Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-13-2006, 03:11 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller
How does that work, exactly?
Well, you see, if you suck energy out of the wind by tubines, it slows it down. The few we have now likely do not have a significant effect on weather patterns.

However, TANSTAAFL also applies, of course.
  #102  
Old 06-13-2006, 03:29 PM
Dumbguy Dumbguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Posts: 1,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
If only it were that simple. Of course, you're only looking at one side of it. "Cleaning up the environment" also means "slowing the pace of economic growth, particularly that of underdeveloped countries."
This always seems to be the assumption, but itís not clear to me why itís true. Wouldnít more efficient energy use lead to more growth, at least long term? How does inefficient resource use benefit growth?

Making more fuel efficient automobiles would obviously hurt auto manufacturers and oil companies in the short run, but it would also result in cheaper shipping and transportation costs for all industries, and these savings go on year after year. Progress always shifts who is making the money, and the people itís shifting away from always fight it. Ultimately it seems like the whole energy debate seems to boil down to whether or not progress is a good idea.
  #103  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:29 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbguy
This always seems to be the assumption, but itís not clear to me why itís true. Wouldnít more efficient energy use lead to more growth, at least long term? How does inefficient resource use benefit growth?
Perhaps it's because energy-efficient development is only practical after a country already has put a lot of resources into energy-wasteful heavy capital formation. Or perhaps it's just because energy-wasteful development requires less investment up front, an important consideration for a poor country. I dunno. But it is true China has a major problem with the Kyoto Protocol, because they think following it would retard their economic development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_a...ition_of_China
  #104  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:47 PM
ralph124c ralph124c is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,476
Suppose we humans have ignited a massive climatic change, and (as Gore wants us to believe) oth the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt off. This means that the seas will rise, and mankind will have to migrate away from the coasts. Will this also mean that fomerly dry areas (like the sahara and Gobi deserts ) might become moist and productive? Or will the newly enlarged oceans turn cold, and actually increase the deserts? I can certainly agree that global warming can be bad, but it might also benefit in some ways-europe grew tremendously in the warm period fromAD1000-1350. Of course, if you live in Bangladesh, global warming won't be very nice.
  #105  
Old 06-13-2006, 08:57 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,885
Sigh.

DrDeth's list misses "fuel switching" and conservation, both of which would be advanced by a carbon tax or a more complicated tradeable emissions program.

Coal puts out about 4 times as much CO2 as oil does, for the same BTUs. Natural gas is even less carbon intensive. All fossil fuels are not alike.

Methinks his list is driven more by ideology than by facts and tough-minded analysis. Which is a shame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbguy
This always seems to be the assumption, but itís not clear to me why itís true. Wouldnít more efficient energy use lead to more growth, at least long term? How does inefficient resource use benefit growth?
Well, of course the effects of large-scale climate change would hurt potential output in a big way. For example, If the Atlantic currents that warm northwestern Europe cease --as they have in the pre-historical past-- the world would be a lot poorer. Set that aside though.

More pollution control equipment - or shifts to more expensive fuel sources - raise the costs of producing a set amount of output: more machines (and R&D) are required and/or more labor.

Estimates say that perhaps 0.1% - 0.2% of real GDP growth might be sacrificed by a strong program to reduce emissions. That's relative to a (conservative) long run GDP growth estimate of 2.5%. cite. Some industries would lose jobs, others would gain.

It would hit people's wallets, but it would hardly be noticed in the growth figures. I mean, it's not like we're talking about a $2 increase in petrol prices or anything.
  #106  
Old 06-13-2006, 09:06 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
Suppose we humans have ignited a massive climatic change, and (as Gore wants us to believe) or the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt off. This means that the seas will rise, and mankind will have to migrate away from the coasts.
That's a worst case scenario. More mainstream scenarios have sea level adjustments occurring over many years.
Quote:
Will this also mean that formerly dry areas (like the Sahara and Gobi deserts ) might become moist and productive? Or will the newly enlarged oceans turn cold, and actually increase the deserts? I can certainly agree that global warming can be bad, but it might also benefit in some ways-Europe grew tremendously in the warm period fromAD1000-1350. Of course, if you live in Bangladesh, global warming won't be very nice.
Sounds reasonable, but I'm not a climate scientist.

One cautionary note is in order. The costs of climate change will be an order of magnitude lower1 if humanity responds to it in a responsible and reasonable manner. For example, one would hope that intensifying shoreline destruction would lead the government to write-off wide areas, rather than indulging in half-assed and expensive rebuilding programs.

That is, adjustment should be subsidized as opposed to trying to recreate what once was.

