Stonehead Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 An emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, Don Easterbrook, told the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that he did not want to "pick on Al Gore". "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century". Scientists have inconvenient news for Gore--The Sydney Morning Herald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician. His job as he sees it is to motivate people to make changes. Do you think you should hold him to the same standards you would a scientist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician. His job as he sees it is to motivate people to make changes. Do you think you should hold him to the same standards you would a scientist? By definition(s), you can't have a discussion that is both scientific and lay. That is, to have a dialogue that includes the average person, you must "dumb down" the science. Agreed, this is a subjective process with varying results.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 ...I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue. I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl? Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know? Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth ." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not. MIT's inconvenient scientist--The Boston Globe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 And they call Gore a flip flopper. What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 And they call Gore a flip flopper. What a joke. Demagogue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 One can make the case that the only way politicians can move the populace these days is by resorting to demagoguery. Bush is the prime example that Gore learned from in defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 Many politicians are professional liars. Not that I'm saying Gore is, but don't shrewd politicians use whatever tools they can to make the people conform to their agenda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If you have a man pointing a gun at you, is it wise to act as if it's not loaded? That's really what were talking about here. We have change occuring (global warming) that is predicted to continue happening, and at the rate things are changing to cause some serious problems. (droughts, coastal flooding, melting ice caps.) This seems to be well established. Whether or not we are causing it is another story. So we have two choices.... Do we assume the gun is loaded and that through our own actions can affect the outcome, or that the gun is empty? If we assume the gun is loaded and we are a wrong, nothing happens, we smile, get a tan, and reduce our environmental impact a bit which doesn't hurt anything. If we are right we might keep ourselves from getting shot. Or do we assume the gun is empty and our actions have no consequences? If we are right, nothing happens and we smile and get a tan, and our level of environmental impact is unchanged. If we are wrong though we just got shot. So, how do you want act? There are scientists on both sides at the moment. So even if there isn't a consensus (which is another argument entirely) it seems awfully pragmatic to assume the worst and act to fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) I don't know why but this gun analogy reminds me of the analogy proposed by true believers regarding the existence of heaven and hell. It wouldn't hurt to believe in a Divine Creator because if there isn't then all's well, but if there is then you're covered. Anyway, yeah, I never disputed the global warming or the fact that there is an anthropogenic component. But perhaps, there is more to the picture than carbon emissions and that there might be some superimposed influence, for instance, solar (or cosmic rays) exerting some influence overlain by man's contribution. Edited March 14, 2007 by Stonehead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 al gore is a tool. turn's out that he is quite a consumer himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Belief in a creator is a completely different case. Anyone making the argument that covering your ass is a good reason to believe in God is an idiot and missing some very important details. I guess in my opinion for belief to have meaning it must be chosen freely and completely for it's own sake. It can't be coerced, forced, or chosen in the form of a cost benefit analysis. If any of these are the core reasons someone believes, it speaks to a level of cynicism that i have trouble reconciling with open honest and complete faith. I don't think CYA and a free choice go very well together. In my mind what makes belief and faith in some creator special is that it is unburdened by cynicism and must be chosen in spite of a lack of empirical evidence. Whole different discussion in there though. Besides were more talking about hell on earth, and not something as esoteric as religion. I'd be more than happy to agree that there is likely more going into global warming than we are aware of. That said, we only have two options in how to act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 It's also funny that whenever people get into trouble, they often find themselves praying to the god they swore didn't exist. God is not a pinch hitter. And we won't have a pinch hitter for our environmental problems either. Doing anything and everything to help secure our environment now, regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, is good policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 Seems I read a news article a couple days ago concerning the lack of confidence in the currently accepted solution to the problem: carbon emissions trading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 That idea has been around for a while now. I think it's a pretty good one for an interim solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Seems I read a news article a couple days ago concerning the lack of confidence in the currently accepted solution to the problem: carbon emissions trading. Then it should only be pursued until a superior solution is determined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 hence interim solution. maybe I spelled it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 The article stated that it's effective if done correctly, e.g., not allowing cheating or other ways around it. The article stated that perhaps a carbon tax was a better alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 hence interim solution. maybe I spelled it wrong. Dmanit, get our of my head! Your starting to make me paranoid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 sorry about that. I have that effect on people sometimes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindy66 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 sorry about that. I have that effect on people sometimes... Not me archenemy.............i like your brand of sarcasm.! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindy66 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Acutally still think you are good in a sense in after the "such sweet " PM you sent!.............such a sweetie....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I don't know if I beleive these people. They said that the Hurricane season this year would be huge becuase of warming. Heck it was almost non-existent. They have all these hypothisis but who knows. Regardless research to get the USA off oil run cars would be good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindy66 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 i agree.with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 Oh why the hell not. I'm gonna poop on my own thread. http://blog.talbott.ws/assets/2007/1/17/badday.mpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.