home

Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth"

7:00 pm Thursday evening

I'm inside the movie theatre at Denver Pavillions waiting for Al Gore's new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, to begin screening any moment now. Al Gore will be holding a Q and A session right afterwards. My seat is great, thanks to Mania TV and Special OPs Media -- a blogger press pass.

It's starting, I'll live blog the q and a session as soon as the movie's over.

*********
Movie over, exellent. I highly recommend it. It's a lot of Gore, he is the movie, but there are excellent graphics and he makes global warming understandable. I know less than nothing about the topic and I came away with some understanding. The use of cartoons in the movie was a great idea, even I could understand those. The scenes of Antartica and Alaska and Mount Kilminjaro were particularly powerful as were the Katrina scenes.

In a sentence, if I'm getting this right, the sun's rays are not bouncing off ice anymore because of the carbon dioxide layer. Instead, the rays are falling into the ocean which heats up the water which then causes the ice and the glaciers to melt, break off and shrink. Wind velocity picks up when water temperature rises, that's how Katrina, a category 1 over Florida, became a category 5 over New Orleans. Or something like that.

Other fun scenes in the movie were those showing Gore going through passenger screening at airports, lugging his own bag and still lugging it as he leaves the baggage claim area after arrival. Just your average Joe.

*****

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper introduces Al Gore. Gore is speaking now. He calls Hickenlooper one of the five best environmental mayors in the country. The movie is opening to the public June 9 and Gore wants everyone to get their friends to see it. He's staying at the Hotel Teatro.

Gore is relaxed and animated. He's dressed informally, black shirt with open collar, no tie. He says we are facing a planetary emergency, but we have the tools and knowledge to solve the problems.

We're on the q and a now.

Question: How can we promote alcohol fuels?
Gore: There are better versions now such as celulosic ethanol from switchgrass and sawgrass. He believes cellulosic ethanol is going to be a big part of the solution. He's all in favor of it.

Question: A doctor says the global warming problem is much worse than Gore says it is because of the human condition --humans are like a malignant cancer.

Gore says we can choose our own destiny. We are an incredible mix of people. He chooses to reject the parasite metaphor, the pathology cancer metaphor. We can choose a different path.

Question: What are the top two obstacles to public understanding of global warming and his solution for overcoming them.

Gore: The first is that we have already changed the relationship between the earth and sun and people resist that. Second is the psychological concept of denial which is very real. Third, we live in a culture of mass distractions. Sustained reflective thought is more difficult in our society. It's possible from watching the evening news to believe that Russell Crowe's throwing a phone is roughly comparable to the war in Iraq.

Solution: We need to change the public dialogue, people need to become engaged in the political process so that politicians who don't come up with proposals to fix the global warming problem will be run out of town.

Question: How high will the temperatures go as a result of carbon dioxide?

Gore: As CO2 rises, so do temperatures. It's a complex relationship but that fact remains pretty true. He doesn't answer as to how high, instead saying we have to decide what we are going to do about it. We are not simply pawns in some game of dice. After a few more such statements, he says he is getting far afield and he is. He's preaching. But at least he stopped quickly.

He says we have to be conscious of what is at stake, it's a moral and ethical question.

Question: Do our politicians believe in global warming?

Answer: If Bush and Cheney believe in it, I wish they'd tell us.

He repeats a line from Upton Sinclar that is in the film: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not his understanding it.

He says he can't get get into the hearts and minds of George W. Bush and Dick W. Cheney. Then he says has no idea know what Cheney's middle initial is, it's just his (Gore's) attempt at making a slur. Cheney's not a good hunter either, he says.

This is getting very free-wheeling on Gore's part. He's not exactly answering the questions, but the questions are all preceded by speeches so it's hard to figure out exactly what the question is. In other words, he's getting his pre-planned points across by fitting them into questions in an ad hoc manner.

Question: How much time do we have left?

Gore: The question is how long before we pass the point of no return? Maybe 10 years, but it depends on things like if Greenland or the West part of Antarica hold together. If they don't, the moral implications are pretty significant, not much else matters after that. We want our kids not to have to ask, "How could have our parents have let this happen?"

He'll take one more question: Where does nuclear power fit in and what about the supply of uranium?

Gore says he is not reflexively opposed to nuclear power but doubts it will play a bigger role than it plays now. He asks the audience about Rocky Flats and the questioner says he works there.

Gore says urnanium is in short supply. I didn't understand his follow-up to that, it got too technical.

He says nuclear power plants in their present generation of technology are the most expensive, "taking-longest-to-construct" source of electricity. When fuel prices go up, the ability to make a projection about the demand for electricity goes down.

Now he's on his closing speech. Global warming presents us with the opportunity for a shared moral purpose and to rise above our limits. Rising to meet this challenge can give us the moral ability to meet other crises. He's shouting now. Loudly.

He says we face crises that are enormous, that are politically cast, such as AIDS, famine, medical care shortages, disease, killing of the oceans and other examples. These are moral issues, he says, not political issues. We have to make them moral imperatives. We can do it.

The end. He stayed around for more questions from individuals.

My final thoughts: Go see the movie. It's well worth watching. The environment is a global issue we all need to become familiar with. The U.S. is badly lagging behind the rest of the world in addressing it. And the movie was less preachy than his live talk.

From a political standpoint: When the movie opens in June, Gore will become a household word again. Will he run for President? I bet he won't. He's having fun doing this and he's also clearly interested in media, news and television. Politics seemed absent from his radar screen. He seems to have no appetite for it and who can blame him? He wants to change the world and I don't think he views the Presidency any more as a place to do that. He's also clearly on a moral crusade.

He mentioned 9/11 a few times, but he always put the terrorist threats behind the environmental ones. That's reassuring to those (myself included) who think the Bush Administration is milking the terror threat for political purposes. Is there a terror threat, yes. But is it our biggest crisis or challenge? Probably not.

9:45 pm. The End.

