"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well you might want to apply that to the global cooling scare of the '70's.
The over population / not enough food scare of the 70's as well.

'Science' can be wrong alot of times and has proven to be.

Sure, sometimes "scientists" are wrong. As an approach, "science" very seldom is. This is because it's inherently a flexible discipline--it alters its hypotheses to suit the available data. In real science, the data rules.

The other approach is to make the data suit what you'd rather believe. Somewhere, Dr. Tim Ball is blushing as I write this.

[Hakan]

'Science' can be wrong alot of times and has proven to be.

You're ridiculous.

Have you read anyone's arguments in this thread besides your own? You certainly haven't addressed any of them if you have read them.

I mean, how much more ignorant do you intend to make yourself look? You put 'Science' in quotations as if the International Panel on Climate Change, the American Society for the Advancement of Science, National Academy of Science, the American Meteorogical Society, the American Geophysics Union are all a bunch of crack pot organizations that are inherently biased and have questionable integrity.

Yet you quote some of the worst offending organizations for this. Organizations which are proven scientific and policy flakes bidding themselves out to corporations and special interests.

Clearly you cannot look at this issue rationally and you are blinded by idiotic idealogy and the like.

[Bingo]

See this is my point.

I haven't said I don't believe in global warming but I have three guys rushing out to find quotes and article proving there is.

One guy even uses the word rudimentary. Ever looked up the word rudimentary in a dictionary?

"Of or relating to basic facts or principles; elementary"

It isn't fact
It isn't elementary

You think it to be correct so anyone that would even suggest we slow down and really come to an understanding on this would come across as the unwashed.

Dangerous way to think.

another comment ... right wing think tank. That's funny too ... but it comes down to chicken or the egg. Does a scientist get paid to think one way? Could be. Chances are, however, the think tank finds a guy that thinks their way and funds him, just like 100s of left wing "think tanks" are doing for the other side.

Doesn't discredit or prop up either side.

I can run around the net finding articles too, but in doing so you guys have completely missed my point.

It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order.

To argue that is crazy.

Shouldn't we all make high impact decisions carefully and with all the information possible?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hakan

You're ridiculous.

Have you read anyone's arguments in this thread besides your own? You certainly haven't addressed any of them if you have read them.

I mean, how much more ignorant do you intend to make yourself look? You put 'Science' in quotations as if the International Panel on Climate Change, the American Society for the Advancement of Science, National Academy of Science, the American Meteorogical Society, the American Geophysics Union are all a bunch of crack pot organizations that are inherently biased and have questionable integrity.

Yet you quote some of the worst offending organizations for this. Organizations which are proven scientific and policy flakes bidding themselves out to corporations and special interests.

Clearly you cannot look at this issue rationally and you are blinded by idiotic idealogy and the like.

Just brutal Hakan

look at the loaded words in this point, you're incapable of any disagreement towards something you consider to be fact.

[White Doors]

Hakan, yes, I am an ignoramous.

better?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bingo

See this is my point.

I haven't said I don't believe in global warming but I have three guys rushing out to find quotes and article proving there is.

One guy even uses the word rudimentary. Ever looked up the word rudimentary in a dictionary?

"Of or relating to basic facts or principles; elementary"

It isn't fact
It isn't elementary

You think it to be correct so anyone that would even suggest we slow down and really come to an understanding on this would come across as the unwashed.

Dangerous way to think.

another comment ... right wing think tank. That's funny too ... but it comes down to chicken or the egg. Does a scientist get paid to think one way? Could be. Chances are, however, the think tank finds a guy that thinks their way and funds him, just like 100s of left wing "think tanks" are doing for the other side.

Doesn't discredit or prop up either side.

I can run around the net finding articles too, but in doing so you guys have completely missed my point.

It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order.

To argue that is crazy.

Shouldn't we all make high impact decisions carefully and with all the information possible?

Bingo, you aren't the only on in the thread. Others have stated that they don't believe it.

You say that " I haven't said I don't believe in global warming..." but then you say "It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order." (Trepidation - a feeling of alarm or dread: how does that fit into "calm and tripidation is in order."?)

So you strongly imply that you question the current science. Sure, there will be scientists that support the extremes on both sides, but the links brought forward are from respected national and international organizations. Is it an attempt to sway opinions - sure. And the more respectable opinions that are put forward, the more credance to shold be given to that viewpoint.

