Still Don't Believe in Global Warming...

[oceanplay]

It's pointless to compare Al Gore's electricity usage with that of the average middle-class American. Al Gore is a multi-multi-millionaire with a HUGE mansion and who knows what kind of luxuries. It would make more sense to compare the electricity usage of his mansion to that of other comparable sized mansions. And then I would hope that his power usage would be at the lower end.

.

So if you’re rich you get to screw up the world faster than the poor?
WTF is that.

How about lead by example!


Gore's message is much bigger than himself.

Yes it is, unfortunately he thinks different it’s all about money and fame to him, he don't give a rats ass, it politics don't be a fool.

If he did he would live by it!

[spork]

So if you’re rich you get to screw up the world faster than the poor?
WTF is that.

My purpose here is not to defend Gore's personal lifestyle. But personally, I'd be willing to give him a pass on leaving his lights on since he's arguably done more about the problem now than any human living or dead by making the problem so real to so many people for the first time ever.

it’s all about money and fame to him, he don't give a rats ass, it politics don't be a fool.

It's just my personal opinion, but I believe Gore either takes this issue very seriously, or is the best actor I've ever seen. I find it harder to believe the great actor angle.

Pesonal opinions aside, I think it would be a damn shame to destroy this planet because we don't care for Al Gore. Apparently it's simply not possible for many folks to realize that Al Gore is not the issue. I'm willing to bet that when the scientists spend hours pouring over the data, they never stop to consider how they feel about Gore in order to reach their conclusions.

[simplelife]

This hubub about Gore seems very convenient for some. If you believe that Global Warming is a serious and valid issue, then don't sit around lamenting about poor leadership and casting blame on Gore, or anyone else (do something on your own initiative/volition instead of standing around in a herd). If you don't believe its an issue, then at least don't sit around acting like a victim-its poor form.

[jason_ssr]

The science community is just as corrupt and open to pursuasion as any other group. They use basic data and run with it to create a doomsday scenario to secure grant money. It keeps them all employed. Now they are all set and spend their day researching a phenomenon that cannot be proven. Why can it be proven? Because we havent been around long enough to determine if this deviates from the norm, nor do we have another planet earth to use as a control group. Its all speculation to keep scientists employed and politicians in the spotlight.

You want to know what these same scientists said 30 years ago??

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... %2C00.html

HAHAHAHA!!! Come on now, you cant have both!

Now this does not mean we should not take care of the environment. We should try to live polluting less. But dont get into the political and scientific hype machine. All its for is securing grants and votes.

[spork]

I'd say that abandoning science altogether is pretty extreme. Or will you only abandon it when you don't like what it's telling you?

You want to know what these same scientists said 30 years ago??

You're misinformed. I'll borrow a response from a good friend of mine...

Can we put the "1970s global cooling crisis" to bed once and for all ?

The whole myth was driven by media hype triggered from a single study (Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"). Both authors continued their work and subsequently published papers in which they acknowledged the flaws in their earlier paper and refuted their own earlier results. The key factors leading to the erroneous predictions was universally agreed to be inadequate sample size and improper analytical techniques.

For a more thorough debunking of this oft raised but ridiculous argument try here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[JS]

The science community is just as corrupt and open to pursuasion as any other group.

That is a very profound statement.

In order to make such a sweeping generalization, you must have abundant involvement in the scientific community - certainly more than mine, because I have arrived at the opposite conclusion.

Even recognizing the power of persuasion and relatively rare examples of corruption, I find that science, by design, is significantly less prone to these influences than most disciplines. Please explain - seriously.

[JS]

I am often amused by how many people seem to know so much more than those who are actually educated in the matters of which they speak.

Examples:

- Children that know more than their parents.

- Health "experts" that know more than doctors, notwithstanding many years of education in the most up-to-date research and techniques. BTW, doctors are the people that save your life when that "cleanse" recommended by your well-meaning know-it-all friend goes awry and begins to cause organ failure.

- Laypeople that know more than scientists, without having so much as an understanding of the definition of science.

- Etc.

It's easy to know it all until actually investing the time to learn how much one doesn't know.

James

[harakiri]

Wow, that is truly stunning that you could buy that load of crap, but you don't believe what the actual scientists tell us. How is it that none of the skeptics have ever managed to publish an article in peer reviewed scientific journal?