< Wrongfully Convicted Man Graduates From Law School, Aims to be Prosecutor | Libby May 5 Hearing Transcript >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:55:51 PM EST
    Nicely covered JM. Thanks.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#2)
    by BigTex on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:58:18 PM EST
    TL - you are a very intelligent person. Why have you swallowed his bit hook, line, and sinker? Remember this is the same person who's book, in Earth in the Balance, is routinely used as a writing assignment in meteorology classes because of the 12 major factual errors on claims about how the atmosphere works. Even going with the most pessimistic reasonable forecast, once you adjust for reality of economics regarding oil supply the max temperature rise isn't going to be much more than 1.5 degrees C. The current oil price spike has come sooner than was expected, which will only hasten moderating effects. However, this is the telling line
    Maybe 10 years, but it depends on things like if Greenland or the West part of Antarica hold together.
    What happens if either of those two places has glacier melt? 1) Sea level rises. Not much if it is in Greenland. 2) More water is available in the water cycle. 3) Ocean temperatures have temporary cooling. This is not a catestrophic event unless you are on a low elevation island. This is hype to scare people, not seeking to address the current problems. That's too bad, because if he were to try to resonably address the problems he could be a force to get some change for the better.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:24:05 PM EST
    Al Gore is on the board at Apple. Did he get his new fashion advice from Steve Jobs?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:36:23 PM EST
    Tex, Why are you right and the VAST MAJORITY of actual climate scientists wrong? I understand the difference you're claiming in your forecasts and theirs, but try to figure for me why such trained scientists would differ so wildly with you on the potential harm that human-hastened GW (not Bush) is likely to cause. By the way, in what region of Texas do you reside, my friend? Just curious. Have a good one.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:50:16 PM EST
    "This is not a catestrophic event unless you are on a low elevation island." You mean like Manhattan, or Galveston?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:58:34 PM EST
    Tex, sorry but Al Gore explained much better than you do and I think you are wrong. He explained in the movie how many feet the water would rise based on different temperature rises. It's not the same all over. But a few degrees in one part could mean 20 feet of water rise for Florida, for example. The graphics showed Florida, San Francisco, and the southern end of Manhattan (where the WTC memorial is) submerged in water. I don't get your opposition. All the scientists, except those employed by oil companies, seem to agree he says. What can it hurt for us all to be more energy conscious? The ice has eroded, he showed the comparison images from 20 years ago, 10 years ago and today. Hard to fake those.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu May 11, 2006 at 10:02:20 PM EST
    daveNYC, Or, like me, San Diego. Oh wait, I'm up on, barely, a high enough hill. I'll have beachfront. F*ck everyone else in the city down below.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Thu May 11, 2006 at 10:25:09 PM EST
    I believe the former VP/Army Journalist is wrong

