An Inconvenient Truth

Huckleman2000 said:

You won't because I post sources and links to back up what I say, and to call that bullshit you'd have to come up with sources and links of your own.

Show me one credible source that backs up your bullshit about 50% of the scientific community disagreeing with anthropogenicly-influenced global warming.

Your reference is to the Senate Committee's report (Wegman, et al), which has been discussed earlier in the thread. If you have anything substantive to add to that discussion, please do so.

Understand, Zeb, that I'm not posting to argue with you.

I'm posting so that no one reading your posts mistakes them for anything but total bullshit. They don't represent anything remotely close to a valid scientific opinion.

You want to take this out of the realm of science, so that you don't have to address those issues. With science dismissed, you're free to argue politics, where all you have to do is call someone a liberal and a believer in anti-capitalist Marxism and any other pejorative that you mistake for a logical argument.

And that, 'Hero Extrordinaire', is your bullshit laid out in terms anyone should be able to understand.

Click to expand...

Whiny little baby grow up. I have read twice today when you don't agree with someone you just call their posts bullshit. Post some credible links yourself refuting what we post instead of call us name and whining about how your saving everyone on the board from the big bad wolf.

You want bullshit, you sure serve alot of it yourself!

Zeb_Carter said:

Well at least half the scientific community does believe it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

Please provide a link to any reputible source that says the scientific community is divided 50% to 50% on the global warming issue.

wazhazhe said:

Please provide a link to any reputible source that says the scientific community is divided 50% to 50% on the global warming issue.

Click to expand...

See now that's the way to respond Huck, you just don't come out call me a bullshit artist, cuz you know what? It takes one to know one, doesn't it?

links, yeah links ... wait I had some ... hold on a second.

Zeb_Carter said:

Whiny little baby grow up. I have read twice today when you don't agree with someone you just call their posts bullshit. Post some credible links yourself refuting what we post instead of call us name and whining about how your saving everyone on the board from the big bad wolf.

You want bullshit, you sure serve alot of it yourself!

Click to expand...

It's not just ME disagreeing with someone. I've posted credible links to sites on both sides of the argument, as put forth by anyone who cites a source. I've posted links to informed critique of a prominent global-warming critic (Lonborg). I've done what I could to give readers the resources to make up their own minds if they care to do some reading.

I call bullshit when I see it. Your posts in this thread are bullshit. MacktheKnife's posts in this thread are bullshit.

The links you put in your first post refer to articles that have already been addressed in this thread and found to be, in large part, bullshit.

All you've added to this thread has been bullshit.

And as I've said before, the only reason I'm posting responses to you is to make sure that no one mistakes your posts for anything but bullshit.

Huckleman2000 said:

It's not just ME disagreeing with someone. I've posted credible links to sites on both sides of the argument, as put forth by anyone who cites a source. I've posted links to informed critique of a prominent global-warming critic (Lonborg). I've done what I could to give readers the resources to make up their own minds if they care to do some reading.

I call bullshit when I see it. Your posts in this thread are bullshit. MacktheKnife's posts in this thread are bullshit.

The links you put in your first post refer to articles that have already been addressed in this thread and found to be, in large part, bullshit.

All you've added to this thread has been bullshit.

And as I've said before, the only reason I'm posting responses to you is to make sure that no one mistakes your posts for anything but bullshit.

Click to expand...

And who proved those articles to be bullshit, you?

You want links...go here...there a plenty of link on global warming. And I don't want to hear a whine about not being credible. That just means their not to your liking.

Zeb_Carter said:

You want links...go here...there a plenty of link on global warming. And I don't want to hear a whine about not being credible. That just means their not to your liking.

Click to expand...

A blog? You post a link to blog articles? A checked a few of the dates to articles written by people other than the blog author. 1992? 1995? Error 404 - link not found? None of these claim 50% of the scientific comunity does not support global warming.

Here's something from a source that Pure equates with no-name blogs, but is generally respected as a reputable news source anyway: The Wall Street Journal

excerpt from "A Waste of Energy: Yucca Mountain hangs in nuclear limbo," by William Tucker:

' . . . So the bad news is that it's going to be a long, long time -- if ever -- before Yucca Mountain is completed. The good news is that all this probably doesn't make much difference. Nuclear power is about to undergo a resurgence in this country -- with or without Yucca Mountain. In the first place, the whole idea that there is such a thing as "nuclear waste" is a bit of a misconception.

' . . . France recycles all its fuel rods and has never had any plutonium stolen. As for the remaining 2% of the fuel rod -- the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts -- it is all stored in a single room in Le Havre.

