Al Gore's "Assault on Reason"

IAT - Ahhh, I should have deduced that one. Yes, Gore's movie was a based on truth surrounded by hype. Who cares. If his message sticks to liberals, good. Now we need a good Republican to start alarming conservatives to peak oil and the path our money takes when we fill er up. Then we can all come togethor on solutions, despite the varying paths to get there.

Again, I'm shocked, but agree with Berman.
You CANNOT force the Chinese economy to have carbon credits, or to NOT desire to use as much energy as North America does.
I don't care what kind of carbon sceme you come up with, the world's recoverable oil reserves WILL get burned up by someone, somewhere. OPEC countries aren't going to stop selling oil because of climate concerns, and if the US stops buying (and we should), the Chinese, or Indians, or ________, WILL use it up.

And I don't discount the need to take care of the environment. We should do what we can to preserve it and punish those that damage it. But we aren't talking about the environment in general, we're talking about AGW. I just don't think AGW is a problem that can be tackled by anything other than peak oil, or a newer better form of energy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 31 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]452786[/snapback]</div>

Is that an excuse for us not to behave? Are you invoking another "tragedy of the commons" call to arms here? Use it all up before the next person does? Have we not seen the problems that causes?

China is a mixed bag for sure but they are also very active in making changes towards a "green" society but like us, they have a large population of people with different opinions. There is a huge number of people in China making green changes but there is also a huge percentage that think like you do and say "why should we behave when the U.S. won't behave?".

Here is some food for thought:

China's proposed Dongtan Island Eco-city will use renewable energy and resources for an expected population of 500,000 by 2040. They plan for it to be carbon nuetral and showcase it as an example of what can be done with proper planning.

250,000 Chinese are employed in the solar heating industry.

Rizhao, in northern China, is another good example of green city planning. Hosting a population of 3 million: "In Rizhao City, which means City of Sunshine in Chinese, 99 percent of households in the central districts use solar water heaters, and most traffic signals, street and park lights are powered by photovoltaic (PV) solar cells. In the suburbs and villages, more than 30 percent of households use solar water heaters, and over 6,000 households have solar cooking facilities. More than 60,000 greenhouses are heated by solar panels, reducing overhead costs for farmers in nearby areas."

Take a peek at the Accord 21 building in Beijing with it's LEED certification of Gold.

To explain my point better take a look at how quickly environmental groups are forming in China. 2,000 registered and several thousand non-registered NGOs.

These are justa few examples of what I see, read and hear going on in the world. Other great examples of sustainability are being enacted in Melbourne Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Portland OR., U.K., Sao Paulo and Curitiba Brazil, etc. Cities everywhere are making huge changes and not taking on a defeatist attitude. Why? Because they will save money, heal ecological disease, promote healthy living, and reduce their dependence on outside sources (IE enhance national security by something other than force of arms).

 

That's all fine and good. I too constantly seek to reduce my energy use and be environmentally responsible. But all that oil in the middle east is coming out of the ground no matter what.
The economy of OPEC countries IS oil, they are not going to shut down their industry and starve their people and they will ALLWAYS have buyers, even if they are black market. Fortunately, they won't be dealing in the massive number of barrels they are today, as they simply won't be able to produce like this ever again.
Given that, How in the heck can carbon credits cause Saudi Arabia to simply shut down their oil wells? People break open their pipelines and scoop the stuff up in milk jugs!

 

anyone get the latest nat geographic? poor cute killer polar bears...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dmckinstry @ May 31 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]452800[/snapback]</div>

Why does he lose credibility just because he disagrees with others - mind you he is exceptionally well qualified to offer an opinion here - ?

