Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics

[Sukerkin]

Why is it that those who are not knowledgeable in a field appear to hold the most strident and outspoken opinions?

I get exactly the same sort of gainsaying, offended, responses whenever I try to explain to people that their espousing in the field of economics is not 'on the money' (yeah, monetary science pun attack ).

It's a puzzle.

Tellner outlines above, excellently, the current position of knowledge on the subject in general terms. Twin Fist takes none of it on board and instead reacts in a personaly umbridged fashion. Chad turns things in an entirely tangential direction. I shake my head, ponder wandering off to wash my head in a bucket and saying nothing but my sense of disbelief gets the better of me.

What I also fail to grasp and have consistently failed in this for the several years that this Net firestorm has been raging, is why there is such an emotive response to a fairly common sense proposition viz stop wasting the resources we have. The refusal to do that is what the olden-days agriculturalists used to call bad husbandry, or, to put it another way, stupidity.

Reasoned argument, evidence of correlation of human contribution and postulating that at this point it's foolish to attempt to shift blame when the decision is upon us ... all seem to make no impact - can someone explain why?

 

[ChadWarner]

Why is it that those who are not knowledgeable in a field appear to hold the most strident and outspoken opinions?

I get exactly the same sort of gainsaying, offended, responses whenever I try to explain to people that their espousing in the field of economics is not 'on the money' (yeah, monetary science pun attack ).

It's a puzzle.

Tellner outlines above, excellently, the current position of knowledge on the subject in general terms. Twin Fist takes none of it on board and instead reacts in a personaly umbridged fashion. Chad turns things in an entirely tangential direction. I shake my head, ponder wandering off to wash my head in a bucket and saying nothing but my sense of disbelief gets the better of me.

What I also fail to grasp and have consistently failed in this for the several years that this Net firestorm has been raging, is why there is such an emotive response to a fairly common sense proposition viz stop wasting the resources we have. The refusal to do that is what the olden-days agriculturalists used to call bad husbandry, or, to put it another way, stupidity.

Reasoned argument, evidence of correlation of human contribution and postulating that at this point it's foolish to attempt to shift blame when the decision is upon us ... all seem to make no impact - can someone explain why?

In whose opinion is there real evidence? At least 3 of my professors don't agree that man is causation for anything but making a mess out of the land.

What resourses are you speaking of? If indeed your are an economist then you know why mankind wastes things $$$ decrease supply charge more money for the product= deflation right? Old money loves this philosophy.

So anyways if the earths rotation has slowed by six hours a day and the sun is now able to radiate more energy this way the same as slow roasting a duck.. If you turn it fast takes longer right? That is definately one thing to examine to find the exact effect from the slower rotation. As we move into the perihelion (which means when the earth is closest to the sun in the eliptical orbit we move on) we rotate slower and cook a little longer. Could the radiation from the sun be effecting earths temperature?

My point is- even if mankind is contributing- his contribution to global warming is prolly really small. Do I like breathing bus fumes, no- could they run emission free? Yes. I had heard of water fuel cells in the 80's when I was repairing motorcycles for a living... My hunch is the technologhy exits but it would collapse most businesses so the US GOV bought it and shelved the technology.

 

[Twin Fist]

Sukerkin,
I might be more inclined to agree if Tellner hadnt been so insulting. Yes I took it personally, because he insulted me, personally. Not just my opinion, but ME. Or else please explain how this: " If you want to be taken seriously as a grown up" isnt a personal insult?

oh thats right, it IS

And you wonder why i reacted the way I did? OF COURSE I REACTED THE WAY I DID

After that i dont care, let me repete, i DONT CARE what he said. Want me to take an opinion seriously? dont be a wanker. being a wanker makes me lose interest in what you are saying very quickly.

Plus, I was right, he CANT PROVE IT. No one can.

And if you cant prove it, dont tell me there is no other explanation. Dont act like you got all the answers when you clearly DONT.

In this case, it is more accurate to say 'there is no other explanation tellner chooses to believe"




me? I think man is making a TINY contribution to an effect that was already happening. Like Chad said, IF the day is longer, the average temp WILL be higher, and IF the the sun is outputting MORE radiation, then the longer day , which gives the earth MORE exposure, will multiply the effect.

Thats much more likely than 100 years of industry

Occam's razor and all.

 

[MBuzzy]

First off, as a science minded individual and engineer, I can't agree with you about Tellner's stance. What he says is true and in order to scientifically examine the world, it requires objectivity and a divorce from emotion.

Every other week, a new news story breaks about how this or that doom and gloom theory about global warming is found to be mostly crap science. Engineered to support a pre-determined opinion.

