Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth [Archive]

View Full Version : Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth

Yog

Jan 2nd, 2007, 08:25:28 AM

Just saw this today on DVD, and wow.. I'll say, it had a powerful impact on me. Its clearly one of the best documentaries I have seen. The presentation, informative value, importance of subject matter and how its all wrapped up in one entertaining package, makes it one of a kind. You GOT to see this classic. I doubt you will think about our planet quite the same way as before watching it. Its so good, after reflecting about what I had seen for 30 minutes or so, I watched it all over again. If there is justice, it wins Oscar for best documentary this year. I give it 10/10.

Never mind that it has a <a href=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/>92% RT score</a> (92% raving about it, the other 8% trolling) or the <a href=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/>8.3 score at IMDB</a>.. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune sums it up better than I ever could:

"In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

Rutabaga

Jan 2nd, 2007, 07:03:32 PM

I rented it about a month ago, and was pleasantly surprised at just how enjoyable and entertaining it was for a documentary. I was also very concerned when it was over...I think the most stunning information was the time-lapse satellite photos of how much flooding of major population centers will happen if/when Greenland's glacier melts and falls apart. :(

I also agree that it must be a main contender for the Best Doc Oscar.

jjwr

Jan 3rd, 2007, 08:04:16 AM

I've yet to see it but I firmly believe in Global Warming. The fact that it was mid 40's most of December up here in Vermont just strengthens that belief.

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 3rd, 2007, 08:41:04 AM

I've yet to see it but I firmly believe in Global Warming.

... there are people who don't believe in Global Warming? :confused:

Yog

Jan 3rd, 2007, 01:50:40 PM

... there are people who don't believe in Global Warming? :confused:

While you won't find many disputing global warming, a vocal minority claims there is not enough evidence of it being man made, blaming sun spots, natural global climate cycles etc. Typically, they talk about the medieval warming or claim we don't release a significant enough amount of CO2 to raise the total levels. In this movie, these claims are debunked once and for all.

Then there are those who say 'the debate on global warming is a blown out of proportion media hysteria created by the 'extreme enviromental movement', that its not a big deal, cause we have 'more important problems to worry about', that there is 'little we can do to stop it' and it costs 'too much money changing our lifestyles. And finally, there are those who think it would be nice cultivating oranges on Greenland..

The Global Warming debate is like the officer crew at the bridge of a sinking ship arguing while they are waist deep in water:

- "You are saying we hit an ice berg?"
- "Yes, I told you 2 hours ago! We must evacuate! The lifeboats.."
- "Nonsense! If it was an ice berg, we would have seen it."
- "But captain.."
- "Where is all this water coming from? I demand an explaination!"
- "Its probably just the water tap in the kitchen. Call the plumber!"
- "Nono, its the iceberg we hit. We are taking in water and.."
- "Really? Hmm.. can someone check the damage?"
- "We don't have time for this, we must.."
- "Pardon me, but what did you say we hit.. a dolphin?"
- "This ship is sinking!!!"
- "Oh, don't worry, this ship can't sink."
- ....

The naysaysers range from groups and individuals sponsored by the oil / car industry, stubborn right wing nutters who will never change their mind, and non credible scientist / experts who tend to have a degree in anything else than climate studies. In addition, when it comes to newspaper and magazine articles, there is a surprising amount of sceptisism. There was a survey showing a sample of articles published in the media where ~50% cast doubt, if not rejected the concept of man made global warming and the other 50% supported it. No wonder people get confused.

In 2004 there was a study researching a sample of 928 papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 on the subject of global warming. Not a single one rejected the idea of man made global warming. The contrast between what the media writes and what the climate scientists writes is astonishing.

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 3rd, 2007, 02:05:49 PM

They say it's not a big deal because we have more important problems to worry about... than the planet? :headache

I just read on Wikipedia that "50,000 free copies of the film were offered to the National Science Teachers Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Teachers_Association), which declined to take them. Laurie David, one of the film's producers, claimed in a Washington Post op-ed piece that their refusal was due to fear of "special interests". Sigh.

Will definitely be seeing this, maybe picking up the book too.

CMJ

Jan 3rd, 2007, 02:25:08 PM

There are a few "real" scientists that do dispute man being soley responsible for global warming Yog. And based on my own research, I find much of the GW claims to be overblown.

You know, not even 30 years ago the scientific community believed we were headed towards a new ice age, right before global warming became the "it" idea.

BTW - I'm not saying GW isn't happening. No doubt the planet has warmed in the last couple of decades. But anything previous to that we can't really say with certainty. Observation equipment in the early 1900's was not as advanced. They didn't observe as MANY areas.

Not to menton, to get a real view of the phenomenon you need way more than a 30, or even a hundred year window(Earth is 5 BILLION years old...100 years is a blip) of analyzing temperatures. The claims for instance that Gore makes about hurricane activity are VERY up for debate based on the science.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 3rd, 2007, 04:58:47 PM

I don't see how something that is 'scientific' needs to believed in. Unless you have to take it on faith. ;)

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 3rd, 2007, 04:59:39 PM

I don't see how something that is 'scientific' needs to believed in. Unless you have to take it on faith. ;)

What do you mean? :confused:

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:03:45 PM

I just find it funny that people say "well I totally believe in global warming." I dunno. Word usage?

I'm in the boat with CMJ on this one. How do you think we got out of the ice ages anyway?

Droo

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:07:59 PM

What I interpreted what Holly said was something along the lines of what is claimed as scientific fact today can be simply discarded the next day. All it takes is one little discovery to completely turn everything on its head.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:16:02 PM

Well, if you think about it, if you don't have the knowledge and the know-how to go out there and measure all the sea levels around the world, etc, and do all the research yourself, you have to take it on faith that these scientists, who proclaim the world is ending and the cause is Global Warming, are correct in their assumptions.

On the other hand we have other scientists that say that Global Warming is so much crap. So then it falls to us to make an informed decision about what you think is happening in the world. I have read that while Al Gore says that the sea level is going to rise by TWENTY FEET, the actual numbers are closer to 4 inches. (cannot prove that because I don't recall where I read it!) So do we have mr. ex-vice president simply trying to get attention with a 'fact' that is drastically wrong, or are other scientists the confused ones?

Oh, Gore isn't a scientist, but he did consult one for his documentary.

CMJ

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:22:06 PM

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:27:13 PM

Considering things in the context of the bigger picture of time certainly seems sensible. Obviously I'm no scientist (haha) ... geologist even, whatever, so I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but isn't comparing the climate of the past to our climate now a little redundant? The planet didn't have nearly as many waste products drifting off up into the sky back then.

CMJ

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:31:48 PM

But the problem is many records we have are probably suspect. For instance, where are most official temperature reading taken in US cities? Airports.

Concrete traps a ton of heat. Usually temps near residential areas are several degrees cooler - but they aren't the recorded ones.

So many of our old records are obselete in essence. It's a very complicated mess.

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:34:01 PM

Is the whole idea based on research conducted in the US? If not, do other countries take their temperatures in the same way?

(Genuinely curious.)

Figrin D'an

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:45:40 PM

You know, not even 30 years ago the scientific community believed we were headed towards a new ice age, right before global warming became the "it" idea.

Ironically, we could yet again be headed for an ice age should the more significant forecasts of global warming turn out to be correct.

CMJ

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:49:24 PM

The data we use is taken from all over the world. I'm honestly not sure in Europe and elsewhere if official readings are taken at airports or somewhere else. It would make sense at airports though, because of all the sensitive equipement that they tend to have.

But the concrete/pavement issue I brought up also comes into play in just cities. In the early 1900's when the USA first started taking readings there wasn't concrete to speak of. Roads were dirt, or cobblestone, or what have you. Those don't trap heat as much either.

There are a ton of factors to consider in this.

CMJ

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:50:29 PM

Ironically, we could yet again be headed for an ice age should the more significant forecasts of global warming turn out to be correct.

True enough.

Jedi Master Carr

Jan 3rd, 2007, 05:59:53 PM

The Earth's climate is very cyclical. We've had advancing and retreating ice caps and what not over thousands and millions of years. If the ice caps do melt at the rate they've been doing, the world is gonna be seriously screwed up in a hundred years or so. But climate and weather have to be looked at in a far larger time frame than the one we do - and we really don't have the best records for that.

That's not to say we shouldn't try to be more conservationist and what not. I'm TOTALLY for that. The hysteria just gets to me.

We live in the safest time in human history(at least in the west). Yes, there are still wars and what have you, but advances in all area in the last 20, 40, 100, 200(or however many) years have made the world a far safer place. There hasn't been a pandemic in nearly 100 years for instance...whearas before they were almost common. The average person today enjoys things that royalty didn't have in the middle ages...or even in the early 20th century.

The world is getting better not worse. Humans just have a need to be chicken littles.

Well there hasn't been a pandemic, IMO because people are cleaner and there is better sanitation. Sanitation was horrible in the Middle Ages and wasn't that great at the beginning of the 20th century. Look in the third world and there are still epidemics there. The plague pops up in India every now and then and the same with Ebola and some others in Africa. Of course most of the really nasty stuff we are just immune to now in the West like Smallpox.
As for Global Warming I trust most of the scientists who believe in it. I also just don't think all that pollution that is going into the air is a good thing. The thing is we have the technology to fix all of it. We can turn are cars over to Hydrogen Fuel cells in less than 20 years. We can get rid of the coal power plants for Nuclear, Solar and Wind power. Most of the problems are fixable and I firmly believe that we will do what is necessary to stop any problems we might have in the future. It is a shame though by the time things are back to normal the Polar bear and possibly the penguin might both be extinct outside of zoos.

CMJ

Jan 3rd, 2007, 06:28:16 PM

That was sort of my point Layton. Things are progressing forward...and aren't nearly as bad as we think. Humans tend to have a need for drama. Just ask most people in relationships. ;)

I think we should try to clean things up too. I never said we shouldn't. Breathing cleaner air is always a good thing - just like drinking better water. But it's not some fear of global warming.

Jedi Master Carr

Jan 3rd, 2007, 06:36:25 PM

Jaime Tomahawk

Jan 4th, 2007, 07:07:04 AM

Is the whole idea based on research conducted in the US? If not, do other countries take their temperatures in the same way?

(Genuinely curious.)

Well, I think the problem is that we just dont know what the hell when it comes to long term climate predictions. The idea of global warming comes from a whole bunch of studies and mainly earth / ice cores that measure and then estimate what temperatures were outside of records of the last 100 years.

CMJ is right about airports being a place where temps are taken, but he's wrong about them being near tarmac. Weather scientists are well aware how to take accurate temperatures, which is why if you look, the actual apparatus is well away from factors that could skew it's measurements.

Other stations not at airports are likewise put in places where outside factors can change their readings.

The real issue to me is that global warming science has a great deal of hysteria and nonsense - but climate CHANGE on the other hand is real and the effects are becoming very obvious. But what's going to happen? Who knows.

Yog

Jan 4th, 2007, 07:40:03 AM

First of all, De'Ville, I suggest you see the movie. I am not sure if CMJ has seen it, but if not, I suggest the same to him :)

The Earth's climate is very cyclical. We've had advancing and retreating ice caps and what not over thousands and millions of years. If the ice caps do melt at the rate they've been doing, the world is gonna be seriously screwed up in a hundred years or so. But climate and weather have to be looked at in a far larger time frame than the one we do - and we really don't have the best records for that.

You are absolutely right. We need to look at it in a larger time frame. Fresh scientific data which only recently been published allows us to do so.

If you don't mind, I'd like to post a spoiler from the movie (screenshot)

<img src=http://www.mneh.org/pics/misc/GW-chart2.jpg>

This chart displays the atmospheric CO2 content and average global temperature for the last 650.000 years. The red graph shows the CO2 level in PPM (parts per million), and the blue graph shows the temperature. The low points on the blue graph represents ice ages, and the high points periods of warming, which we have right now. The first yellow dot shows where the CO2 level is now, and the second dot shows the projection in 50 years. The data in the graph is not disputed by scientist.

I don't know about you, but personally, I was rather startled how well those two graphs match. Furthermore, how high the CO2 content in the atmosphere is compared to what it has been. For the last few decades, it rose to 380 ppm. Thats 30% higher than its been for 650 thousand years. In fact, for the last 20 million years, its been pretty stable, at a range of 180-300 ppm. You would have to go back 40 million years to find it this high.

Has the atmosphere had much higher CO2 content in earth's 5 billion year history? Sure. Carbon isotopic ratios in fossilized soils tell us that *. But we are not adapted to those types of climates. We are not living in an age of dinosaurs or trilobites, and when continents were merged together.

* For reference, check out this <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png>graph</a> of CO2

There are a few "real" scientists that do dispute man being soley responsible for global warming Yog. And based on my own research, I find much of the GW claims to be overblown.

Just to clarify, I am not saying temperature increases is solely because of human activity (and neither does Gore in the movie). Clearly, to make an accurate climate model, you need to include all known factors. That the climate has natural factors is well known. The problem is that current warming cannot be explained by any of them. Even accounting for internal and external variability, it would only explain 30-50% of the warming in the last 50 years.

You know, not even 30 years ago the scientific community believed we were headed towards a new ice age, right before global warming became the "it" idea.

You are right, in the years 1940-1970, it was a period of cooling. This made scientist think we had reached a temperature peak, and that we would have a rapid cooldown with a resulting ice age. As you probably know, the world climate is a complicated system determined by a large amount of factors, some of those are "cooling-" and "warming-factors" if you like. In the 40-70's there was a low level of solar output and a high level of sulphate aerosols. The solar output is a non antropogenic (non human) natural factor, while the sulphate aerosols is an antropogenic factor (human caused). This explains the stop in the rise of temperature for that period. Both are cooling factors.

But why did not the CO2 level have a greater influence on the climate in that period? Well, the effects are not immediate. There is inertia, a delay in the system, much like it takes time to heat up a tank of water. CO2 retains energy in the system as a rising factor. The majority of this energy is buffered in the ocean and only slowly heats up the entire system. Likewise, even if we stop putting CO2 into the air, the temperature would still rise for quite a while because of the ocean buffering. In other words, we have quite a bit of heating in the pipeline for us already.

Since the 80's the antropogenic warming factor of CO2 has overwhelmed all the other factors. The warming can no longer be cancelled out, only slowed down some (example: the Pinatubo volcanic eruption).

That's not to say we shouldn't try to be more conservationist and what not. I'm TOTALLY for that. The hysteria just gets to me.

Personally, Im far from a climate scientist, Im just referring to what I have seen and read. I have no reason to disbelieve what the vast majority of the scientists professionally researching this stuff are saying. I think when you look at how slow the politicians are reacting, and how fast these climate changes are happening, the warning signs need to come out, in bright red colors. I think the situation is spinning out of control, and if hysteria is what it takes to get people in charge to react, maybe that is *needed*? Of course, I am all for analyzing data and debating it all carefully without jumping to conclusions, but thats really something we should have done 30 years ago.

