to change their personal life styles and less to interfere with other peoples life styles. We need more innovation and less legislation. In the end, the best technology will make it to the marketplace. The cheapest and most efficient solutions will rise to the top.
LikeLike
No, I’ve never been in a live war zone.
But then, I’ve never plagiarized a professional cheater’s site before, either.
At the little old university I used to teach at, use of such material by a student, even, was grounds for summary dismissal, no refund of tuition, no excuse of student loans, no chance of re-entry.
Now we know what your occupation is, Hexmate. We are not bothering to haggle the price.
LikeLike
You call it namecalling, a polemical, political label, suggesting you think there is something wrong with that analysis.
The rest of us call it heads up science, and note that it’s an accurate label.
Funny that you implicitly complain about namecalling as somehow a shady tactic, as you do it.
LikeLike
Ed have you ever sat in a foxhole, a bunker, a watch tower, a war zone? I have.
LikeLike
Moderation this is the primary mission of Ed and his minions.
Introduction:
Several hypotheses have emerged to explain the global warming phenomenon. Among these theories, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has emerged as the leading theory, which deduces that the Earth is warming due to human activity and that as a result humans will eventually destroy the planet. The AGW theory has permeated nearly every facet of modern society. Over the past few decades, scientists, politicians, marketers, and Earth lovers alike, for various reasons, have employed propaganda techniques to promote the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory; in the process, they proactively sought to curtail the exposure of the truth in order to profit from people’s apprehension of global warming.
Fears of the Earth’s rising temperature are based on global temperature averages over the past 100 years, with special interest placed on the past decade. During the mid 1800’s, the average surface temperature varied but, was close to -.4 °C. Contrasting the older temperatures with today’s average of .4°C, a difference of nearly .8° C, has alarmed many and caused others to investigate the reasons for the perceived increase in temperature.
Human activity has borne the bulk of the blame for the increased temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations to investigate the impact human activity has on the global climate, while recognizing other factors that influence the climate, attributes the majority of global warming to human activity.1 Human activity includes land clearing, industrial emissions and transportation emissions, which increase greenhouse gasses and aerosols. The IPCC, the chief promoter of AGW, identified that the primary cause of increased temperatures worldwide is human-related carbon dioxide emissions from fossil burning fuels.
The IPCC recently published dire worldwide predictions based on their global warming calculations. While supporters of the AGW Theory often quote other sources, the IPCC is generally recognized as the most authoritative body on the subject. Their report concludes that the increasing global temperatures will cause ocean levels to rise and the water to become more acidic; the confident estimates predict that precipitation, wind, and ice will change as well- although there is no consensus on their magnitude.2 The IPCC deftly presents all of the calculations, though nearly each one contains a caveat explaining that the models employed are lacking significant data or the phenomenon is too complex to accurately model.
Propaganda Techniques:
Scholars have written volumes explaining the techniques and methodology of propagandists for hundreds of years. To propagandize, one need only read a how-to manual to learn the concepts of an effectively run propaganda campaign. Propaganda techniques include appealing to fear, appealing to authority, name-calling, transference, bandwagoning, obtaining disapproval, over simplification, utilizing virtue words, employing faulty logic and more. AGW proponents utilize all of these methods to further their goals, which will be discussed later.
Appealing to fear is perhaps the strongest technique used by propagandists. Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Goebbels exploited and motivated the German population by striking fear into them. Likewise, propagandists have attempted to use the fear factor to get the media’s attention and gain front-page real estate. Headlines such as “Scientists fear global warming higher than expected” are designed to make the audience cringe with fear when they read that earth’s average temperature could rise by 7.8°C by 2300 with polar ice caps melting and seas rising by seven meters.3 Nearly every report concerning global warming is laced with calamitous consequences if something is not done soon. This type of propaganda is effective in catching readers’ attention and motivating them to some action.
In the early stages of AGW propaganda, global warming fears dominated public consciousness. Later, beginning in 1998, the Earth began to cool while atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE continued to rise in complete contradiction to the theory. As a result, the phraseology of AGW alarmists became “climate change” so that any variation in the Earth’s climate could then be attributed to human activities.4 The problems with the scare tactic is that eventually people become immune to the warnings, prompting the AGW propaganda engine to produce more extreme warnings. John Ritch, director general of the World Nuclear Association, provided an excellent example of upping the fear factor; in June 2007, “Greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are – quite literally – apocalyptic. … If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people- and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents.”5 At some point, propagandists will be forced to rely on other tools of propaganda- as appealing to fear will eventually lose effectiveness.
AGW propagandists do not rely solely on fear to influence the masses however; an appeal to authority is a common technique. By invoking the infallible name of science, advocates can point to others who have advanced degrees and use scientific jargon to impress and beguile the masses. Because the average citizen does not have the time or resources to conduct her own study of the warming phenomenon, she is forced to rely on the opinions of those scientific authorities. Who on their own can readily cite hard numbers and create computer models to evaluate and project the future? Appealing to authority alleviates the average citizen of this academic burden.
Authoritative sources include dictionaries, which have become a tool of the propagandist. American Heritage Science Dictionary gives the following definition for global warming:
An increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires.6
Authoritative sources employ several other types of propaganda techniques, many of which overlap. The above appeal to authority includes the tactic of fear and faulty logic- using seemingly contradicting predictions concurrently; how can a worldwide drought simultaneously be accompanied by flooding and melting of land-locked glaciers? Contradictory statements by some authoritative sources seek to lend credibility to the AGW argument by oversimplifying the theory, yet making it confusing enough for the average citizen to leave in the hands of “experts”.
Name-calling is usually reserved for politically minded individuals and those audiences predisposed to agree with the one presenting the message. Words such as “right wing” or “ultra conservative” contain such a built-in prejudice, that when an author utilizes them to describe an opponent of AGW, the same prejudices are transferred to that individual- regardless of the opponent’s political leanings. Name-calling will often be invoked attacking the person, rather than the idea being presented. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate researcher became frustrated during a conference on Global Warming when challenged by Colorado State University’s William Gray, one of the nation’s preeminent hurricane forecasters and said that Dr. Gray is not a credible scientist, “Not any more. He was at one time, but he’s not any more”.7 Name-calling attempts to discredit individuals and the ideas they represent- is unprofessional, and unfortunately, individuals on both sides of the AGW theory engage in it.
Additionally, name-calling is often applied to naturally occurring molecules in nature; carbon dioxide is regularly labeled as a pollutant- something that is essential for plant life and, subsequently, all life. Labeling those who disagree with AGW as less than educated or ignorant stifles scientific thought and academic deliberation, favoring the pro-AGW theorists. Further, attempting to categorize carbon dioxide as a pollutant wrongly demonizes nearly every oxygen breathing carbon dioxide emitting organism, but primarily places the blame on humans- who release CARBON DIOXIDE in the air when burning fossil fuels. Additionally, placing carbon-dioxide in the category of pollutant emphasizes, as many AGW supporters do, that it is a major green house gas, which it is not. Water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas, may soon be targeted and placed on the list of pollutants.
Proponents of AGW engage in a propaganda technique known as “transfer.” Transfer occurs when the positive or negative traits of one thing or person are associated with that of another. For example, when the supporter of AGW addresses a television audience, he wears a white lab coat, whether or not he works in a lab, because people associate white lab coats with scientists and truth untainted. Conversely, when interviewing a skeptic of AGW, the deft AGW reporter will find a suitable candidate among a Texas oil town or a steel worker in Detroit. In each case, the viewer will associate a negative or positive image of the person speaking with what he or she is presenting.
A vivid illustration of transfer is the attack by Ben Stewart of Greenpeace on the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the primary think tank that opposes the AGW theory. Stewart says, “The AEI is more than just a think tank, it functions as the Bush administration’s intellectual Cosa Nostra”.8 By equating the AEI to the Mafia, Ben Stewart attempts to transfer the negative feelings and images of the terrorist/criminal organization to that of the AEI and President Bush- simultaneously, he engages in name-calling to discredit the AEI. Mr. Stewart does not attack the concepts presented by AEI or any of the rational behind their objections to AGW, he attacks those funding the organization and appeals to outside organizations predisposed to bias.
Bandwagoning and polarization go hand in hand. The propagandist will attempt to simplify the issue, presenting only two extreme options: you can either pollute, drive big SUV’s, burn coal and waste energy or you can join the eco-friendly, caring people who want to preserve the Earth for future generations- which is what every other responsible person is doing. These techniques are highly effective because while one may not completely agree with what is presented, it is easier to go along with what everyone else is doing- thousands of scientists and millions of other people can’t be wrong.
Bandwagoning is invoked regularly when discussing the Kyoto Protocol. Propagandists will posture that every other nation has agreed to the Protocol except for the United States. The manipulator will then polarize the argument, presenting America as the reckless polluting capitalist giant, which has excluded itself from the responsible nations of the world. Nevertheless, even those “responsible” nations recognize the implications of the Kyoto Protocol. Margot Wallstrom, the European Union’s commissioner for the environment and global warming said, “[the Kyoto Protocol] is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations; this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious.”9 The EU knows that if the US agreed to the protocol, it would disadvantage the US economically. The technique of bandwagoning and polarizing the issue can only be effective among those less informed masses; those who fully understand the subject comprehend the myriad issues and consequences of such actions.
Propagandists capitalize on the public’s disapproval of big industry and the distrust of oil companies. Several websites posit that oil companies fund the bulk of the research disputing AGW through its primary opponent, AEI.10 Whether this is true or not, it implies that: because oil companies and big industry cannot be trusted, neither can the results of their research. Despite the fact that AEI scholars and fellows are required to disclose in their published work any affiliations they may have with organizations with a direct interest in the subject of that work, detractors continually cast doubt on the work of their scientists and scholars.11 In fact, a popular website declares the AEI as “an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank … [which] promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.”12
Direct attacks on this organization are representative of a propagandistic technique to obtain disapproval. In other words, if group X (which the audience believes is inherently bad) likes or approves of something, then that something must be wrong or bad.
Over-simplification of the issue is a pitfall in which nearly every media outlet falls. The issues and contributing factors surrounding global warming are so numerous that even the scientists who created the models for the IPCC admit that there is simply not enough computer power to account for all the variables affecting the global warming phenomenon.13 To address even the major factors in a scientific setting requires multiple volumes and numerous charts and data; presenting the findings to the average citizen, in terms he can understand, demands simplification. The propagandist has succeeded in convincing the typical American that consuming energy and driving cars, cause global warming; the result of which is that the Earth is getting hotter and will eventually result in the annihilation of humanity.
