Global Warming Exaggeration

[PLAYER57832]

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0226-ipcc.html

"UN to appoint independent board to audit the IPCC"

How many people think it will really be independent and not have it's mind already made up before it even starts looking at the report?

Most of the intelligent, thinking world.

(which, sadly, excludes a good many internet posters).

Sure. Because putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is always a good idea.

I suppose you'd say the same if the health insurance industry conducted an independent investigation into the alleged wrongdoings of the health insurance industry.

No, actually I have heard that same criticism voiced by some scientists.

The problem is that when you are talking about something about which just about every reputable scientist dealing with the issues agree (very few exceptions), finding any "truly independent" folks who actually have a clue about how the data needs to be processes, gathered, etc is hard.

The REAL problem here is not the data or the fact that there were a couple of errors, truly irrelevant to the overall document and overall conclusions, in that report. The REAL problem is that people reading it and media sources talking about it have THEIR minds made up and will only talk about what supports their view.

The documents in question, the emails, etc... NONE of that really and truly challenges Global Climate change OR the real independence of scientists. However, "scientists are doing their jobs like they are supposed to do" doesn't make news and certainly does not fit into the broader plans of Fox News and conservative Christian radio, etc.

[HapSmo19]

No, actually I have heard that same criticism voiced by some scientists.

That wasn't a criticism. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your logic.

The problem is that when you are talking about something about which just about every reputable scientist dealing with the issues agree...

OK, let's stop here so you can tell us what it is exactly that makes a scientist "reputable".

Go.

[PLAYER57832]

No, actually I have heard that same criticism voiced by some scientists.

That wasn't a criticism. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your logic.

The problem is that when you are talking about something about which just about every reputable scientist dealing with the issues agree...

OK, let's stop here so you can tell us what it is exactly that makes a scientist "reputable".

Go.

Been through this many times before.

You consider only those who agree with you to be "reputable". I agree with the standard definition, which is those scientists known to use PROVEN and TESTED methods, who properly track their work, are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Such scientists make mistakes, but their stuff is reviewed (not always open to the general public, but open to others in the field) .

[PLAYER57832]

No, actually I have heard that same criticism voiced by some scientists.

That wasn't a criticism. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your logic.

Logic, no. Criticism, yes.

The problem is that when you are talking about something about which just about every reputable scientist dealing with the issues agree...

OK, let's stop here so you can tell us what it is exactly that makes a scientist "reputable".

Go.[/quote]

[HapSmo19]

I agree with the standard definition, which is those scientists known to use PROVEN and TESTED methods...

OK. Stop.

What are the proven and tested methods of predicting global climate change?

[tzor]

The documents in question, the emails, etc... NONE of that really and truly challenges Global Climate change OR the real independence of scientists. However, "scientists are doing their jobs like they are supposed to do" doesn't make news and certainly does not fit into the broader plans of Fox News and conservative Christian radio, etc.

No, it really does challenge Global Climate change (which for all practical purposes in the discussion is really the theory that CO2 and CO2 alone is the cause for future death and destruction on our planet, but if you are real nice we may throw in methane just for shits and giggles). It challenges all the bases on which political restraints on CO2 are being imposed and used by so called developing nations like China and India to get a economic boost over the developed world of Europe, Japan and North America.

Now before I continue, let me make one thing perfectly clear. I have nothing against scientists; even though I currently work in the financial field, my degree is in Physics. I admit I do have a “negative” view of science, not in that I am against science but I think that science is more of the nature of not finding answers per se, but finding new questions. (In other words for every question we answer, two more questions come forth from it; thus the never ending search for answers. This is in direct contrast with pre-Einstein 19th century scientific thought which held that almost everything to know was already known; a “positive” view of science.)

I hope we can agree on at least one thing; scientists are human. (To err is human.)

Global Climate change is a lot like studying the forest. But scientists rarely study the forest; they study the trees and often they study a single tree. Each scientist studies a different tree and all trees are not precisely alike. This becomes especially important in a field of climate change where it is important to combine all oaks and pines into a single predictable forest.

