deleted thread al gore

[Trim50]

I'm not an anthropogenic global warming believer...period. However, I do believe that oil as it is being used as a fuel is a travisty. Not because of the BS carbon dioxide, but due to its extreme importance to human life in production of drugs, chemicals, fibers, plastics...and on and on. Petrochemical products are good, important and critical to sustaining modern life and future exploration of other worlds. To waste it on transportation, electricity and heating is just plain moronic.

OK, I'm done...sorry ;-)

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Trim50

To waste it on transportation, electricity and heating is just plain moronic.

OK, I'm done...sorry ;-)

Just like I stated in another G W thread months ago, we need to develope MORE Hydroelectric Power, even if we have to dam up the Grand Canyon. The PNW here seems to be doing a good job of producing elect'l power for alot of the West Coast. And Canada has a good source too!

But it seems the enviro people stop any advancments towards progress in that respect. We wouldn't want to drown any little creatures or cover up pretty rocks.

And if there's going to be more G W-ing we'll need the water. And if we get more water then we need, that means more power available.

[David M]

Lets see, the government stands to make money and gain more power over people by taxing and regulating due to global warming. Scientists stand to make lots of money from government grants declaring that humankind is the cause. All one has to do is follow the money.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by GordMay

He also calculated that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the Ark touched down on Mt. Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday'.

Yes and they weren't driven out "because" of a "hummer" as is popularly believed. They were driven out "in" a Hummer, which we all know is a big old gas guzzler.

Which of course started this whole damn environmental problem in the first place...

[Alan Wheeler]

The Earth will one day be utterly destroyed when the sun goes supernova.

Hehe, guess what ? Our Sun ain't big enough to go SuperNova. Nah, lets not get started on that subject.

[Intentional Drifter]

I've just now read this thread and while the discussion is often interesting, I'm seeing a common misunderstanding about "science", particularly regarding the use of it in decision-making.

In most research studies that employ statistical analysis (which is most of them, at least in this field), the researcher determines the degree of difference he/she is going to require prior to analyzing the data. If the difference turns out to be less than what has been set, then the researcher concludes that there is "no difference". The alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is maintained. If the difference is more than what was set, then he/she concludes that there is a difference, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. But, the point here is that the degree of evidence required is a decision by the researcher. There is no universally held "rule" of what that should be.

On a broader level, the more studies on a topic that find a difference, the more evidence accrues that there really is a difference and the more people come to accept the alternative hypothesis as being a better description of the true state of nature than what the null hypothesis described, before.

The interesting part of this comes when it is time to consider making a practical change in what we do with the results of the research. Do we go down one route of behavior, or another? How much evidence do we need to make a change? This also becomes subject to the relative costs (economic, as well as practical) involved in one set of behaviors vs the other. E.G., taking an aspirin a day to help prevent heart disease. The actual degree of difference between those who do vs those who don't is actually rather "small", but the evidence is consistently showing a benefit to taking that aspirin and the "cost" (in terms of both economic and practical) of making a change is "small". So small that to not hedge your bet by taking the aspirin looks rather foolish.

When we're considering really "large" costs in making a change, then some will (understandably) demand that there be very "large" differences demonstrated that the change is necessary. This also makes a lot of sense, but there is a kicker here, too. If the outcome of not making a change is very severe, but you also demand that there be absolute conclusions, then you run the risk of waiting too long to make the change and thereby suffer the consequences of not having done so, back when it was both more feasible to make the change and the costs associated were less.

This is my concern about the global warming problem. Compelling evidence has been accruing that humans are effecting the global climate beyond that of naturally occurring systems. If you personally require that evidence to simply be "more likely than not" (usually thought of as greater than 50% chance), then you are probably ready to insist that we make changes, now. However, if you require that evidence to be "beyond a shadow of doubt" (perhaps greater than 99.9% chance), then you are not likely to support any changes in the status quo.