Because the argument for AGW has been oversimplified, the ordinary citizen believes that she understands the concept and the factors related to it. Buzz words such as deforestation, O-zone, rising ocean levels, shrinking ice caps, pollution, over population and death become intermingled and blurred; the simpler the idea, the easier it is to remember. Never mind the complex concepts of global forcing, the fact that Antarctica is actually getting colder or that the Earth is continuously either warming or cooling- and has been for millennia, or that the oceans can rise and shrink simultaneously; the average person cannot and will not devote the time and energy required to pursue an advanced degree or dedicate the time required to understand the complex issues surrounding the AGW theory. Simplifying the message and presenting the idea in terms that most can understand help to further the AGW propagandist’s agenda.
Expert and novice propagandists have long wielded virtue words and slogans. Virtue words impart value to the idea to which they are associated. For example, when considering the abortion slogans, “pro-choice” sounds so much more positive and human rights oriented than “anti-life” which carries a negative connotation. Likewise, AGW propagandists have chosen slogans that are endearing and hard to argue against. Phrases such as “Save Our Earth” imply the Earth is in need of saving and, that we can and should do something to save it. Who could argue the opposite phrase “destroy our planet”? This slogan draws on the bandwagon technique, implying that the individual needs to join others in saving “our” planet.
Other virtue words commonly used by proponents for AGW include science, Mother Earth, health, and civilization. Such words evoke emotion and their usage prompts actions to protect and defend the ideas to which they are attached. Pro AGW articles that claim science predicts global warming will end civilization as we know it, endanger our health and destroy Mother Earth are designed to stir up feelings of fear, one of the previously discussed propaganda techniques.14 There is literally no end to the list of virtue words; a propagandist can harness any word that has an intense or personal meaning to someone to elicit a thought or response from his audience.
AGW supporters regularly incorporate faulty logic into arguments when attempting to explain something for which there are not yet answers or reasonable explanations. Just because B chronologically follows A, it does not mean that A causes B. The AGW adherent will claim that the Earth’s temperature is rising and so is the carbon dioxide levels from humans, illogically concluding that this means human carbon dioxide emissions are causing the temperature to raise. Another form of faulty logic is an accident resulting from over simplification. While exploring alternative fuels, several scientists have discovered that palm oil burns cleaner than petroleum. AGW supporters jumped on this idea and championed the research to modify vehicle engines that will burn palm oil, a readily renewable resource. Little did they know the issue was more complicated than simply burning a new fuel; harvesting palm oil is a major cause of rain forest deforestation and is associated with the widespread use of chemicals, which damage health and pollute the environment.15 While honest mistakes are sometimes made, good intentions are not enough to justify illogical actions.
An AGW defender may argue from ignorance; claiming that an idea is accurate simply because it has not been proven false. The AGW propagandist might suppose, “I don’t know what this means, but it must be bad because the unknown is frightening.” Further, circular reasoning is employed when campaigning for decreased emissions of pollutants. Example: An AGW champion posits that all pollutants that increase green house gases must be regulated. When asked what pollutants she is concerned about, she responds, “the ones that cause increased green house gases.” There are many other types of faulty logic, all of which have been employed in the argument for AGW.
The Reasons for AGW Propaganda:
The propaganda techniques discussed are tactical methods to convince the world population that humans are the primary cause of global warming. The strategic goal, however, is to incorporate as many of these methods into the daily life of the average citizen, so that he accepts the theory as fact. From new articles, t-shirts, laundry detergent, political speeches, movies, and appliances to car insurance commercials, AGW has permeated modern society to the point where there is no escape. A discussion of the benefits that AGW supporters receive will offer explanations why the AGW theory has received overwhelming backing.
Anthropologic Global Warming theory is a marketers dream. It has paved the way for the development of new inventions, provided funding for scientists, and created a demand for eco-friendly products, including everything from hairspray to solar panels. The effectiveness of AGW propaganda can be measured by the demand for environmentally friendly products in the past two decades. Various companies have sought the endorsement of the EPA to tout their products to the recently converted AGW believers.
A Google search for “eco-friendly” results in 12,000,000 hits; while a search for “eco” alone yields over 81 million.16 Products offered include vacationing, health food, books, beauty products, air filters, soap, home products, pest control, televisions, insurance and more. Nearly every type of company, hawking every type of good or service has capitalized on eco-friendly marketing. AGW propaganda propels multi-billion dollar industries to exploit the fears that global warming proponents have sown into the unwitting minds of the masses.
Businesses are not the only entities that have profited from the AGW propaganda. Foreign nations, such as China, France and Germany regularly use the theory as diplomatic leverage to pressure the United States to curb its industry, attempting to weaken the US as the world’s lone super power. Developing nations in South America have attempted to use their rain forests as leverage to receive foreign aid and political clout. The Brazilian government has asked for over $1.5 billion in aid to fund projects that are aimed at preserving their rainforests- similar to demanding a ransom.17 While it is doubtful that they will receive the blank check their government has asked for, it is clear that hundreds of millions of dollars will continue to flow to the region in an attempt to prevent them from destroying their own rainforests.
The AGW scientists, of course, are recipients of the successful propaganda as well. As governments and industry realize that their continued power and income rely on new “shocking” revelations by authoritative scientists, more funding will be provided to ensure a steady flow of fodder for the propaganda engine. Scientists will receive grants and endowments to undertake new and expensive studies to solidify the theory and guarantee their salaries for years- that is, as long as their reports confirm the AGW theory. In turn, those universities that produce the scientists benefit from the surge in new students seeking to “save the Earth” as well as from grants, scholarships, and funding to increase the programs, which feed the AGW machine.
The United States may also strategically benefit from the AGW theory- if it can politically resist the worldwide call for it to join the Kyoto Protocol. During the economic “eco-surge,” scientists and inventors are receiving mass funding to develop and discover new environmentally friendly fuels, including bio-fuels and hydrogen engines. If the scientists are successful and entrepreneurs can find a way to profitably market these new products, the United States, and consequently the world, will come to depend less on oil as a source of energy. Although only 20% of US oil consumption comes from the Middle East, OPEC, the largest conglomeration of oil producing countries that determines production rates for those nations, is comprised primarily of Middle Eastern nations. This is in-line with the current administration’s policy: “By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past”.18 It seems that nearly everyone and every nation can benefit from the AGW theory to accomplish its goals- including the United States.
The Problem:
If so many benefit from the AGW theory, what is the problem with promoting it? From a marketer’s viewpoint, probably nothing; however, a moral dilemma presents itself when the truth about global warming is discovered and attempts to cover it up and discredit it occur. For hundreds of years, scientists, which the AGW proponents hold up on a pedestal, have used a process of experimentation called the scientific method. The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only attempt to disprove a hypothesis. A hypothesis that cannot be disproved does not mean that it is correct; it simply becomes a theory, which other scientists must then try continually to disprove.
Why then do scientific organizations and communities set out to support or prove the AGW theory? As scientists, they should be trying to disprove the theory rather than find ways to reinforce it. Further, the entire study of AGW theory is based on peer review, which conclusions form an authoritative basis for future development on the theory. The problem is that good experiments are not based on authority. If Galileo had based his reasoning on authoritative writing of his day, he would never have developed the fact that the universe does not revolve around the Earth. However, working theories do serve to create a model to predict future observations- this is what the IPCC has done, with illogical results that only perpetuate the theory.
For years, supporters of the AGW theory have warned that the human activities have led to global warming and threaten the existence of human life itself. The hotter temperatures, they say, will cause crops to wither and famine to spread as moisture is evaporated from the soil. Indeed, AGW champions have used every method of propaganda to convince the world’s population that it will soon die.
Bad Models
In a petition signed by more than 17,000 scientists, they urged the US government not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. They argued that the research data on climate change does not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. Conversely, they claim that there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”19
The science behind the AGW theory is simply not good science. The logic does not add up, the experiments are based on a faulty hypothesis, the models based on that hypothesis are unsurprisingly incorrect as well- which lead to inaccurate predictions designed to only accomplish the agenda of the backers.
Assuming, momentarily, that the AGW theory is true, that humans have caused the earth to warm exponentially, logical conclusions could be drawn based on the theory. Indeed, contrary to the dire predictions of fearful environmentalists, a warmer planet will have beneficial consequences on the world’s food supplies. Longer growing seasons, more sunshine and precipitation, shorter winters and less frequent frosts, with summertime temperatures rising only slightly, will create a better environment for humans, plants and animals alike.
According to the AGW theory, as the planet warms, the oceans will release copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a chemical compound that plants thrive on and require for life. With the increased amounts of carbon dioxide, plant life will flourish, absorbing the chemical as a fertilizer. Since 1950, in a period of global warming, the increase of carbon dioxide released from humans and the oceans have helped the world’s grain production soar from 700 million more than 2 billion tons last year.20 Clearly, the increased mean temperature and warming in the northern hemisphere will have positive effects for farmers across the world.
Continuing with the assumption that AGW model predictions on the melting ice caps are true, the melting and warming of the polar ice caps will have an equalizing effect on equatorial currents and wind currents. Because there will be less drastic contrasts in temperatures, hurricanes and violent storms, currently understood to be caused when a cold air front meets a massive warm front and the shifting air currents erupt in intense weather, will be less frequent. The warming temperatures will result in more evaporation, as the calamitous IPCC predictions suggest, however, the evaporation will occur on the ocean surface as well- which the increased atmospheric temperatures will not be able to retain, causing life giving rainclouds to form, delivering much needed rain to regions already suffering drought. The predictions presented by the AGW crowd seem to only cover the negative aspects of the model, stressing the evaporation portion of the hydrological cycle, yet forgetting the rain that the evaporation inevitably brings.
The Center for Global Food Issues reports that, based on satellite reports, the Earth has been getting greener since 1982, thanks apparently to increased rainfall and CARBON DIOXIDE; and, worldwide vegetative activity generally increased by 6.17 percent between 1982 and 1999- despite extended cloudiness due to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo and other well-publicized environmental stresses. 21 Apparently, plants thrive in carbon dioxide rich environments; these studies have prompted greenhouse owners to pump large amounts of it into their greenhouses resulting in record size tomatoes and flowers.
Real science is based on repeatable scientific experiments that can be reproduced anywhere in the world. Actual experiments have resulted in finds from nearly 800 scientific observations around the world that a doubling of carbon dioxide from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.22 While the theory of AGW may not be disprovable, the predictions based on the theory are wildly illogical and serve only the agendas of AGW propagandists and those they serve.
