Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Desertdog on March 09, 2010, 12:16:49 PM
-
It is about time that some MSM started to notice that Gore is spouting a lot of BS.
Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/03/gore_still_hot_on_his_doomsday_rhetoric/
THE CASE for global-warming alarmism is melting faster than those mythical disappearing Himalayan glaciers, but Al Gore isn’t backing down.
In a long op-ed piece for The New York Times the other day, Gore cranked up the doomsday rhetoric. Human beings, he warned, “face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.’’ His 1,900-word essay made no mention of his financial interest in promoting such measures - Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’ However, he did mention “global-warming pollution’’ no fewer than four times, declaring that “our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation’’ if we don’t move decisively to reduce it.
By “global-warming pollution,’’ Gore means carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a “pollutant’’ in roughly the way oxygen and water are pollutants: Human existence would be impossible without them. CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process that sustains plant life and generates the oxygen that human beings and animals inhale. Far from polluting the world, carbon dioxide enriches it. Higher levels of CO2 are associated with larger crop yields, increased forest growth, and longer growing seasons - in short, with a greener planet.
Of course carbon dioxide also contributes to the greenhouse effect that keeps the earth warm. But the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally, and it is far from clear that the carbon dioxide contributed by human industry has a significant impact on the world’s climate.
On the other hand, it is quite clear that the economic and agricultural activity responsible for that anthropogenic CO2 has been enormously beneficial to myriads of men, women, and children. In just the last two decades, life expectancy in developing nations has climbed appreciably and infant mortality has fallen. Hundreds of millions of Indian and Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty. Whatever else might be said about carbon dioxide, it has helped make possible a dramatic increase in the quality of many human lives.
But there is no awareness of such tradeoffs in Gore’s latest screed. He brushes aside as unimportant the recently exposed blunders in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These include claims that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, that global warming could slash African crop yields by 50 percent, and that 55 percent of the Netherlands - more than twice the correct amount - is below sea level.
Gore seems equally untroubled by Climategate, the scandal involving researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, who apparently schemed to manipulate temperature data, to prevent their critics from being published in peer-reviewed journals, and to destroy records and calculations to keep climate skeptics from double-checking them.
Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s errors and the Climatic Research Unit scandal have triggered major investigations, and opinion polls show a falloff in the percentage of the public that believes either global warming is cause for serious concern or that scientists see eye to eye on the issue. Yet Gore insists, against all evidence, that “the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.’’
To climate alarmists like Gore, everything proves their point. For years they argued that global warming would mean a decline in snow cover and shorter ski seasons. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’’ one climate scientist lamented to reporters in 2000. The IPCC itself was clear that climate change was resulting in more rain and less snow.
Undaunted, Gore now claims that the blizzards that have walloped the Northeast in recent weeks are also proof of global warming. “Climate change causes more frequent and severe snowstorms,’’ he posted on his blog last month.
Gore is a True Believer; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of faith. In almost messianic terms, he urges Congress to sharply restrain Americans’ access to energy. “What is at stake,’’ he writes, “is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.’’
But while Gore prays for redemption, the pews in the Church of Climate Catastrophe are gradually emptying. The public’s skeptical common sense, it turns out, is pretty robust. Just like those Himalayan glaciers.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
-
Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’
I also remember reading that Nancy Pelosi made a sizable investment in T. Boone Pickens wind farm company . . .
-
Related:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/7401422/Barcelona-hit-with-heaviest-snowfall-in-25-years.html
Schools were closed, roads were blocked and power was knocked as Barcelona was hit with its heaviest snowfall in 25 years.
(Yes, and please cue the apologists to say: Climate isn't weather!!!1111)
-
Also:
How about this...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/04/sweden.ice.ships/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/04/sweden.ice.ships/index.html?hpt=T2)
-
Gee, no CO2....I hate flat beer........................The reason for the reduced crops in Africa is they are killing themselves off at a rapid rate. Who is going to plant the crops? Holland, they are just getting too high and forgetting to plant the crops.....If al gore would just shut up there would be less CO2 around........chris3
-
(Yes, and please cue the apologists to say: Climate isn't weather!!!1111)
Pre-empting the factually correct response and calling apologism doesn't make it not factually correct.
Check the temperature in Crete on New Year's Day? That wasn't climate either, but it was rather hot.
-
Among other interesting effects of global warming, the Sahara is becoming more green.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fken-jennings.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F07%2Falgore.jpg&hash=cfbde35d269ac97d46771e4d689f9dc53090717a)
Says it all. Al Gore has ceased to become a somewhat rational human being (if he ever was one). He's now a numbers-driven entertainer, willing to sell himself to whatever cause he thinks will get him more money and attention.
-
I wonder what Mr. Gore would say if he found out all the CO2 that volcanoes and stuff spew out all the time.
-
Geeziz, he looks like Ratso Rizzo in that photo.
-
I wonder what Mr. Gore would say if he found out all the CO2 that volcanoes and stuff spew out all the time.
I know exactly what he'd say.
-
I know exactly what he'd say.
Ok, I'm curious. [popcorn]
-
Ok, I'm curious. [popcorn]
He'd ask if they wanted to buy carbon offsets and that he knew just the guy to talk to...
