# An Inconvenient Truth



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Did anyone see this yet? 

I went this evening and found it surprisingly engaging. I guess global crises can be like that. 

I encourage anyone interested in the climate issue to have a look.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Did anyone see this yet?
> 
> I went this evening and found it surprisingly engaging. I guess global crises can be like that.
> 
> I encourage anyone interested in the climate issue to have a look.


Bertie, not yet, but I will. I find it interesting that there is so much difference of opinion, or maybe I should say difference of admission from our two political parties. I like Gore although I think the fact that he is not a dynamic individual hurt him 6 years ago, that and a rigged election (oh I should not have said that, but what the heck). In any case I will go and see this one in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

guitone said:


> ... he is not a dynamic individual hurt him 6 years ago, that and a rigged election (oh I should not have said that, but what the heck). In any case I will go and see this one in the next couple of weeks.


Guitone, not only is he not dynamic, he never knows which way to step off the fence! Al Gore reached his level of incompetence when he was Vice-President.

BTW - The 2000 presidential election was not rigged. The Supreme Court of The United States merely forced the Florida Supreme Court to follow constitutional Florida law. The US Supreme Court was protecting voter's rights based on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court of Florida attempted to skirt the equal protection clause, plain and simple, by granting unlimited vote recounts by the Democrats. Also, what should have been decided were the absentee ballot issue for Florida-resident service people, and the fact that the media broadcasted that the polls closed an hour too early, based on the central time zone. Thousands may have been disenfranchised with that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> I like Gore although I think the fact that he is not a dynamic individual hurt him 6 years ago, that and a rigged election (oh I should not have said that, but what the heck). In any case I will go and see this one in the next couple of weeks.


I agree, or at least there was an extended and prolonged attempt to rig the election. However, no matter how those chads were handled, Bush won *on every single counting method*, try as the Dems did to rig things. For me, the most special thing about that whole sad chapter in US history, was the son of Daly running the whole show. If anyone knows how to make a vote count more than once, it is the Dalys.

I will not see the movie. I think Gore is afraid of his own convictions. The man wrote in his book he wanted gas to be very expensive. However, he seems to have stepped back from that and the Dems are all over Dubya for gas prices not even as high as those endorsed by Gore years earlier. However, I would back his as President if he and Tipper took a solemn vow never to French kiss on camera again, that is still giving me screaming nightmares!

Global warming, real or not? A very pertinent and good question. The person I am going to trust to present an unbiased cogent argument on the topic though, is 100% *not* Al Gore.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Who do you trust on the subject of global warming?



Wayfarer said:


> I agree, or at least there was an extended and prolonged attempt to rig the election. However, no matter how those chads were handled, Bush won *on every single counting method*, try as the Dems did to rig things. For me, the most special thing about that whole sad chapter in US history, was the son of Daly running the whole show. If anyone knows how to make a vote count more than once, it is the Dalys.
> 
> I will not see the movie. I think Gore is afraid of his own convictions. The man wrote in his book he wanted gas to be very expensive. However, he seems to have stepped back from that and the Dems are all over Dubya for gas prices not even as high as those endorsed by Gore years earlier. However, I would back his as President if he and Tipper took a solemn vow never to French kiss on camera again, that is still giving me screaming nightmares!
> 
> Global warming, real or not? A very pertinent and good question. The person I am going to trust to present an unbiased cogent argument on the topic though, is 100% *not* Al Gore.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Who do you trust on the subject of global warming?


I do not trust any one person on the topic. You trust Al Gore?

Warmest regards


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Who are *some* of the sources you trust then?

I believe that Gore cares deeply about the subject and presented some compelling information in his film, information that can be corroborated and augmented through independent study. Hence, I do not need to "trust" Al Gore per se, as I can investigate the matter myself. Much of what was presented in the film, though, is startling and worthy of contemplation. What conclusions you arrive at are your own.

Just to have people engage in a serious discussion of what may be the most critical crisis facing humanity is a good start. Too often it seems the headlines are filled with "American Idol," etc.

Cheers.



Wayfarer said:


> I do not trust any one person on the topic. You trust Al Gore?
> 
> Warmest regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Who are *some* of the sources you trust then?
> I can investigate the matter myself.


I would have to say I feel that I too am capable of investigating the matter on my own.

