Al Gore's "Assault on Reason"

For my $5, do I get to sock him in the mouth?



Whether man made or the earth is in a natural warming cycle, where do ya'll get off with the idea that the Earth is currently at an ideal temperature and that warmer is a disaster. Maybe we're living in the disaster now and the Earth is heading back toward normal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 1 2007, 07:01 AM) [snapback]453134[/snapback]</div>

Explained here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469

"Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before -- that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jun 1 2007, 08:27 AM) [snapback]453141[/snapback]</div>

But if we ignore it, it'll go away, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Jun 1 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]453151[/snapback]</div>

I tried that with the current WH occupants while I was on vacation. It didn't work.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 1 2007, 08:01 AM) [snapback]453134[/snapback]</div>

The question isn't whether or not our climate is ideal, it's are we screwing it up beyond nature's ability to hold it within the boundaries of its natural cycles. I strongly feel that we are.

I think it defies logic to believe that we can release a very significant portion of the energy (and the related emissions resulting from their release) that's been sitting underground in the form of fossil fuels, undisturbed for millions and millions of years in the span of about 150 years without expecting repercussions. The data supports the temperature trend coinciding with that release.

 

What would have happened if AIT was produced by say Bush Senior, or wrinkled Ronnie if he was still alive.
I propose the message is rejected by certain people because of who the messanger is. Yes Gore may have overhyped things, but didn't Bush overhype WMD's in Iraq? Textbook politics on both sides. But I see no reason why those opposed to the AGW spend so much energy arguing against it when there are other more compelling reasons including national security, to push the US into developing solutions that will address the interelated problems of GW and national security (energy and economic).

Lets face it, GW doesn't sell well to conservatives and national security doesn't sell well to liberals.

So let's keep arguing which is the more compelling reason so we don't have to actually do anything! The trade deficit, Iraq, GW, and peak oil problems will all just go away then, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 31 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]452806[/snapback]</div>

No, Michael Griffin isn't just a "bean counter". He is an aerospace engineer, who is eminently qualified in the field of spacecraft design and space flight engineering. His appointment by Bush is likely due to his view that NASA should focus on big programs such as the shuttle and manned exploration of Mars. That is a mistake IMO as the primary benefit derived from NASA in recent decades has been the basic science they've done. I've worked with a few scientists at NASA's JPL and they do incredible things there. I'm not saying that they should get out of the space exploration business; just that it's a mistake to cut their science budget.

What Michael Griffin is NOT is a climate scientist. And what he offered on NPR recently was his opinion; an opinion of an intelligent person to be sure, but not an expert opinion of a scientist who has extensively studied climate science for years, like James Hansen.


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

I actually agree with Dr. Berman, at least partially. I'm not an economist, but from what I have read about carbon credits and cap and trade, I see all sorts of potential problems. We need caps, to be sure, and I'm not saying that I don't believe that cap and trade can be made to work (by "work", I mean acheive the goal of reducing emissions), but if implemented the wrong way (which is probably likely), would be counter-productive and mainly serve to benefit a few people.

What we need to do is get beyond the "global warming is a myth" nonsense and the assault on science by people who don't understand the science but just have political agendas. Global warming is a real phenomenon, and we are seeing the manifestations of it (I'm a marine scientist; we're seeing all sorts of effects from it). Once we do that, we can have an intelligent discussion on how to address it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 31 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]452670[/snapback]</div>

I have watched AIT a few times. Using the image of Hurricane Katrina may have been disingenuous if Gore's intention was to imply that global warming caused Katrina. I don't recall, however, that the movie actually made that claim. No scientist will say that global warming caused Katrina. What we do know is that sea surface temperature is a contributing factor to the intensity of hurricanes, and that SST has increased as a result of global warming. Many of the models used by climatologists and oceanographers indicate that a slight increase in SST will lead to more intense storms. Kerry Emmanuel at MIT has also postulated that increased SST will lead to an increase in number of hurricanes in the Atlantic as well as intensity, although not everyone agrees with that. Of course there are many other factors in hurricane formation as well, and hence we have seasonal fluctuations. 2006 was an insignificant hurricane year; the predictions for 2007 are that we will have some major storms. So while no one can say with authority that global warming is to blame for Katrina, it is not unreasonable to say that if it weren't for global warming, Katrina might not have been the disaster that it was.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ 2007 May 31 1:08 PM) [snapback]452772[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ 2007 May 31 1:41 PM) [snapback]452806[/snapback]</div>

It's time to move the goal posts. The price tags and 'profits' we're so familiar with have no basis in reality. We all need to know the full costs of our consumer choices so that we can make informed decisions. Step it up, 'bean-counters', and tell us the whole story.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jun 1 2007, 11:41 AM) [snapback]453250[/snapback]</div>

like how much a carbon credit system will cost us and the world and the potential gains and risks we would face by its creation vs alternatives vs non-compliance by other countries like china and india ....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 Jun 1 8:50 AM) [snapback]453263[/snapback]</div>

No. I'm talking about a global change in our accounting system, to include things now dismissed as worthless 'externalities.'