-
(Yes, and please cue the apologists to say: Climate isn't weather!!!1111)
Knowing the difference between climate and weather doesn't automatically make a person an apologist. :facepalm: Use a little logic, please!
-
Gore actually said that the record snowfalls in DC this winter were caused by global warming. No matter the changing weather cycle, he will always find a way to distort it to fit his agenda.
-
Gore actually said that the record snowfalls in DC this winter were caused by global warming. No matter the changing weather cycle, he will always find a way to distort it to fit his agenda.
This has been the coldest winter I've seen here, and we usually only get about a quarter inch of snow per year, if any.
This year we go like 6 inches...twice. A couple days apart with some more dusting and inches or so spread around.
-
algoreaphobia - an irrational fear provoked by the words "global warming", "climate change", "IPCC", often expressed in hysterical comments posted on the internet. [popcorn]
-
the algore complex, an irrational fear that the sky is eating people. and your going to be next. :angel:
-
Cold in the winter, hot in the summer: it's just the algorythymn of the seasons.
-
I'm remembering all the Futurama episodes with Al Gore in them.
Let's take a look at Futurama.
It's the year 3,000 and everything that's happening and exists then is imagined by thinking "How are things now? How can they be completely different from now?" It's basically a world where the creators envisioned things as ridiculous and comical as they could in order to create a world based solely on comedy.
So you end up with things that are totally ridiculous and likely never to happen. Like baconated grape fruit, and caffeinated bacon...and global warming.
I imagine Al Gore thought he was doing something to help his cause by appearing in those episodes.
-
One of the claims of "global warming" is that all weather patterns would increase in severity. Colder winters, hotter summers, not just everything is going to get hotter.
I don't know about all of Mr. Gores claims, especially the b.s. carbon credits but we are damaging the earth. Pollution does affect us all, increased cancer rates, fouling of natural habitats, ect. Ever hear of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Its twice as big as Texas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISaGrlpK2zE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLrVCI4N67M
Decomposing plastics leak BPA and other chemicals into our oceans which are a know carcinogenic. It also enters our own food supply when fish eat the smaller fragments of plastic, which in turn are eaten by us.
-
I don't know about all of Mr. Gores claims, especially the b.s. carbon credits but we are damaging the earth. Pollution does affect us all, increased cancer rates, fouling of natural habitats, ect. Ever hear of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Its twice as big as Texas!
[/b]
You are trying to change the subject.
-
One of the claims of "global warming" is that all weather patterns would increase in severity. Colder winters, hotter summers, not just everything is going to get hotter.
I don't know about all of Mr. Gores claims, especially the b.s. carbon credits but we are damaging the earth. Pollution does affect us all, increased cancer rates, fouling of natural habitats, ect. Ever hear of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Its twice as big as Texas!
Changing the subject. Pollution is bad. Littering is bad. Most of us would like to see our natural resources conserved. But this is about the great Green Leader, Al Gore, and his doomsday prophecies.
-
Al Gore would be a lot more popular if he was trying to do something like cleaning up the garbage patch instead of trying to push a policy that is an acknowledged failure in places where it has already been tried.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/28/opinion/ed-carbontax28?pg=2
Europeans strike out
To understand the drawbacks of cap-and-trade, one has to look not only at the successful U.S. acid rain program but the failed European Emissions Trading Scheme, the first phase of which started in January 2005. European Union members each developed emissions goals, then passed out credits to polluters. Yet for a variety of reasons, the initial cap was set so high that the polluters fell under it without making any reductions at all. The Europeans are working to improve the scheme in the next phase, but their chances of success aren't good.
One reason is the power of lobbyists. In Europe, as in the U.S., special interests have a way of warping the political process so that, for example, a corporation generous with its campaign contributions might win an excessive number of credits. It's also very easy in many European countries to cheat; because there aren't strong agencies to monitor and verify emissions, companies or utilities can pretend they're cleaner than they are.
-
Al Gore would be a lot more popular if he was trying to do something like cleaning up the garbage patch instead of trying to push a policy that is an acknowledged failure in places where it has already been tried.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/28/opinion/ed-carbontax28?pg=2
Here's the fallacy of your logic:
It's not a failure for Al Gore: He is FILTHY STINKING RICH. He has gotten rich on the back of Global Warming Hysteria. The more people believe, the richer he gets.
-
i just remembered something, so have some linkage. (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v15358987xmsTbJrs)[popcorn]
oh not work safe as always. :facepalm:
man those guy's are, well, ummm, ahhh, something anyway. =D
-
Pollution does affect us all
CO2 is not a pollutant. ;)
-
Pre-empting the factually correct response and calling apologism doesn't make it not factually correct.
Check the temperature in Crete on New Year's Day? That wasn't climate either, but it was rather hot.
The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change.
-
The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change.
DING DING DING DING DING
-
Al Gore would be a lot more popular
I meant to write useful. My bad.
-
The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change.
Others being factually incorrect doesn't make those being factually correct apologists, so hardly a ding ding ding moment.
-
The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change.
Who are you referring to? It certainly wasn't me and I'll stand by the statement that climate is not weather.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
CO2 can most certainly be a pollutant.
-
CO2 can most certainly be a pollutant.