We live in the safest time in human history(at least in the west). Yes, there are still wars and what have you, but advances in all area in the last 20, 40, 100, 200(or however many) years have made the world a far safer place. There hasn't been a pandemic in nearly 100 years for instance...whearas before they were almost common. The average person today enjoys things that royalty didn't have in the middle ages...or even in the early 20th century.

The world is getting better not worse. Humans just have a need to be chicken littles

True. I don't think we're going to get knocked back to stone age or something crazy like that. I would love to believe the whole GW thing is blown out of proportion, and that its not going to affect our civilization that much. Maybe I am blowing it out of proportion as well. But you know what? I have creepy nasty feeling.. maybe its not blown out of proportion? What if its not?

If the projections are correct, and a massive climate shift occurs, then what would happen to the world economy? Imagine hundreds of million refugees having to abandon their homes and entire cities submerged under water. Even worse, imagine if the gulf stream stopped, and Europe was covered by a sheet of ice? I say for every dollar we put into counter measures and climate gas reducing, every cent is worth it.

While I think all our other society problems can be more easily solved for the next 100 years or so, this is the one issue we are going to suffer the consequences on for a long time. We don't even understand the climate mechanisms well enough to know when we can get it back to normal again. Its irreversible uncrontrolled processes and the "point of no return" I am worrying about.

Observation equipment in the early 1900's was not as advanced. They didn't observe as MANY areas.

While the temperature data is not nearly as comprehensive as it is now, (which makes it less interesting for meterologists but all the same interesting for climate scientists), we do have have measures of temperature records for the last 400 years and have good data about the earths climate going back 1000 years, and resonable good data for all of the holocene, 11.000 years. We also have astonishing good data about sunspots, solar variability and atmospheric composition going back 450.000 years, and reasonable data for the last several million years.

While the mercury thermometer was only invented 300 years ago, we still have many historical writings, ice in the antarctic, glaciers, corals, growth rings in trees and so on to tell us what the climate used to be like.

Are you familiar with <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology> paleoclimatology</a>?

To give an example, ice-cores can be sliced sliced to get a period of time. Its much like growth rings in trees.. each layer shows how much snow fell that year. The slice is then bottled and crushed to release captured airbubbles. The composition of air in these air bubbles is analysed by a spectrometer. The amount and ratio of isotopes tells us the climatic factors at that time. The amount of Oxygen-18 tells the temperature and Carbon-14 tell us about sunspots etc. The data we get from ice cores can be compared and calibrated with data of documented volcanic eruptions, and thus we get an accurate portrayal of the various climatic factors for that timeperiod.

Of course, as with any science there are elements of uncertainty. But when you calibrate the data and account for statistical margin of error, you get a pretty accurate model of the history of climate, going a lot longer back than the last century...

Good website with Paleoclimatologic data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

(Phew, that was a long post. I am not here to argue btw, I just hope you all find it an interesting read and perhaps you learn something :angel )

CMJ

Jan 4th, 2007, 10:50:34 AM

Geez dude, that was a long post. :lol

Great fact filled stuff and I'm way too lazy to provide a counter argument to all of the points you raised. However, as Holly said in an earlier post - Gore makes the 20 foot rise in oceans as a reasonable expectation. There was some conference of climate scientists a few years ago that put that number at 4 to 30 inches in the next century. That's bad enough, quite a few cities and towns are right on the coastline, but it's hardly a doomsday scenario.

I also saw that CO2 graph in the past. Over the historical record temps and CO2 levels do match very closely. But not many scientists are claiming that the temperature will rise exponentially like CO2 levels are expected to do. No studies I've read do anyways.

Temperature change in the USA from the 1880's - when we truly started doing records - to now have been relatively consistent over that time. I wish I could find that graph. So why has the earth's temperature as a whole risen the last 50 or however many years, but ours hasn't? I mean I suppose it could be some sort of anomoly, but we do produce more fossil fuel waste than any other country, you'd think we'd be affected the most.

The ice caps are melting and breaking away...sort of. Once again, I'll have to try and find it the report, but IIRC there was a study claiming that while the fringes of the ice caps are breaking in earnest, the ice nearer the true poles are becoming denser. What is that all about?

There's also the global dimming and brightening debate, on how much sunlight gets filtered thru by the greenhouse gases and it's effects(a intimately related but not entirely same field). I'll try and write more later on both subjects.

Jedi Master Carr

Jan 4th, 2007, 11:42:31 AM

About the Ice caps the Polar bears will probably be extinct in the next 50 years. The main reason they are going extinct is they have less ice to survie on. I think that says something is wrong with the northern ice caps. The question is, are humans causing it?

Yog

Jan 4th, 2007, 12:02:57 PM

Geez dude, that was a long post. :lol

Yeah, I know, I will try to keep it more brief this time :D

However, as Holly said in an earlier post - Gore makes the 20 foot rise in oceans as a reasonable expectation. There was some conference of climate scientists a few years ago that put that number at 4 to 30 inches in the next century. That's bad enough, quite a few cities and towns are right on the coastline, but it's hardly a doomsday scenario.

I think there is some confusion here. There are a few things that that could make the sea level rise:

1. Thermal expansion of water. As the sea temperature rise, so does volume of water
2. Land based ice on Greenland melting
3. Antarctic peninsula melting (partly land based)

- If the north pole melts. Its not going to make the sea rise, at least not significantly. Its the same as when icecubes in a drink melt. The water level stays the same.
( <font size=-2>The fresh water affects the salt level in the water though, and could change the sea currents. Ouch.. gulf stream</font> )

- If on the other hand, land based ice cracks, and slides into the ocean, melting. Thats like putting some new icecubs into a drink. The water level rises.

4-30 inches.. are you sure that is not an estimate for thermal expansion of the water? Could you try look that up? If not, I might when I have some time on my hands. What Gore talked about, was a future scenario where the ice on Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melts (without thermal expansion). There are allready very strong signs of this happening. And the estimate if all that ice melted, it would rise the sea level by 20 feet.

I also saw that CO2 graph in the past. Over the historical record temps and CO2 levels do match very closely. But not many scientists are claiming that the temperature will rise exponentially like CO2 levels are expected to do. No studies I've read do anyways.

I agree. If the temperature rise excactly the same way CO2 levels do, we would all be screwed. You gotta admit, its ominous how those graphs match though..

Temperature change in the USA from the 1880's - when we truly started doing records - to now have been relatively consistent over that time. I wish I could find that graph. So why has the earth's temperature as a whole risen the last 50 or however many years, but ours hasn't? I mean I suppose it could be some sort of anomoly, but we do produce more fossil fuel waste than any other country, you'd think we'd be affected the most.

I have no idea why temperature would rise slower. The climatic systems are complex, and there might be regional differences even though the temperature on a worldwide basis is increasing. Still, that sounds a bit odd.. are you sure about that one?

The ice caps are melting and breaking away...sort of. Once again, I'll have to try and find it the report, but IIRC there was a study claiming that while the fringes of the ice caps are breaking in earnest, the ice nearer the true poles are becoming denser. What is that all about?

What is happening is, while the temperature is rising, water precipitation is also rising. This means more snowfall where it is cold, and the land based ice near the antarctic pole gets thicker, while the ice near the edges breaks off and melts into the sea.

I do not think its true that the arctic ice gets thicker though (near the pole perhaps). The arctic ice melts faster than it gets thicker. The reason is, it floats on water, which increases in temperature. The US navy got extensive data gathered from their submarines, and the thickness of the arctic ice has decreased with 40%. I think at this rate, the entire arctic might melt away, eventually.

There's also the global dimming and brightening debate, on how much sunlight gets filtered thru by the greenhouse gases and it's effects(a intimately related but not entirely same field). I'll try and write more later on both subjects.

Please do, that sounds interesting :)

CMJ

Jan 4th, 2007, 01:09:15 PM

Yog and I continued the debate in IM.

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 4th, 2007, 01:12:32 PM

Share! :) I am enjoying this learning experience.

CMJ

Jan 4th, 2007, 01:45:52 PM

Edited for Typos...
*******************

Yog: hey, I replied in the GW thread. I kept it more brief this time
CMJ: lol
CMJ: ok
CMJ: I have seen the graphs on the US temps. I have the graphs sitting right in front of me actually
Yog: do you have a link to those?
CMJ: No...it's in a book laying beside me
CMJ: lol
Yog: ah, no worry
CMJ: 1880-2000 avg USA mean temperature....it's remarkably consisent
YOG: fairly recent then
CMJ: yes
CMJ: The dimming/brightening thing is in regards to pollution and how much sun gets thru and affects us with UV rays and what have you.
CMJ: In some ways it appears pollution may be beneficial to that regard
YOG: ah, maybe US got a higher air polution, and thus lower amount of UV rays?
CMJ: That's a hyptothesis. Actually some ppl have discussed brightening the earth may increase hurricane activity. This whole nature thing is just screwed
CMJ: LOL
Yog: yeah, Gore mentioned it too, although, he was vague on implying a direct link. He said global warming increases sea temperature, and sea temperature in turn increases intensity of hurricanes- of the more interesting things he said was, not only was last year a record year for hurricanes, but it was a record year for typhoons as well
CMJ: Global warming in essence should decrease hurricane activity tho....
CMJ: Hurricanes are natures heat transers. GW affects the high latitudes more than the low. Basically hurricanes are there to transfer warm energy from the low levels to the high....but if the temp difference is becoming less, there's less of a need for hurricanes in nature
Yog: interesting point. I see now why its debated. While the sea temperature rises, the increase in temperature of higher latitude might cancel the effect out
CMJ: Yes
CMJ: "theory behind global dimming is that increased pollution of dust, soot, and other small particles during the 20th century led to a apparent dimming of the Earth. As more particulates were pumped into the atmosphere, water condensed onto the particles and reflected sunlight back into space. As a result, the increased pollution actually acted to counter global warming by reducing the amount of the sun's energy reaching the ground. Global dimming has been well documented and is believed to be a real phenomenon. Human induced global dimming peaked in 1989 as more pollution controls decreased the dimming after that point. The same pollution that caused global dimming were also responsible for acid rain. Therefor action was taken to control acid rain and global dimming was reversed before it was even realized to exist. The observed maximum period of dimming actually occurred in 1991 as a result of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. It is theorized that this dimming downwind of the factories and population centers of the Midwest and Northeast United States could be what led to decreased sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the North Atlantic. This could have served to suppress the hurricane activity in the late twentieth century and even caused the failure monsoonal rains over the Sahel region of Africa"
CMJ: Basically....the same things that caused warming caused dimming and cancelled each other out. It's kinda screwed up
Yog: yeah, its kinda more disconcerting than comforting actually
Yog: we are affecting nature on so many levels
CMJ: And when we try and reverse one thing the other may get more messed up
Yog: yeah, or it may cause effects we did not think about
CMJ: well yes...thats what I mean too
Yog: yeah, either overcompensate, or cause unexpected things
CMJ: yes
CMJ: Which is again why I urge caution
Yog: I think the bottom line though, temperatures are rising on a global level, even though US might have stable temperatures (for now) because of dimming
Yog: another thing to keep in mind, while the air polution is high, there is also like 30% of the worlds human CO2 emission from there as well
CMJ: Or is it because much of the world didn't have the best measurements for 50 or more years so the records were false
CMJ: I'm just asking questions
Yog: yeah, I don't know. I just think increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is going to cause way more questions and unknown variables than decreasing. I hope we are one day able to stabilize it, the way we dealt with the hole in the ozone layer
CMJ: Listen, I think all cars should be hydrogen based...I'm not working for the auto industry
Yog: oh good!
CMJ: I just don't think that I'll have beach front property in 10 years...despite being 15 miles from the coast now
CMJ: lol
Yog: ok, that I agree with. Were not all going to slide into the ocean
CMJ: Well, Gore suggested it
CMJ: lol
Yog: he suggested sea level rising, in the long term if nothing is done to change it
CMJ: 20 ft in 100 years i believe
Yog: for the record, I think 4-30 inches is way, WAY too optimistic
Yog: I mean, look at those islands in the pacific, the polynesian (spelling?) islands, they had to move out.
CMJ: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
CMJ: Something by your ppl
CMJ: .1 to .9 meters
CMJ: I don't necessarily have a beef with GW is occuring.. It just seems thet effects are being given doomsday scenarios
CMJ: .1 to.9 meters by GIANTS of the field is hardly 20 ft
Yog: yeah, but they don't say how they came to that number
CMJ: Well, I'm sure I could find the 1000 page report if you really wanted to read it
Yog: the numbers depends on how much ice you think is going to melt, and what ice
CMJ: None of which we know.
CMJ: But these are leaders in the field tha are arguing YOUR side
CMJ: I mean even 3 feet would be rough on some coastlines. New Orleans would be more vulnerable.
Yog: I am reading up on IPCC, they do seem credible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC
CMJ: I wasnt lying
Yog: the only explaination I can think of is, their estimates don't take into account melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice, but glaciers and more peripheral ice
CMJ: Or Gore did the worst most insane prediction when science points to something else
Yog: either that, or Gore's estimate is wrong, which would be odd, cause the movie has been under review by many experts and scientists, and AFAIK, its not been pointed out earlier, which is odd
CMJ: Plenty of ppl have pointed out flaws in that film. Thats how I found this study...someone linked me to it!
Yog: aha, it was as I expected: "Gore discusses the possibility of a sudden rise in sea level of 20 feet if a major polar ice sheet collapsed. This should not be confused with the more certain, gradual and moderate rise due to non-catastrophic ice melting and the thermal expansion of water. The IPCC's Third Assessment Summary estimates the latter as between 0.1 to 0.85 meters (0.3 to 2.8 feet) by the year 2100, but notes that "this range does not allow for uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet."
Yog:"The Antarctic as a whole contains enough ice to raise sea level by an estimated 60 m (200 ft) if it were to melt entirely[10] and the collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic ice sheet alone would raise sea level by 5-6 m (16-20 ft).[11]"
CMJ: yes, none of which is expected
Yog: its not expected, but its happening, right now. Major parts of the antarctic broke off, when no one could explain or anticipate it
CMJ: "while most of the world has been warming the past few decades, most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected in increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC (although recent findings by NASA call this result into question)."
Yog: yeah, I don't think the entire antarctic will melt, no one really believes that, and thats not what Gore said. He did say what would happen if the antarctic peninsula broke off, and there are indications that might happen..
CMJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island There's also this- which we don't quite understand the significance of
Yog: In the IPCC estimate, they include certain ice melting, which really can't be called into question. In Gore's estimate, its a theory what would happen if the antarctic peninsula and the greenland ice melted
Yog: its far more uncertain, but possible
Yog: Interesting, I never heard of urban heat islands before
CMJ: yeah, I sorta mentioned it earlier in the temps of cities being higher because of concrete and such. How much does that skew data? We don't know yet
***********
This gets you current

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 4th, 2007, 03:12:45 PM

Ok well there were a lot of long posts, etc, but I think you all should know that humans are not the number one CO2 polluters in the world.