' The real waste problem in this country is the 10 million tons of carbon dioxide we throw into the atmosphere every day from coal-fired electric boilers. That constitutes almost 15% of the world's carbon dioxide garbage, which environmentalists warn us is causing global warming. It's ironic that these same people are also opposing the only technology that could conceivably replace those coal plants (nuclear energy).

' No, it's more than ironic -- it's dishonest. In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore lifts the "seven-wedge" approach to global warming from Robert Socolow, director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton. Mr. Socolow's main "wedges" are efficiency, conservation, fuel switching, renewables, carbon sequestration, reforestation -- and "nuclear fission." Mr. Gore conveniently leaves nuclear out.'


Why would Al Gore do that?

dr_mabeuse said:

So what would it take to convince you?

Click to expand...

You could convince every man, woman and child in the USA that global warming is valid and a serious threat to life as we know it, have them writing their congressmen and demonstrating in the streets, and still not achieve the passage and enforcement of a single, meaningful piece of legislation by this government. There's money to be made from the status quo, and that's all that will matter untikl the consequences of global warming hit the power-brokers where they live.

They'll be the last to feel it. With sufficient wealth and influence, it's possible to shield one's family from the effects of weak legislation, inept leadership and willful ignorance. Not forever, but long enough to keep the status quo attractive to the people whose opinions matter. Who matters? For starters, how about those nameless shadow-figures who sat at Cheney's 'Energy Policy Roundtable,' shaping public policy and unwilling to reveal their names?

Build a fortune at the expense of public health and precious resources, and you can buy the illusion that no harm has been done.

Happens all the time. Look at coastal Florida, Southern California a few decades ago, and anyplace where a high demand for housing coincides with a government unwilling to exert control. Developers get rich denuding forests and filling wetlands to make room for wall-to-wall McMansions on an ever-expanding grid of treeless streets. The promised benefit of expanded tax rolls never seems to cover the need for new sanitation facilities, schools, water, law enforcement, public transportation and emergency evacuation. Flooding - a common consequence of building neighborhoods on filled wetlands at sea level - is written off as a Natural Disaster. Who could have foreseen that heavy rains and gravity would occur at the same time? Construction contracts are awarded, bandaids are applied, and 'anti-growth' activists continue to be demonized as extremists.

Predictably, the developers who make their fortunes turning nice places into horrid ones don't live in them. Neither do the politicians who battle environmental regulations on their behalf. For them, there are private gated communities with two-acre minimum lots, shade trees that were spared by careful planning, and a buffer zone of state and federally protected parklands and nature preserves.

It can't last forever. Fat lot of good it does the rest of us.

There's not a lot of satisfactiion in knowing that when things get bad enough, maintaining a private golf course in tournament condition will become prohibitively expensive.

Not a lot of satisfaction, but some.



There's already evidence of consequences that can't be kept out by walls: soil acidity killing conifer forests in the highest elevations of the northeastern US; warnings against eating fish caught in the Everglades, and ocean fish species near the top of their food chain, whose flesh may contain toxic concentrations of mercury.

Years ago, wildlife biologists named mercury toxicity as a possible contributing factor in the decline of Florida panther. Where breeding was successful, a rise in the number of stillborn and deformed cubs kept the birth rate depressed. The public reaction to this news was a resounding yawn. Let the Sierra Club whine. Sane people don't spend billions of dollars to clean up a pollutant or threaten an industry to protect spotted owls, much less to make more cougars in our back yards.

Only short-sightedness kept anyone from seeing that what poisoned the Florida panther would eventually poison people.

Where mercury toxicity is concerned, large predators are the canary-in-the-coal-mine. A warning that something deadly is happening and might happen to us.

That's what motivates us alarmists. Tree-hugging has a little to do with trees as the canary has to do with coal production. It's about habitat. Human habitat, which is linked to snail darter habitat whether we like it or not. What destroys one species indicates a narrower margin for error for other species.

Some of you might be content with a merely survivable habitat, and not a diverse and thriving one. Perhaps you're the same people whose will to survive is so strong, you'd be grateful to survive a nuclear holocaust. Good for you. Maybe open sores will become fashionable.

You Survive-At-All-Costs folks, if you're smart, will give some credence to global warming and use it to make money. If not for yourselvs, you owe it to your descendants - the Adams and Eves of the Post-Apocalypse. Think how they'll honor your memory if you invest in beachfront property in what is currently Kansas.