Well, I suppose oxygen can be a pollutant, too =|
-
Main Entry: pol·lut·ant
Pronunciation: \pə-ˈlü-tənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1892
: something that pollutes
Main Entry: pol·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \pə-ˈlü-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted
Yes, oxygen can be a pollutant too.
-
CO2 can most certainly be a pollutant.
Eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere and die. By eliminating CO2 you will eliminate all plant life which will eliminate you.
I will guess that you don't want to eliminate all of the CO2, just the excess. The excess is what helps the plants grow bigger, as it gives them more food. And like humans, the plants grow bigger when they have more food to eat.
At what point does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere become a pollutant?
-
when al gore pronounces it so! its like a papal dispensation
-
At what point does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere become a pollutant?
When the ability of photosynthesis is no longer able to keep balance with respiration.
Photosynthesis and cellular respiration are both balanced processes, and for quite a long time the output of one was able to balance the other. That stopped sometime in the 18th century.
Also, Photosynthesis will increase (light intensity, amount of CO2 and Temperature) until limited by factors that I probably learned in Biology but can't remember and will have to look up. The point being is that it's not an infinite curve; it does flatten out.
-
When the ability of photosynthesis is no longer able to keep balance with respiration.
Photosynthesis and cellular respiration are both balanced processes, and for quite a long time the output of one was able to balance the other. That stopped sometime in the 18th century.
Also, Photosynthesis will increase (light intensity, amount of CO2 and Temperature) until limited by factors that I probably learned in Biology but can't remember and will have to look up. The point being is that it's not an infinite curve; it does flatten out.
This is a much better explanation than mine would have been.
-
None of your explanation accounts for the variations in the substantial CO2 contributions to the atmosphere from natural, non-biological sources. In essence, that negates your entire thesis.
-
Al Gore would be a lot more popular if he was trying to do something like cleaning up the garbage patch instead of trying to push a policy that is an acknowledged failure in places where it has already been tried.
Except there is no money to be made in cleaning up the garbage patch.
Few if any people are against sane pollution controls. Preferring folks not dump dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc into the water is perfectly understandable. Hell, if folks were aware of what coal plants crank out in hard rads, uranium and thorium, they might be a bit more willing to embrace nuclear power plants. Nothing wrong with requiring people to dispose of their waste responsibly and not needlessly wasting our resources.
But let's be honest. The folks that actually care about the environment, do not have significant ulterior motives and possess any type of scientific/educated background are very, very rare. Folks that advocate mass usage of solar panels are unaware of the very limited power they can produce and completely unaware of the manufacturing byproducts involved. Folks that rant against modern agriculture are unaware that they'd sentence at least 1.7 billion people to death if successful. etc, etc. Very few "true" environmentalists want to actually protect the environment without killing billions of humans or reducing us to the Stone Ages.
A very significant number of environmentalists are interested making a buck via scams, misinformation or flatout gunpoint. Another significant number of environmentalists are just flat out anti-capitalists, anti-modern Luddites, etc.
Al Gore. Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint. It would be one thing if his views were backed with decades of hard science and provable, repeatable and heavily scrutinized results with clear published procedures and data. This is not an unreasonable demand. Virtually every branch of science demands such. Why should climate change be any different?
He may or may not be correct. That is not the point. The point is he wishes to transfer large sums of money from other people to himself at gunpoint. That should require very, very good reason. Which he flat out doesn't currently have. I don't care whether you believe he is right or wrong. No one yet has enough conclusive proof one way or the other and unfortunately with a cross between politics and often incompetent data collection, we are unlikely to GET conclusive proof because few folks on BOTH side seem to actually want it.
If you really want to save the environment, go get an engineering degree and build real technology that is more efficient. Go build a better chemical process that is more efficient, more profitable and reduces waste. Reducing CO2 at gunpoint would be roughly one thousands of a single percent as efficient as making it actually profitable to reduce CO2 through greater efficiency or superior technology. By actually profitable, I mean in a real economic way, not through government subsidies, threats of violence or other coercion that are the preferred tools of the most environmentalists.
-
None of your explanation accounts for the variations in the substantial CO2 contributions to the atmosphere from natural, non-biological sources. In essence, that negates your entire thesis.
Non biological sources like what, volcanoes? Not really. Volcanoes emit about 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We're emitting about 30 billion tons a year.
-
really?
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
though the lady from east anglia does say
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
i haven't researched vis a vis the lil email contretemps yet. what am i gonna find? >:D
-
then there is this
One of the groups that undertook the task was in New York, funded by NASA and led by James Hansen. They understood that the work by Mitchell and others mainly described the Northern Hemisphere, since that was where the great majority of reliable observations lay. Sorting through the more limited temperature observations from the other half of the world, they got reasonable averages by applying the same mathematical methods that they had used to get average numbers in their computer models of climate. (After all, Hansen remarked, when he studied other planets he might judge the entire planet by the single station where a probe had landed.)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
rather long historic piece good reading
-
RevDisk,
If you are going to quote what I said in the post about Al Gore and the article I linked you should also be fair and quote what I said a few posts after.
I meant to write useful. My bad.
As for most of the rest of your post? Prove it! This thread is about Al Gore, you are getting off topic and into the weeds with some of your statements.
The folks that actually care about the environment, do not have significant ulterior motives and possess any type of scientific/educated background are very, very rare.