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 10:33:13 PM EST
    Believe being the operative word there.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 11, 2006 at 11:37:54 PM EST
    Someone above actually posted a link to junkscince.com. If this is where you get your information, I pity you. That website is owned and operated by a former lobbyist for the Oil industry. It's about as reliable as fox news. In other words: it's total BS.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 11, 2006 at 11:44:59 PM EST
    Dylan, I totally agree with you. Talk about junk science, in my opinion, that site represents it.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#12)
    by BigTex on Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:29:30 AM EST
    By the way, in what region of Texas do you reside, my friend? Just curious. Have a good one.
    I am from where Rita hit. When school is in session I stay in Houston, but otherwise go back home, and intend to return there next year after I graduate.
    What can it hurt for us all to be more energy conscious?
    No argument from me there. I'm all for energy conservation and alternative fuels that aren't ethanol. The difference between his viewopoint and mine isn't in goal, it is in scope and in means.
    I don't get your opposition.
    Several reasons for oppostion. A) Focusing on reducing oil use isn't a solution for two reasons. First, if we, or the developed world in general, reduce our use, but the developing world does not all we have done is shifted the polluters, not achieved a solution. That's why Koyoto never would work. CHina and India can use what oil we would stop using. Indonesia is well on the way to being able to do so. This isn't a case of stopping use. It's a case of the developing world wanting the developed world to stop using so they can use. Second, all a reduction does is spread the problem out over a longer period of time. It's not a solution, it only masks any problems for a while. This is the refrain of the old dilution is the solution to pollution train of thought, a train of thought that has been shown to be faulty. Rather than focus on the actual problem, the current plans simply seek to maks the problem for a while and redistribute who creats a pollution problem. B) Looking at the issue form the atmosphere as a whole, and from an economic reality standpoint. This isn't an atmosphere wide event. This is a warm surface, cool (as in less warm) troposphere, warm stratosphere event. This warm cool warm layering is what should be scaring the crap out of everyone, not the surace warming. Warm cool warm will lead, and is leading aleady, to more weather related problems. If the warming were atmospheric wide we wouldn't have this problem. This layering is why we are gettig more tornadoes and more severe thunderstorms. It's not the surface heating, but what is going on above the surface. C) This is a transient event. As alternative sources of energy become cost effective the use of oil will wane. That is what will end the threat of CO2 based global warming. If we simply extend out the use of oil, we extend the time frame where global warming is possible, and expand the likelihood that catestrophic climate change will occur. Rather than focus on mandates limiting who can emit what pollutants and to what degree the goal should be development of alternative sources of energy. One area that we can and should be pursuing is the recapture of currently wasted energy. This we can do today. That's not the focus of the environmentalist movement though. D) The use of doom and gloom scenarioes, which are unlikely, to scare people. That's unethical. The predicted sea level rise this century is 5-40 inches. A three to four foot rise in sea level over the course of a century isn't a drastic problem. The problem comes if there is a sudden melting of either the Greenland or W. Antarctic ice sheet.If there is sudden melting of the W. Antartic ice sheet, add 16 feet. Sudden melting of Greenland ice sheet, add 25 feet, giving a total possible of 45 feet. A 45 foot rise in sea level would be a problem. So what is spoken about? The 45 foot rise in sea level. This doesn't talk about the small chance that will happen as a sudden event, nor does it take into account the thickening of the core ice sheets due to increased precipitation over the polar regions. The doom and gloom talk is desinged to frighten people, not to educate people. That's unethical.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 04:48:47 AM EST
    Remember this is the same person who's book, in Earth in the Balance, is routinely used as a writing assignment in meteorology classes because of the 12 major factual errors on claims about how the atmosphere works. BigTex--Exactly where did you hear this? Because although my degrees are in biochemistry and biology (and political science) rather than earth sciences, I am disinclined to believe that there are many meteorology professors who, "routinely" waste class (and their own) time making students write about supposed errors in popular works written for laymen. Unless, of course, you're referring to some ecole du Bible bangers or institution with similar academic standards. Focusing on reducing oil use isn't a solution for two reasons. . . . First, if we, or the developed world in general, reduce our use, but the developing world does not all we have done is shifted the polluters . . . Hello, last superpower here? Americans are supposed to be setting an example, the nation that shows the rest of the planet how it's done. Bush and his cronies have pretty much pissed away that sort of moral high ground our country enjoyed in the past. (That loss may not bother you, but as an American, it bugs the hell out of me.) There's no way underdeveloped countries will tone it down if we don't. You're basically saying we should follow their examples. Second, all a reduction does is spread the problem out over a longer period of time. And this is wrong why? Rather than focus on mandates limiting who can emit what pollutants and to what degree the goal should be development of alternative sources of energy. They're not mutually exclusive. This is a transient event. As alternative sources of energy become cost effective the use of oil will wane. Not if we don't get off our duffs. The Good Fairy isn't going to handle this one for us.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:35:31 AM EST
    That the global temperature appears to be rising is pretty much beyond debate. The problems start when you assign the blame for this to mankind, and specifically to the industrial revolution. If we are responsible, why does the geologic record show that the average mean temperature on the planet has been rising and falling for hundreds of millions of years? If it's the industrial revolution at fault, why were temperature's warmer in the 1300s than they are now? These are a few inconvenient questions that Al Gore and his followers like to ignore. Which is not to say we don't have a problem, but if you think that there is really anything we can do to stop the polar ice caps from melting short of intentionally beginning a nuclear winter to block out the sun's heat, you need to be more concerned with the problems in your own mind. The waters are going to rise, no matter how much Al talks about it (and maybe because he talks about it; that's as likely an explanation as anything he has ever offered); the issue is what we will do about it when New York is under water. Climate change is a way of life on this planet; it's been going on for billions of years. Whining about it is not a solution, no matter how good Al Gore is at whining.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:24:14 AM EST
    "It's the Economy, stupid" if I may misue a quote. Yes, developing countries will increase their demand. But decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels can only help outr economy as prices rise. Plus we will be better at the technologies (which we are falling behind in as other countries expand alternative power technologies. We will need to have an infrastructure in place to distribute and use power and when should we start? Secondly, reducing use also reduces waste and pollution - increasing quality of life for all.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:29:17 AM EST
    When it comes to global warming, I'm kind of like the mob. Why take a chance?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    It's a lot of Gore, LOL..I like that one. Not if we don't get off our duffs. The Good Fairy isn't going to handle this one for us. Just a quick question in general.. How is it many of you are so concerned with this (as of yet unproven) threat, and are so cavalier about the REAL threat of terrorism now?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#18)
    by BigTex on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:59:12 AM EST
    Fine Molly. If you are going to eliminate the areas you politically disagree with, let's go with PSU. That's blue state, it should meet your bias criteria. I heard the info from students there who have had the assignment.
    You're basically saying we should follow their examples.
    Not at all. I'm saying that as long as developing countries will use the oil (or fossil fuels in general) that we don't use then the problem will not abate. The one difference is we have the money, technology, and desire to create solutions. The developing world does not. The use of resources is better spent here where we can and are coming up with solutions to fossil fuel use.
    There's no way underdeveloped countries will tone it down if we don't.
    They aren't going to tone it down. They are in the process of ramping it up. Far more of the world is developing than is developed. The developed world is where the pollution control efforts are taking place. Look at the carbon efficiency levels for the top 5 polluters in 2003. US $1.88 billion/ton emitted. China 0.40 billion/ton Russia 0.27 billion/ton Japan 3.56 billion/ton India 0.58 billion/ton The developed nations are the ones with the greater carbon efficiency. Why? Because the developed countries are the ones implementing pollution control measures. The developed world is leading the way, the developing world is not following.
    When it comes to global warming, I'm kind of like the mob. Why take a chance?
    Che - the difference between the Pascal's Wager type of scenario you put forth and the current situation is that no matter what we do, if the developing world does not also change the outcome isn't going to change. The only difference is who is doing the pollution. It is better to spend the resources in countries that are increasing carbon efficiency than to simply divert them to countries who feel no obligation to have pollution control.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:14:25 AM EST
    How is it many of you are so concerned with this (as of yet unproven) threat, and are so cavalier about the REAL threat of terrorism now? BB, w/r/t to taking terrorism seriously, I live and work in Manhattan and have since 'way before 9/11. I know no one here with a "cavalier" attitude towards terrorism. But I know plenty who are fed up with those who--like you--treat it as if it were some sort of live-action video game. Grow up. As far as global warming being unproven--it's obvious to anyone who doesn't get their science news from Rush Limbaugh.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:14:43 AM EST
    even the bush admin's studies have concluded global warming is happening and we're the cause.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    Tex,
    Look at the carbon efficiency levels for the top 5 polluters in 2003.
    Do you have a link explaining carbon efficiency levels?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:56:36 AM EST
    Talk Left writes:
    All the scientists, except those employed by oil companies, seem to agree he says.
    Actually, no. MIT is not an oil company.
    How do we reconcile this with the claim that present models do a good job of simulating the past century? It's simple: The "accurate" model reconstructions require "forcings" of data and speculative guesses about such factors as the influence of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. In an inverse manner, trial-and-error assumptions and data are forced into the computer until the inaccurate model projections are reconciled with the observed climate. However, such inverse forcings are highly unscientific and unlikely to reach similar results regarding anything other than the particular range of data and temperature history the computer is attempting to reconstruct.
    Big Tex writes:
    The doom and gloom talk is desinged to frighten people, not to educate people. That's unethical.
    Exactly.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#23)
    by BigTex on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    Here you go Peaches. I did it by a $$/ton emitted standard. That's not the standard way. That way was chosen because it is something that everyone can see and understand, even if they don't grasp the full meaning. Carbon efficiency defination Analysis from a self proclaimed neutral observer (business background.) The argument against using a carbon efficiency model is that this allows for a greater raw increase in emissions as long as the efficiency levels are rising. Looking at the database of emissions reveals three noteworthy trends. 1) Developed countries have a better rating. 2) China has reduced their emissions, but the rate of decrease is now essentially flat. 3) Many of the other developing countries are less efficient than they were in the past.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:15:15 AM EST
    Tex, I think the obvious flaw in using a rating such as this, is that as country's economy grows, it will produce more economic output per unit of carbon. Another flaw is that the US economy is service oriented and our goods are manufactured in these developing countries. A manufacturing economy would naturally have a lower carbon efficiency. I don't think your carbon efficiency rating really reveals much useful data. Just someone manipulating numbers to further a political agenda. My opinion anyway. I think the climate numbers is based on much harder science--although still speculative.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    Uhh, MIT isn't an oil company but his grant $$ comes from them: Richard Lindzen Member, Science and Economic Advisory Council The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy - The Annapolis Center received $27,500 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving in 2003. Contributing Writer The Cato Institute - The Cato Institute received $25,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003. Contributing Writer Techcentralstation.com - Tech Central Station received $95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    ppj - Take some time and see how many MIT scientists give creedance to global warming, then get back to us. Attempting to spin one scientists findings as representive of the consensus at MIT is unethical, or, in your case, just standard operating procedure. Nice try though.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:42:38 AM EST
    Jim's got a little soft spot for hookers with hearts 'a oil.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    Jim, Stand up and say you didn't do enough homework to find out that the ONE M.I.T. scientist you cited IS IN FACT in the pay of Big Oil. Come on now, big boy. Show us your Clenis. You know I'm just bustin' yer nuts, Jimbo. Y tu mama tambien. Now THAT is outta line, forgive me.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:51:29 AM EST
    Not for him.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    Jondee - In the case of Mark Klein's comments, you were the one claiming that people's associations are meaningless. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?? The fact that he is a member of a group that has received money from Exxon is neither newsworthy or unusual. He is still a MIT person, and not, as Gore claims, an employee of an oil company. That the amount is very small also detracts from your claim. et al - I go back to Tex's point that Al Gore's agenda is to scare people into doing what he wants done. That is a problem. That he is wrong is an even bigger problem.
    With respect to science, the assumption behind consensus is that science is a source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists. Of course, science is not primarily a source of authority. Rather, it is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign
    And this nails it.
    With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics.