I recently was watching PBS and it seems we did have some global warming from the 70's (a time of global cooling btw. I was a very young child and remember being scared we were headed into an ice age by the media. All the sci-fi books I read for a while dealth with future dystopias where the Earth had reverted largely back to barbarism with enclaves of high tech). One of the scientists on the PBS show confirmed we have had global warming...but that it ended in 2002. I wish I could remember his name, but he had been well respected by the Gore camp...until he came up with his inconvienent truth, namely that his research showed global warming had stopped. Food for thought.

Warmest regards


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

I think it is very disrespectful to question the former Vice President, who after all was one of the people responsible for this very internet upon which we are here pontificating.

Joe

PS Saw himself and Tipper having lunch at Gramercy Tavern a while back, looked a lot better in person than he does on TV. They left a good five minutes before the check came, though.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Faulty analogy*



cufflink44 said:


> It's interesting that Wayfarer presents as "food for thought" one scientist, whose name he can't remember, who claims that global warming has stopped. Let's assume the mysterious Dr. X does indeed believe this. What does it prove? You can also find a couple of scientists with Ph.D.'s after their names who believe that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. What's a bit more germane is the fact that the _overwhelming_ majority of researchers think that HIV is in fact the cause.


First, I do promise to spend a few minutes and try to find the Dr. X in question, just for you my faulty analogy friend.

Now, let us dissect this little gem. First, Dr. X admits to global warming. Hey, is that not what you want to hear? Ahhh, no it is not. Dr. X says it has stopped. WE MUST MAINTAIN THE PANIC!! At all costs. So the only acceptable viewpoint, obviously, is a lock step one with you. Further, your little analogy to HIV is incorrect. It passes Koch's Postulate. End of story there. I am sure you can find a homophobic crazy to contradict this, however we can also find people still ready to "prove" the Earth is cooling. Point being though, according to accepted epidemiology, your analogy is flawed.

As to your bad dreams over Bush, all you liberals have to do is present a candidate who does not paint a great big red Bull's Eye on my back saying "RAISE HIS TAXES" and I am more than willing to back a Dem. Hell, Clinton was not that bad IMO, he did sign NAFTA and Welfare Reform. Outside of the tax hike, my biggest bitch with Clinton is he promised to fund a free needle exchange and then backed out. All public health data supports these programs improve health in IVDA populations and I am all for that.

Warmest regards

Edit: Dr. X is Dr. Robert Carter from James Cook University in Australia.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If we accept this instance of accelerated, human induced global warming and that unpredictable, but probably catastrophic results will happen unchecked, then it goes beyond any political stance and is a universal concern. Global warming is happening because we humans like to burn things; from paleolithic fat lamps to the big candle known as a Saturn rocket. So, for me the credibility of any spokesman is paramount to advancing the issue. Is VP Gore credible? Well, he had a ghost written book called Earth in the Balance and stood with Clinton while a texas corporate bully named Hurewitz bullied a sweetheart deal to 'save' a fragment of the once finely family managed Pacific Lumber company's redwood holdings and watch the rest get clearcut. Now thats a splendid example of leadership tempered in the Army journalist offices of Saigon. Of course, at the end of the day big Al drives home in a fossil fuel vehicle just like most of us global warming contributors. But theres one difference, Al sits on a cool 2 million+ stock portfolio Occidental Oil gifted him through dear old dad. Al has yet to divest his holdings, in spite of their equally appalling involvment in the U'wa indian landrights issue and the related murder of 3 american environmental and indigenous peoples activists. Maybe somebody could pair Al's efforts with Michael Moore's and slip in a Bugs Bunny Cartoon. One credible film in three isn't bad.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I think the most important point appears in your first two sentences. Most of us know the baggage Gore carries, but I am primarily viewing him as a conduit of information that can be independently corroborated. If the man is flawed it does not necessarily follow that his message is.

Perhaps the Occidental connection is haunting him, prompting this latest environmental push. Perhaps he's gearing up for a 2008 run. I couldn't say.

But his film does lay out a lot of information that is worth considering.



