An Inconvenient Truth

[SkinBasket]

Al Gore is fake. Global Warming is fake. All politics.

In 50 years we'll have plastic domes over gated communities, so no need to sweat environmental crap. You can't save the world, best to look out for your self.

HH come on now. Statement 1: 99.2% true. Al Gore unscripted is about as lively as a fucking dead fish stuck in the toilet drain. I watched him on one of the Sunday morning circle jerk politics shows being interviewed by George Stepolopigus, and even with the custom made jizz filled cream puffs being served to him straight off George's tiny little cock, Al just kept stuttering and repeating the same fucking 10 second bit he had managed to memorize before the show. Classic Al Gore. "I met a woman in Tennessee this week. Mary Hartwig...."

Statement 2: 50% true. Take away all the political number bending by fuckjobs like Gore and Rush, and you're left with a slow, modertae increase in global temperatures. So what? You're going to kill yourself so you don't produce any greenhouse gases? Gases that 20 years from now someone will figure out weren't as harmful as first thought (See the aresol arguement). Even if they are, the world is continuously moving toward cleaner energy. What the fuck else do you want us to do?

Statement 3: 90% ture. This is and always will be a political issue. No amout of moral high grounding will change that.

In summary: You still haven't said what your ultimate harm is. Human kind and 99% of the species of the earth are erradicated when temperatures reach deadly levels in 4000 years? Who the fuck cares. As I've said before: The earth will survive. Humankind is not immortal. We will all die someday. It is no great trajedy. Something else will take our place. Which rasies the question: Is it the earth you are fighting for, or your own feelings of imperiousness for the human race?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't know much about global warming, it has been an issue only vaguely on my radar screen. My bias is pro-environment, but like I said before, I was against the Kyoto agreement simply because it was so unfair.

I only started researching GW last week because I was specificly interested in the claim made by Shamler & others that there is a high degree of uncertainty among scientists about its cause. I found this claim to be baloney. The Climatologists may be wrong, there is ultimate uncertainty in this sense, but they are in close agreement.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Take away all the political number bending by fuckjobs like Gore and Rush, and you're left with a slow, modertae increase in global temperatures. So what? You're going to kill yourself so you don't produce any greenhouse gases? Gases that 20 years from now someone will figure out weren't as harmful as first thought (See the aresol arguement). Even if they are, the world is continuously moving toward cleaner energy. What the fuck else do you want us to do?

I'm not sure abut the threat and consequences.

I think the U.S. can and should move MUCH more rapidly towards cleaner energy.

I was for reviving nuclear power 10 years ago, before it was PC.

I think we need to be open minded. It may be necessary and possible to make dramatic changes. A big push towards electric or hybrid cars for cities, mandated or encouraged by the government. LOTS of changes.

You still haven't said what your ultimate harm is. Human kind and 99% of the species of the earth are erradicated when temperatures reach deadly levels in 4000 years? Who the fuck cares. As I've said before: The earth will survive. Humankind is not immortal. We will all die someday. It is no great trajedy. Something else will take our place. Which rasies the question: Is it the earth you are fighting for, or your own feelings of imperiousness for the human race?

I like nature. I'm for preserving as much natural beauty as possible. It seems selfish and immoral to fuck-up the earth.

I am beginning to suspect that the harm to the earth could be INTENSE in the next century.

[Scott Campbell]

I cranked up my air conditioning today to combat global warming.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think expecting people to make altruistic personal choices is very effective in combating pollution. People are just too selfish. I can't say as I make ANY personal choices based on environmental effects. I don't recycle out of laziness, and doubts about its effectiveness. I drive a lot, sometimes mindlessly cruising, stoned on meth. (last part is exaggeration)

Our country has been spectacularly successful in reducing air pollution since the 1970's. The success came from government regulation - forcing emission standards on automakers, for instance.

China is gonna clean up their pollution problem dramatically - watch and see! That's 'cause they ain't exactly shy about exherting government control.

