Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

[arnisador]

Yes, I do think the pollution out of China being unchecked is bad both environmentally and climatologically, and in addition makes it harder for the "good guys" (is that us?) to compete. I do wish we could get worldwide standards--not necessarily Kyoto--on this and any number of similar things. But I'd hate to tell Zimbabwe it couldn't build a dirty industrial plant despite the crushing poverty and humanitarian crisis there, because it's bad for the earth and hence humans.

I agree about the flora-limited fauna, and that was a good system before industrial processes threw things out of whack. Standards would be good...but at what cost could we achieve them? It's going to take the major players helping build green factories in other places, I'd think.

 

[elder999]

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

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.
.

Of course, if we're to remain on topic, the real issue is glurge like this being trumpeted as any kind of truth.

 

[arnisador]

I don't think there's serious doubt that human activity is significantly affecting the planet. How big the effect is and how serious the ramifications will be--those are at issue. The direction of the vector is "in" but not the magnitude.

 

[Ramirez]

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

A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?

We depend on expertise all the time. I'll give Mr. Cuffee's opinion on scientific matters more weight than most other poster's.

 

[elder999]

A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?

We depend on expertise all the time. I'll give Mr. Cuffee's opinion on scientific matters more weight than most other poster's.

While I'm grateful for your support, Mark, I'll add that this isn't my field at all-I'm only a sometimes somewhat more educated bystander on this matter.

 

[Gordon Nore]

A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?

Elder made a valid point about qualifications, in which he questioned the credentials of the author of this book.

From Huffington Post:

Harold Ambler is the co-author of the forthcoming (March 2009) Ever True: The History of Brown Crew. He is also working on a book about the climate wars -- Apology Accepted. He is the owner of talkingabouttheweather.com and lives in Austin, Texas.

From talkingabouttheweather.com, Harold Ambler writes:

I have been interested in weather since I was a very young boy. If computer science had been more fun for me I might have gone into meteorology, but instead I went into publishing and music. Nonetheless, as I finish a book on the history of rowing, I have spent a goodly amount of time studying weather and climate — in preparation for my next writing project.

Me personally, I've spent a goodly amount of time on lots of things which does not make me an expert in any of them.

 

[Ray]

A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe to drive over...a masters in history tells you the bridge is safe...whose word are you going to trust when making a decision to drive over the bridge?

We depend on expertise all the time. I'll give Mr. Cuffee's opinion on scientific matters more weight than most other poster's.

It's easy to defer to someone who has a degree or exhibits Charisma or has expertise. The important thing is to gather the evidence, weigh it and make a decision. A civil engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe...a doctor tells you you need to have your left leg amputated...you may want a 2nd opinion before spending a million dollars to put in a new bridge...you may want a 2nd opinion before severing your leg.

 

[elder999]

The important thing is to gather the evidence, weigh it and make a decision.

Sadly, all the real evidence points to important, expensive decisions, and real sacrifice. What the other side of the discussion has done, in an effort to avoid expense and sacrifice, avoiding those decisions and maintaining their profit margins, is put forth arguments that ignore, dismiss or marginalize what evidence there is, use the government-in the form of the current regime-to supress the findings of the scientific community, and politicize what should be a wholly scientific issue.


Sort of like the a room full of doctors telling you that your leg has gangrene, and should be amputated-and a lawyer standing there saying that all the evidence isn't in, and he has a doctor in the next room who had a patient survive gangrene without amputating his pinky. There's seven doctors telling you one thing, a lawyer with some sort of doctor with some sort of anecdote, the room smells of your rotting leg and you can see the gangrene for yourself, not to mention that it just doesn't hurt anymore(which the doctors have explained to you as being more evidence that the leg should come off, not that it's getting better), and maybe you should listen to the lawyer, and follow the advice of his unseen doctor.....:lfao:

From talkingabouttheweather.com, Harold Ambler writes:


Quote:
I have been interested in weather since I was a very young boy. If computer science had been more fun for me I might have gone into meteorology, but instead I went into publishing and music. Nonetheless, as I finish a book on the history of rowing, I have spent a goodly amount of time studying weather and climate — in preparation for my next writing project.

Me personally, I've spent a goodly amount of time on lots of things which does not make me an expert in any of them.

Quite so. I'm an expert sailor-consequently, I know a thing or two about the weather. Doesn't mean I know anything about global warming, climate change, or even the weather in the Southern Ocean, which I've never sailed.....doesn't make me an expert on "weather," as much as it might make me an expert on wind, either....:lfao:

 

[Makalakumu]

I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one. This is very concerning for me because I'd hate to see "solutions" trumpeted that are nothing more then tools to accomplish very different purposes.

