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

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hakan

They built false idols in the forms of the statues and when things started going bad, ie lack of resources from build all these false idols, they started ramping up production in the hopes that things would get better?

Hmm, something seems similar...

There are 10 000 documented Pacific Island civilizations, only 12 of those are documented to have collapsed like Easter Island.

Somehow things don't seem so similar.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Seems the assumption of global warming is the one that doesn't want to hear any sort of opposition. Only natural for enviromental scientists to be pro-environment, the silent middle might have some pretty serious reservations, but don't want to be branded pro industry or pro pollution for questioning what has become a run table.

In my case, I think it is a weighing of potential consequences.
If the warming is cyclical, then at the worse thing that will have happened is lots of money will have been spent (or wasted, depending on your point of view) on reducing pollution/greenhouse gases.
If the warming is human generated and causing dangerous climate changes and we don't do anything, then the worst thing that can happen is global ecological disaster.

Given the choices, I'd prefer to avoid the latter potential consequence.

[habernac]

Why should we spend the VAST amounts of money required to protect ourselves on something that MAY or MAY NOT happen in the next 100 years?


While I do agree that global warming may or may not be a cycle or trend, how hard is it to cut down on using fossil fuels just to improve the quality of air we breathe? No, the air isn't unbreathable. And we're lucky not to be stuck in a metropolis like Los Angeles or Toronto with huge smog clouds and stifling tempertatures. But it could be a hell of a lot better.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well ... you're always good for a hyperbole, and over exageration.

If you were answering me you missed the mark. I didn't call it a conspiracy, and I'm not calling it a myth.

I am questioning why there is so much conflicting information and so little pause for thought with said information.

That's a rush to judgement plain and simple.

Is it possible that a rush to judgement can be proven the right judgement call when the dust settles? For sure ... but that doesn't remove the fact that the initial move was indeed a rush and with that there are dangers.

Why not slow down and get to the bottom of these things once and for all?

Seems the assumption of global warming is the one that doesn't want to hear any sort of opposition. Only natural for enviromental scientists to be pro-environment, the silent middle might have some pretty serious reservations, but don't want to be branded pro industry or pro pollution for questioning what has become a run table.

No Bingo, I wasn't answering you. I would have quoted you if I were answering you. I'm not surprised to see you take this stance though, you've always been one to sit on the fence, so why be different here?

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)?

I can't believe that anyone has the nads to argue the idea of global warming and environmental change. Anyone who has lived in Calgary for any length of time will tell you that the weather has change. As a kid there was always tons of snow during the winter. Now there is very little. The color of the air has even changed. 30 years ago it was always clear. Now there's usually an ugly yellow cloud hanging over the city. And that's in Calgary, a relatively small city. I was driving into Phoenix the other day and couldn't see Camelback mountain from 10 miles away. When you can see the air, something is wrong.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by habernac

Why should we spend the VAST amounts of money required to protect ourselves on something that MAY or MAY NOT happen in the next 100 years?


While I do agree that global warming may or may not be a cycle or trend, how hard is it to cut down on using fossil fuels just to improve the quality of air we breathe? No, the air isn't unbreathable. And we're lucky not to be stuck in a metropolis like Los Angeles or Toronto with huge smog clouds and stifling tempertatures. But it could be a hell of a lot better.

A solution I have read about is pass on spending the vast amounts of money on emissions control and instead invest it into the research and development sector for alternative fuels.

They have been doing this in the US for decades and look at where all the advancements have been made in wind and solar power.

The best way to get through this is replace fossil fuels as our primary fuel as quickly as possible.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I think the polarization on the issue has more to do with money, then conficting scientific views. The people watching their wallets want to believe that nothing is wrong, while the people watching the environment tell us that something is wrong. personally, I tend to believe the experts.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by peter12

A solution I have read about is pass on spending the vast amounts of money on emissions control and instead invest it into the research and development sector for alternative fuels.

They have been doing this in the US for decades and look at where all the advancements have been made in wind and solar power.

The best way to get through this is replace fossil fuels as our primary fuel as quickly as possible.

And it's always lots of fun convincing people who work in the oil patch that anything needs to change (I have fun conversations with my father who made his fortune in the oil industry)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I think the polarization on the issue has more to do with money, then conficting scientific views. The people watching their wallets want to believe that nothing is wrong, while the people watching the environment tell us that something is wrong. personally, I tend to believe the experts.