On a separate and unrelated note, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. I defy you to find me a singe reference, video, or audio clip with a direct quote that says Al Gore "invented the internet" (not that it has a darn thing to do with global warming).

Rick, I have MS in Physics, so I'm supposed to know what science is. I have enough background to check the facts myself, and not to believe anybody on their words.

It is true that some Nobel Laureates signed "saved the world" petition. I contacted one famous physicist and was shoked that he buys into this "Exxon evil" crap. Later I was relieved to discover that some other Nobel laureates maintain completely opposite view.

Now about verifying facts myself, I know a lot what computer modelling is, and how disappointing it may be. Climate models predictions, in particular, range anywhere from ocean's boiling to freezing. There are so many unknown parameeters, feedbacks, and the complexity of the task is far beyond current computing capabilities. What can you expect from a computer model when the grid is coarser than the size of a typical cloud?

I know, there is a remote possibility that human do influence climate. I fail to see any evidence of it. Look at the temperatures recorded at the antarctic -- they are hopelessly flat for the last 60 years. Check the ice cover recorded by satellite

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_extn.html

it is about the same -- expanded in some
places, contracted in the others. Seasonal variations are expected. By global warming theory polar regions are expected to warm the most, don't they?

I can go on and on, on these facts. Unlike muholand, I don't buy into leftwing conspiracy. GW is simply a myth, which is resonated by naive people. For god sake develop some critical thinking.

[harakiri]

The science community is just as corrupt and open to pursuasion as any other group.

That is a very profound statement.

In order to make such a sweeping generalization, you must have abundant involvement in the scientific community - certainly more than mine, because I have arrived at the opposite conclusion.

Even recognizing the power of persuasion and relatively rare examples of corruption, I find that science, by design, is significantly less prone to these influences than most disciplines. Please explain - seriously.

This is true. Tell me, however, why is that I hear so often the term "junk science" applied to interdisciplinary research related to GW studies? Isn't it true that the brightest and the most talented folks go to work in math, physics, chemistry, biology and computer sciences, and the dropouts end up working in climate sciences? If so, why should we particularly trust the opinion of the mediocre folks?

[HelldogBE]

but I HIGHLY DOUBT how much we are the cause of it...

Maybe so, but that puts you at odds with the best brains humanity has to offer. What do you know that they don't?

I don't have an agenda, as in messing up the economy because of silly norms. Where lots of others happily make silly profits from, but also increases our expenses loads but not adding any value to them...
example: compare how much R&D goes into making cars run with less "harmfull" fumes, and then look at those big plants (especially the ones based in countries that don't follow the kyoto norms...)

...there have been so many climate changes already, to me it seems pointless to try and stop nature... go with the flow, let it burn!!!!

I'd settle for stopping the damage WE'RE doing for now. We can worry about stopping nature later. You got kids?

What damage? sure species are dying, we may have to adapt to a different climate and build floating villages because there's no more land available if the water rises.

However any such things will only happen in thousand years and more, and before you start about kids... I will guarantee you we'll be further than WorldWar III at that stage!!!!

wether its because they want to wipe the countries that don't follow kyoto norms off the map, or because of something else!!

No kids, but face it: you can't change what the climate has been doing the last million years... there's just no way to stop nature!
and as with everything, lots of people see money in this...

heres a different example in an entirely different case. If the government wanted us to stop from speeding we would have an electronical limiter in our cars that adapted automatically to what zone we are driving in.
Instead the government chooses to fine people, with the excuse that they want to make the drivers aware that they drive too fast... They could just put up a warning sign that there is a speed control coming up and everyone would stick to the limit aswell (this is what they do in France) or they could have just inserted this limiter from the factory.

Sure R&D would cost a bit, but a LOT less than how much money they've put in making engines cleaner for example. it would cost less than 1% compared to it


The only point I want to make is that we need to relativise and make more rational decisions on where and how to minimalize the damage we are doing to mother nature!

No way I'm going to pay my ass off because some clown minister thinks limiting the harmfull exhaust gasses on our cars by 10% while pure toxic gasses are coming out of loads of factories in unthinkable quantities!!!