 

[elder999]

I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one. This is very concerning for me because I'd hate to see "solutions" trumpeted that are nothing more then tools to accomplish very different purposes.

That's a good point, and one worth examining, but I have to point out that most of the politicization has come from the side of the argument that has said that there is no solution needed, because there is no problem. For example Rick Piltz, a government scientist for 14 years, resigned in March, 2005 over concerns that scientific documents were being amended for political reasons. Evidence released by Piltz was reported in the NY Times on June 8, 2005. Philip Cooney, the White House official accused of editing the reports, resigned June 10, 2005.

from Rick Piltz's resignation memo
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is the vehicle through which U.S. Government agencies coordinate their support for research on climate change and associated issues of global environmental change. From 1995 until my March 2, 2005 resignation, I served in responsible positions such as Associate Director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Office (its name until 2002) and Senior Associate in the CCSP Office. Since it was first established as the U.S. Global Change Research Program under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, this program has supported thousands of scientists who have developed an extraordinary body of scientific research, observations, and assessments, dealing with issues of fundamental scientific and societal significance. The program currently has 13 participating federal agencies and an annual budget of about $2 billion.

Global climate change is a problem with great potential consequences for society. This administration has acted to impede honest communication of the state of climate science and the implications for society of global climate change. Politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program in its relationship to the research community, to program managers, to policymakers, and to the public interest. The White House so successfully politicized the science program that I decided it was necessary to terminate my relationship with it.

The full text of this statement can be found here.

Of course, we are in danger of the pendulum swinging the other way, and following the wrong solutions, or knee-jerk ones.....

And where is Mr. Phelps? I mean, Big Don in all this? (cue theme from Mission:Impossible) :lfao:

 

[Gordon Nore]

I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one. This is very concerning for me because I'd hate to see "solutions" trumpeted that are nothing more then tools to accomplish very different purposes.

maunakumu,

I was looking for an "applause" smiley thingy, but couldn't find one, so this will have to suffice.
:highfive:

I ran across this quote while reading an old copy of Time in the chiropractor's office. Huffington is commenting specifically about the media, but I think argument applies to discourse in general:

Arianna Huffington[/SIZE],Time: July 3, 2008]The problem with the media is not that they're veering to the left or to the right but that they have an addiction to presenting two sides to every issue, even when the truth lies on one side or the other. I'd much rather we make our preferences and points of view transparent than pretend we don't have them.

I think that's where the global climate change discussion is stuck. Whether one believes recent climate change as a human creation that threatens us or not, the discussion itself is complicated beyond the scientific understanding of many (maybe, most) people. So we hear these stories, and then we tune into our preferred media and media personalities to tell us what we think about it.

So, if one like Rush's take on most issues, that person feels obliged to accept Rush's take on climate change. And vice versa. The discussion has gone far afield of an actual grown-up scientific discussion. People talk about whether or not they believe in global climate change in very much the same way they talk about whether they believe in Santa.

 

[elder999]

So, if one like Rush's take on most issues, that person feels obliged to accept Rush's take on climate change. And vice versa. The discussion has gone far afield of an actual grown-up scientific discussion. People talk about whether or not they believe in global climate change in very much the same way they talk about whether they believe in Santa.

Again, though, this is largely the current regime's doing. During the days of the Apollo missions, every school kid from grade 2 on up had a moderate laymen's understanding of the mechanics involved. Global warming would be no different with a proper public education from the scientific entities about it. Sadly, they've largely been silenced or co-opted by the government that is supposed to support their findings.

A group of 60 highly-respected senior scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists accused the Bush administration of altering the facts to fit the views. A document signed by the group charges, "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions." It goes on to say, "This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."

According to USA Today, the signatures read like a who's-who of the scientific community with "20 Nobel Prize winners and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science."White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Marburger dismissed the document, calling it a "conspiracy report" because you just know how readily those crazy Nobel Prize winners buy into conspiracy theories and how poorly they reason.

The full report is available here .


and, yet another moronity in a like vein:

Bush places limits on science

The AP reported here in 2004 that government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health Organization (WHO), a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern of politicizing science.

"I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) saw this as yet another attempt by the Bush [mis]Administration to " [tighten] their controls over their professionals and their scientists ... to favor its right-wing constituents". Waxman wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to rescind this policy, but as expected Thompson rebuffed the request.