The thing that most eco-extremists don't get is that to get anything done you have to arrive at a consensus with the people who have the fat wallets.

The people opposing Kyoto and other climate change regulation don't oppose the sciece of climate change. Guys like Bjorn Lomberg believe climate change is occuring. The question that is not being answered well by science is to what degree are humans the cause and how great the effects of climage are going to be. Science sadly has no clue, the models used to predict temperature change are hugely inaccurate.

Effective change will be engineered not by big governmetn regulation but by reasonable NGOs (ie. Not Greenpeace), business, and the free market.
The role government has to play is to start subsidizing the use of green technology and the development of green technology.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I have no problem acknowledging global warming or climate change as an issue, confirmed science or not.

I have a problem with climate change as a reason to try and screw nameless faceless corporations who are conveniently unpopular and probably deserve it anyway.

Everyone is in favour of action on climate change as long as someone else will pay for it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by habernac

And it's always lots of fun convincing people who work in the oil patch that anything needs to change (I have fun conversations with my father who made his fortune in the oil industry)

Who said anything about convincing the oil patch? There is a huge business sector out there creating efficient green technology. The only thing that remains is to make it competitive, which it is very close to doing on its own.

As soon as hybrid cars come down in price by $6000-$8000, guess what most people are going to switch over to driving.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

No Bingo, I wasn't answering you. I would have quoted you if I were answering you. I'm not surprised to see you take this stance though, you've always been one to sit on the fence, so why be different here?

Not sure I'd refer to it as fence sitting. It's a guy being honest about the fact that I'm not an expert and have nothing to say to this topic that I haven't read.

Since I've read things both ways, I think it's far from proven.

You have a tendency to jump hard on extremes all the time so of course I look like a fence sitter, but from my perspective it's just being rational.

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)?

Your analogy works well if you set the clock back to the mid 50's. At that point smoking was thought be be harmful but it was far from proven, and there certainly wasn't a consensus.

Today we have that.

Tomorrow we may have that for global warming, but today we don't. Or ... time might show that there was a bit of a panic applied to the science and it was a cyclical phenomenon with man playing a microscopic part.

You don't know. Either do I.

I'm just saying the spin should die and people should get the heart of the matter.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I can't believe that anyone has the nads to argue the idea of global warming and environmental change. Anyone who has lived in Calgary for any length of time will tell you that the weather has change. As a kid there was always tons of snow during the winter. Now there is very little. The color of the air has even changed. 30 years ago it was always clear. Now there's usually an ugly yellow cloud hanging over the city. And that's in Calgary, a relatively small city. I was driving into Phoenix the other day and couldn't see Camelback mountain from 10 miles away. When you can see the air, something is wrong.

I'll always have the nads to stand up and state the obvious. I'm not arguing for the return of slavery here, I'm suggesting that the jury is still out even though the gallery has left the courtroom and the reporters have filed their stories as guilty.

Bad idea.

Your Calgary example is a great example of one of the problems in too many global warming articles and positions today. You're using your life time as an adequate duration for a good trend analysis. If the planet came to life in 1920 it might hold water, but it's a nanosecond of time compared to the trends that are being discusses and because of that can be disputed completely.

I agree with Habernac, I think cleaning up polution is a great idea anyway, we honestly can't lose, but I'd like to see a more logical angle applied to that in terms of incentives and things, and not economy crippling protocols based on flawed science that might do more to build terrosim than actually save the economy.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Everyone is in favour of action on climate change as long as someone else will pay for it.

Exactly. And not just climate change. It seems to be a very NIMBY world.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Your analogy works well if you set the clock back to the mid 50's. At that point smoking was thought be be harmful but it was far from proven, and there certainly wasn't a consensus.

Today we have that.

Tomorrow we may have that for global warming, but today we don't. Or ... time might show that there was a bit of a panic applied to the science and it was a cyclical phenomenon with man playing a microscopic part.

