Gore - Nobel

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it.

 

 

I've seen it - and if you call that "raw data" then you truly are just a Kool Aid drinking stooge who's mama spoon fed the peaches for just a few too many years. (Does she still bathe you too?) BTW: I'm still waiting for that for that graph you promised showing The Milankovitch Cycle producing a modern ice age! Do you have it? Or were you just making shit up? - again.

 

If we could only reduce Trashtalkintina's hot air and farts alone we'd be able to stop the Coleman glacier from receding a few dozen feet over the next 30 years!

 

[Fairweather]

I'm not sure about Tvash's methane emissions. I suspect his farts are mostly just Al Gore's spoo.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it.

 

 

I've seen it - and if you call that "raw data" then you truly are just a Kool Aid drinking stooge who's mama spoon fed the peaches for just a few too many years. (Does she still bathe you too?) BTW: I'm still waiting for that for that graph you promised showing The Milankovitch Cycle producing a modern ice age! Do you have it? Or were you just making shit up? - again.

 

If we could only reduce Trashtalkintina's hot air and farts alone we'd be able to stop the Coleman glacier from receding a few dozen feet over the next 30 years!

 

Just one of my farts could wipe out your whole lineage.

 

FW: Malinkovitch cycles are used, with many unexplained flaws I might add, to explain very slow climate changes in increments of tens of thousands of years. That's why researchers who have studied these cycles disagree on whether we are sliding off down the backside of a peak, inbetween a double peak, or still on the upswing of one of these very long term cycles. Predictions vary from the start of an ice age within 5000 years (with no anthropogenic warming) to no ice age for the next 50 to 100,000 years. Yeah, real fine tuned, that one. It's also well known that we have enjoyed a relatively warm period, as per your graph. That's not news. Look backward, however, and you'll see many irregularities that are still not completely understood. Furthermore, we only have 20 years of solar output data, so our understanding of that cycle is poor at best. Even if we had more data, that effect is much less than an order of magnitude less than other climate factors, such as CO2. Due to the glacial rate at which Malinkovitch cycles occur, they are useless for predicting the extremely rapid, year by year warming that is occurring today.

 

On the other hand, current climate models (go to NOAA's website and take a looksie, they also validate everything I've said here) using short term climate factors, mainly greenhouse gases, do a very good job of explaining the current warming (they match well with 600,000 years of historical data) and where it is taking us.

 

I realize that the fallacy of using a long time scale model to explain short time scale changes blows a bit of a hole in your silver bullet argument, but with enough warm milk, absolute quiet, and lots and lots of concentration, that tiny bulb will eventually illuminate and possibly melt away at least one of the host of junk science deposits that seem to collect in your fuzzy noggin.

Edited October 17, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Given the current track record I think that an entirely market-based approach would be sensible. Why bother reallocating resources that will aleviate (some) human suffering in the near term (keeping corporate profits at a maximum)when future glacial melting and concurrent weather changes are only a 99% certainty in the next 100 yrs or so. Likely there will be improvements such as availability of sea wall construction design, floating city design, and improvement of mass dislocation strategies. No reason to do anything now but let the market prevail.

[tvashtarkatena]

One word: Pest control futures.

[noliquidity]

Just one of my farts could wipe out your whole lineage.

 

Watch out! That special forces guy looking down at you from the banner at the top of the screen may come looking to recruit you.

[Dechristo]

...but with enough warm milk, absolute quiet, and lots and lots of concentration, that tiny bulb will eventually illuminate and possibly melt away at least one of the host of junk science deposits that seem to collect in your fuzzy noggin.

 

From: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=50e42b47-ca21-47c1-bbb1-caf456348677&k=21371

 

Judge Michael Burton... did order the government to rewrite its guidelines to highlight the movie's falsehoods.

 

These were identified in court as follows:

 

Gore's claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming.

 

Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct.

 

Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases.

 

Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years.

 

Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans.

 

Finding: The government's expert accepted it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

 

Gore: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up.

 

Finding: The government's expert accepted that this was not the case.

 

Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice.

 

Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm.

 

Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age.

 

Finding: A scientific impossibility.

 

Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming.

 

Finding: No evidence to support the claim.

 

Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously.

 

Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia.

 

Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting.

 

Finding: It is, in fact, increasing.

 

Gore: Sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people.

 

Finding: Sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over 100 years.

 

Gore: Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific islanders to New Zealand.

 

Finding: The court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

[tvashtarkatena]

...but with enough warm milk, absolute quiet, and lots and lots of concentration, that tiny bulb will eventually illuminate and possibly melt away at least one of the host of junk science deposits that seem to collect in your fuzzy noggin.

 

From: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=50e42b47-ca21-47c1-bbb1-caf456348677&k=21371

 

Judge Michael Burton... did order the government to rewrite its guidelines to highlight the movie's falsehoods.

 

These were identified in court as follows:

 

Gore's claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming.

 

Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct.

 

Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases.

 

Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years.

 

Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans.

 

Finding: The government's expert accepted it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

 

Gore: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up.

 

Finding: The government's expert accepted that this was not the case.

 

Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice.

 

Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm.

 

Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age.

 

Finding: A scientific impossibility.

 

Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming.

 

Finding: No evidence to support the claim.

 

Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously.

 

Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia.

 

Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting.

 

Finding: It is, in fact, increasing.

 

Gore: Sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people.

 

Finding: Sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over 100 years.

 

Gore: Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific islanders to New Zealand.

 

Finding: The court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

Conveniently out-of-context quoting. What does the British High Court's 'expert witness' (oh jesus, it doesn't get much better than that...is that anything like the 'expert witnesses' our government supplies? Al-ber-to! Al-ber-to!) say about NOAA's climate models, which, after all, were what I was pitting against FW's misapplied Milankovitch cycles?

 

As for Gore's movie, no doubt there are uncertainties and innaccuracies, as there are in any treatise designed to persuade, or any scientific paper, for that matter. No shit, Sherlock.

 

Just for the record, though, the court's 'findings' (teehee) are also riddled with innaccuracies. For example, shortcircuiting the Gulf Stream is not only scientifically possible, but it occurred many times after the last ice age when large fresh water lakes in canada suddenly drained into the north Atlantic, changing the salinity/temperature gradient which drives that warming current. Gore also never claimed that Katrina was a direct result of global warming. He claimed that storms like Katrina would become more common. This conclusion has been accepted by the scientific community, given that it is well known that hurricane frequency and severity is driven by sea surface temperatures, which, um, go up when it gets warmer. Furthermore, sea levels could rise by 7 m IF one of the lobes of the Antarctic ice cap collapsed into the sea; a possibility given the fact that the Ross Ice Shelf is rapidly breaking up and that we have yet to fully understand the the movement of Antarctic ice. I could go on, but the audience gets the idea.

 

Stop in again for another ass fucking anytime, brother.

[Dechristo]

I could go on, but the audience gets the idea.

 

Yes, we do. There is an inexhaustible quantity of BS that you are willing to put forth; you are more interested in the perception that you prevail in an argument than in accuracy.

[JayB]

Love the Fred Thompsonesque auto-congratulatory flourish that gets tethered to the end of every rebuttal, though.

[ClimbingPanther]

dudes, accept the coming warmth. evovle, or be LEFT BEHIND1

[olyclimber]

or devolve, which ever suits the situation best

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I could go on, but the audience gets the idea.

 

Yes, we do. There is an inexhaustible quantity of BS that you are willing to put forth; you are more interested in the perception that you prevail in an argument than in accuracy.

 

Amen, brother.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

dudes, accept the coming warmth. evovle, or be LEFT BEHIND1

 

Only Trashie will be left behind; the rest of us will be taken up in the rapture.

[Jim]

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By Paul Krugman

The New York Times

 

Monday 15 October 2007

 

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal's editors couldn't even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore's name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

 

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with "that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance." You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change - therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

 

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

 

Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

 

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job - to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda's recruiters could have hoped for - the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

 

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the "ozone man," but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, "the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam." And so it has proved.

 

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn't just inconvenient. For conservatives, it's deeply threatening.

 

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

 

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals," said F.D.R. "We know now that it is bad economics." These words apply perfectly to climate change. It's in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

 

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. "cap and trade" system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

 

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America's lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America's air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet - and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

 

Everything I've just said should be uncontroversial - but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

 

So if science says that we have a big problem that can't be solved with tax cuts or bombs - well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor's Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of - who else? - George Soros.

 

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By Paul Krugman

The New York Times

 

Krugman and the NYT?? That's like a right-winger quoting FOX or Rush!

 

Regarding Mr. Gore, I'll bring us back to one of our perenniel themes at cc.com. I'll point out that we just had a nice long thread about our toe-tapping congressman, where are you lefties pontificated about how you were not bothered by the fact that the guy is a closet gay, or that he has public sex, no, no, no. His cardinal sin is HYPOCRISY. He opposed gay rights legislation, he engaged in "anti-gay" rhetoric, but now proves to be gay. This hypocrisy is unforgivable and you belabored the point to death.

 

Well, guess what my friends, Al Gore is a far bigger hypocrite than Larry Craig - pontificating about the global crisis, carbon footprint, and receding glaciers while he lives a profligate lifestyle. So, he must be judged by the same standards committing the cardinal sin of hypocrisy.

 

Right? Be careful in your answer, for if you say "no", then YOU are a hypocrite as well - saying one thing in one circumstance while saying the opposite in another.

 

 

[Jim]

Wow. You are getting wrapped around the axel on the Nobel award aren't you. Seems to be a right winged trait these days. Given that there's nothing to be happy about with our current chief exeuctive's Midas touch of turning everything he comes in contact with to mush, it's expected you're depressed.

 

And the comparison of Craig to Gore. Oh boy, you are getting desperate now.

[tvashtarkatena]

dudes, accept the coming warmth. evovle, or be LEFT BEHIND1

 

Only Trashie will be left behind; the rest of us will be taken up in the rapture.

 

Please...oh, please.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

And the comparison of Craig to Gore. Oh boy, you are getting desperate now.

 

True enough. Craig was just being hypocritical with respect to sex. Like Clinton. So that is forgivable.

 

Gore on the other hand is being a hypocrite w/r/t an issue of vital importance. That is unforgivable. Kind of reminds of that bumper sticker "when Clinton lied...".

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, forgiveness isn't exactly your strong suit.

[Seahawks]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303525,00.html

 

A British judge ruled on the eve of Al Gore co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize that students forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" must be warned of the film’s factual errors. But would there be any science at all left in Gore’s "truth" if these errors and their progeny were excised?

[archenemy]

We'd also have to stop teaching history classes if that were the litmus test.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

We'd also have to stop teaching history classes if that were the litmus test.

 

they don't teach shit in history class.

 

I used to be a big military history buff as a kid, and couldn't believe how little of WWI and WWII were actually covered in the history books (high school). The whole war effort was summarized in each case in about two paragraphs. It's no wonder people have no idea what war involves.

 

[archenemy]

Exactly.

[tvashtarkatena]

Do you guys like space art?