Now, let’s get down to your quote here of “scientists are doing their jobs like they are supposed to do.” I think you have just hit upon one of the biggest problems that all scientists face. It’s a job. It pays the rent. It feeds the family. Contrary to popular opinion, endowment money doesn’t fall from the sky to allow scientists to pursue whatever they want or wherever the evidence leads. I happen to know someone whose job is to secure grant money for the laboratory’s electron microscope. He would be happy to get a grant approval record like baseball players in the major leagues, but that is not the case. And unlike baseball players who still get paid even if they are not hitting the balls out of the ballpark he doesn’t get paid if they don’t get the grants. So his salary is like ¾ of what it is officially listed as, because half of the time he is working for part time half pay because grant money is not available for the microscope team.

So, you have real scientists, who are trying to stay employed. Along comes this gravy train called “climate change” (formerly known as “global warming”). If you are like some scientists, you might make a little white lie, trying to claim your specific project is related to climate change in order to get grant money. It’s an honest white lie, the whole notion of knowing exactly what you discover before you discover it, (a requirement in the grant process) when true science is done because you don’t know in the first place, practically requires it. But there are others who will go all the way in order to keep that gravy train going; the few bad apples. Unlike doctors, scientists don’t get sued for malpractice.

Anyway back to the forest and this gravy train called “climate change.” True science needs a vigorous exchange back and forth of ideas; respected people who disagree and who challenge each other’s basic assumptions. But when you apply the gravy train to the discussion you tend to tip the scales. If you want to study what the effect of the suburban shopping mall sprawl (and the creation of all those shopping areas with huge areas set aside for black asphalt paved parking lots) with global temperatures you can forget about it. If you want to study the effects of solar activity (and why solar activity might matter in the first place) with global temperatures you too can forget about it. When you add the few bad apples (and those politicians who come down from their offices with stone tablets saying “the science is settled”) who actively try to discredit any study that doesn’t directly prove the link of CO2 and global temperatures, then the whole basis for how science works falls apart and all you have left is egos and politics.

So what does this mean? It does mean that a lot of things that have been promoted as “OMG we have got to do X, Y and Z no matter what the cost immediately or we are all bacon bits,” becomes, “you know, we really should try to do a little X, Y and Z in moderation, and perhaps we should really look into a little A, B, and C as well.”

And who knows, perhaps the real answer to warming trends is to replace all those blank asphalt parking lots with white concrete and perhaps even a canopy of vines to keep some shade on those hot cars parked below in the summer?

[PLAYER57832]

I agree with your forest and trees, but not your conclusions. Methane, for example is definitely a big factor, even though CO2 has hit the "news" more. However, none of the problems you mentioned have anything really to do with the report or the errors that were in it. And, they actually are pretty well known by climate scientists. They just are not that well known by many of the pundits who like to only glance at things and find answers (I mean the media folks, not you).


As for the rest... I will have to think about my answer a bit more.

[jay_a2j]

Where's Al now? An inconvenient lie.



There are a lot of people with egg on their face.

[Timminz]

There are a lot of people with egg on their face.

Indeed, and yet none of you seem to have a mirror nearby.

[PLAYER57832]

Where's Al now? An inconvenient lie.



There are a lot of people with egg on their face.

Al Gore was NEVER a real part of this issue.. the media hype, yes, but not the real issues.

[PLAYER57832]

The documents in question, the emails, etc... NONE of that really and truly challenges Global Climate change OR the real independence of scientists. However, "scientists are doing their jobs like they are supposed to do" doesn't make news and certainly does not fit into the broader plans of Fox News and conservative Christian radio, etc.

No, it really does challenge Global Climate change (which for all practical purposes in the discussion is really the theory that CO2 and CO2 alone is the cause for future death and destruction on our planet, but if you are real nice we may throw in methane just for shits and giggles). It challenges all the bases on which political restraints on CO2 are being imposed and used by so called developing nations like China and India to get a economic boost over the developed world of Europe, Japan and North America.

Before I tackle the rest any further, exactly what is it that you see challenges Global Climate change. The report I was talking about, where the time it would take the Himalayan Glaciers to disappear was wrong, was due to a flat error that should have been caught, but wasn't. Nothing in that report really truly challenged Climate change theories.

[tzor]

Before I tackle the rest any further, exactly what is it that you see challenges Global Climate change. The report I was talking about, where the time it would take the Himalayan Glaciers to disappear was wrong, was due to a flat error that should have been caught, but wasn't. Nothing in that report really truly challenged Climate change theories.

