IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
quote: "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
quote: I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis -- a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.
My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis. --Al Gore
Eh, the peace prize doesn't really mean anything. It is sort of like "well, he has done alot and he should get something, lets see: physics... no, economics... no, peace... hmm, what are the qualifications again? Oh, there are none? Let's give him that."
Not that I don't like Gore.
[ October 12, 2007, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: JonHecht ]
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Isn't that what Arafat had won?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not exactly sure what human-influenced global climate change has to do with peace... but whatever.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Jon, of course it means something to some. It has at times given much-needed international recognition and moral authority to leaders and groups involved in important struggles. Like Lech Walesa in 1983, or Desmond Tutu in 1984, or Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991.
Other times, it's awards are mistaken, in many's opinion. IMO, Arafat was a questionable award winner and Henry Kissinger was a huge mistake.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Isn't that what Arafat had won?
Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres were collectively awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm not exactly sure what human-influenced global climate change has to do with peace... but whatever.
You might, once we start squabbling over (theoretically) dwindling oil and water reserves, as well as territorial fights due to changes in the location of arable land.
That's right, Canada, I'm looking at you!
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Isn't that what Arafat had won?
Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres were collectively awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize.
This man speaks the truth.
I'm not so sure I would have awarded Al Gore this particular prize, but apparently the Nobel committee felt differently.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Did Al win and Oscar? I missed that. I know a film he narrated won an Oscar.
msquared
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Technically, you may be correct msquared. Oscars for best picture go to producers. But Gore did more than narrate the film. And he did give the Oscar acceptance speech. Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Sorry but I see this as a waste of a Peace Prize. I think Bono has done more to promote peace, and been more effective, than Gore has.
msquared
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I liked Earth in the Balance. Does An Inconvenient Truth really deal with the spiritual perils of dualism, though, or is it solely meant to scare people into action? It's suggestion of the latter is what I got from the promotional materials, and I would be less interested in that.
So who should have gotten the Peace Prize?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The British courts ruled that there are 11 inaccuracies that have to told to students about Gore's movie. I was disappointed to see him get the Peace prize for Global Warming, Bono or even Angelina Jolie would have been a better choice.
quote: ...or is it solely meant to scare people into action? It's suggestion of the latter is what I got from the promotional materials, and I would be less interested in that.
An Inconvenient Truth isn't trying to scare people, it's stating what we have learned and what its implications are. If these data are scary, that's not the filmmaker's fault.
And I'm not sure why people reject the movie outright if it does scare people. It it my understanding that this is a serious problem, and I don't understand why people avoid discussion and/or action simply because they don't like the implications.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: it's stating what we have learned and what its implications are
It's stating what some people believed at that point in time. As with most weather predictions, they do not come true or at least are constantly revised.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm not exactly sure what human-influenced global climate change has to do with peace... but whatever.
You might, once we start squabbling over (theoretically) dwindling oil and water reserves, as well as territorial fights due to changes in the location of arable land.
That's right, Canada, I'm looking at you!
-Bok
It's a good point. The war over resources that awaits us if we do nothing to stem our use of fossil fuels will make the world wars look small in comparison, to say nothing of the conflicts that will arise from famine, disease, and worldwide panic when the global economy takes massive hits from global warming.
Getting the world together now to combat a global issue, to forestall conflicts that would arise in the future, to raise awareness and push forth initiatives and solutions to problems that span from economic to technological to scientific to media, is I think worthy indeed of the Nobel Peace Prize. He's been focused on this issue for 30 years, made it his life's mission, traveled the world over, and really just wants to make the world a better place. I don't have a problem with this at all.
My only concern is some of what I'm reading from opinion sights, where the feeling seems to be heartfelt warmth, and a general lack of respect for the institution of the Nobel Prize. Something along the lines of: "Well if they'll give it to him for that, is it even worth anything anymore?" That's a real fear, as I think of the Nobel Prize, with some exceptions, as a largely honorable and respected organization.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
DarkKnight: if there are 11 inaccuracies, how many accuracies were in the film? Hundreds? These must be compared and understood before the movie and the message can be rejected.
quote: Justice Burton of the High Court in London identified nine significant errors in the global warming film in announcing his decision.
Burton agreed Gore's film was "broadly accurate," but...
That 'but' is what baffles me. Our planet is complicated and it's hard to make statements with 100% confidence. However, the film is broadly accurate. No one is denying that. So why does the film (and the message) get rejected outright! I find it baffling, and infuriating.
quote: The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
Again, climate modeling and ocean-atmosphere interaction modeling is unbelievably complicated, but trends are being seen. There are different factors that contribute to increased hurricanes, or rising sea levels, or species extinction, or melting ice, but these trends are correlated, and increasing, and people should worry about the implications.
quote: Recent scientific evidence suggests a link between the destructive power (or intensity) of hurricanes and higher ocean temperatures, driven in large part by global warming.
I'm sure there are studies and quotes out there that argue the opposite side with equal tenacity, but that just exemplifies the complexity and uncertainty in the modeling and hurricane properties.
Those other nine or eleven points mostly rest on this concept that there is uncertainty. The court case is not saying that these points are inaccurate, just that there is an inherent amount of uncertainty.
I can concede that the film could have focused a little more on the uncertainties with the science, but anyone who actually reads the science understands the uncertainties, and yet still feel that these events are happening.
I would post more links and citations, but I feel it's already been explored here. If people want to put together and discuss it further, I would enthusiastically participate. Anyone?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: it's stating what we have learned and what its implications are
It's stating what some people believed at that point in time. As with most weather predictions, they do not come true or at least are constantly revised.
First, on your links from above, the first was about a parent who didn't want his kids being subjected to Gore's self congratulatory autobiography and I don't blame him. Much as I liked AIT, I wasn't a fan of that stuff either. I didn't see anything in that article addressing factual data in the movie.
Second, alright, I'm reading now about what the 11 supposed inaccuracies are, and from what I can tell, most of these claims are false. Frankly if the court agreed with all of these, I don't think they made a good call. I spend at least an hour every day reading global warming material, the Green news of the day if you will, and I see these same issues popping up constantly.
