The Most Intelligent Statement Made on Global Warming (IMO)...

[SamHouston]

So cynical! I am not so sure. I have no reason to believe that he honestly cares about the global warming issue. Interesting article about him in Time magazine this week: The Last Temptation of Al Gore | TIME

"Our democracy hasn't been working very well—that's my opinion. We've made a bunch of serious policy mistakes. But it's way too simple and way too partisan to blame the Bush-Cheney Administration. We've got checks and balances, an independent judiciary, a free press, a Congress—have they all failed us? Have we failed ourselves?"

I'm a born cynic, Martha, I admit. I haven't seen the article, but Time Magazine is not on my list of reliable news sources so I probably won't see it.

I'm an equal opportunity cynic, though...I think that both parties have let us down and that they will continue to do so.

As for that Gore statement that you quote...I fully agree with it...but he was part of the problem for a long, long time.

 

[clifp]

A program on "climate change" produced by WFAA in Dallas...

Search page WFAA.com

I listened/watched to a bit more than half of the TV program on the Internet before going to bed.

What struck me about the program (other than I knew most of the information) was the contrast between the words and the visual.

If you went strictly by what they said it was a pretty balanced show. They spent a lot of time interviewing the former head of the Hurricane center, now the most prominent meteorologist in Texas, who is huge skeptic of man made global warming. So when I was listening to the show while surfing the web it was pretty fair.

However, when I actually watched the show it was a completely different story. For example when they talked about the impact of warming on Texas and said it might cause severe long-term droughts, they showed pictures of parched lands, dying livestock etc. However, when they talked about how global warming may be good for people in Minnesota did they show pictures of blizzards, or late spring storms that killed crops nope, just a talking head.

The same thing when talking about the the 2005 and 2006 hurricane season, the visuals showed Katrina's devestation. The hurricane expert made the point that hurricanes were natually cyclical, that it was unlikely that 2005 was impacted by man-made climate change, and then pointed out that 2006 no hurricanes hit the US. Did the illustrated the mild 2006 season by showing pictures of girls in bikinis in Miami enjoying the beach, nope just a talking head.

And so it went, bad news about climate change scary visuals, good news old guy talking.

 

[USK Coastie]

So what are we going to do as a species when the sun stars to fade and consumes the planets out to Mars. Blame one party or the other? Or better yet CO2 build up.
I'm sure if ther are humans left of on the planet when it stars they will be trying to figure out how they were at fault for it.

 

[bright eyed]

i don't know where i heard it - but some scientist somewhere were saying that regardless of what you think of global warming - the fact of the matter is - that whatever we do now will not mitigate the trend enough - and that we will have to adapt. so no matter if you think it is man made or not, there will be some adapting to do...

 

[kcowan]

Having spent more than a decade working in both Europe and a few countries that are considered "third world," I do think that many, many people are exactly that naive.

I agree. I have also worked in other countries and I think NIMBY reigns supreme. Even within the US there is fear and distrust among regions ("I hate New York", "Don't get me started on Californians" etc,).

I used to be shocked at the negative attitudes of the average Malaysian about the US even though they had never been there. OTOH the ones that went there to school all wanted to stay.

 

[kcowan]

i don't know where i heard it - but some scientist somewhere were saying that regardless of what you think of global warming - the fact of the matter is - that whatever we do now will not mitigate the trend enough - and that we will have to adapt. so no matter if you think it is man made or not, there will be some adapting to do...

The reason the IPCC report was toned down is because there is a consensus that there will be a climate change crisis no matter what actions we take. Yet if that was the conclusion being spouted by politicians (including Michael Moore and Al Gore), we would tend to want actions that mitigate the effects rather than draconian futile attempts to alter the course.

How about a water pipeline from the northern Rockies? Some new dikes and locks?

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

while i completely appreciate a healthy dose of cynicism, when i look to see who profits most from the likes of (or from having caused) global warming, anti-americanism and general unrest in the world, following the money does not bring my eye to the wallets of the likes of hollywood and michael moore. i don't know precisely where it all goes, but i would imagine a few other individuals and industries for that matter profit quite a bit more significantly than just a few entertainers.

 

[ERD50]

while i completely appreciate a healthy dose of cynicism, when i look to see who profits most from the likes of (or from having caused) global warming, anti-americanism and general unrest in the world, following the money does not bring my eye to the wallets of the likes of hollywood and michael moore. ....

But, Hollywood and Moore (and Gore for that matter) do not need to profit directly from Global Warming, they can profit simply from the *controversy* surrounding it (and other subjects).

-ERD50

 

[SamHouston]

But, Hollywood and Moore (and Gore for that matter) do not need to profit directly from Global Warming, they can profit simply from the *controversy* surrounding it (and other subjects).

-ERD50

And, indeed, all of them are.

 

[eridanus]

Ignore the elephant under the stairs. It will go away!

