Al Gore on 'climate crisis' : 'Worse than we thought'

[Slim]

Because he's not modelling? Because he went out there to verify satellite observations (and the interpretations thereof), and was surprised to find that they were inaccurate?

Last time, he had a theory. He created a model based on that theory. The model had predictions, as a scientific model should.

Those predictions were inaccurate, so the model is not accurate and discarded. This is science. Pretty standard science at that.

The model being disproved puts the scientist back at the drawing board -- collecting more observations in an attempt to develop an accurate model. This is one of those observations -- it is not a prediction.

Should it be verified? Yes. This is a normal part of the scientific process. His observations may turn out to be broadly true, or they might be restricted to a certain area. There may be inaccuracies.

Should it be doubted because a previous model by the same scientist was not accurate? No. This isn't like the previous error, where he got something wrong (which is hardly rare, when developing scientific models).

There is nothing to suggest that he is a person who invents observations out of thin air.

You need to wake up and realize that this is not about science anymore. It's a political cause.

[Slim]

That liberal snake pit the Pentagon still thinks that climate change is pretty serious:
Pentagon Considers Climate Change a National Security Threat (Feb 8, 2010)



Because the stakes are too high.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...7-04-16-05.asp

"People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections," General Sullivan said. "But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield."

Ah...the pentagon? Duh.

Dont you realize that their budgets are based on threats? Crikey.

[keith]

You need to wake up and realize that this is not about science anymore. It's a political cause.

Hang on, it's not about science So you're saying that even if the science is right you're against doing anything. Just because.... WTF.

[CvilleFencer]

Most? In person? Time and time again?
Stop hanging out at KKK meetings. You're perspectives may change.

Some hatcheting of my original post to make it seem something other than what was said. A little insult to deflect the actual issue and be derogatory at the same time. So far not the dialog I was hoping for.

How about taking a stab at the question?

[melensdad]

Hang on, it's not about science So you're saying that even if the science is right you're against doing anything. Just because.... WTF.

What can man do to change the natural cycles of the earth and, perhaps more specifically, why should we want to interfere with the natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth?

What if we screw up those natural cycles and make it worse by our meddling?

What if we are nearing the end of a natural warming cycle and heading into a natural cooling cycle and we alter the earth such that the natural warming cycle is actually extended, will that not be worse because it will make things warmer?

Or what if we do something and we move too fast into a natural cooling cycle (think mini-ice age) will not that be even worse as millions of people will starve due to crop failures and insufficient food supplies?

Last time I checked the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was something under 1/2 of 1% or something similar so how much do we really influence it with our cars, especially when 1 large forest fire or 1 volcano can spew out more CO2 in 1 event than all the cars in Los Angeles can emit in a whole year?

I'm just asking

[keith]

What can man do to change the natural cycles of the earth and, perhaps more specifically, why should we want to interfere with the natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth?

This question presupposes it's own answer

I'm just asking

No you're not.

Oh and if you want a site that goes through the science look here;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

There is no shortage of, sensible, discussion about this stuff. The only issue is if you reckon, like Slim, it's not about the science.

[Philistine]

I agree. If Obama keeps trying to make US citizens subjects of the United Nations, there could be violence. He has already started with his Executive Order 12425. {snip}

Really? So, Obama issuing an Executive Order which was initially proposed by the Bush administration--because Interpol only got a presence in the US (5 people) in 2004 and which extends to Interpol the same protections extended to, for example, The International Pacific Halibut Commission, and which Bush extended to, again, for example, The Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is putting us on the road to violence.

Look--this goes just as much for Bush as it does for Obama--if you hear a story that Bush/Obama signed some obscure Executive Order that is secretly putting us on the road to domination by the UN/loss of all of our civil rights/something else crazy--and there is not a strong outcry by the other party in Congress--take a deep breath. It doesn't mean what the nutcases out there are saying it means.

Sheesh....

--Philistine

[I_luv_saber]

What can man do to change the natural cycles of the earth and, perhaps more specifically, why should we want to interfere with the natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth?

What if we screw up those natural cycles and make it worse by our meddling?

What if we are nearing the end of a natural warming cycle and heading into a natural cooling cycle and we alter the earth such that the natural warming cycle is actually extended, will that not be worse because it will make things warmer?