You may well be right. The nature of science is that it adjusts its theories so that they match the available data. I'm no expert on climate change, but the little research I've done has revealed something pretty damning about many of these dissenting voices who are going against the mainstream of climate science--that mainstream that believes, as the National Academy of Sciences and other research institutions, that

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-war...basic_science/

Undoubtedly there are some who disagree. One notable figure in that debate is Tim Ball, who was a professor of climatology 10 years ago, but left the academy to work as a hired gun for a right-wing think-tank. In and of itself, that's not very interesting--it happens on both sides of the political spectrum all the time, especially when professors have difficulty getting any funding for their research, and their academic careers begin to fizzle as a result.

Here's the interesting part. 10 years ago, Dr. Ball was trying to convince everyone that global warming is a "myth." Now, even he admits it's happening, but has changed his story to "not catastrophic" and "not "anthropogenic (man-made)." Why the change of heart? What will be the most convenient viewpoint when the available evidence changes again?

But Ball isn't seriously trying to discredit the legions of climate scientists who disagree with him. If he were, he would do actual research of his own, instead of attacking research that others are doing. What he's trying to do is make it seem like there's more doubt in the scientific community than there actually is. This is a tactic that has worked very well on issues like intelligent design--because the mealy-mouthed media refuses to distinguish between scientific findings in refereed journals and articles posted on the web by think tanks.

[Hakan]

Any rudimentary research at credible scientific sources will point there being scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change Bingo. There's really no debate on it anymore.

But don't let climate denial soothsayers get their feelings hurt.

[Hakan]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686/

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Hakan

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686/
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Imagine that.

I think this situation calls for an application of Ockham's Razor. What's likelier: that the scientific community at large has been duped into believing a fairy tale about global warming, or that the much smaller group of fringe scientists who believe otherwise (yet oddly don't seem to publish their research very often) has an axe to grind.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah but there are more professionals that don't question the validity of global warming, rising sea levels, extreme weather. Maybe I'm a doom/gloom type but I believe that crowd. Now I don't believe everything every one of them has to say, but I find it kinda tough to believe that so many qualified people could be so wrong for so long and I've never understood what they'd get out of it to keep saying these things.

That's the way I tend to look at it..what reason would environmentalists and scientists possibly have, to make this all up? Is there some sort of corporate scientific/ecological elite who stands to gain millions if the oil and gas industry starts becoming less prominent?
I don't think so..

On the other hand there is obviously some very wealthy and influential people who stand to lose a lot of power and wealth, if the claims of environmentalists are taken seriously at all.

[Mike F]

Nothing every really gets resolved around here, but this review might at least get some skeptical butts into theatres for this movie to see what it has to say.

Those of you who know me well or read my blog know that I am an incredibly politically minded guy, and even more importantly, a Republican. A lifelong, old school, traditionally conservative (which doesn’t mean what many of you think it means), Republican. And I have SERIOUS ISSUES with Al Gore. Have for nearly two decades now.

. . . .

Well, with An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore . . . . manages to turn what could easily be a 100 minute episode-of-Nova snoozefest into a riveting conversation and argument on the need to reduce our CO2 emissions. This is effectively a filmed version of the lecture he’s been giving over the last six years, inter-cut with a series of personal anecdotes shot at locations pivotal in Gore’s life. Using stories of his past as metaphors, Gore manages to introduce us to himself in a whole new light, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for arguments made later in the film. And those arguments are incredibly simple – elegantly simple in fact.

While not entirely unassailable (as arguments go), what seemed like a “Save the Spotted Owl” plea for environmental consciousness rapidly became a wrecking ball of rhetoric that tore down common myths and hit every point in the argument, from personal cost, industry and the technology needed. This isn’t some crazy, left wing, bleeding heart, tree hugger plea – this is an honest to god, very well thought out evaluation of facts, figures and concepts. And its an argument, valid or not, that is so good, it should be heard by members of all political slants and bents.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Imagine that.

I think this situation calls for an application of Ockham's Razor. What's likelier: that the scientific community at large has been duped into believing a fairy tale about global warming, or that the much smaller group of fringe scientists who believe otherwise (yet oddly don't seem to publish their research very often) has an axe to grind.

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.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Well you might want to apply that to the golbal 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.

I don't recall there being anywhere near the concensus then that there is about global warming now. And I believe the research is much better now, with many more satellites and measurements available.

To be arguing that this many scientist are all wrong is sticking your head in the sand (IMHO).
What percentage of scientists will it take to convince you, White Doors?