Kav said:


> If we accept this instance of accelerated, human induced global warming and that unpredictable, but probably catastrophic results will happen unchecked, then it goes beyond any political stance and is a universal concern. Global warming is happening because we humans like to burn things; from paleolithic fat lamps to the big candle known as a Saturn rocket. So, for me the credibility of any spokesman is paramount to advancing the issue. Is VP Gore credible? Well, he had a ghost written book called Earth in the Balance and stood with Clinton while a texas corporate bully named Hurewitz bullied a sweetheart deal to 'save' a fragment of the once finely family managed Pacific Lumber company's redwood holdings and watch the rest get clearcut. Now thats a splendid example of leadership tempered in the Army journalist offices of Saigon. Of course, at the end of the day big Al drives home in a fossil fuel vehicle just like most of us global warming contributors. But theres one difference, Al sits on a cool 2 million+ stock portfolio Occidental Oil gifted him through dear old dad. Al has yet to divest his holdings, in spite of their equally appalling involvment in the U'wa indian landrights issue and the related murder of 3 american environmental and indigenous peoples activists. Maybe somebody could pair Al's efforts with Michael Moore's and slip in a Bugs Bunny Cartoon. One credible film in three isn't bad.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I remember the crises about a global "cooling". Now it's the crises about global "warming". 

I also remember the crises about the world running out oil. Which seems to repeat itself over and over again.

Thinkers like Gore, like to think, but workers are the ones who get things done in this world and are the ones who run it. Intelligenstia, especially of the politcal type, are simply distractions on the roadside to the progress of mankind. Reagan was right, the world is run by "C" students.

M8


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

The workers, is it? 
I'm not confident we can survive the C-students.



Martinis at 8 said:


> I remember the crises about a global "cooling". Now it's the crises about global "warming".
> 
> I also remember the crises about the world running out oil. Which seems to repeat itself over and over again.
> 
> ...


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Why is it the "solutions" always involve more taxes, govt., and costly constraints on US companies. China is hardly an example of human rights, much less environmental protection. The Kyoto agreement was formulated at a time when people feared US economic dominance. If the world seriously cared about the environment, head to China and India, where industrial development is exploding. Stop bashing the US and SUV drivers.

And yes, this movie should be thoroughly fact-checked. It is rather "convenient", if you will, to say America is to blame. This has long been the cry of leftists for as long as there has been leftists. The former Soviet bloc had the worst environmental record - bar none. Citizens were impacted so severely that the effects were surfacing in the obligatory military service. Pollution is worse elsewhere, it simply doesn't have the same ring to anyone else.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

BertieW said:


> The workers, is it?
> I'm not confident we can survive the C-students.


Bertie,

By "workers" I mean those that actually get things done, not those who sit around and "think" and then enact policy simply as a result of thoughts that have not been calibrated to any meaningful experience they have had. Look at our politicians as an example, there is a large number of them that have never really had a job in the economy. They are not really in touch with what makes the world go 'round. Ted Kennedy is one example of this, as is Al Gore.

The "C Student" reference is of course a metaphor.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

I_Should_Be_Working said:


> Why is it the "solutions" always involve more taxes, govt., and costly constraints on US companies. China is hardly an example of human rights, much less environmental protection. The Kyoto agreement was formulated at a time when people feared US economic dominance. If the world seriously cared about the environment, head to China and India, where industrial development is exploding. Stop bashing the US and SUV drivers.
> 
> And yes, this movie should be thoroughly fact-checked. It is rather "convenient", if you will, to say America is to blame. This has long been the cry of leftists for as long as there has been leftists. The former Soviet bloc had the worst environmental record - bar none. Citizens were impacted so severely that the effects were surfacing in the obligatory military service. Pollution is worse elsewhere, it simply doesn't have the same ring to anyone else.


ISBW - Thank you for your response. Russia and the former Soviet republics will continue to pay for the USSR's environmental mess. One example is Chernobyl. The brazen shoddiness with which this facility was built and maintained was simply criminal. It continues to be a mess, threatening workers today, who will have to try and repair/re-do the sarcophagus around the reactor.

I, as an American, am weary of being cited for the ills of the environment. I work for an automaker, and our industry has reduced automobile emissions by over 99%, since 1973. Our power and utility companies burn the cleanest of any country, with the lone exception of nuclear power.

The idiot left, would have us believe that the solution lies in solar and wind power, yet not one of them want the panels or wind generators anywhere near their homes. They evidently have no concept of basic science or economics, since their solutions would create hardships which no one can bear financially.

This is also the same bunch who doesn't want us to drill for oil domestically. They truly believe that shutting down the U.S. economic engine would be the panacea for all environmental good, while ignoring China and India, who are creating economic growth doing things far worse than we ever did.

Most people in this country don't have a clue as to how clean the United States really is. All they have to do is cross the border into Mexico, and they'll see for themselves how bad near-totalitarian government is for the economy and environment. Mexico City is an environmental basket case. It's surely isn't a result of unbridled capitalism. It is clearly the result of an oppressive government.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

So the only choices are "unbridled capitalism" or "near-totalitarian government"? I don't believe that this false dichotomy represents the actual array of possibilities before us.

