Looks interesting. Kinda want to see it when it comes out. Little worried a lot of people will write it off just cause its Al Gore and Global Warming... I hope they'll give it a chance.
What do you folks think?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Three things.
1. I will certainly see this film. I like Al Gore, and I especially respect what he has done for, and what he has to say about the environment. And as a fellow tree hugger, I'd be loathe not to see this film, and make everyone I know see it too.
2. However, I think he is going about it the wrong way. I've said it a half dozen times on this forum, you can't just go at people with projections of coastal flooding that might take place in a 100 years. The moral imparative argument has failed, and I think the sooner tree huggers accept it and try something more accessible, the faster they will win their crusade. He sort of touches on the right track by saying global warming is as dangerous a threat as terrorism, and he's right. Global warming, and more importantly our use of foreign controlled fossil fuels is a major national securty issue, and a major economic issue.
I think he could cover a lot more ground, and turn a lot more heads by weaving into his documentary a thread of renewable energy, how it can save this country from many ills that plague it, and how great it will be in the short term and how it will save us a massive problem in the long term.
3. The scene in the trailer of the dam breaking and the flood waters crashing into that valley is from Dante's Peak. Just thought that was amusing.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I really think environmentalism could go a lot further if it could dissociate itself from extremism and inconsistency...
I don't just mean ideas of tree spiking and throwing red paint on people who wear fur (and make no mistake, PETA is associated with environmentalism in a lot of people's minds)
I mean that nothing is ever "enough". Serious efforts to promote wind energy are met with complaints that they threaten birds. Hydroelectric dams threaten Salmon. Nuclear plants get propogandized out of production. Hybrid SUVs (which make *tons* of sense because it's the big powerful enigines that are horrribly inefficient at tooling around the city and stand to benefit from this technology) get criticized for being "too powerful" despite the fact that they show significant gains in highway efficiency and emissions reduction.
This "never enough" attitude has gone a long way towards eroding my support for environmentalist causes and crusades, though I still do a lot to be environemnetally friendly.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: (and make no mistake, PETA is associated with environmentalism in a lot of people's minds)
I think this part at least is a problem with the people making the association, not the environmentalists.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As the saying goes, perception is more important than reality; because perception is the reality.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Right, since even if you don't consider PETA its not like there aren't other groups that don't have good reputations.
The other thing to note is that PETA gets media coverage, so hence it has more mind share than some other groups.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:I really think environmentalism could go a lot further if it could dissociate itself from extremism and inconsistency...
Amen.
I saw the trailer for this movie a couple of weeks ago and was totally turned off, largely because of the alarmist tone. You realize, of course, that over 30 years ago, environmentalists were proclaiming all kinds of similar alarmist end-of-the-world predictions, none of which have come true. The one that comes to mind is that we'd be completely out of oil within just a few years.
That said, it's important to be good stewards of the earth. I think the practical strides that have been made in conservation are laudable and to the credit of those alarmists. I just can't get very worked up about it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Got that off a link from slashdot last week...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
From that article:
quote:Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
With stuff like this, it's almost impossible for the average citizen to figure out what's true when it comes to the environment and global warming. As a consequence, people tend to believe whatever is most convenient for them to believe.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think this part at least is a problem with the people making the association, not the environmentalists.
I agree, I was just trying to head off someone saying "PETA is not an environmental group" because my point is that kind of extremism is not the most damaging to the environmental movement, IMO.
It's easy to understand a philosophy having a radical element. It's not so easy to understand having someone you were trying to appease take issue with every proposed solution.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Car manufacturors are being slammed because most of their hybridization is being used to increase horsepower within their most popular existing vehicle lines, not to increase gas mileage. Thanks to the weird way that laws for 'high occupancy vehicle' lanes are being redrafted to allow use by single-occupant hybrids, single-occupant monster "trucks"/SUVs such the Hummer will soon be clogging up lanes which were originally created to increase fuel efficiency per passenger and reduce traffic congestion. Reducing traffic congestion directly increases the passenger-miles per gallon of fuel in multi-occupant automobiles, and indirectly decreases inefficient fuel use in all cars by allowing them to operate closer to their designed-in fuel-efficiency peaks.
