WOW! Can you say that with a straight face after all of the comments on Al Gore in this thread?

Al Gore is not a scientist. Gore benefits directly in a very substantial way by persuading people that human-induced global warming is "settled science." I am sick of hearing his supporters portray Gore as somebody who has nothing to gain by championing the global warming cause. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

There are things in science that can be measured and cause established. There are other things where things can be measured and science used to develop a theory of causation. Global warming is in the second category. And even within the group that has developed the man induced global warming theories tthere is variation as to rate and magnatude of change. It seems to me that prudent planning requires that we admit to the possibility of man induced change and then plan for how to react to it. Even if the oceans rise 20 feet over the next 100 years that will not be proof of man induced global warming. Proof would require controlled experiments where all factors were held constant and only the greenhouse gases were varied. That won't happen, so we'll never have "proof", only a consensus based on evidence.

I agree with most of what you said above. My main issue is with the tactics employed by those building the "consensus." Peer pressure is not peer review. Mob behavior has no place in science.

Al Gore is not a scientist. Gore benefits directly in a very substantial way by persuading people that human-induced global warming is "settled science." I am sick of hearing his supporters portray Gore as somebody who has nothing to gain by championing the global warming cause. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I agree with most of what you said above. My main issue is with the tactics employed by those building the "consensus." Peer pressure is not peer review. Mob behavior has no place in science.

 

I didn't say that Al Gore is a scientist, but he is a propnent. You have chosen to attack the message by attacking the messanger.

 

What do tactics by SOME proponents have to do with the science? There is substantial evidence of climate change. Is it man induced? That is open to debate, but attacking the character of the other side does not inform the debate in any way. I have spent over thirty years working in the environmental field. I am not a climate expert, but everything I have read leads me to believe that there is strong evidence that man induced climate change is reality. How far will it go? I think that is much less settled and much more open to speculation. To me, that uncertainty makes action now, when it doesn't have to cause widespread economic disruption, the prudent course of action.

WOW! Can you say that with a straight face after all of the comments on Al Gore in this thread? There are things in science that can be measured and cause established. There are other things where things can be measured and science used to develop a theory of causation. Global warming is in the second category. And even within the group that has developed the man induced global warming theories tthere is variation as to rate and magnatude of change. It seems to me that prudent planning requires that we admit to the possibility of man induced change and then plan for how to react to it. Even if the oceans rise 20 feet over the next 100 years that will not be proof of man induced global warming. Proof would require controlled experiments where all factors were held constant and only the greenhouse gases were varied. That won't happen, so we'll never have "proof", only a consensus based on evidence.

 

Using CO2 levels in ice cores to establish causation for global warming requires the earth's climate to be a non-causal system.

 

Global warming, particularly the causes of global warming, is not settled science.

^ Nice! :thumb:

 

 

RealClimate.org? Come on, kygirl. You can surely do better than that.

Sure can! http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

Just some excerpts...

Although he is an accomplished meteorologist, he has zero peer review papers on climatology. He is famous for making comments like "I predict, now I think I know as much as anybody, I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 40's."

In reference to Dr. Gray's skill as a hurricane forcaster, Dr. Judith Curry writes:

Every year, Gray’s forecasts are “wrong” (this does not mean that people don’t want to hear more of them). In my testimony and in an AGU workshop, a diagram and analysis from Greg Holland plotted the forecasts against the actual data, and did a simple statistical analysis. Bottom line is that Gray’s forecasts are worse than just forecast the average for the last 5 or 10 years. .........The second thing that surprised me was in the Gray/Klotzbach presentation they counted their 2005 forecast as a “skillful” forecast (they forecast 15 [tropical storms] in June, compared with 27 observed) since the observations and forecasts were above the 50 year mean of 9.6. This immediately called to mind an article in the popular media that I read at the end of 2005 that discussed the worst forecasts for 2005, and Gray’s hurricane forecast was #1.

I didn't say that Al Gore is a scientist, but he is a propnent. You have chosen to attack the message by attacking the messanger.

 

What do tactics by SOME proponents have to do with the science? There is substantial evidence of climate change. Is it man induced? That is open to debate, but attacking the character of the other side does not inform the debate in any way. I have spent over thirty years working in the environmental field. I am not a climate expert, but everything I have read leads me to believe that there is strong evidence that man induced climate change is reality. How far will it go? I think that is much less settled and much more open to speculation. To me, that uncertainty makes action now, when it doesn't have to cause widespread economic disruption, the prudent course of action.

There is nothing wrong with attacking a messenger who deliberately exaggerates and distorts the message that he is delivering for political and/or financial gain. If the message matters, so does the credibility of the messenger who delivers it. It is only wrong to attack a messenger for simply being the bearer of bad, but truthful news.

Sure can! http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

Just some excerpts...

Although he is an accomplished meteorologist, he has zero peer review papers on climatology. He is famous for making comments like "I predict, now I think I know as much as anybody, I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 40's."

In reference to Dr. Gray's skill as a hurricane forcaster, Dr. Judith Curry writes:

Every year, Gray’s forecasts are “wrong” (this does not mean that people don’t want to hear more of them). In my testimony and in an AGU workshop, a diagram and analysis from Greg Holland plotted the forecasts against the actual data, and did a simple statistical analysis. Bottom line is that Gray’s forecasts are worse than just forecast the average for the last 5 or 10 years. .........The second thing that surprised me was in the Gray/Klotzbach presentation they counted their 2005 forecast as a “skillful” forecast (they forecast 15 [tropical storms] in June, compared with 27 observed) since the observations and forecasts were above the 50 year mean of 9.6. This immediately called to mind an article in the popular media that I read at the end of 2005 that discussed the worst forecasts for 2005, and Gray’s hurricane forecast was #1.

Yeah, that's a better one.

If Gore is such a proponent for saving the planet then why does he not practice what he preaches?

 

Di Caprio(sp) practices what he preaches...lives in a modest home (comparitevly speaking) drives a hybrid, uses public transportation, and fly's commercial.

 

Gore on the other hand...(we all know the facts)

 

Also, this is something that people completely try to ignore...Gore's family trust still owns a zinc mine in TN. As a matter of fact the mine was re-opened last year. Zinc mining is one of the dirtiest forms of mining. (acid leaching)

 

I for one...do not mind for people to have certain beliefs...but if your going to spout them off please be willing to do something about it yourself.

 

And I do not want to hear about Gore buying some bogus carbon credits to offset his Gulfstreams CO2 ouput.

I now have about as much respect for a Nobel Prize as I have had for a Grammy Award since 1971....zilch!

ManBearPig

ManBearPig

 

I'm super serial!

WOW! Can you say that with a straight face after all of the comments on Al Gore in this thread? There are things in science that can be measured and cause established. There are other things where things can be measured and science used to develop a theory of causation. Global warming is in the second category. And even within the group that has developed the man induced global warming theories tthere is variation as to rate and magnatude of change. It seems to me that prudent planning requires that we admit to the possibility of man induced change and then plan for how to react to it. Even if the oceans rise 20 feet over the next 100 years that will not be proof of man induced global warming. Proof would require controlled experiments where all factors were held constant and only the greenhouse gases were varied. That won't happen, so we'll never have "proof", only a consensus based on evidence.

 

 

Well said. Some would have us sit on our hands and do absolutely nothing until the science is "settled" (never mind the fact that to them, the term "settled" involves a degree of certainty that is probably unattainable). I suspect if any global warming deniers were on the Titanic, they would wait until they were treading water to look for a lifeboat (after all, I'm sure no one could prove to their satisfaction the ship was actually going to sink).

Well said. Some would have us sit on our hands and do absolutely nothing until the science is "settled" (never mind the fact that to them, the term "settled" involves a degree of certainty that is probably unattainable). I suspect if any global warming deniers were on the Titanic, they would wait until they were treading water to look for a lifeboat (after all, I'm sure no one could prove to their satisfaction the ship was actually going to sink).

 

You global warming alarmists are too much; regardless of how wrong you are you have the audacity to look down your nose at those who have enough sense not to panic over nothing.

 

Do you drive a car, H & TA? Better stop if you believe in this crap. :creepy:

 

You global warming alarmists are too much; regardless of how wrong you are you have the audacity to look down your nose at those who have enough sense not to panic over nothing.

 

Do you drive a car, H & TA? Better stop if you believe in this crap. :creepy:

 

If you have read what I have said in any number of threads on this topic you will know that I have said that any solution that requires widespread economic disruption or lifestyle changes is a non-starter. That said, solutions that make use of alternative energy sources would not only help with global warming, but also help the US. We need to move beyond dependence on foreign oil. We fund both sides in the war on terrorists.

 

You global warming alarmists are too much; regardless of how wrong you are you have the audacity to look down your nose at those who have enough sense not to panic over nothing.

 

Do you drive a car, H & TA? Better stop if you believe in this crap. :creepy:

 

 

Some problems require solutions beyond what individuals and the free market can accomplish. I know that comes as a shock to some of you laissez-faire zealots, but it is true. As TA pointed out, we have no energy policy in this country to address our gluttonous reliance on foreign oil or to limit our emission of carbon dioxide. We are indeed financing both sides of the "War on Terror", and pumping potentially dangerous levels of CO2 into the atmosphere without concern for the consequences. This is the result of failed leadership.

 

For the record, my family drives fuel efficient vehicles and is very conscious about using electricity. I have taken numerous steps to make our house more energy efficient. We have also planted five trees on our property in the past three years. However, without policy incentives to develop and implement less carbon-intensive transportation options and power generation, meaningful reductions are not possible. For example, I have no control over how the electricity we use is generated.

Imagine that you're the captain on a ship and it has just hit an iceberg. The first mate tells you that using a laser measurement device he measured the distance from the deck to the water for 1 second at 0.2 second intervals. Distances are 50.12 50.13 50.12, 50.11, and 50.10 feet. You note that the general trend of the readings is decreasing but you look over the side and you see waves gently lapping against the hull and you quickly realize that the variation due to the peak and trough of any one wave is greater than the range of measurements taken by the first mate. Do you abandon ship?