I would think that even some libertarians would call the fire department when the house is burning, suggesting a more nuanced role for the community/state.

I understand that excessive regulation can be as bad as too little regulation, and that frictions on the free market (not that a totally free market really exists, of course) can result in inefficiencies and costs. But there's enough evidence to suggest that a few (sometimes more) people will pursue their own self interest at the great expense of others (c.f. Enron, et al.) absent some oversight.

The notion of a purely self-regulating market is an elegant one, if chimerical.

Certainly America isn't the dirtiest nation if we look at individual industries, but in the aggregate the country produces a lot of garbage relative to its population. As the world's most innovative, entrepreneurial market, the U.S. can surely employ its genius to reduce its own pollution and send a powerful message to other places, like China and India. Ultimately, we're all on the same rock together, so it's more helpful to think about how American innovation and leadership can help both itself and the rest of the planet survive.

Especially since China's pollution is now bumping up against America's West Coast. There's really no place to hide.

Best regards.



pendennis said:


> ISBW - Thank you for your response. Russia and the former Soviet republics will continue to pay for the USSR's environmental mess. One example is Chernobyl. The brazen shoddiness with which this facility was built and maintained was simply criminal. It continues to be a mess, threatening workers today, who will have to try and repair/re-do the sarcophagus around the reactor.
> 
> I, as an American, am weary of being cited for the ills of the environment. I work for an automaker, and our industry has reduced automobile emissions by over 99%, since 1973. Our power and utility companies burn the cleanest of any country, with the lone exception of nuclear power.
> 
> ...


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

BertieW said:


> So the only choices are "unbridled capitalism" or "near-totalitarian government"? I don't believe that this false dichotomy represents the actual array of possibilities before us.
> 
> I would think that even some libertarians would call the fire department when the house is burning, suggesting a more nuanced role for the community/state.
> 
> ...


Bertie, I did not say the only choices were the extreme dichotomies. However, given a choice between the two, I would choose unbridled capitalism.

What would you have the United States do about China's pollution problems? We have no power to force the Chinese into environmental solutions. No one had the power to force the Soviets to use a technically-safe nuclear solution at Chernobyl.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Right vs Left Seems to Obscure the Issues*

The issue is an important one, but has become so freighted with political polemics that it's hard to sort out many salient facts. Whether you find Gore credible on the issue or not, there are some things that many scientists agree on.

>The climate of the earth has been following sine waves for as long as it is possible to trace it. Whether we are at the peak of a wave now or not, no one can say with certainty.
>We can't predict the weather with certainty, a month ahead of time, much less over the next decade.
>Much of the variation in the temperature of the earth is caused by variaton in the behavior of the sun. It is not possible to forecast the future here with a lot of precision.
>The earth was here long before man existed, and will be here long after we depart. Ice ages were present before man, as was warming.
>After the industrial revolution, there was a huge amount of unfiltered polution that was emitted. At that point, cooling, rather than warming was taking place.
> So much of the earth is covered by water, that water evaporation has as much to do with the climate, as does the burning of fossil fuel.

After that, we get into politics. We are all environmentalists, in that everyone wants clean water, air, etc. However, when Communism failed, many chose to attack capitalism through the "environmental movement".

Warming is caused by evil capitalism, therefore we can kill the beast through another aproach.

France and Japan have proven that nuclear energy is not only clean, but furnishes independence from OPEC.

In the US, there is a lot more enthusiasm for forcing the US auto industry,that is not that robust anyway, to solve the problem by building small cars that don't sell.

An important suject indeed. I'm not sure that anyone yet knows the right strategy.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Guys,

At the moment I have to butt out. (I'm one of those workers!) But will pop in later to continue.

Agree that it's damn tough to force the hand of other countries, particularly China which owns about a third of the Fannie Mae mortgages in the U.S. today (!) and otherwise helps us run a massive deficit. But I'm guardedly optimistic that creative solutions are out there for diplomacy.

