How "Green" is Al Gore

[Warham]

Sure there's global warming, but that's been going on and off since time immemorial.

Where's the proof that it's 'man-made' global warming?

If there's another ice age in 20,000 years, that'll definately change their tune, won't it?

[Big Train]

Thank you for the primer of the obvious Nick, but it will be helpful in making my point.

The following article (the WSJ) illustrates what people in my line of thinking are concerned about.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

GLOBAL WARMING

The Press Gets It Wrong
Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Monday, June 11, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.

Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.

The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.

The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.

Mr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change.

[DEMON CUNT]

Mr. Lindzen is an energy industry consultant charging more than most of us make in a month for a single day of his consulting services.

If you want "evidence" to support either side you are going to find it.

To me the central issue here is the belief that we should be good stewards of the Earth. Take care of it as we do our homes, cars, children.

After all, each one of us is really only going to using this planet for a few years.

[Nickdfresh]

Lindzen is also one of the lone anti-Global Warming advocates. Funny how he keeps popping up in five-year-old op-eds.

He's a high end meteorologist that isn't necessarily a specialist in global warming trends. I've seen this guy profiled, and he revels in his outsider renegade status. The fact is that the world continues to heat up, and it follows the general pattern of civilized human society beginning with agriculture.

Interesting that he came out right around the Kyoto Treaty debate. Maybe he is consulting?

[FORD]

Does anybody really believe the Wall Street Journal would publish anything but a pro-corporatist spin on anything?

At least they have an excuse. Wall Street is all about corporatism. Unfortunately, the rest of the so called "mainstream media" isn't any better.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Lindzen is also one of the lone anti-Global Warming advocates. Funny how he keeps popping up in five-year-old op-eds.

He's a high end meteorologist that isn't necessarily a specialist in global warming trends. I've seen this guy profiled, and he revels in his outsider renegade status. The fact is that the world continues to heat up, and it follows the general pattern of civilized human society beginning with agriculture.

Interesting that he came out right around the Kyoto Treaty debate. Maybe he is consulting?

Yea interesting..CONSIDERING HE WAS ONE OF THE PANELISTS IN THE KYOTO MEETINGS. Jesus...

His questions are all valid and his points are never addressed. A huge renegade or the only guy in the room asking the logical questions.

I picked that article because it highlights the core issues in the fucking debate.

But if we want to practice what Demon likes to refer to as redirection (5 years old article-if you want a more recent one, fucking scroll up to the link I provided before) or avoidance (he is a renegade, it's in the WSJ not the Anti-Fascism Gazette) and ignore the core points, I suppose we can.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Yea interesting..CONSIDERING HE WAS ONE OF THE PANELISTS IN THE KYOTO MEETINGS. Jesus...

No shit? Why do you care that he was a panelist (from a country with a self-serving agenda, since we only create 50% of the worlds pollution) when you choose to ignore nearly everyone else that disagrees? Maybe he was a political cherry pick?

Jesus indeed!

His questions are all valid and his points are never addressed. A huge renegade or the only guy in the room asking the logical questions.

He may have valid questions, but some of his points are patently ridiculous and undercut whatever otherwise healthy skepticism he brings to the Global Warming debate, if indeed it is actually a scientific debate, which it isn't really.

It's a public policy debate actually.

Yeah, because there's always one guy that's right, no matter what everyone else says, right? Riiiight.

I picked that article because it highlights the core issues in the fucking debate.

You picked the article because it's an op-ed piece that supports what you, and George Bush, want to believe.

But if we want to practice what Demon likes to refer to as redirection (5 years old article-if you want a more recent one, fucking scroll up to the link I provided before) or avoidance (he is a renegade, it's in the WSJ not the Anti-Fascism Gazette) and ignore the core points, I suppose we can.

Well, what we can't "fucking" ignore is that he's either just stubborn or is full of self-serving shit. His "points" are undercut based solely on the empirical observations of disappearing ice caps, glaciers, and mountain snow caps, the slow desalination of the oceans, the retreat of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves, etc. All of which could theoretically have disastrous consequences according to the "Coming Global Superstorm," which I believe is also hyperbole on the other side of the isle.