Does that mean the following people also have suspect credibility:
1. 9/11 conspiracy theorists
2. anarchists
3. palestinian peace activists
4. venezualans for representative government
5. gay marriage activists

just to name a few....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 31 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]452834[/snapback]</div>

A non-scientist argueing points with scientists in good standing? Hmm your agruement proves to me you have very little if any scientific training. Your numbered points are silly in this context because they are no scientific in essence. You must realize that most information about global climate change is not based on one science alone. It is a collaborative effort among various scientific discplines. In this particular instance he is not just going against the grain with climatologists but biologists and ecologists as well. I'm sorry David, this isn't meant as an attack on you but I find it hard to see your logic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 31 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]452838[/snapback]</div>

No problem, we are still friends.

I just dont like people judging other and convicting them of losing credibility based on their opinion. Simple. This guy is a rocket scientist - his opinion is his opinion - it does not make him less credible. Does that mean if offers his opinion on a manned Mars mission we should ignore it -- obviously not.

Again, blanket statements like that are silly. I was just proving showing how silly with my examples.

Take care, and i did not take it as a personal attack.

David

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 31 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]452840[/snapback]</div>

It makes him less credible if his opinion is in a subject he has no or very little training in. For example; Should I accept the opinions of Kent Hovind on the geologic timescale as valid? He has a degree, a "doctorate" even. Should I not take into account that the doctorate is from a non-accredited theology college and he has no formal training in geology? In this case I would say his opinion holds very little value when compared to say Paul Hoffman or Dick Hilton. Same goes Griffin unless he studies this subject material intensely and his credentials do not reflect this. We can not be sure of the later so while one can listen to his opinion I would not reccomend basing personal views on it.

In the future if I ever offend you personally just send me a PM. You know it is not my intent though.

 

theres that one string theorist at harvard who likes to argue against global climate changes occurance as well... there's a couple pretty respectable people here arguing the same thing... like F8L says, this is not being observed in one field alone. i dont understand what the point is when there is overwhelming evidence from the entire scientific field that this is def occuring and every year more and more evidence piles up and in fact the effects are worse/happening faster then predicted. most of the naysayers are just opining. are you arguing we should take a closer look at the evidence? should new studies be done across all disciplines? maybe you agree that this is a problem but you dont like all the hype about it? Or maybe the consequences are being overblown?

i like the discussion especially on a forum like this where some people may have not made up their mind. on other forums however it seems the people punching "holes" in the global warming argument are much louder and more convincing because no one steps up and counters their argument or puts up links to counter. hate to take this from the movie since its SO HYPED, but the fact that scientists from all fields almost unanimously agree that global climate change is occuring and that the speed with which its changing is largely do to human activity vs the percentage of the population that agree is a good indicator of exactly what i'm talking about. people with little evidence blasting their opinions on chat forums and in the media are holding everyone back.

i'm done rambling. i'm thinking maybe this was a useless post...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(R1200GS @ May 31 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]452850[/snapback]</div>

When in history has global climate change NOT been occurring? I think it is incredibly presumptous of man to think that man has more control over the climate of the earth than the sun? C'mon that is just nuts. If you really get down to it when is there a day or a week or a month or a year or a decade that is exactly the same temperature and moisture amount as the preceeding period or the average for the same relative period in historical climate data?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(R1200GS @ May 31 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]452850[/snapback]</div>

Useless to those who have a "hard" frame in their mind and will not accept new data maybe. I thought it was good.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 31 2007, 03:27 PM) [snapback]452861[/snapback]</div>

It is presumptous to think man has NO influence on these systems. You really do need to study the sciences more if you find my comment rediculous. Since we have given you data over and over again to refute your opinions I'll not waste my time any further. Refer to the peer-reviewed evidence at hand and stop listening to pundits and paid mouthpieces.

It's kind of like being skeptical than 1 drop of a particular dioxin could kill the average 180lb man. "But it's such a small amount" some would say. Fortunately we know better now.

..............................................................................
Here is some fun math on the costs of doing nothing.

The estimated value that a human in the U.S. will contribute to the economy in his/her is $5 million.