Don't screw this up like we did with the Pre-Apocalypse. There will be no excuses next time.

Invent artificial substitutes for failed natural systems. For example, a Sharper Image Ionizing Air Cleaner the size of Greenland will do the work of any number of forests. You'll need a place to plug it in.

Disney makes cute animals that are odorless, non-aggressive, leave no droppings, smile all the time, and can sing.

Soylent Green is people.

That takes care of nutrition, stale air, companion animals, and zoos. Find a source of uncontaminated water and a cure for melanoma, and you've covered the basics.

Better yet, move underground and feed on the Eloi. If they're anything like those dull-witted, toga-draped vegans in the 60's version of The Time Machine, who would blame you?

Stick to your guns. If you find yourself beginning to get a little nervous about global warming, google up some factoids from the Heritage Foundation. You'll feel better. You'll worry less than the rest of us, have fewer stress-related health issues, and improve your odds of living until the world is so ugly the rest of us don't want it.

Zeb_Carter said:

the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works

Click to expand...

Unlike The Media, who all get together at AP headquarters every other Tuesday to decide which way to twist the truth, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works has no agenda. You can trust them.

shereads said:

Unlike The Media, who all get together at AP headquarters every other Tuesday to decide which way to twist the truth, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works has no agenda. You can trust them.

Click to expand...

Well let's see...I suppose there is not one single organization or person out there without and agenda? That would be a big surprize.

wazhazhe said:

A blog? You post a link to blog articles? A checked a few of the dates to articles written by people other than the blog author. 1992? 1995? Error 404 - link not found? None of these claim 50% of the scientific comunity does not support global warming.

Click to expand...

Sorry it took so long to get back but I had to go out in the scorching heat and throw the steaks on the the cooking rock.

Then prove me wrong! *shrug*

Roxanne Appleby said:

Here's something from a source that Pure equates with no-name blogs, but is generally respected as a reputable news source anyway: The Wall Street Journal

excerpt from "A Waste of Energy: Yucca Mountain hangs in nuclear limbo," by William Tucker:

' . . . So the bad news is that it's going to be a long, long time -- if ever -- before Yucca Mountain is completed. The good news is that all this probably doesn't make much difference. Nuclear power is about to undergo a resurgence in this country -- with or without Yucca Mountain. In the first place, the whole idea that there is such a thing as "nuclear waste" is a bit of a misconception.

' . . . France recycles all its fuel rods and has never had any plutonium stolen. As for the remaining 2% of the fuel rod -- the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts -- it is all stored in a single room in Le Havre.

' The real waste problem in this country is the 10 million tons of carbon dioxide we throw into the atmosphere every day from coal-fired electric boilers. That constitutes almost 15% of the world's carbon dioxide garbage, which environmentalists warn us is causing global warming. It's ironic that these same people are also opposing the only technology that could conceivably replace those coal plants (nuclear energy).

' No, it's more than ironic -- it's dishonest. In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore lifts the "seven-wedge" approach to global warming from Robert Socolow, director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton. Mr. Socolow's main "wedges" are efficiency, conservation, fuel switching, renewables, carbon sequestration, reforestation -- and "nuclear fission." Mr. Gore conveniently leaves nuclear out.'


Why would Al Gore do that?

Click to expand...

Roxanne, you're being either obtuse or misleading by conflating the generally excellent reporting done by the WSJ news staff with the bad joke that is their editorial page. William Tucker appears on the editorial pages, not the news. He is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute ("the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell"). Moreover, while he is certainly a nuclear power proponent, he doesn't seem to doubt global warming from what I can find online.

If you're going to appeal to the reputation of the WSJ as a "news source", then reference the news pages. The editorial pages regularly publish opinion items that contradict even their own paper's reporting! They are a journalistic joke.

Huckleman2000 said:

Roxanne, you're being either obtuse or misleading by conflating the generally excellent reporting done by the WSJ news staff with the bad joke that is their editorial page. William Tucker appears on the editorial pages, not the news. He is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute ("the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell"). Moreover, while he is certainly a nuclear power proponent, he doesn't seem to doubt global warming from what I can find online.

If you're going to appeal to the reputation of the WSJ as a "news source", then reference the news pages. The editorial pages regularly publish opinion items that contradict even their own paper's reporting! They are a journalistic joke.

Click to expand...

