Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gore's Global Warming Movie Claims; We should follow to see where this leads
Topic Started: Jun 28 2006, 08:19 AM (449 Views)
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Don't have much time, but here's a start: Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Gore is just another Chicken Little.

Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming
Quote:
 
In their attempt to not publicly scold Mann and his coauthors for questionable data analysis methods, the authors of the new report instead chose to restate the evidence for how warm the Earth has gotten recently. What the media didn't notice, however, is that the 1,000 year figure that was central to the whole hockey stick debate had now been replaced in the report by a figure of 400 years. Since most of the last 400 years was dominated by the "Little Ice Age," the warming during the 20th century should be welcomed by humanity.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
I find the concept of the precautionary principle to be of interest.

Quote:
 
"Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.


Basically the precautionary principle simply reverses the current burdens of proof when considering enviormental impact and advisability of human activity.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lon Frank
Member
cmoehle
Jun 29 2006, 04:45 AM
Gore is just another Chicken Little.

Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

Chris, I can't believe that you, of all people, are digging up bullshit like this. The author is just another writer, who has a nickel's worth of research data, and is grabbing for his 15 minutes of fame. He's not talking about global warming at all, but rather hoping that taking a shot at the big guy of the moment will put himself at the same level.

There's an old proverb that men are defined by their enemies, and there's suddenly a lot of half-wits who want to be defined as the anti-Gore. If he is so dumb, so, as you say, 'chicken little', then why are so many taking him seriously? Why do I keep seeing statements like I read just yesterday in the Audubon journal, by David Seideman, Editor-in-Chief: "This is the most important movie you'll ever see..." (speaking of 'An Inconvenient Truth')? Is the Editor in Chief of Audubon magazine just another poorly-educated chicken little, who never reads environmental theories, or never connects the dots?

So, when we separate the Gore-bashing from the real discussions, we are still left with the same arguments. It's amazing to me, that almost everyone who "knows better" than worry about global warming starts the same - that no one agrees or completely understands gw. Then, miraculously, they go on to make absolute statements about how or what gw is NOT doing, or NOT going to do, or NOT caused by, or NOT affecting us today.

Your referenced article by Mr. Murrey doesn't even try to hide his true agenda. The very first word, of the title, no less, is 'Gorey'. Again, he is writing about Gore, rather than the message. I'm sure that if there were a typo in the credits, it would be noted in his own 'inconvenient truths'. Like every other anti-chicken little authority, he labors to make ridiculous points. According to his data, 1998 was the hottest year on record, rather than Gore's 2005. Wow, I can sleep easy now that I know the truth about gw!

Again, he dismissed all evidence about receding glaciers because of a data base which finds fault in the movie's reference of one in Peru. Must not be a problem, then.

Again, he conveniently mistakes or lumps together the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Conveyor currents. I'm sure the guys at Woods Hole are relieved to know that nothing can now change deep ocean currents and that they in turn can not affect weather. Funny how the NAC is thought to have caused the 'little ice age' in Europe, since it can't possible change as long as the world is turning.

He says that heat waves, flooding, wild fires, drought and just about everything else, are simply anomalies of weather and in no way associated with global warming. Funny, I always thought the effects of gw would be anomalies of weather.

And again, and again, and again! He finds obscure 'authorities' and uses their blurbs to 'prove' that coral reefs are not in danger because they've been here for 500 million years. Tell that to the next dinosaur you see. Or species are not going extinct, invasives are just another of nature's 'ways', and we only have more hurricanes because we are suddenly able to observe them and count them. But, worst of all, he asserts that the only way to sustain human life on earth, is to embrace current total industrialization, ignore any and all environmental costs, import 'McDonalds' lifestyle to the poor of the world, and buy everyone a new car. Hallelujah!!

I remember walking downtown in a small Texas town with my late brother, years ago. He was a doctor there, and well respected by almost everyone who knew him. As we were about to enter a store, a man walked up to us and greeted my brother with a warm handshake. He then asked him what kind of tires he should buy for his wife's car. The implication was clear - my brother was a 'doctor', so he should know about all aspects of our lives. My brother was an Optometrist. (He recommended, by the way, Michelins, which the man went straightaway and bought.)


