PeterDavid.net

I doubt he will run for it. Why should he? And it could quite possibly be a big detriment to the cause he's working so hard for, the one that netted him the BIG prizes/world respect. He'd be a fool to run for president.

I hope he doesn't run for it. Let the man be happy.

Poll after poll shows Hillary leading every Republican candidate. I don't buy that she's unelectable at all.

Polls can be deceptive. Polls taken more than a year in advance of election have, in my opinion, little to no bearing on the actual outcome of the elections. I still think Clinton is too polarizing a figure for a considerable number of Democrats to get behind, while the GOP will be able to use that hatred of her as a rallying point to strengthen their own candidate: "Yeah, our guy isn't great, but do you really want Hillary Clinton in power?"

PAD

I believe you are right about Hillary, Peter. I have been saying that about her for a year now. I hope I'm right. I'd hate to have to vote Republican.

I like what Kevin Drum has to say about it. With all the vilifying the right wing has done to her over the years, all Hillary has to do is show up and NOT have horns and a tail and most people who aren't in that 20% who love Bush no matter what will listen to her and say, "Wow. I guess she isn't Evil incarnate."

Mind you, I like what he has to say. I don't hold out much hope for it. I think both she and Obama should have stayed in the Senate for at least 2 full terms each to establish some more credibility, and in the mean time John Edwards should have run for Governor of North Carolina to build more credibility.

As for Gore, I am reminded of what Christopher Reeve said when he was asked to run for Congress - and lose all of my power? No way.

Although being running for president would be cool, playing kingmaker sounds nice too.

Hillary is barely electable, and may only have a chance because of rampant nostalgia for Bill by 51% of the population. Might be enough, might not.

Gore is not gonna run this year. If Hillary is elected, he continues as beloved celebrity. If she's not elected, he's got a couple of years to figure out if he really wants to be President. Then it will be "you want me, you draft me", and then he becomes a prohibitive favorite a la Hillary.

There's no reason for him to take her on now. Only room for one of them at a time. Otherwise they damage each other enough that the Republicans win against whichever one would survive (there's no way Hillary loses a nomination fight from this point without mortally wounding her adversary).

He should sIt this one out and hit 2012 if needed. I really wish he were President but I don't think the time is right. You can't go instantaneously from "i'm not thinking about it" to credible fire-in-the-belly "here I come to save the day" simply because you won some nifty awards.

Thing is, from what I've read, Hillary actually has become a reasonably respected Senator, while Edwards wasn't and Obama has yet to do anything of significance there.

As for Gore, as probably the only person hereabouts who's had reasonably close contact with him (a lengthy lunch with about 5 other people and about a 15 minute conversation with 2 others, both about 2 years ago), he appears to have loosened up a lot since 2000. If he ran and maintained the, what I'd call semi-public*, persona I saw as his public persona, I think he'd have a good chance.

*Semi-public because while he wasn't on stage per se, it also wasn't like he was speaking to close friends or people he knew beforehand. Given that he's been a politician for most of his life, and seeing him later give a talk in front of a large number of people, I'm pretty sure he, like any such, has a large public persona, a smaller semi-public persona, and what he's like with friends and family.

And of course, the cruel irony is that if Gore decides not to run for President, that will be evidence that he is best qualified to be President.

Likewise , in the GOP , the only one I'd respect enough to vote for has already responded with a flat out "No Way".... Former Gen. Colin Powell.

If Hillary were just a Senator, I'd say no chance, we haven't elected a Senator since Kennedy, and arguably, Chicago was his Ohio. Before Kennedy, I'm not sure offhand how far we have to go.

Senators (and Representatives) have too much of a paper trail. And many feel the experience of making deals in the legislature doesn't lead to the experience necessary to govern. Americans today prefer to elect governors.

Of course, if the election is between two senators, a senator will win. And while it wasn't an elected position, Hillary does have 8 years experience in the White House.

And Mary Ellen -- no one ever has to vote anything. If Clinton is the nominee, and you don't like Clinton, you have more choices than voting Republican. There are usually third party candidates, and there is the choice of staying home.

Hillary may be marginally electable now, but wait until the GOP really sets their sights on her and starts with the "swiftboating." Every wild lie and rumor about Hillary will be magnified and played out in the press so frequently that some people will start to beleive them. It's happened before and it will happen again.

Meanwhile, Al Gore, having won an Oscar, an Emmy and a Nobel Prize this year must now also be considered the leading candidate for the Heisman Trophy and Best Traditional Folk Song at the Latin Grammies.

Please tell me I'm not the only one thinking about all the potential for West Wing-ish jokes, if we actually had a sitting president with a Nobel prize....

Elf is right. The media, especially the outlets that are paid attack-dogs of the right-wing have mastered the art of the smear. Tell a lie big enough and often enough and the people will believe it. It's depressing, it's pathetic, but it is, unfortunately, also true.

I was hoping Gore would join the race but there's too much against him

1) His relationship to the Clinton's makes it hard for him to go up against Hillary

2) Hillary is way ahead in fundraising and has almost established herself as the Democratic Nominee

3) How could he push global warming when the Republicans are leaving us in a war and a failing economy?

I would love to give Hillary a try as President just for the social aspect of things. We have had a bunch of rich white straight men running this country for over 200 years, lets see what happens when we put a woman behind the wheel.

It cannot be anyworse than electing an idiot to see if one man could destroy the country within 8 years like we did with Bush.

Hmmm. First off while Hilary is not going to be my choice in the primaries, I am not really worried about her getting swiftboated. Unlike Kerry, I don't think she will not be "swift" in responding. Remember, she and her campaign staff have two presidential campaigns under theier belt via her husband.

I agree that polls are not absolute predictors of future events, certainly, but if Hillary Clinton were truly unelectable I'd expect to see her losing to every Republican, rather than leading every Republican. That said, I could vote for any of the major Democratic candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden) without reservation against anyone the GOP could muster.

As soon as i heard (at 5AM on my way to the other side of Atlanta to take a test for a Post Office job) about the prize, i said "Neal (Boortz - right-wing talk radio host) is gonna go ballistic."

Coming out of the test at 10:30, i turned on the radio, and sure enough, Neal was raving about it.

Now, his program starts at 8:30 (the hours from 10 to Noon are nationally syndicated), and i'd bet he was raving about it the while two hours before i tuned him in for about five minutes to hear him refer to "global wamingistas, the ones who hate America and want to see free enterprise destroyed" (like Al Gore).

If i could stand to listen to even oine minute of Rush or Hannity, i bet they'd be hilarious.

PAD wrote: :the GOP will be able to use that hatred of her as a rallying point to strengthen their own candidate: "Yeah, our guy isn't great, but do you really want Hillary Clinton in power?""

On the other hand, that was the Dems' implicit message in '04, in a way. "Our guy isn't great, but do you really want four more years of Bush?" At least that's what I felt at the time. It didn't work for them, so maybe it wouldn't work for the Republicans either.

You know, as much as I want to write something, I think this is one sh*tstorm I’ll sit out.

if we actually had a sitting president with a Nobel prize

We did. Theodore Roosevelt. He was also the first American to win a Nobel Prize.

John said this today:

"And Mary Ellen -- no one ever has to vote anything. If Clinton is the nominee, and you don't like Clinton, you have more choices than voting Republican. There are usually third party candidates, and there is the choice of staying home."

I agree, John. But I also feel that I don't vote then I got no room to complain and that would just out and out be too painful!

Sasha said earlier today:

"And of course, the cruel irony is that if Gore decides not to run for President, that will be evidence that he is best qualified to be President."

You have hit the veritable nail on the head.

As a Canadian, I know it's NOMB, but I just wanna suggest: Gore/Carter 2008. It would make everyone a lot less jumpy about you guys.

First of all, Gore didn't WIN anything, he was GIVEN these awards for being the PC darling of the year. It was a shoo in that he would get the Academy award just so the socialists in Hollywood could crow a bit. Same with the Dynamite award. It was a slap in the face to the scientists who point out time and time again the errors and outright lies being told by those who wish to blame the current slight warming of our planet on evil human technology.
Secondly, there's not much of a choice for the next President out there to speak of. Mrs Clinton isn't qualified for the job, but will probably get it because she seems to be the anointed one of the democratic/socialists this time around. It's either a result of her supporting Bill in the White House for 8 years, or else the Clintons managed to hold on to those FBI files and are using them to some effect on their own party. And Mrs Clinton CAN'T be "swiftboated" as you socialists call it. She didn't use the U.S. Navy and fraudulent war stories as a stepping stone to the nominee's position. She's doing it the old fashioned way, bribes, illegal campaign contributions and lying her teeth off. Just like Bush I and II did.

Mary Ellen: What about third party? That would give you the right to complain. And from the way you phrased your comments, you would be holding your nose voting GOP, so if you did, and it turned out badly, you certainly wouldn't have room to complain. Never vote for someone you don't want to see in office - It's better to stay home. That's my theory.

a recent poll shows Hillary with less unfavorable opinions among Democrats than Gore. The theory that she is alienating a significant amount of Dems might be a media myth.

And while in normal campaigns I'd agree that attack ads from the opposing side will increase the unfavorables - it's hard to imagine anything worse thrown at Hillary than has been thrown at her.

Finally - the idea that the only one qualified to have the power is the one who doesn't want the power isn't new - probably wasn't new when Douglas Adams used it in Hitchhiker's Guide.

It was a slap in the face to the scientists who point out time and time again the errors and outright lies being told by those who wish to blame the current slight warming of our planet on evil human technology.

Read the current literature. Read the PRIMARY literature. It's hard going, but it doesn't say what you think it says.

And stop slapping scientists in the face with your illinformed crap.

I thought Gore should have run when he was sporting the "I don't give a crap" looking beard. Kind of a Bulworth, free-speaking politician would have been very refreshing.

IF Hillary wins in 2008, then maybe Jeb Bush wins in 2016, would Chelsea be old enough to run in 2024 for a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton presidential order?

You have hit the veritable nail on the head.

That nail had it coming.

IF Hillary wins in 2008, then maybe Jeb Bush wins in 2016

Jeb will never be elected President. Didn't you hear The Word of wisdom from seer Stephen Colbert about Early Immunization?

If Chelsea Clinton was born before 1982, she'll be old enough to be president after Hillary does 2 terms.

Re: Roger Tang..WHO's primary data are you referring to? It does make a difference which data you are referring to since there is much data out there that contradicts the basic concept that man is the cause of global warming. What about the increased output from the sun which is causing increased temps on Mars? What about the heat island effect which skews surface temp. readings? The primary data you've read may not even be accurate. And if you buy in to the data given out in Gore's glorified powerpoint presentation, you're DEFINITELY not getting the real deal!

Re: Roger Tang..WHO's primary data are you referring to?

Well, generally, the journals that atmospheric scientists publish in. THings like Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Geophysics and Space Sciences. Naomi Orestes did a content analysis of all the published, peer reviewed papers in atmospheric science journals, and found out that research there has pretty much accepted the anthropogenic origin of a large component of warming, and has moved on from there. (And if you read the journals, you pretty much knew that all the factors you cited were considered and rejected several years ago. I'd say you should get some more recent resource materials to look at).

Now that's not to say that global warming is "proven"; that's just not how science works. It's just that the consensus of atmospheric scientists are in agreement with Al Gore and the preponderance of evidence supports him. Nothing stops new research from changing the consensus, but to say that Gore is not the real deal is not just so.

John said earlier
"Mary Ellen: What about third party? That would give you the right to complain. And from the way you phrased your comments, you would be holding your nose voting GOP, so if you did, and it turned out badly, you certainly wouldn't have room to complain. Never vote for someone you don't want to see in office - It's better to stay home. That's my theory."

As far as I can tell there is no third party in this country, at least a viable one.

Not voting seems to say, at least to me, that you just don't care or you've given up. Not ready for that yet.

1 Actually, it's not true that Gore never won anything. He won the 2000 election over our current drunken, draft-dodging coward in chief.

And, to continue, while his rather dull public persona made him the butt of jokes in the past, he looks to be more intelligent than GW.(yeah, I know, who isn't) I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, so long as he doesn't have a vp candidate with ties to the biggest contractor now operating in Iraq.

"Secondly, there's not much of a choice for the next President out there to speak of. Mrs Clinton isn't qualified for the job, but will probably get it because she seems to be the anointed one"

Ya know, I really wasn't going to comment, but this post just really got under my skin. Besides all the socialist comments, this really stuck out. Why? Well, while I'm not actually sure that she's qualified, anybody else out there thinking that Bush wouldn't have gotten even a 7-11 job without HIS seeming annointing?

the Peace Prize is a joke. Carter won it (for what????). And didn't arafat win it???????
But Reagan (who ended the Cold War) didn't.

Side bar to all you Global Warming wagon jumpers.
Just what IS the perfect temp. the earth should be at? Maybe we need to raise the temp a few more degrees or else we will all die.

"the Peace Prize is a joke. Carter won it (for what????). "

Look, I'm not that happy with the direction Carter has taken lately, but he did help make peace between Egypt and Israel, and that's an achievement worthy of a peace prize.

"And didn't arafat win it???????"

Yes he did, and so did the Israeli Prime minister Rabin. Ultimately what this shows you is that the people who give the Nobel are making the choices based on current political issues, and that they were so hasty to applaud what appeared to be a move in the direction of peace that they were unwilling to wait for actual peace.

