Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

[Big Don]

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted


Ambler
The Huffington Post
Posted January 3, 2009 | 11:36 AM (EST)
EXCERPT:


You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:
1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable.
END EXCERPT
From an unabashedly liberal website, no less.

 

[elder999]

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

<snip!>

END EXCERPT
From an unabashedly liberal website, no less.

From an author with a degree, not in meteorology, not in physics, not in cosmology, not in climatology, but in history. One who apparently earns his living partly by writing, but chiefly as a musician, of all things.

The only substantive reason for supporting his viewpoint is that it apparently agrees with yours.




Of course, this couldn't simply be evidence of a lack of liberal bias, since we're all aware-from your constant, insistent, strident and maniacal posting on the subject-that there's no such thing as "unbiased liberal media." I mean, a liberal blogpage running an alternative point of view-albeit an unsubstantiated and unqualified one-on anything, is as unlikely as a black man being elected President, right?

feh

 

[Big Don]

From an author with a degree, not in meteorology, not in physics, not in cosmology, not in climatology, but in history. The only real reason for supporting his viewpoint is that it apparently agrees with yours.

Gee, Al Gore, the most visible pusher of the world is coming to and end and it's all your fault viewpoint has a degree in GOVERNMENT. But, his opinion is obviously more important because he agrees with you...

BTW, Harland Sanders (the Colonel) had no degree in culinary arts, nor business and yet, the chain he founded sells a whole lot of chicken dinners...
Bill Gates has no college degree and a whole bunch of computers use his software...
Your insistence that someone must have a degree in something to know anything about it is ridiculous at best.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Gentlemen, behave please. Our tables are for holding books, not serving as objects to be hit with shoes. Thank you.

 

[Twin Fist]

your no fun

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm dealing with a bot attack...it makes me less Krucheffy

 

[elder999]

double post, sorry.

 

[elder999]

Gee, Al Gore, the most visible pusher of the world is coming to and end and it's all your fault viewpoint has a degree in GOVERNMENT. But, his opinion is obviously more important because he agrees with you...

On the one hand, you make a valid point. On the other hand, you make an invalid assumption. While you're quite right about Mr. Gore-and degrees in general as far as opinions or ability go, you're wrong about my position-I don't agree with a great many of Mr. Gore's exaggerations. In any case, Mr. Ambler, the author of your article, is entitled to his opinions and conclusions, but they're no more scientific than Mr. Gore's. More importantly, they're largely semantic and historic. Mr. Ambler's position rests upon the valid point that the "climate" has "changed" in the past, and was probably going to again anyway, and completely ignores the fact that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the highest it's been in at least 350,000 years, and probably the last 420,000-600,000 years.

In any case, the issue-and it is an issue- has been so politicized, marginalized, obfuscated and outright ignored by the Bush regime that their actions have often bordered on criminal: reports edited or supressed, scientists silenced, "alternate viewpoints" over emphasized. All to what end? So we can continue to pollute the environment as though we're not a part of it, and the sources of that pollution can continue to be sources of profit. So we can continue to behave like a world of unattended infants, in unchanged diapers, smearing our crib and fingerpainting the walls with our own feces.

BTW, Harland Sanders (the Colonel) had no degree in culinary arts, nor business and yet, the chain he founded sells a whole lot of chicken dinners...

With a recipe passed down in his family from uneducated slaves. Don't suppose they needed a college degree, either. Yeah, he had some business success, and at least he didn't call his business Sambo's or Coon's Chicken Inn, and, while I don't know them, I probably wouldn't have agreed with his viewpoint on integration-if the discussion were about that, I'd point out that the man dropped out of school in 7th grade, which wasn't that uncommon back in the beginning of the 20th century. In any case, you're argument that because an uneducated man succeeded running a business selling chicken that was finger lickin' good back in 1939, one needn't have a scientific background to have a scientific position, or, at least rely upon scientific facts, rather than a distortion of historical data, is somewhat specious.

Mr. Ambler's argument is largely semantic and historic. Semantically, he says that "climate change" is redundant, because that's what climate does: change. Of course, there's nothing in the definition of the word that demonstrates that climate changes the way we're talking:

cli·mate Pronunciation: \&#712;kl&#299;-m&#601;t\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French, from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-, klima inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein to lean &#8212; more at lean Date: 14th century

1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>

3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere

His other argument is historic: that the climate has changed in the past and will change again-that we've had little ice ages, and warmings throughout recorded history. It ignores that the carbon burden on the atmosphere is unprecedented in recorded history-that it is, in fact, higher than it's been in nearly half a million years, and it's a little like saying that because volcanos and lightning have started forest fires in the past, all current forest fires are expected phenomenon that are caused by volcanos and lightning-it isn't even that it's not necessarily true-it's just not true.