The Real Story
The fact is that the Earth’s climate is always changing and has been since it was formed. Ice core samples taken from the Vostok Station in Antarctica show that major ice ages followed by warming periods, sprinkled with minor ice ages are a natural phenomenon; that is, they occur regardless of human activity. What causes these ice ages and warming periods is unknown; however, it is likely that several factors contribute to the episodes outside of human control.
Over millions of years, as Earth orbits the sun, its axis changes ever so slightly. This is known as global forcing- what causes this is unknown. A few degrees of change, however, can impact the temperature of the Earth. Additionally, levels of green house gasses can impact the temperature of the Earth by acting like an insulator to keep solar radiation in the atmosphere. Further, major catastrophes, such as substantial volcanic activity can impact the global temperature and climate as well as extra-terrestrial factors including solar flares, asteroids and cosmic wind. Finally, a factor that is rarely discussed amongst anthropologic global warming propagandists is the theory that the Earth’s core is responsible for the fluctuations in the ocean temperatures, and subsequently, the atmospheric warming and cooling.
The increase of greenhouse gasses has been correlated with the increase of temperature. Examination of the ice cores shows that levels of carbon dioxide can be used to estimate historical temperatures. A fallacy that AGW proponents have perpetuated, is that carbon dioxide levels cause the temperature to rise, when the most logical explanation for the relationship is a warming/cooling cycle where the increase of temperatures causes the oceans to release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The increased release of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the primary green house gas, subsequently compounds the warming process until the skies become super-saturated with cloud cover. The increased cloud cover blocks the incoming solar radiation leading to lower surface temperatures and increased snowfall, and denser carbon dioxide levels in the oceans, rather than the skies. The decreased cloud cover results in the surface temperatures rising and the oceans releasing carbon dioxide; and the cycle starts over again.
Another possibly significant contributing factor to climate change is solar flares and sun spots. Occasionally, the sun releases extra amounts of energy, which is visible in the form of solar flares and sunspots. These flare ups generate solar wind which disturbs the path of cosmic dust in the path of the Earth’s orbit, blowing it out of the way. The cosmic dust would normally collide with the Earth’s atmosphere, bonding to water vapor found in the atmosphere, generating cloud cover. When solar flares erupt, cloud cover is significantly reduced, causing temperatures to rise temporarily. This factor is generally understood to be insignificant in the macro view of global climate change.
Ocean water retains heat at a much higher percentage than the atmosphere and has the ability to transfer heat at a much higher rate than the atmosphere. This simply means that the oceans cannot be easily warmed by atmospheric temperatures; yet, the opposite is true for the atmosphere. The ice suspended over the oceans is 90% submerged. To melt the polar ice caps, the water surrounding them must be warmed. A simple demonstration can be constructed to show that ice melts faster in water than it does out of it.
This phenomenon can be observed in both the northern and southern poles. The Arctic ice caps, which are suspended in the ocean, are melting rapidly, as are the ice caps over the ocean in near Antarctica. However, the ice over the land mass in Antarctica is actually thickening- evidence that that it is the oceans warming over the poles rather than the air. Since the ice caps are already floating in the ocean, melting them will not cause the oceans level to rise- except for the ice melted over land which drains into the oceans.
A further observation regarding the theory that the heat is originating from the oceans instead of the atmosphere is increased precipitation levels. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) reported that during the last 100 years, precipitation has increased over land at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially during the cold season.23 Increased atmospheric gas temperature results in increased water vapor retention; conversely, increases in the oceans’ temperature results in evaporation, which results in more precipitation. The report from UNEP supports the theory that during periods of cooler atmospheric temperatures, precipitation increases. Because of the increase in precipitation, ice is in fact thickening over the landmasses at Antarctica and Greenland, as shown by satellites, which use radar to measure thickness of ice.24 The snowfall over the southernmost continent will remain there for a long time and will continue to accumulate until a balance has been achieved.
Atmospheric temperatures have increased significantly in micro-climates regionally due primarily to the rising ocean temperatures; though world-wide air temperatures have not increased much at all. Europe and Greenland have experienced a rise in surface temperatures due to the Gulf Stream, which gathers heat from the Atlantic Ocean and delivers it to what would otherwise be a cooler climate. North America is experiencing a warmer atmosphere due to the warming of the arctic- due to the melting of the ice caps surrounded by water, where most of the cooler air for North America originates. These explanations can all be attributed to the warming of the oceans.
The Earth’s molten core is heating the oceans. Heat continually radiates from the core to the mantle and is evidenced in the form of volcanoes, geothermic wells, geysers, and the fact of geothermal gradients, meaning that the deeper into the Earth one travels, the warmer the temperature. Because the center of the Earth is liquid, it may move from place to place depending on gravity and centrifugal forces. Since absolute North changes periodically, it may indicate that the core is changing position as well. Observations from space show that the Earth is not round, but pear-shaped, with the bulk of the Earth located in the Southern Hemisphere.25 If the absolute center of the Earth has recently relocated to the Southern Hemisphere, it may account for the increased ocean temperatures- as less land mass is located in the lower half.
Conclusion
Whether the Earth is warming from the oceans or from the sun, it is imperative to recognize propaganda for what it is. Anthropogenic Global Warming may be the largest misunderstanding of the Earth nature since we thought the world was flat. The tools used to convince the masses that such a theory is true are tools of pure propaganda. The unscrupulous scientists that perpetuate the lie are only partially to blame, as they are manipulated by the politics and commerce of the world. As AGW propagandists play with the heartstrings of the Earth’s population and billions of dollars are invested to prevent its demise, monetary funds are drawn away unnecessarily from other more worthy projects. The AGW propaganda has found its way into the lives of citizens by every possible avenue; the truth is available for those who earnestly seek it; though covered by years of propagandistic lies.
LikeLike
Ed said:”“First you serve up bovine excrement, and now canine excrement.”
Ed you are so uptight you gotta get with and be a little flexible you know.
Necropsy: A postmortem examination or autopsy
LikeLike
Ed said:”A few hardy bears might be able to swim 200 miles on a perfect day — 20 miles is the usual range, and anything past 20 can be deadly for the bear.”
You been swimming with the bears again Ed. How precious.
LikeLike
Ed said: “First you serve up bovine excrement, and now canine excrement.”
I thought you loved that stuff for dessert Ed! Eat up Ed it’s really good for and the environment.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Editor’s note: Just follow the link given. The caption says the cub died from starvation.”
Hey Ed maybe it’s because the bears have over populated their environment. Let’s get a look at the necropsy for that bear to make sure these guys didn’t miss something.
LikeLike
I did read that line — but I scraped that stuff off my shoe before I posted the next line. First you serve up bovine excrement, and now canine excrement.
A few hardy bears might be able to swim 200 miles on a perfect day — 20 miles is the usual range, and anything past 20 can be deadly for the bear.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Must we read the stuff for you, too?”
No problem Ed you read mine I’ll read yours I wouldn’t want to over work you.
LikeLike
Ed said: Polar bears do okay in a 20-mile stretch. Why didn’t you bother to read the article?
No Ed that is 200 miles. Why didn’ you read mine?
LikeLike
Polar bears do okay in a 20-mile stretch. Why didn’t you bother to read the article?
Then it explained why that means polar bears are drowning:
Must we read the stuff for you, too?
LikeLike
Ed said:”Hexmate says this doesn’t happen”
Yeah Ed it does happen so you think maybe you might be able to find out how that bear died? Don’t forget your snow shoes. What a farce. You certainly can do better than that Ed. Talk about no data.
Editor’s note: Just follow the link given. The caption says the cub died from starvation.
LikeLike
Ed said: “The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead [polar] bears floating in the water. “We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds,” said the report”
Ed this is cute but polar bears know how to swim.
A polar bear that swam more than 200 miles through near-freezing water to reach Iceland was shot by local police – just in case it posed a danger to humans.
The death of the bear, thought to be the first to reach Iceland in about 15 years, caused a public outcry from animal lovers, the Guardian reported. A police spokesperson said that it would not have been possible to sedate the bear.
“There was fog up in the hills and we took the decision to kill the bear before it could disappear into the fog,” police spokesman Petur Bjornsson.
Iceland’s environment minister, Thorunn Sveinbjarnardottir is said to have given the green light for police to shoot to kill because it would have taken 24 hours for a proper tranquilizer to be flown to the scene.
A vet from a neighboring town, however, criticized the decision, claiming that he had the drugs necessary in the trunk of his car.
“If the narcotics gun would have been sent by plane, it would have arrived within an hour,” he said. “They could keep tabs on the bear for that long.”
The bear is believed to have swam either about 200 miles from Greenland or from some distant chunk of Arctic ice. The last time a polar bear made a similar journey to reach Iceland was in 1993, and that bear was also shot to death.
The tragedy is being cited as a reminder of the impact that receding North Pole ice has on its animal inhabitants – the shrinking of the polar bears’ hunting and mating grounds and the ripple effect on the area’s eco-system.
LikeLike
Ed said: “You offer not an iota of rebuttal, just insult in response.
Another case of the empty vessel making the most noise, I reckon.”
Ed my data is there all you have to offer is some what if scenario not facts – just IF. That’s not data, facts or proof Ed. Gee I can hear you banging around all the way over here.
LikeLike
London Times, Online
LikeLike
Hexmate says this doesn’t happen:
Photo from ImageBank
LikeLike
Ed said: “And yet, despite the drop off in solar irradiance, temperatures are NOT dropping,”
Ed don’t cherry pick read the whole thing – no oopsie except for that little puddle you left behind.
LikeLike
Gee, Hexmate. You claimed the polar bear populations are increasing, without any pointer to any evidence, without even a link to one of your pseudo-science sites.
I bothered to look up the data from the Polar Bear Study Group, the most distinguished, the most experienced, the most accurate group on polar bear populations — and I cited their conclusions and linked to their report.
You offer not an iota of rebuttal, just insult in response.
Another case of the empty vessel making the most noise, I reckon.
LikeLike
And yet, despite the drop off in solar irradiance, temperatures are NOT dropping, because (according to that site you cited) Anthropogenic global warming is offsetting the cooling.
Oopsie.
[Sorry about the bleed over of the chart.]
LikeLike
Ed said: “Interesting how you call the world’s most qualified and most respected experts “unproven,” and say they try to “screen the issue from reality.”
No Ed, YOU are screening the issues from reality. Take a little responsibility for yourself. It will be very fulfilling.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Please don’t project to me your evidentiary flaws, and especially don’ project them on the people who know.”
I don’t need to Ed the facts speak for themselves. You should read them.
LikeLike
More data for you to chew on about polar bears Ed.
Arctic Fairy Tale
The polar bear isn’t threatened, but Big Oil should be.