It's been awhile since I've seen AIT, but I can address a couple of these issues off the top of my head. First off, even NOAA has said that because of climate change, storms are going to become more destructive and more intense, so I don't find the Katrina images misleading. He's saying "there's more of this to come."
Is anyone disputing that artic ice is going bye-bye? Is anyone disputing that by and large, polar bears live and hunt on that ice? Polar bears ARE turning up drowned, but the real problem is the deaths to come. With scientists saying even their earlier models were wrong, and the Arctic could be summer ice free before 2050, that means bears either migrate or die. Many of them will go to Canada or Russia, but it's an arduous journey, and what few cases that have been documented of a bear traveling that distance shows by the time they get to solid ground, they're too weak from starvation to actually catch any more food. It's a real problem that's in the offing.
And I don't see how the stopping of the gulf stream is a "scientific impossibility." If that system that operates in the ocean and carries warm water to the north and heats up northern Europe stops, which it could, and evidence shows it has in the past, then northern Europe starts to look like Siberia. I don't know where they are getting "impossible" from. A lot of this looks like hyperbole to me.
Again, coral reef bleaching. Evidence I have seen shows warmer waters, albeit combined with pollution I believe, causes this to happen, and it kills reefs. In truth, I've also seen studies showing a lot of reefs are dying off from herpes, but I'm not sure if one causes the other or not, so there might be mitigating circumstances there, or it might be that the warm waters is allowing the disease to thrive, but it's not a baseless claim.
Greenland and Anarctica: The last couple reports I read said that Greenland is melting at an alarming pace, faster than most scientists believed was even possible, and that while Anarctica was in fact thickening in some places, it was overall losing mass.
Sea levels rising are already threatening several island nations, many of whom are begging the industrial world to fix their own mess so the smaller nations don't suffer for it. Palau is on the front lines, and soon won't even be a nation anymore. I come down in the middle on mass sea level risings. If Greenland and Anarctica melt as fast or faster than scientists predict, then I think we're in a world of hurt, as what, something like 60% of the world's population lives in these danger zones? It's a huge number, and there will be huge problems.
I can't speak to the other claims, I haven't read any material on those specific issues recently. But I really don't see what global warming deniers have to gain anymore by trying to undermine the movement. What are they really worried about?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:And I'm not sure why people reject the movie outright if it does scare people. It it my understanding that this is a serious problem, and I don't understand why people avoid discussion and/or action simply because they don't like the implications.
It's the difference between telling someone to get baptized to avoid hell versus getting baptized because they believe in God. If people are motivated by fear, their changes may be less likely to be deep or lasting. You might think superficial change is better than no change, but I believe anxious people will engage in more consumptive behaviors.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
pooka, but global warming, or climate change, or climate instability (what I think it the best title for it) is not reactionary anymore. Although the specifics are still uncertain, worldwide action happened 10 years ago (Kyoto Protocol), and scientists and politicians have been aware of the trends for most of their lifetimes (i.e. Al Gore).
People have devoted most of their lives to the issue, I am trying to devote my life to the issue, but the news and a lot of people still treat the issue as new, unjustified fad.
Why doesn't the public accept this? Is it that about half of news coverage still treats the topic as if scientists are in serious disagreement, which they're not (source: watch the movie)? Is it that our leaders and many conservatives are refusing to accept the crazy liberal slander?
I guess I'm rambling, but my point is that this topic should be beyond the stage of superficial change. It is integrated into our daily lives, and the topic has been studied and contemplated deeply and for decades by scientists, policy makers, and individuals alike.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly I've never understood why people found the movie a "scare" film. I found it deeply empowering. It wasn't saying "CHANGE OR DIE!" it was saying "Look, we've got a serious problem here, and it seems like it is so big that we couldn't possibly make an individual effort to solve it, but actually we can, but we need to move quickly, and cohesively."
He was saying that there's hope, and that everyone's actions matter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Trivia: This makes Gore the only person to win an Oscar, an Emmy and a Nobel Prize.
And, you forget, a Presidential election.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: it's stating what we have learned and what its implications are
It's stating what some people believed at that point in time. As with most weather predictions, they do not come true or at least are constantly revised.
DarkKnight, The analogy between weather prediction and predicing climate change is deeply flawed on many levels. If you think that this comparison is valid, then you still don't know thing 1 about this issue and seriously need to do some research. I'd recommend that you start with the IPCC report. Although some of it may be too technical for someone not trained in Atmospheric Sciences, start with the summary for policy makers and the historical overview which are geared toward a general audience. THe Historical Overview specifically addresses the relationship between wether and climate and why predicting climate change has little or nothing in common with predicting the weather.
Furthermore, to claim that Gore's film states "what some what some people believed at that point in time" is a gross misrepresentation of both the film and the science. Virutally very major scientific organization in the world has publicly stated that climate change is happen and is being caused by human activity. This isn't merely what some people believe. It is the conclusion of the work of the best scientific minds of our time based on decades of research by literally thousands of scientists from every country and every political and religious view point. The only scientists left who dispute it are the sort of dinosaurs who would continue arguing about whether sea level was rising after all of Miami was under water.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I liked the film. It was a little scary, but I didn't think it used scare tactics. The facts were just a bit frightening.
One thing Al Gore said in the moving was very telling. He said that in recent years (he gave a # of years but I can't remember what it was), 100% of peer-reviewed scientific articles acknowledged global climate change. Yet only 50% of articles in general were for, 50% against. It's like the title says, it's an inconvenient truth. People don't want to believe it, so they don't.
People are amazingly good at dismissing things they don't want to believe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In case anyone is still interested in this ruling, I found a pretty interesting analysis of the case on one of the Science Blogs [url= http://"http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php"]here[/url]. It points out something that apparently most news reports missed; that apparently the judge explicitly was not looking at errors in terms of scientific validity, but rather at 'errors' as in things differing from the mainstream to an extent requiring differing views for balance.