(Note: I was writing my response when I lost my internet connection; a long story short the wrong window appeared at the wrong time and I lost my train of thought as well. I’m a write once sort of person. That is what I am. But I will try to do my best to recreate my argument again.)

First and foremost, we need to understand that climate change occurs on a local and global level all the time and that both natural and man made factors influence that change. The first question is the potential problem of a “tipping point” a change in climate that is irreversible and would be the end of all life as we know and love it.

As far as I am aware there is only one major tipping point in the history of the earth that destroyed all (or almost all) life as it existed at the time. This was the change in the earth from a non oxygen atmosphere to an oxygen atmosphere, made possible by the creation of oxygen creating plant life and the movement of volcanoes from under water to above water. (The conditions of an underwater volcano tend to fix any free oxygen to minerals almost immediately which is why most surviving aerobic life forms live next to hot volcanic vents.) But this is perhaps more of a critique of anaerobic life as opposed to the more complex aerobic life. (And remember if we still haven’t managed to completely solve the oxygen problem which is why people need a healthy supply of antioxidants in their diet.)

Once aerobic life formed on the planet, the planet became massively stable and has been able to sustain conditions for life for billions of years.

One of the problems of the reports is that they rely on assumptions made in various computer models. They also greatly reduce the complex feedback system that has developed over time on the earth. The computer models that predict hurricanes, for example, are only possible because there are so many hurricanes that come alone and test the model and yet we still need a half dozen different models to get a reasonable average of what might happen for any given hurricane.

One occasionally points to our sister planet in the solar system, Venus, for worst case scenarios of tipping points. But Venus’ atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% N2. By contrast the atmosphere of the Earth is 78% N2 and 21% O2. This should be enough to set warning flags to even a casual observer, but I cannot find any source on the web that will actually try to throw some percentages to the composition of the pre-oxygen atmosphere. Given that N2 is a byproduct of volcanoes I strongly doubt that it was a “trace” element in the early non oxygen atmosphere of the anaerobic age. So why is there so little N2 in the atmosphere of Venus?

Now let’s consider methane, which is also a greenhouse gas far worse than CO2. But according to most data, this gas started to go relatively off the chart around the 1800’s (from 600-800 ppb to double that at 1600 ppb). We ain’t dead yet.

Do you remember that silly so called “science fiction” show Seaquest DSV in the early 1990’s? They were predicting that by 2018 the world would force everyone to be vegetarian because the primary source of global warming was methane produced from cattle. (Mega farms do pose a major hazard to the environment, causing huge areas of uninhabitable waters in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, but the notion that we have to have the mass extinction of a species to save the planet is one of those stupid progressive clap traps that still continue to pollute the scientific debate in modern times. Many people still use climate change as a convenient cover for population control proposals.)

All of this doesn’t matter a hill of beans compared to the normal every day cycles of nature. El Niño and La Niña still cause more death and destruction than most perceived problems of “climate change.” Ironically, one man’s disaster could be another man’s salvation; studies indicate that dust from Africa in the upper atmosphere could be responsible for lowering the severity of hurricanes in the Atlantic. (See: ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2008) “African Dust Storms May Cool Atlantic, Lessen Hurricanes”) And of course, there is nothing like a good old fashioned earthquake to cause death and destruction especially if it happens in the depths of the oceans.

This doesn’t mean that I have a lazy attitude towards the activities of man. Coal energy generation used to produce acid rain that destroyed rivers and lakes. Smog kills people in urban areas. Most of the developing world still uses their primary sources of clean water as their sewer systems, made even more ironic because what are now filthy rivers of foul contamination are still “holy” and “sacred” rivers that people regularly go to bathe in.

Most of the people in the world still live in the worst spot to live when looking at the long term. I live on something called Long Island. Ages ago one of the great ice ages scraped the surface off of a portion of North American and like a snow plow left this big pile of dirt right off of the edge of the land mass between the ocean and the edge of the continental shelf. Climate change does happen in geologic time and the only solution is to adapt.

[jay_a2j]

Where's Al now? An inconvenient lie.



There are a lot of people with egg on their face.