By Roy Spencer
The decision on Wednesday by the U.S. Interior Department to declare the polar bear a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act is a major victory for environmentalists who have been looking for a back-door legal mechanism to limit carbon-dioxide emissions.
The decision was made after nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies looked into the possibility that the polar bear might be faced with extinction late in this century. Polar bears need a sea ice environment for most of the year to thrive. But summer sea extent has been receding for the last 30 years that we have been monitoring it with satellites, and as a result, two of the 13 subpopulations of polar bear have seen population declines. The other eleven subpopulations have been stable or growing. In all, the total polar-bear population is believed to be at or near a record high — 20,000 to 25,000.
So how is it that the eventual extinction of the polar bear has been forecast in the face of record-high numbers? Well, as in the case of global-warming projections, experts relied on computer models that predict continued global warming and continued melting of summer Arctic sea ice.
And the scientists had some help. Hollywood did their part by producing the heartwarming movie Arctic Tale, which followed a polar bear family struggling to survive on a fixed budget and without a father around to help out. Queen Latifah did her part by channeling the polar bears’ thoughts for us, since the last person who tried to interview a polar bear was eaten.
Parents did their part by taking their kids to see the movie. Then the kids pestered their parents to both pester their elected representatives and to contribute to the Save the Polar Bear Fund.
Those nice folks at the Natural Resources Defense Council also helped out by finding experts willing to say that “if” the sea ice continues to recede, the polar bears “could” end up being at risk of extinction.
But by now we all have learned that you can find an expert who will support whatever position you need to have supported. Two experts can look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions. This is perfectly normal in science because it is always easier to collect data than it is to figure out what the data are telling us in terms of cause and effect.
In fact, the only peer-reviewed paper addressing the forecasting of polar-bear population (“Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” which will appear soon in the management science journal Interfaces) found that those unpublished USGS studies did not follow accepted principles of scientific forecasting. Apparently, the “peer reviewed and published” requirement that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has for its gathering of global-warming information does not apply to polar bear research.
The Inuit didn’t want the polar bear listed as threatened. They rely on the polar bear for their livelihood, and had been harvesting them at a sustainable rate. Even a former assistant secretary of the interior, William P. Horn, has warned Congress that listing of the polar bear under the ESA would be a mistake that would result in a number of negative unintended consequences.
Quite frankly, I don’t believe the activists who have succeeded in getting the polar bear listed under the ESA really believe that the polar bear is threatened. This was just one more tool that will enable a gaggle of lawyers to go after the real object of the environmentalists’ disdain: Big Oil.
And with three presidential candidates who all agree with the environmental activists, the coming months and years are looking pretty bleak for freedom, capitalism, and prosperity. Meanwhile, the polar bears will do just fine, just as they have during previous warm periods in history.
I only hope when global warming ends, and is accepted to be a largely natural phenomenon rather than manmade, that all of the regulatory mistakes we’ve made can somehow be undone.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Please don’t project to me your evidentiary flaws, and especially don’ project them on the people who know.”
Ed you don’t know anything – you are a flim-flam man.
LikeLike
Ed said: Hexmate, the group of experts from the five nations who have polar bears say the bears are seriously threatened by habitat reductions.”
Well Ed their findings are being challenged so you better go to my links and get educated.
LikeLike
More data Ed.
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is http://www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.
It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
It didn’t happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon’s Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.
Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.
There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.
The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.
The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.
The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.
By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.
Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.
If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.
For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.
We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.
The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.
All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.
It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.
LikeLike
Except that link went to the most prestigious, longest-running group of outstanding polar bear experts in the world, issuing the report from their 15th meeting since the group formed in the 1960s. Interesting how you call the world’s most qualified and most respected experts “unproven,” and say they try to “screen the issue from reality.”
Please don’t project to me your evidentiary flaws, and especially don’ project them on the people who know.
LikeLike
Hexmate, the group of experts from the five nations who have polar bears say the bears are seriously threatened by habitat reductions.
The Polar Bear Study Group noted its findings in July 2009 (you could have read it yourself):
and
and
So the experts say one of 19 subpopulations is up; 8 are declining.
Whom should we believe, the experts from five nations who have been studying the bears for 30 years, or you?
LikeLike
Polar Bear Populations are Prosperous and Growing
Listing the Polar Bear as “Threatened” Under the ESA Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike; Says New Study Released with the Ad
National Center for Public Policy Research
http://www.nationalcenter.org
Washington, D.C. – In light of environmentalist campaigns pressuring the Administration to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, the National Center for Public Policy Research, joined by Citizens United, has released for the Internet a lighthearted parody political ad to remind the public that the polar bears’ situation isn’t as dire as some environmental organizations are leading the public to believe.
The ad, a parody of the wild charges and breathless style of many political campaign ads, lets the public know what is not always clear from environmentalist lobbying campaigns: The global population of polar bears is 22,000, about double what it was just four decades ago.
“Many people will be surprised to learn there are 22,000 polar bears and their population has doubled,” said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “While obviously many aspects of our parody ad – such as the polar bears in suits, lobbying Congress – are complete fiction, the steady growth in the global polar bear population is real. We hope that people who view our parody ad seeking a laugh will remember that fact, and perhaps be inspired to look a little more deeply into the basis of environmentalist claims regarding the polar bear.”
The ad is being released in conjunction with a National Center for Public Policy Research policy paper, “Listing the Polar Bear Under the Endangered Species Act Because of Projected Future Global Warming Could Harm Bears and Humans Alike,” by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour.
The paper questions the wisdom of listing the polar bear as threatened based on environmentalist organizations’ projections of future global warming because:
Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.
Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.
The anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.
Listing the polar bear as threatened on the basis of projected future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.
Listing the polar bear based on projected global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.
Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.
“Having failed despite spending tens of millions of dollars to convince the public, or even a Democratic Congress, that drastic and very expensive greenhouse gas emission reductions are warranted to deter theorized global warming, environmental organizations are now hijacking the Endangered Species Act to do an end-run around our democratic institutions,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research and co-author of the paper. “The formal petition to the government seeking ‘threatened’ status for the polar bear makes it very clear: The environmental groups behind this scheme are trying to use the polar bear to force the government to impose a — in their words — ‘drastic’ reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. They want policies like those in the Kyoto global warming treaty forced upon Congress and the American public. The tragedy is that, if the environmentalists succeed, Americans — especially lower-income Americans — will be harmed, and so will the polar bears.”
“Listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act could harm bear conservation efforts by eliminating revenues from the carefully-regulated sport hunting of polar bears by Americans and the importation of polar bear meat and trophies into the U.S. As hunting by non-Americans would replace hunting by Americans, nothing would be accomplished in terms of reducing the number of polar bears killed, but the revenue currently generated by American sport hunters for conservation and research efforts would be eliminated,” added Amy Ridenour. “And what’s more, global warming — if the global warming theory turns out to be accurate — would still occur, because greenhouse gas emissions in China, India, Europe and elsewhere are still growing by leaps and bounds.”
The parody ad and policy paper can be viewed on the National Center’s website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/PolarBear.html.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan organization located on Capitol Hill and established in 1982.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Gore’s science and his facts were exactly right. Typical of the denialists: Complain inaccurately about a trivial issue, and hope no one bothers to look at the real data; let the polar bears die, let the Inuit die — they live far away from the television cameras denialists crave to be seen in front of.”
Actually Ed their population is up and at one of the largest levels ever reported. You lose again Ed.
LikeLike
Nick said: And yet Hex you can’t point to anything that has been scientifically peer reviewed and published.
The science isn’t on your side little one. Just acknowledge that truth and you’ll feel a lot better about yourself. That way you won’t be such a sociopathic liar.”
Nick you have laying on the couch so long you have confused your case with these posts. There are plenty of scientifically proven facts that don’t support your scam but you are simply in denial.
LikeLike
Ed said: “The few links to the key data sure beats no links to any data.”
Ed your links go lead to nothing other than more unproven, fact less information that substantiate nothing. It is simply your effort to continue to screen the issue from reality.
LikeLike
But of course, the polar bears are in trouble. Gore’s science and his facts were exactly right. Typical of the denialists: Complain inaccurately about a trivial issue, and hope no one bothers to look at the real data; let the polar bears die, let the Inuit die — they live far away from the television cameras denialists crave to be seen in front of.
LikeLike
And yet Hex you can’t point to anything that has been scientifically peer reviewed and published.
The science isn’t on your side little one. Just acknowledge that truth and you’ll feel a lot better about yourself. That way you won’t be such a sociopathic liar.
LikeLike
The few links to the key data sure beats no links to any data.
Then it really is a complete mystery why you can’t find any links to support your claims. Just bad luck on Google, and in the science journals, and in the labs, and in the meteorological data, and in the ice cores, and everywhere else, I suppose.
LikeLike
The “debate” now seems to be settled down between two opposing political forces, commonly labeled “liberal” and “conservative”, and two separate scientific “methods” of proving their points. Here they are, in a nutshell:
All of the empirical evidence now favors the “conservatives”, who apply the laws of physics and chemistry to known data and conclude that anthropogenic global warming can’t be happening. The coup de grace on the conservative side is the fact that CO2 is lagging temperature, and thus, they say, what happens next month can’t possibly be affecting what is happening today. We tend to favor this logic.
The “liberals”, on the other hand, have turned to computer modeling to “prove” the world is about to come to an end. Models can and in fact are being constructed which can prove anything you want. By tweaking the data, you can even make them come out with the opposite answer. “Modeling” is a perfect tool for perpetuating a scam like this, because they have absolutely no basis in factual science, yet are easy to sell to the unsuspecting public who thinks they are a part of legitimate research process. Unfortunately, there is much “model tweaking” (OK, “faking” is the better word ) being done by the Hysterians to “prove” the sky is falling. This is commonly known as Junk Science. We saw one climate model in which the temperature was held constant while the CO2 concentration was arbitrarily doubled, a brilliant erasure of the laws of physics.
LikeLike
This demonstrates Gore’s lack of integrity again which certainly is an example of his quest to impose this scam on the world.
In March (2007), global warming fanatic Al Gore used a picture of two polar bears purportedly stranded on melting ice off the coast of Alaska as a visual aide to support his claim that man-made global warming is doing great harm to Mother Earth. The one he chose turned out to be a photo of a polar bear and her cub out doing what healthy, happy polar bears do on a wave-eroded chunk of ice not all that far from shore in the Beaufort Sea north of Barstow, Alaska.
LikeLike
This is intersting – it is exactly what was happening this year.