Cows are. (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html)

Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

So lets slaughter all livestock and save the world! /sarcasm

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 4th, 2007, 03:17:44 PM

Don't blame the cows! Slaughter all the humans instead.

Lilaena De'Ville

Jan 4th, 2007, 03:18:56 PM

Oh yeah, sure... they're the dirty polluters not us!

Jaime Tomahawk

Jan 4th, 2007, 04:01:38 PM

Don't blame the cows! Slaughter all the humans instead.

Except cows are tastier on burgers. Lets have one great orgy of BBQ meat and sauce, dance naked around fires while shooting cows and devouring the innards! *

* Okay, maybe the dance naked thing is going too far.

Dasquian Belargic

Jan 4th, 2007, 04:21:32 PM

I don't know... I hear human tastes like chicken, and they are in such plentiful supply.

Jaime Tomahawk

Jan 10th, 2007, 07:29:24 AM

I don't know... I hear human tastes like chicken, and they are in such plentiful supply.

There are very humans I would thin would taste good on a burger. Cows tho? Yum.

Now one of the things that Global warming doesn't explain is why this year is literally one of the coldest summers I can remember here. Not a single day above 40C. An Inconvenient Truth has it badly wrong this year, Global Warming is BS - but I for one do fully believe on the other hand Climate Change is a fact. Things are changing - Al Gore's ideas however I think are wrong. We just don't know what the hell is happening or what is actually causing this crazy weather. Change yes, Warming.... ummm..... I don't think so.

Wearing a jumper in full summer is just wrong in Australia.

jjwr

Jan 10th, 2007, 09:45:35 AM

Its snowing up here in Vermont, for a while we were all confused and didn't understand what this white form of rain was, then we realized it was in fact mid January and its really supposed to be snowing.

Last weekend we set roughly 65 new high temperature records. Maybe humans aren't causing all of this but there is no doubt the weather is changing. Each year we get less and less snow, last year we hardly had any and I've yet to see 12" total snow fall this year.

CMJ

Jan 10th, 2007, 10:01:04 AM

Well, it's been colder than normal here JJ. Not to mention the wierd weather this year is because of an El Nino cycle.

Yog

Jan 10th, 2007, 11:30:19 AM

Its not just over there though. You ask anyone living in the arctic or far north, and they will have noticed the climate changes more than anyone. Many glaciers are going to vanish, and just over a 10 year period since I moved to Oslo... each and every year I am astonished by how much warmer the climate gets. 10 years ago.. a day in january, -15C would be normal.. nowadays, its barely under 0. In fact, the whole of december there were no snow at all. Also, where I grew up, further north near north cape, the climate changed even more. There could be snow up to the roof tops, nowadays.. there is not much snow at all. What some people refer to as a "theory", I and many else knew to be fact for over a decade now.

Jedi Master Carr

Jan 11th, 2007, 11:11:26 AM

This is something I just thought about the other day. But could the climate change be more associated with us having less trees now? I say this because I know the rainforests are down in the world and I am sure there are less trees now than there were 100 years ago. Trees are responsible for creating oxygen, if there are less trees there could be more Co2. This only got me thinking because I was looking through a National Geographic article about the state of the Amazon Rain Forest.

Yog

Mar 21st, 2007, 10:00:48 PM

^^ Yes, the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis>photosyntesis</a>. Plants use sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to make sugar and oxygen as bi product. The forests of the world are a net producer of oxygen. Wether they are a net consumer of CO2 is less clear. <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/> Deforestation</a> is however a big problem because the logging and burning of trees release a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. The destruction of the rain forest is very disturbing because two thirds of the planet's species live in this eco system. Its like burning down the lungs and the natural pharmacy of the world. The rain forest is down 50% since the the beginning of the last century, and at this rate, it will be all gone at the end of this century. The deforestation of the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Forest>Amazon Forest</a> is particulary worrying.

Anyway, as you all know, this movie won the Oscar for best documentary, and an additional Oscar for best song. I recommend those who missed out try and see it if they can.

Al Gore went to the Congress today urging for action, but faced a luke warm if not chilly response...

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/gore.ap/index.html

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 21st, 2007, 10:53:19 PM

The deforestation of the rainforests to me is the worst problem right now. I am afraid the loggers and developers in Brazil will go too far and destroy so much it will wreck that ecosystem for centuries and probably will effect the rest of the world.

Doc Milo

Mar 22nd, 2007, 04:08:16 PM

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 22nd, 2007, 04:43:43 PM

I think the crisis with the rainforests though is very serious. The Amazon is down by at least 30% in the last 20 years. If it keeps up the Ecosystem of that region will be really messed up. Of course I am not sure what that means for the rest of the world, but I think it is a very bad regional problem.

jediSamson

Mar 22nd, 2007, 05:49:21 PM

Vigilante

Mar 22nd, 2007, 06:04:56 PM

You know, the surge of biodiesel has South America rushing to raze the rainforests so they can grow more corn to sell to the U.S.

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 22nd, 2007, 06:11:24 PM

You know, the surge of biodiesel has South America rushing to raze the rainforests so they can grow more corn to sell to the U.S.

Actually it is sugarcane since that is what they grow down there. That does worry me now you mention it. I think Brazil would be stupid to allow too much more of the rainforest to be cut down.

Doc Milo

Mar 22nd, 2007, 06:21:39 PM

Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth, per our theories and lies we can get people to believe, but we will throw a bit of truth in there, just to keep it real. That should have been the title of the CROCumentry

To me, the real "inconvient truth" is that people like Al Gore have one actual goal in mind. It's to scare people enough to allow people like him to take control and pursue their socialist/neo-communist agenda. If they put enough of a scare into the people, they'd be willing to fork over anything, money and power, they'd even give up their God-given rights. Which is exactly the agenda of the extreme Left, of which Al Gore is a card-carrying member.

Vigilante

Mar 22nd, 2007, 06:27:35 PM

Sugarcane, that's right. Got my crop mixed up, but the result is the same. Saves fossil fuel but demolishes the rainforests (remember kids, trees produce oxygen and eat that nasty carbon dioxide!)....

jediSamson

Mar 22nd, 2007, 06:55:24 PM

To me, the real "inconvient truth" is that people like Al Gore have one actual goal in mind. It's to scare people enough to allow people like him to take control and pursue their socialist/neo-communist agenda. If they put enough of a scare into the people, they'd be willing to fork over anything, money and power, they'd even give up their God-given rights. Which is exactly the agenda of the extreme Left, of which Al Gore is a card-carrying member.I'd like to expand on what you said, but in those four sentence's you said it all. It's sad really that MANY people out there will believe anything they here and or see if someone of power,status and or learned in anway, say's it's so. I heard of this Crocumentry from a friend of mine, he was telling me how, just mind blowing the status of our planet was in blah,blah,blah.Just went on how I just had to watch it. In the first ten minutes this guy was going "see, SEE !!! and I was just sitting there trying not to laugh my butt off at the load of trash Gore was shovling. Didn't wanna hurt my friends feelings. So i just politely told him, that he may wanna check for these types of people's agenda's and do a little research on the matter himself. Then this crap wins an Oscar, and Now my friend has it in his mind that it's like now the Gospel. Had to break it to him that the Oscars were in the same league as Pro wrestling, only less credable.

Doc Milo

Mar 22nd, 2007, 08:14:57 PM

Had to break it to him that the Oscars were in the same league as Pro wrestling, only less credable.

Yeah, well, all you have to do to win an oscar is choose the right "politically correct" issue of the day. Make a movie about homosexuality, for instance, and you get an instant nomination regardless of whether or not the movie is a piece of trash. If you are a darling of the Left, like Al Gore, you get an instant award; the other movies were nominated only to make a show of actual competition, but the award was already a fore-gone conclusion, even if another movie was more deserving (side note: not being a big viewer of documentaries, I can not say whether or not another documentary was worthy of the award.)

On the other hand, write a sci-fi, fantasy, horror, or comedy and you have a very difficult time being taken seriously, regardless of the merits of the film. LotR: RotK is the only movie from the SF/Fantasy genre to actually win Best Picture in the entire history of the Oscars, and plenty of movies were worthy (Star Wars: A New Hope changed filmmaking as it was known, and it didn't win!) Change the setting of Titanic to a space-cruiser hit by an asteroid damaging the life-support systems, and it wouldn't win, even if the script itself (aside from the setting) and story itself was exactly the same. But this is not an Oscar thread, so I'll leave it here....

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 22nd, 2007, 08:34:32 PM

Yeah, well, all you have to do to win an oscar is choose the right "politically correct" issue of the day. Make a movie about homosexuality, for instance, and you get an instant nomination regardless of whether or not the movie is a piece of trash. If you are a darling of the Left, like Al Gore, you get an instant award; the other movies were nominated only to make a show of actual competition, but the award was already a fore-gone conclusion, even if another movie was more deserving (side note: not being a big viewer of documentaries, I can not say whether or not another documentary was worthy of the award.)

On the other hand, write a sci-fi, fantasy, horror, or comedy and you have a very difficult time being taken seriously, regardless of the merits of the film. LotR: RotK is the only movie from the SF/Fantasy genre to actually win Best Picture in the entire history of the Oscars, and plenty of movies were worthy (Star Wars: A New Hope changed filmmaking as it was known, and it didn't win!) Change the setting of Titanic to a space-cruiser hit by an asteroid damaging the life-support systems, and it wouldn't win, even if the script itself (aside from the setting) and story itself was exactly the same. But this is not an Oscar thread, so I'll leave it here....

I think you are going to hear it from CMJ on this :p

Yog

Mar 23rd, 2007, 11:02:57 AM

One of the major problems I have with all this is the same thing I have, generally, with science. "They" have theories that they test with observation, have that observation confirm or deny their theories, and then claim things that are confirmed as fact. The problem is, we have a very limited means of observation. Before technological advances, our technology limited us to temperature measurments, and before those limited technologies, we have no data whatsoever. To compare measurements taken with more accurate technologies, and compare it to measurements taken with less accurate technologies is flawed.

Ok, so you have problems with the scientific method. Yes, our means of observation in this field are limited. Does that mean the science is flawed or wrong? Does this mean, if you can't see and confirm it with your own eyes, its invalid? When you open a microwave, do you have doubts about the theories of radiation involved because you can't see the microwaves. When you fly in an airplane, do you say to yourself "I have serious doubts about the laws of thermodynamics, this plane will surely crash!". Do you have doubts about the existance of atoms, protons, dark matter in the universe etc.

Over time, theories and models get developed to the point, they are no longer questioned. A "consensus" is reached. While there might be modifications and new aspects of the theory that needs to be examined, the main elements of the theory remains intact. Its been proven through observations, or implications of previous observations. The theories are also examined under critique, scientific journals put under peer review.

There is an interesting article on scientists Belief and Knowledge, which I recommend. Its a good read, I recommend it:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html

Wether you believe it or not, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus of the existance of antropogenic global warming (AGW, or human made GW). The debate is not wether AGW exists. That debate was 20 years ago. The debate is more to what extent we are causing this and how fast will these changes happen.

The Earth, basically, has been warming since the last Ice Age.

I am not refuting that. And yes, the earth has natural cycles. The problem is the rate temperature is increasing for the last 100 years or so. There are no natural factors explaining it.

And it has had previous phases of warming (in the 1920s and 1930s)

The "phases" of warming is not nearly as apparent as you might think. Take a look at this graph, and tell me you don't see a consistant warming of the world's climate since the early 1900's:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

and phases of cooling (1940s to 1970s.)

Yes, there is a plateau, at 40s-70s. Notice, the "drop" is still higher than the medium. I already explained this earlier in the thread. We did not understand it back then because there was unsufficient data. The 40s-70s had a low level of solar output and a high level of release of sulphate aerosols (human polution). Since that time, we have successfully cut aerosol emissions because of concerns about the ozone and acid rain. Consequently, CO2 has become an even more dominant positive forcing. Thats why you see a brief stagnation, before the temperature increased en force.

Now as for the proclaimed "Ice Age" warned by scientists in the 40s-70s, this was mostly a media created thing. You would have a hard time finding any articles scientific journals on the subject.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

I (and there is a strong scientific consensus on this) strongly disagree there is anything natural about the way the temperature rose for the last 100 years. Solar output, volcanic outbreaks etc can cause variables, but only up to a certain point. Climate models calculating all the known external factors (besides human releases of GHG), using even the most progressive data and assumptions, only explains 30-50% of the temperature increase at maximum. Where is the other 50% coming from?

The only way you get a "good fit" climate model reflecting the real temperatures measured, is by combining the the different factors together:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

I wish I could remember where I read this, but one volcanic eruption spews more "greenhouse" gases into the air than man has produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution. How does it follow that a tend toward warming temperatures is man-made?

Please do quote where you read this if you are able to find it. Its one of those claims being thrown about on various forums and in the media ad nauseum. Yet mysteriously, no one seems to be able to come up with a credible source or papers under peer review, except for internet conspiracy sites and the like.

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

I am not denying that the Earth is warming (although to say that "we've had the hottest winter I can remember" is proof of Global Warming is also illogical. What happens in one area in one year is not proof of a Global Event over a prolonged period of time)

I will agree with you that temperature measurements for one year is inadequate data to make conclusions of any kind. These type of statements is not what climate science is based on, however. If you like me grew up in an arctic climate zone, you would have noticed the difference through the past few decades.

And even if you do find statements like "we've had the hottest winter I can remember" irrelevant to the discussion, does not mean that it can have very real and serious concequences for those experiencing it hands on.

Ask people living in the town of Ilulissat on the west coast of Greenland for example. Most of their professional hunters had to give up their profession or go unemployed due to the sudden lack of sea ice for the past few years. The Ilulissat glacier is on the UNESCO world heritage list, and is shrinking at an alarming rate. The bay town sits on used to freeze over for five or six months every year. People there have dog sled teams, and they used to travel up and down the coast by taking their dogs over the ice. But in recent years, the bay hasn't frozen at all. You don't need a thermometer to tell the people there the climate is changing. They allready had to change their life styles because of it.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/adventure-travel/greenland/global-warming-2.html

Here are some other examples:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html

what I am denying is that there is any proof that what the warming trend is man-made, or even unnatural.

If its not man-made or unnatural, what is it then? In an earlier post, I outlined the relation between CO2 levels and climate temperatures for the last 650,000 years. The level of CO2 been constant betweeen 170ppm and 280ppm ± 10 ppm in the last 800.000 years, up until the industrial revolution. The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is >380ppm and rising. You have to research geological samples 40 million years back in time to find a higher level.