    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    Tex, Molly is right. When WE set the example of alternative and clean fuel development and usage, then we are genuinely leading the way. Why are we supposed to lead the world in democracy but not energy imagination and renewel? Makes no sense. If not us, then whom? And I have no idea why you see the problem as a bunch of either/or solutions. We lead, help others do better. It's a simple lesson I learned, gasp, in school AND at home. Being better is a tough thing, but we always have to be doing it, or our claim to any Great Nation status is just a bunch of ego and ethnocentric noice, that the rest of the world sees for what it is -- hypocrisy and a LACK of leadership. Also, as to where you live, what's your elevation above sea level at home? Mazel.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    Jim, His research was FUNDED BY OIL COMPANIES. That's the point. There are actually scientists working at universities on research FUNDED BY BIG OIL. That many or most "scientists" in this area are university affiliated should come as no real surprise. Also, Big Oil has Big Money as their desire to say it's a scare and keep the status quo -- please don't pretend to ignore that; Al Gore has no motive in this case even close to that endless pot of gold motivating Big Oil's. Not books sales (which, in this case, is the far more cynical line to believe), nor his desire (if he has one still) to be President, since all he's doing along that lines is laying out his opinion and platform. You're smarter than that, bud. I know you are. The money that Big Oil is trying to protect by diminshing Global Warming is the thousand pound gorrilla in pink shoes dancing a jig that you're trying to ignore. Peace.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:13:12 AM EST
    ppj - Theres a subtle difference between "associating" and taking money; but, as you already told us, its always the money not the principal. Right? Btw, How are we doing on looking into other MIT scientists views on global warming? Come up with anything yet?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    I'm no Albert Schweitzer, but even I know that "consensus" in science is also called an increasing number of failed attempts to disprove a hypothesis. In other words, scientific reason to hold the GW hypothesis valid.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    PPJ-
    I go back to Tex's point that Al Gore's agenda is to scare people into doing what he wants done.
    What a concept. I would love it if Americans could be scared into practicing energy conservation. You on the other hand both embrace and attempt to propagate the scare generated by neocons warmongers and their particular glee for blowing up Moslems. The collateral damage is zilch for conservation. The collateral damage for the neocon bombing campaigns (aka liberation) is so great that it is beyond calculation.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    Dadler writes:
    I'm no Albert Schweitzer, but even I know that "consensus" in science is also called an increasing number of failed attempts to disprove a hypothesis.
    Meaningless. Something is either true, or it is not. The problem that Gore, and all those that would scare you into giving them lots of money and power has is this. How can they say sea level will be 20' higher in X years when they can not accurately forecast the weather a week from now? They can't. BTW - Who do you think is funding the pro Global Warming "research?" From the link. (2
    ) The scientific community is committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible
    For more onfo, read Crichton's book, "State of Fear." Jondee - Nope, what I said was I wanted to know the associations, etc., of people who make sweeping statements that are full of qualifiers, as was Mark Klien's comments. Why? Because it has been my experience that such statements lean on opinion too much and facts too little. Also see my comment to Dadler. Squeaky - The difference is that the terrorists are real. Global Warming may or may not be happening. And if it is it may or may not be a problem. Now you are demanding a pre-emptive solution to what is likely a non-problem while condemning Bush's pre-emptive attack solution to a proven problem. Figures. et al - If this guy was bought and paid for, why did he write this?
    It does pay to speak about the levels of atmospheric CO2. They are increasing. To be sure, over long periods, climate can cause CO2 changes, but the increases observed over the past century are likely due to man's activities. When and if the levels double, they will increase the radiative forcing of the planet by about 4 Wm-2, or about 2 percent. This will prove relevant.