A new study released in Jan, 2008 by Chunzai Wang, a research oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Miami Lab and the University of Miami, suggests that Global warming could actually reduce the number of hurricanes that hit the United States. Wong found a link between warming waters, especially in the Indian and Pacific oceans, to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean near the United States And wind shear – a change in wind speed or direction – makes it hard for hurricanes to form, strengthen and stay alive. His conclusion is, “Global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States,”
His study is published in Geophysical Research Letters
LikeLike
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest solar cycle of the past two centuries. They say this will likely lead to unusually cool conditions on Earth. It is also predicted that this cool period will go much longer than the normal 11 year cycle, as the Little Ice Age did. The climate threat is actually cooling, especially to countries like Canada. On the northern limit to agriculture in the world, very little cooling would likely destroy much of its food crops.
The Little Ice Age—the coldest period in the past 1500 years—corresponded perfectly with the Maunder Minimum. There was virtually no sunspot activity for almost seven decades in the Maunder Minimum(per Willie Soon/ Harvard/Astrophysics). It turns out that for those 60-70 years the northern half of our globe was in a deep freeze. The New York harbor froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and the Vikings abandoned Greenland–a once verdant land that became tundra. In that Little Ice Age, Finland lost 1/3 of its population and Iceland 1/2.
In the well-known 11-year “Schwabe” sunspot cycle, the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots are violent storms on the surface of the sun. Marine productivity and total irradiance match very well with records that have been kept for centuries on visible sunspots. Hundreds of studies of sunspots and earthly climate indicators(tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula, to water levels of the Nile) show exactly the same thing—that the sun drives climate change.
Even though it has been discovered that the sun is brighter now than anytime in the past 8000 years, the increase in solar output was not calculated to be sufficient to cause all of the past century’s modest warming. But that amplifier was discovered(starting in 2002) with scientific papers from Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svendsmark(Danish National Space Agency).
All these scientists have proven(particularly w/Svendsmark) that the sun’s protective solar wind(from sunspots) blows away deep-space cosmic rays. With fewer sunspots there is less solar wind, more cosmic rays, and more cloud formation from those cosmic rays. More cloud formation means more cooling effect on the planet.
In a 2003 poll, 2/3 of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries did not believe greenhouse gases were the main reason for global warming
. In fact, overlays of CO2 variations show little correlation with earth’s climate on long, medium, and even short time scales. The science is nowhere near settled.
Nigel Weiss(Mathematical Astrophysics/Cambridge) states that “Variable behavior of the sun is an obvious explanation.” He admits that we are now living in a period of abnormally high solar activity, and that these hyperactive periods do not last long(50-100 years), then you get a crash. “It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.” And when the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically.
Dr. Kukla(Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences) say he and many others realize that global warming always precedes an ice age. Each lasts about 100,000 years, punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called interglacials. We are in an interglacial now. This ongoing cycle closely matches cyclic variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun. Kukla says “The relationship is just too clear and consistent to allow reasonable doubt. It’s either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just doesn’t make sense.”
No one knows when a ‘crash’ will occur, but scientists expect it soon. Mainly because the sun’s polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the 1950’s. A deep crash last occurred in the 17th century—and it was the Little Ice Age, or the Maunder Minimum. “Having a ‘crash’ would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the earth’s climate,” concludes Dr. Weiss. “Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.”
It’s not likely greenhouse ‘gassers’ will be converted in 12 years. They’ll be busy looking for something humans have done to make it so cold
LikeLike
Moderate – don’t you know that Ed is what’s called a gas bag in many circles. He will express a lot of hot air and double talk trying to spin his story and diffuse yours while screaming for data, but he never produces any data other than a few links to try and send you around the tree a few times. This is just his methodology of trying to maintain his position and keep you off balance. Of course we all know Ed is really off balance so it isn’t a problem to react to this style of tomfoolery. In fact I find it rather humorous. It also presents a certain challenge that I seem to really enjoy and since my experience in the military taught me to be very patient it is also well worth my time to continue to be persistent with regard to my comments which Ed has failed to debunk and he will not touch one that he can’t respond to of which there have been several. That means Eddie is losing and we are winning. Isn’t that right Ed? Ed please try not to produce so much hot air it is bad for the environment – just cool it! Time is on our side Moderate. 400 scientists who formerly supported this farce have now recanted their position and more are coming over every day while the likes of the “Eds” of the world are sinking into oblivion. It won’t be long now.
LikeLike
More data for you to chase Ed. Come on now get going!
When adding the sea ice volumes at both poles there is about the same ice as 30 years ago. Antarctica has 90% of the worlds ice and had the most sea ice ever recorded at the end of 2008, over one million square kilometers above the average maximum. The global sea ice extent today (combined sea ice at both Poles) is nearly the same as the average of the last 30 years according to NASA and NSIDC. View today’s Antarctic sea ice extent compared to the 1979-2007 average (National Snow and Ice Data Center) while it is true Arctic sea ice volumes are less today than the average of the last 30 years the ice there has been growing the past several years and as of mid September 2009 there was 24% more ice than just two years earlier, which is over 1 million square kilometers of new ice. There is also substantially more multi year ice in the Arctic in 2009 than just one year earlier Antarctic sea ice extent in September 2009 is also growing and is 1 million square kilometers more than the previous year. In 2009 the Antarctic had the most Summer ice ever recorded. View today’s Arctic sea ice extent AMSR-E NSIDC Nansen)
LikeLike
I’d like to note once again that whatever Obama’s policies on energy are, they don’t excuse the abuse of facts, science and history, demonstrated by the “producers” of the movie this thread is nominally about — and it seems to me that the complete lack of integrity of the film is demonstrated by the failure of its fans to defend it in any way.
France has what would be described by Republicans as a socialist energy policy — the government does a lot of the work by fiat. I can see why that appeals to some, but it suggests that the translation to a more capitalist system might make some differences in how it works.
One of the key differences is in safety. Under the French system, the nuclear safety people are required to put their family homes on the grounds of the facility where they and their children would be the first to get radiated in an accident. Ordering power company executives to live in the wilds near Farmington, New Mexico, (coal-fired), or Glen Rose, Texas (nuclear) probably isn’t a workable model. That’s not inherently so — but it’s pragmatically a great difficulty.
The second to last nuclear power station built in the U.S. was the Comanche Peak station. It was slated to cost $1 billion — twice the $500 million figure you noted — but it ended up costing closer to $5 billion. It nearly bankrupted the company that ended up with it. It was years overdue. It boosted the price of electricity considerably just for the debt service (it’s figured into every bill I’ve paid for more than 20 years). Construction started in 1974, and the first unit came on line in 1990. 16 years in construction.
I suppose you weren’t paying attention at the time, but I was, as part of several jobs I held in series. It wasn’t regulators or greenies who closed down the construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. The banks closed it down. They refused to lend money to projects that came in five times over the promised price, that took two or three times as long to build as planned — stretching past decades — and couldn’t begin payouts until a decade after the borrowers said it would, and then only with massive increases in rates.
Power companies argued for years that they could only afford to make massive power plants in order to justify the costs of engineering and finance.
Have things changed? Maybe. You’ll need to make a good case that things are radically different in banking — that bankers are looser with their funds, for example.
France uses one set of plans, essentially, for a series of nuclear plants. We’ve found that almost impossible. Engineering a plant in Glen Rose, Texas, for earthquakes, is silly and needlessly expensive. Failing to engineer it for tornadoes would be stupid. But plants in California and Maine don’t need to worry about tornadoes.
France has been able to avoid some of those costs because France is much smaller, less geologically active, and doesn’t have tornadoes regularly, for examples. One set of plans can serve several locations.
How do you propose to fix this problem that we can’t use cookie cutter plans in the U.S.?
We still have the largest builders of reactors in the world, but they are being eclipsed by Chinese companies. Do you propose to have the Chinese build our plants, or do you think such engineering would pass the bankers’ hurdles?
The biggest and thorniest problem is what do to with long-term dangerous radioactive wastes. The U.S. confronts the problem now because we have more than the rest of the world combined (with the possible exception of former Soviet sites, and that is a very uncomfortable topic in many circles — we just don’t know how much there is, how dangerous it is, or where it is). France has decided essentially to wink at the problem, as you can read at their site. They hope for a solution.
As you know, U.S. plans for long-term storage of waste have been an unsolvable problem scientifically and politically for at least three decades. Think Yucca Mountain. The proposal to make Yucca Mountain our national long-term waste repository was made formally in 1978. The decision is still pending, and even Republicans in Nevada say it will never happen there.
Under U.S. law, bankers will have to be satisfied that the costs of storage for 10,000 years or more can be rationally amortized.
Got an amortization table that makes this possible? A lot of people would love to see it work. I have some connections with the Yucca Mountain science team, if you have a table that looks like it could work.
The French government tells the people they won’t be bothered by the problems, and as I noted above, they hope for a technological solution for waste storage that has not been developed.
Your trust that our government will get the storage problem right, is impressive, though we haven’t been able to do it through Democratic or Republican presidencies and Congresses.
I think you’re a little optimistic, overly optimistic.
LikeLike
Okay, so when do you try to classify them?
LikeLike
Ed, maybe if you actaully read and analyzed my posts instead of responding with knee jerk reactions, you would see that my arguments are supported by quotes and examples. I can lead a horse to water but…
For instance, I cite Spain as an example of cap and trade policies. Instead of analyzing the situation you accuse me turning into Bagdad Moderation (the politics of personal insult) and declare “cites no reason, no opposing evidence, no opposing data.”
[Moderation Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 27, 2009 at 11:25 am]
[possibly my comment has not yet been cleared, but I see it on the board and I would imagine you see it too]
My position on Gore is also explained in this post along with distinctions between your stance and mine.
As for Gore’s speeches, a linked directly to one of them and pulled numerous quotes about how he’s attempting to incite emotional responses (fear) from people.
The link also includes Gore’s position on nuclear power. As I already stated, France has been widly successful with nuclear power. So that is one example that would counter Gore’s skepticism.
Gore list two potential road blocks.
“The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size – extra large.”
I dont see how they take any longer to build then say developing fledgling renewable sources.
I dont see how expense is an issue. Considering that the government gave Gore’s company $500,000,000 to build cars in Europe, you would think that they could afford nuclear power in the US.
They dont come in one size. Smaller reactors are being developed. Plus you need to invest in the technology to overcome some of these minor issues. So much is being invested in other technology that you would think that nuclear power would also be included.
Plus I dont see how “super large” is a problem. Gore seems to be complaining that nuclear reactors generate too much energy. I dont follow this.
Plus, Frannce, as I mention again, doesnt seem to be bothered by any of these probelms.
“Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons prolifer”
He makes a decent point here. Nuclear power is not for everyone (but the world seems content to let Iran develop it). But I dont see the problem with the US investing more in nuclear power.
As for the “hard science” of glaciers. I have really only skimmed through the remarks. But I notice some contradictory info and shifting stances. Hence, it is not “hard.”
LikeLike
Really? According to whom? On what data? I learned in the courtroom that when the opposition is out of evidence, out of arguments, and realized the law is against them, they turn into Baghdad Bob every time. I post the evidence, moderation says it loses — but cites no reason, no opposing evidence, no opposing data. Baghdad Moderation, welcome to the site.
On what part of the issue is he off base? What data lead you to that conclusion?
What is Gore’s position?
Got it figured out: Glaciers world-wide are melting due to warming; a few are actually adding snow due to lake effect storms, caused by global warming. But overall, glaciers are melting at increasingly rapid speeds.
By the way, we’ve been on hard science for quite a while. You’re missing the first several assignments.
LikeLike
Ed, keep your head above the water.
You were apparently wrong about Gore’s speeches and the cap and trade legislation.
Gore is way off base on the nuclear power issue, atleast as it pertains to this country.
Let me know when you figure out this glacier thing. Then we can move onto other “hard science.”
LikeLike
Still waiting for you to offer even a link. Perhaps you thought you had included a link or some evidence, but check back to your post: Nothing but a list that doesn’t check out.
LikeLike
You’ve offered no evidence of any scam of any sort. You’ve offered no evidence of any of your claims against Gore. What ho, clanging bell?
LikeLike
Double bummer for you, Wraithe.
1. That press release doesn’t say DDT is harmless. It says DDT can be used ONLY indoors, ONLY in a carefully monitored program. That’s not the outdoor mayhem that Carson warned against — and in fact, that’s exactly what Rachel Carson called for. WHO has adopted Rachel Carson’s position on DDT precisely. Why did it take them 45 years to come to Carson’s position — and why do you call it genocidal, when it’s the position that promotes the most malaria fighting?
2. WHO’s position has been clarified a couple more times since — and it’s clear WHO agrees with the POPs Treaty, that DDT must be phased out. See WHO’s position here, in this 2007 note:
http://www.who.int/ipcs/capacity_building/ddt_statement/en/
WHO said:
(Carson recommended IVM, or IPM (integrated pest management) to keep DDT viable for use against devious and nasty pests while limiting exposures and damage from the stuff.)
In that later press release, WHO points to this document from the POPs Treaty authority, “A Big Step Forward towards a DDT-free World.”
Working for a “DDT-free” world is hardly a ringing endorsement of the poison.
WHO’s position is no different from that of the National Academy of Sciences, who said in 1980 that, while DDT may be ranked among the most beneficial chemical concoctions of all time, its dangers outweigh its benefits, and it must be eliminated from use.
That “truth thing” is no bummer. It’s important that we understand reality so we can choose wisely. Sometimes the choices are difficult, but its always better to make informed choices that wild guesses.
LikeLike
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html, oh bummer, guess the fact that the World Health Organization says there is no health risk to using DDT doesn’t count as refuting Rachel Carson and her guilt in complicity in the genocide of millions of people due to slow, agonizing death from malaria. That truth thing is a real bummer.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Hexmate, see this post from yesterday:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/new-junk-science-movie-not-evil-just-wrong/#comment-93012
And this one:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/new-junk-science-movie-not-evil-just-wrong/#comment-93013
Ed this is just another one of your diversionary tactics again. One donation of $750K doesn’t have a thing to do with $100 million (Gore’s estimated net worth at the present). So because he donated the money from the Nobel Prize has nothing to do with the cap & trade scam he has set up which is a direct conflict of interest. Come on Ed you are not convincing or providing any data to prove your point.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I really can’t take you seriously when you just offer a list of glaciers. If you have some support for what you claim, please offer it. I posted the link and the quotes from the University of Alaska, and they say that the glaciers you cited in Alaska are shrinking because of warming; they are on the move, but because of warming.
Do you have data? We can’t see it here if you sit on it. Your butt is in the way.”
Your link wasn’t conclusive evidence Ed and it didn’t address any of the other glaciers mentioned. You checking each of them isn’t data Ed it is just your way of dancing around the issue.
It isn’t my butt that is in the way Ed is your rectal cranial inversion that is preventing you from seeing it.
LikeLike
Hexmate, see this post from yesterday:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/new-junk-science-movie-not-evil-just-wrong/#comment-93012
And this one:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/new-junk-science-movie-not-evil-just-wrong/#comment-93013
LikeLike
I really can’t take you seriously when you just offer a list of glaciers. If you have some support for what you claim, please offer it. I posted the link and the quotes from the University of Alaska, and they say that the glaciers you cited in Alaska are shrinking because of warming; they are on the move, but because of warming.
Do you have data? We can’t see it here if you sit on it. Your butt is in the way.
LikeLike
Ed said:”Money that he donates to charity. Gore does not profit from the speaking; his business interests are absolutely legitimate.”
Really Ed! Are you his accountant? No who is making the outlandish claims without any data? You have incredible double standard you operate by Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “It’s data, Hexmate. You offered none. You gave a list of glaciers. Each one I checked, I found a story about how warming has made it smaller and less massive, with a couple of small exceptions.”
That is very interesting Ed because the experts don’t agree with you so you better go get some data.
LikeLike
This is a speech from Al Gore. I will list a series of quotes and we can classify them as “hard science” or “fear inciting speculation.” I will try not to use anything that is in the wrong context.
http://www.truthout.org/article/al-gore-global-warming-is-immediate-crisis
1) we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could – within as little as 10 years – make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization
2) a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth’s thermostat and avert catastrophe.
3) how we can craft emergency solutions in order to avoid this catastrophic damage.
4) we have to urgently expand the limits of what is politically possible
5) many Americans are tired of borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the Persian Gulf
(maybe if we look for oil on our own soil we wont have to buy other peoples oil)
6) the future of all human civilization – is hanging in the balance
7) we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions
8a) While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors
8b) Wind energy is already fully competitive as a mainstream source of electricity and will continue to grow in prominence and profitability.
(Gore thinks that nuclear reactors should play a “modest” role, but less productive technologies like wind power he describes as “fully competitive.”)
9) coal is presently the cheapest source of abundant energy
(Gore wants to make it much more expensive by including the emissions in the cost.
10) the phrase “clean coal technology” is devoid of meaning unless it means “zero carbon emissions” technology
12a) I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes – including those for social security and unemployment compensation – and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes – principally on CO2
12b) instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution
(replacing taxes on employees with taxes on emissions is far from being that simple. In fact if companies become so efficient and innovative as Gore assumes, then new tax revenues will be needed, and less employees will be required to do the job)
13) And, young people – as they did during the Civil Rights Revolution – are confronting their elders with insistent questions about the morality of not moving swiftly to make these needed changes.
13) we’re pretending doesn’t exist is the stuff that is destroying the habitability of the planet
14) This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue. It affects the survival of human civilization.
(contradicts #4 at the least)
15) the climate crisis is…the opportunity for new profit
(I took this one out of context)
16) In recent years we have squandered that moral authority and it is high time to renew it by taking on the highest challenge of our generation
17) 20 million HIV/AIDs orphans in Africa alone, civil wars fought by children, genocides and famines, the rape and pillage of our oceans and forests, an extinction crisis that threatens the web of life, and tens of millions of our fellow humans dying every year from easily preventable diseases. And, by rising to meet the climate crisis, we will find the vision and moral authority to see them not as political problems but as moral imperatives.
(thats the spirit!)
LikeLike
Ed, sorry I didnt include evidence for some of my claims. I thought you knew so much about this issue that you would know what I was refering to. Obviously you are more interested in events that support your side.
Policies similar to the cap and trade proposal have been tried in Spain. Reports of 2.2 jobs lost for every 1 “green” job created and unemployment rates twice the European average.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/25/tilting_at_green_windmills_97168.html
^This is one place to start learning about Spain’s experience. It may not be the best source available, but you can do your own research on it. I would suggest that you dont jump to conclusions on this one.
Here’s a link to the Obama quote. What he actually said was, “If someone wants to build a coal powered plant they can. Its just that its going to bankrupt them.”
The context is cap and trade. Ed, I will let you work out the semantics on this one.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
The most surprising thing to me is that for all of Ed’s experience and knowledge on this subject, he appears totally ignorant of these two things that I mentioned. But I am sure he is already figuring out ways to dismiss them as stupidity on my part.
Now lets move on to the issue of Al Gore and his income. I said before that this isnt about Mr. Gore but after reading your sermon about how unselfish he is I had a chill run up my leg ;)
The fact is that I have made very little specific claims about Al Gore’s money. Ed, is the one who insists that all of his Nobel Prize went to charity and all of his speaking fees go to charity.
I applaud Gore for giving his Nobel money to charity. It is the right thing to do, plus he is rich enough as it is. As for his speaking fees ($100,000 plus expenses), I am still waiting for Ed to track down where all of it goes.
But let me clarify my view on Gore, since Ed does a bad job of speaking for me. Al Gore is a savvy investor. He has made a lot of money investing in a lot of different areas. He is obviously an intelligent and capable man (but he’s not the most intelligent or only intelligent person alive.) So I believe that Gore makes wise investments and as an individual is free to pursue wealth. He uses his money to do a lot of good things. He’s not evil and he’s not a saint.
Let me explain the connection between publicity and investments for the third time.
1) Al Gore has invested in green projects sush as solar panels, emissions reduction systems, renewable energy etc.
2) Al Gore is a smart business man and wants the projects to do well. If they do well he will help to clean up the planet and can use the money he makes to invest in other green projects which will further help the planet.
*I do not mention greed as a primary motive.
3) By speaking about global warming, Gore is advertising a problem. He is saying, “look we need to change what we are doing.”
4) Al Gore is heavily invested in many solutions to the problem. The more people are concerned about global warming, the more they will be interested in renewable energy and other things that Gore has invested in.
5) By promoting the problem, he is promoting his solutions, and therefore promoting the success of his investments.
Conclusion: speeches => better investments
I only studied formal logic for a few years in college, and that was mostly in high level math classes, but I believe I have explained it clearly so that most people who look at it objectively will see the connection.
But I can simplify even further.
John sells apples at the Farmer’s Market. John uses a big megaphone to tell people how good apples are for them. People buy more apples and John makes more money.
Now a critic might say that apples are in fact good for you and that John is being truthful. This is true. But Ed suggested that Gore has no personal benefit by giving speeches. That is absurd.
