Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Zealotry over Global Warming

Hello everyone,

Here is an article on the internet today concerning global warming - thought some of you might want to read it:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=125125

best regards,
odin1

G'day,

Oh come on, Nobel Prizes are handed out to the most absurd people, especially the peace ones, but many of the other ones also go to those that do not deserve it. And if you think about it, how can it be anything else. It is an award provided by Nobel as a salve to his conscience for inventing TNT, if memory serves me correctly. Instead of just being grateful that he become extremely rich and that his invention had great peaceful uses such as tunnelling, mining etc, etc, he had to go and feel sorry for himself and create a series of awards that are not generally fair. For instance, he forgot Mathematics. That was not a small oversight.

And turning to Al Gore, you have to admire President, I mean, Mr Gore. Firstly he should have been President and could have been. I actually don't admire him for that. I thought what he did was rather wimpish personally. But he was Vice President and he certainly does care for the environment. Just look at his house that runs the energy equivalent usage of twenty normal houses, or the hundreds of thousands of both private and public jet transport. Oh, and look at where his money came from. Tobacco.

Alright I'm taking a whole bunch of very cheap shots here and I could take several more for the very poor research he seems to do on several subjects and his acceptance of conclusions after it has been clearly shown that the research was faulty, Lonnie Thompson and the Hockey Stick to name just two examples.

But I also admire the depth of his committment. He has never waivered and at least he does not drive nails into trees to injure loggers. He discusses his views calmly and often rationally. I thought his "An Inconvienient Truth" was excellent. It was superbly put together and shows what he and millions of others actually believe. It also showed some very perceptive people just how many wholes there were in the general arguments relating to global warming or to CO2 contributions to it.

To quote Lord of the Rings: "A fool ... but an honest fool".


Richard

Hello Ric,

I see you share the same sentiments I do for Al Gore. His philosphy is "do as I say, not as I do", and I guess when you have enough money you can do that.

He is a perfect specimen of someone educated beyond his intelligence. He burns more fuel in one week with his private jet than I do in one year with the family car.

But, I guess someone that has "earned" the Nobel Peace Prize has special priviliges.

best regards,
odin1

Maybe Al Gore is passionate and inspirational and can get millions to follow him - maybe that is even admirable. But thinking and believing you're "right" isn't good enough - you need to BE right.

Odin1, re: your link beginning, "Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate...."
I hope we all also catch the point made later in the article,
"....it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away."

...meanwhile, ImranCan....
Regarding the whole food/biofuel point that you bring up; again I'd like to point out that a nonsensical response does not void the validity of an alarm bell.
...and I'd like to point out that this "tiny lobby" was not the GW alarmist lobby (or any green lobby), but it was (and still is) the Agri[Big]Business Lobby.
...and it was not the GW (minority) lobby that was setting policy over these past "20 years of mistakes."
These "20 years of mistakes" are the result of BAU (business as usual) policies allowing maximization of short-term profits to guide the market.

But also, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Biofuels are helping some farmers and are not inherently evil; but are just being managed poorly, as an independent market (lacking integration into a comprehensive solution focusing on ending poverty, hunger and climate destabilization).

Buy Cattle Futures (6 mo.), if you want to make a sharp profit (off of this debacle).

Actually, 70-90% of the "food crisis" is due to factors other than biofuels.
Increased variation of weather leading to declining harvests, esp. Asia & Australia (2007).
Increased demand (population).
Increased demand for higher quality food (higher up the food chain -requiring more (4x - 7x) feedstock/grains).
Increased costs of transportation.
Increased costs of fuel and fertilizer.
Increased hoarding (market speculation, commoditization of foods as gold/oil/etc.).
...source: http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,


I agree that the public can easily be led, and public consensus can easily be swayed.
Scientific consensus changes much more slowly; as with science's slow shift in position on climate change, over the past 20 years, from radical fringe ideas to conventional mainstream comprehension.
It's too bad our policy makers insist on lagging behind, but still following the fickle finger of fashion.
===

I notice Page One of this thread is a great overview of the alarmist/denialist debate; while Page Two seems to have degenerated into comments about Al Gore.
Interestingly, we all seem to see faults with Al....
...note: my choice of "Heroes" was heavily influenced by the 2005 "Relativity Centenary."

As for Page Two, let's get our facts up to date....
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html


But as I say, Page One is great and, while this post tries to put the zealotry over biofuels in perspective, I still think RicS's post... ...(# 25825) on the danger of unintended consequences deserves more of a response than the few comebacks alluded to in "Maybe we could do better this time?" (#25835). Soon, I hope....