I would be very interested to read these. Particularly if they are from respected sources. There is plenty of science to back up both sides of the argument and in this case, it depends on which side you choose to READ and pay attention to. My own survey of what is out there has led me to believe that the global warming "supporting" camp has more ground to stand on...and again, I will say most importantly has the most logical conclusion - TO CONSERVE AND REDUCE. Again I will ask....what does the opposing argument recommend? Continue along the current path and in fact, INCREASE our usage and abuse of the environment? I see no other logical end to an anti-global warming argument. But I'm sure that this question will be circumvented and ignored yet again. As it is by all of those of the believe that we should do nothing. If your opinion is different, please explain....(see below as well please)

And no one can get around the FACT that this has happened before. Over and Over in fact. With no cars, no huge herds of cattle, no oil industry. But it still happened. None of you doom and gloomers can get around the FACT that just one, ONE volcanic eruption dumps more crap into the atmosphere than mankind EVER has.

That it is happening now is not disputed, really. (though the fact that we only have accurate records going back less than 100 years doesnt help the doom and gloom crowd's credibility.

WHY it is happening IS disputed.

True, a cyclic global climate is a point of fact, based on ice cores and various other geologic dating and research methods. I am curious where you get the idea that we only have accurate records back to 100 years though. That is certainly true about some things, but I don't believe that it applies in this case, as we can determine temperature, atmospheric conditions, pollution levels, and a number of other global circumstances back for a very long time.

I would argue with the magnitude of the previous climate changes though. We are definately at a steady increase and a spike which is higher than past "hot times."

I also believe that your view of basically anyone who believes in the phenomenon of Global warming is a bit skewed. In your posts, you refer to anyone who subscribes to the theory as "doom and gloomers." Which is as good a name as any I suppose, but much like religions, there are only an extremist few who are standing on crate wearing "The End is nigh!" signs. Most scientists and others simply warn of a gradual change over a long period of time in terms of climate. Most talk of the depletion of resources, which seems to be a fairly obvious conclusion....I don't call it doom and gloom, just simple mass balance - you have so much of a resources, you use it up....and it is now in another form and no longer available. Call it what you wish, but I personally tend to believe that by the time oil is no longer available, we'll have alternative sources....I simply advocate that we move to that point BEFORE it is a serious issue.

Yet again....Someone PLEASE tell me why the blame is important??? We can argue forever over why a global climate change is occuring. It is happening, we can have some effect, small as it may be, to reduce it....so WHY NOT????

But here is the thing.

You live in the world of theory

I live in the real world. In the real world, the United States USED to have the strongest economy in the world. At the time, our economy was based on manufacture. Now, thanks in part to draconian environmental lobbies, we dont manufacture anything, and our economy is weak. That is surely good for the panet, but it is bad for us, here and now.

I dont wish to return to the days of yore, so to speak, but I do wish there was a happy medium. The Doom and Gloomers, (like yourself perhaps?), will be happy with nothing short of returning the United States to a Dark ages world where there in no industry. Yet turning a blind eye to China and India, who are the REAL criminals today when it comes to pollution.

Your milage may vary, and unlike you, I dont claim to know all the answers, but facts are facts, and the fact is no one can prove it.

Ok, this comes close to an explanation as to why we should not conserve, reduce and be aware of our environment. It is quite obvious that if we try to stop polluting, we will be thrust into the stone age. Though I would be interested in a more in depth explanation of how environmentalism has caused industry to move to other countries. As in any system, it has probably had an effect, but I just fail to see the causal loop. I would attribute it much more to labor costs, material availability, an expanded world economy, etc etc etc.

I also have yet to run into ANYONE who "turns a blind eye" to China and India. There are countries who try and those who don't. But I fail to see how China's unwillingness to conform to environmental policy set forth by ISO 9000, UN, etc has any impact on whether we should or not. Looking at graphs of world pollution levels, it is easily seen when the US put certain environmental laws into place. If you have any doubt as to the impact that the US can have, please reference figure 2 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

Take some time to look around EPA's climate change area http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html even if you don't buy into this science mumbo jumbo, it may be interesting to see some of the data that they have collected. And please feel free to site any source which offers credible opposition.

Buzzy,
i dont know anyone who denies global warming is happening. So I am not sure where you are comming from. Many people dont agree that it is all man made, like the doom and gloom squad want us to think. And based on the news, that number is growing.

I suppose that the amount of people who believe and don't believe an issue is a matter of conjecture. Which news sources are you referring to? I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that those who support environmental awareness is growing rather than shrinking.