Here’s one criticism of Gore’s conduct:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15058
Here’s a link about government funding going to a small company that is partially owned by Gore.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html
It doesnt imply anything illegal occured and neither did I. Ed put those words in my mouth to discredit me. But the fact is that political connections are very real and very helpful to those who have them. Of course Ed would know this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html
Now that I have defended some of my views from criticism (and insult from Ed), I can speak to the actual issues at hand.
Ed says that this link supports Gore’s case.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html
Here are a couple quotes from the article,
”
The skeptics include scientists such as Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who thinks that climate science is too uncertain to justify drastic measures to control CO2. He calls the case for action against global warming “silly” and “grotesque.”
”
So a scientist from MIT says that the science is too uncertain to justify drastic action against CO2 levels. This is the opposite of Mr. Gore’s case.
”
Christy added, however: “Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don’t know much about what causes multi-year changes like this.”
”
Another climate expert telling policy makers that scientific ignorance of the system is enormous. I really dont think this is part of Gore’s case either.
The point of the article is that the earth has cooled over the last decade. Gore (who Ed calls the expert whom knows the most about this stuff) never suggested that the earth would cool despite is vast experience and resources. Hmmm….Gore didnt know what would happen, and he doesnt know what is going to happen.
This returns me to my original premise. The fact is that “warmers” often express a level of knowledge about the future that is beyond human capacity. They say that bad things are imminent unless drastic and immediate changes are made, which always involve more goverment control over individuals.
Or when challenged, they will retreat into the unknown (as Ed did). They will say that we dont know what is going to happen, but it might be terrible so we should act now before it is too late. There is a legitimate point here. We should avoid action with unknown consequences. But besides allowing fear to determine our actions, “warmers” are also advocating drastic measures to avoid unknown consequences, which is somewhat circular reasoning. You cant justify change by citing the unknown.
That is why I believe in a more moderate path. We are aware of potential long term issues with our current system. We should recognize these issues, and recognize what is most real and urgent, and realize what is mostly speculation. We should allow the science to advance and allow renewable energy to develop. Then when the time is right, we can make a smooth and gradual transition.
In the meantime, I would invest heavily in nuclear power. Its not something that “warmers” like to talk about. But nuclear power has zero harmful emmisions and the French have long figured out how to deal with the waste. In fact, nuclear power supplies ~%80 of their energy needs and they sell there knowledge, experience, and extra energy all around the world.
Constellation Energy, which is the local supplier where I live, is selling their nuclear assets to a French company. Surprisingly enough (as Ed can tell you) the US invented nuclear power at the same time they were freeing the French from Nazi invasion. The nuclear power supply has been sadly static for along time now. And I blame the “warmer” attitude for preventing progress on this front.
In our current state, we are not ready to transition to renewable energy sources, and premature action could have serious consequences. I live in a house on a couple acres of property, and when I can afford it I would love to buy solar panels and geothermal systems. Not only will it help the planet but it will make me less dependable on corporations and government. The real challenge may be in cities where the population density and energy demands are so high.
I welcome all to flex their indivdual freedoms to live healthy and sustainable lifestyles. I also encourge people to be free thinkers and not allow the government to pass intrusive legislation when the debate is still far from over.
LikeLike
Got a citation for that? Where did he say it, when, in what context?
What does that have to do with global warming?
Money that he donates to charity. Gore does not profit from the speaking; his business interests are absolutely legitimate. The Bible says a man has a right to work, and I don’t think anyone should gainsay God just because the guy working is Al Gore.
He’s very bright, and he’s very good at what he does. Why should anyone be surprised he’s very successful in business?
There are no links between Gore’s speaking and his making money in business. If anything, his advocacy takes away time he could be investing in making money.
What is the logical path that goes from “Al Gore speaks on policy” to “Al Gore’s bank account swells?” I don’t see any links at all.
He donated his share of the Nobel prize to charity, he donates his speaking fees. You’re making a post hoc ergo propter hoc error in implying a link. Got any evidence?
I’ve only met him on commercial flights. Does he own a private jet? I don’t think so. What’s your evidence? He donates the speaking fees (which are justifiably high — if you’re complaining about high honoraria, Gore’s not the worst of the lot by a long ways). I think it’s a very weak tea argument to say we should sacrifice the planet and do nothing to stop the damage “because Al Gore flies on jets!!!”
Documentation? Why was there no lawsuit?
If he’s acting illegally as you imply, how is he able to escape prosecution? Let’s have details.
That’s the claim of the Republican spinmeisters. “Global warming” is accurate enough. Under either name, Gore’s right on the science.
Under either name, denialists are denying the science.
In that article, leading scientists cited by denialists say warming occurs. That article supports Gore’s case.
I’ve never run into anyone who claims to be able to explain it all. The atmosphere is a very dynamic, very large fluid, and no one can fully explain fluid dynamics in any system, not that I’ve ever seen.
On the other hand, not being able to explain everything doesn’t deny what we can explain.
Air pollution is not good. Failing to clean it up is not good, either.
The tax is minor, and justified. Our experience under the Clean Air Act of 1971 is that Congressional mandates to drive science tend to produce great innovation and cheaper solutions to problems. Our experience with the cap-and-trade exchange is that such programs are successful in helping control pollution.
Declan McCullugh, the CBS blogger (this is not a news story) ought to know better than to cite the group calling itself the Competitive Enterprise Institute. That’s Stephen Milloy’s group of anti-government, pro-DDT, former tobacco lobbyists and other tellers of untruths. McCullugh calls them libertarian, but I’d be tempted to use “libertine” especially when it comes to their dealing with facts and science.
CEI hasn’t been right on any of this stuff. This is the group that paid for the shameful “CO2 is necessary for life” ads.
What was your point there?
Our experience since 1776 is that pollution control will come when the government requires it, and not a moment earlier. There’s a well-known document on this issue, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Innovation may come without government requiring it — but not in pollution control.
I almost prefer English common law on the point, which would have made it absolutely impossible for someone to pollute the air, had it been applied earlier. Carbon emitters would be deemed nuisances, and injunctions would force them to stop all operations unless they worked out a plan to pay each downwind property holder. One of the reasons industry came around on the Clean Air Act was because many companies were forced to try to make such downwind arrangements, and they prefer the less expensive and less troublesome regulatory route. (See, if you can find it, the stories of US Steel’s Geneva works in Geneva, Utah, and their payments to celery farmers, dairy farmers and others for fluoride pollution, and the bizarre incidents of “sciff” pollution (sciff is small, airborne particles of carbon that result from pouring molten steel; the carbon acts as activated charcoal, and soaks up anything farmers put on their crops, including fertilizers and pesticides).
But my principal objection is that CEI is chiefly a bunch of wankers. Many of those people stood firm with the tobacco companies, arguing tobacco smoke was not harmful. I have no doubt some of them still believe it, even after the papers showing that their own scientists knew much better have been public domain for years.
So you’re willing to sit by and see if the world comes to smash if we’re too late, understanding that it’s your children and grandchildren who will bear the brunt of the harms — but what the heck, you’ll be long gone, eh?
Gore’s been solid on his citations of research. I would prefer to call it knowledge-based policy making, but if you want to call it “inciting fear,” I suppose you can do that. Knowledge is better than ignorance, and if knowledge makes on think pollution cleanup is important, that’s good. You may be among those who think “fear of God” means Christians should cower to God, too. Putting spin on the label of the stuff doesn’t change the fact that it’s knowledge that motivates the cleanup action.
LikeLike
It’s data, Hexmate. You offered none. You gave a list of glaciers. Each one I checked, I found a story about how warming has made it smaller and less massive, with a couple of small exceptions.
I let the data form my views, not the other way around. If you have some data, why not bring it here? You’ve failed to do that.
I offered the link to the University of Alaska site which directly contradicted your claim. I gave you the courtesy of checking your claims. You owe readers here the same courtesy at least.
Your carping is a clanging bell, especially when you offer no arugments from the stuff you link to, and you apparently can’t explain the stuff, you know?
LikeLike
Then follow the guys with the track records. Al Gore’s record is solid.
Oh, but you don’t like arguments from authority, even sound authority. If there is countervailing evidence with data, authority alone won’t cut it. But if we’re taking authority, Gore’s authority is better than almost everybody else’s. His data are better, too. He’s been at this issue, seriously, for a lot longer than just since the publication of his book in 1992. Gore’s got a huge head start in accumulating evidence, and being right.
Then look at what we do know. The physics of warming is absolutely incontrovertible. The degree to which warming occurs is not solid — but let’s be clear that failing to trust what we do know about climate and weather is a bad gamble against what we do know about pollution and climate. Sure there is a lot we don’t know. That’s poor reason to disregard what we know to be accurate.
We’ve been changing our climate with air pollution for 200 years. The body of science backing the policy decision to act to curb carbon emissions and do other things to preserve the planet is solidly grounded. Surely you don’t mean to argue that denuding the Amazon forest is a good idea — and yet, if we were to do nothing, that is exactly where we’d be going.
We know better. We know a lot more about air pollution than you claim. We’ve already watched huge industries that depend on clean air go bust, like the $1 billion cut flower industry in the Los Angeles Basin (1954 dollars, by the way). Ozone. Industry critics said the science was uncertain, that ozone was “natural” and that ozone killed bacteria (true) — and that ozone wiped out the cut flower industry (watch the Rose Bowl Parade some year, and notice that none of the flowers come from Los Angeles and Pasadena any more, in the Tournament of Roses which was created as a platform to show off locally-grown flowers).
Or go hike the Oquirrh Mountains from the Great Salt Lake south to Utah County sometime. Be careful of the acid in the soil. 100 years ago you couldn’t have made that hike for the oak and maple forest that stood too thick to walk through. It wasn’t cut down. It died, and its stumps were eaten away, from SO2 pollution.
Or compare the air in Los Angeles in 1960 with the air there today.
There is much left to learn. That is not the same thing as saying we don’t know anything, and that we don’t have great experience in air pollution science.
No energy is cheap if it pollutes. It’s unfair to allow businessmen to profit by dumping garbage into your lungs. It’s also deadly to children of others, kids who deserve clean air and a chance at life.
Cap and trade is more than fair, and profitable, to those industries who invest in clean air technology and are successful. It allows clean industry to make profit on being clean — and that’s good.
Cap and trade seems to have worked well in the U.S. over the last decade or so. If it doesn’t work, why is the exchange going as well as it is? You offer not an iota of evidence, economic, scientific, nor even a business claim, to suggest cap and trade won’t work. In the meantime, go here, and get some real data on cap-and-trade, and the Climate Exchange, which I wager you weren’t aware is operating and as old as it is. Robert P. Murphy’s piece is highly critical — but it’s countermanded by the success of the exchange. Don’t ignore the work of the Nobel-winning economist cited there, either.