Folks that advocate mass usage of solar panels are unaware of the very limited power they can produce and completely unaware of the manufacturing byproducts involved.
These are two good examples. No way to prove or disprove these statements but it sure does whip up emotion in the reader.
Folks that rant against modern agriculture are unaware that they'd sentence at least 1.7 billion people to death if successful. etc, etc.
Got a link for that? My point is that this is the same type of emotional argument that people here accuse environmentalists of using, long on hype and short on fact.
-
. . . Al Gore. Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint . . . He may or may not be correct. That is not the point. The point is he wishes to transfer large sums of money from other people to himself at gunpoint.
If Al Gore were sincere about the environment, he'd show it by changing his own lifestyle.
* His primary residence would not use 20x the energy that the average home uses.
* He would have one home, rather than four. (That's at least four.)
* He would fly via commercial, rather than corporate/private, jets.
* He surface travel would be in a single vehicle, rather than via caravan or motorcade.
Talk is cheap - actions speak louder than words. When Algore speaks, IMHO the truth is not in him.
-
dm1333:
I have posted a couple times about Norman Borlaug, the man behind the "green revolution" (golden rice, dwarf wheat) in the third world that saved 1B+ humans.
His work is the sort of thing the greenies whine about. Absent Borlaug's work, yes, in excess of 1B more people would have starved to death in the last three or four decades.
Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009)[1] was an American agronomist, humanitarian, and Nobel laureate who has been deemed the father of the Green Revolution.[2] Borlaug was one of only six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.[3] He was also a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honour.
"...some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things".
Algore got a Nobel, too, but his was less to do with hybridization and more to do with fertilizer. Bullshit, to be specific.
-
dm1333:
I have posted a couple times about Norman Borlaug, the man behind the "green revolution" (golden rice, dwarf wheat) in the third world that saved 1B+ humans.
His work is the sort of thing the greenies whine about. Absent Borlaug's work, yes, in excess of 1B more people would have starved to death in the last three or four decades.
jfruser,
I'm not defending Al Gore. Hank B said some things that I've said in person and I've also mentioned on the internet that when environmentalists start talking about cap and trade I put one hand on my wallet and the other on the family jewels. My main point about this thread has already been stated once.
My point is that this is the same type of emotional argument that people here accuse environmentalists of using, long on hype and short on fact.
I'm sure you have heard people on this forum say that environmentalism is a religion to the left, and that the left argues based on emotion and not fact. We should not be doing the same thing when we oppose things like cap and trade or make arguments against what Al Gore is doing. Here are some examples just from this thread.
quote]
A very significant number of environmentalists are interested making a buck via scams, misinformation or flatout gunpoint. Another significant number of environmentalists are just flat out anti-capitalists, anti-modern Luddites, etc. [/quote]
"The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change."
"Al Gore. Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint. "
"(Yes, and please cue the apologists to say: Climate isn't weather!!!1111) "
I'm going to end this post now because my computer screen is scrolling up and down uncontrollaby as I type and it is driving me crazy.
-
I will guess that you don't want to eliminate all of the CO2, just the excess. The excess is what helps the plants grow bigger, as it gives them more food. And like humans, the plants grow bigger when they have more food to eat.
At what point does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere become a pollutant?
The atmosphere currently has CO2 as a trace gas at ~0.038%, while it doesn't become toxic until nearly 5%. Read that again - that's a BIG gap.
EDIT: I saw this graph and just had to add it...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg
-
It is about time that some MSM started to notice that Gore is spouting a lot of BS.
Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/03/gore_still_hot_on_his_doomsday_rhetoric/
THE CASE for global-warming alarmism is melting faster than those mythical disappearing Himalayan glaciers, but Al Gore isn’t backing down.
In a long op-ed piece for The New York Times the other day, Gore cranked up the doomsday rhetoric. Human beings, he warned, “face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.’’ His 1,900-word essay made no mention of his financial interest in promoting such measures - Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’ However, he did mention “global-warming pollution’’ no fewer than four times, declaring that “our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation’’ if we don’t move decisively to reduce it.
By “global-warming pollution,’’ Gore means carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a “pollutant’’ in roughly the way oxygen and water are pollutants: Human existence would be impossible without them. CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process that sustains plant life and generates the oxygen that human beings and animals inhale. Far from polluting the world, carbon dioxide enriches it. Higher levels of CO2 are associated with larger crop yields, increased forest growth, and longer growing seasons - in short, with a greener planet.
Of course carbon dioxide also contributes to the greenhouse effect that keeps the earth warm. But the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally, and it is far from clear that the carbon dioxide contributed by human industry has a significant impact on the world’s climate.
On the other hand, it is quite clear that the economic and agricultural activity responsible for that anthropogenic CO2 has been enormously beneficial to myriads of men, women, and children. In just the last two decades, life expectancy in developing nations has climbed appreciably and infant mortality has fallen. Hundreds of millions of Indian and Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty. Whatever else might be said about carbon dioxide, it has helped make possible a dramatic increase in the quality of many human lives.
But there is no awareness of such tradeoffs in Gore’s latest screed. He brushes aside as unimportant the recently exposed blunders in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These include claims that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, that global warming could slash African crop yields by 50 percent, and that 55 percent of the Netherlands - more than twice the correct amount - is below sea level.
