Gore - Nobel

[cj001f]

"There is no doubt that mankind has influenced atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and that this will increase global temperatures.

 

I don’t believe that the scientific data supports anything other than that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperatures. The important scientific discussion centres on how much the temperatures will rise. Writing in The Guardian recently, the commentator George Monbiot ridiculed global warming deniers under the headline “Fossil Fools”. Such criticism is well founded."

 

What aspect of the science is he criticizing here?

 

Note bolding.

 

He's also the guy who used increasing catches of fish to argue fish stocks are not in trouble

[JayB]

So agreeing with the scientific consensus, or at least differing to the judgments of those most qualified to evaluate the evidence, somehow constitutes a critique of the said consensus? 'kay.

 

The larger point is that even if one accepts that global warming is real, and that anthropogenic emissions are the most important factor driving global warming - there are still important discussions that need to take place concerning the assumptions about the probable costs and benefits, the assumptions that are factored into the said analyses, etc.

 

 

[foraker]

The larger point is that even if one accepts that global warming is real, and that anthropogenic emissions are the most important factor driving global warming - there are still important discussions that need to take place concerning the assumptions about the probable costs and benefits, the assumptions that are factored into the said analyses, etc.

 

This is where I have a problem listening to the conservative voices. Most of them have chosen to attack the science, which, if you were knee deep in it is hard to refute. I've argued with several conservatives acquaintances that they'd be much better positioned to basically accept the scientific consensus and place more of their efforts in controlling policy. I think a lot of people would be happier about that than watching their futile attempts at plugging the leaking dike with fingers and toes. It would also be a more intelligent strategic move. I, for one, would welcome more reasoned conservative voices in the discussion if for no other reason than to provide balance.

[cj001f]

So agreeing with the scientific consensus, or at least differing to the judgments of those most qualified to evaluate the evidence, somehow constitutes a critique of the said consensus? 'kay.

 

Weren't you the one mocking those not-practicing the art who profess differing opinions? Or did I just imagine your condescension?

 

Opponents of Global Warming are fighting a rearguard action. It shows.

[AlpineK]

For their next trick the conservatives on this board will now refute the silly ideas expressed by scientists about gravity. Furthermore Isaac Newton and Einstein those guys were full of shit too.

[JayB]

So agreeing with the scientific consensus, or at least differing to the judgments of those most qualified to evaluate the evidence, somehow constitutes a critique of the said consensus? 'kay.

 

Weren't you the one mocking those not-practicing the art who profess differing opinions? Or did I just imagine your condescension?

 

Opponents of Global Warming are fighting a rearguard action. It shows.

 

Since the person in question is neither an "opponent of global warming," nor professing an opinion that differs from the consensus of those who are practicing the art - I am not sure where you are going with this.

 

Great contribution to the dialogue, though.

[cj001f]

I am not sure where you are going with this.

 

Great contribution to the dialogue, though.

 

I figured we needed more condscension in on cascadeclimbers, not less.

 

Seriously man, your ability to cut and paste from sources you find ideologically appealing is unparalelled, but it doesn't substantiate your specious opinions

[KaskadskyjKozak]

For their next trick the conservatives on this board will now refute the silly ideas expressed by scientists about gravity. Furthermore Isaac Newton and Einstein those guys were full of shit too.

 

Yeah, keep changing the subject of REAL debate.

[cj001f]

Yeah, keep changing the subject of REAL debate.

 

Real Debate? That's the greatest delusion of all. Unskilled an unawares describes the cc.com conservative crew

 

I am extraordinarily glad you guys take time from your economics/environmental sciene/political science professorial careers to educate me though.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yeah, keep changing the subject of REAL debate.

 

Real Debate? That's the greatest delusion of all. Unskilled an unawares describes the cc.com conservative crew

 

the real debate is what CAN we do about global warming (slow, stop or reverse it?) how much will it cost, how we will get everyone to participate, and just how much sacrifice people will actually make, you smug, condescending POS.