Of course I'm thinking about the ongoing New Orleans fiasco. But I could also be referring to future efforts by midwestern farmers to apply for ever-larger disaster subsidies from Washington DC or Canada's future difficulty in taking advantage of its newly fertile lands.

If we lack the ability to take some simple preventative measures, there's no reason to believe that future adjustment policies will be handled in an adult-like manner.


1hyperbole.
  #107  
Old 06-13-2006, 11:36 PM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
I prefer Anthropogenic ClimaIe Change (ACC), or Human Induced Climate Change. If it were just "change", then there wouldn't be much that we can do about it.
That's simply not true! Even if we do assume for the moment that human influence has been minor (something I do not personally accept), why on earth do you claim that humans can do little or nothing about it?

In fact, we're already doing something about it without even deliberately trying! Just tonight, PBS' science show Nova aired a disturbing broadcast about Dimming the Sun that reveals that particulate air pollution is producing a vastly greater number of over-small water droplets in clouds which in turn reflect vast amounts of sunlight back into space, effectively cooling the planet. This cooling has had the effect of making the very real global warming (not just your ACC) falsely appear to be a less dangerous problem than it really is.

(Just for the record, the type of solar cooling that this documentary refers to is an extremely poor and unsafe way to try to mitigate global warming. See the link and follow through the sublinks to learn why).

But the belief that humans can do nothing about global climate change if it is caused largely or mostly by non-human factors is almost certainly unjustified.
  #108  
Old 06-14-2006, 12:02 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Simmons
The OP asks if An Inconvenient Truth is "balanced." Just a reminder - balance is highly overrated. There are not always two equally valid sides to every dispute.
I agree with you and with the several others who have made the same or similar points.

But I wish to add a further note: It is extremely foolish to demand "balance" from any single source of information, such as An Inconvenient Truth. All we can ask for is integrity and intellectual honesty.

A while ago on another board I posted a review and comments about the book Farewell to Eden: Coming to Terms With Mormonism and Science, a critique of the Mormon attempts to reconcile the LDS Church's teachings and dogma with science. The book was attacked (as was I) for not presenting a "balanced" approach to the issue. As if no critique is "balanced" unless it actually argues both for and against every point of view! That's just ridiculous.
  #109  
Old 06-14-2006, 12:23 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
There is much research and debate on both sides of the issue...and it's all pointless.
Yep, debate is pointless. Er, um... Why exactly are you here in "Great Debates" again??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
Do you think the american people will accept the kind of lifestyle changes advocated by some of the harder edged environmental groups?
Since it's that or lose far, far more, you bet your ass they will! Just wait till we lose Florida, bucko, and you'll see all kinds of fat-ass Americans peddling bikes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
Do you think they are willing to essentially live in a socialist society by accepting the huge tax increases necessary to make changes to every car and power plant?
You don't think it's more than a bit extreme to throw out the cheap, sensationalist term "socialist"? And how do government taxes pay for changes to cars and power plants? You're just spewing, perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
Do you think that undereducated people in China, India, Brazil, or anywhere else understand the issue? And if they did, do you think they would care when you told them they could no longer drive those cheap cars?
Since when are people in those countries "undereducated"? Especially when compared to our fellow Americans, who are generally the dumb-dumbs of the first world? Furthermore, as I understand it, those countries will be harder hit than the USA by global climate change. They'll probably change before we will!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
The changes won't be done voluntarily...and they can't be effected or paid for on an involuntary basis.
Why the hell not? On what possible basis can you be stating these absurd notions upon?
  #110  
Old 06-14-2006, 01:55 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambushed
Since it's that or lose far, far more, you bet your ass they will! Just wait till we lose Florida, bucko, and you'll see all kinds of fat-ass Americans peddling bikes.
I'm not convinced of that.