We can't compare more accurate numbers to less accurate numbers and call it a crisis; we can't see a trend toward warming and say it's unnatural when no data exists (because we did not have the technology to measure it) to prove whether or not the Earth has or hasn't gone through similar periods in the past five billion years

Looking at geological samples, we know that the globe had periods of higher CO2 concentration and higher temperatures during it's 5 billion year history. Thats not really helpful though. During that time, we had entirely different atmospheric composition, tropical climate on the poles, vastly different ecosystems, and large portions of the continents were under water. Saying that the global warming is normal because the climate was warmer at the age of the dinosaurs is an utterly absurd statement. I am not implying thats what you are saying, but its something that is being used by "GW sceptics" a lot to prove that this recent development is nothing to worry about.

Point is, human civilization (or the biosphere) is not adapted to those sort of scenarios. For the purpose of this discussion, the geological timescale is really not that interesting. All of human history has been during a geological ice-age, and all of human civilizations history has been during an inter-glacial (the halocene). Using the geological timescale, you can also find times were there were no oxygene.. which is also irrelevant to this discussion.

I will tell you what is relevant though. We can with certainty establish there hasn't been a rise (or fall) in temperature at this rate - at any time in the proxy-records (a 1000 year scale), and "likely" the 450.000 year scale. While the latter statement is less certain because the lack of accurate data, the proxy scale is not even up for debate. 0.6 degrees in 100 years may not sound like a big deal to you, but in geological terms it is.

is it accurate to say that the child's temperature increased 2 degrees in the ten minutes from one reading to the next? Or is it more accurate to say the first reading was wrong? And if you have no ideat what a normal human temperature is, and you take a reading for the child and it is at 97 in the morning, and 98 at night, is it accurate to say that the child is running a fever?

This is called "margin of error", and is already accounted for. When different types of measurements support each other, the theory becomes even stronger.

Should we act as if it is a crisis and that we are the cause of the crisis and enact drastic "fixes"? Absolutely not. I am reminded of Jurasic Park, and Dr. Malcolm's explanation of chaos theory -- how, in a chaotic system, the change of one variable in a minor manner can have drastic results on the entire system, and I believe caution is a more sensible approach. Because if we react as Al Gore thinks we should react, and he is wrong, we can cause more damage.

Ok, the climate models can in many way be compared to a chaotic systems, but there are underlying factors based on physical laws. When we increase these factors, the system get out of balance. Is your suggestion adding more and more of these factors (Green House Gases) so the system can become even more chaotic? To use your Jurasic Park analogy, what you are suggesting is releasing these dinosaurs into the wild, because hey, we don't REALLY know they will eat us. Maybe we can pet them? :)

Yog

Mar 23rd, 2007, 11:30:38 AM

Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth, per our theories and lies we can get people to believe, but we will throw a bit of truth in there, just to keep it real. That should have been the title of the CROCumentry

Interesting. What "lies" do you see in there?

You know, the surge of biodiesel has South America rushing to raze the rainforests so they can grow more corn to sell to the U.S.

And because of this, we can conclude alternative energy sources are horrible, and biofuel destroys the environment?

Biodiesel is in fact a very viable technology, and can be produced with minimal impact on the environment, believe it or not:

http://www.energybulletin.net/2364.html

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

remember kids, trees produce oxygen and eat that nasty carbon dioxide!

I was going to make a serious response, but changed my mind :lol

To me, the real "inconvient truth" is that people like Al Gore have one actual goal in mind. It's to scare people enough to allow people like him to take control and pursue their socialist/neo-communist agenda. If they put enough of a scare into the people, they'd be willing to fork over anything, money and power, they'd even give up their God-given rights. Which is exactly the agenda of the extreme Left, of which Al Gore is a card-carrying member.

:rolleyes

Yog

Mar 23rd, 2007, 11:36:05 AM

Yeah, well, all you have to do to win an oscar is choose the right "politically correct" issue of the day. Make a movie about homosexuality, for instance, and you get an instant nomination regardless of whether or not the movie is a piece of trash. If you are a darling of the Left, like Al Gore, you get an instant award; the other movies were nominated only to make a show of actual competition, but the award was already a fore-gone conclusion, even if another movie was more deserving (side note: not being a big viewer of documentaries, I can not say whether or not another documentary was worthy of the award.)

On the other hand, write a sci-fi, fantasy, horror, or comedy and you have a very difficult time being taken seriously, regardless of the merits of the film. LotR: RotK is the only movie from the SF/Fantasy genre to actually win Best Picture in the entire history of the Oscars, and plenty of movies were worthy (Star Wars: A New Hope changed filmmaking as it was known, and it didn't win!) Change the setting of Titanic to a space-cruiser hit by an asteroid damaging the life-support systems, and it wouldn't win, even if the script itself (aside from the setting) and story itself was exactly the same. But this is not an Oscar thread, so I'll leave it here....

Oh dear... I think CMJ would have a few things to say about that.. :p

CMJ

Mar 23rd, 2007, 12:23:47 PM

I'm choosing to ignore Milo's comments on AMPAS politics and it's relation to awards, because we've sorta hashed it out in the past. And we'll never see eye to eye - or come close.

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 23rd, 2007, 12:51:44 PM

I'm choosing to ignore Milo's comments on AMPAS politics and it's relation to awards, because we've sorta hashed it out in the past. And we'll never see eye to eye - or come close.

Heh well I remember some of those fights. I think you are chosing the right approach :)

Doc Milo

Mar 23rd, 2007, 02:10:32 PM

Heh well I remember some of those fights. I think you are chosing the right approach :)

Fights? I think that's the wrong word. Heated debate. Passionate discussion. But fights? That implies a dislike one for the other and I have never disliked CMJ (and I don't think he has disliked me, but I won't speak for him.)

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Even in this thread, I don't dislike anyone who disagrees with my points of view and I hope no one would dislike me merely for disagreeing with their points of view....

Yog

Mar 23rd, 2007, 02:14:06 PM

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Even in this thread, I don't dislike anyone who disagrees with my points of view and I hope no one would dislike me merely for disagreeing with their points of view....

Not at all Doc. Its a shame when discussions / debates leads to ad hominem. I hope you understand though, its an issue I feel strongly about :)

Blade Bacquin

Mar 23rd, 2007, 02:22:29 PM

Honestly I know very little on this subject and want to say allot of this has been very informative to me.

The few facts I do know however a few of wich have already been stated several times.

Earths climate going in cycles yet this theory applies to just about everything in nature. Everything thing just about goes in cycles it almost should be law of nature. Earth going in cycles of cooling and warming is just one thing we do have to learn to deal with and not cause panic over. Same with the earth natural cycle of flipping its axis (make the north pole the south and south pole the north.). Scientist have found that it very likely that earth has reached tempertures this high in the past. It has found it likely that the ozone layer (which the hole in it at one time was blamed for global warming not sure if it still is) can repare itself and is prone to having holes and reparing them.

As for whom every was concerned by the exstinction factor that may or may not be caused due to global warming. Over 90% of earths (can't remember the exact figure) animal population that has ever exist is already exstinct. It is also a natural cycle again animals that can not adapt to certain enviroment changes die out.

As for the cows being the worlds primary Co2 producer do to the amount of methan there excrements produce. This true however this due to human envolvement. Humans have mass procreated domesticated cows for a food source so in away this is are fault. Being in a primary agrecultural area I can tell you cows out number the number of people in my state.

Now do I believe in global warming yes but then sceintist still can't tell us if it is because of human involvement or if it's a natural cycle it is not worth starting a mass panic over. However I'm very for changing some of the stuff we as humans do, do to the everoment. Like alternate fuels are one thing i firmly believe in not nessarily cause it may or may not be hurting earth but it is hurting us. Deforstation is also another thing I believe we need to control better but humans are greedy so I don't believe it will ever happen.

Just to make my point very clear we need more proof that it is us causing the problem and not just another one of earths cycles before I will join the histaria. I am a firm believer in the idea that history constantly repeats itself weather it be natural or human history.

CMJ

Mar 23rd, 2007, 02:47:13 PM

Fights? I think that's the wrong word. Heated debate. Passionate discussion. But fights? That implies a dislike one for the other and I have never disliked CMJ (and I don't think he has disliked me, but I won't speak for him.)

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Even in this thread, I don't dislike anyone who disagrees with my points of view and I hope no one would dislike me merely for disagreeing with their points of view....

I agree, I've always liked Doc. I'm glad you're back, it's sad when you and Eb take sojourns away from here.

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 23rd, 2007, 06:56:45 PM

Fights? I think that's the wrong word. Heated debate. Passionate discussion. But fights? That implies a dislike one for the other and I have never disliked CMJ (and I don't think he has disliked me, but I won't speak for him.)

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Even in this thread, I don't dislike anyone who disagrees with my points of view and I hope no one would dislike me merely for disagreeing with their points of view....

You are right I used the wrong word, fights is too strong, just heated debates. Now Jonathan and some of the people here had fights :p

Doc Milo

Mar 24th, 2007, 01:06:56 PM

YOG: Not at all Doc. Its a shame when discussions / debates leads to ad hominem. I hope you understand though, its an issue I feel strongly about

And I respect that. And I don't have any problems with conservation, finding alternate means of energy, etc...

It's the "cure" that Al Gore has seems a bit to socialisitic for my tastes. I feel that these things can and should be done without resorting to Big Governement. It seems suspicious to me when the only "fix" we ever hear these politicians talking about means the expansion of the government, the restriction of freedoms, and the over-regualtion of the economy. We have an evnvironmental problem, how is it "fixed" by resorting to socialist policy? The "fix" that Al Gore wants would create more of a problem, in my opinion. The people are already too heavily taxed, his fix has us taxed more. If I have to pay anymore in taxes I'd have a hard time keeping my house and being able to feed my family. And I'm sure there are plenty of people in worse shape than I am, financially, who wouldn't be able to pay more taxes. Sure, "tax the rich" sounds great, but what is the definition of rich? $50,000 a year, $100,000 a year? $500,000 a year, $1,000,000 a year? Between 50 to 100 grand a year, where I live, is barely enough to live on (and no, I do not live in a "rich neighborhood",) what with property taxes, school taxes, high sales tax, and property values being very high -- meaning that most people who moved there in the last decade have very high mortgages. It's easy to say, "move" but where to? I can't find a job paying better than the one I have in a different state, and the value of property in different areas of my state are even higher (in fact, when we were looking for a house, the property values in the area in which I live were some of the lower values inside reasonably safe neighborhoods) -- thus I would never qualify for a mortgage -- even if the tax burden is slightly lower. It's not very easy to move a family of six and have both parents have to find new jobs in new states just because the price of living has gone up due to an ever expanding, ever increasing tax burden. Not talking about the 50-100 grand/year range? There aren't enough taxpayers in the higher end to make the sort of money needed for Al Gore's "fix" and not burden the economy to the point where businesses have to lay a bunch of people off.

But, IMHO, this is what Al Gore's real plan is. Because when we then have all these people out of work, here comes Gore with another Big Government plan to help these people, thus enslaving them to the governemnt....

Another part of what Al Gore wants is all of us to either use mass transit or drive hybrid cars. Well, neither I nor my wife can get to work using mass transit. And we can't afford to buy new cars (let alone the more expensive hybrids -- especially with an increased tax burden!) -- if it is mandated that all vehicles be hybrids in the near future, I wouldn't be able to get to work without breaking the law (by driving my old gas-burning junker.) How am I supposed to pay for my home, feed my children, etc, without being able to get to work or without becoming an outlaw to environmental regualtion? Is Al Gore's socialist agenda going to supply my car? Perhaps ... and then I become a slave to big government. As socialism of this kind progresses, our personal freedoms will begin to disappear (are people really going to voice dissenting opinions of a government that is supplying those people with their means of survival? No, they are going to "suffer evils while the evils are sufferable." And what happens when those evils become insufferable? With our freedoms disappearing, where is our means of rebellion against an over-bearing government?)

There are other ways, using free market forces, to have cleaner technologies developed, research alternate fuels, etc... I don't see any harm in "cleaning things up." What I do see harm in is proposing socialism to fix the problem when socialism has never worked to fix anything.

To me, it seems, the "crisis" mentality is used by Gore to scare people into letting him get his "fix" through -- to scare people into giving in to socialism. The Socialists/Communists have lost the Cold War. This is their means of reviving it. And, sadly, in America, the new socialist enemy is not a danger from another country, but an enemy within.

Blade Ice: Same with the earth natural cycle of flipping its axis (make the north pole the south and south pole the north.). Scientist have found that it very likely that earth has reached tempertures this high in the past. It has found it likely that the ozone layer (which the hole in it at one time was blamed for global warming not sure if it still is)

I was going to bring this up about the Earth flipping its axis. This is a very slow process that I learned about in astronomy class years ago. Here's a question: Can this be some of the cause of climate changes? It's hotter where it used to be cooler, and cooler where it used to be hotter because of this very slow rotation about the Earth's Equatorial Axis?

About the Ozone Layer. From what I read on the subject years ago (so if there is any new information, I'd like to hear it.) There were never any "holes" in the Ozone layer. There were 50% thinnings of Ozone over the polar caps, and people believed that these thinnings were caused by chloroflorocarbons. Again, going back on what I learned in astronomy/physics/chemistry classes, it never really seemed odd to me that there would be a 50% thinning of Ozone over the polar caps. To me, from what I knew of chemistry, in particular, this seemed natural.

Let me explain: Ozone is a very unstable element. It's chemical symbol is O3. Oxygen, in its natural state, is stable at O2. In order to create Ozone, an oxygen atom and an oxygen molecule must be combined, and go through a chemical reaction that includes the presence of nitrogen and sunlight. The chemical reaction, when concluded takes O2 + O + N and sunlight and combines it to form O3 + N. Similarly, O3 is unstable. If O3 collides with an Oxygen atom (O) a chemical reaction takes place that creates two Oxygen molecules (O2 + O2). Nothing else is required for this reaction to take place.

With that in mind, knowing that the polar caps see "six months of day and six months of night" -- entire periods where there is not enough sunlight to cause a chemical reaction to create Ozone -- and knowing that Ozone in itself is naturally depleting due to its unstable nature, it always seemed likely, to me, that the "Ozone hole" (a 50% thinning over the polar caps) was a natural phenomenon.