Al Gore was NEVER a real part of this issue.. the media hype, yes, but not the real issues.

He was a BIG part of the issue. He won a Nobel prize for a lie.

[PLAYER57832]

Where's Al now? An inconvenient lie.



There are a lot of people with egg on their face.

Al Gore was NEVER a real part of this issue.. the media hype, yes, but not the real issues.

He was a BIG part of the issue. He won a Nobel prize for a lie.

No, he did not.

But then, your view of logic is ... not that of the rest of the world.

[tzor]

Al Gore was NEVER a real part of this issue.. the media hype, yes, but not the real issues.

He was a BIG part of the issue. He won a Nobel prize for a lie.

No, he did not.

Yes he did. Al Gore: Wikipedia

Gore's involvement in environmental issues was later the subject of a few awards. It became the subject of a 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. This film won the Academy Award for Documentary Feature and became the subject of the book, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. The book won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in February, 2009. Later, in 2007, Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which was shared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, headed by Rajendra K. Pachauri (Delhi, India)." Gore and Pachauri accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 2007. He also helped to organize the Live Earth benefit concerts.

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis—a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level. My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

[PLAYER57832]

Al Gore was NEVER a real part of this issue.. the media hype, yes, but not the real issues.

He was a BIG part of the issue. He won a Nobel prize for a lie.

No, he did not.

Yes he did. Al Gore: Wikipedia

Gore's involvement in environmental issues was later the subject of a few awards. It became the subject of a 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. This film won the Academy Award for Documentary Feature and became the subject of the book, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. The book won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in February, 2009. Later, in 2007, Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which was shared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, headed by Rajendra K. Pachauri (Delhi, India)." Gore and Pachauri accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 2007. He also helped to organize the Live Earth benefit concerts.

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis—a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level. My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

He did not recieve it FOR A LIE. Again, global climate change is not a lie, that document was not a fundamental lie. It contained a couple of errors. Errors that were important, yes, but those errors were only in portions. Most of the document is very valid.


Further, he certainly did not get it for his research into global warming. He got it for speaking about global warming. If you want to criticize the research, that is one thing, but this was never about Gore. Gore was, is and always will be just a spokesperson, otherwise known as an "actor" supporting a cause.

[PLAYER57832]

Before I tackle the rest any further, exactly what is it that you see challenges Global Climate change. The report I was talking about, where the time it would take the Himalayan Glaciers to disappear was wrong, was due to a flat error that should have been caught, but wasn't. Nothing in that report really truly challenged Climate change theories.

(Note: I was writing my response when I lost my internet connection; a long story short the wrong window appeared at the wrong time and I lost my train of thought as well. I’m a write once sort of person. That is what I am. But I will try to do my best to recreate my argument again.)

First and foremost, we need to understand that climate change occurs on a local and global level all the time and that both natural and man made factors influence that change. The first question is the potential problem of a “tipping point” a change in climate that is irreversible and would be the end of all life as we know and love it.

You are confusing 3 different issues here.

First, the climate of Earth IS changing. That is a fact. It is changing in ways that will harm humans. That is also a fact.

The second issue is whether human being are contributing to this change. This is mostly considered true. Many, many things we have done and are doing impact our earth's climate. We understand enough to know this is happening, but not to understand all the ramifications of this. That is where the debate lies .. first, in exactly what the changes will be and the exact impact we are having. Even so, in a broad sense we do know that adding "greenhouse gases" (shorthand for what I know are some very complicated things) is making things bad for human beings in most areas. (with help to a few other areas).

The third issue is what we can and should do about it. This is where the heaviest debate lies. However, most of the debate lies not in the technology, it is on whether we should pay more attention to the short-term economics. Unfortunately, too many people wish to deny that ALL Economics is necessarily "short term" ... even 20 years is not long when considering climate, but it is more than any economic projection can possibly predict... even 2 year predictions have a very, very low accuracy rate. So, basically, a lot of people with a lot of money can "out shout" all science in this matter, because too few people have the time, energy and knowledge to look into the real issues.