Cheers.



pendennis said:


> Bertie, I did not say the only choices were the extreme dichotomies. However, given a choice between the two, I would choose unbridled capitalism.
> 
> What would you have the United States do about China's pollution problems? We have no power to force the Chinese into environmental solutions. No one had the power to force the Soviets to use a technically-safe nuclear solution at Chernobyl.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

I don't think anyone from any political persuasion would argue that the world is not warming. Rather, the point of contention is whether this should be cause for alarm given the limited data set, the underlining vast amount of assumptions that come along with predictive modeling, and the unknown human involvement in the phenomenon. Is it conceivable we are the cause for global trends, undoubtedly yes, but to what degree? I have yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument one way or another. And I think if we are to undertake the enormous changes necessary to augment our behavior we should expect a reasonable amount of evidence, not predictive models to make these decisions. And unfortunately as a nation with limited resources and time, would it be wise to chase the multi-trillion dollar 'ghost' of global warming if in fact we were but a fraction of a percentage agent for the change in global temperatures? Or that indeed global temperature does rise and fall for reasons outside of our control? Or would those resources be better spent on other verifiable dangers?

I don't think anyone at this point has the answer and I'm not certain a politicized movie will do anything to change that fact, so we wait...


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

whnay. said:


> I don't think anyone from any political persuasion would argue that the world is not warming. Rather, the point of contention is whether this should be cause for alarm given the limited data set, the underlining vast amount of assumptions that come along with predictive modeling, and the unknown human involvement in the phenomenon. Is it conceivable we are the cause for global trends, undoubtedly yes, but to what degree? I have yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument one way or another. And I think if we are to undertake the enormous changes necessary to augment our behavior we should expect a reasonable amount of evidence, not predictive models to make these decisions. And unfortunately as a nation with limited resources and time, would it be wise to chase the multi-trillion dollar 'ghost' of global warming if in fact we were but a fraction of a percentage agent for the change in global temperatures? Or that indeed global temperature does rise and fall for reasons outside of our control? Or would those resources be better spent on other verifiable dangers?
> 
> I don't think anyone at this point has the answer and I'm not certain a politicized movie will do anything to change that fact, so we wait...


WHNAY, I happened to locate this article while looking at Matt Drudges' web site. This puts a lot of sanity into the argument.

So far, the loudest noise has come from those espouse global warming. This is the same crew who espoused global cooling just thirty years ago.

https://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> The issue is an important one, but has become so freighted with political polemics that it's hard to sort out many salient facts. Whether you find Gore credible on the issue or not, there are some things that many scientists agree on.
> 
> >The climate of the earth has been following sine waves for as long as it is possible to trace it. Whether we are at the peak of a wave now or not, no one can say with certainty.
> >We can't predict the weather with certainty, a month ahead of time, much less over the next decade.
> ...


Intrepid, the strategy is to follow the real science - not the blather espoused by politicians like Al Gore.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Oh really?*



cufflink44 said:


> If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious what exactly in Gore's presentation on global warming made you characterize it as "blather" and pseudo-science. Obviously you wouldn't attack the man's ideas without actually listening to them..





cufflink44 said:


> It's interesting that Wayfarer presents as "food for thought" one scientist, whose name he can't remember, who claims that global warming has stopped. Let's assume the mysterious Dr. X does indeed believe this. What does it prove?


You would never be so crass as to scoff a person's ideas without investigating them, would you?

Warmest regards


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious what exactly in Gore's presentation on global warming made you characterize it as "blather" and pseudo-science. Obviously you wouldn't attack the man's ideas without actually listening to them, so of course you've seen the movie and/or read the book. Could you share with us, then, what data in Gore's presentation you think are phony and what analyses you think are incorrect--and on what basis you're arrived at your conclusions?


Suggestions that China is on the leading edge of modern environmentalism.

If there is anything "unbridled" - as in that unsettling condition so upsetting to statists who shiver at "unbridled" capitalism - growth in China in unbridled. There the economy is freed from anything that might prevent it from attaining 10% annual growth, whether that be politics, accepted business law, human rights, or the environment.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

I_Should_Be_Working said:


> Suggestions that China is on the leading edge of modern environmentalism.


Oh boy...


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> Funny. I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" yesterday, and I don't recall any such general statement or "suggestions." What I do recall is that in the specific area of vehicle emission standards, Gore states that the Chinese are more stringent than we are in the U.S. (I don't have the exact numbers in my head, but I assume they're readily obtainable) and that U.S. cars therefore can't be sold in the Chinese market.


But the inference is made that the US lags the world. Europe refused to adopt catalytic converters for years, but there is no international bash crew complaining of Autobahn fuel hogs spewing fumes. Why don't they knock Porsche like they do Hummer?