Richard, any thoughts on that Type I civilization stuff?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25569#Post25569
~

Samwik
Quite a post .... but nowhere do I see you disputing my main points ....

"Nothing has done more for the acceleration of the destruction of the rainforests than this initiative. Additionally it is a contributing factor to the increasing levels of hunger"

So given the increased rate of destruction of rainforest and the fact that biofuels are helping push an extra 800 million people into hunger ...... and notwithstanding your lengthy commentary ....do you or do you not think that increased investment and growth in biofuels is a good idea ? Its a simple question and I'd like to hear you give a simple answer. Yes or no preferably.

Yes, I think the concept of "biofuels" is a valid and useful concept.


That the value of biofuels was permitted to be exploited by a free-market system, simply for corporate gain, should be shameful for us, as a species.
This has been a perfect example of why the free-market cannot be relied upon to help "solve" systemic, cross-border problems such as poverty, pollution, climate change, loss of ecosystem resources, malnutrition and hunger, epidemic or endemic diseases, or social and gender inequity.

The free market views "biofuels" as a way to make money. They are not concerned with the long-term, domino effects of their choices, helping with demand for fuel, and to be more Carbon neutral; unless it will affect the bottom line, short-term profit. The only criterion for success is the money factor. The quick, cheap, and easy thing to do is pull on the tax-payer subsidized food resources. Should we be surprised? No, it is the free market.

I don't expect free markets to take a global, comprehensive perspective towards solving the Millennium Development Goals.
I don't expect free markets to quantify success based on their ability to solve as many of the problems as possible with a minimum of common, sustainable solutions.

IMHO, Solutions specific to any one problem, that are based on free-market development, will always pull resources from (and worsen) the other problems. ...or words to that effect.
Apparently it doesn't 'go without saying' that you don't replace biodiversity, or any well-functioning ecosystem, with a program to develop biofuels.

Biofuels need to be part of a program that focuses on both using wastes (not food) and growing biomass in such a way as to maximize CO2 sequestration in areas with marginal soils and ecosystems, and with poor, hungry populations.
Biofuel programs need to focus on rehabilitation of damaged ecosystems; reclamation of marginal, unproductive regions; and sustainable development of new, harvestable resources.
To be a comprehensive biofuel program, it would also need to address the health, education, social and gender equity needs in the region being developed.

Governments and Humanitarian organizations are the ones I expect to strive for organized, comprehensive solutions that maximize results rather than profits. If such a framework could be developed, I'm sure the free markets could then work very effectively to further the Mill. Dev. Goals while achieving sustainable profits.

...so yes, but not the way we've done it so far.

G'day Samwik,

Sorry about the delay. Been sick.

Type I civilisations? I have no real comments. It is a totally made up system of defining civilisations that thus far do not exist (excepting the first level) and there is no evidence yet that they will exist. There may be many civilisations in the Universe that fit the types fantasised about but thus far there is no evidence to support that they actually exist.

I don't see the point at all in relation to global warming or how it may be dealt with or even have the theory of global warming properly tested in, say, the next 25 years.

As to Al Gore. I'm actually a bit of a fan. I would take issue with his house because the work done has actually had a CO2 negative impact in a big way. But that is another issue entirely. I also does not get away from the fact that Mr Gore does not practice what he preaches. Rather than reduce his Carbon footprint he is still using the energy, just in different ways. He is not prepared to sacrifice his lifestyle to "lead the way".

No one can be an expert in everything. They must rely on other experts for 99% of what happens. I just read an interesting comment about civilisations stating that most people have average IQs and contribute nothing to the advancement of the world. It is those very few with much higher IQs that make everything happen, good or bad. Interesting point of view.

Anyway back to Mr Gore. He cannot be an expert on everything and thus must rely on others but where I do not admire him is where it is so clearly shown that an expert on which he has relied has done something fundamentally flawed and he does not attempt to address the issues at all. As someone that is an advocate for Global Warming he should not totally ignore those types of issues as he does. I had not seen the "An Inconvenient Truth" Supplement until this week. I thought it would actually address some of the really major issues such as Lonnie Thompson's reliance of averaging in a totally inappropriate way, or the questions relating to the misuse of other studies to create the "Hockey Stick" curve, or even perhaps an apology for using the reference to the drowning polar bears which has been directly pointed out to him to be a total misrepresentation of the study he relies upon. Instead, it was some additional scare tactics about the affects of global warming as can now be seen on the earth. He added in some new issues that really are starting to stretch the science involved and continues to re-emphasise things such as Wildfires, Hurricanes, Tornadoes and other similar so called indicators of a warming planet.