[
As far as I am aware there is only one major tipping point in the history of the earth that destroyed all (or almost all) life as it existed at the time. This was the change in the earth from a non oxygen atmosphere to an oxygen atmosphere, made possible by the creation of oxygen creating plant life and the movement of volcanoes from under water to above water. (The conditions of an underwater volcano tend to fix any free oxygen to minerals almost immediately which is why most surviving aerobic life forms live next to hot volcanic vents.) But this is perhaps more of a critique of anaerobic life as opposed to the more complex aerobic life. (And remember if we still haven’t managed to completely solve the oxygen problem which is why people need a healthy supply of antioxidants in their diet.)

Sorry, but you are wrong. The fossil record shows several die-offs and explosions. Each one represented a "tipping point" to life. Not ALL life, but to over 90% of whatever was present at the time. (I don't want to argue percentages, but there have been more than a few "tipping points"). The causes of these is debated. In at least one case, it was almost certainly predelicted by a meteor. However, its unlikely only one event was the cause for any of these events.

More importantly, your concentration on ONE big "tipping point" that will end all life on earth completely misses the point. What climate scientists are putting forward, what we need to worry about is not the absolute tipping point, it is the smaller "tipping points" that will very fundamentally alter the economic structure and political structure here and now.

Just to pick out an example, the error mentioned involved melting of the Himalayan ice caps. They won't melt in 35 years, unless things are speeded up (possible). HOWEVER, they are melting. Those glaciers feed virtually all of Asia.. the Ghanges, the yellow, etc. Each of those represent major wheat and rice producers. Add in that a lot of grain, right now, is being produced from "fossil" aquifers.. that is water that is from ages past, that is not being replenished. Saudia Arabia is public about depleting theirs. We in the US like to deny ours, but the entire grain belt relies upon a big fossil aquifer that is, effectively being "mined" to grow grain.

What happens when ANY of these are impacted? HIgher food prices, that is what. More hunger. Now, here in the US we export huge amounts of food. So, it might not seem like an issue. EXCEPT, in the 1970's, we were able to keep grain prices low by cutting off trade. Now, if we were to try and do that, China, the largest nation on Earth would have something to say about it. China, who owns a large portion of our national debt. China who is a military as well as economic power.

So, if the HImalayas are impacted.. not just if they disappear, but if the flows are reduced significantly, something that will happen LONG before they completely disappear (is already happening in smaller ways right now), we are likely to see increased food prices, economic catastrophe and starvation right here in the US.

That in no way requires the kind of "tipping point" to which you refer.

In fact, concentrating on such major tipping points is part of the problem.. they deflect from the real and true issues that we need to solve every day, right here.

Once aerobic life formed on the planet, the planet became massively stable and has been able to sustain conditions for life for billions of years.

Not really. We no longer have Dinosaurs. We no longer have Mastodons. The entire evolution of human beings is now thought to have been advanced because of huge climate changes on Earth. (let me add in that I absolutely believe human evolution was "god-driven", just to cut off that argument here... I will discuss that on other threads, not here).

One of the problems of the reports is that they rely on assumptions made in various computer models. They also greatly reduce the complex feedback system that has developed over time on the earth. The computer models that predict hurricanes, for example, are only possible because there are so many hurricanes that come alone and test the model and yet we still need a half dozen different models to get a reasonable average of what might happen for any given hurricane.

The thing is you cannot make predictions on a micro scale. Predicting hurricanes is an extreme micro-scale. Even so, they can do pretty well anymore. However, the climate changes don't require such micro scale knowledge. Some of the fixes, do. Knowing which particular fix might or might not work, in SOME cases, NOT ALL!!!!, requires micro knowledge. However, I would point to a river. I might not be able to tell you exactly which point will erode when with 100% accuracy. I CAN tell you where floods will almost certainly occur in the next few decades (given a stream system I have studied, understand, of course).

One occasionally points to our sister planet in the solar system, Venus, for worst case scenarios of tipping points. But Venus’ atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% N2. By contrast the atmosphere of the Earth is 78% N2 and 21% O2. This should be enough to set warning flags to even a casual observer, but I cannot find any source on the web that will actually try to throw some percentages to the composition of the pre-oxygen atmosphere. Given that N2 is a byproduct of volcanoes I strongly doubt that it was a “trace” element in the early non oxygen atmosphere of the anaerobic age. So why is there so little N2 in the atmosphere of Venus?