He also splits out the nine 'errors' from the rulling, together with the IPCC texts and some other stuff. To be honest, some of his counterpoints to the judge's ruling are a bit weak (mostly the issues where Gore uses non-certain examples for phenomena that are in fact thought to exist), but the article gives a nice overview.
Transcribed from elsewhere.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Edit: For the record, I'm ambivalent about his/IPCC's win, simply because winning the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean a whole lotto me in and of itself.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
While the IPCC homepage site is still up, the (different) IPCC site which distributes the actual reports is down. Interesting cuz the Real Climate site is also down.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Wow, with the million dollar prize he can buy himself a really nice lock box...
/obscure?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Actually, the Supreme Court just ruled that George Bush will win the Nobel.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Congratulations to Gore, but I want to know why he has not done anything to stop global warming on Mars: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?ArtId=17977 Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Virutally very major scientific organization in the world has publicly stated that climate change is happening and is being caused by human activity.
People keep saying this, and although it is for all practical purposes true, it is still not indicative of other supposed truths that are often held up along side it.
1: The real problem global climate change skeptics such as myself have, is that to what extent man is influencing the climate is what is not understood. Only an idiot disagrees that climate change is occurring. The earth's history is one long tale of constant change.
2: Until man's effect is more closely realized it is extremely difficult to require people to take drastic action especially when the effects of that action is so vague and potentially disastrous as to be unreasonable.
3: A good parallel of a new "science" that had the support of all the major scientific organizations and great thinkers, as well as many government leaders government leaders demanding action is eugenics. Everyone was a eugenicist, and states actually passed legislation based on eugenics research. People were actually sterilized to prevent reproduction, an act that flies in the face of our constitution as horribly as anything else that has happened in history. It was only when Hitler joined the Eugenics movement and took strong action that people suddenly stopped being eugenics supporters and indeed pretended they never had supported it. Today the whole idea of eugenics is crazy.
I'm not saying the global climate change proponents are like the Nazis of today. But when people like Al Gore actually slant things so that they appear to support their notions when in fact they do not, they do the world a disservice, as they make the cause they claim to represent questionable. When a lack of empathy exists in the general public for your cause, you don't remedy the situation by lying to generate that response.
"MEN ARE KILLING THE POLAR BEARS!"
"MT Kilimanjaro is melting because of CO2!" ^^ There are strong studies that suggest that destruction of the forest at the base of the mountain is what actually facilitated the slow melting trend at the summit.
When climate change supporters start describing CO2 as the cause of all negative climate change, then they start to sound like eugenicists.
"Vermin reproducing is the root cause of all crime!"
"Poverty is a result of imbecils."
"It is unconscionable for any government head to allow the human gene pool to deteriorate one more day!"
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When climate change supporters start describing CO2 as the cause of all negative climate change, then they start to sound like eugenicists.
...
But when people like Al Gore actually slant things so that they appear to support their notions when in fact they do not, they do the world a disservice, as they make the cause they claim to represent questionable.
Again with the accusations of slanting being applied to only one side of the argument. Any study that suggests that climate change is a silly fallacy is pointed to by those who don't want to believe in climate change, or humans' ability to influence climate. The administration downplayed any studies or reports urging action for as long as they could. Many of them still do.
The An Inconvenient Truth is accepted by everyone as 'broadly accurate.' The science in agreement that climate change exists far outweighs the science that climate change doesn't exist.
Next, the science in unequivocal that human beings can have a dramatic influence on their surrounding environment also exists. We realized this in the 1970s, when our air started to kill people and our rivers started to burst into flames.
And it doesn't take a scientist to realize that there will absolutely be detrimental effects from our growing and highly consuming human population. The planet had 1 billion people in the mid-1800s, and currently has nearly 7 billion. That is a dramatic change, and we can see repercussions everywhere (fishery collapse, coral reef collapse, massive habitat loss, massive species extinction, a clear and well understood influence on the atmospheric chemistry).
So why do people still reject climate change outright?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Again with the accusations of slanting being applied to only one side of the argument. Any study that suggests that climate change is a silly fallacy is pointed to by those who don't want to believe in climate change, or humans' ability to influence climate. The administration downplayed any studies or reports urging action for as long as they could. Many of them still do.
Please remember that I was not saying climate change does not happen. It is strictly how MUCH of that change is actually caused by human activity. Perhaps ALOT of influence is exhibited, perhaps minute amounts. The planet's climatology is quite capable of warming and cooling itself to levels we have not yet seen since recorded history without our assistance.
quote:The An Inconvenient Truth is accepted by everyone as 'broadly accurate.' The science in agreement that climate change exists far outweighs the science that climate change doesn't exist.
Did you do some sort of poll of scientists or even the general populace to come to the conclusion that An Inconvenient Truth is broadly accurate? The movie could simply say that climate is changing, and that man plays a part in that in order to be broadly accurate IMO. The stretch is when they start showing examples of how our climate is changing and pointing the finger at man every time.
quote:Next, the science in unequivocal that human beings can have a dramatic influence on their surrounding environment also exists. We realized this in the 1970s, when our air started to kill people and our rivers started to burst into flames.
It does not logically follow that if we can poison our creeks and create oil fires on the ocean that we can dramatically alter the temperature of the entire planet. The factors that go into those situations are entirely different.
quote:And it doesn't take a scientist to realize that there will absolutely be detrimental effects from our growing and highly consuming human population. The planet had 1 billion people in the mid-1800s, and currently has nearly 7 billion. That is a dramatic change, and we can see repercussions everywhere (fishery collapse, coral reef collapse, massive habitat loss, massive species extinction, a clear and well understood influence on the atmospheric chemistry).
Again a consumerist society is unrelated to whether or not we are actually in a very noticeable way causing global climate change. Increases in human population are also not something global climate change is addressing. Not to mention scientists already passed out in jitters when "The Population Bomb" by Paul R. Ehrlich was published. The media pounced on his book and it was lauded by the scientific community. But Ehrlich was wrong, dead wrong.
You can be skeptical about certain claims regarding global climate change while still being very concerned with the environment and its' management. But people thinking we can keep our environments in a state of stasis and that if the climate changes drastically we need to point fingers and draft up political legislation cause real harm to humanity.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Gore won an oscar this time around for his recreation of Youtube.