    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:40:55 PM EST
    Now you are demanding a pre-emptive solution to what is likely a non-problem while condemning Bush's pre-emptive attack solution to a proven problem.
    Proven problem? What that there are bad people in the world? That the fake WOT is eternal and never ending? The soultion? The world is less safe than it ever was. Bush has done nothing but drain our blood and treasure only to increase the problem 1000 fold. Pollution exists and causes many proven problems. Peak oil exists it is proven. Conservation and developing renewable energy sources are all problems that are solvable were it not for the fact that there is too much $$$ to be made by avoiding a solution. The Iraqi WMS's never existed, The Iran nukes also not existing. PPJ joker proof: Trust me I have 5 aces. The sensible thing is for everyone to fold so I do not have to show my hand.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:42:44 PM EST
    ppj - Any news from MIT yet? Keep trying. And dont forget to let us know.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    Jim,
    Squeaky - The difference is that the terrorists are real. Global Warming may or may not be happening. And if it is it may or may not be a problem.
    For some reason, I feel like being reasonable today. I don't think that terrorism is as big of a threat as you believe it is. However, I concede that a nublear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is not something we should let happen. We differ on how to prevent this. In many ways I think the cats out of the bag. Its the Blowback effect. I don't know how, when, or who is going to end this insanity of violence. If they bomb Iraq, and I think they will and I think their intentions are immoral, but if they do--I'll pray with you your little prayer for a minimal loss of life on both sides. Now, as far as global warming. You don't think it is a threat as large as I or some others might. I have no certainty. My ability to analyze the data is probably no better than you. But, doesn't this logic make sense. Burn Fossil fuels>atmospheric levels of CO2 rise>CO2 is a greenhouse gas> this results in climate change and warming of ice caps>sea levels rise... Predicting weather, might not be any better than predicting a future action of a terrorist. But, if we are going to use the standard of eliminating as much risk of an attack by terrorists of a nuclear attack, why not use this same standard for eliminating the risk of us doing harm through climate change? Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Its called the precautionary principle.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#40)
    by BigTex on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    Also, as to where you live, what's your elevation above sea level at home?
    Dadler - The house is somewhere between 15 and 18 feet above sea level. I forget the exact figure. It is one of the highest parts of the city. The city average is probablly 12-14 feet above sea level. The problem with Molly's statements are that they are based on an assumption that is not realistic. Just because we lead doesn't mean that other countries will follow. If this were a zero sum demand situation them Molly would have a valid point. However, this is a situation where demand will continue to be greater than supply regardless if we reduce demand or not. Supply is what is controling pollution levels, not demand. We should go more solar and wind power. We should put windmills up in the Gulf of Mexico and off of the New England Coast. We should put large tracts of solar cells up in the desert SW and have solar cells on every roof and every light socket. But unless developing countries alter their behavior it doesn't reduce pollution. This is an either or situation outside of zero emission technologies because if we go an alternative fuel route that isn't zero emission then that causes a net rise in pollution levels because we will emit some, and the developing countries will increase their pollution because of the increased use of fossli fuels. The amount of fossel fuels used in the market will not drop, so pollution levels will not drop. Rather it will increase by the amount we pollute with the alternative sources. Peaches - the value of carbon efficiency is that if the efficiency increases we do more with less. Bubble permits work off of a carbon intensity theory. Allow refineries, generators, etc, to upgrade their equipment to produce more with the same amount of pollution. That's how we have been able to increase our GDP since 2000 and keep emission levels in line with 2000 levels.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:13:43 PM EST
    That's how we have been able to increase our GDP since 2000 and keep emission levels in line with 2000 levels.
    What has been the percentage increase in carbon emissions in 2000. What was the percantage increase in real GDP. I don't know, but my guess is they are very close to equivalent. I've been wrong before. Show me I am wrong. If I'm wrong in this guess, the change in the efficiency can be partly attributed to the export in manufacturing industries. Finally, Developing countries can also be expected to increase their efficienccy as their economies grow. Much of the gains in the solar industry is the result of investment projects and fundings project in developing countries during the 1980's and 1990s, due to the lack of an electrical grid in these countries. There is no reason to assume that they won't be able to also do more with less as their economies grow.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:41:27 PM EST
    Squeaky.... What a concept. I would love it if Americans could be scared into practicing energy conservation. The Dems (libs) have ben trying to do that for decades...why do you think the tax on gas is so high? Why are we not drilling in Anwar? Why not off the coast of Cal...Fla? Why no solar power off of Mass? The Dems have effectively blocked all this stuff...yet are the loudest ones screaming about our dependence on foriegn oil. Anyway, as has been pointed out, if the rest of the world isn't "scared" ...it will have little or no effect. Molly.... But I know plenty who are fed up with those who--like you--treat it as if it were some sort of live-action video game. Grow up. Not sure what you're trying to say here...?? I'm not the one that thinks it's a 'game'...it is real and something we need to be concerned about NOW.... As far as global warming being unproven--it's obvious to anyone As has also been said... the fact that the earth 'seems' to be warming (although I'd invite you to spend a winter here in Chi and see if you still think that way...in fact it's only in the 40's here today!) it doesn't mean we are the cause of it. The earth has been known to go through cycles... sanse human intervention.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:10:06 PM EST
    What's scarier than global warming? Some of these dim-witted comments from people who don't take it seriously.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Johnny on Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    I go back to Tex's point that Al Gore's agenda is to scare people into doing what he wants done. That is a problem. That he is wrong is an even bigger problem.
    LMAO, apply the same sentence to chemical weapons in the desert and you will defend the decision to go to war with all your little heart. Et al: if you think that burning fossil fuels is not going directly into the environment you live in, causing permanent change, go suck on a tail pipe and tell me how wrong everyone is for believing it. Chances are, you will probably find out that exhaust is, in fact, not good for you or the air and water around you.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    BigTex-It is hard to understand your denial that the effect of fossil fuels on the environment is grossly overstated and that global warming is nothing to worry about. I was just over at the Friday Wide open thread reading some of the comments and this thought struck me: Do you think that god is on top of the environment and that the global warming is a gift from god? Bush has all but said that in his recent acknowledgment of global warming. Is that your position? If so it is more honest than all the junk science you are arguing for.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#46)