 

[cj001f]

you smug, condescending POS

 

Dude, I post on cascadeclimbers, thats a given

[chucK]

the real debate is what CAN we do about global warming (slow, stop or reverse it?) how much will it cost, how we will get everyone to participate, and just how much sacrifice people will actually make, you smug, condescending POS.

 

With respect to the bolded question, it is very relevant to address the deniers of what is supposedly clear scientific evidence. Thus part of the "real" debate is confronting idealogues on the right who are just making shit up for whatever reason.

 

Though Feck's post didn't elevate the level of discussion, it is a somewhat relevant point.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yeah, keep changing the subject of REAL debate.

 

Real Debate? That's the greatest delusion of all. Unskilled an unawares describes the cc.com conservative crew

 

the real debate is what CAN we do about global warming (slow, stop or reverse it?) how much will it cost, how we will get everyone to participate, and just how much sacrifice people will actually make, you smug, condescending POS.

 

The answers aren't that tough. First and foremost, vote for policy makers who give a shit about the issue, and who will vote for cleaner energy production, fleet mileage standards, stricter land use regulation, etc....

 

Meanwhile: drive less, ride a bike, or a motorbike, or a more fuel efficient car, get efficient appliances, choose to live in a higher density area, grow stuff, plant trees, buy local, have fewer kids, fart less, blah blah blah.

 

There shouldn't be a whole lot of bewilderment at this point.

[AlpineK]

Though Feck's post didn't elevate the level of discussion

 

Elevate the level of discussion on Cascade Climbers.

 

Now that's funny.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

With respect to the bolded question, it is very relevant to address the deniers of what is supposedly clear scientific evidence. Thus part of the "real" debate is confronting idealogues on the right who are just making shit up for whatever reason.

 

If you can convince people that it will not cost them that much, they might not care. If you could convince people that certain changes actually *improve* their lives, irrespective of the question at hand, they might not care either. There are ways. Most people are sheeple, anyways. However, this only applies to the US.

 

I also (more importantly) had in mind the WORLD in general. As underdeveloped nations become industrialized, how in the hell do we convince them to curb their carbon emissions? "We've got ours, you can't have yours" doesn't go over too well.

[ericb]

.....Meanwhile: drive less, ride a bike, or a motorbike, or a more fuel efficient car, get efficient appliances, choose to live in a higher density area, grow stuff, plant trees, buy local, have fewer kids, fart less, blah blah blah.

 

There shouldn't be a whole lot of bewilderment at this point.

 

What a bunch of BS.....none of these will do a bit of good unless we can get the Chinese to fart less

[KaskadskyjKozak]

.....Meanwhile: drive less, ride a bike, or a motorbike, or a more fuel efficient car, get efficient appliances, choose to live in a higher density area, grow stuff, plant trees, buy local, have fewer kids, fart less, blah blah blah.

 

There shouldn't be a whole lot of bewilderment at this point.

 

What a bunch of BS.....none of these will do a bit of good unless we can get the Chinese to fart less

 

What a bunch of BS indeed. The liberal answer is always meaningless gestures with no analysis or number crunching. Drive less? How much less? If 50% of americans drive 25% less, what will the effect be on the delta in temperature change, ceteris paribus. If you tell me 0.05 degrees over 40 years, well is it worth it? You have to hit the big items first, and make sure the sacrifice/cost of each is worth the benefit. And does drive less mean less climbing? Less expensive ski vacations, too?

 

And I'll throw in again that a lot of this debate from the left is expressed in dire terms: "looming disaster", "catastrophe", etc. If there is a looming disaster, then wouldn't that require HUGE sacrifices? Something beyond stupid little slogans about taking the bus more? Or is this alarmist rhetoric simply a propaganda tool by some nutcases?