Carr: Now Jonathan and some of the people here had fights :p

:: dons boxing gloves ::

Jonathan's here? Where? Let me at him! :)

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 24th, 2007, 01:25:43 PM

My comment (Vigilante) about the rainforests being cut down to produce more sugarcane for biofuel was not meant to imply a position, it was merely a statement, Yog. ;)

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 24th, 2007, 05:32:19 PM

My comment (Vigilante) about the rainforests being cut down to produce more sugarcane for biofuel was not meant to imply a position, it was merely a statement, Yog. ;)

I am not sure where the grow the sugarcane for the Biofuel. The main problem with the rainforest has more been the loggers, farmers and cattle ranchers. Those three groups have destroyed most of it.

jediSamson

Mar 25th, 2007, 07:47:48 PM

you really outta check out Ann Coulter's view on global warming, although I'm not to sure you'll agree with her take on the Catholic church she's a riot. If we had more Americans like her with a voice, this country would be the the country it should be and could be. She's not afraid to tell you like it is and how it should be. She's my kind of gal.Although she isnt has hot as Bea Arthur her personallity makes up for it all. Anncoulter.com

CMJ

Mar 25th, 2007, 08:07:32 PM

Ann Coulter is an annoying blowhard. She ticks me off even if/when I agree with her.

jediSamson

Mar 25th, 2007, 08:29:51 PM

Ann Coulter is an annoying blowhard. She ticks me off even if/when I agree with her.How in the world Ann Coulter be annoying?

CMJ

Mar 25th, 2007, 08:53:52 PM

How in the world Ann Coulter be annoying?

You can't be serious.....

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 25th, 2007, 09:04:43 PM

How in the world Ann Coulter be annoying?

I won't even touch that. Lets just say I can't stand her. Really all she cares about is selling books.

jediSamson

Mar 25th, 2007, 09:12:04 PM

You can't be serious.....Very serious, no one since Micheal Savage has had the guts to speak their mind as she does, and with humor. Now I'm not saying she perfect and right all the time but 95% of the time she is dead on. And I'm also not saying she believes half the stuff she say's but none the less when your right your right and she be right alot.

jediSamson

Mar 25th, 2007, 09:13:52 PM

I won't even touch that. Lets just say I can't stand her. Really all she cares about is selling books.And herself. The package maybe tainted but the content is fresh.

Figrin D'an

Mar 26th, 2007, 04:25:48 PM

And herself. The package maybe tainted but the content is fresh.

Fresh content? With humor?

Maybe if you define spewing tired partisan drivel worse than Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and tossing a few racist and homophobic slurs for kicks as being fresh and humorous content.

jediSamson

Mar 26th, 2007, 05:04:10 PM

Fresh content? With humor?

Maybe if you define spewing tired partisan drivel worse than Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and tossing a few racist and homophobic slurs for kicks as being fresh and humorous content.i'd be very interested to see or hear the racist and homophobic slurs. i have read and heard alot of what she has said and have yet to hear any of that.

CMJ

Mar 26th, 2007, 05:41:16 PM

You've never heard her use homophobic slurs? She called John Edwards a faggot about 3 weeks ago for crying out loud. How in the bloody hell did you miss that?

jediSamson

Mar 26th, 2007, 06:43:06 PM

You've never heard her use homophobic slurs? She called John Edwards a faggot about 3 weeks ago for crying out loud. How in the bloody hell did you miss that? THATS, homophobic?? Ok, well um, yeah,ok. I have no doubts that she doesn't like John Edwards, and maybe it was rude, cras (sp) but it was far from showing an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuality.

Yog

Mar 26th, 2007, 06:51:49 PM

I never heard of her before, but Ann Coulter is definitely not my cup of tea, to put it gently. Anyway, here are a couple claims she made in the blog that I would like to comment on, since its something that pops up frequently in various forums, websites and media:

As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

The Gores lives in a carbon neutral household, with a large staff, who all work at home, in that household. The electricity is all renewable energy. Gore pays thousands of dollars extra every year to ensure a carbon neutral lifestyle. He is also running an international campaign on the issue of global warming, something that takes a lot of his time and resources. He is also driving a hybrid car.

The DVD "An Inconvenient Truth" is packaged in 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper, no excess materials, and absolutely no plastics.

Now as for him traveling around the world in a jet plane to show his slide shows. "Oh no, what a hypocrit. The man must have terrible integrity!". I hope no one here is seriously expecting him to travel the oceans by sail boat. Thats not practical for someone that busy, and thats not the point. The point is raising awareness level about the issue and get people and governments to make an effort.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

GW was never debunked in this "documentary". When I watched it, I was horrified of all the inaccuracies, misleading facts, selective editing and quotes taken out of context. There are even manipulated graphs and false data in there. Its what I call sensationalist journalism. The worst thing about it, for the uninformed viewer who never had the opportunity to read upon the science and check some numbers and basic facts, it seems credible. In a sense, the viewers are being swindled. It really does look like GW is being exposed as a "hoax". Those being interviewed are the usual suspects, although I believe at least one of them are considering suing channel 4 for misusing his comments:

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.pdf

http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/

Heck, even Channel 4 themselves had to come out and distance themselves from the documentary they made!

http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/channel-4-distances-itself-from-documentary/

Edit: Also can we try and stay on topic O_o

CMJ

Mar 26th, 2007, 07:35:11 PM

THATS, homophobic?? Ok, well um, yeah,ok. I have no doubts that she doesn't like John Edwards, and maybe it was rude, cras (sp) but it was far from showing an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuality.

How about extreme prejudice against gay people? From gay people I know, faggot is almost as reviled as the N word is the African Americans. So, I'd say it's more than "rude" or "crass".

jediSamson

Mar 26th, 2007, 08:29:37 PM

How about extreme prejudice against gay people? From gay people I know, faggot is almost as reviled as the N word is the African Americans. So, I'd say it's more than "rude" or "crass". Actually, she doesn't hate Gay people she hates thier ACTS of homosexuality(per her words), and thats wrong because ???

If that word is as reviled as much as the N word is to Blacks(no such thing as african american your either an American or you ain't)(but real bigoted ,sp, groups like the NAACP would have people seperated, they are one of the many true hate groups) than that would mean they have no problems with the word. Listen on the street, listen to hip-hop, Rap, go to a black Barber shop,etc.... the N-word is used more times than you can count, so it can't be that truley reviled.AND if that word offends, than maybe it applies, think about it. [BLEEP] isn't a race it's an attitude, you can be white,latino, greek etc... and be a [BLEEP] so, if anyone one gets offended by that word, well, they told on themselves. Now if someone is trying to berate(sp) you, and pick a fight using that word or any other word such as, i'd understand anger, not agree but understand(its only words. like the Tar-heel game, it's only a game...well, almost. LOL!!!!

Anyway... Gay's that you know are FAR!!!! different than the one's I know. Seems the gay's you know are riding the P.Cness train. Had a converstation with one of my MANY queer friends(oh, thats not p.c??? thats what they call each other) last week, can't count how many times he used the word faggot,queer and sob, and one coc* sucker. Now granted he was riled at one of his many ex lovers but use of such a SO CALLED reviled word shouldn't be used in any situation except to be discussed. As i'm sure have have stated, in my previous life, I have worked at MANY!!! queer clubs from Dallas Tx- Charlotte, NC and the most common word I heard was Queer and Faggot,and man-[BLEEP] so again Reviled???? only when it suits once P.Cness needs. And really, if the Gay's you know are truley reviled by that word, tell'm get over it," tell'm sticks and stones love". Iv'e been called Cracker, hundreds of times, called that atleast 20 times in N.O when I was trying to help people. Got called a white, mf'n sob. know what i did, looked at them and laughed and did exactly what i'm telling your friends to say "sticks and stones love"(jack sparrow fyi) and continued to build. And the main point is, Free country, freedom of speech, take away once freedom of speech and the USA goes even further down the toilet. There's many things i hate hearing, but freedom of speech.

btw: Sorry Yog, we are off topic, my bad

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 26th, 2007, 08:37:57 PM

Boys, cease and desist circumventing the swear filter or I will close this thread.

Furthermore, the word in question used to refer to homosexuals has been added to the swear filter. If you use it again you will get an official warning.

Please try to stay on topic, or start a new thread.

Morgan Evanar

Mar 26th, 2007, 08:47:37 PM

Very serious, no one since Micheal Savage has had the guts to speak their mind as she does, and with humor. Now I'm not saying she perfect and right all the time but 95% of the time she is dead on. And I'm also not saying she believes half the stuff she say's but none the less when your right your right and she be right alot.You listen to people who have been proven factually wrong over and over again. Ann Coulter and Michael Savage lie. If you use them as any sort of valid source of information, you are making a terrible mistake.

I'm becoming increasingly warry of the climate change movement because of the political nature it has taken on. However, I'm open to any hard evidence, and most of what I've seen points to our production of gases being at fault.

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 26th, 2007, 08:52:27 PM

jediSamson

Mar 26th, 2007, 09:09:45 PM

Whatever Michael Savage or Ann Coulter say, even if it is true, is tainted by their attitudes of hatred towards the Left. I have little respect for them. There is no need to be nasty.

That being said, there are just as many people who spew hatred towards the Right, so why can't we just get along?

Now, back on topic or else. ;)
Two wrongs make no right but, the left makes the rights attitudes look like a playful kitten.
And you are the adm and can do as you please but you were wrong in your censor ship. No foul words were used and that is an absolute fact. I say that with much respect, you are and have always seemed to be a very kind and curtious person, but you are very wrong in this matter, but i'll live with it.

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 26th, 2007, 10:00:31 PM

The fact of the matter is you used words that are censored by SW-Fans, and used them in such a way as to circumvent our swear filter. I treated you just like everyone else gets treated here. You use the board, you must abide by our rules.

Doc Milo

Mar 27th, 2007, 05:14:29 PM

I am still waiting to hear a response to some of the points I brought up in my last post. Mostly to the point: Why does the "fix" by Al Gore and his like always seem to be more socialism? Most of the worst polluters in the world are socialist/communist countries. The fact that we never hear any of the "Global Warming is a crisis" people prescribe a fix that uses free market capitalism leads me to believe that the "crisis" is only a front for the real agenda of folks like Al Gore -- to bring more and more socialism to the United States.

Even if I were willing to concede the point that Global Warming is a crisis (which I'm not); even if I were willing to concede that human-kind is the cause of Global Warming (which I'm not); I still cannot concede that the "fix" to the problem is larger government, more regulation, more taxes, and less personal freedom.

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 27th, 2007, 09:53:29 PM

Jedieb

Mar 28th, 2007, 12:21:09 PM

In the 60's the tabaco industry paraded plenty of scientists in front of Congress in attempt to prove that the dangers of cigarette smoking were a "hoax," a "myth." It was just an extreme attempt by the government to insert itself in our lives with more regulation, taxation, etc. The debate on global warming has some similarities. I don't expect Gore's documentary to be 100% accurate, but I'd bet it's more on the mark than any rival piece of work that says the GW is a hoax. Unfortunately, if Gore's proved correct then half of Florida may be underwater within a 100 years.

As for Coulter, she's repugnant. Attactive? Uh, I tend to stay away from mannish women who have larger Adam's apples than I do. :evil

Yog

Mar 29th, 2007, 02:47:57 PM

Personally, I am not too woried. I think we will come up with some advance in the next 20 years that will solve the problem. Science is already taken steps to solve many of the problems. The only thing that worries me are the rain forest problems and extenction of many animal species (which is partly related to each other).

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 250 years before it returns to the carbon cycle. As CO2 concentration rises, temperature rises, and there is more water vapour. With more water vapour, green house effect builds up, and temperature rises yet again, leading to even more water vapour. Finally, with higher temperature, the oceans release more CO2, and methane release from ice. It's a chain reaction. You might not notice the effects at first as it builds up, but the progression is more exponential than linear. Like a freight train, it takes a while to accelerate, but once it built up momentum, it hits hard. When you apply the brakes, it takes a long time to slow down. Don't sleep on the accelerator button.

We're going to have to deal with the consequences for hundreds of years. There is no "quick fix". We either slow down our emissions now, or let our grandchildren -> their grandchildren, and the generations after that pay the bill.

The comparison with methane (mentioned earlier in the thread) is not a fair one, cause that gas only sticks around in atmosphere for 1-2 decades before it breaks down.

The technology is already here. Some of it has been around for 50 years. The political willpower is not:

"Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problems..."
- Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow
Science, August 13, 2004

By the way, did you know that Global Warming is tightly integrated with the rain forest problem and the extinction of animal species? It's a major threat to the bio diversity, and we don't know how the fragile ecosystems of the rainforest are going to be affected by the climate changes.

I am still waiting to hear a response to some of the points I brought up in my last post.

Sorry, I have been catching up on Battlestar Galactica episodes the last couple days. Also, I was not really sure earlier if you would be interested in a foreigner's view on American taxes and politics in general. The times I do that, I tend to get the "this is America, mind you're own business", "lolz, 'yurop' and commies" or "we're tired of hearing criticism of the president. Now, we will vote for him in spite!". But since you ask for it.. ;)

Mostly to the point: Why does the "fix" by Al Gore and his like always seem to be more socialism?

Did you watch the movie? Here are the fixes Gore proposes:
- Better electricity end use efficiency
- Other end use efficiency
- Passenger vehicle efficiency
- Other transport efficiency
- Renewables
- Carbon Capture Sequestration & Supply efficiency

(is this socialism in your view?)

He did not even mention the tax rates. If you watch the end credits, there are lots small things you can do which actually makes a major difference to your carbon print.

Also, do you consider people like McCain and Schwarzenegger socialists too?

Most of the worst polluters in the world are socialist/communist countries.

Some are. The most obvious example is China. They are rapidly becoming more aware of the issue. The support of China, India and African countries would be absolutely decisive in the effort to slow GW. I can't blame them at this point. Why should development countries under explosive economic growth adapt to stricter environmental policies than in the rich western world. If we can't afford it, how the heck do you suppose they will? Someone needs to set an example. The first world should be first in the line.

Saying socialists / commies are the worst polluters is by the way a very broad generalisation. Do you realize, while China's administration is communist, they have a market economy allowing for rapid growth and industrialisation, causing an enormous amount of pollution. The wonders of capitalism, eh? Using your logic, United States and Western Europe are also socialist / communist, cause we are the worst polluters.

Here are some numbers for you:
USA is responsible for about 25% of the CO2 emissions in the world, yet you guys have only 4% of the world population. Per capita, you release 10 times as much as China does. Per capita, you release more than EU, Japan, India AND China altogether (throw in Africa to make it even)! If you count it per country, you still release 90% more than that horrible communist country China. You also release 47% more than Russia, India, Japan and Africa put together. Think about that!

The fact that we never hear any of the "Global Warming is a crisis" people prescribe a fix that uses free market capitalism leads me to believe that the "crisis" is only a front for the real agenda of folks like Al Gore -- to bring more and more socialism to the United States.

Is it really that inconceivable to think people are driving the GW issue for idealistic and unselfish reasons? Does everyone talking about the environment have terrible ulterior motives? Al Gore had a burning passion for this since he was a college student in the 60s. Anthropologic GW was a radical idea back then, unknown to the general public. He held the first congressional hearings about this in the late 70s. He fought this battle for 30 years where no one believes him and people try to discredit him. Heck, its still going on, even in this thread.

