Gore's truth vs the right wing

[Phrazz]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/101307.html

Now I see where this "judge" Burton gets off (one plane and onto the next).

Anyone have any comments about the "facts" presented in An Inconvenient Truth? Also, did Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize (jointly awarded along with the UN Climate Council) in any way "cheapen" or "tarnish" the Nobel Foundation's reputation?

Just curious (polar ice caps aside...are they optional?).

[putty]

this guy thinks Al Gore is full of hooey.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 38792.html

I don't really understand why Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. What he said in "AIT" has all been said before, and it's a lot of theory.

I think Gore has raised awareness, and through falsehoods (not sure if i'm using that word correctly) or not, he's helped push the cause for an alternative to gasoline powered vehicles.

The list of Nobel Peace Prize winners is certainly impressive. Well except for a couple of the winners

# 2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
# 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
# 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
# 2004 - Wangari Maathai
# 2003 - Shirin Ebadi
# 2002 - Jimmy Carter
# 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
# 2000 - Kim Dae Jung (김대중)
# 1999 - Medecins Sans Frontieres
# 1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
# 1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
# 1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Jose Ramos-Horta
# 1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
# 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
# 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
# 1992 - Rigoberta Menchu Tum
# 1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
# 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
# 1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
# 1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
# 1987 - Oscar Arias Sanchez
# 1986 - Elie Wiesel
# 1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
# 1984 - Desmond Tutu
# 1983 - Lech Walesa
# 1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso Garcia Robles
# 1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
# 1980 - Adolfo Perez Esquivel
# 1979 - Mother Teresa
# 1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
# 1977 - Amnesty International
# 1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
# 1975 - Andrei Sakharov
# 1974 - Sean MacBride, Eisaku Sato
# 1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
# 1972 - The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
# 1971 - Willy Brandt
# 1970 - Norman Borlaug
# 1969 - International Labour Organization
# 1968 - Rene Cassin
# 1967 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
# 1966 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
# 1965 - United Nations Children's Fund
# 1964 - Martin Luther King
# 1963 - International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
# 1962 - Linus Pauling
# 1961 - Dag Hammarskjold
# 1960 - Albert Lutuli

[tyler]

i call shenanigans on putty!

[hoby]

Ah yes, I remember now. 2000 was the year the Nobel committee took the summer off to go on tour. They hit all the festivals; supported themselves selling t-shirts ("Nobel was 'Da Bomb") and "Dyn-o-mite" Burritos.

Only problem was how they never shut up during shows. Positing this, debating that, hypothesizing the other thing. Until, of course, BAM pulled out "Honey Melon." Then they'd start jumping up and down and yelling "WHOO-HOO!!"

Fuckin' posers.

[putty]

why shenanigans?

[etahn]

why shenanigans?

Too mild to write 'Bullshit', I'm guessing.

Hoby - Were they the guys on the lot whispering 'dosesbudsshroomstnt'?

[tyler]

no no. I was making no bold (or mild) political statement.

it was just because of who "won" the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000.

i question your factual accuracy.

[Phrazz]

If you can mouth the word "truth" then surely you can explain what you mean by "falsehood". The FACT that methane, carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons contribute to the demise of our atmosphere and the first 2 directly contribute towards the greenhouse effect and energy capture (solar specifically) is incontrovertible, supported by millions of data points in many different kinds of experiments. We also know that humans have dramatically and drastically increased our carbon emissions through fossil fuels. Surely the haze over LA is an indication of the general sickness of the air. These are not exaggerations -- people get lung cancer from the air they breathe.

The planet is in peril and there's no doubt in my mind about that. If you so easily dismiss these ideas just by waving your hand (or your flag), then you are ignoring science and what is happening right in front of your face. It takes only a photo or thousands to show the ice caps melting and the estimations of global sea levels are accurate enough which also predict the rise in sea levels in measurable ways in our life times.

It may be argued whether volcanoes or forest fires cause more global warming than cars and electrical coal-fired power plants, but to deny the direct causes and culprits of global warming, or to deny at all that global warming is a fact of science is completely unfounded, unsupportible, and amounts to a vendetta. People love to slam Al Gore and if you read that article, you'll see his other misquotes were entirely personal attacks based on COMPLETELY inaccurate quoting (ie, "inventing" the Internet, which he NEVER SAID). People base their arguments on mis-quotes by other right-wingers, never check the facts, make summary assessments, then play games with rhetoric because they are too lazy to learn science (or even to read what others have learned and are trying to tell us).