Blowhards who base their beliefs on feelings rather than peer-reviewed science will fervently exclaim that unusual climactic changes follow from wholly natural causes. Those with less emotional dispositions may be interested in viewing the Online Glacier Photograph Database. It shows pairs of glacier photographs taken 60-100 years apart.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that extreme lifestyle changes would be necessary. The market is pretty good at adjusting to scarce resources given sufficient time and the proper incentives.
  #111  
Old 06-14-2006, 02:44 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
Suppose we humans have ignited a massive climatic change, and (as Gore wants us to believe)...
As Gore wants us to believe? You meant nearly every competent climate scientist in the world there, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
...both the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt off. This means that the seas will rise, and mankind will have to migrate away from the coasts. Will this also mean that fomerly dry areas (like the sahara and Gobi deserts ) might become moist and productive? Or will the newly enlarged oceans turn cold, and actually increase the deserts?
Climate change is too complex to be reduced to a single factor, of course, but the climate change we've already seen (not just from CO2 increases) has drastically reduced rainfall in various parts of the world (such as near the Sahara) and that trend will almost certainly continue, resulting in increasingly draught and famine.
  #112  
Old 06-14-2006, 02:47 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
http://www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm
Here is what some of the nation's leading news media have to say about us:
I had only suspected you were a hack for these pseudo-scientific demagogues. Thank you, DrDeth, for explaining your motivation in defending them.
  #113  
Old 06-14-2006, 03:00 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,885
Um, that's actually a quote off of the CEI website ambushed.
  #114  
Old 06-14-2006, 04:15 AM
choie choie is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Like me it never sleeps.
Posts: 4,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Less Greenhouse gases does not = "cleaning up the environment" although the two can be connected, of course. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is GOOD. It's just that more CO2 that we are historically used to may raise the temp more than we are used to. However, in general "less CO2" = "less economy". Would you be content to not drive, and use 75% less electricity?
Oh, if only burning strawmen could be harnessed for energy! You'd be a 21st century hero!

The oil/energy companies and their disciples loooove to set up this type of false dilemma where people must choose between living comfortably and living responsibly. "You can't live greener! Why, that means selling your car, moving to a commune, and wearing bracken and moss! The greenies want your children to have to do their schoolwork by firefly-light!! They want you to follow WICCA!!!!"

There's a great quote in the movie that applies here. It's something like, "people have a tendency to go from denial immediately to despair, without ever stopping on the way to solve the problem."

From one who's actually (gasp!) seen the movie that's being debated here, I can tell you that as sobering as the manifold facts presented are, by the end of the film -- especially if you stay through the brilliant credits -- you leave not hopeless or depressed, but full of vigor and initiative. You want to take responsibility for your actions, make small but noticeable changes in your personal choices. The film offers dozens of simple, meaningful methods of reducing your carbon footprint and cutting down on consumption. During the credits, they list a plethora of ideas on how to make an impact on larger society as a whole. Things like changing lightbulbs, leaving your car at home sometimes ... nothing that will have you questioning whether you live in the 21st or 18th century!

To the OP: just go see the film. It's enjoyable, understandable, moving, thought-provoking, and even funny. (Hilarious clip from Futurama in there. )
  #115  
Old 06-14-2006, 03:02 PM
Gary Robson Gary Robson is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montana, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is GOOD.
Been enjoying those CEI television commercials, have you? Lots of things are good in small doses, but dangerous if you get too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
1. Nuclear- which the Greens hate due mostly to Luddite concerns and ignorance
Please don't confuse the official Green Party platform with the beliefs of all conservationists and environmentally-friendly people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
3. Wind, which is great except NIMBY and "raptor burger" (Wind Turbines kill thousands of hawk & eagles a year).
Thousands per year? You wouldn't happen to have a cite for that, would you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
None of which will power cars, although they can all be used indirectly for Electric cars or maybe Hydrogen power cars. Neither of which are currently practical. -(snip)- Hybrids are the way of the future. If the average car got twice the milage with effectively zero pollutants (not counting CO2 as a "pollutant) , it would be a huge change, and we could do this without killing the economy.
Point 1: *All* of the power sources you listed are capable of powering electric cars. I'm not sure what you mean by "indirectly," but you can plug the charger for an electric car into the output of a solar collector system.

Point 2: Hybrids aren't the future. They're a stop-gap. Hybrids still use gasoline. You can't charge them from your solar collectors at home. Hybrids don't and can't generate "effectively zero pollutants." Electric cars can.
  #116  
Old 06-14-2006, 04:26 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 19,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat
Thousands per year? You wouldn't happen to have a cite for that, would you?
It's not necessarily an unrealistic estimate. The wind energy facility at Altamont Pass in California is estimated to kill about 900 to 1300 raptors per year.

Note, however, that:

a. Altamont Pass has, according to the factsheet on that site, the most raptor kills of any wind facility in the world (due to poor design and placement in a major raptor migration corridor);

b. the kill estimates aren't just for "hawks and eagles" but include all other raptors such as owls;

c. the raptor kills are not just from direct impacts (aka "turbine strike") but from other, non-turbine-specific causes too, such as electrocution and poisoning (due to rodent control efforts). Other types of power plants also have problems with bird electrocutions, and other types of industry also have problems with bird poisonings.

So, the bottom line is that yes, wind energy plants do kill hawks and eagles, but so do other types of power plants and other types of industries.