[ April 17, 2006, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Interestingly, the co-founder of Greenpeace has come down on the side of nuclear energy.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I like the title of the film. I hadn't heard about it before now, but I will definately see this.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Nuclear energy has actually gotten oodles safer and cleaner since the days of Chernoble and Three Mile Island. And it produces a hell of a lot of relatively clean energy. And really... if we dump the waste into the ocean over a subduction zone it'll just be sucked back into the interior of the earth where it can decay safely. Naturally you'd want to do it so to make sure it did get sucked into the interior of the planet and didn't get blown out to sea by ocean currents, but that wouldn't be too hard to do with today's technology.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm glad you linked that twinky - I was going to and forgot.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The waste can be used as fuel in the new generation of fast reactors, in fact, and be rendered much less harmful in the process. Only dangerous for 500 years, rather than 10,000.
Nuclear energy is a good option.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Jim-Me should read some Barbara Kingsolver. The "someone you're trying to appease" isn't a person, it's a whole bunch of them. Each one of them has their own issues, but that fact doesn't make environmentalism more extremist than any other group that has an agenda.
Seems to me the only real reason environmentalists are seen as extremists is because they are reacting to those who pooh-pooh the issues.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Oh, I can't claim to be an independent voice anymore where nuclear power is concerned (full disclosure). Because I thought so highly of nuclear as an option, I went to work in the industry. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
New designs for wind powered turbines are totally bird safe, less of an eyesore and make FAR less noise than the old giant fanblade designs.
As far as I'm concerned, in a decade, the old complaints about wind power will no longer be valid.
And I don't see this film as alarmist. It's a known fact that glacial ice melt WILL raise the world's ocean levels. It isn't going to be the end of the world, but it is going to displace hundreds of millions of people who need to be housed further inland. I don't think anyone disputes that fact.
If you ask me, if the whole damned thing is going to melt, I say we start melting it on purpose, and start shipping that water back in tankers to create some new freshwater reserves. Why waste it by pouring it into the ocean? Besides, decreased salinity levels in the ocean are going to really mess up the ecosystem, we'd be going the ocean a favor.
Still, I do not view this film as alarmist. But it's impossible to tell from just the trailer. From what I've seen on global warming there really only seem to be two major positions. People who think that any sort of environment change at all is all a hoax, and people who think we're all going to die in a decade from global climate change. Neither side seems willing to believe the other side is possible.
I fall somewhere in between, where I think most sane, and rational people do, or would fall if given the right information.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Car manufacturors are being slammed because most of their hybridization is being used to increase horsepower within their most popular existing vehicle lines, not to increase gas mileage.
See? this is exactly what I mean, aspectre... 27-28mpg *city* isn't good enough for an SUV? That's better than the highway mileage for almost that entire class of vehicles (even including minivans). I've only owned two cars that got better than that at all... a '94 Ford Aspire (got about 32 mpg) and an '81 Rabbit Diesel (about 40mpg) and both of those had considerable highway miles lumped in to their driving, not to mention being so incredibly anemic (0-60 times were 15-16 seconds for both vehicles, empty) that they couldn't pull my whole family now, even if they did have seating capacity to fit.
Also, people that are going to buy powerful vehicles are going to buy them. Would you rather they buy a V-6 hybrid or a monster V-8?
Glenn, I understand there are many conflicting voices out there... that's a major portion of the problem, as mph points out, it leaves ordinary people wondering what we're supposed to do. The other portion of the problem is what I addressed above:
There's an SUV that will seat my whole family and gets around 40-60% better epa city gas mileage and considerably lower emissions than the minivans I'm considering, albeit at about 40-60% greater cost as well, and aspectre is concerned that it has too much power and that it will be driven solo in the HOV lane instead of pleased at the availability of the option.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I have been doing some reading and found this info out.. NASA link
I didn't realize that there was such differences depending on what part of the atmosphere you are measuring. It is very good reading
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Interestingly, the co-founder of Greenpeace has come down on the side of nuclear energy.