 

 

[chucK]

Two posts in a row by using the now standard argument of "It won't do any good unless EVERYBODY else helps out" (in the classic "you first" vein).

 

You guys are all gungho about going it alone cowboy-style with respect to invading any damn nation we please. But when it comes to carbon emissions we (the biggest per capita contributor on Earth) are totally powerless to do anything unless everybody else helps out. What a load of shit.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Two posts in a row by using the now standard argument of "It won't do any good unless EVERYBODY else helps out" (in the classic "you first" vein).

 

You guys are all gungho about going it alone cowboy-style with respect to invading any damn nation we please. But when it comes to carbon emissions we (the biggest per capita contributor on Earth) are totally powerless to do anything unless everybody else helps out. What a load of shit.

 

 

YOU read too much into the argument, buddy.

 

Let's say the rest of the world continues on and does NOTHING, but the US acts as a "leader", and institutes a program to reduce CO2 emissions. Quantify what that sacrifice would be, how much it would cost and what the effect actually would be. Give a range of plans with different costs and benefits, and propose it. Jumping up and down like a child screaming the "sky is falling" doesn't help. Use that scientific method you claim to love so much, and bundle it with some math and good reasoning, if you can.

 

I think there is low hanging fruit which would cost little and reduce emissions. Start there.

 

[cj001f]

What a load of shit.

 

Remember the 3 Ds of Opposition chuck

Disformation, Deny, Delay

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What a load of shit.

 

Remember the 3 Ds of Opposition chuck

Disformation, Deny, Delay

 

who's opposing, you assholes! give me a plan that works! I'm ready.

 

You guys don't want to actually DO anything, you just want another wedge issue to get "your guys" in office.

 

[ericb]

.....

 

You guys are all gungho about going it alone cowboy-style with respect to invading any damn nation we please. But when it comes to carbon emissions we (the biggest per capita contributor on Earth) are totally powerless to do anything unless everybody else helps out. What a load of shit.

 

 

Interesting stereotypes....does it make life more manageable to keep your people buckets large....I don't recall making any pro-war statements

[chucK]

Yes that is a good idea.

 

Right now, it is unclear to me, what the cost-benefit analysis would say. That should be done. Obviously, this is a little bigger than the cc.com braintrust, and our leaders with their resources should be working on this intelligently.

 

Unfortunately our leaders right now are avoiding any thoughtful examination of the issue not just by avoiding research but actually muzzling it.

 

Quoting some right-wing whacko blog saying we're powerless because the Chinese fart too much is a lame cop out, and it supported by no more data than any left-wing whacko end-of-the-world tirade.

[cj001f]

What a load of shit.

 

Remember the 3 Ds of Opposition chuck

Disformation, Deny, Delay

 

who's opposing, you assholes! give me a plan that works! I'm ready.

 

 

And when the 3 Ds fail you jump to the solution phase and bitch about how nobody came up with a solution to the problem you said didn't exist (and therefore wouldn't fund any research into finding a solution)

 

a technique versatile for voicing your opposition to problems ranging from Global Warming, Walmart, or that pesky jungle gym at the local park

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yes that is a good idea.

 

Right now, it is unclear to me, what the cost-benefit analysis would say. That should be done. Obviously, this is a little bigger than the cc.com braintrust, and our leaders with their resources should be working on this intelligently.

 

Unfortunately our leaders right now are avoiding any thoughtful examination of the issue not just by avoiding research but actually muzzling it.

 

Quoting some right-wing whacko blog saying we're powerless because the Chinese fart too much is a lame cop out, and it supported by no more data than any left-wing whacko end-of-the-world tirade.

 

We agree!

 

BTW, I think taking some steps to curb our consumption would do us good as human beings NO MATTER WHAT. Americans are very wasteful, and it is not good for us. We need to start to change our culture.

 

And I repeat there has to be some low-hanging fruit that we could implement a fix for RIGHT NOW with a reasonable cost and good ROI.