I think an Inconvient Truth would go farther if it didn't start out with Gore talking about how his teacher picked on him. In fact, erase Gore entirely and I think a lot more people could stomach it.
A quick question... Has anybody ever read 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' By Bjorn Landborg? Any errors you could see in it? Is it outdated?
His basic thesis in a nutshell (I might be misquoting him) was that global warming exists, but its effects in the developed world will be nothing compared to the damage to the developing world. In fact, the effects in the USA and other developed countries will be close to negligable.
However, all of his proofs were from several years ago, so there might be a whole lot of new evidence that he's unaware of.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:A good parallel of a new "science" that had the support of all the major scientific organizations and great thinkers, as well as many government leaders government leaders demanding action is eugenics. Everyone was a eugenicist, and states actually passed legislation based on eugenics research. People were actually sterilized to prevent reproduction, an act that flies in the face of our constitution as horribly as anything else that has happened in history. It was only when Hitler joined the Eugenics movement and took strong action that people suddenly stopped being eugenics supporters and indeed pretended they never had supported it. Today the whole idea of eugenics is crazy.
I'm not saying the global climate change proponents are like the Nazis of today.
...
What the hell, dude.
While we're making useless comparisons between a modern-day meteorological science and a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project, why not tie in a summary of Gore's similarities in personality to Hitler?
It's not a good comparison any more than a comparison to the 1970's global cooling scare is a good comparison and if you can't overlook some base pejoratives of your position to see so, then .. well, crap Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Could someone who doesn't believe in climate change explain something to me?
Let's say the scientists are all wrong, and it turns out this we have nothing at all to do with climate change.
Looking at all the changes we're making, in energy reduction, efficiency upgrades, in switching to renewable energy. These changes across the board are making companies more self sufficient, and are cutting costs for them across the board, while making the US more efficient and energy independent. The added side effect? Lower CO2 emissions.
So if it turns out the CO2 emissions don't matter at all...what's the big deal? I guess I can see why people would argue for the sake of arguing, but is anyone seriously suggesting we shouldn't be making these technological upgrades? Gore packages all these changes as saving the world, and maybe it is, but even if they aren't, they're still worth making even without the save the world angle.
So I ask, is this argument for the sake of argument, or are people saying we shouldn't be making changes?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: Originally posted by BlackBlade: Did you do some sort of poll of scientists or even the general populace to come to the conclusion that An Inconvenient Truth is broadly accurate?
quote: Quote from the Science Daily Article posted by DarkKnight: [Justice] Burton agreed Gore's film was "broadly accurate,"...
I didn't do a independent study, but I'm going to take Justice Burton's word for it. I imaging he did more work than I have.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It does not logically follow that if we can poison our creeks and create oil fires on the ocean that we can dramatically alter the temperature of the entire planet. The factors that go into those situations are entirely different.
We aren't just poisoning our creeks and setting oil fires. We're creating New Jersey sized dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, we're poking holes in the planet's protective atmosphere, we're polluting our rivers so much that they burst into flames, we're damaging our lakes, and the list can go on.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But people thinking we can keep our environments in a state of stasis and that if the climate changes drastically we need to point fingers and draft up political legislation cause real harm to humanity.
It's not stasis I'm trying to preserve. It's recklessness that I'm trying to avoid.
quote:Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of kind that could not have happened in the past, nor could be reproduced in the future.
We are doing things to the environment that has unknown consequences. Maybe some of these are negligible, but a lot of people who study the environment/climate/atmosphere/biology are telling us that there are dramatic consequences that are not negligible. We depend on the biodiversity and stability of our environment to degrade our waste, to supply us with oxygen, to clean our air and water. I see this reckless experiment more damaging to humanity than a little more precaution.
Maybe that's because I believe that the Precautionary principle is wiser than our current practices. If you honestly believe that the precautionary principle is foolish, or unjustified, than I can understand the opposition.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Guess ya might be about to explain one or two away, but wow it really sucks to have to explain all of the planets in the solar system away. Oh wait…. That’s easy to do and makes perfect sense. Guess it again depends on the truth. How inconvenient.
it IS easy to explain the warming on the other planets. Suns putting out more energy.
Oddly, that extra energy accounts for only a small percentage, between 10-25%, of the warming on earth.
Next please?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:A good parallel of a new "science" that had the support of all the major scientific organizations and great thinkers, as well as many government leaders government leaders demanding action is eugenics. Everyone was a eugenicist, and states actually passed legislation based on eugenics research. People were actually sterilized to prevent reproduction, an act that flies in the face of our constitution as horribly as anything else that has happened in history. It was only when Hitler joined the Eugenics movement and took strong action that people suddenly stopped being eugenics supporters and indeed pretended they never had supported it. Today the whole idea of eugenics is crazy.
I'm not saying the global climate change proponents are like the Nazis of today.
...
What the hell, dude.
While we're making useless comparisons between a modern-day meteorological science and a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project, why not tie in a summary of Gore's similarities in personality to Hitler?
It's not a good comparison any more than a comparison to the 1970's global cooling scare is a good comparison and if you can't overlook some base pejoratives of your position to see so, then .. well, crap
So by simply dismissing the comparison and positing an equally, in your opinion useless comparison, and then questioning my moral character you feel your response has done my post justice?
I'm not passing any moral judgments on the people who believe in an aggressive human response to global climate change is appropriate.
The only thing I was comparing was that both movements had the support of prestigious scientists, policy makers, and influential thinkers. At the time people caught up in the emotion of the idea did not stop to seriously think about the consequences of mass sterilization programs.
Global climate change policy has already cost billions of dollars and for changes I feel are largely cosmetic at best and completely pointless at worst. It looks just like when the government paid out billions of dollars on power line relocation because everyone back then was scared that power lines caused cancer because of deadly magnetic fields. I see the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to accomplish so much good, criminally wrong.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
To see the influence of atmosphere on a planet, look at Venus and Mars and read this, which sums up the major differences in our planet, and our two closest neighbors.