Again, you are talking about "end of life" scenarios. While studying these is helpful, it is not what the debate is really and truly about. yes, I know people debate the "end of Earth" and so forth, but most climatologists want to avoid that scenerio.
That is the whole point.

Now let’s consider methane, which is also a greenhouse gas far worse than CO2. But according to most data, this gas started to go relatively off the chart around the 1800’s (from 600-800 ppb to double that at 1600 ppb). We ain’t dead yet.

Do you remember that silly so called “science fiction” show Seaquest DSV in the early 1990’s? They were predicting that by 2018 the world would force everyone to be vegetarian because the primary source of global warming was methane produced from cattle. (Mega farms do pose a major hazard to the environment, causing huge areas of uninhabitable waters in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, but the notion that we have to have the mass extinction of a species to save the planet is one of those stupid progressive clap traps that still continue to pollute the scientific debate in modern times. Many people still use climate change as a convenient cover for population control proposals.)

All of this doesn’t matter a hill of beans compared to the normal every day cycles of nature. El Niño and La Niña still cause more death and destruction than most perceived problems of “climate change.” Ironically, one man’s disaster could be another man’s salvation; studies indicate that dust from Africa in the upper atmosphere could be responsible for lowering the severity of hurricanes in the Atlantic. (See: ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2008) “African Dust Storms May Cool Atlantic, Lessen Hurricanes”) And of course, there is nothing like a good old fashioned earthquake to cause death and destruction especially if it happens in the depths of the oceans.

This doesn’t mean that I have a lazy attitude towards the activities of man. Coal energy generation used to produce acid rain that destroyed rivers and lakes. Smog kills people in urban areas. Most of the developing world still uses their primary sources of clean water as their sewer systems, made even more ironic because what are now filthy rivers of foul contamination are still “holy” and “sacred” rivers that people regularly go to bathe in.

Most of the people in the world still live in the worst spot to live when looking at the long term. I live on something called Long Island. Ages ago one of the great ice ages scraped the surface off of a portion of North American and like a snow plow left this big pile of dirt right off of the edge of the land mass between the ocean and the edge of the continental shelf. Climate change does happen in geologic time and the only solution is to adapt.

Again, I am not even disputing most of what you say... and THAT is part of the problem. I know you to be educated, of above-average intelligence and even more informed than most. Yet, you completely and utterly mistate the problem and seem to be relying upon 3rd and fourth hand interpretations of the documents you say are lies.

[bedub1]

Al Gore was NEVER a real part of this issue.. the media hype, yes, but not the real issues.

He was a BIG part of the issue. He won a Nobel prize for a lie.

No, he did not.

Yes he did. Al Gore: Wikipedia

Gore's involvement in environmental issues was later the subject of a few awards. It became the subject of a 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. This film won the Academy Award for Documentary Feature and became the subject of the book, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. The book won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in February, 2009. Later, in 2007, Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which was shared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, headed by Rajendra K. Pachauri (Delhi, India)." Gore and Pachauri accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 2007. He also helped to organize the Live Earth benefit concerts.

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis—a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level. My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

He did not recieve it FOR A LIE. Again, global climate change is not a lie, that document was not a fundamental lie. It contained a couple of errors. Errors that were important, yes, but those errors were only in portions. Most of the document is very valid.


Further, he certainly did not get it for his research into global warming. He got it for speaking about global warming. If you want to criticize the research, that is one thing, but this was never about Gore. Gore was, is and always will be just a spokesperson, otherwise known as an "actor" supporting a cause.

Can you respond to the remainder of TZOR's statement a couple posts above? I found them very well written. EDIT: nevermind

Second, Al Gore isn't just a spokesman and actor supporting the cause. He has integrated himself into the cause both financially and personally, if it looses face he looses face. If it looses money, he looses money. Al Gore is hoping to become incredibly rich on this cause, not on a local "steal from my own citizens" scale but on a global scale of "steal from all humanity".

I wonder if the scientists that have lied to gain additional funding will be asked for the funding back.

[PLAYER57832]

Second, Al Gore isn't just a spokesman and actor supporting the cause. He has integrated himself into the cause both financially and personally, if it looses face he looses face. If it looses money, he looses money. Al Gore is hoping to become incredibly rich on this cause, not on a local "steal from my own citizens" scale but on a global scale of "steal from all humanity".