That's the best news I've heard all day. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
twinky: funny, I was just about to post that =)
Environmentalists are slowly admitting they were wrong about Nuclear Power... How long before they admit they were wrong about Global Warming too?
(btw, when was the last time anyone mentioned the Ozone Hole? Did it go away or did they decide it wasn't scarey enough?)
quote: The Montreal Protocol and its amendments banned chlorine-containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromine-containing halons in 1995, because of their destructive effect on the ozone. However, CFCs and halons are extremely long-lived and still linger at high concentrations in the atmosphere. However, the atmospheric abundances of ozone destroying chemicals are beginning to decline. As a result, the Antarctic ozone hole should disappear in about 50 years.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think the ozone hole is no longer big news because we've already done everything we can, ten years ago.
But isn't China still dumping a lot of CFCs into the atmostphere?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Environmentalists are slowly admitting they were wrong about Nuclear Power... How long before they admit they were wrong about Global Warming too?
That doesn't follow. That one environmentalist has changed his opinion on one subject does not mean that all environmentalists are wrong about a completely different subject.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
twinky: This isn't the first environmentalist I've heard switch, he's simply the first example that isn't anecdotal. That is, a major player. That's why I said "slowly" =)
And this isn't the first time the movement has been drastically wrong. They switched to a panic over Global Warming after their Global Cooling "reflectivity of the earth" theory fell through.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
So you're convinced that the general scientific consensus on climate change is completely incorrect?
Added: To be clear, I'm just trying to understand your position, because I'm not sure of it from what you've said so far.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Twinky, to complicate matters, and I didn't know this before today, the Earth is warming and cooling at the same time, depending on which level of the atmosphere you are measuring. Water Vapor appears to be a huge factor in this, and it's implications are not yet fully known.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Best to just call it all hogwash and cross your fingers.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Lyrhawn, I'm not sure who that was directed at?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: New designs for wind powered turbines are totally bird safe, less of an eyesore and make FAR less noise than the old giant fanblade designs.
As far as I'm concerned, in a decade, the old complaints about wind power will no longer be valid.
Well, I tend to agree with the second part, but from what I've read on studies of bird and bat strikes, the new turbines were supposed to be safer (not totally safe), but from the actual evidence, they are not safer at all.
Here's the thing: I'm very strongly in favor of wind power, even if it does do damage to the bird and bat population, because it's better than coal and oil in terms of overall damage, and also because I think the problems can be overcome with engineering.
But at the same time I'm not going to just sit back and accept the fact that turbines are killers. It's not hypocritical to be in favor of wind power and still criticize the wind farm companies if the refuse to develop safer turbines.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK-
I guess it was sort of directed at Pix, but in general is a shot at whoever thinks that environmentalists are just wrong in general. Declare the Ozone thing wrong is just silly. We took drastic action to limit our destructive influence on the ozone, and as a result, the damage is being reversed. Glaciers ARE melting. You don't need to be a scientist to figure that one out. Oceans WILL rise, don't need to be a scientist for that either.
Consequences are all around us. It might not necessarily end up being the climate the changes, but the WORLD is changing. I don't think there should be any question about that, I don't think there CAN be any question about it. It'd take a supreme dose of ignorance to try.
Glenn -
The new designs for wind turbines don't have the giant fans that kill birds. Unless the bird flies into a wall, or down the giant shaft where the turbine is, they shouldn't die. And if they do, as far as I'm concerned that's natural selection.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Lyrhawn, wind power is great as far as it goes, but the problem is that there just isn't enough energy there to really do a whole lot.
I am all for alternative energy sources, and conservation, but you can't run your air conditioner and keep your house cool on hamsters running in wheels, or whatever. You have to have enough power there to accomplish the task at hand. Wind has a lot of applications, but powering cities isn't one of them.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, the new wind farm near Scranton PA certainly has big blades that kill birds and bats. What's newer than that? What do they have instead of a giant "fan"?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
And Capewind, off Cape Cod, is not built yet, but it will also use big fans. (If it gets built at all)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Glenn -
I'll see if I can find a link, but it's an entirely new design.
