Al Gore's "Assault on Reason"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 31 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]452720[/snapback]</div>

The assumption of the movie is that the climate has never changed and that man must be changing it due to CO2. Climate has been constant for thousands of years until now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 31 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]452718[/snapback]</div>

Scott covered the polar bear thing.

So you are saying that being vague and assuming the public will be able to conjure images of their home underwater and instead of showing images of a fairly well known area underwater we should refer to biblical fancies and tell them to build an ark? Somehow that seems even less scientific than showing them in video form exactly what could happen. People like to assume everything in their life is stable, including their imediate environment so they rarely envision the bad stuff happening to them unless it is visualized for them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 31 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]452731[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you about the fact people like stability, and the ark was a joke. Showing ground zero underwater was irresponsible. Watch the movie again with a critical eye. every time i do, it seems like more and more of a farce.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 31 2007, 11:53 AM) [snapback]452730[/snapback]</div>

Odd, I didn't get that out of the movie. Unless of course you mean recent times. Everyone knows about the last ice age and that it ended around 10,000yrs ago. So I highly doubt anyone would claim the climate NEVER changes in light of such a well known fact. Again though, we are talking about speed of change. Slowing down from 100-0 in 1 minute is no big deal. Slowing down from 100-0 in 1 second hurts!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 31 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]452731[/snapback]</div>

How have you been?

BTW - i may not agree with AGW theories - I am however doing what I believe is the right thing to do - driving my prii, heating my house with wood, changing lightbulbs when the burn out to the high mercury environmentally friendly version, using paper/plastic bags at the supermarket based on current theories

Take care.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 31 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]452732[/snapback]</div>

I understand your point. It showed an area that is sensitive to some people. I won't agrue that at all because it is going to be perception based and you could easily be right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 31 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]452734[/snapback]</div>

I've been good my friend.

Ohh, stop burning wood. It's actually worse in a lot of cases because of the air pollution and the effects on peoples health. lol CFLs are low mercury and are supposed to be disposed of properly (check your labels for the location near you) and LEDs are better.

Thank you for showing us yet another example of why "technology" won't save us from our problems without creating a host of new ones. It never has and likely never will.

 

Why should we care if AGW is a farce if it helps convince people to conserve, spend less money on middle east exports, and extend the existing oil resources to buy us time to prepare for declining oil supplies? If people believe aliens will come destroy us if we don't start phasing out oil, I'm OK with that. Screw OPEC, use less.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 31 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]452735[/snapback]</div>

Trust me, wood is better than using natural gas (which keeps me in business - and if you ever saw how much Con Edison charges for natural gas here you would burn wood too. In two years of burning wood i have earned $10,000+ in credits from Con Ed being on the balance budget plan - i decreased my natural gas usage by 75%!

Glad to hear you are doing well my friend.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 31 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]452744[/snapback]</div>

I think in the long-run AGW and AIT could do more to harm the environmental movement. So you favor any means as long as your end is reached in the short-term?

I think the goal of the "Al Gore-UN" is much broader in scope than conservation of oil and screwing OPEC. We need to establish a solid energy policy, not go for some cock-eyed carbon offest program or carbon tax.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 31 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]452744[/snapback]</div>

I hate to say this - but you may have a point there that i agree with. I just dont want to be forced into doing things by people greater than me (like al "large carbon footprint" gore) or have false constructs erected like carbon credits.

 

What is AIT? I'm not familiar with that.
Personally I'm more concerned with the health of our national economy in the long term, than I am in the health of the environmental movement (short or long term). If we don't address the flow of money to the ME (for a finite resource we'll have to get off someday anyways), we'll be so screwed, that there won't be an environmental movement.
If we just wait for opec countries to stop shipping the oil (due to politics or peaking), we'll have anarchy here and the environment will be the last thing on everyone's mind. But if we invest in the infrastructure and related business for post oil before it happens, we'll be a world leader in those industries that will inevitably be needed.

Thanks DR B. I've been trying to make this point for months. And I agree that carbon credits sound like a political nightmare (or wet dream) depending on who you are. But we have to come up with some way to convince people and businessman to move away from oil. It's a hard sell, though. People/businesses have trouble looking 5-10 years out, and only focus on the short term when it comes to financial decisions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 31 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]452765[/snapback]</div>

The "Triple Bottom Line" is the only realistic way out of this mess and towards sustainability. Economy won't do jack if we screw up our social and environmental health. This goes the same for environmental health with no economy. A strong economy in an environmentally degraded world means you will be the last person alive to deal with a much degraded lifestyle, if indeed you can even survive. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 31 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]452765[/snapback]</div>

AIT=An Inconvenient Truth. Interesting article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 31 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]452765[/snapback]</div>

Ignoring the environment has the potential to be VERY expensive in the long term. Penny wise, pound foolish. It is always cheaper to stop a problem from happening than to clean it up afterwards.

With global warming, for example: what's cheaper, imposing carbon limits now or paying for a system of dikes to protect every port on the eastern seaboard from flooding? Paying for the limits or paying to truck millions of gallons of water into a southwest that's gone into a permanent drought?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Phoenix-D @ May 31 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]452774[/snapback]</div>

Dikes to protect the eastern seaboard from what? There is a permanent drought? This is exactly what I mean. Are these reasonable statements?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Phoenix-D @ May 31 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]452774[/snapback]</div>

First, tell me how you are going to get the Chinese, the worlds largest producer of greenhouse gases to behave?

Second, you assume imposing a new beaurocarcy centered around carbon credits will be the solution to this "problem"? I propose it will only add to it - turn a potential disaster into a real disaster. Who will be the arbitor of such a system? You will create another immortal agency who will grow and morph into a cancer that will never be cured - will be self-perpetuating - self-serving - parasitic ...... create a system of incentives rather than punishments - tax credits, etc -- in the beginning and the end it will be cheaper than paying for tens of thousands of beaurocrats who push paper and spend all day mutually admiring themselves - i am sure that talent is best used in something constructive - like building nuclear powerplants.

I am for not IMPOSING on people by people who want to impose on them - these people tend to be the ones that impositions should be made upon, and not by...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 31 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]452773[/snapback]</div>

It definately was. Such an ignorant statement if I have ever seen one. What is Griffin's title or "job" with NASA?

Phoenix-D hit the nail on the head. This was a mojor point in "Collapse" by Jared Diamond and is a key factor in nearly every problem we have ever had.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 31 2007, 03:23 PM) [snapback]452790[/snapback]</div>

He is the head of NASA.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 31 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]452790[/snapback]</div>

Well. He is an administrator (bean counter?). That alone isn't a big negative. However, he is in disagreement with the scientists at NASA, so his credibility is suspect.

Dave M.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dmckinstry @ May 31 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]452800[/snapback]</div>

Yeah just a bean-counter:

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html