Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize - Page 7 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 Old 10-22-2007, 12:10 AM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

why do you think the guy in the article doesn't have any idea what he is talking about......... is it because he's Russian?

No, it's because he says the Mars data (of 3 years) is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#182 Old 10-22-2007, 04:15 AM
Kiz
Veggie Regular
 
Kiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,132
Actually, yes, and from well-respected scientists, too. So far it's only a theory, a good one maybe, but still a theory and rightfully so.



Quote:
Originally Posted by inie View Post

But is it really, by the experts?




Love the post? Why not buy the T-shirt!
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=8
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=94
Kiz is offline  
#183 Old 10-22-2007, 05:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
inie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonAmy View Post

Considering scientists recently discovered that Mars is also experiencing climate warming, yes.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html



I actually already read that article, or maybe another one by the same author (I don't often read national geographic). I personally don't find conclusions based on three years worth of data not that convincing. Apart from that, the author doesn't really seem to seek an explanation for the warming of Mars, but merely correlates it to the warming of the earth, and concludes that, as both are warming, the cause must be the same. Not very convincing science, in my opinion. There could be various other reasons for the current warming of Mars. It remains to be seen if the warming that is measured in these 3 years is part of a trend, or just normal fluctuation. The fact that Mars experiences climatic changes in itself is not surprising, this was already known.
inie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#184 Old 10-22-2007, 07:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Dirty Martini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,777
Why cling onto the belief that "It's humans and only humans that cause global warming and could never be anything else!!" ?? Why not consider the thought that it could be a combination of things. It could be that our entire solar system is warming, that the earth is entering another climate change cycle, AND that humans are accelerating an already-occurring trend.



What's wrong with that?
Dirty Martini is offline  
#185 Old 10-22-2007, 09:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
While people with political agendas dither and cite junk science in vain attempts to prop up their spurious objections to the conclusions of scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Science and Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change conclusions about global warming, the scientists continue to be increasingly alarmed.



What Al Gore has done is brought the great concern of the scientists to the attention of many in the world.



Here is a good article on polar melting from the Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Savannah is offline  
#186 Old 10-22-2007, 09:08 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

While people with political agendas dither and cite junk science in vain attempts to prop up their spurious objections to the conclusions of scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Science and Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change conclusions about global warming, the scientists continue to be increasingly alarmed.



What Al Gore has done is brought the great concern of the scientists to the attention of many in the world.



Here is a good article on polar melting from the Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../10/21/AR20071

Linky no worky
Vegan Joe is offline  
#187 Old 10-22-2007, 10:06 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
it is fixed now.
Savannah is offline  
#188 Old 10-22-2007, 10:47 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

While people with political agendas dither and cite junk science in vain attempts to prop up their spurious objections to the conclusions of scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Science and Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change conclusions about global warming, the scientists continue to be increasingly alarmed.



What Al Gore has done is brought the great concern of the scientists to the attention of many in the world.



Here is a good article on polar melting from the Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../10/21/AR20071

Linky no worky
Vegan Joe is offline  
#189 Old 10-22-2007, 11:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
inie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonAmy View Post

Why cling onto the belief that "It's humans and only humans that cause global warming and could never be anything else!!" ?? Why not consider the thought that it could be a combination of things. It could be that our entire solar system is warming, that the earth is entering another climate change cycle, AND that humans are accelerating an already-occurring trend.



What's wrong with that?



I never thought that only humans can cause global climate change, on the contrary, I'm well aware that the earths climate has changed throughout the entire history of the planet, long before there were humans around!

The solar cycles have influence (decreased solar activity is though to be responsible for the 'Little Ice Age'), though not all that much. Much more influential are the earth orbital variation (search for Milankovitch cycles if you're interested) which are linked to the big ice age cycles that occurred for the last couple of million years. The thing is, that these things are well documented, and work relatively slow. As far as I know, there is no 'natural' warming trend at this moment, on the contrary, if you read articles from before the global warming trend, people were worried that the earth would cool, because we are due for another ice age (although these cycles work slowly, so that would happen in several millennia, if it happens at all)



The current global warming can not be explained solely by these natural cycles, which is why people think that it has to do with the increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

I do not buy the 'the entire solar system is warming' argument, I have seen no evidence that the radiation from the sun varies that much to be able to cause any significant changes. And besides, we would be able to measure this increase in heat coming from the sun very easily.
inie is offline  
#190 Old 10-22-2007, 11:41 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

it is fixed now.



No , not yet
bluegold is offline  
#191 Old 10-22-2007, 12:21 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

The prize went to the IPCC and Al Gore. The IPCC has provided the proof. Gore is more of a communicator.



We've been discussing the proof in this thread.



I can understand where you are coming from re the person who bank rolled the case that the judge ruled on ....thats the nature of the beast thats out there .



But what brings into question is how The IPCC could have got it so wrong if they or others advised Gore on the subject matter of the film.



I haven't seen the film (films ) I think there are 4 of them , so I cant really comment on it .



But his ruling below is correct . There have only been approaches to NZ by a group of 6 Atolls and if rising sea levels swamp them to see if they can bail out.



11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
bluegold is offline  
#192 Old 10-24-2007, 05:23 PM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesand View Post

But what brings into question is how The IPCC could have got it so wrong if they or others advised Gore on the subject matter of the film.

I think you've got it slightly wrong: The fact that they shared the prize does not imply that they have been cooperating in any way. I don't think Gore has taken any advise from the IPCC on anything. (In fact, I've read that the head of the IPCC was quite upset by some of Gore's previous statements.)