Gore seems equally untroubled by Climategate, the scandal involving researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, who apparently schemed to manipulate temperature data, to prevent their critics from being published in peer-reviewed journals, and to destroy records and calculations to keep climate skeptics from double-checking them.
Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s errors and the Climatic Research Unit scandal have triggered major investigations, and opinion polls show a falloff in the percentage of the public that believes either global warming is cause for serious concern or that scientists see eye to eye on the issue. Yet Gore insists, against all evidence, that “the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.’’
To climate alarmists like Gore, everything proves their point. For years they argued that global warming would mean a decline in snow cover and shorter ski seasons. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’’ one climate scientist lamented to reporters in 2000. The IPCC itself was clear that climate change was resulting in more rain and less snow.
Undaunted, Gore now claims that the blizzards that have walloped the Northeast in recent weeks are also proof of global warming. “Climate change causes more frequent and severe snowstorms,’’ he posted on his blog last month.
Gore is a True Believer; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of faith. In almost messianic terms, he urges Congress to sharply restrain Americans’ access to energy. “What is at stake,’’ he writes, “is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.’’
But while Gore prays for redemption, the pews in the Church of Climate Catastrophe are gradually emptying. The public’s skeptical common sense, it turns out, is pretty robust. Just like those Himalayan glaciers.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
Gore is a has been trying to keep his face in the news.
-
I'm sure you have heard people on this forum say that environmentalism is a religion to the left, and that the left argues based on emotion and not fact. We should not be doing the same thing when we oppose things like cap and trade or make arguments against what Al Gore is doing. Here are some examples just from this thread.
"A very significant number of environmentalists are interested making a buck via scams, misinformation or flatout gunpoint. Another significant number of environmentalists are just flat out anti-capitalists, anti-modern Luddites, etc.
"The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change."
"Al Gore. Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint. "
"(Yes, and please cue the apologists to say: Climate isn't weather!!!1111) "
I'm going to end this post now because my computer screen is scrolling up and down uncontrollaby as I type and it is driving me crazy.
I'm not sure I understand you. Were all of those quotes you listed supposed to be examples of "arguing emotionally and not from fact"? Cause those quotes all seem to be examples of reasoning and critical thinking, albeit informal in their presentation. (Well, maybe not that last one, but that wasn't really an argument at all.)
An example of arguing with emotion and not fact would be something like this graphic:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fslapnose.com%2Fimages%2Fblog%2F0606%2F0606-inconvenient-truth.jpg&hash=732437a426d3c6d0c4cdb2d42b0ab0582e2e54b3)
I'm referencing the imagery here, not the movie. That pic was specifically tailored to play on peoples' emotions at a time when Katrina was still fresh in mind, and to imply that our industry was going to cause the destruction of whole cities due to new violence in the weather.
-
CO2 is not a pollutant. ;)
It can be in high concentrations, but we normally don't think of it being one in the atmosphere.
-
I also remember reading that Nancy Pelosi made a sizable investment in T. Boone Pickens wind farm company . . .
Old Boone had billions of dollars of wind machines made and waiting to be installed. But the high cost of a new grid to handle the output supposedly derailed that effort. We have several of them
west of my town about 40 miles, and there are gobs of them in Oklahoma.
I am not an environut or a tree hugger but I do support the concept of alternate energy devices and sources. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This subject is something I have been interested in since we had a wake up call back in 1973.
-
I am not an environut or a tree hugger but I do support the concept of alternate energy devices and sources. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.
-
Except there is no money to be made in cleaning up the garbage patch.
Few if any people are against sane pollution controls. Preferring folks not dump dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc into the water is perfectly understandable. Hell, if folks were aware of what coal plants crank out in hard rads, uranium and thorium, they might be a bit more willing to embrace nuclear power plants. Nothing wrong with requiring people to dispose of their waste responsibly and not needlessly wasting our resources.
But let's be honest. The folks that actually care about the environment, do not have significant ulterior motives and possess any type of scientific/educated background are very, very rare. Folks that advocate mass usage of solar panels are unaware of the very limited power they can produce and completely unaware of the manufacturing byproducts involved. Folks that rant against modern agriculture are unaware that they'd sentence at least 1.7 billion people to death if successful. etc, etc. Very few "true" environmentalists want to actually protect the environment without killing billions of humans or reducing us to the Stone Ages.
A very significant number of environmentalists are interested making a buck via scams, misinformation or flatout gunpoint. Another significant number of environmentalists are just flat out anti-capitalists, anti-modern Luddites, etc.
Al Gore. Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint. It would be one thing if his views were backed with decades of hard science and provable, repeatable and heavily scrutinized results with clear published procedures and data. This is not an unreasonable demand. Virtually every branch of science demands such. Why should climate change be any different?
He may or may not be correct. That is not the point. The point is he wishes to transfer large sums of money from other people to himself at gunpoint. That should require very, very good reason. Which he flat out doesn't currently have. I don't care whether you believe he is right or wrong. No one yet has enough conclusive proof one way or the other and unfortunately with a cross between politics and often incompetent data collection, we are unlikely to GET conclusive proof because few folks on BOTH side seem to actually want it.