The easy and irresponsible thing to do would be ignoring the issue. I mean, if winning votes is the goal, it would make more sense to stick the head in the sand and do as Bush, saying it "hurts the economy" and benefit in the short term. Heck, lets for the sake of argument say Al Gore craps crude oil all over his furnace, reads Karl Marx every day and uses your hard earned tax dollars to travel on a cruise to Bahamas. The man is still right. Refrain from shooting the messenger.

even if I were willing to concede that human-kind is the cause of Global Warming (which I'm not)..

Alright then, what part of the science do you disagree with? You conceded earlier there is global warming, but you are not convinced humans cause it. Lets split it into multiple points. For simplicity, you could just answer yes / no, and we can get into the point(s) in more detail afterwards:

1. Is the physics regarding heat absorption of greenhouse gases incorrect?

2. Will an increase in CO2 increase heat retention in Earth's atmosphere?

3. Is there any natural effect that could accumulate more heating than the one in #2?

4. Has natural level of CO2 been constant between 170ppm-280ppm ± 10ppm for the last 800.000 years, up and until industrial revolution?

5. Is it correct that current level of CO2 is >380ppm and rising?

6. Is it logical to expect that fossil emissions explain this sudden rise?

I feel that these things can and should be done without resorting to Big Governement.

How would society look like purely controlled by market supply and demand? Who would build and maintain roads, railroads, airports, harbours, telecommunication, administrational infrastructure, national defence and security, hospitals, schools, day-care centres, fire department, police, courthouses, prisons, water and electricity etc? Ok, some of these things can be privatised. Who are willing, and how much are people willing to pay for these services. And which of these services are profitable to run. Furthermore, to what extent, are the services profitable to run at the standard of quality we expect. And even if it's running at a high quality level (through market competition), how much should it cost? Should the size of your wallet decide what kind of service you get? Should you as a member of a civilized nation have certain privileges for free and human rights for standard of living?

Those are rhetorical questions, so you don't need to answer, but I bring it up because I have the feeling you give the role of government and public services paid by tax money a lot less credit than it deserves, overestimating the strength of free market. Privatisation and free market is useful for a lot of things, but it can't solve every problem of the world. How do you define "Big Government" anyhow? Is anything more expansive than the republicans socialist? What is a reasonable level of government control? Anyway, I digress.

I don't believe for a second that the GW issue can be resolved without "Big Government". Heck, if its up to corporations to decide, we will all run on gasoline fuel cars for another 100 years. More money needs to be spent on speeding up development of technology, making the carbon emission free alternatives cheaper. Infrastructure, for distribution and production of bio fuel and other carbon emission free technology needs to be built. This spending in new technology moves us forward, and will become a valuable export commodity on its own. Investors are hesitant to take the risk for this (even if it turns profitable in the end), but governments could jumpstart this.

And yes, you're going to hate hearing this, but green taxes, laws and regulations should be a part of this.

Btw, how are the democrats more "expansive" and "big budget" than the republicans, when it's the GOP and Bush who expanded the economy with gigantic deficits on the budget. How and when are these deficits going to be paid. How does it help your economy spending money on Tohmahawk missiles rather than the domestic sector? And when will this deficit be repaid?

The "fix" that Al Gore wants would create more of a problem, in my opinion. The people are already too heavily taxed, his fix has us taxed more.

Do you have links to some quotes showing Al Gore's tax policy, relevant to green house gas reduction? How much does this differ from the democrats regular tax program? Do you seriously think taxes are his end of all "fix" to solve all these problems?

Between 50 to 100 grand a year, where I live, is barely enough to live on (and no, I do not live in a "rich neighborhood",) what with property taxes, school taxes, high sales tax, and property values being very high

As a matter of curiosity, what are the tax rates for that income segment?

I looked up income tax, and maybe I am missing something obvious, but the rates seem exceptionally reasonable to me. $5,620.00, plus 25% of the excess over $41,050, if I am getting it right. Are you saying this is high?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Internal_Revenue_Code#Example_of_ tax_rate_schedule_for_year_2006_for_.22head_of_hou sehold.22

What about the other taxes.. there is federal income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, state taxes: incomes, sales and property, city and county tax, other taxes, and transfer taxes, taxes and fees imposed by federal, state or local laws, yatta yatta. Are these exceptionally high?

Btw, I am not necessarily implying you should pay 'more' taxes, but you should most definitely pay 'greener' taxes. That is, less meaningless paperwork taxes and more taxes on consummation which affects the environment. That way, you don't actually pay any more taxes in total, but a carbon emission life style is rewarded with potential savings. Here is another idea, how about tax deduction for running a hybrid car. "Big Government" does not sound so bad now, does it?

Modifying your car's engine to a hybrid does not need to cost a fortune either. Last time I checked (a couple years ago), this could be done for about $2500, which allows the engine to run on both bio fuel and gasoline. This was quite popular over here, causing the owners to save up their initial investment over time, because at that time the bio fuel was cheaper than the gasoline. This was in highly fuel taxed Norway and Sweden mind you.

My father currently drives a hybrid car (works on ethanol and gasoline). He runs it exclusively on ethanol, even though the fuel is slightly more expensive, cause he believes strongly in the environment (the demand for bio fuel is very high here). On the upside, I believe he gets benefits in terms of insurance, parking, car tax, toll ring etc. The rest of my family are mostly using public transportation. Not implying its for everyone, but it works well enough here.

Because when we then have all these people out of work, here comes Gore with another Big Government plan to help these people, thus enslaving them to the governemnt....

Point 1: Why would corporations fire people for higher income taxes. The burden is on the employee's end. A far more important factor affecting the job market is the interest rate. Be mad at Alan Greenspan if you must for not lowering it, in a situation where American exports are suffering competing with China, and people have big loans and mortgages. I guess, they have to keep that dollar high...

Point 2: You should be far more concerned about the influx of illegal immigrants, saturating the job market and jumping in the queue ahead of those legitimately applying for a green card.

Point 2: If anything, you eventually have more jobs related to environmental technology. Where is General Motors in all this. Considering how far down the dumper they are now, they should really be on the ball when it comes more fuel efficient cars and hybrids. You would think they would say "hey! This is our chance to make American cars the cutting edge of technology! We shall export our cars all over the world!" But no, they keep popping out those SUV's, which no one outside USA wants. They have not paid attention to people's needs, neither domestically or internationally. Car manufacturer in capitalist country beaten by companies in socialist countries and Asia...

neither I nor my wife can get to work using mass transit.

Part of Al Gore's plan is building more and better public transportation systems, plus improving the quality existing services. How is this bad? No one expects you to use a service which is not there.

As a side note, you have no idea how thankful for being able to use mass transit. 11 minutes with he subway to downtown. Its fast, efficient and comfortable. No traffic queues. No taxes, insurance, searching of parking lots etc. With electricity coming from hydropower. No 12-lane freeways. Its a bliss. If anything, you should strongly encourage your government to build these kinds of services.

How am I supposed to pay for my home, feed my children, etc, without being able to get to work or without becoming an outlaw to environmental regualtion?
Gasoline cars are not going to be outlawed any time soon...

... and then I become a slave to big government. As socialism of this kind progresses, our personal freedoms will begin to disappear (are people really going to voice dissenting opinions of a government that is supplying those people with their means of survival? No, they are going to "suffer evils while the evils are sufferable." And what happens when those evils become insufferable? With our freedoms disappearing, where is our means of rebellion against an over-bearing government?)

Holy crap, man! Lighten up. Democrats will raise taxes, but they will use the money to institute vital reforms, and get the country on the road to universal health care, free college education, higher minimum wage, mandatory stem cell research, enforcement of immigration laws, etc. Where are all these doomsday scenarios coming from? As for taking away your liberties. What liberties are being taken away exactly? (Have you heard of the patriot act?)

There are other ways, using free market forces, to have cleaner technologies developed, research alternate fuels, etc... I don't see any harm in "cleaning things up." What I do see harm in is proposing socialism to fix the problem when socialism has never worked to fix anything.

I agree we should use free market forces to reach our means, but that's not the only tool available. It's not enough on its own at this stage, if we want a rapid development. Believe it or not, some of the richest countries in the world today has or had socialists partly or fully being in the government. Have you ever thought about why and how that is possible? There are different levels of socialism, its not all black and white. For the record, I don't count myself as a socialist, although you probaly don't believe me.. :lol

To me, it seems, the "crisis" mentality is used by Gore to scare people into letting him get his "fix" through -- to scare people into giving in to socialism. The Socialists/Communists have lost the Cold War. This is their means of reviving it. And, sadly, in America, the new socialist enemy is not a danger from another country, but an enemy within.

Take it from someone who seen the "other side"; even if the congress, senate and presidency was staffed by only your most radical democrats and green party, you would still have a market driven capitalist economy. It would be far from a socialist government, let alone communist. You would have a government similar to Labor party in Britain, but that's about it. I know what socialism is, and your politicians are not even remotely close to it. I guess its a tradition and phobia left from the cold war to call anyone who is not on the right wing a socialist or "commie".

There are not that many communist countries left in the world. I would say China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam go under this category. There are also countries that got communist parties in their parliament, but they are getting farther and fewer in between.

Jedieb

Mar 29th, 2007, 07:25:20 PM

Damn Yog, that's a pretty impressive reply. Kudos.

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 29th, 2007, 07:41:40 PM

Wow you sure have researched this very well. Oh about what was I saying about us solving the problem, I meant more coming up with new energy sources. I am not sure if we could just fix the climate problems anytime in the next 100 years.

Pierce Tondry

Mar 30th, 2007, 09:41:15 AM

Part of Al Gore's plan is building more and better public transportation systems, plus improving the quality existing services. How is this bad? No one expects you to use a service which is not there.

As a side note, you have no idea how thankful for being able to use mass transit. 11 minutes with he subway to downtown. Its fast, efficient and comfortable. No traffic queues. No taxes, insurance, searching of parking lots etc. With electricity coming from hydropower. No 12-lane freeways. Its a bliss. If anything, you should strongly encourage your government to build these kinds of services.

I would be all for something like this.

My entire life I have had difficulty getting a solid, reliable car for transportation. I don't even care that I don't have a spoilin' truck, or an armored SUV to travel in, just wheels. Problem is, anything with a motor is prohibitively expensive for those at the low end of the income scale, whether it be through incurring debt, inability to work, or low income.

I went broke (and into debt) trying to afford the final courses for my college degree and wasn't able to get a job for nearly half a year afterward. The job I now have is just shy of downtown, a 20-minute car trip someone with no car has to make. I find myself having to get daily rides to work from my dad, and we burn a lot of gas each trip. If there was a significantly better alternative I would take it, but the public transportation system in Richmond is very poor. The options are either using the bus (and the bus schedules do not provide me with an expedient path from home to work) or using the Ridefinders program, which provides no solution when no one else travels the same route I do. I am still trying to work out a cost-effective solution to my transportation woes, but if Richmond had anything like the DC Metro I'd not only be able to get to and from work much more easily, but also be able to visit my friends who live completely on the other side of town without them having to wander over to my neck of the woods just to pick me up.

Having personal freedoms is all well and good when you can afford the market's cost; for those of us that haven't "made it" but are still contributing members of society there needs to be some better alternative. I won't have the funds to afford even a crappy car inside of a year. That's a long time to go without travel alternatives.

Transportation issues are part of the heart of any environmental debate, but I've also got a solid background in Biodiversity issues and I'm aware how our current eco-treatment is still popping rivets out of our proverbial plane. The problem is that we really don't know what point the plane is going to fall apart at, and if we don't start treading more lightly as we find our way, we are going to screw ourselves.

Jedi Master Carr

Mar 30th, 2007, 02:04:22 PM

I so wish the U.S (at least the major metro areas) had the transportation system Europe and Japan have. You have a lot of areas like Richmond and Nashville which have almost none except buses. Then you have some cties like Atlanta where the subway system just sucks. Very few cities have transportation like D.C or New York both are probably the two best in the U.S. That would help a lot in getting rid of a lot of cars off the streets and probably end in saving people money.

Doc Milo

Mar 30th, 2007, 04:13:58 PM

YOG:

1. Is the physics regarding heat absorption of greenhouse gases incorrect?

2. Will an increase in CO2 increase heat retention in Earth's atmosphere?

3. Is there any natural effect that could accumulate more heating than the one in #2?

4. Has natural level of CO2 been constant between 170ppm-280ppm ± 10ppm for the last 800.000 years, up and until industrial revolution?

5. Is it correct that current level of CO2 is >380ppm and rising?

6. Is it logical to expect that fossil emissions explain this sudden rise?

1. If you are referring to the gases, necessary to sustain life on the planet, that cause a greenhouse effect (also necessary to sustain life on the planet) such as water vapor and carbon dioxide trapping radiant heat from the Earth, then no, that science is not incorrect.

2. Possibly. But here is my question: The heat retained by greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is one, is radiant heat -- heat produced by the Earth. The heat radiates from the Earth and is trapped in the atmosphere, causing a "greenhouse effect." Without a greenhouse effect, Earth would be uninhabitable by humankind. This greenhouse effect is natural. But if there is only a finite amount of that radiant heat, that is all that can be trapped. An increase in the gasses that trap the heat is irrelevant if there is only a finite amount of heat that is radiating. Now, sunlight would increase the radiant heat by warming the rock, and land surfaces of the earth. These surfaces collect heat and then radiate it back. But if there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 retains heat, wouldn't that heat be retained in the upper atmosphere and leak back out into space rather than making it to the Earth to be trapped by the land masses and radiate back to be trapped in the lower atmosphere? If CO2 is a screen that keeps heat in the lower atmosphere, wouldn't it also keep heat from the sun from getting in?

3. How about an increase in sunspot activity, increasing the effect of the sun on the earth, warming the water masses producing more water vapor -- which also happens to be a greenhouse gas?

4. My sources have this as true (although they say 420,000 years, but why quibble about 400,000 years?)

5. My sources also say this is true.

(about 4+5 -- although these sources cite this as fact, they give no indication of how that data has been collected and so I still have questions about its legitimacy when we are talking about a period that, unless we travel back in time, cannot possibly have 100% accurate records of observation.)