"Just what IS the perfect temp. the earth should be at? Maybe we need to raise the temp a few more degrees or else we will all die."

Preferably the one that does not result in flooding of coastal areas around the world, and other ecological disasters. But that's just me.

The hole in the ozone...

The death of the rainforest...

Global warming.

Reminds me of what George Carlin said:

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

"I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced."

Let me add the MOST important thing the nutsos care about: their next paychecks & grants from their wacky bosses and supporters.

One other thing...isn't this the same or similar crowd that told us we were all going to fall under the spell of global warming 15-20 years ago?

Saying nothing we do makes a difference to the earth, then raising an objection to any particular course, are mutually exclusive of each other. You can do one or the other, but not both without contradicting yourself.

But Reagan (who ended the Cold War) didn't.

Reagan accelerated the end of the cold war by buying nukes. He also trained and sold stinger missiles to Osama bin Laden. Denying Reagan a peace prize gives the Nobel committee credibility. Denying Reagan a peace prize would give anybody credibility.

Because no one has said it yet:

BREAKING NEWS: In a 5-4 split decision, the Supreme Court has awarded Al Gore's Nobel Prize to George W. Bush.

the Peace Prize is a joke. Carter won it (for what????). And didn't arafat win it???????
But Reagan (who ended the Cold War) didn't.

As did Kissenger. Explain that abberation.

I think both she and Obama should have stayed in the Senate for at least 2 full terms each to establish some more credibility, and in the mean time John Edwards should have run for Governor of North Carolina to build more credibility.

I don't tbhink Edwards would have had much chance...but I suppose it would have to be better than the 0% chance he has to be elected prseident in 2008.

As for Hillary, the time is now. Wait for a better time and you end up as Mario Cuomo, wondering what might have been.

C. Schwehr...words fail...

I disagree with PAD re Hillary. I ahev very little doubt that she will win the nomination. Obama might win Iowa and that will be her test. Given her strength elesewhere, her support, the high profile VIPs she has ammassed, etc etc, I think she will pass her test nicely. If Obama lived up to his early promise it would be one thing but I think he just isn't there yet.

In the election I'd give her about an 80% chance of winning. She'll run a better campaign than kerry--no hard task there--and win most if not all of the states he did. If she picks up one or two others, and she should, she wins.

If the Democrats make the same mistake they did before and reject the one they want (Dean/Hillary) for the one they think will win (Kerry/???) they will lose again. Fortunately for them, at this point it will be very very hard to stop her.

She'll also most likely be a much better president than her critics on the right and left expect.

There was about as much accuracy in Gore's film as there was in the WMD intelligence analysis used as justification for attacking Iraq.

Since our president currently makes only a shade more than the $380,000 per year league minimum for Major League Baseball, if Gore runs and is elected, I guess, as always, we'll get what we pay for.

"One other thing...isn't this the same or similar crowd that told us we were all going to fall under the spell of global warming 15-20 years ago?"

Let me correct myself...isn't this the same or similar crowd that told us we were all going to fall under the spell of a new ice age 15-20 years ago?

I don't think Hillary is unbeatable at all. First, she is very familiar to people. Second, most Americans want change from the current state of America; and as PAD said eight years ago, since the Republicans controlled the legislative and executive branches of government they'd have no one but themselves to blame for what happens. (In this case, an unwinnable quagmire and truly massive debts.) Third, she knows how to play the policial game, unlike Kerry (who assumed the Swift Boat matter would go away on its own, letting his detractors get their message out and repeat it before he bothered to address it). Fourth, Hillary can use the support of her former-president husband, while most Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush (while trying to have him raise money for them). Fifth, the Republicans may lose the support of the Religious Reich, er, Right to a third-party candidate, which would really scare the GOP (and would sadly make them more likely to become more conservative and intolerant instead of reaching out beyond their base to all).

I don't know who I'd pick between Clinton and Obama, but I think they're both very likely to be in the White House in '08.

Let me correct myself...isn't this the same or similar crowd that told us we were all going to fall under the spell of a new ice age 15-20 years ago?

Um, no.

Different people, different scenarios, different conclusions.

>I also feel that I don't vote then I got no room to complain and that would just out and out be too painful!

A familiar refrain, but one which really doesn't make sense. Lots of people I know are fed up with picking what they perceive as the lesser of two (or more) evils come election day. Just because they don't wish to vote for someone they don't like - presumably to prevent someone they really loathe from getting in power - doesn't mean they haven't the right to bitch about the sad state of electoral affairs. Example. Two evenings ago I voted in the Ontario Provincial election. I voted for the Green Party (I'm fed up with the antics/incompetence of the Big Three old-time parties) but saw my vote wasted as the party failed to see even ONE member elected, in spite of getting about 10% of the popular vote thanks to our screwed up, first-past-the-post system. If I hadn't voted, how would my criticism be any less valid? There would still be about 10% of voters who are left out in the cold because the system can't take them into consideration.

Sigh. It amazes me how often people dismiss the whole "Global Warming" thing based on knee-jerk responses and outright miquotations.

1) Serious study suggests that, yes, global warming is a natural cycle. No, they're not claiming that man is CAUSING it. They're saying that the things we do are ACCELERATING it beyond it's natural course. Dismissing it by claiming the scientists are saying man is the *sole* reason for it is such an oft-repeated misquote that it's become taken as fact and used as "Ammunition" against those who take the subject seriously. (I'm reminded of the "Al Gore says he invented the internet" misquote that got turned into "Fact")

2) The ones who dismiss Global Warming as a fantasy because "Rising temperatures can lead to another ice age? That doesn't make sense!!!" Read the bloody literature to see how a melt-off of polar ice into the seas can play havoc with weather patterns on a global scale. If there's anything we can do to slow the acceleration of such an effect, we should be bloody well doing it.

And just on a personal note, I've seen these changes just in my short lifetime (38); Growing up here on Long Island, we used to have monster snowstorms back in the 70's up to the mid-80's, several feet high that lasted for days. Now? For the last few years we've been lucky if we get any substantial snowfall accumlation (if we get any snow at all) at least *once* a year. And when we do, it usually melts off within a week due to sun or rain because it's too warm to snow.

Yes, you can argue that it's part of the "Natural process" until you're blue in the face, but a climate shift that severe in such a relatively short time of this planet's life? Damn right I'd be concerned enough to read up on it, especially considering I live on an island. Like it or not, there's just as much evidence to suggest that we've aggravated (Not "Caused", damnit!) the current climate change as there is to suggest that it's "Natural". And if it's at all possible that we can do something to slow this down, then hey... Why not at least TRY it and see if there's a difference before dismissing it?

I disagree with PAD re Hillary. I ahev very little doubt that she will win the nomination.

Only if Gore stays out. If he jumps in maybe as late as December, the primaries will offer voters the choice between healthcare reform and a president who will takes steps to prevent the US breaking out in a civil war over water. That, plus Gore as a candidate again will offer voters a retaliation against George Bush in the form of a preview before his presidency even ends of how poorly history will view him. The media will make it a field day.

Lotta names here i never saw before, all attacking (pick one or more) Gore, the Peace Prize, Hillary and "socialists".

Hmmm. Wonder if somen is googling or maybe the Other Side is posting lists of blogers that need to be "corrected"...

Can't recall if i've ever seen Jimmie J here before, but...

Posted by Jimmie J

[I]sn't this the same or similar crowd that told us we were all going to fall under the spell of a new ice age 15-20 years ago?

Actually, at least one scenario that sounds plausible to me is that global warming causes ice ages - it's cyclic.

That is, global warming (however caused) increases the average amount of water vapour in the air, which increase cloud cover, which increases the amount of energy reflected back into space, which allows the polar caps to grow, which leads to the ice age.

Like any feedback process, at some point you hit a tipping point, beyond which the process is irreversible.

No-one who has studied climatological history - hell, glanced casually at it with an open mind - denies that, yes, such cycles are natural.

What appears verey probable, however, is that humanity's actions are both accelerating the process, and possibly driving it so far that, in electronic terms, it latches up at one extreme.

I have to admit to bursting out laughing at C.Schwehr's "Democrat/socialist" construction since you don't have anything in the US that looks remotely like socialism to the rest of the word. To us you have a right wing party - the Democrats - and a far-right party - the Republicans. The idea that Hillary Clinton is any sort of socialist is utterly risible. If she was a British politician the party where she would fit most comfortably is our Conservative party.

I think that people who suggest that Gore would be a formidible addition to the democratic field are forgetting one thing--this is Al Gore. It isn't so much that he has changed his ways as that he has changed his venue. He is not a great debater--beating Ross Perot like a rented mule was fine but he did not exactly blow GW out of the water and many would suggest his performance there might have lost him the election (Of course, in an election that close ANYTHING you did wrong costs you the election).

He has been very careful to avoid debate with global warming critics or even those who just don't buy his gloomier assesments of the situation. He will not have that luxury in any debate with the other Democratic candidates, who will all be coming after him with long knives.

"A familiar refrain, but one which really doesn't make sense. Lots of people I know are fed up with picking what they perceive as the lesser of two (or more) evils come election day. Just because they don't wish to vote for someone they don't like - presumably to prevent someone they really loathe from getting in power - doesn't mean they haven't the right to bitch about the sad state of electoral affairs."

That's absolutely untrue. If any potential voter isn't contributing to the process, then one is simply abdicating their primary responsibilities as a voter. There's no middle ground here.

"Two evenings ago I voted in the Ontario Provincial election. I voted for the Green Party (I'm fed up with the antics/incompetence of the Big Three old-time parties) but saw my vote wasted as the party failed to see even ONE member elected, in spite of getting about 10% of the popular vote thanks to our screwed up, first-past-the-post system. If I hadn't voted, how would my criticism be any less valid?"

The answer: if you didn't vote, then you wouldn't have contributed to the voice of opposition. Democracy still works best when it's on a TWO-WAY street.

Or to paraphrase one mindset of followers of 'King George', "Do you REALLY want the terrorists to win?" The only way to eventually instigate change is to KEEP ON PUSHING for reforms, and keep tossing road blocks in the way of those currently in power.

It isn't so much that he has changed his ways as that he has changed his venue. He is not a great debater--beating Ross Perot like a rented mule was fine but he did not exactly blow GW out of the water and many would suggest his performance there might have lost him the election (Of course, in an election that close ANYTHING you did wrong costs you the election).

He has been very careful to avoid debate with global warming critics or even those who just don't buy his gloomier assesments of the situation.

One debates to establish credibility for one's self or one's position. He walks into any debate now with a Nobel win on an environmental issue. Yes, he could throw away his advantage, but he doesn't have to.

Chris: "I would love to give Hillary a try as President just for the social aspect of things. We have had a bunch of rich white straight men running this country for over 200 years, lets see what happens when we put a woman behind the wheel."

A rich, white, straight woman.

Though I don't think it would be fair to pretend that all Presidents come from affluent backgrounds. Plenty of them--Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton--including many who most left their imprint on this country (whether for good or ill) were from distinctly middle-class or working-class backgrounds.

Anyone that doubts that Hillary will win should read http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/13/hillary/?source=whitelist

Shameless manipulation? Well, yeah, but that's what works. She's doing what the others are either too dopey to know they need to do or just aren't very good at doing it.

So far this has been like watching kids taking on a grownup. She hasn't even had to bring out the big guns yet. This could change--Obama winning Iowa would require the Clintons to get a little bit of figurative blood on their hands and they will have to be careful not to overdo it--but having done everything so right so far it's hard to imagine her suddenly blowing it all.

My whole gripe with a big section of the Global Warming alarmists is that they twist the truth or lie outright. The most fanatical want a world with no industry (impossible) and zero emmissions (theoretically possible, but not economically feasible on a large scale).

Any scientist who says that he/she knows all the cause and effect variables that result in global warming and cooling cycles is a liar. Likewise, any scientist who definitively says man IS or IS NOT responsible for the current warming trend is also a liar.

The fact is, we don't know for sure why we seem to be entering a warming trend. Man could be responsible, based on increases in carbon dioxide over the past 500,000 years, but it's no "slam dunk." Hell, it's not even a layup.

Because we don't know how the warming trend is occurring, no one, I repeat no one, can be sure if anything we do can temper the "problem," let alone reverse it.

I hate the disingenuous news articles that cite how this or that effect is "the worst in 500 years." As any paleoclimatologist can tell you, we went through a significant warming cycle only about 800 years ago long before there was any global industry. This warming trend allowed the Vikings to briefly settle in places along the Northern Atlantic rim that just a few hundred years later became uninhabitable again.

And the whole "rising sea level" flap is just as disingenuous. Due to slow glacial/ice cap melt-off, the sea level has steadily risen more than 300 feet -- that's right, about the height of a 30-story office building -- in the past 20,000 years. During that time period, can you imagine how many coastal areas inhabited by man have already been swallowed by the sea?

Frankly, I find disgusting the arrogance of those who think they have all the answers and can actually control Mother Nature. If every factory shut down tomorrow, there's no guarantee the climate would change at all. Not only that, one super volcano explosion, or one good smack from a big enough chunk of space rock, and our puny little efforts at controlling our environment would come to a crashing halt.

I'm all for a continuous effort to try and clean up our atmosphere and environment to give us a more healthy place to live, but don't, for one second, try to sell me on the "we can control global weather" snake oil. For, while we MAY be affecting the climate, we certainly cannot control it.