Without population control, we're all fucked anyways...but at least we have to start somewhere and at least acknowledge that we're in a very bad situation, or else nothing will get done. Vehicles get better...more people want more cars...more coal plants fire up every week and we are damned sure the pollution caused by these are very significant. To ignore the fact that the filth we pour into the atmosphere has no considerable effect on the planet is what the planet-rapers want us to think. The money factor is talking...how can the greed-heads make exorbitant profits on energy if they don't encourage everyone to drive hummers? That's all part of the plan, and the results are inevitable, readily apparent, and increasing.

You did acknowledge Al Gore pushed the cause for non-gas vehicles, but you really do not support your statement or even explain how these facts (and theories) are not relevant to our current situation (the planet in peril). Even theories can be valid and are not lies, which is the type of bullshit we get handed down by all these pundits who think they are poking holes in Al Gore's statements (like that sneaky judge Burton, who was completely wrong in his arguments, as the article explains).

Part of the problem as well is that most people seem to have completely forgotten what rhetoric and argumentative reasoning is all about, and instead they just attack the man (or create a straw man) -- the result is they never have to prove a point, just make a personally attacking statement that sounds good and let it fester in people's minds. If enough people tell a lie, it starts to become true in the minds of the sheeple who follow the drum beat to their demise.

How is Carter worthy of the prize, but not Al Gore?

For the record, the Nobel Peace Prize in:

2000 Kim Dae Jung (김대중) "for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular"

And the statement about Al Gore and the UN Climate Council's prize:

2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore, Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize

You think Al did not "dissemenate greater knowledge about man-made climate change" or do you argue that man does not create climate change and perhaps cannot counteract these even if he knew he did?

Or what specifically leads you to believe any of these are "falsehoods"? Please explain.

-Phrazz

[putty]

I said "through falsehoods or not." meaning, whether the statements made in Gore's movie are true or false. I don't know the answer to that. I've heard plenty of arguments from both sides of the "do humans cause global warming" argument. Since I'm not a scientist, and have a hard time comprehending science (that's not to say I won't try to understand it, i'm just a little slow on the uptake), I don't pretend to have a clue about what causes global warming.

Like you said, though, the damage done to our environment is right in our faces. If people can't see the pollution all around them, they aren't looking. We are causing irreperable (sp?) damage to this Earth in a number of different ways. Everything needs water to survive, yet we pollute it on a daily basis. But, that evidence that is staring us in the face, does not mean humans are causing global warming.

I kinda disagree that denying that humans are the culprits or causes of global warming is "unfounded, unsupportable and amounts to a vendetta." Nothing has been proven. Completely denying that chance is reckless and unfounded, but arguing against it isn't. It might not be true.

Let's say what Al Gore is saying is false. Suspend your reality for just a minute and imagine that as much as we're trying to kill our planet, us humans don't have any impact on this warming pattern. That it's just a "cycle." If that's the case, then what would be the purpose of pushing all of this hoopla over this movie? To support more environmental friendly legislation? Bring more money to those environmentalist groups? If that's the case, then I guess I have to decide for myself whether the ends justify the means.

It doesn't really matter to me either way, whether it's true or false. Because either way, these arguments aren't going to stop any time soon. The only thing I can do is continue to learn to live in a streamlined way, conserving as much as possible.

p.s. I also liked your little jab at the flag waving American. Why is it that all of the patriotic Americans have to be thrown in together with anti-environmentalists, pro-life, neocons? Why can't I be "Proud to be an American," as well as a pro-choice recycler? Why is it that if you are pro-life, you must also support the war? Why group everyone in together?

We're talking about Al Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize and global warming. Where does waving your flag come into it? Maybe I just misuderstood that part.

[Dan]

Finally AP environmental science pays off!

Throughout the year Inconvenient Truth was presented to both informed and ignorant members of society. The end result was similar for most parties who believe what mr. Gore fed them. And yes, he is right, Global warming or Global climate change is happening, don't deny it embrace it. But to say that this is the 1st time that this has ever happened is preposterous.

My teacher and the book we used stated the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is not significant to global warming. CO2 makes up just .05% of the atmosphere and humans emit less then 1% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Last i checked the atmosphere was 95% water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas!