    by BigTex on Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    Peaches, here is the info you requested. Since it is in a PDF format, the CO2 info is repeated below. Year release (Tg CO2) 2000 5858.2 2001 5744.8 2002 5796.8 2003 5841.5 2004 and 2005 is not given. This is a reduction in emissions, while we have a growth of GDP. Source Even, for the sake of discussion, we are above 2000 levels in emissions now, the GDP increases are GDP increases are 2001 0.8 2002 1.6 2003 2.7 2004 4.2 2005 3.5 n = 12.8 Even if we look at the most receint 5 year increase period, 1996-2000, period the emissions increase was 1.22% a year. Our GDP is increasing at 2.56% a year over the past 5 years, and the moving 5 year average is rising.
    Developing countries can also be expected to increase their efficienccy as their economies grow.
    The contrary will happen as long as the developing world holds to the principles of common but differentiated responsibility. India still maintains this stance, China likely does also. Common but differentiated responsibility 1. The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; 2. Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low; 3. The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs. The developing world is talking about increasing emissions, not increasing effeciency.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    So, I guess we should all just continue in our gluttonous, "Amurkin" way. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Why do people find it so damned difficult to make any sort of change that will benefit this planet. Walk to work, ride a bike when you can. You know, inconvenience yourselves. I don't care how scientific or "intellectual" your comments are, the sheer selfishness is astounding! Think of someone other than yourselves, for once in your life.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:41:20 PM EST
    BTW - Did Al Gore fly into Denver on a commercial flight, or private jet? I mean speaking of scarifices... Johnny - Burning carbons has gone on for centuries. Much of it is captured in trees, etc. The largest depository of CO2 is the oceans. Squeaky writes:
    The world is less safe than it ever was.
    Oh, really? Have you considered 1940? Germany on the march through Europe, Japan in the Far East and Italy in the Med? England engaged in a desperate air battle and U boats are sinking supply ships in huge numbers. Big Tex: Solar and wind generation have their own unique problems, that of storage. Forgetting the cost, if you want pollution, just think of a huge demand for batteries, and disposal of same when they go bad. There are other things that can be done. Passive solar is but one. Find the proper angle and make the (typically) south wall so that it is exposed to sunlight during the day, with insulated drapes to close at night. As screwed up as Mother Jones' politics are, they have, or did when I read'em, some excellent plans. Peaches - Actually temperatures have dropped in the past 50 years or so, inspite of the increases you refer to. And CO2 is picked up and stored by vegatation and the seas. There is also the question of solar radiation levels, etc. There is a lot we don't know. The earth's climate has changed continually for millions of years before we had industrial pollution and/or cars. Until we can see some hard science about that I will cheerfully ignore Algore and his merry band of hysteria salesmen.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:51:51 PM EST
    ppj - No word back from MIT I take it?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:46:08 PM EST
    Tex, Well, something we can agree on. Solar and wind and other clean alternative energy sources. Along with an end to the lazy waste of energy so common in our everyday lives -- so common we hardly pay attention to it. Bravo. I feel all warm and tingly. But...is that not still not attempting to lead? Pretty much what I meant. And sure others may not follow. But we can't control others, only ourselves. We can send a loud, clear message by our actions.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:22:16 PM EST
    So how many of the "man is causing global warming" scientists would be out of a job if they said global warming is not caused by man? It seems to me that there are no "unbiased" scientists in the lot. BTW the IPCC mission is not to find the cause of global warming. It is to find the man made cause. No bias there, eh?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:28:30 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ, Storage is not really a problem. I'm an aerospace engineer with some practical ideas on how to do it without batteries. I have been trying to interest investors for several years. No luck. Evidently the market for storage is not big.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 12:28:11 AM EST
    simon neocon - And no "unbiased" men anywhere. On either side. Shouldnt you be over on the trillion dollar Iran-is-next thread?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#54)
    by BigTex on Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:22:38 AM EST
    It is hard to understand your denial that the effect of fossil fuels on the environment is grossly overstated and that global warming is nothing to worry about.... junk science you are arguing for.
    Squeaky - I don't recall ever denying that fossil fuels are having an effect on the environment. Nor can I recall denying that temperature is rising. Natural processes account for one third to one half of the warming. Human activity accounts for the other part. My stance is that the reaction to the human element is overkill. Remember back when I said Rio was needed? That was a CO2 emissions agreement before Koyoto. Clearly temperatures are rising. I've not said otherwise. The difference in analysis comes in the terms of threat and response. It's my belief that the temperature rise over the course of the century will be on the bottom range of the forecast, if that much. The reasons for this are the model runs are based on forcing elements, and have masked success right now. They also do not discount temperature rises based on natural phenoma that are not capable of repeating, such as ozone recovery. They also do not take into account the overall drop in ozone levels, which is a far greater threat to the ice sheets. A mild bit of warming isn't harmful to the planet. The only way to come to the conclusion that mild warming is a danger is to make predictions based on humans not taking reasonable steps to adapt. That's the true junk science. With mild warming crop yields will increase. Humans will have to adapt what they plant, but with simple measures of planting a different species of cerial crops as climate changes the yields will increase. The only studies that show a crop yield decrease are based on planting the same crops in the same locations, or ones that show catistrophic climate change, which is unlikely. Precipitation will increase with mild warming. More water will be freed from glaciers to enter the hydrological cycle with mild warming. All three things are good for the planet. The other problem I have with the alarmist is that they are out there spreading unlikely scenarios to scare people. The Greenland Ice sheet is anchored to land. It's not going to suddenly slide off into the ocean and have a sudden melt. Now, W. Antarctic ice sheet may because is isn't anchord to land, but even then that has been going in a calving fashion, not an abrupt rupture fashion. Every time an iceberg calves that's less chace of an abrupt rupture because there is less ice there to apply stress to the entire mass. Just because I take a milder view of what the future is, and want to procede with caution doesn't mean I am arguing junk science. It means I am exposing the flaws in the current processes and saying we shouldn't act hastily until we know what we are dealing with. You've seen me make posts here calling for energy conservation and changing to less energy intensive vehicles. I'm not saying do nothing. Rather I'm saying before we make fundamental changes to the way we carry on business we need to know what we are talking about. Is the threat worth switcing over to ethanol and leading to mass starvation? IMO, it's not. Is it worth the risk of adding pollution since this is a supply driven, not a demand driven problem. Absloutly not. Alarmists don't want to address those issues. That doesn't mean I'm peddling junk science. It means I'm taking the more cautious approach.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#55)
    by tpiddy on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:39:48 AM EST
    man bear pig!