Tat -
True. I agree. But then I don't necessarily think the best application is to take up a major percentage of US power production. Small wind farms dotting the landscape can supplement power grids, and for that matter can power small towns and farms in the middle of nowhere.
I think the best way to power suburban homes is solar power.
Something is always better than nothing Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why do we either have to be heart-breakingly diffident toward problems, or so tightly wound and jacked up about potential crisis that we're all about ready to spring on the person sitting next to us in the theatre and jam our arms down their throats and pull out the part of them that is hurting us.
I want things to change, I want to know what Global warming is doing and how, and what else might be the cause besides pollution. I don't want to be told I need to crap my pants over it, I don't need to be told its a non-issue, or its somehow political and has to do with the evils of the conservatives or the tweaky-craziness of the liberals.
Can't we just learn things and change things like human beings with our brains in our heads instead of between our legs? I think I'm gonna go have a drink and read a book. Goodnight. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Can we? Sure we can.
Will we? Not likely.
Advocates for change want the world to run cleaner, and want humanity's footprint upon to world to be vastly softer than it currently is. But that is expensive. Business hates change being forced upon it like that, even when sometimes it's the best thing for it. Even when change is what helps it thrive, though it must be forced upon it kicking and screaming.
But those kicks and screams is what you are seeing play itself out on the national scale. Pro-business politicians will be the ones trying to discredit gcc advocates, because their shortsighted vision of the ruination of business leads them to believe that this is unnecessary, and that the crazy environmentalists are all whackjobs with no real logical foundation. Either that, or they are just greedy, and really do want to horde money to themselves, refusing the expense of change but full well knowing there is a problem.
The flip side, is advocates for change that give little or no thought to the damage that such a change would cause. They see a moral imperative as well as a basic need for survival, and they are thinking long term.
The contest of both sides will play itself out in the coming decades, and in the end, the advocates for change will win every time, but they would find themselves much closer to victory if they supported a middle road. Just the same, barons and anti-change people would find the transition much easier and more profitable if they too would travel the middle road.
The majority of business in the world refused to switch over to oil at the end of the 19th century. Off the top of my head, I believe it was charcoal, made from trees, that provided much of their electrical generation needs. But in places like Britain, trees were running out, and a change was necessary. So they were forced, kicking and screaming, to change over to oil. As a result, thousands of new inventions have been made possible as a result of the switch. Trillions of dollars have been made from new businesses launched and triumphed as a result. But business is short sighted, and they don't learn from the last transition, and don't realize the advantages to be had from the next one.
There're trillions of dollars to be had out there from the next big transition in energy. Be it to hydrogen, renewable, nuclear, fusion, whatever...
The sad thing is, if the evil conservatives would just shut up for a minute, and the crazy liberals would turn off their moral imperative for a moment, the two could possibly reach an accord. The two sides are drawn, one wants change, the other wants money. Once they both realize, that they can both get what they want, a large part of the problem goes away. And then maybe, just maybe we actually could look at this problem like human beings. Human beings are selfish, and quite frankly the solution to this problem is thinking selfishly. The problem is they need to be smart and selfish. Currently that isn't the status quo.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Their recent, rapid proliferation is not an accident: After languishing for years on the eco-fringe, wind energy has suddenly become mainstream. High oil prices, natural gas shortages, better technology, fear of global warming, state renewable-energy mandates and, yes, tax breaks have finally made wind farms commercially viable as well as clean. Traditional utility companies want to build them -- and thus the traditional environmental movement (which supports wind energy) has produced a handful of untraditional splinter groups that are trying to stop them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Traditional utility companies want to build them -- and thus the traditional environmental movement (which supports wind energy) has produced a handful of untraditional splinter groups that are trying to stop them.
How does the one naturally follow the other?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ask Ms. Applebaum.