Look at the legislation the Bush admin adopted regarding diesel truck and off road vehicle emissions. Doubtful these will appear in the developing world anytime soon.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> No offense, but you need to read more carefully. I didn't scoff at the ideas of the maverick scientist you originally alluded too--how could I, when at the time you hadn't told us who he was?


Not to be bothersome, but this is an _ad hoc rescue_, you quite clearly scoffed at his ideas. One need not know who posited an idea to deal with the idea itself. Just admit what you did and move on, I will respect that far more than back pedalling.

I have stated previously it does seem we are in a global warming phase. Whether it is caused by man 100% (I just know Gore used the word "anthropogenic" as everyone that has seen the movie is using it, lol), partially, or is not, whether it is a crisis, we are at a tipping point, etc., I really do not know. I know the 70s of my early childhood were certainly colder than those of the 90s, I also know back home had the worse winter in 20 years this year.

I know I would like to see less pollution. I know the developed world pollutes far less than it once did and China, India, and Banglidesh are huge polluters. I know Russia backed the Kyoto because it will not use all of its "pollution credits" and plans to sell them for billions to countries that cannot meet their Kyoto obligations. I know Kyoto is flawed as the biggest polluters did not sign the damn thing. I do feel people that back Kyoto are either brain washed or leftist ideologues because of this.

So in summary, pollution = bad. Civilization causes pollution. So is civilization bad?

Warmest regards


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

cufflink44 said:


> If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious what exactly in Gore's presentation on global warming made you characterize it as "blather" and pseudo-science. Obviously you wouldn't attack the man's ideas without actually listening to them, so of course you've seen the movie and/or read the book. Could you share with us, then, what data in Gore's presentation you think are phony and what analyses you think are incorrect--and on what basis you're arrived at your conclusions?


Cufflink, I have neither read the book, nor do I intend to see the movie, ergo putting one red cent into this gas bag's pockets. I've listened to Al Gore's blather for years, while he has accused industrial America of vile practices for years, with no more than junk science to support his supposed facts. He is nothing more than a political opportunist, who, as I mentioned in another post, has reached his level of incompetence as the U.S. Vice-President.


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

Mrs. FC and I are home from Minsk now. La Jolla's usual "June gloom" is nowhere to be found. It's sunny and delightfully warm with a fresh sea breeze here in California. We're not sweating it!

For those who might enjoy them, one man's lighthearted thoughts on global warming are pasted below with a link to the original article from today's (June 6, 2006) Denver Post.

https://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

*Chill out over global warming*

By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
DenverPost.com

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society. 
Why not give it a whirl? 
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens. 
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears. 
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree. 
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast. 
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." 
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age. 
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." 
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be? 
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical. 
Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions. 
I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over? 
"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard." 
Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it. 
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching." 
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s." 
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up. 
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way." 
So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff. 
Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist. 
Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike. 

_David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or [email protected]._

_________________________________________


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Here is a more interesting discussion that includes Mr. Gray, one of the scientists quoted below:



Full Canvas said:


> Mrs. FC and I are home from Minsk now. La Jolla's usual "June gloom" is nowhere to be found. It's sunny and delightfully warm with a fresh sea breeze here in California. We're not sweating it!
> 
> For those who might enjoy them, one man's lighthearted thoughts on global warming are pasted below with a link to the original article from today's (June 6, 2006) Denver Post.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> I remember the crises about a global "cooling". Now it's the crises about global "warming".
> 
> I also remember the crises about the world running out oil. Which seems to repeat itself over and over again.
> 
> ...


I learned in high school we were all going to freeze to death in the next Ice Age which was upon us.

Then I learned swine flu was going to kill us all.

And then there was the Y2K Bug which was certain to end life as we know it. We all spent billions responding to the Y2K Bug, which turned out to be a total hoax. I still think it was cooked up by the computer industry wanting to force everyone to buy new computers.

"Global warming" is the same.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Beresford said:


> ...And then there was the Y2K Bug which was certain to end life as we know it. We all spent billions responding to the Y2K Bug, which turned out to be a total hoax. I still think it was cooked up by the computer industry wanting to force everyone to buy new computers...


Actually it was a scam by the legal industry. Largely so that "Y2K compliance" contracts and policies could be written and appropriate hours billed. "Consultants" were in on this too.

Ms. M8 was in the software banking business (Citicorp) decades earlier and knew that the Y2K issue had been tested and solved way in advance, like around 1970 (with 30 year mortgage tables, etc.).

