[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Can you give specific examples of scientific claims presented by Gore that you consider “highly questionable”?
[/quote]
Specifically his oft-reported claim of 20ft+ increases in average ocean levels over the next century from melting Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. The most dire predictions by credible climatologists weigh in at less than 40 inches over the same span. He’s also frequently claimed a 3 °C increase in average global temperature over the next 20 years. (IIRC this claim is actually stated in the trailer for the film.) Again, climatologists expect the increase to be something on the order of 0.8-1.5 °C over the 21st Century; significant, but not as immediately catastrophic as Gore would suggest.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
This sounds to me like vague pontificating waffle of the sort that climate-change skeptics have been indulging in a lot of lately. Okay, you think there’s probably a problem but you don’t know how serious it is, you think we should do something about it but not too much to be prudent, blah blah blah.
Can you put some numbers on any of these opinions, in order to give some kind of idea what sort of specific policies you favor and what sort of specific economic or environmental outcomes you consider desirable or unacceptable? How much atmospheric CO2 do you consider a probably dangerous upper bound? 400 ppm? 600 ppm? More than that?
[/quote]
No I can’t, and neither can any credible scientist. Climatological models are extremely sensitive to parameter variation; modest alterations in a minor variables can result in dramatically different predictions. Nor do we have a good handle on how much variation is due to natural cycles versus how much is stimulated by artificial pollution, nor do we have any serious understanding of transitory verses (relatively) permenant effects. Given the level of uncertainty with regard to what we should or even can do to alter climate shifts, it is precipitious to demand radical changes–particularly an advocacy of government policy–in an blind attempt to mitigate speculative hazards.
Gore has made excellent points in the past, specifically regarding the need to develop more efficient transporation systems. This is technologically feasible and has dramatic value even aside from environmental impact. But his grasp of science and apparent (or perhaps willful) lack of scientific knowledge about what he speaks (he often talks about the “density” of CO[sub]2[/sub] being key in its greenhouse properties, which is blatantly incorrect) turns him into a broken clock; he’s sometimes right, but often by coincidence rather than an accurate assessment.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
How much economic damage from climate change would you consider a reasonable tradeoff for how much economic damage from emissions reductions? What sort of alterations in infrastructure do you consider “drastic”, and how do you feel that they compare to alterations in infrastructure that are likely to result from climate change? When you speak of “less polluting” and “renewable” energy sources, what kind of quantities are you talking here?
[/quote]
Those are all good questions, and deserve to be addressed by climate scientists, economists, and policymakers who are willing to sit down and make credible, apolitical, technical assessments of the impact and value of the tradeoffs. The double edged sword of Gore is that, on one hand he brings attention to the need to address these questions, but on the other makes such hyperbolic claims and bombastic statements that he undermines the credibility of actual scientists who have to honestly admit to a large degree of ambiguity in their data. It becomes a binary issue, a politically-motivated false dichotomy; either you’re for the environment or against it, with no middle ground in-between. This restricts the ability to have an apolitical, reasonable discussion about costs and effects; like the “nuclear winter” ballyho during the Late Unpleasantness, overstating the effects and the resultant controversy drew attention away from other, quite reasonable argumenrts for reduction of nuclear arsenals.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Whatever choices we decide to make about the environment, I think we should all agree that we’ve reached a moment for serious consideration of specific policies, rather than wasting more time with inconclusive, foot-dragging blather. Let’s debate the science; let’s debate the money; let’s look at the options and choose a course of action, but let’s stop our feeble procrastinating.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll thank you to keep your strawmen to yourself, bub. I’m all for talking about numbers, but lets make them credible numbers with a stated uncertainty, not overwrought embroidering and showmanship.
Stranger
