Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

You just can't stop yourself can you?

Let me rephrase (or backpedal, whichever the case may be): After such a violent hurricane season in 2005 nobody at the time could have predicted that the 2006 season would be so tame.

[albed]

I'm relatively sure that with thousands of meteorologists studying various data and forming different conclusions that one or more did predict a mild 2006 hurricane season.



But you're just steering away from your compulsion to make proclamations based on ignorance. People know what causes geomagnetic fields and many other things even if you don't.

[Mazer]

You're relatively sure that somebody accurately guessed the weather? Since you're no better informed on the subject than me your relative sureness carries just about as much weight as my so called 'proclamations.' We're both making assumptions, albed, but if you think someone predicted this last hurricane season you'll have to dig up the proof yourself.

I'm not skeptical of science, I'm skeptical of humanity's ability to fully understand chaotic systems on a global scale. If someone predicted this hurricane season then they got lucky, they beat the odds, nothing more. Unless and until meteorology gives us the ability to make detailed predictions about next season's weather, my skepticism will not be challenged. So far the most detailed prediction anyone can make is that sometime between the months of August and November tropical storms of varying intensity will form in the mid Atlantic. Of what use is such vague information to anyone?

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

You're relatively sure that somebody accurately guessed the weather? Since you're no better informed on the subject than me your relative sureness carries just about as much weight as my so called 'proclamations.' We're both making assumptions, albed, but if you think someone predicted this last hurricane season you'll have to dig up the proof yourself.

All too easy.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...forecast_x.htm

N.C. State researchers' mild hurricane season prediction holds true

You just can't seem to grasp that other people aren't as ignorant as you.

[Mazer]

The nation's leading hurricane experts predicted a vicious 2006 storm season would spin more than a dozen strong storms out of the Atlantic Ocean, but a milder forecast from a lesser-known team in North Carolina is proving more accurate.

"Almost everyone was predicting another extremely active year — all the big names were saying the same thing," said Lian Xie, a professor of marine earth and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University. "We were taking a chance, a risk. If we were wrong, everybody would be laughing at me."

Just as I suspected, almost all the 'scientists' got it wrong. Thanks for proving my point.

[albed]

Your point(s) -

Originally Posted by Mazer

nobody really knows why we even have a magnetic field, and why it varies in strength, flips polarity, and migrates geographically,

Originally Posted by Mazer

Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year.

Originally Posted by Mazer

After such a violent hurricane season in 2005 nobody at the time could have predicted that the 2006 season would be so tame.

What was proven -

You're not only ignorant but unethical.

[floydian slip]

So will you pay the EU tax!? Yes you will, weather you like it or not.

“Shut down your economy, America, or we’ll shut it down for you.” He says the EU should impose a ‘carbon tax’ on American goods.

English translation of Kyoto: “Treaty for wealth transfer from wealthier nations to poorer nations, or in the case that isn’t feasible, simply destruction of the wealthier nations’ wealth.”

Oh, and my preferred remedy? In keeping with the Sgt. Jim Malone method of law enforcement*, slap tariffs so high on Audis and BMWs and anything else produced in the EU - Siemens and Bosch electronics, fancy chocolates, French wine, that they choke on the overstock. Let’s see if China and Africa can take the U.S.’s place as consumers of the high end goods the Euros need to produce and sell in order to keep their welfare states afloat.

http://coldfury.com/index.php/?p=7816

[daddydirt]

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity

Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl

[albed]

Al Gore - Energy Pig

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

[vernarial]

I don't really understand why so many people are skeptical of global warming or climate change. It's really very simple. Here are some facts.
1) Our climate is always changing. It just happens very slowly.
2)Global warming and cooling are always happening. The earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout it's history.
3)Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse" gas and humans are pumping tons of the stuff into the air daily.

I just don't understand whats so debatable. Maybe how much humans actually contibute to global warming. We certainly do contribute to the changing of our climate. It's a matter of how much impact we want to have. I personally would like to leave the world less polluted for my children and grandchildren. I don't want to leave a mess for them to clean up. I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.

[Mazer]

You're right on all three points, Vernarial. But consider this: water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas, is also the one greenhouse gas over which we humans have almost no control. For that reason the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers it prudent to completely ignore the effects of water vapor on climate change. That's not just unscientific, it's plain stupid. But this is typical of environmentalism; it is unthinking, unquestioning, and paranoid. I am not skeptical of climate change, I'm skeptical of the doomsday predictions these people preach from their academic cathedrals.

Skepticism is healthy, it keeps us from jumping to conclusions and, if sufficiently widespread, it prevents mobs from forming, mobs like the "consensus" among scientists that has transubstantiated global warming from a scientific field of research into a religious dogma. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the desire to make the environment more livable and more comfortable, but people shouldn't make the mistake of building belief structures around that desire, especially ones that claim to be scientific.

Though you may consider yourself an environmentalist, Vern, you're not like most of them from what I can tell. You're more of an environmental steward like me. Unlike you, though, I don't see any use in overstating the problem. This sense of urgency we're subject to isn't due to continuing increases in emissions but to our own short life spans. Because none of us will live long enough to affect substantial, positive change in the environment in our lifetimes, we all feel the need to cause drastic changes before we bequeath the earth to our children. This is the natural response to our own sense of mortality, but it's also the worst possible way to approach the problem. The best solution is not a one time fix, it's a perpetual process, one which future generations can continue after we're gone. And in order for us to discover that solution we must trust that future generations will be able to decide on their own what's best for them. The current environmentalist movement doesn't see things this way, unfortunately.

[albed]

I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.

You gonna quit breathing? Yeah you're contributing to the buildup of CO2 every time you exhale you selfish hypocrite.