Of course the scammers claimed that they saved lives by keeping the airplanes from falling from the skies 

M8


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Actually it was a scam by the legal industry. Largely so that "Y2K compliance" contracts and policies could be written and appropriate hours billed. "Consultants" were in on this too.
> 
> Ms. M8 was in the software banking business (Citicorp) decades earlier and knew that the Y2K issue had been tested and solved way in advance, like around 1970 (with 30 year mortgage tables, etc.).
> 
> ...


M8 - You are absolutely correct. I work in the auto industry, and we had already modified computer programs, databases, etc., as early as 1981 to account for Y2K. While we were very vigilant coming up to Y2K. We did our work early.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Cheers Dennis.

What's your perspective on the hybrid auto technology and the way Japan is eating our lunch with its innovations?

How can America compete better in this domain, or do you believe we're doing just fine?

I know what I've read in BW and the Economist, etc., but genuinely interested in your view as one working in the business.

Best,
Bertie



pendennis said:


> M8 - You are absolutely correct. I work in the auto industry, and we had already modified computer programs, databases, etc., as early as 1981 to account for Y2K. While we were very vigilant coming up to Y2K. We did our work early.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*more grist for the mill*

If the insurance companies are concerned about global warming, this suggests the problem may be more than a liberal fantasy.

Here's one recent article on the subject:


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Gloom and Doom - a Huge Industry*



Beresford said:


> I learned in high school we were all going to freeze to death in the next Ice Age which was upon us.
> 
> Then I learned swine flu was going to kill us all.
> 
> ...


You make a good point, Beresford.
In addition to global warming, Y2K, Swine flu, Avian flu, that you mention, there is a vast industry out there selling gloom and doom, and their solution usually involves voting for them, or sending in money.

There is never an end. Cheeseburgers will kill us, cell phones cause brain cancer, cholesterol will kill us,oh never mind on that one, bacon and eggs are now ok. Caffine is deadly, oh never mind. Artificial sweetners cause cancer, and caused rats that were fed twice their body weight in Sweet & Low to die, oh never mind on that one.

The alar on apples is deadly, oh never mind.

You will have heart trouble without taking large doses of vitamin E daily. Oh never mind, large doses of vitamin E are now thought to cause heart problems.

Stay tuned.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Well, isn't this how science has always worked though? It advances in stages, generally, getting revised as we learn more. No one, certainly not me, contends that we have gained absolute knowledge of how the world works. But to take the opposite path and suggest that, because we cannot claim /absolute/ knowledge, any contingent knowledge is therefore rubbish and to be disregarded, seems imprudent, imo.

Are you suggesting that you're not concerned with the possibility of global transmission of diseases such as avian flu? It may not happen, and one hopes that it won't, but hope is a pretty poor business plan. (Unless you're in the levee-building regiment of the Army Corps of Engineers, but that's another tale...) We've already seen how AIDS has seriously impacted the social network, security and commerce of Africa. 25 years ago this was a largely unheard of disease (though one with roots likely extending back to colonial times). To pretend that everyone is raising alarms for the fun of it seems...short-sighted.

That said, I never bought into the Y2K hysteria, as it seemed silly and improbable. But the bank I worked for then certainly took considerable pains circa 1997-1999 to play it safe and update its systems.

Like so much else, reason suggests a middle path to preparation, at least. That way one is less likely to have to panic.

Seems as if those insurance companies (see above) are hedging their bets to avoid catastrophic loss. I don't see why this is so ludicrous.



Intrepid said:


> You make a good point, Beresford.
> In addition to global warming, Y2K, Swine flu, Avian flu, that you mention, there is a vast industry out there selling gloom and doom, and their solution usually involves voting for them, or sending in money.
> 
> There is never an end. Cheeseburgers will kill us, cell phones cause brain cancer, cholesterol will kill us,oh never mind on that one, bacon and eggs are now ok. Caffine is deadly, oh never mind. Artificial sweetners cause cancer, and caused rats that were fed twice their body weight in Sweet & Low to die, oh never mind on that one.
> ...


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Bertie, I don't think that we disagree on preparedness. I guess the thing that seems out of proportion to the issue of preparedness, is the tinge of hysteria that often seems to arise.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

All the made-for-media hysteria about global warming, etc., simply distracts us from what the real enemy is that will destroy our civilization and is actively trying to do so worldwide: *ISLAM*


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't think there's much chance of anyone here forgetting about the threat of terrorism. But life is funny like this: It keeps throwing a variety of curves at us. Fortunately a good number of us are multitaskers...