The most astonishing thing that we saw when comparing graphs was that CO2 levels actually echoed the rise in temperature. When the industrial revolution boomed the global tempurature was going down until around 1975... WOW how can that be???

Gore shows us a graph that is stable for the most part then then starts to skyrocket... If you take that same graph and just show the rest of the plotted data from years and years ago, you find a remarkable pattern. It is a almost like a sine wave. The low points on the graph are ice ages, and then there is a warming period. Deserts used to be lush oceans, Greenland used to be a moderate climate with good farming. This is a pattern that has existed for years and years. We just as humans have never experienced it with an intelligent mind.

This is the icing on the cake. Solar activity also comes in waves and when plotted against the temperature has a strong correlation. Many people argue that this has no significance and I am always open to new data. The fact that scientists cannot get grants written unless they include ...and its effect on global warming boggles my mind. There is a shift in media to be "green" it is just a new market to exploit and to fill us with propaganda. Yes it is important that we are efficient and clean. Yes industrial emissions that are concentrated over cities are bad for our respiratory system China as an example. But humans do not have a significant impact on the course of our climate. We cannot stop it from getting warmer but when the solar cycle is complete in around 2015 we can start to see our world get cooler again and we will just have to focus on the exponential rate human population growth. that is the real disaster. We will not be able to house humans forever... but ill be dead long before that

[harrymcq]

I have not studied the science enough to 'know' one way or the other or to argue either but I did see "An Inconvenient Truth" and it managed to convince me that global warming by humans is real. Maybe he cooked the data and I'm a sucker but all those graphs seemed to point to something WAY off the charts from before.

What I'm more concerned about at the moment is dwindling energy reserves. We just watched the movie "A Crude Awakening" which basically says that peak oil has come and gone and that we are heading into a major energy crisis. So unless we start developing alternative energy now the whole of industrial society is going to go belly up. One of the things I found really interesting was the exhaustability of Nuclear fuel sources. Even if we started building tons of reactors today we could easily use up all the fuels with the amount of energy that we use. At this point it seems like we should be putting everything we have into developing cheap solar energy because that is by far our biggest potential energy source when you realize that hydrocarbons aren't going to be around forever.

[Phrazz]

Ok, Dan, I will address your statements specifically.

Finally AP environmental science pays off!

Throughout the year Inconvenient Truth was presented to both informed and ignorant members of society.

I'm not sure what you are aiming at by this statement. Obviously we can expect that the general audience members will have varying skill levels with regards to science, math and other "intelligence" measurements that may be used to determine "informed" versus "ignorant" points of view. However, in essence, this statement is meaningless. It would be like saying the movie was seen by both men and women (in no way comparing men with the ignorant, though some may be led to that conclusion by this juxtaposition ).

The end result was similar for most parties who believe what mr. Gore fed them.

What end result?

And yes, he is right, Global warming or Global climate change is happening, don't deny it embrace it. But to say that this is the 1st time that this has ever happened is preposterous.

No, Dan, you are saying this. I do not believe that An Inconvenient Truth makes this statement or even implies that. I believe the "angle" is that the exponentially-increasing human population is having increasingly negative effects on global climate change. To even suggest that humans can affect climate is the basis of this whole argument, and one which people are going to naturally want to resist. This completely ignores the fact that humans are massively deforesting vast areas (indeed, massive logging certainly can not be argued as helping the trees proliferate!).

My teacher and the book we used

Reference, please? At least for the book.

stated the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is not significant to global warming. CO2 makes up just .05% of the atmosphere and humans emit less then 1% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Last i checked the atmosphere was 95% water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas!

I'd have to check this claim against what is stated in the movie exactly. There are several major greenhouse gases, and CO2 is just one of them. Water vapor is actually a more significant greenhouse gas, as is methane, but these are also part of the production processes of animals (including humans).

Here is a reference claiming that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are a significant contributor to Global Warming:

US Dept. of Energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

In essence, I feel the "bone" that most people pick about whether humans contribute significantly towards global warming can be summarized in the following statement:

Given the natural variability of the Earth’s climate, it is difficult to determine the extent of change that humans cause.

This statement seems to be true at face value, however, because the extent of change is difficult to determine does not mean we should ignore our effects on the climate or conclude that we humans are not affecting climate significantly. If we are wrong, fixing our conspicuous consumption of fossil fuel will have many other lasting benefits (not merely from the decrease in pollution, but also the energy wasted in producing and refining these fossil fuels).