If you really want to save the environment, go get an engineering degree and build real technology that is more efficient. Go build a better chemical process that is more efficient, more profitable and reduces waste. Reducing CO2 at gunpoint would be roughly one thousands of a single percent as efficient as making it actually profitable to reduce CO2 through greater efficiency or superior technology. By actually profitable, I mean in a real economic way, not through government subsidies, threats of violence or other coercion that are the preferred tools of the most environmentalists.
A change of mindset will also reap generous yields in savings. I wrote a book on that and had it copyrighted. If my screen wasn't jumping I would go into more detail on what I proposed.
-
I hope that in time you folks will see that I am not the butthole I may have come off to be. A guy going by the username of nraforlife told me of this site and I like what I see.
I am a moderate, a pragmatist, and a centrist, much to the chagrin of the extremists in the politcal spectrum. I believe in obeying the law and if that law is wrong then the proper thing to do is to work to have it changed or repealed.
It is fun to lip off and blow steam but when you expose your thoughts to the feds then you have shown your hand. I am betting they read this stuff. Yep, I am currently a part time census worker so I cannot express my true feelings in the matter. However, that doesn't mean that I don't have some reservations about how it is being done or why. I am not permitted to divulge certain things that I have learned about patrons but after this year I don't plan to do it again as I am becoming too old to tramp the streets and the dusty country roads. Maybe we can talk more later in the year?
-
Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.
An interesting way to separate sensible people from the true believes is to ask people whether they're willing to allow people pursue ALL avenues of fueling the modern world, both conventional AND alternative. The sensible person will be happy to have any viable alternative be explored. The true believer will try to tell you that only his preferred methods should be allowed, other methods should be prohibited by legislative fiat.
Take it a step further and ask 'em if they're willing to let the oil-supporters fund oil development and let the wind/sun/whatever supporters fund wind/sun/whatever energy development. Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into. Enviro nuts always howl at that one.
-
Headless Thompson Gunner,
I think all of those quotes and more are examples of emotion over ruling logic.
"A very significant number of environmentalists are interested making a buck via scams, misinformation or flatout gunpoint. Another significant number of environmentalists are just flat out anti-capitalists, anti-modern Luddites, etc.
"The problem is that the same people who cry out CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER today are the same people who had no problem referring to unusually hot weather last year as evidence of climate change."
"Al Gore. Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint. "
"(Yes, and please cue the apologists to say: Climate isn't weather!!!1111) "
Do you really think Al Gore wants to enforce his views and take money from people at gunpoint? The comments about environmentalists being anti capitalists, luddites, etc. is totally unprovable. That style of argument is something I would expect to read on DU, it shouldn't be done here. (yeah, that's right, I threw down the DU gauntlet).
I'm not sure wtf is going on with my computer so I'm about to end this post and try again.
-
No more quoting things here for me because every time I do that my computer starts to freak out. People have been posting here about how we can put a lot more carbon into the atmosphere and that until we hit 5000 ppm it won't be an issue and that we actually benefit from having more carbon in the atmosphere because it helps plants grow. That is a simplistic argument which ignores the fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere has already been linked to increased acidification of the oceans. You can either google CO2 effect on ocean acidification or I'll post a couple of articles here once I figure out what the h&** is wrong with my computer.
Some of the posts on here have been purely to get a rise out of people like makattacks jibe about apologists saying that climate isn't weather. My point is why resort to cracks like that when you could just back up your argument with logical statements backed up by links to things that support your argument?
I'm not at all in favor of cap and trade or pushing solar power to the exclusion of everything else. That is what drives me crazy about the left, the fixation on solar above everything else. Wind power is cheaper right now than solar at least according to what I read in Home Power magazine. If I could post a link here withoug my computer freaking out, I would.. Nuclear power to me is a perfectly good source of energy along with hydro power, natural gas and oil. And since I'm typing in the blind agains as my post here randomly scrolls up and down I'm signing off for the night and doing some homework.
-
Headless Thompson Gunner,
I think all of those quotes and more are examples of emotion over ruling logic.
Do you really think Al Gore wants to enforce his views and take money from people at gunpoint? The comments about environmentalists being anti capitalists, luddites, etc. is totally unprovable. That style of argument is something I would expect to read on DU, it shouldn't be done here. (yeah, that's right, I threw down the DU gauntlet).
Short answer, yes, I think all of those things.
I think Al Gore and the other serious environuts are more than willing to use force of government (backed up by men with badges and guns for anyone who doesn't comply with the new laws) to take money from people.
I think the environmental movement has become a haven for dispossessed marxists after the failure of the Soviet Union. Remarks I've read from early founders and leaders in the environmental movement back up my suspicions here.
I'd ask for an apology for the DU remark, too. These ideas may seem controversial when first encountered, but they aren't based on sensationalism or emotion, and they definitely are not DU-esque.
-
Headless Thompson Gunner,
You may think that Al Gore wants to enforce his views and take money from people at gunpoint by using the force of government. I have no problem with that statement.
Al Gore. Whether or not he is sincere is entirely secondary to the fact that he wants to enforce his views and forcibly take money from a large number of people at literal gunpoint.
This statement is not even close to what you wrote.
Folks that rant against modern agriculture are unaware that they'd sentence at least 1.7 billion people to death if successful. etc, etc.
