So now that Al Gore can add “Nobel Prize” winner to his resume, is he going to reconsider a run at the White House?
I’m still convinced that Hillary is unelectable, but I don’t think the slate that the GOP is offering is anything special. Al Gore, on the other hand, already won the popular vote once, and that was when he was doing everything wrong. Nothing teaches the way experience does. I have to think that the older, wiser Gore could take the White House in a walk. The only question is whether it’s a walk he wants to take. Because he’d be taking a hëll of a chance: Right now he’s a respected elder statesman with major cred toward getting the job done in terms of reversing global warming. If he runs and loses, then it’s not only a step back personally, but it’s a step back for the interests of the world environmental situation because he’ll be just another failed presidential candidate.
Personally I hope he goes for it, but then again, that’s easy for me to say.
PAD
• 
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 ášš 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 ášš 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 ášš 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.