Huck, I should have made the distinction, but your characterization is way over the top. I once heard James Carville say to an audience, "I wouldn't piss in their (WSJ editorial editors) mouth if their throat was on fire," so obviously they get the goat of the left, but they are not a joke. I'll tell you what: I will respect the editorial page of the NYT, with which I disagree just as fervently, if you will respect the WSJ's page.

Now, Why did All Gore leave out that particular item? More broadly, if global warming is such a monumental threat, why are its activists not pounding on doors for more nukes to replace coal plants? Do they have something against abundant electricity? They can have my air conditioner (and the juice to run it) when they peel my cold, dead fingers . . . . never mind.

Zeb_Carter said:

...
Then prove me wrong! *shrug*

Click to expand...

ROFL!
You made the assertion, asshole! You can't just make shit up and say "prove me wrong"!

In real life, I'm Brad Pitt! Prove me wrong!

Moreover, people in this thread have posted many articles and scientific publications that all agree that there is overwhelming consensus that global warming exists and is caused to some degree by human behaviors.

There is nowhere near a 50-50 split over agreement that global warming exists and has human causes. To claim there is such a split is bullshit, pure and simple.

And, in case you don't know how links work, here is a definition of bullshit:
bull·shit Audio pronunciation of "bullshit" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blsht) Vulgar Slang
n.

1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!
We have a BULLSHIT triple play!

Zeb_Carter said:

Sorry it took so long to get back but I had to go out in the scorching heat and throw the steaks on the the cooking rock.

Then prove me wrong! *shrug*

Click to expand...

You are the one who brought up 50%. All I did was ask for a link to a source for that.

I'm so NOT Catholic... or "religious" in a traditional sense... so I can put this out here without any attachment, just 'cuz it spoke to me:

"Modern Society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyles."

Huckleman2000 said:

ROFL!
You made the assertion, asshole! You can't just make shit up and say "prove me wrong"!

In real life, I'm Brad Pitt! Prove me wrong!

Moreover, people in this thread have posted many articles and scientific publications that all agree that there is overwhelming consensus that global warming exists and is caused to some degree by human behaviors.

There is nowhere near a 50-50 split over agreement that global warming exists and has human causes. To claim there is such a split is bullshit, pure and simple.

And, in case you don't know how links work, here is a definition of bullshit:
bull·shit Audio pronunciation of "bullshit" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blsht) Vulgar Slang
n.

1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!
We have a BULLSHIT triple play!

Click to expand...

As to the numbers:

1. You still haven't proven I'm wrong, just you don't agree with me. Grow up.
2. It's only worthless to you because of your beliefs and views. Your world view is skewed and you can't admit it.
3. You're the one who started with the "Bullshit" name calling.

You Brad Pitt, you should be so lucky, whiner.

Pssst... Huck... about the Brad Pitt thing...

Roxanne Appleby said:

Huck, I should have made the distinction, but your characterization is way over the top. I once heard James Carville say to an audience, "I wouldn't piss in their (WSJ editorial editors) mouth if their throat was on fire," so obviously they get the goat of the left, but they are not a joke. I'll tell you what: I will respect the editorial page of the NYT, with which I disagree just as fervently, if you will respect the WSJ's page.

Now, Why did All Gore leave out that particular item? More broadly, if global warming is such a monumental threat, why are its activists not pounding on doors for more nukes to replace coal plants? Do they have something against abundant electricity? They can have my air conditioner (and the juice to run it) when they peel my cold, dead fingers . . . . never mind.

Click to expand...

Roxanne, frankly I'm often not much of a fan of the NYT editorial/op-ed pages either. I really like Paul Krugman and Frank Rich, think MoDo is kind of fun to read sometimes but a ditz at the end of the day, and Thomas Friedman is almost always just plain nutty. And don't get me started on the WaPo! And I've read some good op-eds in the WSJ, and (probably... ) some good editorials too.

My main beef is that nowadays most people don't differentiate between editorial/opinion writing, and hard news. I really blame the Republican party for that - they've been attacking news reporting at least since Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism". This has led to the mistaken impression that facts are malleable, there's no such thing as unbiased truth, and that science is just politics in another form.

That's why I'm so vehement on disproving claims that science and data and statistics are somehow inherently biased. One doesn't have to dig too far into most scientific arguments to at least form some sort of opinion on who's misusing the data, and why.

Here's my counter-offer - I'll take the NYT's editorial/op-eds with a big grain of salt if you'll do the same with the WSJ's. I do respect them both (mostly...) and calling the WSJ's "a joke" was.... em... rhetorical excess? (OUCH, that hurt!) I find them most useful as I do reading other people's opinions here in the AH - a good source of provocative thinking that helps me to sort out my own opinions.