I asked for a link to that figure. That is a reasonable request. Show me where 1.7 billion people would be dead.
This post from jfruser is a better example of how it should have been done.
His work is the sort of thing the greenies whine about. Absent Borlaug's work, yes, in excess of 1B more people would have starved to death in the last three or four decades.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
An apology for my DU remark? Show me where I have attacked a person personally or violated the posting rules here. I have taken exception to certain posts in this thread and stated why.
-
Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.
There are a lot of potential sites to make some home grown energy but unless the big boys sign on to it then the gubmint will fight to prevent it. I live in a farm belt where we makes piles of surplus grains each year, and we apparently pay someone to take it off our hands as well as subsidizing mega farmers to grow the stuff. Grain can be used to make ethanol and woody products can be used to make methanol.
Even though methanol has its drawbacks it is estimated that there is enough feedstock to make more than enough methanol to replace gasoline. Rail freight is much more fuel efficient than hiway freight and yet the unions and the tax authorities have driven the railway out of existence in man rural areas.
Kansas is flat to the casual observer, but there is appro. a 3600 foot drop in elevation from the highest point in the western part of the state to the KCMO area. That is a lot of head for hydroelectric power, and at one time the rivers were dotted with small water powered plants, but no more.
-
When the ability of photosynthesis is no longer able to keep balance with respiration.
Photosynthesis and cellular respiration are both balanced processes, and for quite a long time the output of one was able to balance the other. That stopped sometime in the 18th century.
Also, Photosynthesis will increase (light intensity, amount of CO2 and Temperature) until limited by factors that I probably learned in Biology but can't remember and will have to look up. The point being is that it's not an infinite curve; it does flatten out.
Practically speaking, if a given amount of CO2 causes warming then that might be the point you are seeking relative to this discussion. I think the corrosive effects occur outside our atmosphere but I may be wrong as I am rusty on the subject.
There are ways to limit our carbon foot print (how 'bout them buzzwords?) but who wants to hear about it? If mega bucks can't be made by and energy baron then it isn't worth considering. I have written a book called Fort Hickok A Green Community that deals with a change in mindset. Mind over matter so to speak, and I don't think it purports to harm anyone economically. Many of the ideas are patterned after the practices of the Amana Colonies.
-
An interesting way to separate sensible people from the true believes is to ask people whether they're willing to allow people pursue ALL avenues of fueling the modern world, both conventional AND alternative. The sensible person will be happy to have any viable alternative be explored. The true believer will try to tell you that only his preferred methods should be allowed, other methods should be prohibited by legislative fiat.
Take it a step further and ask 'em if they're willing to let the oil-supporters fund oil development and let the wind/sun/whatever supporters fund wind/sun/whatever energy development. Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into. Enviro nuts always howl at that one.
Maybe Pickens means well but he is known to be an oil and gas tycoon and is a wheeler dealer.
As much as I like the idea of wind machines I couldn't see myself contributing to his political effort with donations.
The power that can be generated by a wind machine is mind boggling. it is like having a a 2600 hp cat diesel engine high on a stick. That is roughly 2 MW.
-
My screen starts to jump after a few lines so let me continue with this reply to my own post. In western Oklahoma along I-40 there are a number of wind farms. Say from Clinton on west. We stayed at Elk City one evening during the Memorial Day holiday and got back to the motel after midnite. The wind was still very strong, probably 20mph or so. That enviro makes for good wind machining.
Going north of Elk City you have more wind farms in south of Fort Supply. The sad part of this is that the best wind power is often not where the big demand for electrical power is and the line losses to transmit the power long distances is costly.
I used to take the Mother Earth News magazine years ago when it was still full of experimental ideas, about 1973 after the oil embargo. There was a story about a large wind machine on the
Atlantic coast that operated for years and was finally destroyed by high winds. Why not? Do it again and go it better. This old thing was not mounted on the best of towers but it was a whopper in its day.
-
Among other interesting effects of global warming, the Sahara is becoming more green.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fken-jennings.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F07%2Falgore.jpg&hash=cfbde35d269ac97d46771e4d689f9dc53090717a)
Says it all. Al Gore has ceased to become a somewhat rational human being (if he ever was one). He's now a numbers-driven entertainer, willing to sell himself to whatever cause he thinks will get him more money and attention.
Wow, what a sex symbol, like a pregnant whale. [barf]
-
An interesting way to separate sensible people from the true believes is to ask people whether they're willing to allow people pursue ALL avenues of fueling the modern world, both conventional AND alternative. The sensible person will be happy to have any viable alternative be explored. The true believer will try to tell you that only his preferred methods should be allowed, other methods should be prohibited by legislative fiat.
Take it a step further and ask 'em if they're willing to let the oil-supporters fund oil development and let the wind/sun/whatever supporters fund wind/sun/whatever energy development. Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into. Enviro nuts always howl at that one.
I don't dig the ratinale of the liberals who want to remain dependent upon foreign oil, but who said they were reational anyway. We could use the billions that are sent oseas to the shieks. So what if a domestric corp makes out on it, at least some Americans could have some jobs and the taxes off of production might come in handy.
The silly doofs must think that money for their socialistic handouts grows on trees. Why borrrow from the Red Chinese when we can grow our own revnues? I wish we didn't have these budget busters but if we are to have them then lets get smart about funding them.