6. No. It is logical to say they may have contributed to this rise, but other natural phenomenon may also be the cause. How much does volcanic activity play a role? How about a population increase that has more humans on earth, breathing oxygen and exhaling CO2? An increase in the cutting down of plant life that takes CO2 out of the air and produces oxygen? Have forest fires increased? Those fires produce CO2. I won't debate that burning of fossil fuels has had some effect, but the sole effect? And is it 100% reliable that the increased CO2 has actually caused more heat retention? The Earth itself has to produce more heat for the CO2 to trap more heat. The sun can heat the Earth -- but why would the Earth trap more heat in its land masses? And why wouldn't the increased CO2 have the effect of "blocking" the heat of the sun and trapping it in the upper atmosphere? (In fact, the upper atmosphere has cooled while the lower atmosphere has warmed...) Okay, the sunlight is allowed in and the heat that is trapped by the sunlight in the land masses is retained, but why would more heat be trapped in the land masses, and thus more radiant heat remain? In a greenhouse, the light comes in, and the ground traps the heat, and the glass allows the light to reflect back out, but the heat is trapped, because the longer wave heat doesn't pass through the glass as easily as the short wave light. Does thicker glass necessarily mean a hotter greenhouse?

Furthermore, are have we observed everything there is to observe to conclude that there isn't something natural that is also causing a rise in CO2?

I was listening to a radio station on my way home the other night and a scientist from NASA (who was last to testify before congress the day before I heard the show, and the lone one offering a differing point of view, even though I forget his name at the moment. I was in the car, or else I would have written it down) said that they have measurements from polar ice that as they go deeper allow us to know the temperature of the Earth in past years. They have found that the Earth has been hotter than this before. He is of the opinion that while, yes, the Earth is warming, he believes that it is a natural phenomenon, part of the Earth's natural cycles. He believes that we were coming out of the last portion of the little ice age when the industrial revolution began, and that the rise in temperature from the Earth going in to a warming cycle is just coincidental that it occured at the same time that human beings entered the industrial revolution. Now, it is undeniable that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before. What caused them if we weren't around to increase the CO2?

Now, how come some areas of the Earth have cooled while others have warmed? "Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N" (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) (And this is an article which doesn't actually support my view on it.)

YOG:
Point 1: Why would corporations fire people for higher income taxes. The burden is on the employee's end.

Worker have to pay higher taxes, meaning they have less "disposable income" (a term I detest, btw). With less disposable income, they are able to purchase less. Demand on goods and services decreases. With less demand for products, businesses will produce less. Producing less means less sales, means less money made, means a need to reduce expenditures. With less of a demand for products, there is no need to keep as many workers to produce those products and/or services. People are laid off. With more and more people out of work, the tax base decreases. Less people paying higher taxes = lower tax revenue. Increase the tax rate to make up for the loss and the cycle begins again.

Point 2: You should be far more concerned about the influx of illegal immigrants, saturating the job market and jumping in the queue ahead of those legitimately applying for a green card.

I am actually more concerned with this than Global Warming, or Al Gore, to tell you the truth. Illegal immigration is much more of a concern to me right now. I have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration. This country was founded by immigrants. But illegal immigration is a huge problem. And, for some reason, when this is brought up as a concern, the media and the politicians (democrat and republican alike) don't want to touch it. Somehow, we're not supposed to use the term "illegal immigration" instead the media and politicians use "migrant worker" or try to lump them all in as immigrants (making no differentiation between legal and illegal immigrants.) Somehow, those proposing to do something about it are seen as the evil mongers.

Btw, how are the democrats more "expansive" and "big budget" than the republicans, when it's the GOP and Bush who expanded the economy with gigantic deficits on the budget.

Firstly, I'm not a republican nor am I a democrat. I don't believe any politician puts the best interest of the country before the best interest in obtaining and keeping his or her own power. I don't like republican expansion anymore than I like democratic expansion.

Secondly; An expansion of the government is not the same as an expansion of the economy. I'd like to see a reduction of the government and an expansion of the economy.

How would society look like purely controlled by market supply and demand? Who would build and maintain roads, railroads, airports, harbours, telecommunication, administrational infrastructure, national defence and security, hospitals, schools, day-care centres, fire department, police, courthouses, prisons, water and electricity etc?

Absolutely the government has its place. I take offense, though that the Federal government is the most powerful and the state and local governments are the least powerful. The Federal government should be the most powerful only when relating to National defense and interstate commerce. Otherwise, the locals should be the more powerful government. Our biggest tax burden should be to our local governments, then our state governments, then the Federal government. What happens now is we pay for a bureaucracy to collect our taxes at a local level, send it to the Federal government, where it is collected by another bureaucracy, divided up by yet another, and sent back to the States, where it is then divided up and sent back to the locals. By the time it gets through all those levels of bureaucracy, there is less resources available to the communities that need it. How is this a good system? How about a leaner system where the money collected in the communities stays in the communities, the money collected in the states stays in the states, and the money collected by the Feds stays at the federal level to fund the few but necessary things that the Feds need to fund? A system that works how it was originally intended to work. A strong, but limited federal power; strong states and local communities. Communities that work for the betterment of itself.

BTW: I am personally in favor of reducing fossil fuel consumption, cleaning up our own messes, and using the goverment to provide incentives for businesses to produce and use and offer cleaner technologies. I am also in favor of pursing the use of Nuclear Energy.

I think we should do this whether or not there is a Global Warming Crisis. I don't mind giving tax incentives for corporations to provide cleaner technology, nor tax incentives to induce the consumer to purchase and demand those technologies.

Yog

Apr 2nd, 2007, 10:21:54 PM

1. If you are referring to the gases, necessary to sustain life on the planet, that cause a greenhouse effect (also necessary to sustain life on the planet) such as water vapour and carbon dioxide trapping radiant heat from the Earth, then no, that science is not incorrect.

Indeed. Earth surface would be -18 °C (0 °F, 255 K) if it were not for that (with atmosphere, and no GH effect).

But if there is only a finite amount of that radiant heat, that is all that can be trapped. An increase in the gasses that trap the heat is irrelevant if there is only a finite amount of heat that is radiating.

First of all, the amount of greenhouse gases is not as irrelevant as you might think. Venus is not that far from earth. Venus has an atmosphere that consists primarily of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The extreme CO2 rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect. The temperature of the uppermost layer of Venus's clouds averages about 13C (55 Fahrenheit). However, the temperature of the planet's surface is more than 400C (800 Fahrenheit). This makes Venus the hottest planet in the solar system. Hotter than Mercury, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance. If Venus had no atmosphere, the average temperature would be -20C, -4 Fahrenheit.

Secondly, ALL objects radiate energy, at all times. You, for example, radiate at a rate of about 100 Watts. Rate of radiation depends on temperature and surface area of the object; the hotter it is, the faster it radiates energy. That’s why it's misleading thinking of energy coming in finite amounts from the sun. It's better to think like this; the atmosphere returns some of the earth's energy, allowing the earth to be warmer. The surface of the Earth receives nearly twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun, believe it or not. There is also a fine balance between energy in and out. The rate of energy absorption by the earth does not exceed its rate of radiation (if that was the case, earth's temperature would constantly rise). Its the rate which this exchange of energy happens, that increases molecular speeds (temperature).

Confused yet? Maybe this graphic of earth's energy balance helps:

<img src=http://www.mneh.org/pics/gw/energy-balance.jpg>

Now, sunlight would increase the radiant heat by warming the rock, and land surfaces of the earth. These surfaces collect heat and then radiate it back. But if there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 retains heat, wouldn't that heat be retained in the upper atmosphere and leak back out into space rather than making it to the Earth to be trapped by the land masses and radiate back to be trapped in the lower atmosphere?

No, because most of the greenhouse gases are in the lower portions of the atmosphere, in the troposphere. In fact, the heating of lower atmosphere is strong evidence of increased green house effect. It's currently heating faster than the surface of the earth.

If CO2 is a screen that keeps heat in the lower atmosphere, wouldn't it also keep heat from the sun from getting in?

No, because the atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight, the visible part of the spectrum. Only a small portion of the sun's energy is reflected away by clouds and atmosphere. When Earth radiates energy (infrared and other heat radiation), it's caught by green house gases. Check this graphic for the absorption ability of various gases:

<img src=http://www.mneh.org/pics/gw/absorbspec.gif>

3. How about an increase in sunspot activity, increasing the effect of the sun on the earth, warming the water masses producing more water vapour -- which also happens to be a greenhouse gas?

Solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming. In fact, in the current solar cycle the number of sunspots is decreasing, yet the temperature is rising. In any case, solar output is less important than the increase of greenhouse gases since about 1850.

Every modern Global Climate Model takes into account solar irradiance changes, along with other known factors, like volcanoes, dynamics of clouds and oceans etc. Here is just one example:
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/HadGEM1.pdf

4. My sources have this as true (although they say 420,000 years, but why quibble about 400,000 years?)

This data is from ice cores in Antarctica. The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core, and compression of ice. It may vary from a few years up to 800,000 years for the <a href=http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html>EPICA core</a>. The EPICA core went 3270.2 meters deep. The <a href=http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html>Vostok core</a> (which your sources refer to), goes 420,000 years back. The Vostok drill was actually deeper (3623 meters), although the usable climatic information did not extend as far, and the layers were less compressed.

This data is valuable to us because it tells us (A) temperature variations, (B) CO2 levels and (C) the relation of CO2 and temperature. It also (D) proves our climate got natural cycles.

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg>Vostok graph</a>

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Epica_do18_plot.png>EPICA vs Vostok comparison</a>

5. My sources also say this is true.

(about 4+5 -- although these sources cite this as fact, they give no indication of how that data has been collected and so I still have questions about its legitimacy when we are talking about a period that, unless we travel back in time, cannot possibly have 100% accurate records of observation.)

The data was collected based on the ice cores mentioned above. The data is not 100% accurate, but the error margin for measured CO2 levels in ice cores is less than 5%.

How can we be sure of this? Because its based on proven methods of measuring CO2 levels. CO2 is a well mixed gas. No matter where on earth you measure it, it will be in the same proportions. The concentration of CO2 inside the air bubbles stay the same wether it was from from 50 or 800,000 years ago. The CO2 stays in ice for infinity until our sampling equipment retrieves them, or until the ice melts. There is however an error margin related to how CO2 may migrate by diffusion between annual layers. Thus, the annual CO2 and temperature signals are not as precise over short time scales, and there is a lead / lag relationship between the peaks.

Geological samples support this data. Using geological data, we need to go 20 million years back to find a higher CO2 level.

6. No. It is logical to say they may have contributed to this rise, but other natural phenomenon may also be the cause.

They may have been a contributing factor, but not a dominating force.

How much does volcanic activity play a role?

Volcanic activity is already accounted for in most climate models. There would need to be dramatic increase in volcanic activity for this to play a major role. Did you know that volcanic eruptions actually have a cooling effect on our planet? Or that the yearly emissions of green house gases from volcanoes are only a small fraction of human caused emissions (1/150 CO2)?

Yog

Apr 2nd, 2007, 10:28:49 PM

How about a population increase that has more humans on earth, breathing oxygen and exhaling CO2?

It's a contributing factor, but not a decisive one. Since the industrial revolution (1850 or so), <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population>world population</a> grew from 1.2B to 6.5B. I looked it up real quick (we can investigate this point closer if you like), and saw estimates suggesting cars alone emit about 3 x as much as human CO2 respiration, not including other industries and other sectors. Here is (<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png>pie chart</a> of the various sectors.

The CO2 humans exhale, comes from carbon in simple sugars and carbohydrates in the food we eat. All the food we eat comes from plants, animals eating plants, or animals eating animals eating plants etc. Plants make their carbon products (sugars, carbohydrates) from CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, the CO2 we exhale originally came from plants, and all of that carbon came from the atmosphere itself. Because of this, its impossible for us to contribute to the over all CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, because the CO2 we breathe back into atmosphere was originally taken out by plants. The net increase of CO2 through human respiration comes out to zero.

Gasoline, coal and oil however, all contribute to CO2 accumulation. While the carbon that is released when they burn also came from plants, it accumulated over millions of years as opposed to the time it takes to grow our food. The carbon trapped in fossil fuels took a very, very long time to accumulate; yet we are burning these fuels at an extremely fast rate. Thus we have a net increase of carbon going into the atmosphere.

In simple terms: All of the CO2 that we breath out will become plants within 50-200 years, but the CO2 released by burning oil, coal and gasoline will take millions of years becoming oil, coal, and gasoline again. See the problem?

Still not convinced? Ok. I will provide you a smoking gun with fingerprints all over it:

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic carbon composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. Why? Because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C). Since fossil fuel originally came from ancient plants, both plants and fossil fuels have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio. This ratio is about 2% lower than in the atmosphere. As we burn fossil fuels, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. Guess what? It has. At no time in the last 10,000 years were the 13C/12C ratios in atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase, around 1850 AD. This is exactly what could be expected if the increased CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning.

Not only that, but the air is getting older. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, and it can be used to date objects up to about 50,000 years old. Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14 through beta decay. Objects older than 50,000 years have only the N-14 isotope. By measuring the ratio of Carbon isotopes, we can measure the age of all this carbon dioxide that's building up in the atmosphere.

Want more proof? Ok.

When burning fossil fuels - it "eats" two oxygen molecules from the atmosphere. So if we want to see if the CO2 comes from burning of fossil fuels, we can check if the oxygen content of the atmosphere has fallen with the same amount as the extra increase in CO2. Guess what? It has.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new.html

An increase in the cutting down of plant life that takes CO2 out of the air and produces oxygen?

Plants produce oxygen (which is vital to us), but as far as CO2 goes, they consume about as much as they produce. Cutting plants does not have a major impact on CO2 emissions, but has other detrimental effects. Forest burning however does have a noticeable effect.

If its not plants, what takes CO2 out of the air then? Where does it go?

The oceans absorb most of the CO2. Our release of ~500 billion metric tons of carbon would have raised atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm had it not been for that. Estimates show carbon content of oceans increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year (current burning of fossil fuel is ~7 PgC per year). Carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years.

Of 20 studies examining the carbon level in the oceans, all 20 conclude the same: Carbon levels increased. Scientific method: How about 6 different ones?

1) Direct observations of the partial pressure of CO2 at the ocean surface (Takahashi et al. 2002),
(2) observations of the spatial distribution of atmospheric CO2 which show how much carbon goes in and out of the different oceanic regions (Bousquet et al. 2000),
(3) observations of carbon, oxygen, nutrients and CFCs combined to remove the mean imprint of biological processes (Sabine et al. 2004),
(4) observations of carbon and alkalinity for two time-periods combined with an estimate of water age based on CFCs (McNeil et al. 2002), and the simultaneous observations of atmospheric CO2 increase and the decrease in (5) oxygen (Keeling et al. 1996), and
(6) carbon 13 (Ciais et al. 1995) in the atmosphere.

Have forest fires increased? Those fires produce CO2.

Forest fires have increased, and have a significant effect on CO2 emissions. Large amount of forest is burned every year to clear land for agriculture and cattle farms. About 10% of the increase can be attributed to this. I put this in the same category as burning fossil fuels though.

I won't debate that burning of fossil fuels has had some effect, but the sole effect?