Neither of these planets is habitable without alterations that are beyond our power. The earth is in a small zone of habitability, which may or may not be stable. Again, another reason to choose the precautionary principle over reckless emissions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So by simply dismissing the comparison and positing an equally, in your opinion useless comparison, and then questioning my moral character you feel your response has done my post justice?
I'm questioning your moral character? I seriously thought that what I was actually doing was pointing out the uselessness of trying to say that a a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project is a 'good parallel' to a modern-day meteorological science.
In fact that's sorta exactly what I did, so ..
quote:The only thing I was comparing was that both movements had the support of prestigious scientists, policy makers, and influential thinkers.
Let's go back a few decades to the era where plate tectonics was finally divesting itself of any controversy. I walk up to someone who says that plate tectonics has the support of prestigious scientists, policy makers, and influential thinkers.
A really dumb counterpoint to use at this point would be "Yeah well so did eugenics! That must make it a 'good parallel!'"
Contest the science with science, not faulty comparisons.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
Hmm...
I think, at it's root, BlackBlade's comparison was pointing out that just because most everybody believes something to be true does not unequivocally mean that it is.
I don't think he was contesting science with science, more like belief and acceptance of an idea with the same.
BlackBlade: please correct me if I am way off on this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
His point is actually really bad, in that case, because eugenics was never that popular with scientists, only with politicians and the general public. Who, oddly enough, are precisely the same ones not accepting global warming these days. Curious, that. Do you think it might have anything to do with who has access to and understanding of the evidence, and who doesn't?
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
or perhaps a combination of cynicism with irresponsibility. (I say this in the general sense, I by no means imply that anyone here falls in that category, except perhaps myself )
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
While I'm very sympathetic about the people who didnt win, how the world reacts to global climate change is likely to determine how many hundreds of millions of people are violently killed over the next 100 years. A lot of people did some really noble things over the last year, but the greatest threat to world peace we face this century is climate.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Like the genocide in Darfur? (Asking in responce to Paul's post, but others are welcome to answer)
My bad, Gore's Emmy was for his recreation of youtube. WHoops.
Haven't checked the Lombarg links yet (I'm about to go to bed), but thanks for providing them. I'll check them tomorrow (Or the day after... Monday's are bad for me.)
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Oh cool...the guy who invented the Internet won the Nobel prize for being the most famous Chicken Little in all history. Cool.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I am baffled. Do you guys really think that Al Gore is a nuisance? Do you think he's detrimental to society? Do you think he hasn't done great things in his lifetime?
He isn't trying to undermine our political system, he isn't trying to scare us into a panic, he isn't trying to boost his ego by becoming a public figure through lies and skewed science.
He is trying to inform us of what he, and many others, believe to be one of the most pressing crises of this generation. He's educating, doing sound science, and expressing the opinion of a lot of people who have devoted their lives to understanding the climate, and how we 6.7 billion people can change our planet.
quote:Oh cool...the guy who invented the Internet won the Nobel prize for being the most famous Chicken Little in all history. Cool.
Where does this cynicism come from? Do you read the studies? Do you try to understand for yourself the issues at hand? Or do you listen to pundits and others who misrepresent for political or personal reasons?
I'm shocked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Boris, would you like me to go into a tiresome screed about how the whole "invented the Internet" meme does Gore a gross disservice, or are you responsible enough to do the research yourself?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. What he said was: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Creating…. Inventing…. Dang Tom you got him there….. So edit all quotes to Al Gore claims to have created the Internet. Sounds more spiritual that way anyhow! Also, can we change the chants to: Save the solar system now!!! Stop the sun from warming!!!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Man jay could have at least offered the illusion of having read my article fully but I guess not.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Your article gave lame excuses about why global warming on Mars doesn’t matter. So I went with it anyway and said fine we can switch from just Mars to the whole dang solar system. But hey, I do agree that the facts here don’t matter. This issue is more about an ideology and control.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Furthermore, to claim that Gore's film states "what some what some people believed at that point in time" is a gross misrepresentation of both the film and the science.
It is? So when the film stated that sea levels would rise 7 meters how could it now be changed to only 40 centimeters? So did what people believe at the point in time the film was made now differ from what the consensus of scientists say today?
quote: Second, alright, I'm reading now about what the 11 supposed inaccuracies are, and from what I can tell, most of these claims are false. Frankly if the court agreed with all of these, I don't think they made a good call. I spend at least an hour every day reading global warming material, the Green news of the day if you will, and I see these same issues popping up constantly.
Why would the Green news of the day change anything except the gloom and doom of our dire future? Isn't that how they get people to buy their newsletters and products? Isn't that how they drive traffic to their websites? It's the same way the local news works too. Your children could die from this common household item. Tune in at 11 to find out how! I'm also a little perplexed at why questioning global warming is such a bad thing? I'm questioning the science when we hear dire things, such as ferocious hurricanes will be much more common, and they are not happening. I am NOT saying we shouldn't be doing things to decrease our dependence on oil, or do the simple things like switching to CFLs (although the mercury does bother me a bit). I'm glad things are being done to lower our overall energy use but I am not a fan of the "Tune in or die" tatic that is used with the enviornment. It would be very interesting for someone to do a study on predictions made vs what actually happened. I think that we, and Europe for that matter, should be helping countries like China (who will soon be the biggest CO2 emitter) install new cleaner technologies as they develop. I think we are doing a lot to reduce our pollution and we should also be helping countries who are using 'old' technologies in starting with new cleaner things.
(edited to clear up my last sentence)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pagasus: You're closer to what I was trying to say.
Samp: Calling my opinions, "base" and, "pejorative" seems pretty ridiculous when the crux of your argument is in effect, "Eugenics wasn't supported by scientists! It was a sociological experiment drummed up by Christians!"
Um....nuh uh!