-
dm1333:
My job is to put the"anal" into analysis, so arguing from data, numbers, & empiricism in general is my default state. That does not make some other methods illegitimate, the big three being ethos, pathos, & logos.
For example, folks' contention that Algore wants to impose the Vision of the Anointed* by means of force is simple logic:
Gov't is force, the greens want gov't to impose these measures, therefore the greens want to use force to impose their vision on the rest of us.
* http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268757836&sr=1-1-spell
-
[darius]My screen starts to jump after a few lines
[dm1333]my post here randomly scrolls up and down
Why are you posting under two different screen names?
-
Most people on here are all for further developing traditional and alternative energy. But we are not fond of the bullshit that often accompanies it, and I'm sure you aren't either.
I hear that. A lot of energy could be developed by small scale applications, particularly out in the
rural areas, if the regs would allow it. Small hydro ponds, fuel pellets, hydrogen generators, and the ike.
I have a fancy wood pellet stove but it will not tolerate much ash buildup and I must use a high quality pellet. What is needed is one that would burn trashy fuel and could be easily cleaned out
as needed. I have to take a fan housing off mine to get at the buildup at the base of the flue, and is is not something that everyone would want to do.
-
Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into.
T Boone gave up his dream of the big wind farm in Texas. The cost of running the power line was too much.
-
I have zero problems with private enterprises developing either new or existing sources or fuel and power. What I do have a problem with is the .gov getting involved either through subsidies or coercion.
If the .gov would get out the way then we'd be hell of a lot further along in the development of alternative sources. Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers did not need .gov subsidies to change the world.
-
Why are you posting under two different screen names?
Tallpine,
I'll assume you are asking that question with the best of intentions and I can even understand why you might think I am posting under two names. But I'm not. Would you like to ask a mod to verify that I am not darius or should I do it?
-
Tallpine,
I'll assume you are asking that question with the best of intentions and I can even understand why you might think I am posting under two names. But I'm not. Would you like to ask a mod to verify that I am not darius or should I do it?
I've already had a mod check it out :P
Just seems rather weird that two posters would have the same video problems, while posting similar viewpints =|
-
No more quoting things here for me because every time I do that my computer starts to freak out. People have been posting here about how we can put a lot more carbon into the atmosphere and that until we hit 5000 ppm it won't be an issue and that we actually benefit from having more carbon in the atmosphere because it helps plants grow. That is a simplistic argument which ignores the fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere has already been linked to increased acidification of the oceans. You can either google CO2 effect on ocean acidification or I'll post a couple of articles here once I figure out what the h&** is wrong with my computer.
Some of the posts on here have been purely to get a rise out of people like makattacks jibe about apologists saying that climate isn't weather. My point is why resort to cracks like that when you could just back up your argument with logical statements backed up by links to things that support your argument?
I'm not at all in favor of cap and trade or pushing solar power to the exclusion of everything else. That is what drives me crazy about the left, the fixation on solar above everything else. Wind power is cheaper right now than solar at least according to what I read in Home Power magazine. If I could post a link here withoug my computer freaking out, I would.. Nuclear power to me is a perfectly good source of energy along with hydro power, natural gas and oil. And since I'm typing in the blind agains as my post here randomly scrolls up and down I'm signing off for the night and doing some homework.
Mine is already jumping around. It seems to be site dependent.
-
This won't add to the conversation at all:
Wow, all the techies on here use firefox huh?
DM and Darius, it's an IE8 bug when you fill in the reply box.
Run it in compatability mode and the jumping around stops.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa199%2Fdogmush%2FIE8shot.jpg&hash=54c9ef54f81e442cc1dcadb916b749b9057ccd90)
-
What dogmush said,
This won't add to the conversation at all:
Wow, all the techies on here use firefox huh?
DM and Darius, it's an IE8 bug when you fill in the reply box.
Run it in compatability mode and the jumping around stops.
what I understood
blah blah blah blah
blah blah DM and Darius blah blah
:laugh:
-
The screenshot with the big red arrow didn't do anything for you?
-
Actually it did. I was just thinking of an old Farside cartoon.
-
Ah, now you mention it that is a classic. I should really pull out my Far Side books, I could use a laugh...
-
What dogmush said,
what I understood
blah blah blah blah
blah blah DM and Darius blah blah
:laugh:
See the arrow in the graphic dogmush posted? Click on the box it's pointing at (next to the address bar), and your problems should stop. =D
-
An interesting way to separate sensible people from the true believes is to ask people whether they're willing to allow people pursue ALL avenues of fueling the modern world, both conventional AND alternative. The sensible person will be happy to have any viable alternative be explored. The true believer will try to tell you that only his preferred methods should be allowed, other methods should be prohibited by legislative fiat.
Take it a step further and ask 'em if they're willing to let the oil-supporters fund oil development and let the wind/sun/whatever supporters fund wind/sun/whatever energy development. Allow Exxon and T Boone to both offer their wares for sale, and let consumers and investors decide for themselves which they'd prefer to buy into. Enviro nuts always howl at that one.
At a point in time some of the alternatives are not economically feasible. Butanol and ethanol are two examle. So is Hydrogen gas. Maybe someday.