As to why the left seems to have a knee-jerk adverse reaction to nuclear power, that's a good question. I know that I'd much prefer to go with 'passive' technologies such as wind and solar before resorting to expanding nuclear, and that's without much understanding of the economics of any of it. Anyway, that's a good topic for another thread.

This one is just trying to establish that there are good reasons for trying to make changes to our collective behavior. If we can agree on that, then there are lots of really interesting things to discuss, I'm sure.

SelenaKittyn said:

I'm so NOT Catholic... or "religious" in a traditional sense... so I can put this out here without any attachment, just 'cuz it spoke to me:

"Modern Society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyles."

--Pope John Paul II​

Click to expand...

I do agree with that, we do need a lifestyle change to make it as a society. But a radical change has never been good. Too much one way or the other and you will chaos and suffering. Excess is a killer and our society has become excessive in it living. It's become about the "Bling".

wazhazhe said:

You are the one who brought up 50%. All I did was ask for a link to a source for that.

Click to expand...

Yes I did, I have also brought up other things, with links, and was told they weren't credible but haven't seen anything to the contary linked.

So I have quit with links, you don't believe me, don't read. You think I'm wrong prove it.

SelenaKittyn said:

Pssst... Huck... about the Brad Pitt thing...

Click to expand...

LOLOL!
I'm really not Brad Pitt, but I play him on TV.

Huckleman2000 said:

LOLOL!
I'm really not Brad Pitt, but I play him on TV.

Click to expand...

this is cyberworld, you can be anyone! You can be Brad Pitt, I can be Angelina Jolie... the possibilities are endless...

SelenaKittyn said:

I'm so NOT Catholic... or "religious" in a traditional sense... so I can put this out here without any attachment, just 'cuz it spoke to me:

"Modern Society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyles."

--Pope John Paul II​

Click to expand...

There is an abundance of wretched excess in some places (Viva Las Vegas), and there is no question that we could be much more efficient. We could probably cut energy use by 50 percent by just doing things smarter, and in some cases on a more modest scale.

BUT - 50 percent of current energy use is still collosal. It is not reasonable to expect "alternatives" like solar or wind or biomass to provide much more that a fraction of the amount, and besides, all of those have environmental costs attached and are problematic for a variety of reasons.

There are those, including many prominent in the environmental movement, who want man to recede from the comforts and conveniences of modern civilization. Those of you sweltering in Texas and AZ, that would mean no more air conditioners. Those of you shivering six months from now in MI and PA, that would mean no more central heating. It might mean no more cars and no more airplanes. It would mean fewer choices in the stores, maybe including less fresh fruit and vegetables year round.

Could we live that way? I will ignore the fact that sustaining the current population level requires an industrial civilization, and pretend we are talking about a world with a substantiantially smaller population, say in 150 years or so. The answer is yes, we could live that way. But why should we? With nukes and possibly other sources like geo we can have all the energy we need to maintain the current comforts and conveniences - cars, planes, climate controlled houses, abundant and widely varied food and other material goods.

I agree we should not live like dufuses, with two Hummers in every garage and 6,000 sq. ft McMansions for families of 2.5. But in the long run the reason we shouldn't has nothing to do with energy or the environment. It has more to do with spiritual values that you, SelenaKittyn, could probably describe, or that in his own way Pope JP II could have described (there would probably be a surprising amount of overlap in those descriptions, even though I assume you are neither Catholic nor religious.) It might look something like a passage that I never get tired of quoting:

'For the great majority of people living in advanced societies, it is easily possible to go through life accompanied by social companions and serial sex partners, having a good time, (living with as little effort as possible), and dying in old age with no reason to think that one has done anything significant. But if you agree with me that to live a human life can have transcendental meaning, then we need to think about how human existence acquires weight and consequence.

'For most people--including many older people who in their youths focused on vocation--life acquires meaning through the stuff of life: the elemental events associated with birth, death, growing up, raising children, paying the rent, dealing with adversity, comforting the bereaved, celebrating success, applauding the good and condemning the bad; coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness.'

Zeb_Carter said:

Yes I did, I have also brought up other things, with links, and was told they weren't credible but haven't seen anything to the contary linked.

So I have quit with links, you don't believe me, don't read. You think I'm wrong prove it.

Click to expand...

I never said I didn't believe you. I read quite a bit and I've never seen anyone claim 50% of the scientific community didn't believe in global warming. I just wondered where you got the figure 50%.