As for me, I don't think it's bad to have a warmer planet. But notice how the alarmists have lately tried to replace the term "global warming" with "climate change" in order to manipulate people who think that way.

There's a long history of petty power seekers using excuses like global warming to get themselves the power they crave. The Kyoto Treaty would have had an insignificant affect on global warming but they take every opportunity to use it against their political opponents.

Nuclear power could have reduce the possibility of global warming significantly along with a lot of pollution if petty politicians hadn't used opposition to it as a stepping stone to power.

More recently the blocking of new oil field development has not only increased the price of oil but also the use of coal with its much greater environmental impact.

In short, the more the power hungry rabble rousers meddle in the natural course of economics the worse they make the world. And they've got a lot of meddling planned for global warming.

[vernarial]

You gonna quit breathing? Yeah you're contributing to the buildup of CO2 every time you exhale you selfish hypocrite.

I would consider this to be more than just a simple change. I have made a few simple changes that haven't really affected my lifestyle and plan on making more changes in the future.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Though you may consider yourself an environmentalist, Vern, you're not like most of them from what I can tell. You're more of an environmental steward like me. Unlike you, though, I don't see any use in overstating the problem. This sense of urgency we're subject to isn't due to continuing increases in emissions but to our own short life spans. Because none of us will live long enough to affect substantial, positive change in the environment in our lifetimes, we all feel the need to cause drastic changes before we bequeath the earth to our children. This is the natural response to our own sense of mortality, but it's also the worst possible way to approach the problem. The best solution is not a one time fix, it's a perpetual process, one which future generations can continue after we're gone. And in order for us to discover that solution we must trust that future generations will be able to decide on their own what's best for them. The current environmentalist movement doesn't see things this way, unfortunately.

Maybe none of us individually can affect any substantial positive change, but if more people made the little changes we could have a substantian positive effect. I'm not talking about drastic sudden changes. I'm talking about Us(human race) as stewards over our one and only planet. We need to take a little better care is all. There are some small solutions we can implement on a personal level that will start to help. I trust future generations to know better the problem and it's solutions, but I am not willing to just sit and wait for them to fix our(and previous generations) mess. If we have some limited knowledge of the problem and can see some minor solutions that might help the problem I don't see why we should sit on our hands waiting for the next generation to implement. Sure we should let them decide whats best for them, but they don't know yet. It's like a parent who doesn't make his kid clean his room hoping that someday that child will decide that a clean room is best for him.

[albed]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I have made a few simple changes that haven't really affected my lifestyle and plan on making more changes in the future.

So what are these secret changes? If you can't do the math and figure what difference it would make if everyone did them I can help you.


I suspect it wouldn't amount to squat though and you're only doing some bragging for yourself rather than something worthwhile for the environment.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by vernarial

We certainly do contribute to the changing of our climate. It's a matter of how much impact we want to have. I personally would like to leave the world less polluted for my children and grandchildren. I don't want to leave a mess for them to clean up. I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.

Anyone who utters a syllable of argument against this point of view and is still able to refer to themselves as a "conservative" with a straight face is either a fool, a liar, or both.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by vernarial
We certainly do contribute to the changing of our climate. It's a matter of how much impact we want to have. I personally would like to leave the world less polluted for my children and grandchildren. I don't want to leave a mess for them to clean up. I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Anyone who utters a syllable of argument against this point of view and is still able to refer to themselves as a "conservative" with a straight face is either a fool, a liar, or both.

I sure agree about this.

Let us try to keep this personal, like doing our best to not consume.

[vernarial]

Originally Posted by albed

So what are these secret changes? If you can't do the math and figure what difference it would make if everyone did them I can help you.


I suspect it wouldn't amount to squat though and you're only doing some bragging for yourself rather than something worthwhile for the environment.

Like changing my lightbulbs to flourescent. Like walking or riding a bike to work instead of driving. Like being a bit picky about whose products I buy. Simple easy things.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

Like changing my lightbulbs to flourescent. Like walking or riding a bike to work instead of driving. Like being a bit picky about whose products I buy. Simple easy things.

Each of those things have economic benefits as well. There is no one alive who doesn't want to reduce their electric bills and make fewer visits to the gas station. Given their druthers, most people would volunteer to do such things and you're proof.

The thing is that industrial and commercial energy usage and pollution is at least twice that of non-commercial/household energy usage and pollution. You and all your neighbors could turn on all your appliances and leave all the lights in your houses burning 24/7 and the power company wouldn't notice much. You probably don't even use as much electricity in a whole year as Google uses to power its many data centers in just one week. If every American made the changes to their lifestyles that you've made it would be a good start, but lets not kid ourselves. Guilt alone will not carry us far enough to solve the real problems we're facing. Keep on keeping on if it make you happy, but only industrial sized changes are going to make a difference.

[albed]

Originally Posted by vernarial

Like changing my lightbulbs to flourescent. Like walking or riding a bike to work instead of driving. Like being a bit picky about whose products I buy. Simple easy things.

Seems like the simple easy things you'd do even if there weren't environmental benefits. To be sure, just how far is the walk to work?

[Drakonix]

The strongest "proof' touted for global warming is the measurement of the antarctic ice mass. Whether it is shrinking or growing depends on which group of scientists you ask. It can't be getting smaller and larger at the same time.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

Remember it does not take any credentials or any particular level of education be be a "scientist". All you have to do to be a scientist is (allegedly) follow the principles of scientific investigation. Some do it better than others.

I still laugh at the "picture" the Onion had of Al Gore taking a flame thrower to the Ross Ice shelf. For those who missed it, I'll post it again. Funny Stuff.