We cannot hold our Earth static and carry out experiments on other planetary systems in order to reach that high degree of confidence that some people will require in order to support making a change. We are therefore stuck with the very uncomfortable possibility that using the only laboratory we have to study the problem will destroy the laboratory in the process of proving the hypothesis to everyone's satisfaction.

How much are you, personally, willing to gamble? Blackjack card counters know that they only need to shift the probabilities over time by a few percentage points in order to change the outcomes of the game. Casino operators know this, too, which is why they spend lots of time and money to try and detect card counters and share this information among themselves. In the global climate game, we are obviously gambling with consequences far more serious than the transference of cash. That is why, for me, I'm satisfied that there is enough evidence, when considering the risks, to warrant making a change in our individual and collective behavior.

ID

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Intentional Drifter

That is why, for me, I'm satisfied that there is enough evidence, when considering the risks, to warrant making a change in our individual and collective behavior.

For me, as well, ID.

Thank you for taking the time to post the information which clearly and unambiguously reveals how an unemotional, open-minded person can employ facts to reach a conclusion. Unfortunately, many (most?) are neither unemotional nor open-minded.

In my view, Homo sapiens are programmed to consciously, or unconsciously, consider only one thing: survival. And only one sentiment dictates every human action: fear. To my mind, anger, greed, or any other emotion is just an expression of fear, motivated by the survival instinct.

The human condition is such that we tend to identify with a group (or groups) that provides comfort, or reassurance, thereby providing actual, or at least potential, survival. Thus, for example, a person may identify with a particular bias, political party, or scientific opinion based upon where that person lives, went to school, or even where and with whom he socializes.

If I have that correct, then considering that severe climate change represents a threat to one's survival, many will resist even acknowledging the possibility that it may occur, and will resort to putting forward even the most simple-minded arguments to reinforce their point of view. Those of the same point of view will repeat these arguments, not so much to convince those who disagree, but to confirm their identification with like-minded individuals.

Others will acknowledge the possibility, even the likelihood, that the threat to survival is real. Thus, they attempt to advance a strategy to assure the survival of themselves, individually, and therefore the species.

The resulting debate between these two points of view can be fierce. Ironically, those who try to unemotionally and rationally persuade those who are emotional and fearful most often create not agreement, but resentment and defiance.

Again, ID, thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

TaoJones

[Trim50]

Drifter,

Being a scientist I would normally agree with you however, carbon dioxide can't do what climatologists are claiming that it is doing…methane maybe…but not carbon dioxide.

The issue at hand, in my opinion, is the manipulation of human guilt for political and commercial purposes. Never before have we seen such a powerful global issue being spun by political media machines with cutting precision. Carbon dioxide is a life giving gas and yet it is now classified by most humanity in equal standing with carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons as most humans have no idea what the difference is between these species of gas molecules. Most people don’t even realize that we exhale carbon dioxide and therefore contribute to the evil known as the “carbon cycle.” Just for comparison, if all the cars on the planet burned 1 gallon of gasoline each day, it would only equate to 3x the carbon dioxide emission produced by humans breathing while at rest.

What I want to know is whether or not the tax payers will get their money back from the climatologists 10 years from now when the cycle reverses. I can still recall the 70’s when climatologist, probably some of the same ones as today, were claiming we were headed for another ice age.

[Alan Wheeler]

Another area that to me just makes the entire "green house gas" argument a joke, is trying to reduce the rearend emmisions of animals. No Joke, they are trying to "tax" Farmers in NZ for the gas produced by Cattle. So scientists are now trying to find way's of reducing the Methane so as Farmers don't have to pay so much. What a joke. This is the sort of thing that I was refering to about "some people stand to make money" out of the whole fiasco. Scientists asking for the hand outs to do research and Government from Taxes and Carbon trading. Just how they plan on changing the way animals with two stumochs that ferment grass to digest it, bets me.