Edit: I assume she's merely reacting to the pattern of all energy sources being protested by someone.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Western Maryland, a proposal to build wind turbines alongside a coal mine, on a heavily logged mountaintop next to a transmission line, (emphasis mine) has just been nixed by state officials who called it too environmentally damaging.
The irony.
quote:The anti-wind brigade, fierce though it is, pales beside the opposition to liquid natural gas terminals, and would fade entirely beside the mass movement that will oppose a new nuclear power plant. Indeed, the founders of Cape Wind say they embarked on the project in part because public antipathy prevents most other utility investments in New England.
Thank you Dagonee, and Ms. Applebaum for reinforcing my point.
And, Lyrhawn, aboslutely wrong. Not "call it hogwash and cross your fingers" but "call this type of refusal to be satisfied 'casting pearls before swine' and give them the finger."
Hanged for a sheep as a lamb. If environmentalists are going to whine about my consumption no matter what, why should I spend $36,000 on a Highlander Hybrid when I can get a Dodge Durango for less money (even after spending the extra gas $ over the course of 5 years) and have more power, more room, more towing/carrying capacity, cheaper insurance, and more ground clearence? why should energy companies spend billions of dollars developing alternatives to fossil fuels when the very people demanding something be done oppose anything being done?
If you want to understand how people can be so apathetic, it's easy-- when someone tries to do the right thing and gets lambasted for it anyhow (or when they see it happen over and over again) they may not lose incentive but they are sure as hell going to lose patience... and both are required to effect real change.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
In the case of wind energy protestors, I'm guessing that it is mostly people who had reservations about the technology all along. Until there was a real prospect of them being built on a large scale, the protestors probably didn't feel the need to speak against it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jim -
Satisfying environmentalists isn't my main goal, nor should it be yours or anyone else's I think.
Doing nothing because they want everything is silly. The five kids in the back of the class shouldn't ruin it for everyone.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It isn't my goal. But it *is* disheartening and demotivating to be shouted at all the same and it also significantly undermines any credibility when the people undercutting the best attempts at greenness so far are represented as the green ones.
I am not portraying my own views above, but trying to show what this looks like to joe blow on the street.
My point is that environmentalism is arguably it's own worst enemy and will remain so until people learn to be reasonable and applaud the efforts of those who try to meet them rather than blocking what little progress is being made.
Edit to add: these aren't the five kids in the back of the room we are talking about here... either... we're talking about state policy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Doing nothing because they want everything is silly.
I don't think that's the right way to look at it. Rather, seeing their inability to be satisfied makes one question the sincerity of the the information they've promulgated.
Regardless of the illogic of it, if a crazy person supports a position, people will doubt that position, even if sane people also support the position. This affects views across the political spectrum.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A tiny chemical reactor that can convert vegetable oil directly into biodiesel could help farmers turn some of their crops into homegrown fuel to operate agricultural equipment instead of relying on costly imported oil.
"This is all about producing energy in such a way that it liberates people," said Goran Jovanovic, a chemical engineering professor at Oregon State University who developed the microreactor.
The device - about the size of a credit card - pumps vegetable oil and alcohol through tiny parallel channels, each smaller than a human hair, to convert the oil into biodiesel almost instantly.
By comparison, it takes more than a day to produce biodiesel with current technology.
Does this sound like it could be used inline - that is to convert the fuel just before it's sent to the engine?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It depends on the throughput. It doesn't take long to do the conversion, sure, but how much can it convert per unit time? I think you would be more likely to have two tanks -- a feed tank before the stack of converters and then the fuel tank after them. This way you might even be able to retrofit existing vehicles to run on this feed.
Pretty cool.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
At the McDonalds... "I'll have A Big Mac, Fries and a Coke... Oh, and Filler up."
Pix
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It depends on the throughput. It doesn't take long to do the conversion, sure, but how much can it convert per unit time?
engines don't use that much fuel per unit time though... much more air.
I wonder, too about the ability to design an engine with, say, one converter per cylinder as part of a multipoint fuel injection system... there's got to be a way to do that.
cool indeed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
There's no advantage to generating biodiesel in-situ. The article was actually pointing out that the small size is a bit of a disadvantage, but that the reactors could be stacked to build up the capacity.