As an expert he purports to be, he should know that almost everything he used has a rational, non global warming explanation, the experts in the field, such as hurricane experts do not agree that the numbers add up to a trend, and, as I thought was the purpose of the Supplement, to actually address some of the problems with his "proof" or "evidence" he used in the original slide show and movie.

My opinion of Mr Gore dropped substantially after watching this supplement. And the reason for his being in the topic is that he is so important the arguments as they are presented to the public. While he has no importance in a scientific sense, public opinion has nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with the presentation of such things as Mr Gore. I find it amazing how many people are totally convinced of global warming and that it is man made because of either seeing an Inconvenient Truth or worse seeing bits of it. I also find it amazing how easily you can pursuade the average person that there is enough wrong with Mr Gore's arguments to make the whole presentation suspicious who then feel annoyed or that they have been "conned".


Regards


Richard

Got to give you some kudos ... not a bad answer ..... which I will further interpret that you do not support biofuels unless they are developed in a different way or under a different global political and/or economic system ?? But given that is not the world we live in ..... do you agree that it is then right to limit them ?


And RicS, your last pargraph is exactly the reason I became so fascinated by this whole topic .. I saw An Incovenient Truth and became quite the ardent environmentalist .... but then started asking questions about some of the details, realised that 2+2 did not equal 5 and was AMAZED at how much resistance there was to getting answers ... which made me mad ..... I felt conned.

I like your interpretation of what I said; but I would look for more options and middle ground.
I would agree that biofuels should be limited, if the only use (and benefit) is to lower the price of gasoline.
Unless the main reason for, and benefit from, biofuels is to enhance the environment and fight poverty, then biofuels become just another wasted resource.

However, just saying it is "right to limit them" assumes we can't change the situation and do better.
Especially since biofuels are only a small part of the food shortage problem, I wouldn't withdraw support for biofuels; but advocate for improving our resource management so biofuels do not depend on the food chain (unless to enhance it) and do contribute to CO2 sequestration and stimulating economic and social development.
I don't think we should limit them. We should modify and improve their development, production, and usage.


ImranCan, what do you think of my contention that one can't characterize an "alarm bell" as false, just because our response to the perceived problem is not initially successful or is even counterproductive?

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. One of the things I think we all need to be is A LOT MORE EFFICIENT about how we use energy. It is good to increase the price of gasoline to make everyone more thoughtful about how it is used .... not decrease it. Whats wrong with another US$2-3 on the price of gasoline. Its would still be half the price of gas in Europe. American gasoline is the cheapest in the world - looking at major economically developed nations. The price needs to go up - not down. This is also a true test of how the general public perceives the energy problem. Surely if they want to conserve a finite resource, can't the American public take another US$2 per gallon. Or is it as Jim Maher states "If saving the planet required the American people to give up TV remote controls - could it be done ?"




The alarm bell is false if there isn't a problem. The fact that 'repsonses' are destructive (eg. accelerated rain forest destruction or increased global hunger) just demonstrates how idiotic it is to ring alarm bells when there was never anything to get alarmed about. You need to BE right.

G'day ImranCan,

If you go point by point through Mr Gore's presentation, very little of what he says is accurate and much is either based on what could be said to be fraudulant science or very poor science.

There is actually very little in the whole presentation that has any real validity. And that really is amazing, considering the sheer volume of topics the presentation covers and the various sciences discussed.

He is right about population growth and mostly right about "pollutants" providing you do not define CO2 as a pollutant. He is right about human misuse of resources and the appalling usage of energy by the US vis a vie the rest of the world. I say appalling because this is a non renewable resource and it does produce massive amounts of REAL pollution. It is logical that cars run cleaner and get more miles to the gallon. The fixation with SUVs and trucks by the USA seems quite weird to the rest of the world.

He sometimes gets facts right but that seems almost accidental.

He does not mention anything about CO2 except the ice studies and these show that the CO2 rises 60 to several hundred years after the temperature increases and follows it down pretty much the same way. He mentions that the relationship is "complex" but doesn't mention why. He doesn't mention anything about the problem with determining temperature from ice cores but then he has little time to do that but he does have significant time to talk about tobacco.

He mentions glaciers that started melting before the industrial revolution, the hockey stick that is a study that was based on selecting many other studies and only selecting those that matched the outcome they researchers wanted.

He shows the previous hotter periods as if they were tiny when that is one thing that he would find the "consensus" is quite the opposite to his presentation.

He mentions the study about "consensus" with scientists that has been shown to have been down by a social scientist who selectively used a search of global warming studies. While the majority of papers do favour global warming, when all the studies were checked, not less than 10%, it was shown that only a minority agreed that global warming was man made and small but not insignificant number questioned whether there was global warming.

