Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

[Makalakumu]

I'm inclined to agree, and I think this has been building for awhile. When the last leather tanneries in Massachusetts closed down in the 1980s, I'm sure that had a positive impact on our local environment, including the quality of our water. But, the tanneries relocated oversease, mostly in China where environmental controls for the tanning of leather are even more lax. Therefore, the pollution didn't go away...it just relocated, and it may have even become worse (due to softer regulations).

The Kyoto treaty had a seemingly worthy premise of global cooperation on air pollution but inside the treaty were non-scientific action items, such as stiffer restrictions on the United States and stiffer penalties for the United States should we be found in violation.

And a current story from one of my other haunts mentions this about doing business in China:

"Banking (in China) is sophisticated, the cityscapes are amazing and they are driving American cars -- the big SUV and town car styles," said Nelson. "Business goes on 24-hours a day."

I've read other places that the successful Chinese has proudly adopted big cars as a status symbol. They aren't going to be willing to give these cars up for a Prius any more than Americans are. I'm not trying to bash China or to show them in a bad light but I see this as illustrative as to how region can be pitted against region, country against country. Its going to get worse before it gets better, I'm afraid...

Great post. The Carbon Tax and other protocols seem to only move pollution around. It all depends on who is going to be regulated and what is going to be taxed.

 

[elder999]

Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?

Sort of like attacking Al Gore, instead of the science? :lfao:

If not it is certainly boorish.

Pot? Kettle? :lfao:

 

[elder999]

Great post. The Carbon Tax and other protocols seem to only move pollution around. It all depends on who is going to be regulated and what is going to be taxed.

And, in fact, this is exactly how coal burning utilities are handling restrictions on SO2 releases-by moving them around. They also wind up curtailing them, though.....

 

[elder999]

Meanwhile, solutions like reducing consumption, waste, and pollution are only marginally considered, especially on a large scale level. The kind of solutions that would make the world a better place to live in (whether you believe global warming exists or not!) are not directly considered..

Here ya go:

"That's a big no. The president believes . . . that it should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." - Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary responding in May 2001 to whether Bush would ask Americans to curb their first-in-the-world energy consumption
​

 

[Big Don]

Sort of like attacking Al Gore, instead of the science? :lfao:

Except, attacking the science was what the column in the OP did, and you instantly attacked the author for being a historian rather than a climatologist. While ignoring the fact that the most well known proponent of Global Warming hysteria (AL GORE) has no scientific background either.

Pot? Kettle? :lfao:

no, and eh, no. Being a condescending crap for brains know it all is boorish in the extreme, but, that couldn't be you, could it?

 

[Ray]

On the other side, lets look at the politicization of solutions. The Carbon Tax is basically a tax on life. Everything you do produces an amount of CO^2 in some way shape or form. The Carbon Tax, based on how its applied and defined, could be used to determine who is allowed to prosper and who is not. The Carbon Tax, like inflation, gives elite social managers a tool to redistribute wealth as they see fit across the entire globe.

I agree with you, if I read you right, the Carbon Tax is just another way for rich people to make more money -- and at my (our) expense.

 

[Big Don]

Here ya go:

Yeah, that is a nice quote, picked and chosen with no context. Look at Al Gore's home vs George Bush's on energy consumption. For someone who preaches how we should all sacrifice for the environment, Gore's home sure uses a hell of a lot of resources and for someone who supposedly doesn't care a whit about the environment, Bush's house is sure a model of everything he (supposedly) is against.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Look at Al Gore's home vs George Bush's on energy consumption. For someone who preaches how we should all sacrifice for the environment, Gore's home sure uses a hell of a lot of resources and for someone who supposedly doesn't care a whit about the environment, Bush's house is sure a model of everything he (supposedly) is against.

Interesting point, but does anyone really have the straight goods on the current state of the former VP's home? Whether or not Mr Gore has behaved hypocritically (as charged by Drudge and other right wing blogs) or whether he is the victim of slander (as all the left wing blogs say), what's the difference? In scientific terms, what is the difference?

If global climate change is no big deal, then why bother mentioning that President Bush has this eco-friendly ranch? If Bush is the saint in all of this, follow his example and let's all make our houses as green and tricked out as he has.

Again, left-right inserts itself into a discussion that is supposed to be about science and the well-being of our home on Earth. This is not about Al Gore or his book or movie. But that's where the discussion goes.