U.S. will come around to policies to get us off hydrocarbon energy. Gonna take more time, and more trauma, before we get off the shnide.

[Patler]

I only started researching GW last week because I was specificly interested in the claim made by Shamler & others that there is a high degree of uncertainty among scientists about its cause. I found this claim to be baloney. The Climatologists may be wrong, there is ultimate uncertainty in this sense, but they are in close agreement.

Actually, HH you proved my argument to be correct. The very report you cited as an earthshaking breakthrough of solidarity among the scientific community states very clearly that there is still much uncertainty about the cause, and that the impact of natural factors is not well-understood and could be very significant.

But go ahead and ignore that part of the report HH if it makes you feel better.

Now, before you label me as one who isn't concerned about the environment, let me assure you that I am. I am probably more "green" than you imagine. My concern is that good scientists always maintain a degree of skepticism, and society should encourage that. When society is "sure" it knows the answer about a developing phenomenon, it is ususally proven wrong subsequently.

Yes, we should try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce all forms of pollution. It makes sense. After all, one of the common causes of die outs in over-populated ecosystems at any level is the overpopulated species own pollution and overconsumption.

My concern is that we can easily develop a false sense of security, expecting the problem to disappear if we only make a few changes in our uses of fossil fuels. THAT, would be dangerous. The minute we become complacent, we fail to realize when the solution is really no solution at all, or if it raises yet new and different problems.

We should act on the best analysis, but always be mindful that we really don't "know" as much as we might think we do about most things. There are always surprises ahead. Listen to the doubters, they are often an advance warning system thatall is still not well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Actually, HH you proved my argument to be correct. The very report you cited as an earthshaking breakthrough of solidarity among the scientific community states very clearly that there is still much uncertainty about the cause, and that the impact of natural factors is not well-understood and could be very significant.

But go ahead and ignore that part of the report HH if it makes you feel better.

No, no, I'm not ignoring that disclaimer in the report!!!! Just putting it in perspective.

It is true that the the solid consensus reached by Climatologists could someday prove wrong. That is the uncertainty that the report refers to. There might even be natural factors people haven't even imagined yet.

But not A SINGLE surveyed journal article presented data and argument that Global Warming is due to natural causes. The case for natural causes is weak. That is the big take-away! The implication by some popular press and blowhards that there is a significant segment arguing for natural causes is dishonest.

Now, before you label me as one who isn't concerned about the environment,

I don't doubt that you are as concerned about the environment as I am. I was just using you as a convienent foil on a specific issue. (And I'm not sure you exactly made the argument I am contradicting.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

One more point for you to chew on. Two years ago, the Republicans in the Senate were unhappy about scientific recommendations presented to congress regarding GW. So they commisioned the National Academy of Sciences to review the studies. The result came back last week, and it basicly says the scientific methods and conclusions are valid:

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/22/0606220392.php

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

I do not have good answers to some of Skinbasket's points: maybe the effects of slight temperature won't be so horrible. I just don't know that much about it, and maybe the consequences are hard to predict.

But Mr. Shamler, I think you need to look at the mounting scientific evidence fairly. Though there is uncertainty about the cause of GW, decision makers have to look at the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The suggestion that scientists are divided on the question is disinformation. (I know you didn't state this directly.)

[Patler]

One more point for you to chew on. Two years ago, the Republicans in the Senate were unhappy about scientific recommendations presented to congress regarding GW. So they commisioned the National Academy of Sciences to review the studies. The result came back last week, and it basicly says the scientific methods and conclusions are valid:

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/06/22/0606220392.php

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

I do not have good answers to some of Skinbasket's points: maybe the effects of slight temperature won't be so horrible. I just don't know that much about it, and maybe the consequences are hard to predict.

But Mr. Shamler, I think you need to look at the mounting scientific evidence fairly. Though there is uncertainty about the cause of GW, decision makers have to look at the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The suggestion that scientists are divided on the question is disinformation. (I know you didn't state this directly.)