His polar bear comment was just insulting in that it related to a study by one man not relating to polar bear populations but rather to polar bear distributions and ability to survive on ice packs etc and one throw away comment that four dead polar bears were seen floating in the water after a sudden spring thaw 80 kms from the coast line. That is not something that is in any way unusual for polar bears.

His comment about the study of his "good friend" Lonnie Thompson involves Mr Thompson drilling six ice cores into three tropical glaciers and finding that four of these showed the opposite to what he wished to prove. Two cores did agree with his arguments and since these two cores were more extreme than the other four, Dr Thompson averaged the six ice cores to get a favourable result. He then failed to mention that the ice cores included data that was wildely different for the same period from ice cors drilled only a metre or two away from each other. That tends to negate the usage of any small number of core samples. Only very large numbers of samples might show some trend. Ask any geotechnician about drilling cores to determine the suitablility of ground for construction. They will tell you all about the times that limited samples have been used that have shown a particular rock formation only to be proved totally wrong when the actually excavation or pier drilling has been carried out. I know of several hundrendously expensive examples of this type of error and this is in a science that is done for practical issues.

It goes on and on and on. Tornadoes increasing according to Mr Gore when the numbers have decreased since 1950 if you stick to Cat 3 or above. The trouble is that with storm chasers and dopler radar Cat 1 tornados that touch down for one minute in a wheat field in Kansas are now counted. In order to compare the 1950s with today you have to count the same types of Tornados. In the 50s the only Tornados that were observed were Cat 3 or larger because they tend to be on the ground for a reasonable amount of time and do noticeable damage or occasionally smaller ones if they actually went through a farm or populated area.

Same thing for Hurricanes. In the 50s Hurricanes that developed at sea and never went anywhere near landfall and were not large or where there was five or six Hurricanes stacked up in a row such as happens of in the Atlantic, only the larger ones or the ones that were going to make landfall were acknowledged. Now, ever single Hurricane, as long as it meets the criteria of Cat 1 Hurricane winds is recorded and named. That's another thing. Previously many smaller Hurricanes were considered to be "Rain Depressions" because no one could measure their winds. Now every single Hurricane wind velocity is known with great accuracy and even two or three miles an hour above the cut off and it gets named as a Hurricane. There was many more Hurricanes in the 50s than there was in the 90s. It did indeed increase again recently but most Hurricane experts consider that just a turn around in the cycle.

I could go on and on and one. The "Hurricane" in the South Atlantic that Mr Gore made a big deal out of was a freak "cold" Hurricane. It has never been recorded before because you need a satellite to even see that one exists. It certainly was not a Hurricane in the sense that the normal use of the word implies.

And the Pacific Islands are not sinking or more correctly some of them are. Literally sinking. But the sea levels are not rising. There is no sea level records of any significant period in the Pacific that show other than a regional fluctuation in sea level. And when I say regional, I mean small scale. There might be some locations that show a rise in sea level of a few centrimetres in the last 50 years but these are counted by many others that show a fall of roughly the same or even greater amounts. Many Pacific Islands are Atolls. They sink or more correctly a lot of them do. Some plate areas are dropping as well, just as other plate areas are rising but this is not the same at all as sea level changes. To accurately measure sea level changes the change in land relative to the earth must first be calculated and removed from the measurements. Around Australia there are 23 stations that have been measuring sea level changes continuously for 80 years or more. The vast majority show that the sea level has dropped by an insignificant amount, not risen but dropped. The average of all of the them is also a drop not a rise and where there are rises, the water table is generally to blame. Since Australia bounds the Indian Ocean, the Southern Ocean, the Tasman Sea, the Pacific Ocean and the various seas between Australia and Indonesia etc, if there was a world change in sea levels it would show up in Australian records.

It really is amazing how much of Mr Gore's information is based on studies or information that has not been presented reasonably by Mr Gore. I would say it has been distorted. Then there is much of the information that is widely believed but the evidence just isn't really there such as sea level changes. And finally there is information that might be correct, such as Greenland, but then even that is spoiled by equating that with the Antartic which has had a net gain in ice over the last 50 years and the western loss of floating ice sheets is insignificant and just part of the "normal" processes in that Continent.


Regards


Richard

ImranCan,
You say you disagree, but we're both saying lower price shouldn't be an important consideration (higher price is more realistic). Maybe I should have said "curtailed" rather than "limited." Aren't we in agreement here?In other words, they should not be limited, but developed in an environmentally sound and socially beneficial manner (not capitalistically focused on short-term profits, rapaciously blind to the social and environmental impact); they should not be limited, but developed in a manner to lift folks out of poverty, enhance biodiversity and bioproductivity, and sequester carbon.
Currently biofuels are doing none of those things; unregulated biofuel production is making those things worse in the pursuit of short-term profits.

