An Inconvenient Truth

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm curious about your population theory, Roxanne (not to hijack the thread)... are you talking about population control?

In a way: The most effective means of population control ever discovered (outside of famine and pestilence) is wealth. Western Europe's population is crashing (very possibly to an unhealthy degree), Japan's is falling, and I believe that the U.S. population would not be growing but for immigration. Elsewhere, as developing nations rise above a certain income level we see their population growth slow. One big exception is the Islamic world - patriarchy and the subjection of women has always been associated with high birth rates.

 

[Darkniciad]

I don't disagree with this at all, and I believe extremism on either end isn't necessarily the way to go... but it seems that extremism is what gets people's ATTENTION. There is a great deal of apathy caused by that overwhelming sense of hopelessness that someone was talking about earlier in the thread... "What can I do??" So eventually, people tune out. Those waking up and shouting that the sky is falling may help pull a few of those (like Joe, here, who admitted being effected by the movie ) out of the apathetic muck and mire long enough to listen.

After 30+ years of doomsday predictions concerning this subject, hasn't this approach lost the ability to have any real impact as well?

Even Joe just said he changed his mind. The people that really matter are those who haven't paid any real attention and don't have an opinion, and they are paying even less attention as it is blasted at them in a constant barrage of white noise.

The screamers don't wake anybody up, they're just causing more apathy on the subject and detrimental to any progress in my opinion.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In a way: The most effective means of population control ever discovered (outside of famine and pestilence) is wealth. Western Europe's population is crashing (very possibly to an unhealthy degree), Japan's is falling, and I believe that the U.S. population would not be growing but for immigration. Elsewhere, as developing nations rise above a certain income level we see their population growth slow. One big exception is the Islamic world - patriarchy and the subjection of women has always been associated with high birth rates.

so you think wealthy families would only have the standard 2.5 children (or less)?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

so you think wealthy families would only have the standard 2.5 children (or less)?

Not exactly; it's not something that you can point to a certain annual income level and say, "This family is likely to have only one child." In certain demographics it does not apply: the religious right, for example - more of that patriarchy thing. It happens in the aggregate on a society-wide basis. The trend in Europe is really quite alarming, especially given that they have unfriendly neighbors to their south (and in many of thier suburbs). Such widepread childlessness is not necessarily a good thing, actually - back to your "how shall we live" question. It suggests the presense of some unresolved "existential crisis" in the breasts of wealthy, free, enlightened peoples.

 

[MagicaPractica]

He's a much better professor/lecturer than presidential canidate. Funny, friendly, honest, dedicated, genuine and warm. The film is about a lecture he gives on Global Warming, but it also goes into his personal history.

Much as I wish he'd won the election because I'm appalled at what Bush has done to this country--I still have to say that perhaps Gore is getting more done this way than he would have as president. He doesn't have to play the game, he can finally be himself. And who he really is (at least so far as this movie shows) is a man you want to know, someone who really can help to change the world.

Amen Sister!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I saw the movie, and I was pretty impressed.

The thing I always ask the skeptics who doubt the anthropogenic CO2/global warming link is this: Just what would it take to convince you? Because to me, it seems like nothing will do, perhaps not until the temperatures reach 125 dF across the Northern hemisphere, at which point it will be entirely too late to do anything.

And even then, no doubt some people will still be claiming it's just normal temperature variability and there's nothing we can do about it. (Those who are still alive, of course.) As Gore pointed out in his talk, that's the same thing they said about the ozone hole too, that it was natural and that there was nothing we could do about it anyhow, and we managed to get a fix on that by taking the problem seriously and passing an international ban on the manufacture of volatile ozone-destroying halocarbons. It seems to be working, and the holes are repairing themselves.

So what would it take to convince you? The opinions of the world's top scientists? Well, Pure's provided that, and apparently that's not enough. Empirical evidence of rising global temperatures and the destruction of the polar ice caps? Not good enough. Rising ocean levels and record temperatures? Near perfect historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature in the past, and alarming projections for CO2 levels in the future? No, that won't do it either.

So what would it take to convince you?

Nothing, right? There's nothing that'll ever convince you. Nothing you can't explain away.

Given the potentially cataclysmic consequences of ignoring this problem--and we're talking about the possibility of runaway climate change over the period of not centuries but years in some scenarios--I would think the prudent strategy would be to err on the side of caution and take this seriously, at least until we have more evidence that it's not really the threat we think it is.

We're having another record-breaking heatwave where I live, and I understand the same thing is happening in Europe too this summer. Having seen Gore's movie, this is pretty fucking alarming. Things are going pretty much just as he predicted.