Why do you always tie a bastardization of my name to arguments I did not make? I get a bit disinclined to even participate in a discussion when you incorrectly and inaccurately portray what I wrote and the points I made. It appears you carry a grudge against me, dear Harlan, and I do not understand why.

For example, you wrote:
"But Mr. Shamler, I think you need to look at the mounting scientific evidence fairly. Though there is uncertainty about the cause of GW, decision makers have to look at the overwhelming preponderance of evidence."

Now I take that as a statement implying that I have suggested ignoring your beloved report. However, I have suggested just the contrary, writing:
"We should act on the best analysis, but always be mindful that we really don't "know" as much as we might think we do about most things. There are always surprises ahead. Listen to the doubters, they are often an advance warning system that all is still not well."

I have not suggested ignoring the report. I do suggest accepting what it says while being mindful the the authors of the report have themselves qualified it because of what the admittedly do not understand. Too often it is the not well understood that proves a previous conclusion wrong.

Perhaps you should read the report less as gospel and more as a scientific study which likely has both good and bad.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Lets put aside the personal stuff, especially since no particular personal message was intended. You just happened to be the one speaking to uncertainty in the mainstream GW analysis. My calling you "Shamler" was not a put down, just one of my pleasures, sorry that it came-off that way.

And as far as my beloved report, I attempted to move beyond that important, but now 3-year-old study. I brought attention to the BRAND NEW analysis by the Academy of Sciences, because it validates once again the mainstream position.

Lets get back to the uncertainty in the theory that GW is caused by human behavior. Well, there is no uncertainty that the earth is heating up, along with a rise in CO2. It's either due to humans or natural causes.

You emphasize the uncertainty in the theory that GW is human-generated.
What is the uncertainty in the theory that GW is a natural phenomena?

Decision makers must weigh this comparison. There may be a steep price to pay in waiting 30 years to make decisions. Nobody (AFAIK) is able to publish a peer-reviewed article that argues that G.W. is a natural phenomena.

[Patler]

Who said anything about waiting to act????? Not anyone that I recall in this thread, and again, certainly not me:

"Yes, we should try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce all forms of pollution. It makes sense. After all, one of the common causes of die outs in over-populated ecosystems at any level is the overpopulated species own pollution and overconsumption. "

My biggest fear is that too many people will assume we have the answer to curb global warming (assuming that it is not inevitable), and will blindly go about their lives thinking their new engines, fuel sources and heating plants will solve the problem.

Even if the rise in CO2 concentration is the problem, what is the PRIMARY cause, and how close to the primary cause are secondary causes? Is it the emissions at current levels, or the eradication of all forest lands, including rain forests? I doubt the answer will be as simple as altering emissions by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. That will be part of the answer, but not the entire answer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure that humans will be able to organize an effective world-wide policy, partially because the system is so huge and complex. Kyoto was a bad joke, exempting China & India. Maybe in 20 years, the situation will be understood well enough to organize a response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html

This is a bizarre article on alternatives to controlling CO2 levels, in the event that it proves too difficult.

The most interesting proposal is to pump Sulfer Dioxide into the upper atmosphere! This artificially creates the "Global Cooling" phenomena that we talked about before. (Global Cooling is going on now, especially because of all the coal-burning in Asia.)

[Partial]

source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[the_idle_threat]

Quoted from the article:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The forrmer vice president's movie ... mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly ... "


Hmmmm ... might there be a leap in logic here?

If only 19 of the 100 climate scientists had even bothered to read the book or see the film, do you suppose they were likely to be the ones who agree with Gore to begin with, or the ones who think it's a bunch of hooey?

And the reporter stretches this into "the nation's top climate scientists" as a group approve of the message in Gore's movie.

[Partial]

The fact that last year have been the hottest ever and the past 10 have been near the top speaks volumes. There's no denying theres a problem. Now we've got to figure out how to fix it. I say we start by planting more trees. I forgot the car company in europe, but they planted enough trees to neutralize the pollution their sold cars produced. That's what all car companies should do.