The average amount of deaths attributed to air pollution in the U.S. is 130,000. (65,000-200,000 more if indoor air pollution is counted)

Now add it up. $5 million x 130,000 = ?? hint: it's in the big billions

The EPA and American Lung Association, air pollution in the U.S. costs at least $150 billion annually in health care and lost work productivity, with $100 billion of that cause by indoor air pollution.

 

Hi All,

I saw Al on Charlie Rose talking about his new book. Apparently the book is bout how politcal decisions in the USA are veering away from rational basis (by design) to emotional (like commuter SUV purchasing) desicions.

Good examples of this in my opinion are the Swift Boat, and Dan Rather affair in the last presidential election. Swift Boat was a contrivance - per the testimony of the Viet Kong soldiers that fought that day, but did that have an effect on the outcome or the Swift Boat group?

In the Dan Rather affair the documents were probably faked, and when it came out, Dan Rather paid the price, even though the documents were apparently faked to the best memory of a witness to them - which Rather interviewed on TV. The fact that the documents at one time were real, and what they said about the young G.W.'s character seemed to be swept under the carpet. Rather probably felt patriotically, and avaraciously compelled to cheat, thinking the ends justified the means. But he should have just told the witness, "Either you come forward personally, or Bush gets elected - you decide". In the end she was pretty much forced to anyway, and the embarasment she was afraid of still happened, and it was just wasted. The emotion that Rather tried to decieve overcame the facts that Bush did not have presidential level character. The fact that G.W. would not have the guts to stop the Iraq steam roller was predictable, and he was the only man who could have done it. All (and that is a very big understatment!) it would have taken for Bush was - "Chaney - I want your Resignation Today, period" after the Wilson incident (which should have been a wakeup call for most presidential level intelligence people). Did Bush delight in the "we are winning this" emotion (at the cost of destroying the carrers of patriots) so much he could not pull back and think? Again, emotion over rational thought.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 31 2007, 04:21 PM) [snapback]452786[/snapback]</div>

We're not. At the very least, not likely.

But how about we act like the world leader we profess to be and do the right thing. How about we lead by example in this and other areas? This has been sorely lacking as of late and we are no longer a "world leader" in many definitions of that phrase, both within and outside of our borders.

 

great discussion. i really appreciate Malorn for bringing up all the arguments. not sure who's reading or if its making a difference but....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(R1200GS @ May 31 2007, 10:24 PM) [snapback]453015[/snapback]</div>

He is not making a difference because he is utterly wrong. Climate change and its likely anthropogenic origin is the scientific concensus. Marlon may make half nice person arguments and create straw men but I would rather bet my money on actual scientists doing research on the subject.

I won't discuss this any further but this web site takes cares of all of Marlon's and others questions and arguments:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Its arranged by:

* Stages of Denial,
* Scientific Topics,
* Types of Argument, and
* Levels of Sophistication.

 

well yes but look what its bringing about for those who may be uninformed.... we've got some people with answers to many of the questions. whatever one throws out to discredit is easily dismissed. the more one does this the stronger the argument becomes as the facts and links/references pile up. Troll put to good use/looking for the silver lining to posters such as malorn. Thats the way i'm trying to look at it. but of course, as i wrote earlier, this is a good place to do this because on other chat forums and in mainstream media the malorns tend to have more numbers and are much "chattier"/louder then the responders to them. thus those who may be uninformed or undecided get the "opinion" of normal banker lawyer doctor string theorist publisher etc, instead of reported scientific findings from the entire scientific community. Even those not specifically studying climate.

 

the 'thinking' that we in the good 'ol USA do not need China or any other country is silly. Look at where your underwear is made? We can't even clothe ourselves. We need everyone. period. we've put ourselves in a bad way, being dependent on others just so a few corporations can profit. It's sad and scary. really, just who IS gonna clothe us (just one example of many!), if we dismiss the need for other countries. We've done this to ourselves and need to pull back and start doing the right things, instead of listening to, well, those who choose to put their heads up...