As a consequence of actions like these, we have had nearly 8 years of information from legitimate scientific organs like NASA being largely supressed or "reinterpreted" to agree with political positions. The noise from naybobs like Rush fills the vacuum left by a lack of legitimate information-along with propaganda statements directly from the administration itself.

 

[arnisador]

I think the hard part of this argument for me and a lot of other people is that it ceased to become a scientific argument and has morphed into a political one.

Well, science documents the phenomenon but making changes is a hugely economic (and engineering), hence political, issue. You can't just shut down the factories, stop using fossil-fuel-powered transportation, and send all the methane-producing cows home without having a significant impact on the economy and people's standards of living. Once people agree that global warming is real and decide it's dangerous, it's almost by definition a political issue, barring a magic solution by scientists (like discovering that saltwater can be used as a clean car fuel, straight out of the ocean).

But to the extent that the fact that it's politically intractable to address these problems (since it would call for some level of sacrifice/participation) means too many politicians are calling for "further studies" or questioning widely-accepted scientific results as a stalling tactic, I agree!

But, need I remind people of what I read in a NY Times book review today...over half of Americans believe evolution is wrong and some form of creation is correct. How can science compete? As my father-in-law wrote, there's science and then there's scientivism (the belief in science as savior--basically, that if I use the ostrich strategy against my problems then science will have fixed the problem by the time I pull my head out of the sand). I think that too many people are using that sort of wishful thinking: By the time it matters, it'll have been fixed by those brilliant Men of Science.

Mind you, I don't think the sky is falling, myself, but I recognize the behaviour patterns nonetheless.

 

[Carol]

I'm bothered by the way this issue has gone. In the mid-90s, when I got engaged, I was nervous about introducing my fiancee to my best friend from college who had moved out of state.

She was very liberal and very "green". She practiced a pagan religion, volunteered her time planting trees with activist groups, supported organizations like Earth First, etc. My fiance was an atmospheric scientist on contract with the U.S. Department of Defense, Catholic, and very conservative. I knew my BFF would bring up her environmental views and was bracing myself for potential fireworks.

To my surprise...and perhaps to their surprise as well...their points of view were astoundingly similar. They both arrived at the same conclusion - environmental pollutants are a definite issue, and the best solutions (that we can expect to see in our lifetime) are solutions that bring the environment, industry, and people together.

An example - the Penobscot river valley in Maine. Traveling down the Penobscot is quite the sight. The forests on each side are thick, brimming with wildlife. The same industry that protects the river valley is the paper industry - the very same industry that blighted it in the 1800s and 1900s. The paper companies that own the forests surrounding the Penobscot now regrow and preserve the forests on each side of the Penobscot, and keep their forestry practices further away so all of nature (including us) can enjoy the river in its natural state.

But, unfortunately, there appears to be a lot more energy spent on rhetoric than there are working for solutions such as this. Couple that with young people showing a disinterest in science and engineering because of the degree of difficulty involved and the picture painted isn't a rosy one. We can easily produce talent that can argue a point of view. Producing talent that can actually find and implement solutions is yet another challenge.

 

[jks9199]

To my surprise...and perhaps to their surprise as well...their points of view were astoundingly similar. They both arrived at the same conclusion - environmental pollutants are a definite issue, and the best solutions (that we can expect to see in our lifetime) are solutions that bring the environment, industry, and people together.

I think this is the key. The Earth's climate is too complex to be solely controlled by mankind's activities, either way. However, our activities can definitely shape and magnify other factors, such as solar output, normal cycles of climate shift, ocean volumes, CO2 levels, and whatever else effects the climate.

Recognizing that, we definitely can mitigate or shape what happens. But we can't do it with lopsided approaches. We can't do it from only the developed countries -- or by ignoring certain industries and activities. Everyone needs to work together. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening until things get pretty desperate and people around the world are scared out of their self-interest.

 

[elder999]

Definition of "too ****ing late":

..... things get pretty desperate and people around the world are scared out of their self-interest.

 

[Makalakumu]

To tell the truth, I'm concerned about the Carbon Tax. I'm concerned about the World Bank and the IMF collaborating with the Trilaterals and the CFR on this. I'm concerned over the potential for elites to turn one region against another and to manipulate the good will of people for their own gain. I see scientists putting information out in good faith and having that information being turned into billy clubs for those who have other agendas.

Elder999 is right, this topic needs to be explored in more depth, but I disagree with him on his position regarding the political skewing by the so called non-believers. There's a lot more being done and its a lot more subtle then that.