My point being, don't listen to Gore, if you don't like him. Don't listen to Murrey, either, or any other 'doctors' who are ready to give their OPINIONS on what tires we need for global warming. If you have to make noise, then demand that we get smarter about the subject. If you are worried, then watch and read and think about how you can be part of the solution, rather than worry about the causes. If you think everyone who argues for the protection of our environment, who wishes to better understand the interdependencies of species and even the climate, is a 'chicken little', then go play golf and relax. There's really no use worrying about gw at this point anyway. It will do what it will, or not do what we expect, and nothing any of us do as individuals can alter it. All we might do is make contingencies for the unplanned occurrence, and try to build a better future.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Lon, lunch break is insufficient to respond adequately.

I will agree all Murray does is cherry pick facts in opposition to Gore to serve his agenda. Just as Gore cherry picks his. But I don't think arguing the man in either case, since neither is an expert, argues the points raised.

Your advice seems to me to put the cart before the horse, does it not? Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem to say draw a conclusion and fight or golf for it. And the facts, like those presented in my second reference, "The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming", by a qualified research scientist far as I can tell, say the sky is not falling.

Now the sky might be heavy with clouds, and I don't mind focusing effort on that, instead of squandering it on doom and gloom.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lon Frank
Member
Chris, as usual, you are going to make me say what I meant to say in the first place. LOL!

If the worst of Gore's view is correct, and we all die of gw, then we're all dead. If on the other hand, gw is another Y2K, some of us will work overtime, and the majority won't even know. Remember when the argument was whether gw existed at all? Then, it was whether industrialization was the cause. Now, it's who's right, and by what margin. Soon, it may be who was right and why didn't they do more tell us more forcefully, or who was wrong, and why did they needlessly cry panic. I simply don't know what side of that coin is gonna land uupright, and I don't think anyone else does either, with any certainty.

But, my point was the same as the recent thread about gw and technological evolution. If we all die from gw, then the point is moot. However, if it is anything less than an extermination event, is it not enough to call for introspection as a species? Isn't it writing on our particular environmental wall, that mankind is treading on fragile ground? I'm naive and optimistic and even romantic, but I still cliing to a vision where all life is included in man's future, and the song of a bird has value simply in its existance, rather than its economic potential.

And, I've been called a 'chicken little' environmentalist for 37 years, by every moron who dumps his oil into the bayou, every plant manager who has a secret wastewater outfall, every timberman who disregards the protection of clearcutting riparian forest zones, every everyone who thinks a little profit is worth a lie to our children. Just so you'll know - them's fightin' words!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Lon Frank
Jun 29 2006, 12:29 PM
If the worst of Gore's view is correct, and we all die of gw, then we're all dead. If on the other hand, gw is another Y2K, some of us will work overtime, and the majority won't even know. Remember when the argument was whether gw existed at all? Then, it was whether industrialization was the cause. Now, it's who's right, and by what margin. Soon, it may be who was right and why didn't they do more tell us more forcefully, or who was wrong, and why did they needlessly cry panic. I simply don't know what side of that coin is gonna land uupright, and I don't think anyone else does either, with any certainty.

I've seen lots of critism when this type of argument was used to justify believing in God! Its funny to see the same argument used for Global Warming! :floorrollin:

I agree with Chris on this one. Gore is a Chicken Little. I have yet to see any valid proof that man is responsible. Instead, I have seen more evidence that it is not man made. Fact is, we haven't been accurately measuring the temp of the earth long enough to be able to reach a valid conclusion.

I think a 1 degree change in recient times is not enough to get upset about. The problem is, if we decide to do something "just in case", we will end up just hurting the economies of the 1st world and the 3rd world will just take advantage. Once they take advantage, the sacrifice of the 1st world will be for nothing, and GW may even get worse (if the Chicken Littles are correct).

The only realistic thing we can do is to continue to move away from our dependance on oil. In that, we all agree, one way or another. Hybrid cars, Hydrogen fuel cells, Solar and Wind power are the direction we should go right now!

Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Long "...'chicken little' ...them's fightin' words!"

You I wouldn't call that not to avoid a fight but because I can agree with what you protest against: oil dumping in the bayou, secret wastewater outfall, protecting forests.

Like Alan points out your argument sound similar to Pascal's Wager. Are we to wager our future funding policies that may be for naught? The world's lousy with problems, I don't think we should be gambling.

I've read articles pro and con, many presented on this forum from time to time, and I remain unconvinced. Too many of the arguments are, as you pointed out earlier, BSing politics, almost religious. The scientific papers I've read leave the matter in dispute.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
abradf2519
Jun 29 2006, 10:21 PM
I think a 1 degree change in recient times is not enough to get upset about. The problem is, if we decide to do something "just in case", we will end up just hurting the economies of the 1st world and the 3rd world will just take advantage. Once they take advantage, the sacrifice of the 1st world will be for nothing, and GW may even get worse (if the Chicken Littles are correct).

The only realistic thing we can do is to continue to move away from our dependance on oil. In that, we all agree, one way or another. Hybrid cars, Hydrogen fuel cells, Solar and Wind power are the direction we should go right now!

Yes - In any process, before you can start to take correcting action, you need to know the specific cause. This may sound like a no-brainer, but it applies here too. If you start to take action without knowing the cause, it's . . . well, a leap of faith. It could cause more harm than good!

(but as was pointed out, it is something of a religious/faith justification thing to many folks)

And, also agreed is that we should be looking heavily into other energy sources for economic means. This will kill several "birds" (to use a non-environmentally PC term).
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
Picture this scenario over billions of years. The burning of fossil fuels causes the earth to warm up. The warming results in catostrophic events wiping out many life forms. Plant life explodes due to the high temperatures and CO2. Donosaurs eventually evolve and thrive in those conditions. Eventually the earth cools back down, and the plant life becomes fossil fuel. Then someone discovers fossil fuel, and he we go again. It's starting to get hot again. The cycle continues.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Sounds like, "just have faith."
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
What people do with science, like, imo, Gore, and, I'll agree with Lon, Murray in the first reference I posted, is nigh on religiously faith-based, in many ways. Sort of like computer platform wars, people are religious about UNIX v Mac v Windows.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jrf
Member Avatar
Member
I believe that a lot of these problems really are problems with the debatable part being just how problematic.

Hole in ozone, greenhouse effect, global warming--it doesn't matter who or what's at fault.

Same with many other things.

Changing our energy habits will go a long way towards fixing or reducing so many of the problems (killing birds).

Too many people, I believe will be arguing global warming issues simply because Gore makes the statements.

I think our leadership has gotten that bad and that the folks that follow the leaders have gotten that dumb to allow winning and losing in politics to be primary over what is truly right and significant.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Star Search

To begin with...
Quote:
 
A recent AP news story by Seth Borenstein claimed to report on the science community's opinion of the accuracy of the science in Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth", coming soon to a theatre near you....

Mr. Borenstein claimed to have contacted 100 "top climate researchers", including "vocal skeptics" of climate change theory, and of the 19 that had either seen the movie or read the book, all of them:

    "...had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels."

All of the quotes he provided, however, were from well-known cheerleaders for planetary meltdown. Only one of the prominent skeptics I know was contacted by Mr. Borenstein; yet Borenstein implies that "vocal skeptics" made up a portion of the Gang Of 19. I suspect if that were true, he would have highlighted a quote from one of them, which he didn't....

Mr. Gore presents his ideas to fix the problem near the end of his movie. At least one of the Gang of 19 had enough insight to admit:

    "..the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit such as changing light bulbs the world could help slow or stop global warming."


One point was salient...
Quote:
 
Gore's quote also relies on the shock value of the "70 million tons" of carbon dioxide emissions produced by humanity every day. That way of phrasing it sounds much more threatening than what it really represents: about 0.00000083% of the atmosphere. Just by breathing, humans produce about 6 million tons of CO2 each day. The natural transfer of CO2 back and forth between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere is estimated to be closer to 7,000 million tons every day.


The author? "Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite." Same as the "The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming" author.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply