Climate change concerts 'to dwarf Live Aid'

[Walsingham]

Thread Pruned: Could we please avoid advocating nuclear strikes ...

 

Because clearly THEY would avoid climate change...

[Atreides]

I know we have to take this issue seriously in teh developed world, but teh developing world is what is really going to do the damage. India and China rising up the charts. And what can we do about them? Nothing. They need to surge their economies forward to keep down unrest. They won't stop because we ask nicely and they won't stop if we try to force them.

Yeah, pretty much sums things up.

[taks]

The fat man dancing is making me dizzy...

 

Anyway, I just saw An Inconvinient Truth the other day, and Al Gore does seem pretty convincing to me, I mean it's too serious an issue to just ignore what he says imo

hehe, so serious you would trust a politician spreading propaganda? sheesh... i don't even know where to begin to address what is wrong with this statement. simply put, al's got an agenda. i won't go so far to say he's a moron, but he's not far from it, or he thinks the thinking population is stupid enough to believe the horse poop he's shovelling.

 

taks

[Tale]

The fat man dancing is making me dizzy...

 

Anyway, I just saw An Inconvinient Truth the other day, and Al Gore does seem pretty convincing to me, I mean it's too serious an issue to just ignore what he says imo

hehe, so serious you would trust a politician spreading propaganda? sheesh... i don't even know where to begin to address what is wrong with this statement. simply put, al's got an agenda. i won't go so far to say he's a moron, but he's not far from it, or he thinks the thinking population is stupid enough to believe the horse poop he's shovelling.

 

taks

Al Gore backs his claims up with facts and research.

 

Taks backs his claims up with insults and conspiracy claims.

 

I can think of who I would side with in this debate.

[alanschu]

Be very careful with believing "documentary" movies about controversial subjects. I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, but I've seen Captain Spindoctor himself convince many people with his "documentaries," despite the horrible amount of editting and behind the scenes baloney.

Edited February 15, 2007 by alanschu

[Tale]

I can't think of anyone who's been convinced by Michael Moore.

[alanschu]

The consider yourself lucky. I know too many people that felt Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were high quality, excellent documentaries.

[taks]

Al Gore backs his claims up with facts and research.

no, he doesn't.

 

name one fact that al claims. and then tell me why you KNOW it is a fact.

 

give you a little hint, don't use the hurricane thing in al's movie because the World Meteorological Organization put out a press release basically saying al didn't know what he was talking about. i.e. there's no link between human activity and hurricanes.

 

Taks backs his claims up with insults and conspiracy claims.

really, you've heard everything i've had to say on this matter? curious where my conspiracy claim was... all i said was al had an agenda. look up the definition of conspiracy.

 

oh, btw, just gave you one fact above that al got wrong. you're oh for two so far.

 

I can think of who I would side with in this debate.

it's not my fault you're unable to tell propaganda from fact.

 

taks

[Tale]

Al Gore backs his claims up with facts and research.

no, he doesn't.

 

name one fact that al claims. and then tell me why you KNOW it is a fact.

 

give you a little hint, don't use the hurricane thing in al's movie because the World Meteorological Organization put out a press release basically saying al didn't know what he was talking about. i.e. there's no link between human activity and hurricanes.

 

Taks backs his claims up with insults and conspiracy claims.

really, you've heard everything i've had to say on this matter? curious where my conspiracy claim was... all i said was al had an agenda. look up the definition of conspiracy.

 

oh, btw, just gave you one fact above that al got wrong. you're oh for two so far.

 

I can think of who I would side with in this debate.

it's not my fault you're unable to tell propaganda from fact.

 

taks

This must be what you're talking about: http://www.wmo.int/web/Press/PR_766_E.doc

A point worth giving you.

 

Now here's this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6062700780.html

His claim that sea level could raise 20 feet is not as definite as he makes it sound, but it a sincere possibility: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mstuding/wais.html

This is supposedly one of his direct sources for his slide show: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5752/1317

 

The IPCC, which operates under the WMO: http://www.wmo.int/web/Press/PR_IPCC_E.doc

 

His general claims that we're reaching record high temperatures? Supported by the WMO you are using to cite against him: http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press644.html

"

[Walsingham]

As I say, given that there's pod all we can do about it I think its rather academic.

[taks]

His claim that sea level could raise 20 feet is not as definite as he makes it sound, but it a sincere possibility: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mstuding/wais.html

This is supposedly one of his direct sources for his slide show: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5752/1317

no, it's not. first, the poles are going to melt. it would take a lot more than a few degrees to do that. greenland has been gaining mass on its ice sheet because of increased precipitation. the antarctic is cooling in spite of mkreku's inability to read a chart. the only real ice that could impact the sea level rise significant enough for 20 ft rise is greenland and antarctica, both of which are gaining ground. note that if the north pole completely melted (which evidence suggests has happened before), it would not affect sea levels because it is already floating on the sea.

 

The IPCC, which operates under the WMO: http://www.wmo.int/web/Press/PR_IPCC_E.doc

a political, not scientific organization. the IPCC is frought with numerous problems.

 

His general claims that we're reaching record high temperatures? Supported by the WMO you are using to cite against him: http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press644.html

"

[Sand]

Do not refute the inventer of the Internet! DO NOT!

 

After all, Al Gore invented the Internet... FOR PORN!

[taks]

al's a politician. i'll treat him the same as i treat every other: with disdain. he's certainly getting the attention he craves i suppose (which may be his ultimate agenda, i don't know). his "experts" are scientific "hacks" in my opinion, blinded by their own ego (or whatever their motivation is).

 

taks

[Tale]

So, is the National Academy of Sciences "hacks?" And the NRC which supports the IPCC position.

The American Meterological Society?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science?

 

Are they just Al's hacks?

 

Or is it that taks just uses insults for those who disagree with him.

 

Where's the "science" behind these claims of attention? Or the calling of hacks? Or the theory they're blinded by their ego?

Edited February 15, 2007 by Tale

[taks]

So, is the National Academy of Sciences "hacks?" And the NRC which supports the IPCC position.

no, i did not say that. i said "al's experts." in particular, michael mann, jim hansen, kevin trenberth, phil jones, gavin schmidt, etc.

 

Or is it that taks just uses insults for those who disagree with him.

no i use insults for so-called scientists that _intentionally_ distort science in the name of their agenda. these are smart people, many of which are on the record stating they think it is OK to exaggerate claims to further their cause (whatever it may be), al included. smart people using bad science implies that either a) they really aren't that smart (which i do not believe) or b) they're pushing an agenda, self-serving or otherwise or c) they're blinded by their own view of the world, unable to search for alternatives.

 

Where's the "science" behind these claims of attention? Or the calling of hacks? Or the theory they're blinded by their ego?

blatant misuse of scientific methods, statistical methods, and other even more egregious misapplications of science to promote hype and propaganda over the truth.

 

taks

Edited February 15, 2007 by taks

[taks]

btw, the NAS, national academy of sciences, supports the position that the proxy records are not accurate indicators of past temperatures, particularly those using bristlecone pines. these proxies are the primary method for assigning blame to man.

 

taks

[Lucius]

Al, and what he believes, has very much support in this country. And he certainly convinced me, oh by the way I thought what Michael Moore had to say back then was interesting at best, but this is another matter entirely, it could, if he's correct, be the vital for my country, we're not very far above sea level you know.

[Walsingham]

Thought: could it be the stirring of long dormant dragons?

[J.E. Sawyer]

From my perspective, I don't really even understand why global warming/climate change has to be validated. Do people honestly think we aren't consuming resources and producing waste at a rate that provokes some thought? What "bad stuff" could come out of increasing efficiency and reducing waste? Our population is only getting bigger, globally. There's a finite number of resources and a certain amount of waste that comes from us going about our lives. Why not look at this stuff now and figure out ways to curtail it when we aren't standing in the midst of a crisis?