Beresford said:


> All the made-for-media hysteria about global warming, etc., simply distracts us from what the real enemy is that will destroy our civilization and is actively trying to do so worldwide: *ISLAM*


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I don't think there's much chance of anyone here forgetting about the threat of terrorism. But life is funny like this: It keeps throwing a variety of curves at us. Fortunately a good number of us are multitaskers...


Sometimes I wonder about our politicians, however . . . .

"Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 8, 2006 
4:09 p.m. 
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war. 
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out." 
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out. 
"We're there for all the wrong reasons," Mr. Kucinich said. 
Officially, Democratic leaders reacted positively to the news and praised the troops that successfully targeted al Qaeda's leader in Iraq with 500-pound bombs at his safe house 30 miles from Baghdad. 
"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. 
President Bush said that yesterday's killing of the 39-year-old Jordanian-born terrorist offers an opportunity to "turn the tide" in the war and that Tuesday he will discuss with Iraqi leaders "how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq." 
A senior White House official cautioned that Mr. Bush was not hinting at possible early reductions in U.S. troops there, according to Reuters news agency. 
Meanwhile, Democrats sprinkled caveats throughout their praise. 
"That is good news; he was a dreadful, vicious person," said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat. Mr. Conrad added that he hopes the military can get Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, another top al Qaeda leader. 
"They're even more important," he said. 
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Michigan Democrat, said it was good news but added, "I think we have a long way to go." 
Republicans called Zarqawi's death a positive step and thanked Iraqi citizens for standing up to a threat against their nascent Democracy. 
"I am more optimistic than ever that a free and stable Iraq can be achieved," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee."


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I finally got to see this movie this past weekend and I was pleasantly surprised with the way Gore presents (if he could have been this good during the elections he may have had many many more votes)..in any case I believe he presented a very strong case..those that want to believe the political machine that says this is a figment of the imagination, go ahead, this planet is indeed changing, and not for the better.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Cheers Dennis.
> 
> What's your perspective on the hybrid auto technology and the way Japan is eating our lunch with its innovations?
> 
> ...


Bertie, sorry for the late response.

Hybrid technology appears to be only a mid-term measure in the development of the automobile. As of today, the best development seems to be the "E85" ethanol technology. Coming in second is "bio diesel". Both of these seem like great alternatives to gasoline, although both have a long way to go in terms of fuel economy, availability, and product development. Gasoline is deeply embedded in our infrastructure, and it will be years before it can be cycled out. There are millions of cars in the U.S. fleet. It will be at least ten years before every gasoline-powered car can be replaced; and that's if programs were implemented today using either of the newer internal combustion technologies.

Part of the problem with technologies like batteries, and hydrogen have to do with the efficiency of batteries. The best ones don't get very much distance, and the recharging of the batteries causes increased electrical usage at utilities, which in turn burn oil, gas, coal, etc. Physical laws just can't be repealed at the behest of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace.

Hydrogen, which is vastly cleaner, also has its own crosses to bear. Fuel tanks are heavy; hydrogen is really dangerous to handle, even in secure fuel tanks. I saw a demonstration of a hydrogen fuel tank exploding, and no one wants to be near if one of these things goes off. I know everyone thinks they can be made safe, but if you can imagine that one can explode, it will. The other issue with hydrogen is with the massive amounts of water vapor they emit. It also creates a huge problem with oxidation.

Thomas Friedman has really taken some cheap shots at General Motors; taking them to task for continuing to produce and sell Hummers and other large SUV's. He forgot to take into consideration that GM sells more cars that average 30mpg, than anyone else. And no, I do not work for GM.

America is progressing at a rate which could improve. However, since products are market-driven, it will take time for the market to change; be-damned what the U.S. Government or the socialists would have one believe.

American automakers are hamstrung with legacy pension and medical costs. Something which companies like Toyota, Kia, etc., do not face. Remember also, that imported vehicles do not keep profits in the U.S. Those profits go back to their native countries of Japan and Korea. With high fixed costs, it is difficult to move more dollars into research, and still maintain profit levels acceptable to investors.

Right now, we have an infrastructure geared toward gasoline and diesel. It will require massive amounts of private capital to create a new one to support any of the above technologies, or new ones coming up. Most people don't have a clue about infrastructure costs, or what technology is needed to change.


----------