PAD: "I still think Clinton is too polarizing a figure for a considerable number of Democrats to get behind, while the GOP will be able to use that hatred of her as a rallying point to strengthen their own candidate: "Yeah, our guy isn't great, but do you really want Hillary Clinton in power?""

Yeah, and that strategy worked so well for the Democrats and Kerry in '04.

Gore is not going to run. Had the Nobel not landed in his lap, it might be a different story. But now? No, he has everything to lose and really nothing to win. You can look at this from two different viewpoints.

1) Lets say that Gore really is a passionate environmentalist who's decided that his calling is finally being fulfilled. He has his crusade and he's just been elevated to a level that, for his mission, the presidency can't touch. If he were to become president, he inherits so many distractions and issues that would divert his time and attention from his goal that it would be worthless to him. He would be taken away from his passion for four to eight years to do "mundane" things that really wouldn't help his cause in the least. Yeah, you can say that he'd try to use the office to effect change, but he might see greater himself having effectiveness as the leader of of a movement rather then being part of a government system that, more often then not, eats its own to the point of getting nothing done.

2) Lets say that Gore is just a failed politician and an egotist. He's just been given a massive ego stroke. Now he gets to decide how best to polish his new and improved ego. He could set himself up pretty nice as the elder spokesman of the cause. He gets to advise world leaders and criticize those he disapproves of from his own pulpit without actually having to debate anyone or being forced into entering into any damaging public confrontations. If he becomes president, every failure will be magnified a thousand fold. He'll inherit the war, he'll inherit the blame for whatever happens for the next four to eight years because of this war, he'll lose fights with congress, he'll be blamed, likely both rightly and wrongly, whatever ails the nation in 2012, etc. He becomes an average man who was an average president rather then being the new messiah of the environmental movement. He takes a step down to become a, likely, twice failed politician. And that's only if he wins. He's even more screwed if he becomes a two time (depending on who's counting) loser.

Even if you take the middle ground between the two, I think that Gore would end up weighing the options and keep his hat far away from this race.

As to Hillary... Same old song, different week. She was too unelectable to win the Senate. She was going to get destroyed by the Republican machine. Her opponent was going to etc, etc, etc. And hey, I'll admit that I was iffy on her this time last year, but she's far and away looking like the front runner now. It's fast becoming her race to lose and not the others' race to win. And I think she's become to savvy to make any major missteps in between now and November 2008.

Right now, and I do realize that this could change by Monday, Giuliani seems to be Republican front runner. In a contest between Giuliani and Clinton, I don't think that the negatives against Clinton will be as great a factor as many suggest. Hell, right now, Thompson may seem to be the best candidate to take advantage of Hillary's negatives, but that will change the more Thompson is forced to show that he's all hype and no substance. But Giuliani? I know a lot of Republicans and Conservatives that are pinning their hopes on Rudy, but it'll likely turn out like her "unwinnable" first run for her senate seat. She'll likely eat Rudy alive.

I don't even think that the GOP hauling out every old lie about the Clintons, as some have already started to do, will be that big of a deal. It's not sticking to the walls this time because it's old, debunked news to everybody but the most ardent Clinton haters. Well, they're not voting for Hillary anyhow.

C. Schwehr,

Wow... Just.... Wow. No anger/ignorance issues there.

dave w.: "the Peace Prize is a joke. Carter won it (for what????). And didn't arafat win it???????"

Carter won it for decades of humanitarian efforts after leaving the White House. And Arafat won it jointly with SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel and YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel because it looked as though they were all finally ready to broker a peace. As many others have pointed out, it was an optimistic nomination that should have been held off until there were signs that their efforts would actually do something.

Other winners who you may want to irrationally disparage were DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES), JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE, JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE, NELSON MANDELA and FREDRIK WILLEM DE KLERK, THE 14TH DALAI LAMA (TENZIN GYATSO), THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. and MOTHER TERESA to name a few. Yeah, it's such a worthless honor given to soooo many scumbags.

dave w.: "But Reagan (who ended the Cold War) didn't."

Turn Rush and Hannity off and sing a new song already.

Bill Mulligan: "Shameless manipulation? Well, yeah, but that's what works. She's doing what the others are either too dopey to know they need to do or just aren't very good at doing it."

And who hasn't engaged in that in their political career? Shameless manipulation is usually around half of any given politician's arsenal. She's better at it then some and she still comes off looking more presidential in the debated then just about all of her opponents in her party and the other side.

My whole gripe with a big section of the Global Warming alarmists is that they twist the truth or lie outright. The most fanatical want a world with no industry (impossible) and zero emmissions (theoretically possible, but not economically feasible on a large scale).

Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won't end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down.

R. Maheras: "For, while we MAY be affecting the climate, we certainly cannot control it. "

We don't really need to contribute to the problem or accelerate it any further either. The very nature of man's technology says that we will be to some degree, but the very nature of our ingenuity when faced with a problem shows that we can create better technology that does not contribute to the problem to the level we might.

Look at it like this...

You can't change the fact that you're growing older and you're going to die. But, you now what? You can change how you grow older and how you die. You may even change when die. But you have to act to do so. You have to decide that your lifestyle choices are going to be healthy (or at least healthier.) If you just decide that you can't stop your inevitable death and there's no point in trying to live well, then you will create greater problems for yourself down the road. Same here.

Even if you want to argue whether or not man can greatly effect the global environment, you have to admit that we can effect the local environment. We've caused rivers to burn, water to kill and air to be almost unbreathable in some urban environments. The more we move towards technology that's friendly to the global environment, the farther we move away from these other things. You also have to realize that, if you acknowledge the damage we've done locally, you admit that we can effect the global environment. If, as our numbers increase, enough small but growing pockets of mankind damage their local environments, then it will eventually effect the larger environments. The more we alter the little things, the more our ability to alter the larger things.

One tiny flame does nothing. A roaring fire can heat a room. Same thing here.

And the whole "rising sea level" flap is just as disingenuous. Due to slow glacial/ice cap melt-off, the sea level has steadily risen more than 300 feet -- that's right, about the height of a 30-story office building -- in the past 20,000 years. During that time period, can you imagine how many coastal areas inhabited by man have already been swallowed by the sea?

Given that that works out to an average of 0.015 feet per year (.18 inches, or 1 foot over the course of an average human lifespan), I daresay they were able to see it coming and do something about it. Especially because for the majority of that 20,000 years human settlements weren't permanent and hard to move, as they tend to be nowadays. But I'm sure people who live in areas that are at or below sea level, like the Netherlands or New Orleans, appreciate the reassurance that they have nothing to worry about...unless the process were to happen more quickly than over 200 centuries, or something.

"the Peace Prize is a joke. Carter won it (for what????). And didn't arafat win it???????
But Reagan (who ended the Cold War) didn't."

Well If the Camp David Acords were not enough to win I humbely submit the following link...

www.cartercenter.org

Jimmy Carter is the living embodiment of the single worst thing that can ever be said about America.... "You can be to good of man to be president"

While I can not guess if another ex-president might win the Nobel Peace Prize in the future I can almost guarentee it will not be a republican ex-president to do it. (even my republican friends agree with me on this)

Mike wrote: "Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won't end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down."

Protectionist sniveling? No, Mike -- just reality talking. I have no stake in business -- I'm just tired of people who twist the truth -- liberal or conservative -- to push their own agendas.

If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that such a "race" has been going on for at least 40 years now, and there have been some great advances in cleaning up the environment.

Apparently, however, there are some who don't believe this "race" has been run fast enough, so they resort to disingenuous reporting, misinformation, or outright lies.

When I was younger, I fell victim to the mindset that lies and disinformation were OK if it was "for a good cause." After all, I rationalized, the "bad guys" do it.

But I don't subscribe to that way of thinking anymore. I have a saying now that I try to live by: "Hyperbole is the primary weapon of those with the weakest argument."

In other words, if one has to resort to hyperbole, than you know what? They just might be wrong.

Al Gore's film uses hyperbole to make his point -- to alarm people -- to, as you put it, spark a "race to reduce emmissions." That does nothing but erode his credibility, in my opinion.

Tell me the truth, and I'll support you. Exaggerate or lie to me, and you'll get nothing from me but contempt.

Doug wrote: "But I'm sure people who live in areas that are at or below sea level, like the Netherlands or New Orleans, appreciate the reassurance that they have nothing to worry about...unless the process were to happen more quickly than over 200 centuries, or something."

In the case of New Orleans and the Neatherlands, I'm afraid it's a case of "dead man walking" unless we head back into another Ice Age.

My whole gripe with a big section of the Global Warming alarmists is that they twist the truth or lie outright. The most fanatical want a world with no industry (impossible) and zero emmissions (theoretically possible, but not economically feasible on a large scale).

Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won't end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down.

Protectionist sniveling? No, Mike -- just reality talking. I have no stake in business -- I'm just tired of people who twist the truth -- liberal or conservative -- to push their own agendas.

If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that such a "race" has been going on for at least 40 years now, and there have been some great advances in cleaning up the environment.

Apparently, however, there are some who don't believe this "race" has been run fast enough, so they resort to disingenuous reporting, misinformation, or outright lies.

Since you're giving instruction on honesty: name a government program that's taken bids to assemble a zero-emissions technology, as the government took bids in the space race.

Oh, you mean like a hydrogen-powered car? Argonne National Laboratory is doing such research on that as we speak -- I know because I toured their alternate fuels R&D section.

And NASA was at the forefront of the very successful effort to develop commercial wind turbine to make wind power a reality.

And just in the news the other day was a Pentagon proposal to generate power in space and beam it back to Earth -- a process that would not cause environmental problems like coal-fired power generation plants.

There are plenty more examples -- what's your point?

"Had the Nobel not landed in his lap, it might be a different story.
Darn it, Chandler, I read that and had a whole reasoned, intelligent response going and then you ruined it by saying the same things. Jerk. Just for that, I am going to send you the movie to punish you. Especially after that visual of Rush and Hannity singing together. Give me nightmares for weeks, why don'tcha?

As for the "can't change the fact that you're getting older" thing, I just heard about research being done by someone whose name escapes me at the moment, I'll have to check around to see if I can find it, but by activating certain sections of genetics, they've been able to double the lifespan of test animals. It has to do with the structures in DNA that govern the factors that make babies be born young. I'll see if I can find out where it is to let you guys know.

"Just for that, I am going to send you the movie to punish you."

You're going to send me Planet terror? Ok... I take back everything I said.

Bill Mulligan: "Shameless manipulation? Well, yeah, but that's what works. She's doing what the others are either too dopey to know they need to do or just aren't very good at doing it."

And who hasn't engaged in that in their political career? Shameless manipulation is usually around half of any given politician's arsenal. She's better at it then some and she still comes off looking more presidential in the debated then just about all of her opponents in her party and the other side.

Didn't mean to give the impression that I disagree with anything you say re Hillary because I don't. Except maybe the part about eating Giulliani alive. While he starts at a disadvantage he does occasionally show flashes of a genuine "happy warrior" stylee of politics that reagan and Bill Clinton had, one that could compare favorably to the way Hillary tends to come across.

The only weakness i can see in Hillary is that she has things so planned that she could--could--have trouble when things go off the expected track. Elections are naturally chaotic. Then again, this has not stopped her from success so far so maybe she has a better gift for spontaneity than her reputation suggests.

Given that that works out to an average of 0.015 feet per year (.18 inches, or 1 foot over the course of an average human lifespan), I daresay they were able to see it coming and do something about it. Especially because for the majority of that 20,000 years human settlements weren't permanent and hard to move, as they tend to be nowadays. But I'm sure people who live in areas that are at or below sea level, like the Netherlands or New Orleans, appreciate the reassurance that they have nothing to worry about...unless the process were to happen more quickly than over 200 centuries, or something.

Doug, even if it doesn't accelerate, even if global warming ends up being overstated, the folks in New Orleans need to worry. When you are A-below sea level and B-next to the sea, you have worries. The only solution would be to wait until some natural disaster destroys the place and rebuild in somewhere else. Which, clearly, is not a solution anyone really is willing to contemplate.

As for the "can't change the fact that you're getting older" thing, I just heard about research being done by someone whose name escapes me at the moment, I'll have to check around to see if I can find it, but by activating certain sections of genetics, they've been able to double the lifespan of test animals. It has to do with the structures in DNA that govern the factors that make babies be born young. I'll see if I can find out where it is to let you guys know.

While I'm all for research into lifespan extension (and, oddly, I seem to be for it more and more as I get older), I'll bet that it's going to be very difficult to beat this one. If mortality were something that could be easily improved with a few genetic tweaks shouldn't we have seen a few mutation in that direction by now? It has a clear evolutionary advantage. Aging and death seem to be a hardwired requirement of life (or at least sexually reproducing lifeforms. I suppose one could argue that all amoeba are essentially the original amoeba, forever and ever, amoeba without end, amen).

Peter David: "'Yeah, our guy isn't great, but do you really want Hillary Clinton in power?'"

Yes, they can attack Hilary in that fashion. In return, she can bring up the poorly planned and executed war in Iraq, the bungled war on terror, the slowing economy, and a whole host of other thing that happened during the Republicans' watch.

At one time, I'd've agreed with you that Hilary was unelectable. But times change, and I think you're dead wrong on this one.