 

[ERD50]

i don't know where i heard it - but some scientist somewhere were saying that regardless of what you think of global warming - the fact of the matter is - that whatever we do now will not mitigate the trend enough - and that we will have to adapt. so no matter if you think it is man made or not, there will be some adapting to do...

right, as kcowan said, this is from the IPCC. I posted about it earlier (and typo'd *seal level* for *sea level*) at this thread on 5/5/2007:

Climate Change - choice between 13" and 16.5" seal level rise? - Early Retirement Forums

If I am interpreting the data correctly from the latest IPCC report, it appears that:

If we continue to burn fossil fuel as we have, we will see a 10-23" rise in sea level (16.5" is the middle of that range).

If we move to a non-fossil fuel based system, we will see an 8-18" rise in sea level (13" is the middle of that range).

-ERD50

 

[kcowan]

Yes so let's also do something about the 13" rather than blowing our brains out on the extra 3.5". Stop the hysteria and start thinking about overall consequences.

After all the glaciers have melted, there will be many new deserts. What are we doing about that?

 

[travelover]

I guess this is progress, though I wish I could borrow money with a promise to "seriously consider" paying it back.


The United States agreed Thursday to "seriously consider" a European plan to combat global warming by cutting in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, averting a trans-Atlantic deadlock at a meeting here of the world's richest industrial nations.

 

[ERD50]

I guess this is progress, ...

The United States agreed Thursday to "seriously consider" a European plan to combat global warming by cutting in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, averting a trans-Atlantic deadlock at a meeting here of the world's richest industrial nations.

Look at the above posts - what exactly would be the effect of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half? Would that take us from a 16.5" rise in sea level to a 14.75" rise in sea level (half the difference of 3.5")?

I'm all for conservation and reducing pollution, but it appears to be misguided to think that some of these steps are going to 'solve' global warming, or even 'combat' it in any significant way. And those numbers are from the IPCC. People need to get realistic, Global Warming appears to be happening, and cutting greenhouse gases now will not have much impact on it.

Wouldn't it be better to spend the money on adapting to the change rather than throwing money at trying to have a small impact on that change?

It looks like some of the proposed changes could be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Sequester the carbon from coal burning plants? OK, but those plants are 30% less efficient, meaning we will need to mine about 30% more coal to feed them - how much environmental damage does that cause? Be careful what you wish for.

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

What I meant was that Al Gore has turned it all into a political tool for his personal gain, a way to stay "relevant" while out of office, etc., a way to stay in the media...

Gore has been on this issue for many years. In "An Inconvenient Truth" there's video of a very young Gore testifying about global warming. This is not something that started after he lost the election.

 

[travelover]

Wouldn't it be better to spend the money on adapting to the change rather than throwing money at trying to have a small impact on that change?


-ERD50

With all due respect, I believe this is quitting before we have even made a serious effort. I also believe global change will devastate poorer nations and worsen global tensions to the point of making carbon reduction look cheap in hindsight.

 

[bright eyed]

i don't think it's either or - i mentioned the scientist's talking about adapting because whatever you believe is the cause - adapting will be a necessary step we have to take.

but reducing emissions etc - may not help in the near term (next 100 years?) but in the longer term should have an effect because we need to change people's habits and understanding of impact we may have on our habitat...we can't just keep the smoke stacks burning and say, oh, what's that cloud over our heads?

 

[ERD50]

With all due respect, I believe this is quitting before we have even made a serious effort. I also believe global change will devastate poorer nations and worsen global tensions to the point of making carbon reduction look cheap in hindsight.

Also respectfully, why would this be looked at as 'quiting' rather than facing reality and making intelligent choices? Those poorer nation are going to need to adapt whether we implement carbon reduction or not (see numbers below).

I'm not quoting some anti-global warming group here. These numbers are from the IPCC - the same group that I think Gore refers to when he talks about the 'consensus' among scientists today.

Global warming has a natural component (consensus on that) and a man-made component (consensus is just a bit weaker on that). Much of the what is assumed to be man-made is already out of the barn. Reducing output of greenhouse gases today can't undo the past hundred years. It can only help to slow it somewhat ( a 13" sea level rise versus a 16.5" rise appears to be the best estimates of the IPCC). Also note that there is so much unknown in these models, the numbers in the various estimates almost overlap.

Going back to the analogy I used in the earlier thread, if I know my basement will flood each year to a level of 16.5" or, I could add thousands of dollars of pumps and reduce the flooding to 13" - what should I do? Since I need to get everything 13" off the floor anyway, why not just build those shelves 16.5" high? It will not cost much more, and the damage will be about the same either way. Why spend money/energy on pumps to get 3.5" less flooding?

Those appear to be our choices, based on what we know today. I also think the original post is quite thought provoking. Who are we to say that the last one-hundred years climate is the *right* climate that must be preserved? What if we were in the middle of the ice age right now - would we say we need to preserve that from change? Some areas will actually benefit from global warming. What about their rights? It's a complex issue.

-ERD50

PS - to bright eyed post - remember, reducing pollution and reducing carbon emissions can be looked at as two different things. As I pointed out, reducing carbon emissions could increase the damage to the environment in some other ways. I'm not sure we know which is worse - 30% more coal mining, or some slight reduction in the man-made element of global warming?