So what?

Al Gore is NOT THE ONE DOING THE RESEARCH.

I wonder if the scientists that have lied to gain additional funding will be asked for the funding back.

Scientists who actually lied will be discredited, in some cases might be fined. However, if you think any scientists are getting rich over this you have no real idea how science works. People get rich off the scientific research, but only very, very rarely do the scientists get more than a basic income. They do get status and "fame" within their circles, but not wealth and not broader fame. I doubt you can name even 1 climate scientist off the top of your head. (yes, I know you can wikki them.. I said "off the top of your head". Instead, you cite "Al Gore".) He is an actor and politician. He is nobody when it comes to real science. He is somebody, only when it comes to the mass media, politics and money. Scientists tolerate, ignore him or .. use him.

BUT, the REAL TRUTH is that there was not this "huge conspiracy" of lies as the right-wing media likes to put forward. MOST of the scientists who have been investigated have been fully vindicated. MOST of the research is NOT IN QUESTION.

[bedub1]

You are confusing 3 different issues here.

First, the climate of Earth IS changing. That is a fact. It is changing in ways that will harm humans. That is also a fact.

The second issue is whether human being are contributing to this change. This is mostly considered true. Many, many things we have done and are doing impact our earth's climate. We understand enough to know this is happening, but not to understand all the ramifications of this. That is where the debate lies .. first, in exactly what the changes will be and the exact impact we are having. Even so, in a broad sense we do know that adding "greenhouse gases" (shorthand for what I know are some very complicated things) is making things bad for human beings in most areas. (with help to a few other areas).

The third issue is what we can and should do about it. This is where the heaviest debate lies. However, most of the debate lies not in the technology, it is on whether we should pay more attention to the short-term economics. Unfortunately, too many people wish to deny that ALL Economics is necessarily "short term" ... even 20 years is not long when considering climate, but it is more than any economic projection can possibly predict... even 2 year predictions have a very, very low accuracy rate. So, basically, a lot of people with a lot of money can "out shout" all science in this matter, because too few people have the time, energy and knowledge to look into the real issues.

There are actually 4 issues, you got 3 of them right, but missed the correct #2 one.
1. The climate of Earth is always changing, so I agree with you. The current changes, if assumed they will continue in the same pattern and direction are probably bad for humans, so lets not focus on that. I would state that since we both agree the climate of Earth is always changing, I'd say it goes in cycles up and down both short term and long term. (summer/winter, cold years/warm years, massive deserts/ice ages). The assumption it will just "continue to get warmer" might not be accurate, especially if it's based upon reports that might be based upon data that was made up.

2. What is causing the climate to change? The debate seems to focus on CO2, but there is much more. Solar patterns, urban affect of all the pavement and buildings, cutting down of forests, heating of our homes, driving cars, water vapor, planets aligning, shifting of the core, drilling and consuming of the planet, cow farts...etc etc etc. The list goes on and on.

3. Now out of all of the items that affect the climate (which we don't even know them all), how much of an affect are we humans causing, and what would be happening already? How much of an affect is CO2 compared to pavement or water vapor? Is it like spitting in the ocean? How large of an effect are we having?

4. What can we and should we do about it? Should we kill ourselves to save the planet? Should we kill our old to save the planet? Should we give up electricity to save ourselves? Should we pay $12 extra a year to save ourselves? Should we pay $50,000 extra a year to save ourselves? Should we give $1000 a year to some other country so they won't kill us all by burning coal? Should we give Al Gore all our money so we won't kill ourselves and our planet?

[tzor]

Before I tackle the rest any further, exactly what is it that you see challenges Global Climate change. The report I was talking about, where the time it would take the Himalayan Glaciers to disappear was wrong, was due to a flat error that should have been caught, but wasn't. Nothing in that report really truly challenged Climate change theories.

(Note: I was writing my response when I lost my internet connection; a long story short the wrong window appeared at the wrong time and I lost my train of thought as well. I’m a write once sort of person. That is what I am. But I will try to do my best to recreate my argument again.)