As Bill Mulligan pointed out, the Democrats went with the "electable" candidate in 2004 and lost. This year, I think they should place their bets on the best candidate. I personally never thought that would be Ms. Clinton, but I believe she has proven me wrong.

Bill Mulligan: "Except maybe the part about eating Giulliani alive."

Nah, I think she can take out Rudy because he’s being a little to flagrant with his exaggerations about jis record. If he wins the nod and keeps that up against Hillary, he’ll get killed. It’ll be hard enough for the GOP to get people all worked up about the same old claims that they made years ago about Bill and Hillary. How much harder do you think Rudy will make it for them, and himself, if he keeps “exaggerating” his tax cutting records and, even better, facts about his actions during 9/11?

Bill, the two guys in Texas that did the research are Dr. Jerry Shay and Dr. Woody Wright.(I don't know, would he? Sorry, couldn't resist.) There are a couple articles("The Start of Anti-Aging Medicine?" is one, but I'd need a gerontological certificate to get access to it.) There's a book coming out, Forever and Ever based on their work, and the work of other people in the field.

I don't know about Clinton eating Giuliani alive. I mean, I think he'd put up at least a significant struggle in that. Figuratively speaking, of course. Still, keep the fava beans and Chianti away from her.

Ooooooooookay...

Forget messing around with genes and playing with the weather. THIS is the future we need to work towards putting a stop to.

And they said that Galaxina was just bad science fiction.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/wid/11915829?GT1=10450

Y'know, now the whole idea of Robert Charles Orin Kilroy getting into the Roboto disguise is just really disturbing. Thanks a LOT, Jerry. Durn song ruiner.

Don't worry Sean. You'll always have Queen's Flash Gordon. We won't take that one away from you.

Bill Mulligan: I'm all for research into lifespan extension (and, oddly, I seem to be for it more and more as I get older)

Well Bill, aren't Zombies essentially immortal? Don't you see where all that genetic research is going? Braaaains...

My whole gripe with a big section of the Global Warming alarmists is that they twist the truth or lie outright. The most fanatical want a world with no industry (impossible) and zero emmissions (theoretically possible, but not economically feasible on a large scale).

Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won't end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down.

Protectionist sniveling? No, Mike -- just reality talking. I have no stake in business -- I'm just tired of people who twist the truth -- liberal or conservative -- to push their own agendas.

If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that such a "race" has been going on for at least 40 years now, and there have been some great advances in cleaning up the environment.

Apparently, however, there are some who don't believe this "race" has been run fast enough, so they resort to disingenuous reporting, misinformation, or outright lies.

Since you're giving instruction on honesty: name a government program that's taken bids to assemble a zero-emissions technology, as the government took bids in the space race.

Oh, you mean like a hydrogen-powered car? Argonne National Laboratory is doing such research on that as we speak -- I know because I toured their alternate fuels R&D section.

And NASA was at the forefront of the very successful effort to develop commercial wind turbine to make wind power a reality.

And just in the news the other day was a Pentagon proposal to generate power in space and beam it back to Earth -- a process that would not cause environmental problems like coal-fired power generation plants.

There are plenty more examples -- what's your point?

My point is, for all your examples, you've listed no disadvantage to nurturing any of them. The relevant question doesn't seem to be what my point is, but what your point is.

Reminds me of what George Carlin said

Just a side note, but whenever I see someone quote Carlin online, I feel compelled to check snopes to see if it's another bogus essay that he really didn't write. Couldn't find one that refutes this one though.

Global climate change is a complex issue. Unfortunately, many of the skeptics, as we can see from some of the posts here, are more interested attacking the messenger (ie, labeling every as part of a "socialist agenda") rather than actually show this mountain of scientific evidence that they claim exists to refute the consensus among about 90% of climatologists that human activity is indeed impacting on the average global temperature.

BTW, as someone who works as environmental scientist, not an activist, I don't know anyone who is seriously advocating a "zero emissions" or "zero industry" approach. Indeed, we realize that simple reality that the only way to support the 6.6 billion people on this planet already is to continue to develop new technologies to meet their needs.

Now that said, Gore's movie may have helped to get more people talking about the issues, but it does suffer from exagerations in a few places.

As for Gore running, I don't think he will. If he does, however, I hope he doesn't repeat his previous mistake of returing to his previous stiff and technocratic persona where all of his comments are run through focus groups. One of things that make him more attractive as a candidate today is that when he speaks, he appears to be more sincere in what he's talking about than he did in 2000.

Now on to Hillary: She's benefiting a lot right now from the media image as the inevitible nominee. Which ticks me off to no end since not a single primary vote has been cast yet. Of course, lots of people thought Dean was going to be the inevitible nominee in 2004 and McCain had a lock in 2000. It's Hillary's race to lose, but if she has her "scream" moment, she could still blow it.

Den, Carlin did that bit on an HBO special a few years back. I wish I could remember the name of it, but unfortunately it's been a long week and it's after midnight and I've been at work now since 9:45 this morning.

David, avoid the zombie conversations, man, avoid them! Its too late for me, but you still have a chance to escape....!

If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that such a "race" has been going on for at least 40 years now, and there have been some great advances in cleaning up the environment.

And dude, what good is your insistence the US is running in a zero-emissions race if the US doesn't demonstrate an interest in reaching the finish?

Den & Sean,

I think it was What Am I Doing in NJ.

Mike wrote: "My point is, for all your examples, you've listed no disadvantage to nurturing any of them. The relevant question doesn't seem to be what my point is, but what your point is."

What, did you already forget the discussion points? Let me recap. You called me sniveling protectionist because I complained that Gore's film was full of hyperbole and because I said that the there are environmental alarmists using scare tactics to lie and mislead others about the warming trend we appear to be going through.

You appeared to rationalize those actions by inferring that such subterfuge might generate interest in science in education and spur a race to erase emmissions.

I said we already have such a race going on, which you apparently disagreed with, and you then asked for examples showing how the government is already involved in zero-emmission research. So, I provide you with examples, and now you act like somewhere I was arguing against developing zero emmissions technology at all.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I'm all for environmental progress (and actually, I have been a strong environmental advocate for more than 30 years), but I will not tolerate those who lie, obfuscate or mislead to achieve those goals.

Protectionist sniveling? No, Mike -- just reality talking. I have no stake in business -- I'm just tired of people who twist the truth -- liberal or conservative -- to push their own agendas.

If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that such a "race" has been going on for at least 40 years now, and there have been some great advances in cleaning up the environment.

Apparently, however, there are some who don't believe this "race" has been run fast enough, so they resort to disingenuous reporting, misinformation, or outright lies.

Since you're giving instruction on honesty: name a government program that's taken bids to assemble a zero-emissions technology, as the government took bids in the space race.

Oh, you mean like a hydrogen-powered car? Argonne National Laboratory is doing such research on that as we speak -- I know because I toured their alternate fuels R&D section.

And NASA was at the forefront of the very successful effort to develop commercial wind turbine to make wind power a reality.

And just in the news the other day was a Pentagon proposal to generate power in space and beam it back to Earth -- a process that would not cause environmental problems like coal-fired power generation plants.

There are plenty more examples -- what's your point?

My point is, for all your examples, you've listed no disadvantage to any of them. The relevant question doesn't seem to be what my point is, but what your point is....

And dude, what good is your insistence the US is running in a zero-emissions race if the US doesn't demonstrate an interest in reaching the finish?

What, did you already forget the discussion points? Let me recap. You called me sniveling protectionist because I complained that Gore's film was full of hyperbole and because I said that the there are environmental alarmists using scare tactics to lie and mislead others about the warming trend we appear to be going through.

You appeared to rationalize those actions by inferring that such subterfuge might generate interest in science in education and spur a race to erase emmissions.

I said we already have such a race going on, which you apparently disagreed with, and you then asked for examples showing how the government is already involved in zero-emmission research. So, I provide you with examples, and now you act like somewhere I was arguing against developing zero emmissions technology at all.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I'm all for environmental progress (and actually, I have been a strong environmental advocate for more than 30 years), but I will not tolerate those who lie, obfuscate or mislead to achieve those goals.

You don't seem to be denying the US isn't interested in ever finishing the burdensome zero-emissions race you claim alarmist scare tactics have coerced us into running over the last 40 years. To me it looks like your fingers won't unwrap from protectionist sniveling, and you offer us nothing else to imagine what your beef is.

Screw the pollution-apologists. Maybe scientists haven't nailed down the exact causes of current environmental changes (all for the worse for humankind), but at least THEY ARE LOOKING!

Imagine these moronic right-wingers as doctors...

Apparently, they want to wait for the autopsy report to see what could have been done to save the patient...

If wanting a stable (and health) environment makes me a "socialist," then by-God so be it.

And since I have no choice but to advance socialism, my first choice is to nationalize the health industry. It's now a public service like education or police. And next, I will nationalize the energy industry. It, too, is a necessary human service which should not be left to the manipulations of profiteers.

But I leave untouched the entertainment industries. Except for cabals like the RIAA, which is doing more to destroy human creativity than religion ever did.

Well Bill, aren't Zombies essentially immortal? Don't you see where all that genetic research is going? Braaaains...

Actually nature has already achieved immortality. It's called "cancer".

When Henrietta Lacks died in 1953 of cervical cancer they saved a few of her cells and have used them ever since in bio research. It's been estimated that if all of her bio-mass were gathered together it would be the largest animal biomass on earth, bigger than a few blue whales put together. (The so called HeLa cells are so prolific that they have been known to contaminate labs like kudzu.).

So immortality is quite possible...but not so great.

Hhmmmm.........

Zombies... Cancer... Zombies... Cancer... Zombies...

I wonder... Could an theory be credibly put forward that the virus (if you go that route rather then the supernatural route) that re-animates the dead does so by causing some mutated form of cancer? The cells would attempt to repair themselves rather then multiplying since the living tissue is gone and this would give the corpse a limited "lifespan" after death. The intellect is gone with the soul, but the basic drives of the reptile mind (thus the impulse to feed) would pilot the corpse's actions.

It would be unique approach, and one that would offer up the idea of a cure. Not, mind you, for the infected, but rather for the ones left alive.

C. Schwehr -
...just so the socialists...
...one of the democratic/socialists...
...as you socialists call it....

Ahh, you've gotta love the new right-wing buzzwords being thrown around these days.

What will they think of next?

Mike wrote: "You don't seem to be denying the US isn't interested in ever finishing the burdensome zero-emissions race you claim alarmist scare tactics have coerced us into running over the last 40 years. To me it looks like your fingers won't unwrap from protectionist sniveling, and you offer us nothing else to imagine what your beef is."

This statement makes no sense, and again stoops to mere name-calling. So much for intelligent discourse.

I found this quite interesting...

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

This statement makes no sense, and again stoops to mere name-calling. So much for intelligent discourse.

I have literally abstained from name-calling. So much for you giving instruction on honesty.

And for another view on Dr. Gray's hypothesis:

"For years, perhaps decades, Gray has been ascribing all sorts of climate changes and hurricane cycles to fluctuations in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), an overturning circulation in the Atlantic ocean associated with formation of deep water in the North Atlantic. None of the assertions are based on rigorous statistical associations, oceanographic observations or physically based simulations; it is all seat-of -the-pants stuff of a sort that was common in the early days of climate studies, but which is difficult to evaluate when viewed as a scientific hypothesis."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/#more-295

"If wanting a stable (and health) environment makes me a "socialist," then by-God so be it."

Hey, it's not so bad. At least you can be friends with Wadsworth's wife.

Mike wrote: "I have literally abstained from name-calling. So much for you giving instruction on honesty."

Oh, apparently "sniveling protectionist" is a compliment in your lexicon. My bad.

I first said Hillary would be our next president just after Bush's '04 re-election. People thought I was crazy (and they still do, but for different reasons) at the time, because "everybody hates her."

Now I admit that Hillary couldn't beat an untrained bear in a general election, but the Republicans aren't nominating a bear. Rudy is the absolute worst. The man couldn't be less popular if he grew out a Hitler mustache. The evangelical-wing would be more likely to vote for Bin Laden... he's pretty religious, so he is probably against abortion.

In conclusion, if it is Hillary v. Rudy the former will win in a Reagan v. Carter landslide, if not a Reagan v. Mondale one. If it is Hillary v. McRompson it won't be quite as bad for the Republicans, but they will still lose.

I wonder... Could an theory be credibly put forward that the virus (if you go that route rather then the supernatural route) that re-animates the dead does so by causing some mutated form of cancer? The cells would attempt to repair themselves rather then multiplying since the living tissue is gone and this would give the corpse a limited "lifespan" after death. The intellect is gone with the soul, but the basic drives of the reptile mind (thus the impulse to feed) would pilot the corpse's actions.

The sequel script I'm still writing postulates something similar--zombification essentially turns the infected into a kind of colonial organism, similar to a Portuguese man of war, with each cell able to live independently of the others. Thus, damage to any part of the body has little effect.

Now one can wonder how the dead are able to keep going energy-wise. Well, like a crocodile, the loss of endothermic metabolism allows a very long time between meals--something like 90% of our food intake is used to generate body heat, according to valid statistics I just pulled out of my ass.