My point is that the fault is insignificant. You said that no one denies that global warming is happening, but that a vast majority believes that mankind has no impact.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Again, who is this majority. The climate change may not be completely man's doing, but I don't know of anyone who denies that man has any influence at all.

So again....man made or not - WHO CARES??? We are obviously contributing - even you say that it is not "all" manmade, therefore some must be. So why not reduce that part? Why not conserve our resources? Again, you say yourself that you WANT alternative fuel sources....do it for the money or do it for the environment, either way, it helps. Who does building a green facility hurt? It saves orders of magnitude on energy costs, helps the environment, conserves resources, if it fits in the budget, who does it hurt??? If you can't afford it - completely understood, as I said, I have personally cut environmentally friendly additions from a design to save costs. They are expensive, but WHY NOT? Where is the pay off in discounting our global impact?

There are many very emotional people on both sides of the issue. The difference is that those on the "doom and gloom squad" seek the help the environment and provide a better place to live for longer. Those on the "______ Squad" seek to ______________???????? I no longer expect any response, but if you can fill in the blanks, go for it.

 

[MBuzzy]

I feel it important to add that until rather recently, I completely discounted any human influence on global climate change or resource reduction. I personally believed that there was no conceivable way that we could use up all the oil, or fish out the oceans, or cut down enough trees, or impact the earth enough to hurt.

Then I started doing some real objective research and thinking....and in the end, it seems to me that no matter how small our impact, we can do better - so why not? I think that there IS evidence that we're depleting resources and causing some global problems - based on my own research.

If you have the time, read the book "Cod" by Mark Kurlansky....yes, its just about a fish, but if you look deep enough, it is eye opening. Had a big effect on me. As did spending a few hours poking around the EPA website.

I just can't see any reason to discount and ignore it. No matter WHAT we do, we can't destroy the world. Humans will never do enough to make a major mark on this world, the earth will continue to spin for millions of years whether we're on it or not....but we can make it an awfully uncomfortable place to live if we're not careful.

 

[Twin Fist]

First off, as a science minded individual and engineer, I can't agree with you about Tellner's stance. What he says is true and in order to scientifically examine the world, it requires objectivity and a divorce from emotion.

I dont care. if you cant prove it, you cant prove it, and "most likely" is a matter of opinion. Not fact. Right or wrong?

what does the opposing argument recommend? Continue along the current path and in fact, INCREASE our usage and abuse of the environment? I see no other logical end to an anti-global warming argument.

I dont see ANYONE saying we should INCREASE our use of fossil fuels. And I already stated my opinion, i want my Mr Fusion. I am sick of needing, using and depending on oil. Sick of it.

I would argue with the magnitude of the previous climate changes though. We are definately at a steady increase and a spike which is higher than past "hot times."

prove it. Dont DEDUCE it, PROVE it.

In your posts, you refer to anyone who subscribes to the theory as "doom and gloomers." Which is as good a name as any I suppose, but much like religions, there are only an extremist few who are standing on crate wearing "The End is nigh!" signs. Most scientists and others simply warn of a gradual change over a long period of time in terms of climate.

if you thin it is is man made, you might just be a doom and gloomer. And lets be accurate. I believe in global warming. I do not believe that it is man made.

I personally tend to believe that by the time oil is no longer available, we'll have alternative sources....I simply advocate that we move to that point BEFORE it is a serious issue.

I agree. For me it is a simple matter, I wish to be rid of the Middle East. i wish they would go back to being an insignificant hell hole with the money thier oil brings them. With thier money gone, they cannot fund the global caliphate they are planning.

Yet again....Someone PLEASE tell me why the blame is important??? We can argue forever over why a global climate change is occuring. It is happening, we can have some effect, small as it may be, to reduce it....so WHY NOT????

i already told you this several posts back. the doom and gloomers want to bash us over the face with the so called "fact" that it is man made, and will harrass anyone that doesnt buy into thier voodoo. THAT is why blame is important, because a group is squawkign at the top of thier lungs blaming humanity

Though I would be interested in a more in depth explanation of how environmentalism has caused industry to move to other countries. As in any system, it has probably had an effect, but I just fail to see the causal loop.

study history. Recent history. The exodus of corporations overseas started after we starting punching them in the face with regulation after regulation, increasing their costs. You own a business, and some EPA guy is up your *** all the time? move to mexico. They dont have an EPA.

Which news sources are you referring to? I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that those who support environmental awareness is growing rather than shrinking.

it is, but despite the Propaganda from AlBore, more and more people are realizing that there is more to the story than he told us.