Of course, it seems to me that the real advantage of biodiesel is in recycled vegetable oil. Use it for frying first, then run it through your car. Or even better, don't make biodiesel at all, just burn the waste vegetable oil to heat your home. Adding methanol kind of takes away the environmental advantages, and makes it economically unsound.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think electric cars were perhaps doomed to failure from the outset. Or at least, as the EV1 was advertised they were.
I think plug-in hybrids are the perfect middle ground though.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Incidentally, it's been in the 40s for most of May here in Chicago. I think we could use a bit of global warming. Brr...
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Cool article, Dagonee. What's weird is that I worked with Goran Jovanovic's daughter a few years back. I've been to his lab, and there was some pretty cool stuff going on there.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I really wish I knew how to get access to original research and figures about changes in ice loads, temperature recordings, sea level changes, etc ... Both sides cite their own studies that (surprise, surprise) say what they need them to say. Is there a good way for me to get a look at the data myself?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I was reading the new issue of Men's Health, and came across a brief interview with Al Gore.
Here is what he had to say about Michael Chriton, and others who have suggested the environmental movement is too "hype" driven:
quote:The first thing to remember about Michael is that he's a science-fiction writer. And the second thing is, he's often been attracted to contrarian plotlines. Such as the female boss who's the epitome of sexual harassment in America, instead of the more common situation. I wouldn't be surprised if he came out with a book in which the bad guys are the ones who think the earth is round and orbits the sun. He got [President] Bush's ear because Bush wanted that message in his ear.
Wow. I can't believe he went there. No discussion of facts, just a big wink-wink, elbow-elbow that, "This guy wrote about women harrasing men, and we all know that's not really how it works."
(For those interested, here's one of Chrichton's presentations on the topic.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Wow. I can't believe he went there.
Why not? Would it have been better to react as if Crichton had a legitimate, well-researched, and unbiased viewpoint?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I really wish I knew how to get access to original research and figures about changes in ice loads, temperature recordings, sea level changes, etc ... Both sides cite their own studies that (surprise, surprise) say what they need them to say. Is there a good way for me to get a look at the data myself?
If you know any university students or instructors, they almost certainly have access to geoscience journals through their university.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Tom, if you accept his story at face value, he was researching a completely separate idea when he started to discover the statistics weren't as shocking as he felt he'd been led to believe. There actually is research going on here.
As for legitamite, you're right. He seems to have written his essays all by himself. But we don't like to think of such things as "illegitimate," so much as "growing up in single parent families."
Or is there some other way you feel his arguements are illegitimate?
As for bias--well, we're arguing biases here. The whole point of the arguement, and this thread, to a large degree, is that everybody can pull out statistics that back up their viewpoint, whatever that is.
At that point, it all just becomes religion. We all cling to whichever evidence we choose to believe.
And accuse our "enemies" of being not just misinformed, but illegitamate, poorly researched, and biased.
And fiction writers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Less so religion than faith.
I don't worship global climate change, but I do believe in it.
I don't really blame him for taking a little swipe at Crichton. It's sensationalized science-fiction and pseudo-science alarmists that are giving global climate change and anything related to it a bad name.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: I was reading the new issue of Men's Health, and came across a brief interview with Al Gore.
Here is what he had to say about Michael Chriton, and others who have suggested the environmental movement is too "hype" driven:
quote:The first thing to remember about Michael is that he's a science-fiction writer. And the second thing is, he's often been attracted to contrarian plotlines. Such as the female boss who's the epitome of sexual harassment in America, instead of the more common situation. I wouldn't be surprised if he came out with a book in which the bad guys are the ones who think the earth is round and orbits the sun. He got [President] Bush's ear because Bush wanted that message in his ear.
Wow. I can't believe he went there. No discussion of facts, just a big wink-wink, elbow-elbow that, "This guy wrote about women harrasing men, and we all know that's not really how it works."