Now I admit that Hillary couldn't beat an untrained bear in a general election, but the Republicans aren't nominating a bear. Rudy is the absolute worst. The man couldn't be less popular if he grew out a Hitler mustache. The evangelical-wing would be more likely to vote for Bin Laden... he's pretty religious, so he is probably against abortion.

I don't entirely agree with the assessment of Rudy but I would definitely give the edge to Hillary. I mean, just imagine how much fun the press will have when Team Clinton appoints Donna Hanover as spokesman. And if the religious right makes good on their threats to run a third party candidate and they get someone of even the slightest ability to look good...might as well start asking Hillary what color she wants the drapes.

This statement makes no sense, and again stoops to mere name-calling. So much for intelligent discourse.

I have literally abstained from name-calling. So much for you giving instruction on honesty.

Oh, apparently "sniveling protectionist" is a compliment in your lexicon. My bad.

Well, look at you attributing to me a term you introduced into the thread yourself, and you will only find in my posts where I've cited something you've said. Your bad, indeed.

Posted by: Jimmie J at October 14, 2007 08:47 PM:
"I found this quite interesting...

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous"

Posted by: Den at October 14, 2007 10:59 PM:
"And for another view on Dr. Gray's hypothesis:"

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 14, 2007 08:03 PM:

"C. Schwehr -
...just so the socialists...
...one of the democratic/socialists...
...as you socialists call it....

Ahh, you've gotta love the new right-wing buzzwords being thrown around these days."

Micha:
It seems Nowadays each political point of view can havve its own scientists, its own historians, its own military experts, its own news sources, its own internet sites, its own terminology, its own comedians, etc. It makes it very difficult for people who are not experts or ideologically affiliated to form informed opinions.

----------------

R. Maheras, I think you've frequented this blog often enough to be familiar with the uniques aspects of interactions with Mike.

If by "[unique] aspects of interactions with Mike" you mean "Mike simply holding people to what they say," well, good for me.

Mike wrote on Oct. 13 at 12:24 p.m.: "Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won't end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down."

No, Mike.

See above. It was you who first used the term "protectionist sniveling" -- referring to me, responding to my comment about Global Warming alarmists who think is acceptable to twist the truth or lie outright.

Hey, I'm making a brief retirement from Mike appearance because I've had it with him...again...

Mike says

"If by "[unique] aspects of interactions with Mike" you mean "Mike simply holding people to what they say," well, good for me."

He also says "Well, look at you attributing to me a term you introduced into the thread yourself, and you will only find in my posts where I've cited something you've said. Your bad, indeed."

And here's the third charmer: "I have literally abstained from name-calling. So much for you giving instruction on honesty."

Let's just take all that on it's face. Mike, you can't go around repeating names, then claim to not be calling names, on the excuse that you didn't start it. That doesn't fly on the playground, and it doesn't fly here.

Besides which, you're wrong. The first use of "protectionist" and "sniviling" are by you. You introduced those terms to the thread, and didn't deny their use directed toward R. Maheras.

Not only are you a name-caller...a sound debating technique, to be sure...you're a LYING name-caller.

For the record, I'm not debating you. I'm attacking you. Name calling is thus an acceptable tact to use.

"If by "[unique] aspects of interactions with Mike" you mean "Mike simply holding people to what they say," well, good for me."

I don't.

found this quite interesting...

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

That's nice.

What does he say in the peer-reviewed literature?

I don't get how AlGore wins the Nobel PEACE prize. Even if you believe what he is saying it is a PEACE prize. What does his movie have to do
with PEACE?

The list below includes people that are more deserving

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010732

"What does his movie have to do with PEACE?"

The concept is that by causing people to be prepared now, it will head off the conflicts created by emergency migrations of entire populations or countries. Take England as an example.

If the warmer currents that flow North from warmer waters South of England were to shift due to changes in the water temperature creating a new current patter, then the colder waters from the North would then be the waters surrounding England's shores. The warmer Southern waters are a major reason that England's climate is livable. Remove that warmer current and the average temperature drops quite a bit. Food production is damaged and the general livability of the area for the native population goes down.

If this were to happen to an unprepared nation of people, the theoretical possibilities are mass migration and greater competition amongst themselves and with others for resources. Both of these things are causes for conflict with other nations.

The explanation for Gore's win of the Peace prize is that his creating more awareness creates more preparedness and thus helps to avert the doomsday scenario on several levels. Not sure I agree with that myself, but you can kinda see where the concept could be wedged in there.

And if the religious right makes good on their threats to run a third party candidate and they get someone of even the slightest ability to look good...might as well start asking Hillary what color she wants the drapes.

I doubt the religious right/social conservatives will carry out that threat. Dobson is a professional whiner who will never be happy no matter who gets the nomination. He'll whine and pout and make sure that the eventual GOP nominee kisses his, er, ring and makes the appropriate sound bytes. If the nominee doesn't, though, he'll just sit at home and count all the fundraising money a Hillary presidency will bring in to his movement.

What does he say in the peer-reviewed literature?

Well, according to the realclimate.org link I provided above, Gray hasn't submitted his work to any peer-reviewed journal. Now, whether that's because his hypothesis isn't "PC" or because his science is faulty is a question that will be debated, but I recommend reading the realclimate article before accepting his view as gospel. They don't attack Gray for his politics or his personality, but they do discuss in detail the fact that his hypothesis lacks any supporting data that has been collected and subjected to peer review.

The list below includes people that are more deserving

And Fox News is, of course, crying that Petraeus didn't win. I'm amazed at all the outrage over Gore winning. If you thought any of those people were more deserving, did you nominate them? Did you even think of who was more deserving until you found out Gore won? The committee is entitled to choose whom they want. But all this bile over Gore getting the prize is just sour grapes.

If I had to guess, I would suspect that 90% of the global climate change denial from conservatives stems from the fact that liberals have embraced it.

[i]Micha:
It seems Nowadays each political point of view can havve its own scientists, its own historians, its own military experts, its own news sources, its own internet sites, its own terminology, its own comedians, etc. It makes it very difficult for people who are not experts or ideologically affiliated to form informed opinions.[/i]

I blame the corporations and Republicans. This "buying your own science" goes back to Big Tobacco trying to protect the legality of cigarettes, with the GOP jumping on to preserve their chief source of campaign money. Studies of the 1970s exposed the dangers of pollution, etc. and the corporations needed "counter-studies." It didn't matter if they were true, only that they create UNCERTAINTY. (This is also the time that the news became labeled as "liberal" because all the stories were going against big business and GOP corruption.)

Because of these manipulations, I have avoided seeking absolute certainty. Now I go with the legal standard of "reasonable doubt."

R. Maheras v. Mike

Maybe Mike thought R. has hay fever and meant to type 'sniffling', a descriptive word, not an attack.

Maybe.

....

I'd urge everyone to take polls with a grain of salt in this election. I say that because ballots are secret and polls are not. Someone might not be inclined to state publically to a pollster's face that they wouldn't vote for a woman or a black man but would be less ashamed to let that prejudice influence their decision in the ballot box.

For that reason, I think the election might prove surprising.

My instinct is that Sen. Clinton will win the nomination easily but lose the general election and that Edwards and even Obama would stand a better chance in a general election that is the Democratic nominee's to lose.

Dobson is a professional whiner who will never be happy no matter who gets the nomination.

Unless, of course, Den, he himself gets the nomination.

Frightening thought, that.

To see why Gore was considered a qualified candidate by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, all one has to do is look at what by Geir Lundestad, Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, 1990-1999, wrote about how the peace prize has evolved:

"The future is always difficult to forecast. But I feel quite confident that the Nobel Peace Prize will continue to approach the same problem areas in the 21st century as it tackled in its first hundred years. The connections between the environment and peace look like offering the next area into which the concept of peace will be extended."

You don't seriously think Dobson has any chance of that, do you? It's like someone claiming they are afraid that George Soros will be the Democratic nominee for president.

In honor of Mike's latest relapse:

CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS
1972

Wow.

This is one of those movies that probably had a more interesting story behind it than the one in the movie itself. This minor but incredibly memorable flick has been puzzling movie goers for years.

For most of it's 87 minutes it's a badly done comedy about a troup of bad actors, played by a troup of bad actors, being pushed around on a deserted island by director and all around jerk Alan Ormsby (who wrote the screenplay and did the makeup). Most of the characters use the actual names of the actors, which helps when your cheap talent keeps blowing their lines.

This part is mighty slow going and many will give up. Don't. It's all a set up for the last 20 minutes or so when it turns into a balls to the wall GREAT zombie movie. The same cheapness that has worked against the movie up to then suddenly becomes part of its creepy charm. The shift in tone is something only those old grindhouse movies could get away with. It's what Tarantino tried to do with FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, where he wanted the audience to not be aware that they were watching a vampire movie until the vampires appeared. Good luck on that one, the trailer, poster, reviews and internet leave little opportunity for anyone to walk in unaware.

Anyway, Bob Clark, the director, was one of thsoe guys who could hack out total crap (Baby Geniuses 2, Rhinestone) to total awesomeness (Black Christmas, Dead of Night) to A Christmas Story (A Christmas Story). He was recently killed in an auto accident just as he was planning to remake some of his earlier films, including this one.

CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS

When I was in my early twenties, we had a great drinking game set up on that thing.

If someone reads their lines like they're actully reading their line for the first time and off off a posterboard: Take a shot.

If you can see signs of the crew in the shot: Take two shots.

If you can make the argument that the line wasn't just read badly, but was actually a flubbed line left in the final cut: Take two shots.

etc.

We had to revise the rules. Everyone was passed out before we had a chance to get to any of the zombie rules.

I was going to say something along the standard line of, "I miss those days," but, on further thought... No I don't.

Oh god... I think I've actually hit the point in my life that I don't foundly recall the days when I could from time to time get blitzed out of my mind.

$&!^, I've gotten old.

I blame the corporations and Republicans.

I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around. Part of the problem is that there is a fundamental disconnect from the way that scientists and pundits/activists think. In the punditry class, arguments are all about who can get the best sound byte. Or, if you Sean Hannity, who can rudely talk over your token liberal guest the most. There is no right or wrong. Just My Side and Your Side and it's all about who can get the most zingers in. They don't understand that in science, you have to actually show factual data to support your idea in order to get published in peer reviewed journals. They think academic journals work like the National Review or Rolling Stone: They all have an "agenda" and not interested in what the actual numbers say.

Unless, of course, Den, he himself gets the nomination.

He won't because if he actually ran for office, he'd have to do more than just complain about how nobody is worthy of his endorsement. He'd actually have to put his money where his mouth was.

R. Maheras v. Mike

Isn't that like Aliens vs. Predator?

Kidding! Kidding!

I'd urge everyone to take polls with a grain of salt in this election.

I agree. It is still early in the election and, even though Hillary has this aura of inevitability about her, she could still have a "Macaca moment" and tank herself. Or Obama or Edwards could really surprise every with a late surge and win key states. I'm not going to try to predict will be the nominee of either party or who will win the general election. This is the democrat's race to lose, but they are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

My whole gripe with a big section of the Global Warming alarmists is that they twist the truth or lie outright. The most fanatical want a world with no industry (impossible) and zero emmissions (theoretically possible, but not economically feasible on a large scale).

Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won't end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down.

[Not R] Maybe Mike thought R. has hay fever and meant to type 'sniffling', a descriptive word, not an attack....

[Also not R] In honor of Mike's latest relapse...

All debates are inherently adversarial, which I haven't denied being. Not all attacks qualify as name-calling, and I haven't resorted to attributing any quotes to anyone they haven't said. I'm the one who plays by rules, and your inability to handle that isn't my problem.

ROGER TANG: Actually, there are quite a few scientists who don't agree with the "consensus" of the eco-left. Dr. William Grey of Colorado State University is quoted in the Sydney (Australia) news paper as being completely opposed to the Gore powerpoint presentation.

ROB HANSEN: Interesting that you would consider someone who wants to institute socialized medicine into this country as a conservative. Now granted, we've only been on the socialist road to wreckage and ruin for about 73 years or so. You folks over in western Europe have been at it much longer..to the point where some are actually coming to the conclusion that it doesn't work. As for your observations on our political spectrum it appears you are so far to the left that the center looks like right wing radicalism to you. Here in the U.S. we tend to think of such an outlook as the radical socialist kook fringe.

C. Schwehr -
... institute socialized medicine...
...on the socialist road to....
...radical socialist...

"Second verse, same as the first..."

C. Schwehr: Are you even capable of writing a sentence without calling anyone who disagrees with you a socialist? Actually, I'd like you to explain exactly how global climate change = socialism? One is a scientific theory shared by scientists, most of which are not "socialist kooks" or "eco-left". The other is an economic theory. I know you may find this hard to believe, but the two are completely unrelated.

This just in: Steven Colbert announced that he's throwing his hat into the ring and will run for president.

Chris

This just in: Steven Colbert announced that he's throwing his hat into the ring and will run for president.

Anyone who gets an endorsement from Aragorn has my vote.

"This just in: Steven Colbert announced that he's throwing his hat into the ring and will run for president."

But just in South Carolina....

A television comic who hosts a satirical news program runs for President.

I could swear I've seen this movie...

PAD

Heh.

"Reversing global warming".

That's hilarious.
Tell me another.