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jun 1 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]453272[/snapback]</div>

In English please.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 1 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]453286[/snapback]</div>

Short answer: He wants to make the price of everything include its full cost to everyone.

So, for example: a gallon of gas would be increased in price enough to offset the cost of cleaning up the pollution it produces. Same with all cars. Cars like the Prius would increase in cost the least, old-style diseal engine cars the most.

 

It is impossible to change worlwide accounting practices
Just remove subsidies on items we wish to deter, like gas and the guzzlers that use them. I see no reason we shouldn't be paying what the rest of the western world pays for gas. Switch the subsidies to energy infrastructure we will inevitably need. It's called foresight, and for profit businesses don't have it and neither do the politicians they prop up (both sides). But you are not going force businesses to become "for common good" instead of "for profit". greed and competition in business promotes higher efficiency, it is governements job to keep the businesses playing fair and not leave a wake of destruction on their path to profit. That's where the system has failed. government IS big business now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Phoenix-D @ Jun 1 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]453298[/snapback]</div>

What would happen to the cost of food including its transportation? And how about the cost of electricity - do you factor in the cost of taking down the nuclear power plant 50 years before you do it - and would it not be best to discount the cost of electricity produced from nukes since they are so environmentally friendly - and how do you figure that the cost to take down the plant will change over time and who determines it? Do you factor in the cost to defend the plant from terror too and other external potential costs?

Does its overall effect on the economy and employment make a difference to you?

Is the potential for recycling important - what if the item is not recycled - how would you know?

How do you measure full cost of things like:
1. medicines including vaccinations (especially if the cost is higher if you dont get vaccinated or medicated)
2. defense related items such as tanks/bullets - are there offsets for items related to national security?


Who is the arbitor of establishing the "full cost" and how do they take into account the different costs for the same item that is experienced throughout the country and world?

Is it important if this type of "accounting" is not adopted by other countries like China and India - would you be willing to us at a huge economic disadvantage in this instance?

 

We mostly agree Dr B.
Though I think gas and food cost NEED to go up, they are both subsidized. Removing this would promote less waste, less energy use, less imported oil, and less money in the hands of our enemies.

 

sounds like all of those can be answered during the process of writing a bill to put forth to congress. the answers to all those questions are out there. and a compromise as well. those are all good questions and i'm sure there are answers somewhere but in this community? and it would take months to get that presentation together. nevertheless are you trying to say it wouldnt be worth it in the long run and would it not put us in a position of advantage if the US were to implement a better accounting strategy to encourage businesses and consumers to act and consume in a more healthy and long term oriented manner? if anyone wants technology to "save us" then we should be more encouraging as has been suggested. Change is scary for sure but its usually just that first step... after that things get bad for a bit, then much much better. Just my humble opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 Jun 1 9:17 AM) [snapback]453286[/snapback]</div>

First, check out wikipedia for a definition of 'externalities'. That should give you a better explanation than I can provide in 500 words or less.

Since you're a doctor, allow me to attempt an explanation using a health analogy. I don't know enough medical terminology to get all the technical points right, but hopefully you'll get the general idea. Say each body part only considered its own point of view, instead of functioning as a symbiotic part of the greater whole that it is. It would manipulate its living conditions as far as it could to its own advantage, and ignore the needs of all the other body parts because they're 'external' to its needs. A living being wouldn't function very well that way - that's not healthful, that's cancer.

I'm not suggesting eliminating greed and competition, or risk and reward. I'm suggesting a re-definition of 'profit' that includes all costs and benefits, not just those that accrue to each little corporate 'body part'.

 

You're idea is good and makes a lot of sense. But it's just not feasable politically or economically.
If we could seperate corporations and government, we could accomplish this better with proper oversight and foresight for national long term interests.

 

So really its almost all up to the consumer to vote with our dollars.... which is tough when there are so many of us that dont know or care or are being decieved by mass media and talk radio and blogs and etc....

not enough of us have enough votes to dent those very very very .....very few who have all the votes. unless we get this thing together like the civil/womens rights movement or any other massive social change... we must individually make up our minds to change things ever so slightly every so often so it doesnt hurt so bad that we get discouraged and give up.

Motivational speech over.