Well, not the sole effect, but its the major culprit.

And is it 100% reliable that the increased CO2 has actually caused more heat retention? The Earth itself has to produce more heat for the CO2 to trap more heat.

Yes, beyond shadow of doubt. Coincidently, the earth does produce more heat now, because of this effect. See earlier discussion on earth's energy balance.

The sun can heat the Earth -- but why would the Earth trap more heat in its land masses? And why wouldn't the increased CO2 have the effect of "blocking" the heat of the sun and trapping it in the upper atmosphere? (In fact, the upper atmosphere has cooled while the lower atmosphere has warmed...) Okay, the sunlight is allowed in and the heat that is trapped by the sunlight in the land masses is retained, but why would more heat be trapped in the land masses, and thus more radiant heat remain?

I explained this earlier in the thread (see section on energy balance). Where do you get the idea heat is "trapped"? Earth loses heat just as fast as its absorbed. Same way with radiation, its absorbed and emmited. When radiation is absorbed, that same radiation ceased to exist by being transformed into kinetic and potential energy of the molecules. You cannot trap something that has ceased to exist.

If heat was trapped in earth's landmasses, then temperature would rise constantly. If that was the case, we would be in some serious trouble.. :p

In a greenhouse, the light comes in, and the ground traps the heat, and the glass allows the light to reflect back out, but the heat is trapped, because the longer wave heat doesn't pass through the glass as easily as the short wave light. Does thicker glass necessarily mean a hotter greenhouse?

That’s what most teachers would have you believe. But a green house does not work like that:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html

A green house works by convection of air, while in the global green house, the atmosphere facilitates convection rather than suppressing it:

Quote: "Does the atmosphere behave like a greenhouse?
The name, greenhouse effect is unfortunate, for a real greenhouse does not behave as the atmosphere does. The primary mechanism keeping the air warm in a real greenhouse is the suppression of convection (the exchange of air between the inside and outside). Thus, a real greenhouse does act like a blanket to prevent bubbles of warm air from being carried away from the surface. As we have seen, this is not how the atmosphere keeps the Earth's surface warm. Indeed, the atmosphere facilitates rather than suppresses convection.

One sometimes hears the comparison between the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (not in real greenhouses) and the interior of a parked car whic has been left in the summer Sun with its windows rolled up. This comparison is as phony as is the comparison to real greenhouses. Again, keeping the windows closed merely suppresses convection.

Whether the topic is a real greenhouse or a car, one still hears the old saw that each stays warm because visible radiation (light) can pass through the windows, and infrared radiation cannot. Actually, it has been known for the better part of a century that this has very little bearing on the issue."

Source: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
(explains the difference and certain misconceptions about the greenhouse effect)

Furthermore, are have we observed everything there is to observe to conclude that there isn't something natural that is also causing a rise in CO2?

First of all, this is asking the question upside down. When CO2 levels are the highest in 20 million years, the sceptics are the ones with the burden of proof showing this is natural. Not to mention, how fast its rising is unprecedented. Not to mention, its linerar with the industrial revolution. If it has a natural cause, you got to admit that is one heck of a coincidence. It’s like winning the lottery constantly.

Secondly, the scientists already searched for alternative factors affecting the increase in CO2 in atmosphere for decades. While some do have an effect (example; volcanic activity, solar activity), they only explain a fraction of the increase. They are adjustments, not the cause. The theories for anthropologic caused global warming have been examined in scrutiny ad nauseam. The lack of other plausible theories is not due to the lack of trying to find natural causes. It’s just that these theories do not hold up, and they are not supported by collected data. And finally, such theories fit poorly with the climate models.

they have measurements from polar ice that as they go deeper allow us to know the temperature of the Earth in past years. They have found that the Earth has been hotter than this before.
Yes, those are the ice core samples I mentioned. They go several hundred thousand years back. Those records will not hold for long according to the climate models..

He is of the opinion that while, yes, the Earth is warming, he believes that it is a natural phenomenon, part of the Earth's natural cycles.

We have cycles every 100,000 years or so the last million years. The previous ice age was 10,000 years ago. We already had our temperature spike. Then for the last 2,000 years, the temperature has been stable, even declining a bit. Suddenly, it increases again like we were going from a glacial period to interglacial again. What kind of freaky cycle is that? It does not fit with previous data.

He believes that we were coming out of the last portion of the little ice age when the industrial revolution began

Does this look like a natural cycle to you?
<img src=http://www.mneh.org/pics/gw/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png>

Now, it is undeniable that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before. What caused them if we weren't around to increase the CO2?

Milankovitch cycles and gradual changes in orbital position of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Now, how come some areas of the Earth have cooled while others have warmed? "Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N" (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) (And this is an article which doesn't actually support my view on it.)

Me and CMJ discussed it earlier. I theorized that the lower temperature in US could be attributed to <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming>dimming</a>."Regions that are downwind from major sources of air pollution (specifically sulphur dioxide emissions) have generally cooled. This may explain the cooling of the eastern United States relative to the warming western part." Aerosols emissions were very high in the US between 1946-1975. Look at the graphic in the article you linked to, from 1975-2000. Does it look like USA is on a cooling trend? They are all red dots now:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc09.gif

Yog

Apr 2nd, 2007, 10:31:24 PM

(I split these into individual posts so it is easier to read)

Worker have to pay higher taxes, meaning they have less "disposable income" (a term I detest, btw). With less disposable income, they are able to purchase less. Demand on goods and services decreases. With less demand for products, businesses will produce less. Producing less means less sales, means less money made, means a need to reduce expenditures. With less of a demand for products, there is no need to keep as many workers to produce those products and/or services. People are laid off. With more and more people out of work, the tax base decreases. Less people paying higher taxes = lower tax revenue. Increase the tax rate to make up for the loss and the cycle begins again.

I see what you mean now. Although, part of the market is imported goods, so revenue losses are not all domestic. Businesses export goods too. You need to factor that in as well. Lower income also causes workers to save money, spending it more carefully. And finally, lower spending means the interest rate can be lowered, causing increased employment. Its suddenly not as black and white, is it? ;)

Either way, the gain in tax revenue for increasing the percentage is greater than the loss in tax revenue for thinned out tax base. My point was there are multiple factors affecting the job market. Taxes are not even the most important one. If taxes were that decisive, Norway would be in trouble as we have some of the highest taxes in the world. Yet, we have a lower rate of unemployment than in the US.

I have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration. This country was founded by immigrants. But illegal immigration is a huge problem. And, for some reason, when this is brought up as a concern, the media and the politicians (democrat and republican alike) don't want to touch it. Somehow, we're not supposed to use the term "illegal immigration" instead the media and politicians use "migrant worker" or try to lump them all in as immigrants (making no differentiation between legal and illegal immigrants.) Somehow, those proposing to do something about it are seen as the evil mongers.

I agree with all that 100%. I would expand on that even further, but then I would digress from the topic.

Firstly, I'm not a republican nor am I a democrat. I don't believe any politician puts the best interest of the country before the best interest in obtaining and keeping his or her own power. I don't like republican expansion anymore than I like democratic expansion.

It seems cynical, but unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that. I tend to think the same about the politicians over here. Its almost as if being corrupt is part of the politicians job description. I don't think it particularly applies to Al Gore though, and especially not in this case. I strongly believe he pushes the global warming issue in good faith.

If you are not republican, I assume you are libertarian. It must be frustrating voting for an option that does not affect the overall result. What you and every American should fight for is <a href=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm>Proportional Representative Districts</a>. Only then, you can achieve true democracy.

Secondly; An expansion of the government is not the same as an expansion of the economy. I'd like to see a reduction of the government and an expansion of the economy.

Ok, you were thinking Big Government on administrative level. That makes more sense :)

I tend to think of them as the same, because a bigger public sector means bigger governmental control of the economy. But yes, I can see the nuance.

Absolutely the government has its place. I take offense, though that the Federal government is the most powerful and the state and local governments are the least powerful. The Federal government should be the most powerful only when relating to National defense and interstate commerce. Otherwise, the locals should be the more powerful government. Our biggest tax burden should be to our local governments, then our state governments, then the Federal government. What happens now is we pay for a bureaucracy to collect our taxes at a local level, send it to the Federal government, where it is collected by another bureaucracy, divided up by yet another, and sent back to the States, where it is then divided up and sent back to the locals. By the time it gets through all those levels of bureaucracy, there is less resources available to the communities that need it. How is this a good system? How about a leaner system where the money collected in the communities stays in the communities, the money collected in the states stays in the states, and the money collected by the Feds stays at the federal level to fund the few but necessary things that the Feds need to fund? A system that works how it was originally intended to work. A strong, but limited federal power; strong states and local communities. Communities that work for the betterment of itself.

I like this line of thinking and ideas a lot. I believe in stronger local control of collecting and spending money. Less bureaucracy, less mismanagement of money. A more democratic system, favouring those who actually live in the area.

Some stuff needs to be done on a regional and national level though. Its not only national defence and interstate. Who wants to build a prison on local level, for example. An airport, hospital, university etc is sometimes a major investment to build. What if the local funds do not cover the costs? Poor management can happen on local level too. There should be a balance between local, regional and national control.

I am personally in favor of reducing fossil fuel consumption, cleaning up our own messes, and using the goverment to provide incentives for businesses to produce and use and offer cleaner technologies. I am also in favor of pursing the use of Nuclear Energy.

Agreed. Even on the nuclar issue. It may not be perfect, but its better than coal plants. It should be useful for the next 100 years, or until we get fusion power.

I think we should do this whether or not there is a Global Warming Crisis.

Again agreed. This is something that needs to be said more often. What to do when fossil fuels run out? We need to build this infrastructure anyway. Being so dependant on fossil fuel is not a good thing (just look at the political implications regarding Middle East). You would be able to attain self-sufficient energy supply. Doing it now instead of waiting, allows us to solve an environmental problem as a huge bonus.

Doc Milo

Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:55:21 AM

If you are not republican, I assume you are libertarian. It must be frustrating voting for an option that does not affect the overall result. What you and every American should fight for is Proportional Representative Districts (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm). Only then, you can achieve true democracy.

Well, I'm registered as an Independant Conservative. Some might have you believe that Republican and Conservative are the same thing, but they are not. A conservative would be somewhere in between republican and libertarian. (For example, I believe in limited government, but would not agree with legalizing drugs, as the libertarian party favors.) A libertarian is much closer to an anarchist than a conservative.

Either way, the gain in tax revenue for increasing the percentage is greater than the loss in tax revenue for thinned out tax base. My point was there are multiple factors affecting the job market.

When Ronald Reagan took office he cut the tax rates considerably. Many will try to convince us that the tax reduction is what caused huge deficits and debt, but this is not the case. If you look at the actual numbers, the tax decrease caused the federal revenue to more than double. (BTW, JFK -- a democrat -- did the same thing, reducing taxes to increase federal tax revenue). The culprit when it came to the deficits was over-spending. While Reagan spent on the Cold War, many of those budgets were passed with amendments that increased "pork barrel spending" as well. It was overspending the increase in tax revenue that caused the deficits. We have seen the same thing happen now. When Bush reduced taxes, and we now have large deficits, it is not because we are not producing enough tax revenue. Tax revenue now is higher than ever, even at reduced rates, and unemployment is at very low levels. The lower rates have increased employment and increased tax revenue. But we are spending more than we are taking in again. The war is one reason, but we've also increased spending on a multitude of federal programs.

I tend to think the same about the politicians over here. Its almost as if being corrupt is part of the politicians job description. I don't think it particularly applies to Al Gore though

Al Gore was a member of one of the most corrupt administrations this country has had. Al Gore was not immune to those scandals. When asked about one scandal in particular, Gore said that there was "no controling legal authority" to execute the law. But Gore was present. Gore was Vice President. In this country, the Executive branch of government (President and VP) is in charger of "executing" the law. Gore was the controlling legal authority. He can't get away with breaking the law because there is no controlling legal authority (by his words) when he is the legal authority. That's like a cop watching someone beat someone else to death and wondering where the cops are. This isn't corrupt?

Yog

Oct 12th, 2007, 07:00:09 AM

Today it was announced Al Gore shares the Nobel Peace price with IPCC for his work to raise awareness on global warming. It is all over the news right now :D

Jedi Master Carr

Oct 12th, 2007, 10:22:19 AM

Yep I heard that too, people are trying to use it to influence him to run for President. I really doubt he will change his mind.

Figrin D'an

Oct 12th, 2007, 11:45:12 AM

Jedi Master Carr

Oct 12th, 2007, 12:06:38 PM

He has no real reason to run for political office again. He's far more respected, influential and likely much happier as a private citizen advocating a cause than he would be in the Oval Office. It's interesting to ponder that the last 8 years of his life have probably turned out much better for him because he lost the election in 2000.

I agree with you on that. I think he rather just focus on climate change and not worry about the more complicated job of running for president. I mean if he ran he would have to deal with other issues like the war in Iraq, the economy, health care, etc. It would hurt his focus on the environment.

Doc Milo

Oct 12th, 2007, 01:58:43 PM

Today it was announced Al Gore shares the Nobel Peace price with IPCC for his work to raise awareness on global warming. It is all over the news right now :D

Well, considering that Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, I wouldn't put too much stock in such an "accomplishment." Seems to be an award given to whoever espouses the left-wing "issue of the day" or cause-celeb more than anything else.

Figrin D'an

Oct 12th, 2007, 04:38:26 PM

<A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071012-nobel-peace-prize-goes-to-al-gore-ipcc-for-work-on-climate-change.html">Ars Technica</A> had a short post on the Peace Prize announcement that is pretty objective on it's significance.

While I would agree that there have been some dubious recipients in the past, I don't think it's fair to simply call it "an award given to whoever espouses the left-wing "issue of the day" ." I think some of the recent past winners, such as Muhammad Yunus or the Doctors Without Borders group are evidence of the prize being given to those championing important humanitarian causes.

Jedi Master Carr

Oct 12th, 2007, 05:10:06 PM

Yog

Oct 13th, 2007, 08:42:48 AM

Besides didn't Arafat share that award with the president of Israel? It was because they signed that huge peace accord that sure didn't last but at the time it was huge. People sprout that about the Nobel committee but I don't think they are any more leftist than Europe itself is.

That is correct. He shared it with (at the time) Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Unfortunately, the whole peace process stagnated when Rabin got assassinated by some right wing radical who wanted no peace. What the critics forget, there were negotiations between two parties, Palestinian and Israeli. If you give the prize to the Israeli side only, it gives a message Palestinians had no part of it. That is no foundation for reconciliation. It would actually hurt the peace process rather than speeding it forward. They were required to recognize both sides, and Arafat was the lead Palestinian negotiator. It was impossible to ignore him. Believe me, the Nobel Peace Prize committee was painfully aware of this dilemma.