By ignoring the other detrimental effects of gathering, refining, producing, storing and consuming fossil fuels, we may be putting several carts in front of only one horse (and it's a tired old mare, not able to get out of its own way). The MTBE oxygenation problem in California is one major example of a "Love Canal" type of scenario. This chemical has been largely replaced by ethyl alcohol (a much 'cleaner' chemical which we all can drink and often do), which is a "godsend" to the environment. One tablespoon of MTBE in a small swimming pool will render the water unfit to drink. This chemical is at least toxic, if not poisonous, and was a major byproduct of the petrochemical industry until very recently.

The most astonishing thing that we saw when comparing graphs was that CO2 levels actually echoed the rise in temperature. When the industrial revolution boomed the global tempurature was going down until around 1975... WOW how can that be???

I'd like to see these graphs you saw.

Gore shows us a graph that is stable for the most part then then starts to skyrocket... If you take that same graph and just show the rest of the plotted data from years and years ago, you find a remarkable pattern. It is a almost like a sine wave.

Reference?

The low points on the graph are ice ages, and then there is a warming period. Deserts used to be lush oceans, Greenland used to be a moderate climate with good farming. This is a pattern that has existed for years and years. We just as humans have never experienced it with an intelligent mind.

I would have said "when humans were not around to accurately record evidence". Even still, humans have minds that are seemingly intelligent enough to "experience" the past by using scientific methods (points on the graph). We might be able to argue we're collectively smarter now, but can't argue humans weren't also aware of this at a much earlier date (though I would agree our understanding of how we affect the environment has grown significantly with both our shared knowledge as well as our increase in population -- so both the total effects and our observance of these have increased significantly).

This is the icing on the cake.

So far, Dan, I see no cake...maybe a half-eaten cup of pudding.

Solar activity also comes in waves

No kidding?

and when plotted against the temperature has a strong correlation.

Show us. We know when the Solar activity flares up, so will the Earth's climate (atmosphere). However, all these forces add up and do not mean the effects of humans are insignificant in comparison.

Many people argue that this has no significance

Also, many people argue that human effects on climate have no relative significance. The whole argument centers around this understanding (or theory, or concept, idea, statement, etc).

I will argue that the Sun and many other factors have significant effect, as do humans. I think all these forces are in cahoots, but ours have grown the most in recent (last few decades) times.

and I am always open to new data. The fact that scientists cannot get grants written unless they include ...and its effect on global warming boggles my mind.

For someone to be open to new data but not understand how scientists must justify their research in order to get monetary compensation for their work really doesn't add up on my brain calculator. This should be obvious to someone who's open-minded. How else can we get action if not by alarming or otherwise overtly exposing a signficant belief or theory to prove (or disprove) with scientific research? Otherwise, why bother doing the research if it is not going to help anyone at all? That would hamper a great majority of scientific research. We have to be open-minded enough to warrant further investigation, even if we can't stomach the justification.

I would say prevention of extinction is a good cause, though others might argue the planet Earth can sustain 15, 20 or even 30 billion people "perfectly fine" without "any lasting or immediate detrimental effects". Tell me this again when someone is holding you at gunpoint for a bite to eat, then we can talk about alarmism used to justify research. I feel it's a just cause. My mind refused to be boggled.

There is a shift in media to be "green"

Media only? What about the whole production system? How does this relate to our GDP? I think you're missing a larger bus here. Who pays the bills? Go where the money is to see where the "green" is being (and will be) spent. Just ask Google about their solar-powered energy research facility, or all the GSA buildings that are being converted to "green" technology. I'd say the government led the media by a large margin, and the media is merely a reflection of current trends. To an extent, they can brainwash the weak-minded -- and as people become more ignorant, the media will have greater influence in their lives. Indeed, some only read the Bible and anything else they regard as a work of the Devil. Do you see the media as a negative entity?

it is just a new market to exploit and to fill us with propaganda.

Any new market can and will be exploited, but the "propaganda" factor varies widely depending on how much money you have (or are seeking to gain). In general (at face value), the "green" movement is a valuable alternative to our current situation. Exploiting this for profit may actually give it some much-needed impetus which otherwise would be squandered by the lazy and conservatives among us (who are reluctant to change, even if they know their SUV gets 10 MPG and is a signifant polluter, they won't care and conservative != conservationist, by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a very negative viewpoint and one that seems handed down from the Neocon "conservative" agenda. Green = exploit. Yeah, sure. I'll buy that for a dollar.