So again....man made or not - WHO CARES???

extreemist like tellner

Who does building a green facility hurt? It saves orders of magnitude on energy costs, helps the environment, conserves resources, if it fits in the budget, who does it hurt??? If you can't afford it - completely understood, as I said, I have personally cut environmentally friendly additions from a design to save costs. They are expensive, but WHY NOT? Where is the pay off in discounting our global impact?

I agree with you. We NEED to be smarter about these things. But dont go telling me it is man made if you cant prove it. And they cant.

Those on the "Planet RealitySquad" seek to make things better too, but without the un-proven guilt trip the bunny huggers want to lay on the US


Have a good night Bro

 

[Sukerkin]

Sukerkin,
I might be more inclined to agree if Tellner hadnt been so insulting. Yes I took it personally, because he insulted me, personally. Not just my opinion, but ME. Or else please explain how this: " If you want to be taken seriously as a grown up" isnt a personal insult?

Ahh. I didn't read that in the same context you did. I read the 'You' as non-specific.

Amidst all the very sensibly argued points made in that post tho', it is sad that emotions overcame you so strongly that you didn't seem to absorb anything put the perceived insult. Do you think you could read the post again, filtering out that bit that outrages you? There is an awful lot there of value with regard to scientific method.

I note that again and again you're asking for 'proof' in the sense of 'certainty'. As Tellner said, in science (of all disciplines) there is no such thing i.e. you can never prove anything right, you can only prove it wrong. What there is is evidence and correlation which can be used in argument to defend a theory.

Now up to a few years ago, I held much the same views as yourself; indeed I used, on several occaisions, the claim that there was more in the way of noxious gases released by Mt. St. Helens eruption than man could produce in decades. I also used to go on about all the methane and carbon compounds released at the mid-ocean ridges and how that was changing the oceans chemistry much more than what we could do.

Then I started to read up on the evidence and search out what those who have researched this issue professionally had to say. The long and the short of it is that that amateur reseach I performed changed my mind and showed me that what I thought were 'common sense' opinions were actually anything but.

All that said, I still hold that this excessive warming curve is going to the precursor of a tipping point and we'll drop into an ice age pretty quickly - so it just goes to show that sometimes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink :lol:.

Opinions are what make conversations on the Net interesting. Sadly, if two diametrically opposed opinions clash in this media then there is no real way of resolving it.

Which is why this thread is just another in a long line of similar ones on this issue and why those new to the 'merry-go-round' might find that those who are informed on the state of research in the field handle them with less tact than they may be entitled to. After all there is only so much "Yes it is" vs "No it isn't" that can be endured.

 

[Empty Hands]

In galileos time the solar day was about 18 hours, today we are up to 24 hours.

:erg:

 

[CoryKS]

I just can't see any reason to discount and ignore it. No matter WHAT we do, we can't destroy the world. Humans will never do enough to make a major mark on this world, the earth will continue to spin for millions of years whether we're on it or not....but we can make it an awfully uncomfortable place to live if we're not careful.

Depends where you live. When asked about global warming, Vladimir Putin responded that it would be nice to make Moscow a few degrees warmer.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not a scientist, however I can observe things.
The last few winters in my area have been very diferent from those in previous decades. More warm/cold cycles, more extreme, etc.
Summers have been milder too the last couple years. Overall though, they've been a bit warmer.

This might be due to massive changes in the Great Lakes, due to polution effecting them.

I dunno. I doubt we'll see an overnight IceAge hit like in the movies, but we need to at least stop poluting and start cleaning up our trash.

 

[tellner]

The North polar cap has been melting all winter. The energy has to be coming from somewhere. A phase change that turns a buttload of ice into a buttload of water can suck up a lot of energy.

It may not happen overnight. But it's indisputable.

The events are in line with the predictions, the fast-change predictions to be precise.

Thirty years ago we could have avoided it. Now we're going to have to head off as much as we can and deal with the rest. It will be much more painful.

 

[Twin Fist]

I note that again and again you're asking for 'proof' in the sense of 'certainty'. As Tellner said, in science (of all disciplines) there is no such thing

then dont tell me you KNOW, be honest and say you THINK

The long and the short of it is that that amateur reseach I performed changed my mind

lots of professional research backs up my belief that mans contribution is tiny, and while bad, isnt THE cause. And the really fun part is, no one, make that NO ONE can prove which is right. But then you got AlBore runnign around saying outright LIES like "there is no debate, this is proven" when it isnt.....

After all there is only so much "Yes it is" vs "No it isn't" that can be endured.

Well gee, maybe if the fanatics cant handle people disagreeing with them, they shouldnt be acting as cheerleaders for the doom and gloomers.


Just food for thought is all.

 

[Big Don]

The North polar cap has been melting all winter.

and the southern has been growing.

Thirty years ago we could have avoided it.

Thirty years ago the weather fear mongers were forecasting a new ice age

Now we're going to have to head off as much as we can and deal with the rest. It will be much more painful.

 

[Sukerkin]

lots of professional research backs up my belief that mans contribution is tiny, and while bad, isnt THE cause. And the really fun part is, no one, make that NO ONE can prove which is right. But then you got AlBore runnign around saying outright LIES like "there is no debate, this is proven" when it isnt.....

I'd like to see this research if you could provide either links or ISDN numbers.

Well gee, maybe if the fanatics cant handle people disagreeing with them, they shouldnt be acting as cheerleaders for the doom and gloomers.

I think the problem arises because the disagreement is not cogently argued but is, as I hinted before 'playground' negativism. In this thread alone, I have seen those presenting the case for human impact on global climate instability put it forward in a reasoned way. Those from the other side of the coin choose a simpler format that is almost designed to agitate and annoy - the internet edquivalent of sticking out the tongue.

In the end, it doesn't matter a jot; unless that is, that those who don't want to acknowledge any significant human input to the change, manage to vote in politicians who will do nothing to change things.

Then it becomes a problem for us all because the main hope of achieving anything lies in international cooperation and the will to do what we can to ameliorate the change.

Personally, I think it's all to little too late and it saddens me that my old age will be negatively impacted by a large number of scary things that I'd rather not have to deal with.

 

[Twin Fist]

thats funny, to me, the head cheerleader for "it's all our fault, you should hate yourselves" comes across as an insulting prat.

The ones that dont buy it have been, myself included, pretty damned polite

 

[Big Don]

Global Warming is like a religion, well, like a bad religion, whose followers need to convert by force and chase out heretics...


Added on edit:
It is a lot like radical Islam, those who choose not to believe are labeled infidels and consigned to second class status.

 

[Hand Sword]

Well, there's been quite of few Ice ages and temperature extremes in Earth's history and Humans had nothing to do with them. That's what happens. The earth heats up and cools down. People talk the global warming thing, and sure, I could see what we are doing as a whole is speeding up the process. However, who knows. Maybe the theory is built on the previous Ice age had ended, when it really didn't. Maybe what is going on now is the final thawing out process of what was. North and South, nothing but ice, snow, and permafrost, but, the ice age was over????

Bye the way...is anyone else distrubed by the "competition" advertised on Cable about which team can cut down the most trees?

 

[tellner]

In case any of the deniers and Pollyannas are still reading, this from the Beeb:

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

The article addresses other critiques of the solar global warming theory.
Sorry guys, with the null hypothesis rejected, strong evidence the other way and no theoretical basis for any other explanation we're stuck with the current science.

 

[Twin Fist]

Then YOU feel free to believe it.

I wont, because you still cant prove it.

No matter what standard is used, be it scientific, legal or common sense, you doom and gloomers fail every time

 

[Xue Sheng]

I doubt we'll see an overnight IceAge hit like in the movies,

Not overnight but things can change faster than most think look up the Younger Dryas

The North polar cap has been melting all winter. The energy has to be coming from somewhere. A phase change that turns a buttload of ice into a buttload of water can suck up a lot of energy.

The issue is the Amount of Fresh water being dumped into the oceans. This can and has in the past shut down the oceans conveyor belt system that works kind of like an air conditioning/heating system, again fresh water stops it and energy flow changes drastically. Again see Younger Dryas.

Now for a general post

There are a lot of reasons for global heating and cooling and there are those that we can do something about and those that we can't.

And face facts gentleman ice is melting in places it has not melted in recent history so this does point to "Global Warming".

But Global warming does not necessarily mean that the ENTIRE globe is getting warmer it means CLIMATE CHANGE. This means that place that were warm could get MUCH cooler and places that were cool could get warmer but overall there will be fewer cold areas. However this could and has in the past bring on rapid cooling and that is the stuff rapid species extinction is made of (note we are a species that should be VERY concerned about this).

Frankly I would MUCH rather figure out what is causing it to see if there is anything we can do to stop it, slow it, or survive it than sit here pointing fingers and denying anything is happening.

Can we fix it if it is a planetary orbit change (less elliptical to more circular)? Well no

Can we fix it or slow it if it is found that CO2 is the cause or a contributor? Yes.

But there if it is CO2 there will be or may already have been a point of no return where we can do little to nothing but wait for the inevitable change which could be slow OR fairly rapid.