 

[Carol]

To tell the truth, I'm concerned about the Carbon Tax. I'm concerned about the World Bank and the IMF collaborating with the Trilaterals and the CFR on this. I'm concerned over the potential for elites to turn one region against another and to manipulate the good will of people for their own gain. I see scientists putting information out in good faith and having that information being turned into billy clubs for those who have other agendas.

Elder999 is right, this topic needs to be explored in more depth, but I disagree with him on his position regarding the political skewing by the so called non-believers. There's a lot more being done and its a lot more subtle then that.

I'm inclined to agree, and I think this has been building for awhile. When the last leather tanneries in Massachusetts closed down in the 1980s, I'm sure that had a positive impact on our local environment, including the quality of our water. But, the tanneries relocated oversease, mostly in China where environmental controls for the tanning of leather are even more lax. Therefore, the pollution didn't go away...it just relocated, and it may have even become worse (due to softer regulations).

The Kyoto treaty had a seemingly worthy premise of global cooperation on air pollution but inside the treaty were non-scientific action items, such as stiffer restrictions on the United States and stiffer penalties for the United States should we be found in violation.

And a current story from one of my other haunts mentions this about doing business in China:

"Banking (in China) is sophisticated, the cityscapes are amazing and they are driving American cars -- the big SUV and town car styles," said Nelson. "Business goes on 24-hours a day."

I've read other places that the successful Chinese has proudly adopted big cars as a status symbol. They aren't going to be willing to give these cars up for a Prius any more than Americans are. I'm not trying to bash China or to show them in a bad light but I see this as illustrative as to how region can be pitted against region, country against country. Its going to get worse before it gets better, I'm afraid...

 

[elder999]

To tell the truth, I'm concerned about the Carbon Tax. I'm concerned about the World Bank and the IMF collaborating with the Trilaterals and the CFR on this. I'm concerned over the potential for elites to turn one region against another and to manipulate the good will of people for their own gain. I see scientists putting information out in good faith and having that information being turned into billy clubs for those who have other agendas.

Elder999 is right, this topic needs to be explored in more depth, but I disagree with him on his position regarding the political skewing by the so called non-believers. There's a lot more being done and its a lot more subtle then that.

It's okay that you don't agree with me, but the Bush regime has a documented history of stifling and manipulating science to fit their politics.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience. ... Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public. "This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster/"

Seen here

While your concerns about a Carbon Tax aren't misplaced-nor are your other concerns-the fact remains that a great deal of today's debate-or, at least, the politicization of the debate-on this matter is simply a product of the BuSh administration's efforts to cloud the issue.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's okay that you don't agree with me, but the Bush regime has a documented history of stifling and manipulating science to fit their politics.

Seen here

While your concerns about a Carbon Tax aren't misplaced-as well your other concerns-the fact remains that a great deal of today's debate-or, at least, the politicization of the debate-on this matter is simply a product of the BuSh administration's efforts to cloud the issue.

I certainly agree with you on this matter. They do have a documented history of trying to obfuscate information. Yet all of this seems too obvious. BuSh and his handlers played a losing hand when it comes to this information. They blundered around, fired people, pissed others off and generally left a trail a mile wide that told everyone what they were doing. There was no subtlety about what they were up to. This, IMO, was political because I think the general consensus is that Global Warming is an issue and it is happening and NOW people who disagree get to be lumped into a pot of "troglodytes" like BuSh and his ilk who are basically "stupid" and "backward".

Of course, sometimes, interesting points are brought up that contradict the hypothesis that humans are behind climate change, but now the brush has been painted and anyone who disagrees will be colored BuSh. So much for the opposition.

On the other side, lets look at the politicization of solutions. The Carbon Tax is basically a tax on life. Everything you do produces an amount of CO^2 in some way shape or form. The Carbon Tax, based on how its applied and defined, could be used to determine who is allowed to prosper and who is not. The Carbon Tax, like inflation, gives elite social managers a tool to redistribute wealth as they see fit across the entire globe.

All of this talk about international agencies regulating the tax, managing the proceeds, and superceding a nation's sovereignty reek of the kind of ideas that will eventually lead to global totalitarianism.

Meanwhile, solutions like reducing consumption, waste, and pollution are only marginally considered, especially on a large scale level. The kind of solutions that would make the world a better place to live in (whether you believe global warming exists or not!) are not directly considered. It's just assumed that they will fall under the umbrella of a Carbon Tax.

That's not a bet that I'm willing to take and I think we all need to understand that the debate is a lot more subtle then whether or not BuSh was an a-hole and intentionally covered up information. Global Warming has turned into a pit of Machiavellian Madness.