If Green is becoming sexy and the "media bandwagon" jumps on this, perhaps this type of brainwashing will have positive value.

Throwing cigarette butts out the window (lit, even) is not sexy and we don't see much media hype about this issue.

I think riding a bicycle, on the other hand, is extremely sexy. You can equate sexiness with propaganda if you like (ie, "sex sells"). Since you were also talking about exploitation and the market, these are all related.

Yes it is important that we are efficient and clean. Yes industrial emissions that are concentrated over cities are bad for our respiratory system China as an example.

America as another example. China is repeating the same mistakes we did (and do) and noone seems to care enough to make a difference. The air in Beijing is atrocious, and has already surpassed LA in terms of terrible breathing quality. [As China has surpassed the US recently for carbon emissions.]

As respiratory illnesses and deaths escalate, governments may start to reverse the air pollution trend, but a few are fighting against a massive bulwark of incessant greed and stupidity. It seems like a losing battle.

One ray of hope is that you seem to admit or imply that cities centralize air pollution. This would also suggest that since cities are population concentrations, that one could argue that humans contribute significantly towards pollution. So why not be green if only for the simple reason that it helps the air we breathe become cleaner? Isn't that a good enough reason? Is clean air sexy enough for the Machiavellian mainstream media monopoly?

I will discuss "propaganda" in more depth later since it is somewhat related but will distract from the matter of discussion (which I remind our readers is in the subject line). In essence, I feel that propaganda is an attempt by the victors to rewrite history.

But humans do not have a significant impact on the course of our climate.

I don't believe you have supported this point whatsoever.

We cannot stop it from getting warmer but when the solar cycle is complete in around 2015 we can start to see our world get cooler again and we will just have to focus on the exponential rate human population growth. that is the real disaster. We will not be able to house humans forever... but ill be dead long before that

First of all, why do we have to wait for this mystical 2015? Why can't we focus on this now? Isn't pollution a massive ecological disaster? The Earth obviously has reached many major limits, and greenhouse effects are in some ways merely the "tip of the proverbial iceberg" when it comes to humans destroying our only home planet.

Even if the idea that greenhouse gas and global warming is a crock of doo-doo, can we really argue that we should do nothing to combat the scourge of further ecological devastation? Why even need an excuse at all? Why can't we just see the planet in peril and act accordingly? Why is it such a "hard sell" to alter our lifestyles?

I've changed every light bulb in my house, changed my eating habits, changed where I live, where I work, what I wear, my thermostat, insulation and I'm driving a somewhat alternative vehicle that I really only use on a semi-weekly basis (rarely in comparison to my commuting requirements, where I use mass transit). I walk everywhere now.

I don't need a movie to scare me into realizing we have to drastically and fundamentally alter our massive consumption of scarce resources if we're going to have any chance in the next decade or two. In the meantime, the Chinese River Dolphin has become extinct, icebergs the side of Rhode Island have slipped off into the ocean, the alpine areas are notoriously devoid of snow and polar bears are next on the species-to-be-wiped-off-the-planet list. Arguing that they're merely following the lead of the dinosaurs is missing the more urgent point: that we are carefully marching to the brink of disaster and we're splitting hairs over how much we are to blame when we all know we are to blame to varying degrees. We just wonder and argue how much and whether it's worth the effort to change. We appear to be incredibly reluctant to seek to change even the smallest aspects of our lifestyles.

This inability of humans to see our own faults may be our greatest weakness (perhaps related to our hubris?), and maybe we are appropriately doomed to failure. I try to resist that feeling, but the more I read from my "informed" cohorts, the more I doubt the ability for all humans to learn to survive. I think we miss the mountains, but instead focus on a few specks of sand in our fingernails. When it gets too hot from the ensuing lava flows we're just more likely to turn up the air conditioning.

-Phrazz

P.S.: If you're bored, read a little of each of these. If you're really bored, send me back some of your sources for me to educate myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/habitats/coral3.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/G ... /media.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 25,00.html

And this gets the funniest retort award:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=n ... &tb=1&pb=1

[hidden agenda]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-che ... gor_1.html

Exxon strikes again!