KOM: Eugenics was created by philosophers, and fleshed out by scientists. What evidence have you got that the vast scientific community did not support eugenics? I doubt eugenics was universally supported, but it was not the domain of politicians and the general populace. It was frequently referenced in scientific journals and papers, as well as taught in science textbooks. It was after WW2 that all references to eugenic support was discreetly erased. "Eugenics Quarterly" became, "Social Biology."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Creating…. Inventing…. Dang Tom you got him there….. So edit all quotes to Al Gore claims to have created the Internet. Sounds more spiritual that way anyhow!
Well, it takes a claim that's blatantly false -- as Gore did not invent the Internet -- and makes it arguably true, since Gore did take the initiative to create what is now considered the public Internet. It's worth noting that he was one of many, of course, but he was certainly one of its biggest cheerleaders and I don't think it's unfair of him to want some of the credit for its success. Given that the correct reproduction of the quote transforms it from an obvious lie to a fundamental truth, I think there IS a significant distinction in the wording that should be maintained if any attempt at fairness or accuracy is to be made.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I'm glad things are being done to lower our overall energy use but I am not a fan of the "Tune in or die" tatic that is used with the enviornment.
You get this vibe from the nightly / daily news, which embrace that "Tune in or die" tactic as if it's all they got. But you look elsewhere like some newspapers, some periodicals, and a few news channels that look at a topic for more than the time between commercials, you'll see some sound, rational discussions of environmental problems. As with everything, there is a range of extremes, and you can find "Tune in or die" if that's what you look for, but you can also find high quality reporting, analysis, and discussion.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: It would be very interesting for someone to do a study on predictions made vs what actually happened.
Although that would be a great chunk of knowledge to have, it is out of the realm of feasibility. One of the major points I'm trying to make is that we have to act with uncertainty. Uncertainty as in not knowing what our influence on our planet in 10, 20, 50, 100 years will be. And since there is no way to say without a doubt what the effects will be, we need to move on, use what we've got, and act. And again, don't go for the extremes: don't halt industry worldwide and try and save every fish and bird and tree, but also don't continue Business As Usual. Neither of these are rational, there is always a balance, but balance doesn't make nightly news.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Gore did take the initiative to create what is now considered the public Internet.
He did? How does this statement of yours make sense when compared to your other statements of:
quote: It's worth noting that he was one of many
quote: one of its biggest cheerleaders
quote: want some of the credit for its success
It sounds more like he is taking all the credit or at the very least more credit than he deserves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, That statement is pretty much consistent with the other three statements you quoted.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It was part of a long list of things that separated him from Bill Bradley. The question was not "who created the internet", but to give a list of important things Gore has done.
Gore's championing of funding for the internet is well-documented. It is accurate to say that without him, the modern internet might not exist at anything like its current scale with a decent probability. For one thing, he was an important co-sponsor of the bill that allowed commercial sites on the internet, a rather central part of making the internet huge.
Vint Cerf, who is inarguably one of the people who invented the internet in a literal, technological sense, thinks that Gore's contributions were large enough for him to be considered one of the creators of the internet, and has repeatedly defended Gore's statement as accurate.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I thought An Inconvenient Truth was a very sensible movie. I don't know if it's caused me to do anything different, though, because I don't know if I can do anything different.
That said, I hope this Peace Prize is a high enough honor for Gore that he'll stop being angry about having the election "stolen" from him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That said, I hope this Peace Prize is a high enough honor for Gore that he'll stop being angry about having the election "stolen" from him.
Good Lord. It's like some of you people have been living under a rock for almost a decade.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp: Calling my opinions, "base" and, "pejorative" seems pretty ridiculous when the crux of your argument is in effect, "Eugenics wasn't supported by scientists! It was a sociological experiment drummed up by Christians!"
But the crux of my argument isn't that at all and if you think so, you're nuts or you're not actually reading my posts!
I am going to say it another time: What I am doing is pointing out the uselessness of trying to say that a a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project is a 'good parallel' to a modern-day meteorological science.
Now, you can read this statement over and over again. You can part it carefully with a fine-toothed literary comb. You can check every word in a dictionary. Then you can come back to me and admit that in no way whatsoever -- not here or in any of my other statements in this thread -- am I saying "Eugenics wasn't supported by scientists!" It is practically nonsequitorial to any of my actual counterarguments to your comparison.
I think in all fairness it would be easy for you to check, maybe even double check this, and be able to admit that perhaps you've spontaneously created a position which is not mine and that perhaps, perhaps it's not actually what I said.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Anyone else seeing a Google ad for "Hard-hitting commentary and breaking news from Michelle Malkin, America's most influential conservative blogger?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
America's most influential conservative blogger?
That's the worst insult to conservatives I have ever heard. Shame on you, Michelle.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Now it's "FREE NEWT! Sign up for Newt Gingrich's FREE weekly email newsletter. CLICK HERE."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: You calling eugenics a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project is part of the problem. I'm sure there were religious arguments crafted to endorse eugenics but to single our religion is to give science a pardon. Eugenics was defended by science and its harsh measures often looked to science for legitimacy.
And exactly WHY is eugenics NOT a good comparison (or to use your words, "a useless comparison") to modern day meterology? It's not as if I called them the exact same thing. I merely pointed out that they are similar in that they both had congruent presentations to the general public. A few scientists writing radical papers on the topic, the media jumps on it, government heads spout off warnings, great thinkers champion the cause, big name scientific institutes back and promote it.
Bad genes can and are passed on, that is absolutely true. The planets climatology is changing, that is also completely true. But what we should do about it is what concerns me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I'm curious. How much do you know about the current state of climatology and global climate change? Where do you get your information from?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I'm curious. How much do you know about the current state of climatology and global climate change? Where do you get your information from?
A few years ago I read State of Fear by Crichton which piqued my interest. This semester I am taking Environmental History of the US and much of our work dabbles in climatology. I was also required to reread Crichton's State of Fear for a Politics and Law class. I am currently going through his extensive footnotes/bibliography.
I'm writing a research paper on ecological developments and management of Yellowstone National Park.
Global climate change is admitably a relatively new serious interest of mine. I used to believe completely in global warming and all the horrific stuff it is supposedly going to cause, as in high school it was taught in my biology/environmental science classes.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Eugenics was defended by science and its harsh measures often looked to science for legitimacy.