[livingstone]

Okay, I'll bite, Northern Cat, and Alan too. Does the fact that there were errors in the film mean that the larger topic is somehow irrelevant? God, it seems people are so intent on discrediting (trying to find small errors to do so) that they neglect that the broader premise is something that it is in THEIR OWN best interest to address. And mine. And all of ours. Political parties, be damned. This is about world survival. Let's all grow up, already. Trying to point out that he's using 1 penny of fuel to drive around and spread the word and make a pound of difference and then to infer from that that he's a bad guy, what he's saying doesn't count, etc. etc. is just ridiculous, and beneath a logical person such as yourself to offer. Surely you are able to offer a more meaningful critique than that! Maybe that he's ugly, and/or dressed funny by his mother would be hold more logical validity.

And Alan: I've never disagreed with you yet, till today. What bones could you possibly have with someone giving up a career in politics to make a difference, and then succeeding in raising awareness as much as he did, and the Nobel committee acknowledging that service? What's your complaint there?

[Intentional Drifter]

Well, I'm also a scientist, but this field is very far from my field. However, I do understand the process of science and am well acquainted with the various aspects of decision theory. The purpose of my post was not to debate the technical aspects of the many arguments being posed -- I'm not qualified to do so. Rather, the intent was to highlight the how different people have different thresholds in the information they require before making a decision to change their behavior.

For myself, I don't require much in the way of highly conclusive evidence to know that if we throw enough trash into our environment, it will eventually accumulate and our environment will be overwhelmed with trash. From what I'm reading about CO2, it is not that our planet doesn't produce the majority of the CO2 from natural systems, but rather that our relatively much smaller contribution is still enough to render the system out of balance. Somewhat like a car tire; it isn't that a balance weight weighs more than a tire, but when you lose it, the tire and wheel sure can cause a lot of problems if not rebalanced.

As for TaoJones' observations of how people align with points of view consistent with their identities -- he's absolutely correct. The social psychologists have been studying this for years and the advertising people have made lots of money from it. However, it is also well known that one of the most malleable psychological characteristics of us humans is attitude. It seems that what Gore and colleagues have been trying to do is bring some changes in attitude, so that there will be a greater impetus to do, on a cultural and global scale, what most of our mothers insisted we do as children -- clean up our room. Whether we do this because we will kill our planet (or, at least our ability to comfortably live on it) if we don't, or because it will result in a more pleasant place in which all of us can live, recreate, and, yes, sail; really doesn't matter to me.

ID

[northerncat]

yes he gave up a career in politics but didnt he lose? and i bet he could step right back in now due to the notoriety he gained, i think it was just an astute move by a clever man,
as i said earlier i dont have a problem per se too much with climate change just some of the responses(follow the money is a great quote). i just think its wrong to reward someone for something they present innacurately as it sends the wrong message, i was first made aware of it by a student i teach and as a class of year 11s they thought it was wrong too,( in a world that is increasingly divorced from morals i guess we cant expect more though)
sean

[Trim50]

ID & Liverstone,

So, it doesn't bother you that the heart of the technical debate on GW is flawed...you feel we should all just shut-up and fall in line because it seems like a good idea?

There are far far greater issues facing the planet...specifically the over fishing of the oceans. It would seem to me that as sailors, we would ALL recognize this and that it is an issue that is, without debate, truly anthropogenic.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Trim50

ID & Liverstone,
So, it doesn't bother you that the heart of the technical debate on GW is flawed...

I haven't seen any unanswered technical debate on the basics of GW (perhaps some minor details).
Perhaps you could enlighten me/us?

[camaraderie]

Good post Trim!
I'm often asked...even if you don't believe there is man made global warming (and I do not based on the evidence),...isn't it good to do this stuff anyway to clean up the environment? George Will writing in Newsweek has some answers to that question:
George F. Will on Global Warming | Newsweek Voices - George F. Will | Newsweek.com

Save the fish, Save the Whales, save the environment from REAL pollution but not one red cent for global warming!!