Or what if we do something and we move too fast into a natural cooling cycle (think mini-ice age) will not that be even worse as millions of people will starve due to crop failures and insufficient food supplies?

Last time I checked the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was something under 1/2 of 1% or something similar so how much do we really influence it with our cars, especially when 1 large forest fire or 1 volcano can spew out more CO2 in 1 event than all the cars in Los Angeles can emit in a whole year?

I'm just asking

So we are just to assume this might happen?

Again, I give you this:



There's a plethora of reasons to move towards sustainable energy, more recycling, and less pollution. We should be doing it regardless of whether human induced global warming is so or not.

And just how would stopping bad practices be meddling? It's stopping meddling! If you wish to make the argument that our meddling is saving us, go right ahead (though I think you'll have a hard time of it) - but to call receding our impact meddling is not right.

[melensdad]

There's a plethora of reasons to move towards sustainable energy, more recycling, and less pollution. We should be doing it regardless of whether human induced global warming is so or not.

And just how would stopping bad practices be meddling?

Well I agree that sustainable energy, more recycling and less pollution are good goals. But so is energy independence from foreign nations by drilling offshore, by using shale gasification and by tapping natural gas resources. There are economics at play in addition to sustainability issues. HOWEVER all that said, and generally being in agreement with that point you make, much of the economics of green jobs doesn't work, in Spain they found that for every green job created they lost more than 2 other jobs. Seems to me we need jobs in the US right now, so creating 1 green job at the expense of 2 other jobs might lead to even more hardship.

Now as for your point about stopping bad practices being meddling that is not something I ever said. But how about defining those bad practices? Would they include the aforementioned green job creation that destroys other jobs? Would they include the EPAs insane diesel regulations that prevent us from producing or importing cleaner diesel vehicles than gasoline vehicles or even hybrid vehicles? Or how about creating standards so strict in one nation but not enforcing those standards in another so that some nations become havens for pollution producing industry which, in net effect, does not help clean the world?

[Inquartata]

There's a plethora of reasons to move towards sustainable energy, more recycling, and less pollution. We should be doing it regardless of whether human induced global warming is so or not.

Yes, but this is a red herring, because the global warming debate is not about any of those things. It's about reducing, cutting, transferring and changing. It's about carbon trading and adopting expensive industrial processes instead of cheap ones ( but only for us first-world ogres, the third world needn't go along unless we pay them to do so ). It's about, in the final analysis, a lower standard of living for many of us...and doing it because some scientists and politicians have worked very hard to make us afraid...

And as I have said before, and as melensdad has just pointed out again, it's not as though there are no possible deleterious consequences to successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so forth. It's not as though there's a clear and unequivocal choice between hell and heaven. To repeat myself, if the unintended consequence should be to push us into a geologically overdue glaciation instead, that's a lot more disastrous for everyone than a few degrees of global warming could ever be. Who's up for the prospect of paying enormous amounts of scarce resources and reducing our standards of living only to leave our children with an ice age? And why is it that no one in the politico-climatological community is even willing to admit the possibility of a bad outcome from the policy choices they are pushing so hard?

[Digital Analog]

Yes, but this is a red herring, because the global warming debate is not about any of those things. It's about reducing, cutting, transferring and changing. It's about carbon trading and adopting expensive industrial processes instead of cheap ones ( but only for us first-world ogres, the third world needn't go along unless we pay them to do so ). It's about, in the final analysis, a lower standard of living for many of us...and doing it because some scientists and politicians have worked very hard to make us afraid...

And as I have said before, and as melensdad has just pointed out again, it's not as though there are no possible deleterious consequences to successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so forth. It's not as though there's a clear and unequivocal choice between hell and heaven. To repeat myself, if the unintended consequence should be to push us into a geologically overdue glaciation instead, that's a lot more disastrous for everyone than a few degrees of global warming could ever be. Who's up for the prospect of paying enormous amounts of scarce resources and reducing our standards of living only to leave our children with an ice age? And why is it that no one in the politico-climatological community is even willing to admit the possibility of a bad outcome from the policy choices they are pushing so hard?

This is possibly the most intellectually dishonest argument that conservative thinking has ever come up with. So let me get this straight, lessening our emissions will force us into an ice-age. Burning fossil fuels is our only escape from a glacial takeover.

...


...
...

My brain hurts.