DEN: Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven't seen any of them on this site though. As for the connection between global warming and leftist thoought, for many people the two are almost the same subject. The number of scientists who support global warming is large, yes because it is a fact. The questions should be how much warming, and what causes it? That's where the divide is. Leftists tend to rely on data proven to be faulty (the Gore presentation for one), and blame mankind for a potential huge increase which just isn't supported by the facts. Others (conservatives, moderates, libertarians, etc) state that the facts support the theory that the present slight warming cycle is a natural occurence which has happened many times before, and that mankind has little or no effect on it. The number of scientists who support this view outnumber those vocal few who support the "chicken little" version.

DEN: One last correction to your posting. Socialism is not just an economic theory. It is a belief system which not only controls people economically, but can control their very lives if allowed. It comes in several different flavors..nazi (national socialism), communist (international socialism), and fascist (democratic socialism). It is also found to a greater or lesser degree in almost every developed country in the world today. In the United States, the party which overtly supports socialism is the democratic party. The republican party also buys into the concept to a lesser degree.

C. Schwehr: "Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven't seen any of them on this site though."

Don't worry about that. We'll just chalk that up to your reading comprehension skills. Or rather, your lack thereof.

It's not lack of reading comprehension. C. Schwehr is another fascinating example of a person looking at the world through very thick ideological glasses. This is something he has in common with his communist and anarchist counterparts on the extreme left. When you live inside your ideological base, read the e-mails, newsletters, books and lectures provided by that base, and understand everything with terms provided by this ideology, everybody who is not part of that ideology is perceived as extreme or deluded or a vocal minority and so on.

"A television comic who hosts a satirical news program runs for President.

I could swear I've seen this movie..."

I didn't see the movie. When I saw the first commercials I thought, "Wow, I like the idea that America gets so fed up with politicians that they elect Jon Stewart." I thought the idea was that he ran as a joke and was surprised when everyone in the country liked the joke better than the real candidates.

Then I saw a little more about it. When I found out that he won because of a computer glitch, I completely lost interest. It just didn't seem to have any bite after that.

MICHA: I see that you have totally miscatagorized me as either a complete control freak (communist) or one without any controls whatsoever (anarchist), neither of which is anywhere near the truth. Extreme left is also completely off base for me. So it appears you have no idea at all where I'm coming from. Do you know what a libertarian is? A libertarian is one who trys to live without sucking at the public teat. Their credo is to live and let live, to not initiate violence (but be ready to stop it if/when needed), to provide grass roots help for those in need (not a "top down big brother" which spends billions on bureaucrasy, and acknowledges the need for some government. I also note that those who accuse me of being blind to any other than my own core belief usually are blind themselves since they casually toss my observations into the trash, pull out their white canes, and stumble on their merry way. JERRY CHANDLER: Thank you for the dismissive insult. I expect ad hominem from time to time as those I verbally parry with on other venues do the same when no logical retort is forthcoming. I dare say that my reading comprehension skills are quite good since I go through at least one book of novel length every week when possible. Most is reading for entertainment, but an occaisional tome by Murray Rothbard, or a re-read of "Atlas Shrugged" is good too. For a laugh, I'll also read Time magazine, or even the New York Times. The slanted editorials serving as news are a real hoot sometimes. But in order to get to the truth, I also question everything I watch, listen to or read unlike many who blindly accept the news they are spoon fed each day. I know that the socialists out there would prefer I call them "progressives" or "liberals" but I like to cut out the BS and just call them what they really are but can't see in themselves because their own ironclad ideology prevents them.

C. Schwehr it's hard to take you seriously if you honestly believe that everyone on this board has a socialist mindset. I've been called many things but...

Now if by "socialist mindset" you mean anyone who doesn't buy a strict objectivist mindset, well then yeah. Personally, I think that making the definition of "socialist" so broad that it includes 90% of all the people out there is no way to fight socialism.

Meh. Reminds me of all those parochial folks who think either of the Clintons are far-left moonbats. (They aren't in the great scheme of things...i.e., the rest of the world. It just reflects an extremist view of the world and a total lack of worldly experience).

C. Schwehr, I know reasonably well what a liberterian is, having conversed with liberterians in the past. In fact, I had you pegged as a liberterian pretty much from the first sentence you posted. That alone tells you something. I prefer to talk to people who are not that easy to peg, and whose view of the world is less monochrome, since being inundated in heavy political rhetoric is not very conductive to constructive political discussion.

what I was trying to say is that the kind of attitude you've exhibited on this board is very similar to the attitude I've witnessed in my encounters and conversations with communists and anarchists. You are at the far right edge of the political spectrum as they are on the left, but it seems to me that the right and left edges of the political spectrum develop certain similar states of mind. I find the similarities and differences of the liberterians and anarchists (each occupying one edge of the spectrum) very interesting. In any case, if I wasn't clear enough I apologize.

"acknowledges the need for some government"

I'm surprised. The liberterian I talked to the most seemed to oppose any government. I wonder if there are liberterians out there who consider you too moderate, even coming close to 'socialism'. Is the extreme right as prone to internal fighting as the left?

"I also note that those who accuse me of being blind to any other than my own core belief usually are blind themselves since they casually toss my observations into the trash,"

Not exactly. As I said in a previous thread I find even ideas emerging from your part of the political spectrum interesting, to a degree -- I am certainly aware that there are different views on global warming, and I'm not that quick to dismiss them. what I reject is the kind of outlook that paints all political opinions other than your own (i.e. 90% of society) as socialist kooks, and rejects them without thought, and then goes on to pretend that your view is a majority view (very similar to the communists who talk about the 'massesw but would find themselves lost if they left their ideological reservation).

I'm not willing to dismiss either the proponents or the opponents of global warming as lefties/corporate stooges. Nor am I going to pretend that only one side is committed only to facts. To the best of my knowledge the majority of scientists, but not complete consensus, think that global warming is influenced by human interference. This, combined with other negative aspects of the dependence on oil and coal, should be enough to take the issue of global warming seriously. It would be foolish to ignore a possible threat only because it is unappealing. It is better to deal with a possible threat and be pleasantly surprised if it does not manifest itself, than the opposite. But in order to assess the threats and the ways to deal with them we need people who will not dismiss anything that does not fit their ideological preconseptions. This is true in this case as in others.

C. Schwehr: "Extreme left is also completely off base for me. So it appears you have no idea at all where I'm coming from."

Micha did not place you in the extreme left. Micha said that you had the same failings of your counterparts on the extreme left. If one compares you to your counterpart of such and such a group, they are talking about how you are your side's equivalent of a member in a group or organization that you are not actually a part of and may be on the other side of a debate and/or conflict. You are not a lefty who debates irrationally because of your viewing the world through your deeply leftist ideological glasses. You are the guy who debates irrationally because of your viewing the world through your sides ideological glasses. Thus, you are that lefty's counterpart. Sorry if you didn't quite comprehend what you where reading in Micha's post there. Hope I cleared that up for you.

C. Schwehr: "I also note that those who accuse me of being blind to any other than my own core belief usually are blind themselves since they casually toss my observations into the trash, pull out their white canes, and stumble on their merry way."

It wasn't your observations that got tossed into the trash, it was your stupidity. You came into the debate firing away with ideological slogans, stupidity and insults/name-calling.

Your first post in this thread:

Posted by: C. Schwehr at October 12, 2007 04:33 PM
First of all, Gore didn't WIN anything, he was GIVEN these awards for being the PC darling of the year. It was a shoo in that he would get the Academy award just so the socialists in Hollywood could crow a bit. Same with the Dynamite award. It was a slap in the face to the scientists who point out time and time again the errors and outright lies being told by those who wish to blame the current slight warming of our planet on evil human technology.
Secondly, there's not much of a choice for the next President out there to speak of. Mrs Clinton isn't qualified for the job, but will probably get it because she seems to be the anointed one of the democratic/socialists this time around. It's either a result of her supporting Bill in the White House for 8 years, or else the Clintons managed to hold on to those FBI files and are using them to some effect on their own party. And Mrs Clinton CAN'T be "swiftboated" as you socialists call it. She didn't use the U.S. Navy and fraudulent war stories as a stepping stone to the nominee's position. She's doing it the old fashioned way, bribes, illegal campaign contributions and lying her teeth off. Just like Bush I and II did.

Now, did you really expect to be treated like anything less then a first class, grade-a loony bird here? That wasn't a statement of core beliefs or ideas. That was a borderline incoherent screed at best and masterful display of ignorance at worst.

C. Schwehr: "JERRY CHANDLER: Thank you for the dismissive insult. I expect ad hominem from time to time as those I verbally parry with on other venues do the same when no logical retort is forthcoming."

Well, had there been anything resembling a logical statement in...

"Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven't seen any of them on this site though."

... then I would have been happy to respond in kind. There was no logical point there to disagree with, so I simply pointed out the obvious. You either can't comprehend what you're reading, you're the ideologue that Micha believes you to be or you're simply an idiot.

There are a number of people on this site who do not have the alleged "socialist mindset" that you attributed to them and who post quite frequently here. There are Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians here. Some have even posted on this thread. The fact that you can't comprehend what they're saying well enough to understand that backs either Micha's point or mine quite clearly.

Even my posts in this thread have been far and away less then socialist to someone who can comprehend what they're reading or who isn't so ideologically blinded by their own agenda that they can't see straight. I've pointed out why I believe Gore won't run for office, pointed out that I think that Hillary will be, barring a huge blunder, elected the next President due to the failings of the other nominees, stated that I didn't feel that every Peace Prize winner or the prize itself was as bad as some are making it out to be, explained how Gore's win could be wedged into the "peace" category and stated that I didn't entirely agree with that and said that I thought mankind could and should create much better "green" technology. None of that really screams out "SOCIALISM" to anyone but the stupidly ideological or the simply stupid.

And even if someone here posted something on this thread that seems "socialist" to even a normal mind, that doesn't mean that they're socialists. There are political ideas that all of us agree and disagree with from both sides of the isle. Some things we don't mind the hand of government in. Some things we want the government to stay out of. It depends on what we think the government is capable of doing well VS screwing up. There are ideas that we agree with in principal, but not in the degree of scope that a proponent addresses. That's not Socialism. Hate to break it to.

C. Schwehr: "I dare say that my reading comprehension skills are quite good since I go through at least one book of novel length every week when possible. Most is reading for entertainment, but an occaisional tome by Murray Rothbard, or a re-read of "Atlas Shrugged" is good too. "

Yeah, you go ahead and tell us all about the occasional masterpieces of literature that you consume so veraciously all you want. The simple fact that you couldn't understand the simple point of what Micha meant by saying that you were the counterpart of some on the extreme left tends to make believe that you're either exaggerating your reading list wildly or that you likely don't understand what your reading anyhow.

C. Schwehr: "I know that the socialists out there would prefer I call them "progressives" or "liberals" but I like to cut out the BS and just call them what they really are but can't see in themselves because their own ironclad ideology prevents them."

You mean like when we point what a pretentious, idiotic and apparently unrepentant ass you are? Seriously, it seems that in your mind anybody who doesn't agree with you is a socialist, you're a master of intellectual literature, you know so much better who and what people are and what they believe then they do and you see your name calling and screeds as some form of logical debating rather then the backed up toilet load that it really is. Whereas others here might be good people to debate with and who can have their minds changed or change my or other peoples' minds about topics, you're just a bad joke with a broken down punchline.

Believe whatever you want to in life, just promise us one thing. Whatever your on, keep it away from kids. Thanks.

"an occaisional tome by Murray Rothbard, or a re-read of "Atlas Shrugged" is good too"

That's exactly my point. The liberterian reads the liberterian idelogues that reaffirm his beliefs and provide him with the idelogical framework. And all the way in the extreme left they read their ideologues. And when you talk to them you get quotes from the books they read. Marx said, Von Miss (?) said, Bukanin said...

A small piece of advice, to no one in particular. And if that makes me a socialist, so be it. Don't become so engrossed in attaching labels to the people around you that you don't actually see the people around you. Attach any title to a person, one tends to only see that label.

A libertarian is one who trys to live without sucking at the public teat.

A libertarian is one who tries to live without sucking on any teat other than his or her own. As far as criticizing socialism shelters corporate-protectionism, anti-socialism furthers no libertarian agenda. Sheltering a fixed game is not libertarian canon.

DEN: Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven't seen any of them on this site though.

Wha-huh? I assume this was an attempt to answer the question I posed to you, which was: "Are you even capable of writing a sentence without calling anyone who disagrees with you a socialist?"

But the rest of your post clearly indicates that the answer is "no". Which of course just proves that you're just another troll who is less interested in actually discussing the merits of the issue than you are in dengrating anyone who disagrees with your dogmatic view of the world.

For the record, I am not a socialist. I am actually very moderate in the my political views. (My disdain for Bush is less about ideology than it is about the fact that he's a corrupt man-child who should never have been put in charge of a walking a dog, much less the most powerful nation on Earth). Of course, I realize that for you, everyone is either a liberatarian or a socialist, so I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise.

As for global warming, I am one of those scientists who acknowledges that there are warming and cooling periods throughout Earth's history, however, all of the data collected so far indicates that this time, human activity is playing a strong roll, meaning that this warming cycle is likely to be different. Are some of the "chicken little" scenarios, as you called them exaggerated? Sure, but that doesn't mean that the only other alternative is to ignore all potential negative consequences.