Nuclear is fine, if done carefully. Funny thing, I don’t hear you stepping up to talk about either safety or security. I haven’t addressed it hear because this isn’t a discussion about nuclear power nor our entire energy future. Funny thing, there’s no reason to go nuclear if there’s no warming — and Hexmate is arguing against a need for nuclear power (why don’t you ding him on that? Oh, yeah, you’re not looking that far down the road).
Now you’re making things up. I haven’t addressed any of those in this discussion. You’re accusing me of not doing things I’ve done, of not holding positions I defend, and of having positions I’ve never had. If you want to discuss nuclear power, especially in terms of reducing global warming, be my guest. Got anything to say?
If there is no human-caused global warming, there’s no need for the much-more-expensive option of nuclear power for a coal-rich nation. Which claim are you going to defend in the end, the one you defend now, or the one you accuse me of not making?
I have a real job and real stuff to do, and other fish to fry on other issues. I didn’t think your arguments particularly strongly evidenced or well formed then (a justified judgment, it appears). I don’t think you made a prima facie case that required a response.
Oh, now don’t start out claiming I’ve provided no documentation, and then posit that stinking mass of a claim without backup. What country has cap-and-trade been tried in without success? Why should we assume that example — if it exists — overcomes the live experience we’ve already had with trading in pollution credits in the U.S.? Look at those sources I cited in the piece linked above, and tell me why they are in error, especially if you don’t have the goods against cap and trade in other places.
I don’t respect half-baked claims based on yammering bloggers and cheap political back stabbing.
Hexmate has done nothing to defend the grotesque film this thread is nominally about, nor the fantastic, reeking and steaming falsehoods the producers plopped into the punchbowl. If you’re going to defend accuracy in politics, science, pollution control and economics, there are much bigger and more deserving targets here than my claims. How about helping me clear some of the fog?
We pushed science with the Clean Air Act. Industry screamed bloody murder that there was no way to control SO2 and NOx emissions from autos. By the deadlines Congress demanded, we had the catalytic converter, and Los Angeles and much of the rest of the nation breathe a lot easier. They said there was no science to justify getting lead out of gasoline, but we did it and our nation is, literally, a lot smarter — lead poisoning of children gets their brains first.
I’m confident we are not bound to be victims of outrageous fortune, but that we can instead have a large hand in directing our fate.
Dr. Pat Frank is right, I think, in pointing out the limitations of science right now in establishing the culprit behind global warming. We can’t do it beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is not a case in criminal law (yet), and that’s not a good standard to use for environmental protection. The preponderance of the evidence (the civil tort standard) is well met. Under criminal law O. J. Simpson goes free; under the preponderance of the evidence standard, he’s liable. I don’t think we should treat polluters who kill tens of thousands better than we treat O.J., especially when it comes to preventing future deaths.
I didn’t find them serious challenges, and I don’t have the time to track down your case and make it for you before rebutting it. How are they serious challenges?
LikeLike
Don’t lecture me about Al Gore’s finances until you understand them. Fair?
I didn’t say his investments won’t make him money. I said he doesn’t profit from his advocacy to end global warming and other climate change. Hexmate has made scurrilous and false claims (that you have not asked him to document) claiming Gore is just doing this stuff to make money.
That’s bull excrement, and you’d know it if you knew anything about politics, finance, or climate change.
Of course Gore profits from private investments. He’s a lot smarter than you or I, and he’s always put his money where his mouth is. I said he won’t make any money if warming is false. That’s accurate.
Gore’s made a lot of good investments over the years. That he’s so smart should be a clue that you’d do well to pay attention to what he says, and how he invests. He walks his talk. He’s in a highly regulated investment area where any false claim on his part opens him to stockholder suits and criminal prosecution, unlike Hexmate who can make wild and false claims with impunity.
In short, Gore is required to be honest. That his investments are also profitable is testament to his honesty and farsightedness — and to his accuracy on warming issues.
Here, in a few paragraphs out of The Guardian, you can learn more about Gore’s investments than you need to know, and if you’re a discerning person, you’ll get insight into his wisdom and honor, too:
LikeLike
This isn’t a formal debate. But let me point out that no one has provided an iota of evidence to support the scurrilous claim Gore is personally profiting from any of this.
Making up false claims aimed at the reputation of a man I know to be honorable, a fine father, and one of the best legislators in the past 50 years, is not my idea of an argument that requires full documentation in rebuttal. Take your complaints to Hexmate, and dare him to put any substance behind his scurrilous claims, will you?
Nor have you suggested why I should be held to a higher standard.
Have you bothered to look into the issue at all?
A Google search turns up solid sources quickly:
1. Philanthropy.com: http://philanthropy.com/news/philanthropytoday/3240/al-gore-to-donate-half-of-nobel-prize-money-to-charity
2. New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?_r=1&hp
Gore distinguished himself, to me, when he put the world on hold and spent two years helping his son recover from a tragic accident. It would have been easy for Gore to have simply turned over the recovery aid to paid surrogates, to professional medical people, to counselors and other high-dollar healers. But he did it himself, instead, delaying and maybe ending his political career. It’s what outstanding fathers do for their families. Gore is a man of extremely high character.
If you’ve worked with good people on important projects, you’ll appreciate the strong character and high values of the man. If you oppose what he does, but you’re a human of character and virtue yourself, you’ll also recognize that Gore is an extremely honorable man.
I don’t get a sense that you were a campaigner for organ transplants, nor for clean air for the nation, nor for a plan to clean up polluted communities. Anyone in any of those fights over the past 40 years has a load of thanks to Gore.
When his father became an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War, Al volunteered for the U.S. Army. As the son of a senator, he could have stayed out of any potential line of harm, like Pat Robertson did. Gore volunteered to go to Vietnam instead.
When everybody else gave up on ARPANET, Al Gore alone went to bat to save it, and we have the internet today.
What part of character and honor do you think is not clear to his critics? Criticism of Gore is a greater commentary to the hole in the hearts of his critics than it is commentary on Gore’s life.
And isn’t telling? In a futile attempt to defend a horrid movie based on inaccurate and scurrilous claims, unable to defend the crappy science and false claims of the movie, critics try to turn things into a comedy routine on Al Gore. Gore’s an easy target — anyone poking fun at him won’t be pushed to justify the scurrilous claims, and even more fair people, like you, will demand documentation of the good Gore does, while giving an absolute pass to such demands for those who make the scurrilous claims.
If Al Gore were a serial adulterer who invested in child pornography, cheap handguns and terrorist groups like Eagle Forum, it wouldn’t change the facts that Rachel Carson was right about DDT, warming is happening, and greenhouse gases should be cleaned up.
LikeLike
Ed, you provide no support for your claims about Al Gore’s charitable contributions or his investments. That is a serious weakness on your part.
Also, you made a confusing comment about his investments not making him any money? You fail to understand that when people (including Gore) invest capital into a project, they need that project to succeed in order to make other investments and to support future projects. They also need to advertise (propoganda) their project so that they can attract customers and more investors. You express a very naive view of business and politics. Its not necessary that Gore puts the money in HIS bank account, but the idea of profit is still the same.
But this is not about Al Gore, or shrinking glaciers. Its about the continuation of a healthy environment that supports human life and biodiversity. The fact is that no matter what scientists say about what has happened or is happening, they know very little about what will happen or how soon it will happen.
The problem with cap and trade is that it punishes the creators of cheap, affordable energy, and invests in unproven technology.
If we want to seriously alter emmisions in this country, we would be building nuclear power plants to supply power for the entire nation. Funny thing is I dont hear Al or Ed talking about nuclear power. They talk about solar, wind, and water power, none of which are sufficiently developed to replace coal.
Ed, you also ignored my comments on cap and trade (Hexmate must have consumed your thoughts). Cap and trade has been tried in other countries and had some devastating economical effects with very little impact on pollution.
Ed, although you may deny my reasoning or say that I do not respect opposing views, Im afraid that you are the one who does not respect the opposing view point. In fact, I agree with much of what you say but only debate the timing and severity of the events.
I also have great respect for human ingnorance, and realize that the global climate is currently beyond human understanding. Im not suggesting, Ed, that “warmers” are wrong but I insist that they make speculations. We all speculate. Neither side has a monopoly on the truth. Sorry to burst your bubble.
(the two links in my last post are serious challenges to some of Ed’s sentiment, this is his blog and he will take the shots that are easiest for him, real life is not wiffle ball)
LikeLike
Ed said: “While that would allow more than the one I know of in Europe, 90% warming-caused decline isn’t exactly a figure you denialists should gloat over. It’s like being “just a little pregnant.”
Ed your preganant? No I think this really describes you acurately.
Those who jumped on the Global Bandwagon early on are now in a difficult position. Many are now searching for a way to back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined. Others are continuing to miss-quote all the bad “science” on the subject, desperate to perpetuate what appears now to be only a myth. The Popular Journalists would starve if folks stopped reading their global hysteria books, and if folks stopped believing that Global Warming is man-made, they’ll have to find some new themes on catastrophic events and sell us on the idea that we’re to blame.
LikeLike
Ed said: “And, even if a few glaciers are growing, that doesn’t negate warming.”
More data Ed. Where is yours at?
Al Gore tells us the Greenland ice cap is thinning, but he doesn’t mention that a newly discovered volcanic “hot spot” may be a contributor, along with warming on the coast due to warmer waters coming up the gulf stream. In general, we found growing glaciers outpacing melting glaciers by a good margin. Nothing like cherry-picking an isolated example to create panic, Al
Strange but the research turned up a completely different story. It found 50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even our old friend, Mt. St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing at 3 feet per year.
And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency’s ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites).
LikeLike
Ed said: “Gore makes no money from his speeches.� All the fees go to charity.”
No Ed, this is what really happens. There’s still time for everyone to “save” the planet by buying “carbon offsets” accomplished best by investing in Al Gore’s British company which buys stock in other companies that will benefit from a world-wide global warming hysteria (keeping a healthy cut) and making, perhaps, Al Gore the richest former Vice President in history. That will buy a lot of SUV’s, jets, and large mansions with mega-electric bills. Everyone wins except the taxpayer and businessman, who are soon to pay a very heavy price.
LikeLike
Ed said: “the SEC gets him (Gore)in the U.S. and the British equivalent gets him in the UK, and he goes to jail.”
That is really rich Ed. Weren’t these the same people watching Madoff, AIG, Lehman Brothers, etc. Nothing likely to happen especially since Gore can manuplate the government, etc.
LikeLike