EVERYONE with a "sciency" idea looks to science for legitimacy. That's hardly an indictment of science.
Eugenics was primarily an ideological issue. Long before we knew anything about genes, we understood the concept of selective breeding. The only thing science contributed was an explanation for why selective breeding works.
Just as there are scientists of every political stripe today, there were surely scientists who approved of applied eugenics and scientists who disapproved.
Science itself is descriptive. It simply explains the universe. Any advocacy of particular actions is *not* science.
"Saturated fats increase cholesterol" - Science "If you avoid saturated fats, your cholesterol level is more likely to remain low." - Science "Avoid saturated fats" - Not science
"We can eliminate undesirable traits through selective breeding" - Science "If we prevent carriers of genetic defects from breeding, the incidence of those defects will decrease." - Science "We should encourage humans to follow a selective breeding program" - Not science
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: That is a good summation of the leap from science to non science. But I doubt scientists absolutely refuse to write out proper applications of the truths ther are describing.
I've little confidence that when eugenics was in it's heyday that scientists were screaming at people to stop trying to apply the science and to just simply know it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I've little confidence that when eugenics was in it's heyday that scientists were screaming at people to stop trying to apply the science and to just simply know it.
I know there were scientists and religionists on both sides. I have seen no data suggesting that either group widely encouraged the practice. But, to the extent that anyone did encourage it, they were not acting as a scientist.
The theologians, philosophers, and preachers, however, did not step outside their roles to advocate eugenics. They performed their recognized task of prescribing morality, it was just a morality that we currently find repugnant.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In fact, eugenics is pretty much as old as human society, and pervasive throughout its history. Most cultures of course have prohibitions against incest, and several US States still ban marriage even between third-degree relatives (first cousins). The Talmud explicitly endorses negative eugenics when it forbids marriage for individuals coming from families with perceived hereditary defects (e.g. lepers and epileptics), and positive eugenics by encouraging marriages with members of scholarly families (a bit self-serving from the highly educated Talmudic authors, for sure!). Greeks (not just the notorious Spartans, see also Plato and Aristotle) and Romans routinely and swiftly got rid of their “undesirables”, as many other cultures did (and still do) less officially and openly. More close to home, the decrease in the incidence of certain genetic diseases in high-risk populations (e.g. thalassemia in Sardinia and Cyprus, Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews) through voluntary screening and genetic counseling has been one of the most significant success stories of medical genetics, and enjoys wide public support and participation in the affected communities.
Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.
Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution.
quote:Why would the Green news of the day change anything except the gloom and doom of our dire future? Isn't that how they get people to buy their newsletters and products? Isn't that how they drive traffic to their websites? It's the same way the local news works too. Your children could die from this common household item. Tune in at 11 to find out how! I'm also a little perplexed at why questioning global warming is such a bad thing? I'm questioning the science when we hear dire things, such as ferocious hurricanes will be much more common, and they are not happening. I am NOT saying we shouldn't be doing things to decrease our dependence on oil, or do the simple things like switching to CFLs (although the mercury does bother me a bit). I'm glad things are being done to lower our overall energy use but I am not a fan of the "Tune in or die" tatic that is used with the enviornment. It would be very interesting for someone to do a study on predictions made vs what actually happened. I think that we, and Europe for that matter, should be helping countries like China (who will soon be the biggest CO2 emitter) install new cleaner technologies as they develop. I think we are doing a lot to reduce our pollution and we should also be helping countries who are using 'old' technologies in starting with new cleaner things.
1. It's not all doom and gloom. If you kept up on the relevent current events, you'd know we're making huge strides in fixing the ozone layer, and that efforts are being made across the board to reduce CO2 emissions, and huge technological advances are being made in clean up tech, green energy tech, recycling tech, and advanced materials tech. There's a lot of great good news out there, but you can't be lazy about it, you have to find it. If all you're going to believe is the six o'clock news, then how can you blame scientists that you're too lazy to find out the truth from anyone but Brian Williams?
There's a lot of bad news out there though, and burying your head in the sand and saying "it's too much, so much that I suspect it can't possibly all be true...therefore none of it is true!" isn't going to solve anything. We have serious environmental issues that have nothing to do with global warming, and some that do. What I read every day isn't editorials or blogs, I read stories about environmental reports (good and bad), technology advances and announcements, and other relevent news. I don't know what you mean by buying anything. Unless you're somehow talking about energy efficiency as a scam, in which case you've left me baffled.
2. If you think "Tune in or die" is all there is out there, again, you aren't looking hard enough. You aren't paying attention except for a cursory glance at the topic. First of all, READ, don't view. Watching a news report on TV goes right to the part of your brain that registers an emotional response. Reading goes to the logical part of your brain that will tell you that though there is a serious threat looming in the distance, we're perfectly capable of handling it if we take swift action.
3. China is already the world's biggest producer of CO2, they overtook us earlier this year. And the DOE, in concert with other agencies, is already working on collaborating with the Chinese to reduce their energy use. But China is a mishmash of problems and solutions. They are pursuing geothermal and other renewables at an impressive pace (faster than we are in some areas), but they pollute at a prodigious rate as well. A lot of that they have to fix themselves, though more aggressive political leaning from the US and Europe could certainly help.
4. As an aside, I find it astounding that Republicans by and large are almost casually willing to spend a half trillion dollars in Iraq, for years with almost zero oversight as to what that money is being spent on, and how effectively the war is being fought, but when it comes to a few million here and a few million there for cleaner air and lower power bills, they balk and cry foul about treehuggers. It's utterly astounding to me. In that same vein, it's almost amusing that so many will "drink the koolaid" so to speak at a Pres. Bush press conference, but when a scientist publishes peer reviewed data, they balk and cry foul, as clearly he must be lying or grandstanding.
Where are your heads at?
You can question global warming all you want, there's nothing wrong with making sure we're all exact in our data, but don't get in the way of efforts to Green our country. Renewable energy is good for our health and our wallets. Reducing emissions is good for our health and our wallets. Living more sustainably is good for our health and our wallets. Those are the things we need to be doing now, and as a bonus, they just might stop global warming.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I was also required to reread Crichton's State of Fear for a Politics and Law class.