Ok, one last comment before leaving here. I don't apologize for comments made. I am sorry for any misunderstandings about some people's points of view. On the other hand, I don't think I went to the extent of personally insulting anyone here with such descritions as "grade A-looney bird, stupid, simply a bad joke, etc. However, I did see that both Den and Micha were gracious in their corrections of my perceptions. You many be correct in that some here are of a more independent mindset..and perhaps I do need to loosen up a bit. I think that comes from locking horns with too many other people of the diametrically opposed persuasion on other sites. DEN: You mentioned something about all the potential negative consequences. The question I pose is...what ARE the negative consequences other than the average temp climbing a few degrees, and a small rise in the ocean levels? And the warming cycle is likely to be different. HOW different, and how much of a difference. So far, all I've seen and read tends to indicate nothing like the catastrophes predicted in the much ballyhooed computer models. I just can't buy in to the extreme change, end of the world scenario if we don't change our consumption of fossil fuels NOW. Even the folks who brought us the Kyoto treaty have admitted that "it's too late" to bring the sort of change that we supposedly need to negate man's effect on the enviroment.

"As for global warming, I am one of those scientists who acknowledges that there are warming and cooling periods throughout Earth's history, however, all of the data collected so far indicates that this time, human activity is playing a strong roll, meaning that this warming cycle is likely to be different. Are some of the "chicken little" scenarios, as you called them exaggerated? Sure, but that doesn't mean that the only other alternative is to ignore all potential negative consequences."

What would you consider to be a sober assessment of the situation Den?

"Even the folks who brought us the Kyoto treaty have admitted that "it's too late" to bring the sort of change that we supposedly need to negate man's effect on the enviroment."

See, this is the problem with people from the right or left who approach problems with a set ideological objective. If you can't dismiss the scientists who claim that global warming is a real threat as socialist kooks you then say that even if global warming is real there's nothing to be done so why bother. It hurts your credibility because it seems you'd use any argument just to protect the continued use of fossil fuels. It hurts the possibility of real examination of the possibilities: namely trying to reverse global warming vs. trying to find ways to deal with it if and when it occurs. because caricaturizing the concerns of people whose politics is not yours is not a good way to start a serious discussion of the threats and options. People need to realize that politics is not an argument between geniuses and idiots but a process of evaluating very real concerns presented by various points of view. Taking these concerns and the people who make them seriously is a necessary step to examining them even if you ultimately decide to dismiss them. And I've said the same to people in the left and extreme left (that from your position in the spectrum might seem indistinguishable).

I may be wrong about this, but am I to understand that I may not even question the extent of global warming? I do intend to protect the continued use of fossil fuels because in the real world, we will continue to use them until it becomes economically untennable to do so. History shows us that as one resource reaches it's practical limits, another more technically advanced resource has appeared to take it's place. I also asked those questions in the hope of sparking a conversation about what we really do know, not just blindly accepting one side of the arguement and possibly proceeding down a path caused by a false dilemma. Not all scientists have climbed on to the global warming bandwagon in the sense that they have seen any information which indicates a large shift in our climate. There was a highly touted list of scientists who wholeheartedly supported the radical shift theory. I believe the total number of scientists was around 1600 members at the time it was first trotted out for the media. What was not mentioned was there was another list of scientists, many of them involved with climate change, weather patterns, etc that did not at that time agree with the first group. They agreed that the available information didn't indicate a radical shift in global temps at all, but some also stated that there might be something to the data and further investigation was needed before a definitive answer could be determined. THAT group was approximately 10 times larger than the group which made the papers. Note, I did not say that there was NO global warming. There's been about a .7 degree increase in the last 100 years, with the majority of it between 1900 and 1940. The question these days is HOW MUCH and over HOW LONG. And I didn't DISMISS any scientists. The statement of "it's too late" was a quote by the same people who drew up the Kyoto treaty. Along with the statement, they said that even more stringent curtainments on carbon emissions would be needed in order to stop the current global warming threat. I thought I could have a logical discussion with you on this subject but evidently questioning your preconceived ideas is not a good thing to do if all I can do is defend my right to question. It's really sad.

"I may be wrong about this, but am I to understand that I may not even question the extent of global warming?"

You are wrong. The problem is not with asking questions but with the way you ask them -- it does not seem like you seek answers as much as to tout the answers that will fit your political preconceptions while casting the other voices as socialist kooks.

"I do intend to protect the continued use of fossil fuels because in the real world, we will continue to use them until it becomes economically untennable to do so."

Or if there is another good reason not to use it. There are few today who completely oppose market economy as the better economic system, but that does not mean it should be deified as the only and absolute force to control the lives of people.

"History shows us that as one resource reaches it's practical limits, another more technically advanced resource has appeared to take it's place."

That sounds like a fairy tale -- that the replacement of fossil fuels will wonderously present itself just when fossil fuels become depleted, not one moment earlier or later, and that until that happy occasion we must content ourselves with using fuels that have so many negative aspects ecological and otherwise.

"I also asked those questions in the hope of sparking a conversation about what we really do know, not just blindly accepting one side of the arguement and possibly proceeding down a path caused by a false dilemma."

If your intention was really to spark a serious conversation you have failed miserably.

"Not all scientists have climbed on to the global warming bandwagon in the sense that they have seen any information which indicates a large shift in our climate."

I'm aware of that, but in order to examine the claims for or against this theory we can't go around automatically treating either group of scientists as liars and stooges while heeding only the ones that fit a convenient political position (unless there is a very good reason to dismiss one of the groups).

"There was a highly touted list of scientists who wholeheartedly supported the radical shift theory. I believe the total number of scientists was around 1600 members at the time it was first trotted out for the media. What was not mentioned was there was another list of scientists, many of them involved with climate change, weather patterns, etc that did not at that time agree with the first group. They agreed that the available information didn't indicate a radical shift in global temps at all, but some also stated that there might be something to the data and further investigation was needed before a definitive answer could be determined."

That's how we get to a situation in which each political faction picks the experts that fit their preconceived notions. Since my opening position -- until proven otherwise -- is that neither groups is made of fools, I have no choice but to take both claims seriously and then weigh tthe question. You seem to have found an easier solution: take only the opinions I like seriously.

"THAT group was approximately 10 times larger than the group which made the papers."

This claim does not seem to correspond with my very general knowledge on the subject. But here is the thing, I'm not an expert on the science or on the positions held in the scientific community. You can come here and say anything, pulling numbers out of nowhere, and I would find it very difficult if not impossible to assess the verasity of your claims or the credibility of the scientists you present who just happen to fit your ideological needs. That's the difficult position lay people like me find themselves in these days. Perhaps one of the more scientifically minded people on this thread, or ones who are less lazy than me and willing to do the necessary research can provide a better answer. For now all I can apply is common sense and general awareness of the world around me.

"Note, I did not say that there was NO global warming. There's been about a .7 degree increase in the last 100 years, with the majority of it between 1900 and 1940. The question these days is HOW MUCH and over HOW LONG."

Some other question would be: what is the causes for the warming effect? what will be the effects of global warming on life on the planet? and what is the best way to handle these effects if the need arrises?

"And I didn't DISMISS any scientists."

Sure you did. You said that scientists who support global warming are all leftists who have no commitment to facts.

"The statement of "it's too late" was a quote by the same people who drew up the Kyoto treaty. Along with the statement, they said that even more stringent curtainments on carbon emissions would be needed in order to stop the current global warming threat."

Among people on the right or left who believe that global warming is a threat the discussion seems (based on my limited knowledge) to have shifted to what is the best way to approach this threat, by reducing carbon emissions or by developing ways to deal with the effects of global warming when they occur. Unfortunatly here too we see the discussion brake down along political lines.

However, your statement seems to be in contradiction. If they believe it is too late, what's the point in putting even stringent restrictions on carbon emissions. Perhaps what they said is that it would be too late unless more stringent restrictions were put in place. That would be more consistent.

"I thought I could have a logical discussion with you on this subject"

Based on the way you presented your case when you entered this thread I didn't not have much hope for a logical discussion nor did it seem to me that you were interested in one as much as in blasting a few slogans. If your intention was a logical discussion then the method you chose to initiate it wasn't very effective.

"but evidently questioning your preconceived ideas"

I have no preconceived notions. As a layman I was aware that there were scientists who held different views on the subject. What I didn't know is how to evaluate between them. Based on the little I did know it seems more prudent to take steps to reduce carbon emissions than hope that the optimistic scientists were the ones who got it right, especially considering there are other reasons to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.

I am prejudiced against people who speak in simplistic slogans, regardless of whether they belong to the right, the left or the center. Although the reason for my prejudice is a certain bitterness toward extreme leftists I had dealings with.

"is not a good thing to do if all I can do is defend my right to question."

Your right to question is not in doubt. PAD is a very strong defender of freedom of speech, and he would never curtail your right to question these issues, nor would I even if i had the power to do so, which I don't. However, although you have the right to question, I am not obligated to take your questioning seriously if I do not consider it serious. Your conduct on this thread has not given me reason to take your questioning seriously. But I do take the people who question global warming seriously.

"It's really sad."

It is sad. The subject requires a serious discussion. But you only yourself to blame for your failure to initiate such a discussion.

C. Schwehr, I dispute your statement that the .7 increase...the figures I've seen most reliably touted are higher, and put the majority of the increase in the last 50 years, attributed not to the industrial age your 1900-1940 figure would indicate, but instead attributed to the age of the automobile in every driveway.

And parade as many meteorological scientists as you want claiming to see no evidence of drastic climate change, but you're still looking to a group of people that professionally are only correct less than 30 or 40% of the time.

What can't be denied are the climatological changes we've seen over the past 20 years. Just over a decade ago, scientists started warning of mass declines in frog populations, knowing that amphibians are often the most sensitive of the larger lifeforms to climate change. Just over a decade later, and large apex predators like the polar bear are finding critical habitat totally absent during breeding season, putting that entire species in jeopardy. We're experiencing more frequent, and more powerful, storms every year..the US just had one that spawned several powerful tornadoes across a large portion of the midwest.

These are real, current, serious impacts. Talking about overall temperature increase of X number of years is such an abstract concept that it's no wonder people legitimately doubt the existence of a climate crisis. But the warning signs, and the warnings, have been around for far longer.

As for fossil fuels being used only as long as they're economically tenable...we're currently operating with external costs that we never knew to factor into the cost. Some would say that because of those costs, fossil fuels are already untenable. But because corporations don't realistically work to capture externalities like this, they keep working to burn more.

We're like a frog, sitting in a pot of water slowly being heated to boiling. The rate of temperature increase that we can barely detect it, but sooner or later the pot's going to hit a critical temp. and we're just going to expire.

That's how we get to a situation in which each political faction picks the experts that fit their preconceived notions.

That's a poltiical way of doing things.

The scientific way of doing things is to look at the data. That's harder to do, but you can always cherry pick scientists or quote mine statements to make the debate what you want it to look like.

I think it's more interesting to watch the scientific debate as opposed to the political one.

Throw into the mix the massive decrease in the krill population that pretty much supports a big section of the food chain and the picture gets really ugly really fast.

And perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I see the same tactics used by a lot of global warming denialists as I do that are used by creationists. That's the wrong way to approach this...I think a better way is to not to stay a step removed, but to get down and dirty with the data....

what ARE the negative consequences other than the average temp climbing a few degrees, and a small rise in the ocean levels?

I don't think it's the actual change in temperature that should worry us, it's the effect it might have on the weather.

The difference of a few degrees here and there can be the difference between getting rain and not getting rain in a specific region.

Now it's logical to say well, if one place gets less rain might not another place get more rain? And that's quite reasonable. But if we suddenly get less rain in Nebraska, Nebraska ceases to be good farmland. Unfortunately, the opposite may not apply--if it rain in death valley...we get wet sand. It will take hundreds, if not thousands of years to turn a desert into usable farmland, while it only takes a few rainless years to turn farmland into desert. Climate is not fair but there you are.

It isn't even that the weather has to get worse for it to affect us in a negative way--we have a system now set up in place that uses specific locales for food production. Any alteration in weather that messes with this system will probably cause us harm. At the very least, during the shift from one food production system to another we can expect mass starvation--our species is ill equipped at the present time for lean times.

Peter, do you actually believe in global warming--that man can actually affect climate?
If so, what IS the perfect global temp.?
How do 'we' know we aren't still too cold?
Maybe 'we' need to raise the temp. even more. If so, how do we do it?
If man can control weather, why don't we stop bad weather (hurricanes, floods, etc.) and make the entire world one big perfect place.

"Posted by: roger Tang at October 19, 2007 09:47 PM
That's how we get to a situation in which each political faction picks the experts that fit their preconceived notions.
That's a poltiical way of doing things.

The scientific way of doing things is to look at the data. That's harder to do, but you can always cherry pick scientists or quote mine statements to make the debate what you want it to look like.

I think it's more interesting to watch the scientific debate as opposed to the political one."

"And perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I see the same tactics used by a lot of global warming denialists as I do that are used by creationists. That's the wrong way to approach this...I think a better way is to not to stay a step removed, but to get down and dirty with the data...."

I agree with you on principle.