Everybody, I'll bet you dollars to donuts if we could play back every bit of debate about the environment over the last 2+ years of campaigning in the USA, this was probably as far as the debate ever got -- Democrats and Republicans arguing over which guy had the better house.

Nero fiddled...

 

[elder999]

Except, attacking the science was what the column in the OP did, and you instantly attacked the author for being a historian rather than a climatologist.

I didn't call him a historian-I said he had a degree in history; there is a difference.

In any case, there was no science in the column that you posted, which is why I didn't bother refuting any of it: it's errant nonsense. The man confuses "weather" with "climate," and "cause" with "effect," demonstrating that he has as little understanding of the subject as anyone who worships at the altar of Limbaugh...:lfao:

I could, of course, bother with a point by point refutation of that glurge, and it might be interesting, for those who can understand it, but it would only be another post that seems to contend against you personally. That was never my intention: I merely indicated that the author didn't have a qualified opinion, and that there was nothing unusual about the "liberal media" offering an opposing viewpoint, your seeming incredulity (or perhaps it was an offer of qualification?) notwithstanding.

In fact, I don't even have to bother with a point by point refutation of the articlea; a brief glance at the comments on that page offers several posts that do so quite handily, which, perhaps, was the real point of it appearing on an "admittedly liberal website." :lfao:

While ignoring the fact that the most well known proponent of Global Warming hysteria (AL GORE) has no scientific background either.

Actually, I not only didn't ignore it, I conceded as much (if you'd bothered to read my other posts) as well as adding that I thought that he exaggerated quite a bit. No matter.

no, and eh, no. Being a condescending crap for brains know it all is boorish in the extreme, but, that couldn't be you, could it?

A "know it all," perhaps. At least you got that much right. :lfao:

 

[elder999]

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or dD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about 420,000 years.

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods.

At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.

To make all that above short-there is incontrovertible evidence that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is higher than it's been in close to half a million years. It's been that high before, and the planet was even warmer then (on a whole) than it is now.

The evidence from the last century pretty much indicates that the global mean temperature is rising. Again, the issue of why it is is the one that has become, for a variety of reasons, politicized by both sides of the debate.

However:
This report, from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that:

recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.


In response, the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group (some of those willful capitalist polluters who have been really trying hard to say that "there is no global warming," since one of the principal causes, if not the principal cause is thought to be their profit..er..product) said:

While consensus on climate change remains a work in progress, we do know enough to take the risk seriously and to rule out inaction as an option".

Additionally, Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 and found that not a single one challenged the consensus that earth's temperature is rising due to human activity. While there are scientific papers that do so, they are not "peer-reviewed" which is the simple gold standard of scientific publishing. Of course, one could attribute this to some sort of liberal-biased science community anti-capitalist conspiracy.

However...

We all know and have seen that the polar ice caps are melting at, as far as we know, unprecedented rates, whatever the cause (though we can be pretty certain that they have been smaller, and even non existent in the past). In addition to being one of the drivers of the world's climate due to thermal driving of the world's ocean currents, the polar ice also plays a fundamental role in reflecting a majority of the sunlight directed towards earth, thus ensuring that the earth's atmosphere didn't reach higher temperatures. (At most times of the year, one of the poles of the planet are the part that is pointed most directly at the sun). This melting process is pernicious: as the poles melt, they reflect less sunlight, the earth's atmosphere and ocean's absorb more heat, the poles melt more and continue to reflect less and less. Addtionally, the added cold fresh water to the oceans may well effect the thermal conveyor currents that drive our climate, as these currents are effected by differential temperature and salinity.

Short term effects we're seeing right now: species of wildflowers are dying off-becoming extinct, as mountain meadows convert into high desert. Species of bees are dying off, possibly becoming extinct, because the flowers they depend upon are going away. Pollination of crops is effected by the lack of bee species. Additionally, there are some "good effects": corn crops came in earlier this year and last, and in Pueblo, Colorado they actually got two harvests. Melons can be grown in areas where the season was previously too short.

Longer term effects-I dunno, I'm just a scientist, and not a meteorologist or biologist...hell, I'm a knuckle-dragging engineer-an over educated technician, really..

One thing, for sure, they won't effect most of us, if there are any-they'll effect our kids and grandkids.