*blink* That's like assigning Gone With the Wind to an American History class.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
or Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell for a English History class.
or Watership Down for a Natural Ecology class.
or Neuromancer for a Software Engineering class.
Tom, these are kind of fun.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Or, really, any of Crichton's other novels for whatever class would seem to fit. Heck, after I read "Jurassic Park" for Genetics 101, I really understood how we were able to bring dinosaurs back from extinction using fossilized mosquitoes. And then when I read it again for Cautionary Tales About the Dangers of New Technology, I abandoned my plans to work in biomedicine because, as Crichton so aptly demonstrated, Man should not dare play God! Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: And then when I read it again for Cautionary Tales About the Dangers of New Technology
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or you could just read Frankenstein.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I was also required to reread Crichton's State of Fear for a Politics and Law class.
*blink* That's like assigning Gone With the Wind to an American History class.
Your opinion is duly noted. Have you actually read the book Tom?
To be frank I think that's a pretty exaggerated statement.
Mr S: I forgot to ask, but in retrospect I imagine you can recollect why I might be hesitant to question what background you have on global climate change. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
It might be exaggerated, but probably in the OTHER direction.
Hey that's interesting Paul. I've browsed it alittle, but I'll read the whole thing tonight.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your opinion is duly noted. Have you actually read the book Tom?
I've read slightly more of it than I have Gone With the Wind -- which is to say, I made it halfway and skimmed the rest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Your opinion is duly noted. Have you actually read the book Tom?
I've read slightly more of it than I have Gone With the Wind -- which is to say, I made it halfway and skimmed the rest.
That's unfortunate. But at least you have read more SOF then I have GWTW, but frankly dude I don't give a damn.
I think the bibliography and lists of papers he read before writing the book are certainly worth looking into as many of them ARE proponents of global climate change. Alot of them do explain how localized cooling do not disprove global climate warming, it's not just a list of "people who agree with me."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Its hard to imagine crichton read much science before writing that book. really.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Its hard to imagine crichton read much science before writing that book. really.
Well then you ought to extend the limits of your imagination, he clearly did. Or else he looked up a bunch of papers that he ought to have read but didn't and then pretended to have read it all. I find that less plausible.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Or else he looked up a bunch of papers that he ought to have read but didn't and then pretended to have read it all. I find that less plausible."
Judging by the contents of the book vs the contents of the papers, I find it much MORE plausible then that he read the papers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp: You calling eugenics a religiously driven 1930's social engineering project is part of the problem. I'm sure there were religious arguments crafted to endorse eugenics but to single our religion is to give science a pardon. Eugenics was defended by science and its harsh measures often looked to science for legitimacy.
Then it's probably a good thing that I didn't single a religion [out], mm?
quote:And exactly WHY is eugenics NOT a good comparison (or to use your words, "a useless comparison") to modern day meterology?
Almost exactly the same thing that makes the Global Cooling scare patently a terrible comparison: one is an international scientific consensus reached through exhausting and exacting science, and one was a controversial and overhyped science which was more based in unscientific dogma and ideological social application.
As a bonus it's also uselessly pejorative. It's like saying "Hitler would have liked global warming theory, you know?"
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...too lazy to find out the truth from anyone but Brian Williams?
HEY!
--Enigmatic
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And exactly WHY is eugenics NOT a good comparison (or to use your words, "a useless comparison") to modern day meterology? It's not as if I called them the exact same thing. I merely pointed out that they are similar in that they both had congruent presentations to the general public. A few scientists writing radical papers on the topic, the media jumps on it, government heads spout off warnings, great thinkers champion the cause, big name scientific institutes back and promote it.
Its not a good comparison because "A few scientists writing radical papers on the topic, the media jumps on it, government heads spout off warnings, great thinkers champion the cause, big name scientific institutes back and promote it." is not an accurate discription of Climate Change science. The greenhouse effect and its effect on climate have been known and studied for over a century. The recent IPCC report summarizes the work done by not a few scientist who published radical papers on the topic but by literally thousands of scientists who have published thousands of papers on the subject over the past half century. The conclusions made in the report are based on numerous studies that looked at the problem from many different angles. It includes all sorts of models, exhaustive measurements, ice core data, soil data, satellite data, tree ring data, ground temperature data, historic records and every other type of measurement anyone has imagined taking and they all say the same thing.
I given you directions to resources where you could learn the facts about climate change a dozen times. Have you even looked at any of those resources? If not, then you count as one of the many who won't bother to do the research because you simply don't want to know the truth on this subject.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm not going to give people any crap because they had "State of Fear" pushed on them as a representative 'counterpoint' to anthropogenic global warming, but it's worth pointing out that the book didn't get very credibly far involving its upfront challenges to scientific positions.
It's .. er, 'credibility' was definitely not helped by its repeated hawking by Jim Inhofe and an award by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Heh. But seriously it had a boatload of dud science and misleading information.
I don't think that MC was being deceptive in his work and probably believes very strongly in his contrarian viewpoint against the idea of man-made global warming. But when the book was studiously reviewed it had just turned out that he'd chosen the wrong side based on limited scientific perception.
The absolute *best* counterpoint was from Pew and is worth reading:
quote:Crichton’s frank discussion of his subjective views regarding the issue of climate change provide important context for the novel itself. It’s clear that his personal opinions have shaped his portrayal of the environmental community as well as the science of climate change. That he opts out of leveling any of his criticism toward those who politicize science for the sake of dismissing climate change as a non-issue is disappointing. The one-sidedness of his novel and personal comments have actually contributed to further politicization of climate change science, enhancing a phenomenon that Crichton himself argues is ultimately dangerous. As a novelist, this is his prerogative, but the end result is a work of fiction that does little to educate while it seeks to entertain.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its a particularly sad state of affairs when people have more confidence in a what a Science fiction novel has to say about Global Warming than they do in the work of thousands of scholars and scientists.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll check them tomorrow (Or the day after... Monday's are bad for me.)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)