I guess time will tell. The problem is, by the time we know for sure, it might be troo late.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Somebody at the Associated Press named Seth Borenstein, identified as the AP's "science writer," wrote an article stating that scientists have OK'd Al Gore's global warming movie for accuracy. According to Borenstein, the 19 climate scientists he asked agreed Gore got it right. But the headline didn't say '19 climate scientists OK Gore's movie." It just said "scientists," implying...well, pretty much everybody.

But you see...in this day and age, news travels quickly. And somebody was watching the wires...and decided to take on the AP. That somebody turned out to be the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. They have called into question a number of the AP's "facts" about global warming, including:

The article ignored "scores" (a score is 20, for those of you fresh out of government school) of scientists that have criticized the Gore movie.

The committee also notes that the AP article fails to list all 19 climate scientists sourced for the piece, nor do they disclose the 100 top climate researches mentioned in Borenstein's article.

Gore's movie relies on the "hockey stick" graph that allegedly shows temperatures were stable for 900 years, then spiked in the 20th century. That theory has been completely discredited.

The rebuttal goes on and on. So once again, the AP has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar...this time all the way up to their elbow. What they don't want to admit is that global warming is a theory....and a theory not supported by all scientists. The debate is nowhere near being over.

Remember ... global warming is not an environmental issue. It's a political issue.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...Remember ... global warming is not an environmental issue. It's a political issue.

Only for those who believe in faith-based politics.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Only for those who believe in faith-based politics.

That's the funniest thing I have ever read.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The rebuttal goes on and on. So once again, the AP has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar...this time all the way up to their elbow. What they don't want to admit is that global warming is a theory....and a theory not supported by all scientists. The debate is nowhere near being over.

ok let's just say it's a theory... could be true... could be an overexaggeration....

doesn't it make the most logical sense to be as cautious and careful as we can, in any case? To take the necessary steps that COULD help, and will, at the very least, do no harm?

 

[English Lady]

ok let's just say it's a theory... could be true... could be an overexaggeration....

doesn't it make the most logical sense to be as cautious and careful as we can, in any case? To take the necessary steps that COULD help, and will, at the very least, do no harm?

Bingo! Give the lady a goldfish -she's hit the jackpot!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Give the lady a goldfish -she's hit the jackpot!

Kitties like fish!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, as I said, time will tell. If I were in charge, I'd err on the side of caution, but I'm not in charge.

I remember a time when the coal and power companies were screaming about the limits imposed on the amounts of sulfur oxides they could emit, the chemicals that contributed to smog and acid rain. The same arguments were made then--controls would cost jobs and increase costs and cripple the economy, and in fact, when the controls were put in place, none of that happened. In fact, jobs were created.

I'm also old enough to remember when the falling snow in Chicago tasted like soot because of the untreated emissions of the coal-powered generating and heating plants. They cleaned those up. And the Chicago river was an open sewer where we used to gather on the bridges to drop rocks on the condoms as they floated by beneath. EPA cleaned that up and supposedly you can fish in there now (though I couldn't. I'll never forget those condoms.)

I don't know what kind of technology would be necessary to reduce CO2 emissions but I'm pretty certain it could be done without making us all revert to living in caves and traveling by donkey. I don't know about this scientist or that scientist, but I volunteer at the Field Museum of Natural History in the geology department, and all the climatologists and geophysicists there are quite convinced that this phenomenon is real and is anthropogenic in nature, and I respect their opinions

But then, maybe they're just dupes too like all the other international scientists Pure has listed in his posts and the President's science advisers are right. But I ask you: who has a bigger financial stake in the outcome of this debate? The scientists or the industries that back Bush?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

ok let's just say it's a theory... could be true... could be an overexaggeration....

doesn't it make the most logical sense to be as cautious and careful as we can, in any case? To take the necessary steps that COULD help, and will, at the very least, do no harm?

Of course but let's don't go overboard. The CO2 output of the combined human race is only a fraction of that produced naturally. Every night, every plant (the kind that grow, not the ones we built) produce more CO2 than all of humanity. So to reduce CO2 levels do we cut down all the forests? Would make it hard to breath as during the day the produce the O2 we need by converting the CO2 in the air.

Hard question to answer. But I think we are headed in the right direction as it is. Cars run cleaner than they did just 5 years ago. Power production is still using fossil fuels and until we find a way to produce that power by other means we will have to depend on those plants (the kind we build).