Bear in mind also that some other types of power plants also kill birds by degrading the air quality with emitted pollutants, which wind turbines don't do. (And of course, that isn't counting the results of destruction of bird habitats by related activities like mountaintop-removal mining to get at the coal which is burned in those power plants.)

So all in all, given that the average bird mortality due to turbine strike is estimated (.doc) to be about 1--2 birds per turbine per year, wind farms on the whole are not a serious wildlife threat. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful where we put them, and try to mitigate their most significant impacts. But arguing against wind energy on the grounds that it's bad for birds, without comparing it to the effects of other forms of energy generation on bird mortality, is disingenuous.
  #117  
Old 06-14-2006, 05:36 PM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Well, you see, if you suck energy out of the wind by tubines, it slows it down. The few we have now likely do not have a significant effect on weather patterns.

However, TANSTAAFL also applies, of course.
Do you have numbers for the total world energy requirements (assuming all-wind) vs. total potential energy actually inherent in wind? I'm willing to bet the one's a tiny fraction of the other, and therefore would have minimal affect on anything other than localised scale.

In fact, since wind turbines will be taking energy out of the atmosphere, it could be argued (very simplistically, but it is there in the wikipedia article on wind power) that they'd mitigate the effects of gloabal warming. So everyone wins. Yay!
  #118  
Old 06-14-2006, 05:53 PM
SentientMeat SentientMeat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cardiff, EU
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Use the stupid Kyoto treaty for toilet paper. It's crap.
The treaty merely being a promise to reduce emissions somehow, of course. This could be acheived by switching to carbon-neutral power sources, as you yourself advocate.

We could also, in addition, risk economic doomsday by such unthinkable strategies as not heating and lighting empty buildings and turning the TV off standby.
  #119  
Old 06-14-2006, 07:06 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
6. Twist China's arm, economicly- they just can't keep going on like they are.
Has it occurred to you that anything that slows down the growth of China's economy might also damage America's economy? They are such a major trading partner of ours, after all.
  #120  
Old 06-14-2006, 08:30 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble
Do you have numbers for the total world energy requirements (assuming all-wind) vs. total potential energy actually inherent in wind?
No. No one knows exactly how much massive use of wind energy would effect the climate. Which is exactly my point.
  #121  
Old 06-14-2006, 08:40 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
8. Use the stupid Kyoto treaty for toilet paper. It's crap.
How so?

What would you put in an international treaty to reduce CO2 emissions?
  #122  
Old 06-14-2006, 08:45 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 19,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
No. No one knows exactly how much massive use of wind energy would effect the climate. Which is exactly my point.
But I think that's kind of ducking Mr Dibble's argument. The real issue is not so much "Do we know exactly how much large-scale wind energy generation would affect the climate?" as "Do we have any reason to think that even large-scale wind energy generation would be more than a tiny fraction of the amount it would take to affect the climate?"

I mean, I don't know the exact odds of having an enraged elephant suddenly bursting into my second-floor Dutch apartment and wreaking havoc, and I don't think anybody else does either. So in a sense, nobody knows exactly how serious that problem really is.

But I have a fair enough ballpark estimate of the odds to know it's not a problem I actually need to worry about. And maybe we could get the same kind of order-of-magnitude ballpark estimate for the potential climate threat posed by large-scale wind energy generation.

I think we need a computational physicist stupid enough to be willing to tackle such a problem and smart enough to be able to find an answer to it. Excuse me while I go rout out jshore.
  #123  
Old 06-14-2006, 10:43 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
jshore rout-ed...Actually, there has been very little study of this. The one paper that I could find dedicated to this issue is The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate, conveniently available in full online. The abstract reads:

Quote:
Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels.
One of their main conclusions is that this area is worthy of more research. Other conclusions include:

(1) Even if windpower were to grow 100-fold, which is more than the upper end envisioned in the next half-century (although is still a fairly modest percentage of the necessary energy supply estimated to be needed), "Our results suggest that the resulting peak changes in seasonal mean temperature might be ~0.5 K, with RMS changes approximately one order of magnitude smaller and near-zero change in global mean temperature ... These climatic changes are detectable above background climatic variability in model runs of a few decades in duration, but they might remain too small to detect in the presence of other anthropogenic change and natural climate variability."

(2) "The direct climatic changes that are due to wind power may be beneficial because they can act to reduce, rather than increase, aggregate climate impacts."