I'm more than happy to agree that decisions should be made carefully, but how much information is required? It isn't that there is 5 or 10 wacko's screaming "the end is nigh", but there is a substantial community of experts who are saying humans are having an effect, and the consequences may be dire. I'll agree that we don't want to pump 10 billion dollars into the first unproven solution that comes along, but I don't think we've got time to wait until a global consensus occurs. It is like the Fram oil filter commercial - you can pay me know, or pay me later. Or a more timely metaphore - you can scrimp on school maintenance for only so long before you need to spend $32 Million to replace the roof. I think the roof of the earth will be a tab more expensive than that - I'd prefer a bit of maintenance now.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I can run around the net finding articles too, but in doing so you guys have completely missed my point.

It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order.

To argue that is crazy.

Shouldn't we all make high impact decisions carefully and with all the information possible?

In a way, I don't think we disagree in principle on what approach ought to be taken. For me, though, making high impact decisions means that we should look carefully at the data and interpret it in the best way that we know how. That's not to say that the Kyoto protocol is the best way to solve the problem, or that we should all join GreenPeace and chain ourselves to an oil derrick. But I do think that when we're evaluating what the scientific community has to say on this issue, we need to do a little bit of sorting out--in other words, there needs to be a way we can decide if some sources are more credible than others.

On that note--there's very little question in my mind that the AASA, the NAS and the IPCC are more credible sources than, say, the National Center for Policy Initiatives, or the Brookings Institution. The reason is very simple. A true scientist collects data and then draws a conclusion. A think tank, be it right or left, usually collects data that supports a conclusion they've already drawn. Now THAT's a dangerous way to think.

[peter12]

It's unavoidable to escape bias, regardless if you work at a scientific institution or a think tank. The institutionalization involved in scientific studies cannot be denied either. Scientists are expected to uncover more evidence that supports a popular outcome.

You have to be brain dead not to believe that global climate change is not happening on one level. The question that HAS not been addressed is to what extent humans are responsible for it.

Furthermore, there is very little consensus building being attempted on both "right" and "left". Often enough the debate slides into I am correct and you are an idiotic idealogue, as evidenced by this thread.

Check out Patrick Moore for a Canadian's perspective on consensus building environmental solutions.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Bingo, you aren't the only on in the thread. Others have stated that they don't believe it.

You say that " I haven't said I don't believe in global warming..." but then you say "It's not a fact. There are different opposing opinions, and with the implications in play for something this vast and serious some calm and trepidation is in order." (Trepidation - a feeling of alarm or dread: how does that fit into "calm and tripidation is in order."?)

So you strongly imply that you question the current science. Sure, there will be scientists that support the extremes on both sides, but the links brought forward are from respected national and international organizations. Is it an attempt to sway opinions - sure. And the more respectable opinions that are put forward, the more credance to shold be given to that viewpoint.

I'm more than happy to agree that decisions should be made carefully, but how much information is required? It isn't that there is 5 or 10 wacko's screaming "the end is nigh", but there is a substantial community of experts who are saying humans are having an effect, and the consequences may be dire. I'll agree that we don't want to pump 10 billion dollars into the first unproven solution that comes along, but I don't think we've got time to wait until a global consensus occurs. It is like the Fram oil filter commercial - you can pay me know, or pay me later. Or a more timely metaphore - you can scrimp on school maintenance for only so long before you need to spend $32 Million to replace the roof. I think the roof of the earth will be a tab more expensive than that - I'd prefer a bit of maintenance now.

I'm aware that I'm not the only person in this thread but when people quote me then toss up articles proving global warming and suggest rudimentary investigation proves consensus I think I have every right to respond.

No?

I think the two statements

"haven't said I don't believe in global warming"
"it's not a fact"

are perfectly suitable with no conflicat at all. I'm not calling the mainstream science on the topic wrong they may be right, but there is more than enough evidence that there is a tendency to slam dunk and run and that scares me.

Kyoto science is an admitted mistake in that it's based on work that the authors have said was in error. That's crazy.

Science as a discipline isn't wrong, but people can rush from hypothesis to fact without the checks and balances needed to make sure things are in fact a fact.

I'm a proponent of letting industry clean up themselves through incentives, profit always seems more effecient as a motivation than half baked policy that doesn't have in place any real means to see through any of the goals or police the transgressors. Why throw money down the drain when you can give it out to corporations that are leaders in producing their widget in the most environmentally friendly way?

Haste is waste.

Slow it down, get it right.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm aware that I'm not the only person in this thread but when people quote me then toss up articles proving global warming and suggest rudimentary investigation proves consensus I think I have every right to respond.

No?

I think the two statements

"haven't said I don't believe in global warming"
"it's not a fact"

are perfectly suitable with no conflicat at all. I'm not calling the mainstream science on the topic wrong they may be right, but there is more than enough evidence that there is a tendency to slam dunk and run and that scares me.