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Of course but let's don't go overboard. The CO2 output of the combined human race is only a fraction of that produced naturally. Every night, every plant (the kind that grow, not the ones we built) produce more CO2 than all of humanity. So to reduce CO2 levels do we cut down all the forests? Would make it hard to breath as during the day the produce the O2 we need by converting the CO2 in the air.

Hard question to answer. But I think we are headed in the right direction as it is. Cars run cleaner than they did just 5 years ago. Power production is still using fossil fuels and until we find a way to produce that power by other means we will have to depend on those plants (the kind we build).

What's going overboard?
I don't care about excuses or why it MIGHT not be as bad as they claim... *shrug*
I care about what we can do, right now, to make it a moot point.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What's going overboard?
I don't care about excuses or why it MIGHT not be as bad as they claim... *shrug*
I care about what we can do, right now, to make it a moot point.

Well at least half the scientific community does believe it's a moot point. The thing to do is convince either half the othersides view is correct. But as with anything in this world that will never happen. *shug*

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Well at least half the scientific community does believe it's a moot point. The thing to do is convince either half the othersides view is correct. But as with anything in this world that will never happen. *shug*

Think of this way, Zeb... IF something MAY be dangerous... and you're not 100% sure it is or it isn't... say, in your example, it's 50/50... 50% chance it's true, 50% chance it isn't...

doesn't it make the MOST sense to simply take the precautions and assume that it IS true? A better safe than sorry kind of thing?

That way, you're protected...

if someone told you that you had a 50% chance of getting a girl pregnant, for example (I know, not quite analagous, but this is a porn board, work with me here) and her getting pregnant was an UNdesirable thing...

wouldn't you wear a condom?!

That's all I'm saying...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Think of this way, Zeb... IF something MAY be dangerous... and you're not 100% sure it is or it isn't... say, in your example, it's 50/50... 50% chance it's true, 50% chance it isn't...

doesn't it make the MOST sense to simply take the precautions and assume that it IS true? A better safe than sorry kind of thing?

That way, you're protected...

if someone told you that you had a 50% chance of getting a girl pregnant, for example (I know, not quite analagous, but this is a porn board, work with me here) and her getting pregnant was an UNdesirable thing...

wouldn't you wear a condom?!

That's all I'm saying...

Yes see the point your trying to make but, 50% of them are 100% sure. And 50% are also 100% sure. See where I trying to go?

I am 100% sure that my 50% is right. And you are 100% sure that your 50% is right. Where does that leave us?

Oh and I can't get her pregnant, no swimmers anymore!

 

[JamesSD]

Well at least half the scientific community does believe it's a moot point. The thing to do is convince either half the othersides view is correct. But as with anything in this world that will never happen. *shug*

What scientific disagreement?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.(My emphasis)

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Yes see the point your trying to make but, 50% of them are 100% sure. And 50% are also 100% sure. See where I trying to go?

I am 100% sure that my 50% is right. And you are 100% sure that your 50% is right. Where does that leave us?

Oh and I can't get her pregnant, no swimmers anymore!

That leaves us assuming and planning for the worst and hoping for the best, even in your scenario... or logically, it should... which looks like the "The environment is fine, leave it alone!" guys lose... but in reality, EVERYONE wins if we go with the "Sky is falling" guys...

now, whether or not logic will win out... that's a whole other story...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That leaves us assuming and planning for the worst and hoping for the best, even in your scenario... or logically, it should... which looks like the "The environment is fine, leave it alone!" guys lose... but in reality, EVERYONE wins if we go with the "Sky is falling" guys...

now, whether or not logic will win out... that's a whole other story...

It's all political anyway, just like anything else in the country. Politics and government are great problem solvers, they just can't seem to accomplish anything substantive.

 

[Huckleman2000]

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

That's just complete and utter bullshit.
Why do you keep posting crap that is proven to be crap time and time again, and then ridiculing people who call you on it?

Again, for your amusement: only the faith-based political community holds anywhere near your position. You may as well be arguing the scientific validity of creationism.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What scientific disagreement?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Ok, I believe I also read that the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works asked the same scientists to review the IPCC reports and came to the same conclusions as they did on the Gore movie. Forget where I saw that.

Statistics are a wonderful thing, data is also wonderful. Data can be scued in either direction or correlated in such a way as to prove your threoy.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That's just complete and utter bullshit.
Why do you keep posting crap that is proven to be crap time and time again, and then ridiculing people who call you on it?

Again, for your amusement: only the faith-based political community holds anywhere near your position. You may as well be arguing the scientific validity of creationism.

Oh growup!

 

[Huckleman2000]

I could say the same about the bullshit you post Huck but I won't.

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.