There are several problems here.
1) Scientists themselves are not always careful enough about seperating science from politics. that's why we have these kind of situations with creationism.
2) As a lay person I depend on data provided by and often interpreted by other scientists. I often don't have the necessary tools to seperate the good data from the bad data or the good research from the bad one.
3) The kind of discussions that take place in the media and in blogs is by its very nature too simplistic and too susceptible to manipulation and people quoting facts and interpretations that are unreliable or sensational. For a real scientific discussion you need people who have an overview of the subject and of the different data and different researches.
4) You are completely correct that people in general should have a better understanding of scientific principles and data. But that's easier said than done. Especially as sciences become more specialized and complex.
5) and it's also my fault. I'm too lazy to do the necessary researc thtat even a lay person can do. There are people on this board (you know who you are) who faced with a similar situation will try harder to find and assess the information and provide helpful links.
6) From a point of view of furthering discussion I prefer to argue with people about the basics rather than get into my science vs. your science that can lead to dead ends.

Creationism is easier to handle since it's so blatantly religion and philosophy masquerading as science, and can be dealt with on a philosophical level as well as a scientific one.

---------------------------
"Now it's logical to say well, if one place gets less rain might not another place get more rain? And that's quite reasonable. But if we suddenly get less rain in Nebraska, Nebraska ceases to be good farmland. Unfortunately, the opposite may not apply--if it rain in death valley...we get wet sand. It will take hundreds, if not thousands of years to turn a desert into usable farmland, while it only takes a few rainless years to turn farmland into desert. Climate is not fair but there you are."

It's even worse if the places you're talking about are sub-Saharran Africa, Bangladesh, China or South America.

-----------------------
By the way, I remember 15-20 years ago or so the condition of the Ozone layer was a big issue. It seemed as if nothing could be done to prevent it. CFC seemed to be everywhere, in every household item. But people made an effort to change these items. The economy did not collapse. The western world did not turn communist. If people were able to switch from horses and carriages to cars and planes, can't they adapt again if the need arrises? Or should we only adapt to economical considerations?

Peter, do you actually believe in global warming--that man can actually affect climate?
If so, what IS the perfect global temp.?
How do 'we' know we aren't still too cold?
Maybe 'we' need to raise the temp. even more. If so, how do we do it?
If man can control weather, why don't we stop bad weather (hurricanes, floods, etc.) and make the entire world one big perfect place.

I'm not Peter (and he hasn't really been behind all the fuss and bother on this thread) but let me take a crack:

do you actually believe in global warming--that man can actually affect climate?

Sure, if by "global warming" we mean "climate change".

The fact that cities are routinely warmer than the surrounding areas tells us that we can change climate, at least locally. If it's true that climate is, in part, determined by such factors as vegetation and bodies of water--and it is--then it only stands to reason that humans, who have dramatically altered both the Earth's vegetation patterns and bodies of water for their own use have had an effect. And that's without even getting into the whole CO2 issue.

If so, what IS the perfect global temp.?

Whatever suits your purpose. Whatever allows you to grow enough food for the population. A new global climate may give us more farmable land--but how many years will it take to adjust to that new reality? And what do we eat while the adjustment takes place?

How do 'we' know we aren't still too cold?

See above.

Maybe 'we' need to raise the temp. even more.

Without knowing the weather effects of such an action it would be a dumb move.

If so, how do we do it?

Finish off the remaining rain forests, spread heat absorbing black plastic over the polar regions. Sell the beach house.

Note: this might actually make things colder. Weather is a tricky thing.

If man can control weather, why don't we stop bad weather (hurricanes, floods, etc.) and make the entire world one big perfect place.

Saying we can affect the climate is very different from saying we can control it. I can do things that have an effect on my health but I cannot control my health entirely. That doesn't mean I should take up smoking crack.

And perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I see the same tactics used by a lot of global warming denialists as I do that are used by creationists.

Actually, Roger, I have to disagree--I see more of the creationist tactics used, regrettably, by the more careless global warming advocates. Creationists do science ass backwards--state the conclusion, look for evidence. ANY evidence is used, even if it contradicts the previous evidence. A hot day? Global warming! A cold day? An ice age caused by...global warming! Scientists predict a bad hurricane season? Global warming! Said hurricanes fail to develop? An aberration caused by...aliens! No, that was a trick to see if you were paying attention. It's still global warming.

Some will even say that global warming could result in either an ice age or overall hot temperatures...but under no circumstances could it just split the difference and stay the same. Why? Beats me. Like any religion, it needs a good Ragarock/Armageddon to complete the tale.

The problem is, folks like that hurt the actual science. Exaggerations can cause serious harm to a movement. especially one that is asking people to make sacrifices.

"do you actually believe in global warming--that man can actually affect climate?
If so, what IS the perfect global temp.?
How do 'we' know we aren't still too cold?
Maybe 'we' need to raise the temp. even more. If so, how do we do it?
If man can control weather, why don't we stop bad weather (hurricanes, floods, etc.) and make the entire world one big perfect place."

dave w., your questions display a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation.

First, you don't have to believe in the current claims of climate change to see that man can have serious impacts on the climate. Massive deforestation by man has resulted in far less drastic (timewise) climate changes that what we're seeing now. You'd have to be dense to think that mankind, as a species, or even a select population, is incapable of having a significant impact on the world around him.

As for a perfect global temp...again, you lack understanding. The Earth's weather is a system. There's no single perfect temp., because most of the lifeforms, especially the plant species, have evolved their life cycle around changing seasons and temps. You change that, and you risk destroying a large part of the food web.

Are we too cold? Again, it's not a question of finding the "right" temperature. It's about not changing the average temp. so fast that we are unable to respond in any kind of meaningful way. What most people don't understand is, coastal water levels aside, the biggest issue of climate change is the rate the temp. is changing. Gradual changes we can respond do, rapid changes that make an agricultural area unfarmable in a few years we can't cope with, because there won't have been enough time for formerly barren land to become fertile again.

Man doesn't and can't control the weather. I don't think there's enough science in the universe that could control a system as large and powerful as a planetary weather system. But that's not to say that our actions don't have a profound impact on the overall system. So, while we can't, say, make it rain on Tuesday, sunny on Wednesday, and a balmy 80 degrees on Thursday, we can add enough CO2 and other ozone precoursers into the atmosphere that more energy from the sun reaches the surface, shifting wind currents and putting what used to be a rather stable and predictable system into a state of chaos.

Micha: "1) Scientists themselves are not always careful enough about separating science from politics. that's why we have these kind of situations with creationism.
2) As a lay person I depend on data provided by and often interpreted by other scientists. I often don't have the necessary tools to separate the good data from the bad data or the good research from the bad one."

That's one of the reasons that I like the data from the National Academy of Science's research as much as I do. Their system for peer review is designed to eliminate things like that. A scientists findings is given to other scientist to analyze. The first scientist is unnamed, the work is given to the others to analyze the data and see what they get without being specifically told to prove or disprove it and the original scientist's ultimate results are sometimes kept from them when needed to keep their results pure.

Their set up is a far cry from the guys that MSNBC or Fox News trot out who set out to prove that global warming is or isn't happening or is or isn't caused by man and then get their work "reviewed" by someone who's been a long time proponent of their point of view and who goes in knowing the desired results to "prove" for the first scientist. That also tends to keep the Academy's findings a bit more neutral and less full of hyperbole.

Bill Mulligan: "That doesn't mean I should take up smoking crack."

Hey, like my coworkers keep telling me, at least then you could explain some of your favorite movie picks. Yeah, I know... Pot calling kettle...

What would you consider to be a sober assessment of the situation Den?

At this point, I don't believe that there is much doubt that we are affecting the global climate. Where the uncertainty lays is exactly how this will affect weather on the local scale. Predicting local weather trends in the long term is still pretty dicey. What we can be sure of is that not all areas will experience the same change to the same degree. Some places will likely become wetter. Others drier. In fact, some places may even experience at least a short term increase in crop productivity as rain increases and the growing season grows longer. Other places will become less productive.

One issue I have with Gore's movie is the implication that coastal communities will experience massive flooding in one huge wave ala the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Most scientists agree that if say, Manhatten and Long Island do sink, it will occur gradually with plenty of time for people to move out of the area.

"I may be wrong about this, but am I to understand that I may not even question the extent of global warming?"

It would help if you presented your views in a more rational manner, rather than the emotion-based method of dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "socialist kooks".

"History shows us that as one resource reaches it's practical limits, another more technically advanced resource has appeared to take it's place."

Actually, history is full of examples where a society collapsed after they depleted a key resource. Easter Island and Iceland are two examples of island societies that fell apart after they depleted their timber stocks.

During the industrialized age, we have been fortunate in that technological advances have enabled us to continue to support an ever-growing population. The problem with a petroleum-based economy, however, is that we've always known we're running out the clock. Peak oil is coming very soon. We're already seeing the early stages of it as oil hit $90 a barrel this week.

Yet for decades, we've invested very little into developing alternate fuel resources. Oil companies have, in fact, lobbied hard against development of alternative fuels, yet they're among the first in line for government subsidies for exploration and pipeline construction (not, in my opinion, a very libertarian way of doing business). It's only in recent years that some oil companies have come around to the idea that we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels now so that they're ready to bring to market in the coming decades.

Actually, Roger, I have to disagree--I see more of the creationist tactics used, regrettably, by the more careless global warming advocates. Creationists do science ass backwards--state the conclusion, look for evidence. ANY evidence is used, even if it contradicts the previous evidence. A hot day? Global warming! A cold day? An ice age caused by...global warming! Scientists predict a bad hurricane season? Global warming! Said hurricanes fail to develop? An aberration caused by...aliens! No, that was a trick to see if you were paying attention. It's still global warming.

Bill, I agree that regrettably, global warming proponents have engaged in such tactics, but I also think Roger is right about the deniers. Deniers often use very unscientific and politically charged statements to undermine propoenents. It's snowing today, therefore, global warming is fake. Al Gore lives in a big house, therefore global warming is fake. Al Gore flies in jets, therefore, global warming is fake. And, as we've seen here, if liberals/progressives/socialists (pick your favorite dismissive label) embrace it, many conservatives oppose it almost reflexively.

Al Gore lives in a big house, therefore global warming is fake. Al Gore flies in jets, therefore, global warming is fake

It's not so much that his hypocrisy proves that climate change is fake, just that the hysteria he propagates is so over the top even HE doesn't take it seriously (or "cereal" for South Park fans).

This is one of the problems: if you live by celebrity you can die by celebrity. The global warming debate has been driven far too much by doomsday scenarios and the trendy cause du jour of celebrities, most of whom leave a bigger carbon footprint than Mt St Helens.

No, this doesn't really affect the truth of climate change but it's perfectly reasonable for normal people to cast a jaundiced eye upon those who talk about a crisis but act in ways that indicate they don't really believe it.

It's not so much that his hypocrisy proves that climate change is fake, just that the hysteria he propagates is so over the top even HE doesn't take it seriously (or "cereal" for South Park fans).

That's the reasonable reaction. Unfortunately, I've seen many global warming deniers say that Gore's hypocrisy means that not just his exagerations are over the top, but that the whole theory is fraud.

And it's why I wince everytime some of the most extreme doomsday scenarios get the lion's share of the press. Are there serious problems that need to be addressed now? Absolutely, but I think many of the activists feel that unless the convince people that we're all going to die in a few decades, no one will act. Unfortunately, the media tends to focus on the two extremes: Either we're doomed or the whole thing is fraud. The truth, as it always is, lay somewhere in the middle.

BTW, Micha mentioned the problem of ozone depletion and I wanted to address something I saw on another blog that runs similar to this: A denier made an argument that ran like this: 1) The ozone layer is depleted; 2) Activists convinced people that this was caused by CFCs, so countries started phasing them out; 3) Now that CFCs have been in most countries for about a decade, the ozone layer was still depleted. His conclusion: The connection to CFCs and ozone depletion is therefore a fraud. Others tried to patiently explain to him that scientists estimate that it will be at least 50 years before the ozone layer has recovered because the chemicals we released into the stratosphere are still up there, but he held fast to his belief that the whole thing was a fraud.

It's that kind of pseudoscience that drives a lot of the debate on GCC as well.

"find alternatives to fossil fuels now so that they're ready to bring to market in the coming decades."
Part of the reason, the realist in me theorizes, is that the petroleum companies see that they're reasonably close to going the way of the dodo. They're in business to stay in business. If the consumer public sees that these companies are trying to find a greener power source, hey great for the public image!

Actually, Roger, I have to disagree--I see more of the creationist tactics used, regrettably, by the more careless global warming advocates. Creationists do science ass backwards--state the conclusion, look for evidence. ANY evidence is used, even if it contradicts the previous evidence. A hot day? Global warming! A cold day? An ice age caused by...global warming! Scientists predict a bad hurricane season? Global warming! Said hurricanes fail to develop? An aberration caused by...aliens! No, that was a trick to see if you were paying attention. It's still global warming.

Which is why I prefer arguments that refer more to actual data. At least you're dealing with the data first hand, instead of second hand or third hand.

Part of the reason, the realist in me theorizes, is that the petroleum companies see that they're reasonably close to going the way of the dodo. They're in business to stay in business. If the consumer public sees that these companies are trying to find a greener power source, hey great for the public image!

Which is the part that I don't get at all. If the oil companies know that they're selling a product with a short lifespan, they should be leading the way towards developing alternate fuels so that once we hit peak oil, they'll have a product they can sell. Instead, many, but most especially ExxonMobile, have worked hard to make sure that they'll be left with nothing to sell once no one can afford gasoline anymore.