[blue]

Why not look at this stuff now and figure out ways to curtail it when we aren't standing in the midst of a crisis?

Because change requires effort and will. There's safety in inertia.

 

Efficiency comes at a cost: to lifestyles, wealth and bureaucracies. Even small behavioral shifts often bring inconvenience without immediate, substantive rewards. Fundamental policy changes pose greater risks, and strategies may prove harmful or unnecessary.

 

It's cheaper to win at games of political hot air.

 

 

Excellent post, Sawyer.

[Sand]

Makes good sense to me.

[Walsingham]

From my perspective, I don't really even understand why global warming/climate change has to be validated. Do people honestly think we aren't consuming resources and producing waste at a rate that provokes some thought? What "bad stuff" could come out of increasing efficiency and reducing waste? Our population is only getting bigger, globally. There's a finite number of resources and a certain amount of waste that comes from us going about our lives. Why not look at this stuff now and figure out ways to curtail it when we aren't standing in the midst of a crisis?

 

I sympathise with your perspective, but as Macchiavelli said "You can't move a man's donkey without messing with his ass." And no man enjoys government doing that. Or to put in a more coherent way, sure governemnt could move to reign in industry and teh developing world, curtail population growth... but they'll get booted out as soon as may be.

[Lucius]

Btw. taks, why do you have so much against Al Gore? Do you have some grand overall knowledge of what he's doing? What is it he stands to benefit if he can convince people to help reverse climate changes? I mean he's already rich, he already got cheated of the presidency, so what is it?

[LadyCrimson]

There's safety in inertia.

That's my general view of why change is often slow in coming, if it ever does. I think after a certain point, historically it's common to have a civilization decline/disappear (or be conquered) rather than be able to adapt to major change. 50 years, 100 years, 10 centuries, for most it's too remote to trigger an emotive & urgent need to act. To the human brain, the present/daily living is more pressing than the future. Some do have that kind of motivation, of course. But not enough to spark big effects.

 

One of my mother's friends does the backyard composting thing - that combined with her minimalist lifestyle meant she no longer needed the city garbage service and tried to cancel it. Apparently she had to struggle because they didn't believe she didn't produce any garbage and thus could be exempt from her share of disposal fees. To me that's admirable and I applaud her for it...but at the same time, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be willing to do the things to duplicate it myself.

 

I do agree w/Sawyer that environment issue doesn't need to be "proved" before being acted upon - at the rate we consume things combined with population the past 100-150 years, it'd be naive to think we won't need a lot of changes sooner than we'd like to think, regardless of global warming...even if it means some eventual government "interference" and possibly some loss of what we now consider to be our inalienable rights, or whatever.

 

*glib ending remark*

Just probably not in my personal lifetime...

[Gorgon]

"Btw. taks, why do you have so much against Al Gore? Do you have some grand overall knowledge of what he's doing? What is it he stands to benefit if he can convince people to help reverse climate changes? I mean he's already rich, he already got cheated of the presidency, so what is it?"

 

He just took the 'must hate' crown from Michael Moore among everyone but democrats is all.

 

"I do agree w/Sawyer that environment issue doesn't need to be "proved" before being acted upon - at the rate we consume things combined with population the past 100-150 years, it'd be naive to think we won't need a lot of changes sooner than we'd like to think, regardless of global warming...even if it means some eventual government "interference" and possibly some loss of what we now consider to be our inalienable rights, or whatever."

 

Humans have too short a lifespan to act on threats that follow a geological timeline. Even 'doom in 300 years' is too long to really concern us, we would rather pretend the problem doesen't exist, and have been doing a pretty good job of it, and there is a more valid question of whether trying to solve poverty and overpopulation is not a more worthwhile use of the resources spent on cutting carbon gass emissions, especially since even under the best case scenario we are only able to postpone the problem.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Gorgon