Kyoto science is an admitted mistake in that it's based on work that the authors have said was in error. That's crazy.

Science as a discipline isn't wrong, but people can rush from hypothesis to fact without the checks and balances needed to make sure things are in fact a fact.

I'm a proponent of letting industry clean up themselves through incentives, profit always seems more effecient as a motivation than half baked policy that doesn't have in place any real means to see through any of the goals or police the transgressors. Why throw money down the drain when you can give it out to corporations that are leaders in producing their widget in the most environmentally friendly way?

Haste is waste.

Slow it down, get it right.

I don't think anyone wants to throw money down the drain, but some initiatives should be taken sooner rather than later, and other, more large scale alternatives may take years even after the decision has been made. I'm not sure if this thread or the Kyoto one mentioned Nuclear power - how long does it take to get a plant built?

I'm of the opinion that we need to start adopting some measures to get things rolling. How about emissions testing on cars? Increasing minimum insulation in building codes. Maybe even looking at big ticket things with an eye towards "If we did decide to build a nuclear power plant/Hydro generation/Expanded wind farms/Solar farms" where is the best spot to put it, can we have plans put in place so we can determine time lines and so on. No one is advocating "this is the final solution". I'm sure more data will be compiled and better solutions conceived.

But I also believe that if we wait for the perfect solution it will NEVER arrive.

When the fire alarm is ringing, how long before you decide to leave the building?

Edit: Poor metaphor, but the only one I can think of that does any sort of justice to my thoughs (although I'll probably come up with a good one when I am away from the computer later)

[Hakan]

Slow it down. Good one. Maybe Ray Nagin should have been holding planning meetings, committee meetings, and an council meeting with guest speakers 3 days before they knew a giant hurricane was going to hit them to make sure they slowed it down and got it right so that five hours before the hurricane hit they all were at a consensus that yes the hurricane would hit them and that they decided to undertake the optimal policies that would save money and be the most efficient. Actually that probably would have taken 2 years.

Yeah, they should have planned for that two years in advance. That's exactly what we should be doing right friggin now instead of debating whether or not it's happening.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Slow it down. Good one. Maybe Ray Nagin should have been holding planning meetings, committee meetings, and an council meeting with guest speakers 3 days before they knew a giant hurricane was going to hit them to make sure they slowed it down and got it right so that five hours before the hurricane hit they all were at a consensus that yes the hurricane would hit them and that they decided to undertake the optimal policies that would save money and be the most efficient. Actually that probably would have taken 2 years.

Yeah, they should have planned for that two years in advance. That's exactly what we should be doing right friggin now instead of debating whether or not it's happening.

That analogy is simply brutal.

A hurricane can be tracked, quantified, and evaluated well before it lands on humanity and causes damage. They can get it wrong when it comes to landing point, wind speed and category, but not in the fact that it actually exists or not.

global warming isn't that.

It just isn't.

There's been climate change compared to recent data, but while one camp sees that as man made effects an another sees it as a cyclical issue, and I haven't seen either side proven right or wrong.

I personally believe that man has to have an effect, and that being more enviromentally friendly is a good cause regardless of the plan of attack for the individual. But governments shouldn't blindly follow a lemming over a cliff just because the majority of lemmings before him think it's a good idea.

I'm with bobblehead though ... effeciency changes should be made because they make sense on their own. Signing on to global pacts that are based on flawed science, may cripple economies and funnel credit funds to third world countries whos use of said funds can't be traced is lunacy.

But save me the apple falling from the tree analogies because they don't hold water.

And to think, from the beginning I never questioned the seriousness of the issue or the need to take said issue serious. Just that with so many differing opinions it's bloody dangerous to plug your ears and yell lalalalala when you hear something that doesn't fit with what you consider fact.

Science told us to stop using wood cutting boards because they get grooved and collect bacteria in their cuts but to use plastic. Then they said to use wood because the wood was more porous allowing a flow through while the plastic pooled the bacteria.

Lets just say I haven't thrown out either the wood or the plastic. I'm staying tuned.

[Hakan]

Hey in no place have I been defending Kyoto it was a hack job negotiation that was eventually finalized 11 hours after the conference of parties was supposed to officially end. The United States knew it would never pass through the senate but Gore and Clinton both wanted to score some international points. It's incredibly weak, the major policy instruments are only now being finalized a full 9 years after it was first signed and there is still no compliance mechanism.