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:55:09 AM EST
    Solar output has been increasing .05% per decade for the last 100 years. I wonder if that has anything to do with global warming? =============================== I can from first principles tell you how a motor control system will respond to noise or changes in control set point. Our understanding of climate is not nearly so good. I suppose it is kind of like religion. The less you understand the easier it is to believe. The problem is multiple feedbacks. Multiple loops. Multiple gain "constants". Multiple lags. Lags that vary depending on the size of the input (some are exponential, some are linear, some are logrithmic) etc. On top of that the chunk size of the mesh used for simulation is large. etc. And yet people want to believe that despite all the problems and uncertainties in the models that they can predict the future when the models must be adjusted to even predict the past. GIGO

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:09:58 AM EST
    Jondee - Love it when you are cute. Try reading Klein again and note his qualifiers and absolutely no thought/hint that the government was not breaking the law. And then read the last paragraph of the link.
    The main victims of any proactive policies are likely to be consumers, and they have little concentrated influence. As usual, they have long been co-opted by organizations like Consumers Union that now actively support Kyoto.
    You should have taken some hard science course when you were not at MIT, Jondee. That way you wouldn't be so easy to fool. Simon - Interesting. I'm going to go over to your site and we'll discuss if you like. If you can do it, I'll find the money. tpiddy - Which are you?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:13:02 AM EST
    Then you have transport between chunks. Wind. Atmospheric circulation patterns. El Nino. And lots of other very interesting stuff. Cosmic rays. Sun spots. Solar wind. Vegetation. Dutch Elm disease. Old growth forrests. New growth forrests. Drug war incentives to cut down the Amazon forrests. Logging incentives where the forrests are collective or common property. And all this has to be modeled to predict what the future will be like. BTW any one know how to predict major volcanic eruptions and their effects?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:20:43 AM EST
    jimaka... Always interested in discussion. Post any where you like and pick a topic. I'll open a new thread if it would help.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:32:44 AM EST
    Jimaka... Ah, you are refering to storage. Well it still goes. Leave a message anywhere. Or my e-mail is at the top of the sidebar.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:52:07 AM EST
    PPJ writes "Johnny - Burning carbons has gone on for centuries. Much of it is captured in trees" What happens when you cut down millions of trees, and replace them with millions of cars?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:52:46 AM EST
    ppj - So I take it you never got any word back. Well keep trying. Btw, Bob Jones has a visiting Environmental Science professorship open if you're interested. Check with em.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:02:07 AM EST
    BigTex-My big question for you fell through the cracks and was not addressed. My bad writing no doubt. So here is the queation directly: Where does god fit in to your arguments? Is there any part s/he plays in the warming trend? And is s/he does is all this a positive step?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:51:31 AM EST
    bigunit12 - Actually we have became much more efficent at using carbon. Think what whould happen if we were still using firewood and coal for heat, given the same population levels. See, that's the thing the enviromental wackos don't tell you. We need the current system to support the current population level. (Actually without technology the current population level wouldn't be what it is.) Let tpiddy explain his comment to you. I'll give it a shot. A man has no more right to life than a pig. Squeaky - I assume you have never heard of God and the concept of free will. Jondee - Since you are a TRUE believer, you should apply. Me? I keep asking questions. Like I said, you should have taken some science classess. That way you wouldn't believe everything some Leftie politician tells you.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    Yeah a leftie politician and few thousand "leftie" scientists (its a big conspiracy like when they tried to prove smoking was bad for you). "Asking questions"? You said up the thread that the theory "was wrong". Sounds like your mind (as it were) is pretty made up to me. Yer a regler ole decider.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    A British inventor unveiled a car he claims is the world's most fuel efficient -- capable of doing 8,000 miles (12,875 km) to the gallon (4.5 litres).
    Now that is progress. link via HuffPo

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    Now let's try to guess which corp will buy the rights to this efficient car design for millions of dollars and then shelve it.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#68)
    by soccerdad on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    Please ignore the increase in upper and lower atmosphere temperatures, increase in ocean surface temp, increased melting of glaciers, the artic and antartic but please listen to the corporate sponsored flacks and Bush rump swabs. /sarcasm Only the brown shirts are in denial about global warming and its cause. However, there is still some issues wrt to how big the increase in temp will be. It will be significant. Once you find out with 100% certainty, its too late.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    Well, once you've debunked evoloution and the Schiavo autopsy, it becomes obvious that you possess special gifts not found amongst your run of the mill group of Leftie scientists.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    "See, that's the thing the enviromental wackos don't tell you. We need the current system to support the current population level." PPJ, thanks for the my laugh of the day

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    From Rush's as* to his mouth. And, a mighty short distance it is.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    Actually, no. MIT is not an oil company.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dadler on Sat May 13, 2006 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    Simon, Anyone with permanent lung damage from breathing air pollution as a child -- like me -- knows bodily well what all this junk we pump into the air does. First hand. We are pumping TONS of poison into the air and atmosphere every day. The notion we're not damaging that air and atmosphere as badly as we're damaging ourselves (if not worse), and worse than they would be doing on their own just doesn't fly. That we don't know HOW BADLY we're damaging those vital seems the only thing in question. Not a question me or my already damaged body find worth hedging over. We know how to do much better, we're simply too lazy, greedy and thoughtless on the whole to make the transition. Peace.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#74)
    by Johnny on Sat May 13, 2006 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    (Actually without technology the current population level wouldn't be what it is.)
    LOL... Less people would be a very, very good thing. As it stands, I am actually more concerned with human biomass exceeding carrying capacity (for long term survival, it has already exceeded sustainability) than I am about dirty air and water. Jim, one might also say that the technology needs current population levels, not the other way around. Also, due to certain cultural beliefs of civilized peoples, population expansion is a mandate either religiously or economically. Imagine what would happen to the economy if population stabilized. Zero growth markets. Scary thought. No, the technology has never been a response to population, it has always been the other way around. Easy example: you cannot grow more people until you first have more food. That is why food surpluses are the ding-dong idea of all time. And under current climate trends, gorwing seasons in some areas will become unbelievably good, and population will explode (it has to, any increase in food supply leads to an increase in population. Find me one species where that does not hold true.) Global warming will be catastophic for this planet as a human habitat. But go ahead ya'll... Keep on believing that we can reproduce ourselves until the second coming and all glory will be had.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#75)
    by BigTex on Sat May 13, 2006 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    My bad writing no doubt. So here is the queation directly: Where does god fit in to your arguments? Is there any part s/he plays in the warming trend? And is s/he does is all this a positive step?
    Sorry Squeaky. Sleep deprivation, finals, and pain medicine are to blame for the non response, not your writing. To the extent that the increase in temperature is due to natural variation God is giving the warming, and the warming is good. This is one third to one half of the warming. The remainder is human caused. Soc - you give a prime example of why I oppose those who are alarmist (not saying that you are)
    Please ignore the increase in upper and lower atmosphere temperatures .../sarcasm
    You do have to ignore the increase in upper atmospheric temperatures to have an effective greenhouse effect scenario. Increase in the temperature in the stratosphere means more radiation is getting past the blanket of greenhouse gasses. You should see stratospheric temperatures drop as surfact temperatures rise if the greenhouse effect is causing the temperature change. Since both levels are rising, it means something else is a player in the warming. Not that the greenhouse effct isn't only that something else is causing a detectable change and fouling up the theory that the warming is the result of the greenhose effect.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    Johnny writes:
    Less people would be a very, very good thing.
    Uh, do we let them commit suicide, or do we just shoot'em? (We both know that you and I are too valuable to be gotten rid of.) Squeaky - If this guy actually had such, the investment banks would be lined up to loan him money so he could build his mouse trap. Your parnoia is laughable. bigunit12 - I am here to serve. Now, since you seem to disagree, tell me what would happen if lost our current system of farming, distribution, etc. Can you say, "starvation?" Jondee - You and Algore are the one's pushing the theory, I think it is basically flawed and is designed into panicking Jondee and the rest of the herd into giving Algore money and power. One of the reasons why you attack me is that you don't know enough science to really understand what's being said, and down deep you are very uncomfortable. So naturtally, like any fanatic you want to kill all the non-believers out of envy and fear that they are right. BTW - I ask again. Did Al and company fly commercial into Denver, or did he come in on a private jet. And did he get rid of all those oil stocks he owns??