But hey, he's entitled to his opinion and to express it, and you're entitled to believe it, no matter how incorrectly informed or just plain uninformed it is.

Bill Gates has no college degree and a whole bunch of computers use his software...
Your insistence that someone must have a degree in something to know anything about it is ridiculous at best.

Bill Gates belongs to a very exclusive club: he got a 1600 on his SATs, and at least went to Harvard for two years-more importantly, he spent most of his high school years, summer camp days, and college years playing with computers-his knowledge was informed by real experience.

Like Al Gore, who graduated from Harvard with a degree in government, but at least took a course in climatology to demonstrate a more serious interest.

Mr. Ambler's real experience with the fields that would give him appropriate knowledge on which to base an opinion seems to be that, like the rest of us, he's been caught outside in the rain once or twice. :lol:

You're right, though, Don-I'm often guilty of being a snob in this regard. Edison had no college degree. Of course, he made a telephone to talk to the dead, too.....:lol:

 

[Ray]

Truth is independant of degrees and man-made honors. Saying someone is correct because they have a degree is an affront to logic.

 

[elder999]

Truth is independant of degrees and man-made honors. Saying someone is correct because they have a degree is an affront to logic.

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I haven't said that-or said that anyone is correct.Of course, saying someone is right because their position supports yours is also an affront to logic. On the other hand, we have threads that argue about matters of law, and the positions of lawyers, police and other officers of the law have more value. We have had threads about medical matters, and the positions of doctors, nurses, and the experience of patients who confronted the same issues, were the ones that had more value. It's always worth pointing out the eductation and experience that informs the postition of a cited source. It's worth pointing out that in this matter, I, just like Don, am just some guy: neither a climatologist, nor a meteorologist-though I will support my position on these matters with facts and the positions of qualified scientists supported by those facts. Qualified scientists, not just guys that look out the window and say, Oh, look, it's snowing. So much for "climate change." :lfao:

 

[Archangel M]

Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?

 

[Big Don]

Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?

If not it is certainly boorish.

 

[elder999]

Is it a strawman argument when you avoid the issue by focusing on the speaker?

I'm not avoiding the issue or focusing on the speaker. I'm just pointing out that his argument is flawed, his position uninformed, and his take on things specious and unsupported by scientific fact-except for the part about "climate changing in the past." If you'd like me to focus more on the issue of the evidence of global warming-and I'll call it that, and avoid the political equivocation of "climate change"-I'd be happy to do so, but that's not what this thread is really about. It was about the speaker's position being published on a "liberal webpage." Initially, all I did, in my rather -censoredky way is point out that the "speaker" really didn't offer anything in the way of substantive argument against "climate change," and that there was nothing unusual about the so-called "liberal media" offering a forum for an alternative point of view.

If not it is certainly boorish.

Oooh, guilty, big boy. I'm a snob and a boor. Elitist to the core. Don't post nonsense, and I'll trouble you no more..:lfao:

You don't really want me to focus on the issue, do you? :wink:

 

[arnisador]

A degree doesn't make you correct, but a relevant degree certainly qualifies one's opinion. You're at least restricting your attention to those who have demonstrated an interest in a matter and undergone a process to certify their learning in that area. Degrees don't matter, just knowledge? Well, people keep saying rank doesn't matter in the martial arts, only ability, but look at how much attention goes into rank. And all things being equal, I'd defer to a 4th degree black belt in TKD on the interpretation of one of their forms than to someone who assures me he knows them very well.

Checking credentials isn't an infallible method, but it isn't bad 'statistical reasoning'. The real problem is that the experts disagree not only what is known but on what can be known at this juncture.

 

[elder999]

The real problem is that the experts disagree not only what is known but on what can be known at this juncture.

This is partially correct, and the source of the argument. When Mr. Gore says that "ths science is in," he's mostly right-but some of the science continues, and he ihimself is guilty of a variety of exagerrations and outright falsehoods; when Mr. Ambler says he was lying by saying that "the science is in" though, it's an obfuscation-it's not quite correct, and it's not at all supported by the rest of his arguments. Part of the source of the entire argument is the politicization of this issue-the science that is in is dismissed, covered up or equivocated in ways that are less than scientific. In any case, there are some basic known facts that indicate a fairly dire outcome.