BUT, it is a first step. Humanity and more specifically, government, bureaucracy, and business are incrementalist by nature. That means you start with something and build on it. Look at all the international agreements: almost all started weak but gained momentum. GATT, law of the seas, etc.

Kyoto needs to be stronger and tied to the WTO IMO. Comply with Kyoto, then you get access to the WTO, if you don't comply then you don't get free trade.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I equate this problem to that of a guy who has been a smoker for 30 years. He goes to the doctor, complaining of a bad cough. The doctor takes a listen and doesn't like what he hears. He sends the guy off for some tests. The tests come back and the guy is diagnozed with lung cancer. The doctor tells him that he can get better, but will have to stop smoking and receive treatment. The guy doesn't like the advice, as he's a real big smoker, and goes to a string of doctors. Of the 100 doctors he sees 80% say he's got lung cancer, 10% say they are not 100% certain, and 10% say he's fine and ask him if he would like another cigarette (these fine doctors have large holdings in Phillip Morris). The guy continues to smoke, and continues to get progressively worse, with his symptoms getting worse as time passes. So what's the best course of action? Treat the symptoms or continue to wait it out for that defining diagnosis when we are certain what caused the cough (it's medical thing called an autopsy)?

You're attacking the wrong point with this analogy. You've classified the doctors based only on their diagnoses, rather than their interpretation of the cause and their recommended treatment. To improve it:

DIAGNOSIS

If the environmental scientists were doctors, here's what you'd have happening.... All the doctors would do the following: They'd listen to the nasty cough, send the guy off for tests, and get results that show some symptoms consistent with lung cancer, and others inconsistent. Unfortunately, none of the tests was 100% conclusive, and here's where they split...

• 90% of the doctors--the Kyoto supporters--would recommend immediate commencement of radiation and chemotherapy, with the plan to check the diagnosis afterwards. Sure, chemotherapy makes you feel like crap, but better sick than dead!
• 5% would (appropriately) recommend a quick biopsy to confirm the diagnosis before commencing potentially harmful treatments
• 5% (those from the Dr. Nick School of Medicine) would determine that it's probably only a cyst, and doesn't require any further observation despite the uncertain test results.

You can certainly argue that the Dr. Nick guy is a little loony, since tests were inconclusive. As a patient, though, I'd be a little ticked off at my doctor if he put me through chemotherapy and we later found out it wasn't even a cancer. I'd rather wait a week (or 5 years, in climate terms) to find out for sure before doing that.

CAUSE

Assuming we all agreed that the guy had lung cancer, we'd want to know what caused it. You'll get a lot more agreement among doctors than you will among environmental scientists in this analogy, but I'll speculate on their positions anyhow:

• Doctor #1 knows that the patient is a smoker and determines conclusively that smoking is the cause because smokers are proven through statistics to experience higher rates of lung cancer than the general population. To remove the cause: quit smoking.
  
  "Could it be caused by anything else, Doctor?"
  "NO...quit smoking!"
  
• Doctor #2 comes to the same conclusion as Doctor #1, but also decides to probe a little further. As it turns out, the patient installed asbestos insulation for a couple of years 2 decades ago. Unfortunately there's no way to prevent that, but this doctor still recommends quitting smoking.
• Dr. Nick, now convinced that it's cancer, tells his patient that it's just an unfortunate fact of life that some people get cancer.

In this case, we'd all agree that Dr. Nick is an idiot in light of the evidence. However, the Kyoto-supporting scientists (Dr. 1) don't exactly look like the most rigorous bunch do they? The major difference in the analogy falls in the fact that Doctors have a sample size of millions of smokers...environmental scientists have only 1 earth...yet they're completely confident of their conclusion.

TREATMENT

In addition to getting rid of the causes, we've also got to treat the cancer now. To complete the analogy, here's what our poor patient might have to look forward to:

• Doctor #1 recommends a lung transplant. Sure, it's a zero-sum proposition overall, since someone else has to die, but at least it's a decisive action. Nevermind the fact that the cancer is potentially spreading to other parts of the body that aren't being treated.
• Doctor #2 recommends radiation and chemo...short-term pain for a good chance of long-term gain.
• Dr. Nick suggests that the patient go out, re-mortgage his house, and spend all his money on hookers and blow because there's nothing else he can do.

If the Kyoto crowd doesn't see itself in Doctor #1, then you clearly don't understand the analogy the way it should be. I tried to put forward my position with Doctor #2. As for Dr. Nick, I agree that he's out there somewhere, but he's not nearly as common as Doctor #2 who's getting ridiculed for not jumping to conclusions.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Back on topic, here's what I think most of us will agree is a pretty balanced review of the science in Al Gore's movie. Sounds like he got most things right, with a few notable exceptions.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l-warming.html

My favourite quote:

In an attemp to clear the air, National Geographic News checked in with Eric Steig, an earth scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who saw An Inconvenient Truth at a preview screening.
He says the documentary handles the science well.
"I was looking for errors," he said.
"But nothing much struck me as overblown or wrong."

I bet it was annoying to watch Star Trek with that guy...

[Bill Bumface]

Just watched this tonight. Really disturbing, especially since its pretty much impossible to find much evidence out there disputing the numbers present. For those of you saying "We shouldn't rush into this, because it might just be cyclical" I present:



We are talking FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND years of evidence. We are nothing even close to CO2 levels experienced even in times of massive volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, etc. I don't get how people can say this might be cyclical. Even if it is "just cyclical" we're screwed anyways if the earth heats up as much as it appears its going to, so we might as well do our best.

I also don't buy the "what a waste of money it will be if its not true". It reminds me of when people were saying how computers and robots would take everyone's jobs. It doesn't work that way. A move towards clean energy and the technologies it will take to reverse our course will create completely new industries with a lot of opportunity and a lot of money in them. I'm sure a lot of us in Calgary collecting oil stained pay cheques, myself included, would love to think this isn't happening and everything is going to be just fine for us, but I think you are fooling yourself.

[Flames Fan in West Van]

For my safety, I am not adding my two cents into this thread.

But just know, it's very, very, very, very, very hard not too....

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Log off now! Do it!!!!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan in West Van

For my safety, I am not adding my two cents into this thread.

But just know, it's very, very, very, very, very hard not too....

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Log off now! Do it!!!!

Why not? I think its a pretty important topic for people to discuss and see all sides to so they can make decisions for themselves.

[FLAMESBURNOIL]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I read a book a few months ago (this one) and (with a little fear of getting the summary quite wrong) I believe it said something like this: We've had good or even perfect climate for 10 or 12 thousand years (since the end of an ice age) and in that time us hoomans developed agriculture and reaped all the benefits that came with that development (ie "everything"). In all the time before that we couldn't do the farming thing because the climate was wrong. For 10 thousand years though it's been right we'd be screwed/non-existent if this set of climate circumstances didn't come about.

But the climate range for all the fun stuff we enjoy is pretty small. I won't pretend to remember the numbers he used to explain for me the layman how it works but I'll try to convey his message by using the numbers 48-52.

If the "temperature" stays between 48 and 52 then we can keep going hunky dory. If it were to drop to 47.9 or rise to 52.1 then we are out of the little safety zone that we've enjoyed for a long time. It's in our best interests to do what we can to keep it between 48 and 52. It doesn't sound like a big deal if we rise just one or two degrees, but it's a very small window so it is a big deal.

Bah, I know how simplistic that looks but it made sense to me.

There is also a great bit about what happened to the people from Easter Island.

See that is completely false -

Medieval Warm Period - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Little Ice Age - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

We are about 150 years past the Little Ice Age...mmmmmm

People have short memories - in the 1970's scientist noticed a general cooling trend from 1945 - 1970 and warned the world of a potential global cooling disaster

Since then scientist noticed a warming trend and warned the world of a potential global warming disaster

Well global warming is no longer taboo - its now climate change

[Table 5]

1. I don't know.

You're right you dont. You're not a scientist, I'm not a scientist, and neither is Al Gore. But overwhelming majority of people who deal in the science, have proven so. Why will you believe scientists and researchers when they help you improve your energy company's methods, but not when it comes to climate patterns? Just because the energy industry puts bread on your table, does it mean they can't be responsible fully?

Science is based on research, facts, and verification. Hundreds of scientists have studied this, yet people start picking out the couple that go against the grain (I wont even respond to the idiots who use Crichton as a source). Why?

4. I'm extremely uncomfortable that a very strong majority of our planet go with the Global Warming theory is an absolute fact when there's evidence to the contrary. I'm not pushing global warming as a myth, but I'm one that thinks we should all slow down and actually figuere this thing out before bad decision after bad decision is made for the wrong reasons.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea that people still have a wait and see attitude about this topic. Here's the thing....the EARTH itself will be totally fine, it always has had a great ability to mutate and survive. WE are the ones who are pooched. Screw the Earth, worry about your kid.

Add to that Al Gore's track record of self promotion and blathering to the media and it all makes me a little uneasy.

Again, don't listen to Al Gore. Listen to the science. Listen to the studies. Listen to the facts. This is not something that Al Gore theorized, he is just a public face who wants to bring this issue to the spotlight.