He says that a temperature increase of 1C would have little effect? What what WTF is he talking about!?? We've have had a cumulative temperature increase of 1F this century, and it has had a dramatic affect. And he also fails to account for the continued deforestation of the earth, which means that there are less and less plants to absorb some of the CO2, which may accelerate the greenhouse effect.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Sure there's global warming, but that's been going on and off since time immemorial.

Where's the proof that it's 'man-made' global warming?

If there's another ice age in 20,000 years, that'll definately change their tune, won't it?

Actually, the extremist view of Global Warming is that IT WILL RESULT IN AN ICE AGE!

I think this is a bit alarmist stuff, but it was the premise of the book "The Coming Global Superstorm" and the resulting film, "The Day After Tomorrow."

[Seshmeister]

I don't think that movie is in any way scientific so a bad example.

You don't go from ok to Ice Age overnight it was a silly premise and unhelpful.

That said the tiny, always American, naysayers on climate change(note change not warming) remind me of the guys the tobacco industry used to wheel out to defend smoking as harmless.

I say that as a smoker, regular flyer and car user.

Cheers!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't think that movie is in any way scientific so a bad example.

You don't go from ok to Ice Age overnight it was a silly premise and unhelpful.

That's pretty much what I've said all along. It's the flip side, the other side of the argument. However, most critics of Global Warming often state the same thing about ice ages and whatnot, and I was just pointing out the endgame. Too much heat will stop the jetstream and ironically that would result in drastic cold, but certainly it would take decades at the very earliest.

That said the tiny, always American, naysayers on climate change(note change not warming) remind me of the guys the tobacco industry used to wheel out to defend smoking as harmless.

I say that as a smoker, regular flyer and car user.

Cheers!

Jesus, they actually had a commercial over here on why "CO2 is our friend" and why we shouldn't fear it!

[Seshmeister]

Haha that and methane...

[Nickdfresh]

I found it! LOL

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0_VmMIbWKoo"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0_VmMIbWKoo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

And in case anyone is dumb enough to beLIEve this shit:

http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ads-funded-by-big-oil-portray-global-warming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/

New Ads Funded by Big Oil Portray Global Warming Science as Smear Campaign Against Carbon Dioxide

Yesterday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute – a front group funded by ExxonMobil and other big oil companies – launched two advertisements in response to Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The first ad portrays global warming science as a vicious smear campaign against carbon dioxide. The ad, which despite appearances is not an SNL parody, helpfully reminds us that carbon dioxide is “essential to life” because “we breath it out.”

Watch it:

It’s comforting to know that this is the best global warming rejectionists can come up with. There are plenty of things that are healthy and essential in reasonable quantities but harmful in extremely large quantities. (For example, drinking a few glasses of water is beneficial. Drinking 10 gallons of water can kill you.) We need some carbon dioxide, but too much causes global warming.

The second ad repeats the “carbon dixoide is our friend” theme but adds a new wrinkle. It attempts to show that the scientific evidence for global warming is in dispute, claiming a study found “Greenland’s glaciers are growing.” (Watch the second ad HERE)

Actually, the study (by Johanessen et al.) found that there was an increase in snow accumulation on Greenland’s interior. Meanwhile, other studies show that glaciers are thinning on Greenland’s coastal regions. This is exactly what you’d expect as the earth gets warmer. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain:

However, Johanessen et al. were not able to measure all of the coastal ranges. Indeed, the thinning of the margins and growth in the interior Greenland is an expected response to increased temperatures and more precipitation in a warmer climate. These results present no contradiction to the accelerated sliding near the coasts

Expect more of this kind of deception from the right as An Inconvient Truth hits theaters on May 24.

[Seshmeister]

Damn it stops after 14 seconds here...

[Big Train]

The simple fact is that there is WAY to much stuff that has not been ruled out and the people who say it is "obvious" via empircal evidence, I say amounts to bad science. A so do a few vocal naysayers who want to practice ACTUAL, fact based science.

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING. THis is becoming redundant.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
The simple fact is that there is WAY to much stuff that has not been ruled out and the people who say it is "obvious" via empircal evidence, I say amounts to bad science. A so do a few vocal naysayers who want to practice ACTUAL, fact based science.

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING. THis is becoming redundant.

LOL You sound more like the SNL parody of Bill O'Really, than Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!"