We cannot rely only on the free market to affect change on the time scale that is needed to make any contribution to the orderly continuation of civilization. When compared to our successful developments, our social, environmental, and infrastructural debts are building up at increasingly rapid rates.

Biofuels need to be managed in a comprehensive program that could subsidize development within regulated parameters. For instance, whale oil should not be considered as a viable biofuel (even though technically....). Comprehensive, in this case (and in increasingly many cases), needs to mean globally comprehensive.

It is only in this way that other Millennium Development Goals can also be addressed simultaneously.

Think global when you vote national; think national when you vote regional; think regional when you vote local; and think local when you vote with your wallet.

Environmentally (including human populations):
To prevent significant changes we would have needed to start solutions in the 1970's-1980's; to prevent disastrous changes we would have needed to start solutions in the 1990's; to prevent catastrophic changes we would have needed to start solutions in the 2000's. Oh, ...well, we still have a year left to start some solutions.

hmmm... I seem to be wandering into a rant; ...to be saved for later.
...rant deleted....

Anyway Imran,
I think you avoided my question by simply stating "the alarm bell is false if...."
My point was that there is no logical connection between the truth (or not) of an alarm bell, and the success (or failure) of some short-sighted attempt to affect a solution.

...also....
To attempt a solution, you do not "need to BE right."
They didn't have it all figured out when they started the Manhattan Project or the Race to the Moon, or building cars. Heck, even treasure hunters and other venture capitalists don't wait for perfect certainty to start a project.
But for venture capitalists, some solid parameters and a stable, level global playing field, should offer (at least) more certainty. I'm all for free-market solutions, but within an environmentally and socially sustainable (or even enhancing) framework.

"Climate change, as a proxy for other environmental or sustainability issues, is not only the most profound environmental and scientific and national security, and public health issue that we face in our time... it is... an economic challenge. ....[A]nybody who tries to discount... that capital markets are not a big part of this problem -and solution, is missing the point." -M. Lubber, President of Ceres, April 7, 2008 at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum. A forum: Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World on CSPAN
http://ethisphere.com/mindy-s-lubber/
...ethisphere; there's a new word for the day!

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9279&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No
Richard Cizik's little rant on "the dominionists" vs. "the stewards," was enlightening.

....
ImranCan, I do feel I still need to ask:
Do you acknowledge that the failure of some attempted solution says nothing about the validity of a supposed "alarm bell?"
===
===
...later that same week....
& So RicS,
I think that any film covering a technical topic, but geared for a general audience, will be full of points that are not completely accurate. As you find so often in your work, things are rarely completely accurate; but the overall results and conclusions are "good enough..." and workable, conditionally leading to more progress. For me, his film was like a first or second year highschool level lecture on "Earth Sciences." It was grossly cut information (no fine detail) and a few connecting observations woven together to create a "big picture."
Most folks to see that film have virtually no science background at all. Any science "facts" they have in their heads are not connected together into a large coherent picture. I think he did an admirable job, considering his main audience. I haven't seen his "Supplement," but yes it sounds like an appeal to those easily swayed by the sight of any charismatic species (especially if there's sad music).

Thanks for reviewing all those points that put GW observations in a larger perspective again. I think your qualification about "Antartic which has had a net gain in ice over the last 50 years,"-(RicS) refers only to East Antarctica.
For the last few years at least, there has been a net loss of over 100 Gigatonnes/yr. for the continent as a whole (GRACE data).

Y'know, I recently saw Alan Alda trying to talk up and popularize some of the newer ideas in cosmology and physics such as string theories, branes, and higher dimensions. If I didn't know about this subject and went to find out more information based on what he had suggested, I could very easily say that I'd been" conned" by Alan's incomplete, and sometimes incorrect, descriptions and explanations. However, finding a larger vista and greater truth beyond what Alan had suggested, I think I'd acknowledge that he was just trying to help spread "the good word" and enrich people's lives.
Maybe we should expect more from Al Gore; but he does better than Alan, and better than several members of Congress who are in positions where they need to know this stuff, or have good science advisors close at hand.

Richard, let me ask you about this where you said, "providing you do not define CO2 as a pollutant."-RicS

How do you define CO2?
Can I assume you've seen:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26109#Post26109
...and the three following posts (well, just 26148 & 26152)?
...or What about:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26200#Post26200
...for other CO2 effects (oceanic pH)?