(For those interested, here's one of Chrichton's presentations on the topic.)
I enjoyed reading the lecture and the book, "State of Fear." immensily. If you need good airplane reading, it did the job splendidly for me. I have always enjoyed reading Crichton's books, I think this is the first time where he has really tried to write with an obvious agenda. At least his agenda is, "Ask questions," rather then, "Here is the answer!"
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
It would be a good idea to remember that the present is verifiable, while the future is not.
Discussions about the present should be supported by facts and observations about the real world.
Discussions about the future should be given more leeway because facts and observations are impossible, everything is built out of contingenices, and especially with complex systems like climate, it is extraordinarily difficult to take every possibility into account.
In other words, people should be allowed to present different opinions about the future, because after all, that's all anyone has.
Presenting an opinion that the earth is hollow and is the center of the universe could be called "illegitimate" because that opinion is verifiably false.
Presenting an opinion that you don't believe the available evidence justifies a certain prediction about the future is much harder to legitimately call "illegitimate" because no opinion about the future can be verified as true or false, except by waiting.
I think that this is Crichton's main point, global warming aside. People are acting as though we have "discovered" the future in some factually-verifiable way. Unfortunately, the evidence of this claim can only present itself slowly, one day at a time.
I think that Crichton fears we will begin to behave as though we understand the world's climate sufficiently to predict its behavior and our impact on it, when we don't ... and that our blind faith in this regard will lead us to make bad decisions down the road in the face of evidence that contradicts us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Presenting an opinion that the earth is hollow and is the center of the universe could be called "illegitimate" because that opinion is verifiably false.
But are you saying that if someone says "the center of the Earth will become hollow tomorrow when it's eaten by space dragons," we have to consider the possibility that it's a legitimate scientific opinion?
quote: I think that this is Crichton's main point, global warming aside.
Having read State of Fear myself, it seemed to ME like his main point was that environmentalists were pawns of greedy multinational corporations intending to blackmail the planet, and that even people who've worked in the industry are still stunned and surprised when the "truth" that's been suppressed for so long is revealed to them. It's like the Da Vinci Code of global warming. Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Tom, I agree completely with that assesment of the book.
See, he took his main point--that over-hype is the only way to sell crises--and twisted it around into over-hype, because over-hype is the only way to sell books.
There's still some valid points in the essays and the book, though.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:But are you saying that if someone says "the center of the Earth will become hollow tomorrow when it's eaten by space dragons," we have to consider the possibility that it's a legitimate scientific opinion?
Obviously, there's a spectrum of plausibility. If the center of the earth were a chaotic system in which that was clearly one of the potential possibilities, then yes.
Similarly, it IS entirely possible that there are factors in climate change that we do not fully understand, and that the expected warming trend will not go off as predicted.
I mean, this warming trend was not predicted by the sophisticated climate-studying tools and techniques we had 30 years ago, which were incredibly advanced by any past standard. Yes, our current techniques are superior, and they are being used in good faith by many people to predict global warming over the next hundred years, with a certain set of potential consequences (droughts, freezes, rises in sea level, etc) ...
But isn't it possible that as we live through the next 30 years, we will see similar advances in our understanding that reverse the current predictions about global warming, or revise the predictions about what the consequences of global warming will be? Absolutely.
You can't hang a specific strategy or policy on doubt, but seriously, in a case like this, if nobody were raising any doubts or protests in the face of the absolute certainty that some are expressing about the future, I'd think our claim to rationality as a species would be tenuous at best.
[ May 27, 2006, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
If humanity had ever, at any time in the past, accurately predicted a global trend in climate and its consequences, then I think people would be raising fewer doubts. The problem is, it's never been done before. We're trying something new here, and we've got no track record for success.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If humanity had ever, at any time in the past, accurately predicted a global trend in climate and its consequences, then I think people would be raising fewer doubts. The problem is, it's never been done before."