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    BigTex- thanks for getting back to me. your honesty about how god fits into your argument puts the highly controversial science part into a more understandable context. Even if I disagree with your position seems more honest and understandable with the additional info.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    Johnny - I missed this one:
    Jim, one might also say that the technology needs current population levels, not the other way around.
    Not all. The technology levels of say, 20 years ago, which is the level at which those you consider your mentors are still focused on. Consider information flow. At one time we had technology capable of cost effectively having only a small number of TV channels. Now, with cable, we have over a hundred, each serving a smaller market. At one time we had a limited number of pundits writing a limited number of columns. Now we have the Internet and everyone is a journalist. Everything is affected. In years past we needed Travel Agents to buy our tickets. Now we have an unlimited selection over the internet. At one time every brewery owned their own kegs, and could control who got how many. Now kegs are leased and shipped by a third party who in turn leases transport and provides almost unlimited selection. Here again we see not mass anything, but individual selections because micro breweries can get their product to smaller markets. Same for weather forecasting. At one time we needed a system supported by thousands to pay someone to broadcast over those limited TV channels. Now an individual can go on NOAA and see what's on the way. We don't need Algore. ;-)

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#79)
    by Sailor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    Actually what we don't need are ppj and his clones. If they would just do the right thing and eliminate themselves and their progeny from the planet we might be able to save it for human habitation.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    PPJ-Paraniod? I would say that you are naive. Ever see this film?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#81)
    by soccerdad on Sat May 13, 2006 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    I was inaccurate if you took upper to mean stratosphere which is logical. The temperature in the stratosphere is down due to depletion of ozone, since ozone holds heat. The mid to upper startosphere has cooled between 2 and 11 degrees F. Ozone layer is predicted to recover by 2050-2070. The problem os taking a wait and see attitude is that the dynamics of the processes are in years. So by the time you find out for sure whether the rise will be 5 or 7 degrees its long too late. The whole of the scientific evidence points to human activity as being the main force behind global warming, just as humans using CFC's were responsible for depletion of the ozone layer.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:20:50 PM EST
    ppj - Actually, Im hoping you are right. I also hope that you are an intrepid, open minded investigator, imbued with the spirit of free inquiry that those with your kind of extensive scientific training are rumoured to have; that theres a Tooth Fairy and an Easter Bunny; that the red staters that you always claim to speak for really are wise, salt 'a the earth folk who get their info from books and not A.M Talk Radio and megachurch pastors; and that Bush really is an intelligent, far-sighted, "uniter" and that all those ugly rumours about Karl Rove's nefariousness are just that, ugly rumours with no foundation. You've been vindicated so many times before here that Im sure you'll be vindicated again.

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#83)
    by Johnny on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:49:27 PM EST
    Not all. The technology levels of say, 20 years ago, which is the level at which those you consider your mentors are still focused on.
    You have a knack for not comprehending what you read. What mentors? What on eartha re you babbling about?

    Re: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" (none / 0) (#84)
    by Andreas on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 11:57:32 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    Al Gore's documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, is intended to serve one essential purpose: bolstering the environmental and supposedly liberal credentials of the Democratic Party and the former US vice president himself. Its aim, therefore, is not primarily to treat the very real environmental problems that it in part lays bare, but to create a new mechanism for ensuring that these problems cannot find a serious solution. ... The film's form is determined by its essential purpose. The concerns that many people have over the fate of the environment are here deliberately channeled into the thoroughly impotent and, from the standpoint of the American ruling elite, safe harbor of "consumer choice." According to the logic of the film, such "choice," combined with the efforts of visionary figures like Al Gore, will ultimately save the day. The real "inconvenient truth" about Gore and global warming is that the political perspective he embodies is utterly incapable of dealing with the problem.
    Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth: political posturing and the Democratic Party By Joe Kay, 15 July 2006

    After the Oscars... (none / 0) (#85)
    by nati2105 on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    It seems that most scientists who are not employed by oil companies share your and Gore's concern for our environment and the future of it. I have not seen the movie, and do not plan on seeing it until I have educated myself enough to understand both sides of the global warming issues.  I have to commend you for drawing more attention to the movie's subject via your blog site but at the same time it makes me wonder exactly how effective the film is if one of such esteem still has difficulty explaining what is going on with our earth.  It indeed is quite a meticulous subject with many problems that need addressing, but I question if people really understand the problems and intend to aid in the solutions. It appeared as if most of the Kodak Theater, filled with Hollywood's brightest, were wildly excited to see a political film win that focused on such a global hot topic.  I wonder how many of those in the industry actually saw the movie and intend on changing their gas-guzzling, earth shattering ways.  I agree with you, people should see this movie. But I feel that people should be informed and educated before seeing a film like this.  Whether people agree with the film or not, at least the subject is in the media and hopefully it will garner enough support from people globally that we can actually change our lifestyles to improve our earth and help save it from the catastrophe that Gore predicts will happen if we don't make changes. No matter what Gore's political agenda may or may not be he is right in stating: "Since in fact this is not a political issue, but rather a moral issue that needs to be made a moral imperative."

    And Conversely (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    I agree with you, people should see this movie. But I feel that people should be informed and educated before seeing a film like this.

    Why can't seeing the film be the starting point of becoming informed and educated about global warming?