(3) "It may be comparatively easy to reduce the climatic impacts of wind turbines. Preliminary analysis suggests that turbine designs could be modified to increase the atmospheric efficiency (CP/CD) by several tens of percent and reduce the generation of turbulence by several fold, both of which could be done economically. Additional mitigation of impact might be achieved by siting wind farms such that their effects partially cancel and by tailoring the interaction of turbines with the local topography to minimize the added drag."
  #124  
Old 06-14-2006, 10:46 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
I think we need a computational physicist stupid enough to be willing to tackle such a problem and smart enough to be able to find an answer to it.
By the way, I think the key point is to find one who is shameless enough to look and find what other people have already done so he doesn't have to actually try to work it out himself! ;-)
  #125  
Old 06-15-2006, 06:16 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,344
Thanks for doing the legwork, jshore. So, to summarise:
minimal effect, some of which is positive, and redesign could mitigate a lot of the negative?

Thought so.
  #126  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:07 PM
Azov Azov is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19
The "incovenient truths" in Al Gore's movie.
  #127  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:13 PM
Azov Azov is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19
Scientists respond to movie

Quote:
Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.
  #128  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:17 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azov
You should try to find your news from somewhere other than right wing blogs.
  #129  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:18 PM
Azov Azov is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19
Now he is gathering up followers to spread the message:

Gore to train 1,000 to spread word about climate
  #130  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:19 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azov
Now he is gathering up followers to spread the message:

Gore to train 1,000 to spread word about climate
Good for him. You should go and listen.
  #131  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:21 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azov
The "incovenient truths" in Al Gore's movie.


When the page begins, "A Blog for Salty Christians," you really can't expect us to take it seriously! Not on a scientific question, anyway!
  #132  
Old 06-19-2006, 04:35 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 19,649
From Azov's link:
Quote:
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. [...]

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada.
Actually, Bob Carter is a well-known climate change skeptic. Fans of SDMB's Beechnut will be tickled to hear that Carter is the originator, or at least the popularizer, of the classic "Global warming stopped in 1998, now 8 years of NO global warming" argument that was done to death in this May 2006 thread.

And the "60 leading experts in the field asked for a public review in Canada" story has also been addressed on these boards, but the hamsters are slow and I can't find the relevant thread.
  #133  
Old 06-19-2006, 05:10 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Articles like those just underline one of the points that stuck with me most from the film. Gore shows a graphic illustration a survey that was done on every peered reviwed scientific article related to Global warming for the last ten years to see what percentage of articles disagreed that GW was real. They literally came up with 0%. Not a single peer-reviewed article disputed that GW was a real phenomenon. Then Gore showed some corporate memos from oil companies and whatnot, saying that "doubt is our friend," and that they needed to create the "impression of a debate" in the mainstream media. Gore then showed the survey results for articles in the mainstream media and reveals that 53% of mainstream media pieces disputed GW.

The difference between what scientists really think and the impression the media gives of what scientists really think could not be more stark.
  #134  
Old 06-19-2006, 09:34 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
When the page begins, "A Blog for Salty Christians," you really can't expect us to take it seriously! Not on a scientific question, anyway!
And then the 2nd paragraph says, "The earth's temperature, CO2 levels, and other environmental conditions are well within the norm for the past 1,000 years..." Hmmm...Let's see. CO2 is currently at 380 ppm. For the last 750,000 years, it has oscillated between ~180 and 300 ppm. (For the last 1000 years but eliminating the last 150, it has been very constant in the range of 280 +- ~10 ppm.) Actually, the current level is believed to be higher than anything in roughly the last 20 million years. But, hey, a thousand years, 20 million years, what's the difference.

It then goes through the variety of denier talking-points:

(1) Greenland used to be a warm paradise when the Vikings were there.

(2) The warming is all the sun's fault.

(3) There is global warming on Mars too.
  #135  
Old 06-20-2006, 08:42 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore
Ooh, thanks for the blog links, jshore - will make for interesting reading.
  #136  
Old 06-20-2006, 10:48 AM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azov
By the way, here is the website that the author of that column works for. Note that they are essentially hired guns, performing public relations services for their clients. I don't know if anybody has been able to determine exactly who his clients are in this case.
  #137  
Old 06-20-2006, 10:22 PM
DMC DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore
By the way, here is the website that the author of that column works for. Note that they are essentially hired guns, performing public relations services for their clients. I don't know if anybody has been able to determine exactly who his clients are in this case.
If you're going to be a shill, at least learn from the best. That author cut his teeth at APCO (remember them from the tobacco lobbying campaigns?). Even the High Park Group's website doesn't hide the fact that he's a paid shill. Here is their info on their own director:
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Park Group website
Tom specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies. Tom holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Carleton University and a Master of Engineering (Mechanical - thermo-fluids) from McMaster University.
Shit, at least try to hide the fact.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017