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

[tchwojko]

I'm quite surprised that Inq didn't understand even the basic premise of either a greenhouse or the greenhouse effect, and yet wants to discuss the merits of various policies regarding climate and emissions.

You'd think that an economist would be interested in costs AND benefits.

[migopod]

I'm quite surprised that Inq didn't understand even the basic premise of either a greenhouse or the greenhouse effect, and yet wants to discuss the merits of various policies regarding climate and emissions.

You'd think that an economist would be interested in costs AND benefits.

Not terribly surprising. A lot of people seem to believe that the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is the same as putting a car in the sun with the windows up. What never ceases to astound me is how many people in the "debate" fundamentally do not understand science. Not just the specific science related to the debate, but more generally things like the scientific method.

[tchwojko]

Not terribly surprising. A lot of people seem to believe that the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is the same as putting a car in the sun with the windows up. What never ceases to astound me is how many people in the "debate" fundamentally do not understand science. Not just the specific science related to the debate, but more generally things like the scientific method.

Yes, except that I'm no longer astounded.

[migopod]

Yes, except that I'm no longer astounded.

I'm gradually becoming numb to it.

[Inquartata]

I'm quite surprised that Inq didn't understand even the basic premise of either a greenhouse or the greenhouse effect, and yet wants to discuss the merits of various policies regarding climate and emissions.

I may have understood it once, but it's been a long, long time since high school.

It is possible to discuss policies without understanding the science or technology behind it. It is even possible to write, sponsor and pass legislation without doing so, I believe.

Again, I am not postulating any alternative hypotheses to global warming, however that may infuriate some of you. I am just saying that there seem to be some logical holes in it, and some problems with policy recommendations due to certain human failings and tendencies...and you don't need to be a climatologist to do those things.

[keith]

It is possible to discuss policies without understanding the science or technology behind it. It is even possible to write, sponsor and pass legislation without doing so, I believe.

Except when the criticism is of the metaphor not the science. Or of some ephemeral conspiracy.

I think you will find that virtually all legislation is passed, or opposed, in complete ignorance of any scientific validity. That's politics and public opinion.

So no the following does not hold;

Again, I am not postulating any alternative hypotheses to global warming, however that may infuriate some of you. I am just saying that there seem to be some logical holes in it, and some problems with policy recommendations due to certain human failings and tendencies...and you don't need to be a climatologist to do those things.

It is pretty hard to poke logical holes in something when, by your own admission, you don't understand it - all you seem to have established is the the greenhouse effect is a bad metaphor .

Broken clocks, blind men and elephants etc etc spring to mind.

Of course regardless of ones understanding of the science the question of what you do is quite different - which is why I linked the lomborg stuff,.

[tchwojko]

I may have understood it once, but it's been a long, long time since high school.

If it didn't stick with you, then you didn't understand it.

It is possible to discuss policies without understanding the science or technology behind it. It is even possible to write, sponsor and pass legislation without doing so, I believe.

Possible? Sure. Desirable? No.

Again, I am not postulating any alternative hypotheses to global warming, however that may infuriate some of you.

An alternative isn't necessary, but if you're going to say the policy is based on incorrect science, then you really ought to show how the science may be incorrect.

I am just saying that there seem to be some logical holes in it,

If you don't understand the basic premises, let alone the details of the science, how can you pick out logical holes?

and some problems with policy recommendations due to certain human failings and tendencies...and you don't need to be a climatologist to do those things.

Ok, so replace climatology with ANY other science:

The internal combustion engineers might not be completely correct with their science, so everyone should stop driving cars.

Medical doctors don't completely understand biology, so don't follow any of their advice until they figure it all out.

Hardware engineers don't know everything about laptops and how it affects biology, so we shouldn't use those either.

This meta-argument is the most nonsensical thing I've seen you write. Aside from the bad puns, which I happen to like.

[telkanuru]

OR: There are currently three competing theories of fluid dynamics, none of which completely manage to explain why airplanes work. Therefore, we should stop flying.

It's like those creationists who go on about it being only a theory, neglecting to remember gravity is the selfsame thing.

[jeff]

If you don't understand the basic premises, let alone the details of the science, how can you pick out logical holes

QFT. As is often the case with this sort of thing, it's more about people wanting to disbelieve something than the truth of the matter.

[erik_blank]

It's like those creationists who go on about it being only a theory, neglecting to remember gravity is the selfsame thing.

Gravity? I don't believe in it. It is nothing more than a conspiracy of Physicists...

[tchwojko]

Gravity? I don't believe in it. It is nothing more than a conspiracy of Physicists...

It hasn't been definitively reconciled with Quantum Mechanics, so we know that the theory is incomplete, so we need to disband NASA and all missile programs.

[migopod]

It hasn't been definitively reconciled with Quantum Mechanics, so we know that the theory is incomplete, so we need to disband NASA and all missile programs.

But think of all the new jobs that will be created at the Department of Nailing Everything Down Because Gravity Might Not Be Real!

[tchwojko]

But think of all the new jobs that will be created at the Department of Nailing Everything Down Because Gravity Might Not Be Real!

Down? I think Australians would disagree with our perspective.

[migopod]

Down? I think Australians would disagree with our perspective.

It's well established that Australia is mythical. Certainly I've never seen it, and I'm not about to take it on faith that exists based upon the consensus of geographers. There are people still hypothesizing that the earth is flat. Teach the Controversy!

[tchwojko]

It's well established that Australia is mythical. Certainly I've never seen it, and I'm not about to take it on faith that exists based upon the consensus of geographers. There are people still hypothesizing that the earth is flat. Teach the Controversy!

It's turtles all the way down!

[I_luv_saber]

If you don't understand the basic premises, let alone the details of the science, how can you pick out logical holes

QFT. As is often the case with this sort of thing, it's more about people wanting to disbelieve something than the truth of the matter.

Economics.

So I can expect any who have not studied economics to stop arguing about it, yes? It's just people wanting to believe something rather than the truth of the matter after all...

[telkanuru]

It's well established that Australia is mythical. Certainly I've never seen it, and I'm not about to take it on faith that exists based upon the consensus of geographers. There are people still hypothesizing that the earth is flat. Teach the Controversy!

At this point let's just bring everything in and ask if you've ever been touched by His Noodley Appendage.

[tchwojko]

Economics.

So I can expect any who have not studied economics to stop arguing about it, yes? It's just people wanting to believe something rather than the truth of the matter after all...

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't believe I have argued one way or another about any economics topic explicitly because I haven't done enough homework on the topic. And if a large number of economists say X, I'm certainly not going to claim they are collectively wrong without doing said homework. Though I think I have asked a bunch of questions on the topic.

[Digital Analog]

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't believe I have argued one way or another about any economics topic explicitly because I haven't done enough homework on the topic. And if a large number of economists say X, I'm certainly not going to claim they are collectively wrong without doing said homework. Though I think I have asked a bunch of questions on the topic.

The problem is that Inq thinks that everything boils down to economics. So it doesn't matter what you are talking about he is an instant expert.

[migopod]

At this point let's just bring everything in and ask if you've ever been touched by His Noodley Appendage.