"Next, and slightly more troubling, we have some rather misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988. "Dr. Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent" (p247). Hansen's testimony did indeed lead to a big increase in awareness of global warming as a issue, but not because he exaggerated the problem by 300%. In a paper published soon after that testimony, Hansen et al, 1988 presented three model simulations for different scenarios for the growth in trace gases and other forcings (see figure). Scenario A had exponentially increasing CO2, Scenario B had a more modest Business-as-usual assumption, and Scenario C had no further increases in CO2 after the year 2000. Both scenarios B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995. Rightly, the authors did not assume that they knew what path the carbon dioxide emissions would take, and so presented a spectrum of results. The scenario that ended up being closest to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The temperature change for the decade under this scenario was very close to the actual 0.11 C/decade observed (as can be seen in the figure). So given a good estimate of the forcings, the model did a reasonable job. In fact in his testimony, Hansen ONLY showed results from scenario B, and stated clearly that it was the most probable scenario. The '300 percent' error claim comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels who in testimony in congress in 1998 deleted the bottom two curves in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable.
Dr Hansen is further quoted (a little out-of-context) saying: "The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change". Given the discussion above it is clear that without good estimates of the actual forcings, the differences in the model projections can be large. It is widely accepted that exact prediction of what will happen to climate in 50 or 100 years is impossible. Much of the future is of course unknowable. A new energy source could replace fossil fuels, governments could control emissions, or maybe a series of huge volcanoes will erupt. Therefore it is much more sensible to ask, what would climate be like if you doubled CO2? or if this or that scenario occured. These are much better defined questions. Hansen's quote is often taken to imply that models are so unreliable they are useless in helping assess the issue. In fact it is the opposite - Hansen is actually claiming that the uncertainty in models (for instance, in the climate sensitivity) is now less than the uncertainty in the emissions scenarios (i.e. it is the uncertainty in the forcings, that drives the uncertainty in the projections)."
There have been others, too. This is the most commonly known example of a successful model, though. And note what happened to it: The success got deleted by people who didn't want anyone to know that climate-change was occuring.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "If humanity had ever, at any time in the past, accurately predicted a global trend in climate and its consequences, then I think people would be raising fewer doubts. The problem is, it's never been done before."
There have been others, too. This is the most commonly known example of a successful model, though. And note what happened to it: The success got deleted by people who didn't want anyone to know that climate-change was occuring.
What isn't clear from the excerpt is, did the model predict anything besides temperature change that also came to pass? If it made accurate, specific predictions in different areas of climate change, and consequences of the climate change, then it would be more significant. But merely predicting the rise in temperature when there already was a rising trend in temperature doesn't tell us a lot.
As for people not wanting people to know that climate change is occurring... there are those on every side of this issue (and there are more than two sides) who use manipulative political techniques to squash other points of view. If someone deliberately distorted Hansen's views, as the above excerpt asserts, that's wrong.
[ May 27, 2006, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Dav ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What isn't clear from the excerpt is, did the model predict anything besides temperature change that also came to pass?
*blink* What are you saying -- that even if the global temperature is actually rising to a known level, we can't accurately predict what would happen and therefore shouldn't worry about it?
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What isn't clear from the excerpt is, did the model predict anything besides temperature change that also came to pass?
*blink* What are you saying -- that even if the global temperature is actually rising to a known level, we can't accurately predict what would happen and therefore shouldn't worry about it?
That's not quite what I'm saying.
As far as I understand it, it's not a number on a global temperature chart per se that anyone's really worried about. It's a concern of possible resulting changes in sea levels, rainfall patterns, lengths of growing seasons et al affecting human and other life in adverse ways.
So if the only significant prediction of a particular model is, average measured global temperatures will increase by 0.11C in the next 10 years, and that comes true, that model doesn't tell us a lot. It could be a fine starting point to build on though.
However, I honestly don't know what else Hansen's model predicted. My question "did the model predict anything besides temperature change that also came to pass?" should be taken literally. That would have some effect on how significant it is. In my opinion.
(Edit add: I suppose I should disclose that I have a default sense of skepticism towards predictions of doom. And I'm not sure what to make of the global warming issue.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I hadn't heard about it before now, but I will definately see this.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)