Oh, and BTW, I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, because I didn't need to, and because I think AL Gore is a wooden nit-and one prone to hyperbole as well.....

 

[arnisador]

Whatever one thinks of Mr. Gore or the subject, An Inconvenient Truth was a well-down movie.

I'm no expert, but I have a basic belief in the resilience of an earth-sized system.

 

[elder999]

I'm no expert, but I have a basic belief in the resilience of an earth-sized system.

This, for me, is one of the biggest problems with discussions about global warming. The issue has never been one of the earth's survival, or its capability to support life, or its life's capability to adapt to changes, or its habitability.

The fundamental issue is one of our survival-of whether the earth will continue to support our lives, or whether or not we can adapt to cahnges, and whether or not the earth will remain habitable for us. Like it or not, though, the earth's environment is going through and will continue to go through radical changes-and how much of that change is due to our own actions, and how much we can do about it, is at the root of the discussion. In the end, though, the real problem is whether or not it is "okay" to continue to befoul our home in the fashion we have been-global warming being man-made or not. The real issue is whether or not we can blithely continue to spew garbage into the air, and into the ocean, continue disregarding the effect we have on the other creatures we share the planet with,continue disregarding the myriad adverse effects our behavior has on our environment, all in the name of profit and progress.

I mean, even if global warming is a complete canard-and it's not-I think it's pretty idiotic to take or support a position that basically says it's okay to continue spewing CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere.....

 

[arnisador]

I mean, even if global warming is a complete canard-and it's not-I think it's pretty idiotic to take or support a position that basically says it's okay to continue spewing CO2 and other pollutants into our atmosphere.....

I think you just came out against breathing.

Of course I'm not for pollution as a good choice, but the costs of maintaining 6 billion people on the planet are what they are. Mass farming is part of the problem...but people must be fed. Are we to tell developing nations not to develop because the West has already used up all the environmental credits the earth has to offer? If keeping the current standard of living means some people lose their NC beach house, well, I'm not overly worried about that. Now, destroying the ozone layer...that worries me. But if we're talking about not the end of the human race but an economic choice in how much we're willing to tolerate to overpopulate the planet...eh. Aren't you fighting the will to survive and thrive here? Or, put in a colder way: Is there a right number of people to be inhabiting this planet? If global warming destroys farm productivity and some people elect not to have kids because they fear it'd be hard to feed them, and the population drops over time to 5 billion...so what?

Filling the atmosphere with radioactive particles would be bad in the "Ghostbusters" sense. Melting some icebergs and losing some coast...well, anybody remember Pangea? It's the way of things. I'm not overly excited.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I'll have moved by then.

 

[elder999]

I think you just came out against breathing.

:lfao: touche, but au contraire...our (the animal kingdom's) respiration is balanced by the plant world's respiration. The output of CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion is not, and it continues to increase. There are studies and advances being made in this area, though-it's possible that in the near future this excess CO2 will be counteracted by using plant life or plant-life like processes.

But if we're talking about not the end of the human race but an economic choice in how much we're willing to tolerate to overpopulate the planet...eh. Aren't you fighting the will to survive and thrive here? Or, put in a colder way: Is there a right number of people to be inhabiting this planet? If global warming destroys farm productivity and some people elect not to have kids because they fear it'd be hard to feed them, and the population drops over time to 5 billion...so what?

Filling the atmosphere with radioactive particles would be bad in the "Ghostbusters" sense. Melting some icebergs and losing some coast...well, anybody remember Pangea? It's the way of things. I'm not overly excited.

Not entirely disagreeing with your viewpoint, but the sad fact is that our capitalist system, and its investment in the burning of hydrocarbons, have supressed the development of alternative means of supporting development. Put another way (and one that demonstrates why I supported Bush's not signing the Kyoto protocol): don't you think it's wrong that China puts a new coal-burning power plant online every week, and without even the fundamental pollution controls that are now mandatory for such plants in the U.S.? DOn't you think that minimizing that pollution and continuing to develop more clean ways to utilize that energy source should be a focus, rather than something that's just paid lip-service to?

Melting icebergs and lost coast may just be the way of things, but there's more to it than just that....