Of course, by the time our grandkids are adults, the world may be burning something else, either because we've come up with something else, or we've run out of oil., and thus, the ability to mine coal.....

Wood and dung, perhaps.

 

[elder999]

Yeah, that is a nice quote, picked and chosen with no context.

Actually, the context is in the quote: Ari Fleischer was asked if the President (who had, prior to being elected, said he supported measures like conservation and a carbon tax or cap and trade system) was going to try to curb the American people's energy use. The answer was "no." Seems pretty contextual to me, and should to anyone who can read.

Look at Al Gore's home vs George Bush's on energy consumption. For someone who preaches how we should all sacrifice for the environment, Gore's home sure uses a hell of a lot of resources and for someone who supposedly doesn't care a whit about the environment, Bush's house is sure a model of everything he (supposedly) is against.

Yes, Mr. Gore's lifestyle seems hypocritical-in direct conflict with everything he says he stands for-as do elements of mine, and I'd wager, yours. He lies and exaggerates the issue of global warming, all in an effort to promote himself. He is as much a part of the politicization of the issue as anyone (who isn't a scientist)-but that politicization was really begun in earnest by the current regime. Of course, he's made very public efforts to offset his home's carbon footprint, and makes a lot of the fact that it runs on "green energy"-that he obtains from the local power company-all in efforts to promote himself.

All of that notwithstanding, the fact remains thatAl Gore and George Bush could drop dead today, both of their houses could be razed to the ground, and neither one of them would ever fly on a private jet or Air Force 1 again. Neither one of them would have a word to say about global warming, or U.S. policy, or anything else. Neither one of them would contribute much to the carbon burden of the planet, ever again.

There'd still be global warming. :lfao:

 

[The Last Legionary]

Man o Man is it shure gunna be quiet in here after all these bickering babies get locked out. I dun bets theys be too dumb like to gets da hints and all. *Hic* *hick* *hick*


Global Warming is a normally occuring thing. Planet goes through phases, we're having a hot flash, that's all. Why do you think it's called "Mother Earth", duh!

 

[elder999]

Global Warming is a normally occuring thing. Planet goes through phases, we're having a hot flash, that's all. !

This is partially true, and not a matter of dispute. The earth's climate does go through phases, as does the sun; the sun is currently going through a hotter period.The fact remains that the scientific consensus is that this phase is being augmented by man made causes.

 

[The Last Legionary]

I'm more concerned with the chemicals in the water, the plastic islland in the Pacific, than I am over an extra % point or 2 in the air. Maybe, that air would be naturally cleaned if we weren't removing hundreds of acres of trees from the Amazon daily, or paving over hundreds of acres of pasture for more empty strip malls, etc. Maybe man wasn't meant to migrate and transport ashe has, resulting in numerous contaminatd ecosystems such as the Great Lakes in North America, etc. Maybe.

But I don't honestly care. I put my cans in the blue box, sort my papers into the red box, and watch the overpaid collectors toss em all into the same compactor truck as my other trash. I went green until I wet blue, bought a mulching mower and had to rake up all the clippings my neighbor shot onto my lawn, along with the trash he couldn't pick up. I gave up. Man's extinction will be a relief to me, and the planet will go on, hopefully version 3.0 will be smarter than the last 2.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm not sure that the fact that we are facing multiple environmental problems is an effective argument for not paying attention to any of them :lol:.

I'll grant you the aggrivation factor of the 'recycling fad', however. It is infuriating that we, the residents, do an awful lot of unpaid labour to sort (and, in some cases, wash) the rubbish, only for it to be mis-managed once it leaves our doorsteps.

 

[The Last Legionary]

My point is, it's a more complex system than they realize, and I relly don't trust anyone with any government to tell me the truth, or even to properly understand much less have an idea how to fix the problem. They've proven their incompetence already.

In any event, the filter is clogged and damaged. Even if we stop right now, and don't emit another gram of gas, it won't fix the problem.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, that last I certainly agree with. It's been too late for quite some time. It's still worth trying to work towards it not being so bad tho'.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Seems simple to me.

Give everyone in America a solar powered air cleaner that can run 24/7 to scrub the air.

 

[Sukerkin]

Or maybe self-replicating, carbon-sequestering units? Hang on ... they're called trees aren't they ?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yeah. We might want to keep more of them around.