[Hauptman]

Yes, but this is a red herring, because the global warming debate is not about any of those things. It's about reducing, cutting, transferring and changing. It's about carbon trading and adopting expensive industrial processes instead of cheap ones ( but only for us first-world ogres, the third world needn't go along unless we pay them to do so ). It's about, in the final analysis, a lower standard of living for many of us...and doing it because some scientists and politicians have worked very hard to make us afraid...

I'd like to know more about this loss of jobs, and lower standard of living, that keeps being thrown out here; how does this come about?

[melensdad]

This is possibly the most intellectually dishonest argument that conservative thinking has ever come up with. So let me get this straight, lessening our emissions will force us into an ice-age. Burning fossil fuels is our only escape from a glacial takeover.

Ah but that is not very accurate as the whole Cap & Trade concept simply shifts the burning of carbon from one area to another area while at the same time taxing the producers and redistributing their wealth. So really what has been proposed is shift pollution from one nation with higher technology and emissions scrubbers on its smoke stacks to a poor nation exemptions on emission scrubbers so that it can not only produce a good at lower cost, but can do it at greater pollution levels.

So perhaps there is some intellectual dishonesty to be applied to the gang from Copenhagen too.

[Slim]

Some hatcheting of my original post to make it seem something other than what was said. A little insult to deflect the actual issue and be derogatory at the same time. So far not the dialog I was hoping for.

How about taking a stab at the question?

How about you ask a question without all the hysterical exaggerations and attempted blanket generalizations?

Answer is easy, and applies to this question too.... How do muslim terrorists justify killing innocents in the name of allah?

I'll let you figure it out.

[Digital Analog]

Ah but that is not very accurate as the whole Cap & Trade concept simply shifts the burning of carbon from one area to another area while at the same time taxing the producers and redistributing their wealth. So really what has been proposed is shift pollution from one nation with higher technology and emissions scrubbers on its smoke stacks to a poor nation exemptions on emission scrubbers so that it can not only produce a good at lower cost, but can do it at greater pollution levels.

So perhaps there is some intellectual dishonesty to be applied to the gang from Copenhagen too.

I never said anything about Cap and Trade (which only really works in a simplified system and sound good because everyone had that unit once in econ 101)

I just want to know where the argument of Reducing Emissions=Ice Age comes from. The argument actually disturbs me. Why would anyone believe such a flimsy unsubstantiated argument. Why would Inq even bring it up?

[fencerchica]

why are the most right of the right wing so willing to advocate terrorism and violence against those that disagree with them?

Answer is easy, and applies to this question too.... How do muslim terrorists justify killing innocents in the name of allah?

I'm glad that Slim perceives that the militant core of the Tea Party (aka present-day reincarnation of the Patriot movement from the 1990's) is made up of a bunch of violent fanatics.

[Inquartata]

This is possibly the most intellectually dishonest argument that conservative thinking has ever come up with. So let me get this straight, lessening our emissions will force us into an ice-age. Burning fossil fuels is our only escape from a glacial takeover.

Why don't you try reading the actual post, rather going straight to an attack?

I did NOT say "will". That's the province of the global warming crowd: Telling us that we must act, or thus and such WILL happen.

Do you understand the meaning of words like "possible" and "if"?

Or would you now like to leap in and tell me what I really "meant"?

[Inquartata]

I'd like to know more about this loss of jobs, and lower standard of living, that keeps being thrown out here; how does this come about?

You can't understand how giving up things implies a reduced standard of living?

I'm not sure how this is such an obscure hypothesis...

[Inquartata]

I just want to know where the argument of Reducing Emissions=Ice Age comes from.

Why didn't you just start with this?

On the first page of a Google search:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...g-ice-age.html

I brought it up because back in the 1970s it was the expectation of the "consensus" that the world was cooling, and some theorized that it was only the burning of carbon fuels which was keeping it from accelerating. PBS, rather than presenting programs about melting glaciers, was presenting programs about scientists measuring the southerly creep of the permafrost horizon in Newfoundland, and the like.

The consensus has reversed, but the science is not exact enough to predict outcomes with real confidence. IMO it's entirely possible---not certain, but possible, do please note the word---that if we reduce greenhouse gasses enough without also reducing particle forcing that we might ( note that word, too ) precipitate cooling in place of warming...

[keith]

Did you know that the cabin pressure change caused by nose blowing may result in catastrophic fuselage failure.