 

[bright eyed]

Global warming has a natural component (consensus on that) and a man-made component (consensus is just a bit weaker on that).
PS - to bright eyed post - remember, reducing pollution and reducing carbon emissions can be looked at as two different things. As I pointed out, reducing carbon emissions could increase the damage to the environment in some other ways. I'm not sure we know which is worse - 30% more coal mining, or some slight reduction in the man-made element of global warming?

global warning is like cholesterol!

well, would you disagree, then, that it is in fact beneficial to examine and change behaviors, habits, whatever that contribute to pollution? let's talk about cancer rates, autism, asthma - if not considering temperature, there are other ramifications for the outputs of technology in our recent past and present...frogs won't be the only disappearing species! or perhaps we will just evolve our way around the pollutants!

 

[ERD50]

global warning is like cholesterol!

well, would you disagree, then, that it is in fact beneficial to examine and change behaviors, habits, whatever that contribute to pollution? let's talk about cancer rates, autism, asthma - if not considering temperature, there are other ramifications for the outputs of technology in our recent past and present...frogs won't be the only disappearing species! or perhaps we will just evolve our way around the pollutants!

I'm all for reducing pollution and for conservation. I think that much of it can be done for very little $, and some will have a payback. We can identify the harm of some pollutants, the cost to reduce is fairly low percentage wise. Let's just say our energy would cost an extra 10% to significantly reduce the pollutants it causes. If we also conserved by 10% (not really that difficult) it would be a wash cost-wise.

I'm not sure we have identified the cause of autism (some is due to increases diagnosis). Asthma rates are on the rise, don't know if pollution is the cause, but it certainly is an irritant. Cancer rates are decreasing.

One problem I have with the media/Gore approach to global warming solutions (CFLs, turn the thermostat up/down, etc) is they seem to give the impression that this will *fix* the problem. I don't think the public is being educated that we are going to be in a heap of adaption whether we do anything with carbon emissions or not. We need to look at the big picture and make reasonable choices.

-ERD50

 

[bright eyed]

One problem I have with the media/Gore approach to global warming solutions (CFLs, turn the thermostat up/down, etc) is they seem to give the impression that this will *fix* the problem. I don't think the public is being educated that we are going to be in a heap of adaption whether we do anything with carbon emissions or not. We need to look at the big picture and make reasonable choices.

-ERD50

aah yes, i agree there - it seems misleading and the public will turn around and throw their hands up if they don't see "changes" for their efforts in a few years or decade...

on the other hand - the "we don't know it's man made, the earth has had varying temps" argument can seem like recklessness, and wanting to give license to polluters to keep on truckin'...

 

[kcowan]

aah yes, i agree there - it seems misleading and the public will turn around and throw their hands up if they don't see "changes" for their efforts in a few years or decade...

on the other hand - the "we don't know it's man made, the earth has had varying temps" argument can seem like recklessness, and wanting to give license to polluters to keep on truckin'...

Well the problem seems to have begun when human population started clearing forests to plant crops. They removed the trees that were very efficient at absorbing CO2 and producing oxygen. It is all well and good to blame the burning of fossil fuels. But the problem started long before that. We need to take steps to reduce emissions just as we have been doing since the 70s. A lower footprint is always a good model. Can you point to anyone who is a good model for this movement and has actually walked the walk?

Otherwise it is just a lot of CO2 being released with every breath....

 

[ERD50]

on the other hand - the "we don't know it's man made, the earth has had varying temps" argument can seem like recklessness, and wanting to give license to polluters to keep on truckin'...

I don't know that I'd call this reckless. The IPCC is the one saying that most of the climate change cannot be affected by reductions we make today. I don't think it gives anyone a license to ignore anything, or to keep polluting (which is a separate issue anyway). It just means we need to be realistic about the choices and actions we take.

It might be reckless to invest too much time/money on the 3.5 inch difference that we might be able to make if we almost totally get away from fossil fuels versus not preparing for the 13 to 16.5 inches of flooding we will get (according to present estimates).

Hopefully, advances in true alternate energy sources (not just storage methods like hydrogen) will take care of both carbon and pollution. I'm actually fairly hopeful that this will come to pass (cheaper solar cells for example) - technology will save us for the next big unforeseen crisis.

-ERD50

 

[lets-retire]

I've seen the 16 inch figure thrown around in other things I've read/watched. The question that always comes to my mind is how is 16 inches going to flood most of the coastal lands like is be purported. Most of the beaches I've been on have larger swings between the tides. These same beaches look to be able to absorb and extra 2 or 3 feet of water without too much problem, even at high tide. I do know there are places where people have built ridiculously close to the water and will have issues, but most of the places I've been/heard about, do not fit into this category.

 

[dumpster56]

Did you ever wonder how 1.8 billion and another 1.5 billion people , China and India, can limit the use of fossil fuels? I remember a comment one of my students had last year about the Chinese. I said many want to have a western type lifestyle with a car and such. Her response was what happened to THEIR BIKES?