First and foremost, we need to understand that climate change occurs on a local and global level all the time and that both natural and man made factors influence that change. The first question is the potential problem of a “tipping point” a change in climate that is irreversible and would be the end of all life as we know and love it.

You are confusing 3 different issues here.

First, the climate of Earth IS changing. That is a fact. It is changing in ways that will harm humans. That is also a fact.

The second issue is whether human being are contributing to this change. This is mostly considered true. Many, many things we have done and are doing impact our earth's climate. We understand enough to know this is happening, but not to understand all the ramifications of this. That is where the debate lies .. first, in exactly what the changes will be and the exact impact we are having. Even so, in a broad sense we do know that adding "greenhouse gases" (shorthand for what I know are some very complicated things) is making things bad for human beings in most areas. (with help to a few other areas).

The third issue is what we can and should do about it. This is where the heaviest debate lies. However, most of the debate lies not in the technology, it is on whether we should pay more attention to the short-term economics. Unfortunately, too many people wish to deny that ALL Economics is necessarily "short term" ... even 20 years is not long when considering climate, but it is more than any economic projection can possibly predict... even 2 year predictions have a very, very low accuracy rate. So, basically, a lot of people with a lot of money can "out shout" all science in this matter, because too few people have the time, energy and knowledge to look into the real issues.

I am not confusing the three issues. Each issue is important. It’s like a three ring circus in which each ring has something important at the same time; only in this case it is a three ring debate.

Issue 1: I’m going to disagree with you on the “fact” that climate change will “harm humans.” Things can often harm some people and help other people. Climate change is like that.

Issue 1A: It’s little comfort when you know you have been spared of climate change and an earthquake sends a title wave and wipes out your island instead.

Issue 2: Human beings contribute to this change. That is a fact. The interesting point is that human beings contribute randomly to this change. Early and mid 20th century aerosol use possibly contributed to the cooling of global temperatures and brought the fears of an upcoming ice age in the early 70’s. (One of the problems of talking about climate change is that mankind as a whole loves the “OMG we are going to DIE!” We have been doing this since the dawn of recorded history.)

Issue 2A: Human beings contribute to a whole lot of other things that are more important than just climate change. If you really want to triage human activity to see what needs to be changed in the short and long term you have to look at the whole picture. Solving one problem can lead to causing another problem. Poorly designed wind turbines can kill migratory birds; poorly designed water power systems can kill migratory aquatic life. Don’t even get me started on nuclear power.

Issue 3: Short term economics are critical. That is really how you solve long term problems, not the other way around. In the end of the 19th century there was a massive pollution problem in high technology urban centers. It took a man with a short term economic plan to solve that problem. What was the problem? Horse Manure! Who was that man? Henry Ford!

Issue 3A: Isn’t this the problem? Short term economics are literally driving the process! Follow the money! Follow the money on the side for climate change and follow the money on the side against climate change! It should be the science, but it isn’t.


One last point since I didn’t want to extend the thread too far with a point by point rebuttal. Why are there no more large dinosaurs? It’s called evolution. Dinosaurs were nice and large and they were all the rage when the planet’s oxygen level was being pumped up by lots of volcanoes above the surface of the planet, but when it cooled down they lacked the one thing that would have kept those energizer bunnies going; a diaphragm. Large dinosaurs began to decline well before the asteroid impact; that was merely the coup de grace.

[jay_a2j]

He did not recieve it FOR A LIE. Again, global climate change is not a lie, that document was not a fundamental lie. It contained a couple of errors. Errors that were important, yes, but those errors were only in portions. Most of the document is very valid.

The assertion that global warming is caused by the rise in CO2 levels was a Gore thing. He pitched it, he sold it, he stood by it. "IT" was a lie. And it doesn't depend on what the definition of "it" is.

He made butt loads of money pitching a LIE.

Good day.

[notyou2]

When god was giving out brains, A2J thought he said "trains", and he said "I'll take the last one".

[tzor]

When god was giving out brains, A2J thought he said "trains", and he said "I'll take the last one".

And I said, "I want to be in the 'head' car so I can look out the front window."

(Oh for thse days when I was young and commuted on the LIRR; the route of the "dashing" commuter.)

[jay_a2j]

When god was giving out brains, A2J thought he said "trains", and he said "I'll take the last one".

The 70's called, they want their joke back.