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#193 Old 10-24-2007, 06:13 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

I think you've got it slightly wrong: The fact that they shared the prize does not imply that they have been cooperating in any way. I don't think Gore has taken any advise from the IPCC on anything. (In fact, I've read that the head of the IPCC was quite upset by some of Gore's previous statements.)



Thats interesting ...I thought they were arm and arm . Have you any idea where Gore sources his info from ? .
bluegold is offline  
#194 Old 10-25-2007, 06:04 AM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesand View Post

Thats interesting ...I thought they were arm and arm . Have you any idea where Gore sources his info from ? .

I don't know in general, but as far as An Inconvenient Truth is concerned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inco...ientific_basis

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#195 Old 10-25-2007, 08:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
35 Inconvenient Truths (aka errors in Gore's film).



Interesting.



So much conflicting data, so many different opinions, I wonder who is correct....



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html
Kraut is offline  
#196 Old 10-25-2007, 08:17 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

35 Inconvenient Truths (aka errors in Gore's film).



Interesting.



So much conflicting data, so many different opinions, I wonder who is correct....



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html



Your source is biased. The entire web site seems to exist simply to discredit climate change and Al Gore. Other than that, it seems to have nothing to do with science and public policy.



From their mission statement:



Though some say anthropogenic "global warming" is the most serious issue facing humankind, security of energy supply is a far more serious problem, since the fossil fuels that cause "global warming" may soon be exhausted.



From their personnel page:



President: Robert Ferguson has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002. He has considerable policy experience in climate change science, mercury science, energy and mining, forests and resources, clean air and the environment. His undergraduate and advanced degrees were taken at Brigham Young University and George Washington University, respectively.
GhostUser is offline  
#197 Old 10-25-2007, 08:30 AM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post


So much conflicting data, so many different opinions, I wonder who is correct....



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html



Yeah, that is what ExxonMobil wants you to think. Just to add to what pkk just said:



Quote:
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2]. The Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy [3]. It received a further $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006 for the Center [4]. The institute describes itself as a "nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science".



The institute downplays global warming as a serious issue, instead underlining security of energy supply as the most pressing problem for humanity[5].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science...licy_Institute

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#198 Old 10-25-2007, 09:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

Your source is biased.



PKK & Indian Summer:



Most, if not all, sources are biased. For example, the IPCC is biased towards GW. Many of the scientists are biased towards GW to get their grants. That's how the system works & I understand that. Real truth seeker looks at the validity of the underlying work, not simply dismiss work due to the source or the funding. That is also a part of *real* science.
Kraut is offline  
#199 Old 10-25-2007, 09:27 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
They're funded in part by ExxonMobil. Their entire existence is fraudulent. Get Real.
GhostUser is offline  
#200 Old 10-25-2007, 09:55 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

They're funded in part by ExxonMobil. Their entire existence is fraudulent. Get Real.



There is no truth, much less science, in dismissing work because you don't like the source. Is that how you deal with things that don't fit your view of the world?? If so, too bad for you. Doing that puts you in poor company since that is what many Germans did in the 30s-40s.
Kraut is offline  
#201 Old 10-25-2007, 09:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Libellula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

They're funded in part by ExxonMobil. Their entire existence is fraudulent. Get Real.





couldn't i say that the inconvenient truth movie, since funding was, as of my most recent search, mostly undisclosed, is fraudulent? funding should not determine whether or not a source is relevant, it should demonstrate bias. soemthing against the existance of climate change, for example, funded by Exxon or Ford could be seen as biased because those companies do have a certain agenda: making money. AT the same time, an Inconvenient Truth cannot be hailed as an unbiased informative documentary.
Libellula is offline  
#202 Old 10-25-2007, 10:02 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

Doing that puts you in poor company since that is what many Germans did in the 30s-40s.

Hyperbolic comparison alert.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#203 Old 10-25-2007, 10:04 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Savannah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

There is no truth, much less science, in dismissing work because you don't like the source. Is that how you deal with things that don't fit your view of the world?? If so, too bad for you. Doing that puts you in poor company since that is what many Germans did in the 30s-40s.





Have you gone back and verified the claims made by the source you cited? If not, why are you accepting the criticisms as being accurate? Perhaps because they fit with your view of the world? On the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences has stated that it is a 90% probability that the global warming we are now experiencing is due to human activities. The Academy and the Nobel Prize winning scientists deal in peer reviewed science, not in junk science bought and paid for by energy producers bent on spreading misinformation. Where have the claims made by your source been reviewed and evaluated?
Savannah is offline  
#204 Old 10-25-2007, 02:26 PM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libellula View Post

couldn't i say that the inconvenient truth movie, since funding was, as of my most recent search, mostly undisclosed, is fraudulent?

No, not fraudulent. Here's the info you couldn't find:

http://grist.org/news/maindish/2007/...der/index.html

The production budget was $1 million and this was provided by Participant Productions (whose CEO is Jeff Skoll, the first employee of ebay). It was distributed by Paramount.



Quote:
funding should not determine whether or not a source is relevant, it should demonstrate bias.

To ordinary people who are not climatologists and have little or no scientific training, this is in the end a question of belief and who they can trust. So in this sense a bias is highly relevant, and a source with a clear bias would not carry much weight. On the other hand, a climatologist would be able to look at their research and judge only by the research itself.



I would argue that the bias of any climatology "science" funded by ExxonMobil is undisputable. Their agenda is clear as the day itself. (And IIRC this is not the first example of them funding anti-environment research either.) On the other hand, the motives of Al Gore and Jeff Skoll seem to me to be more altruistic / less selfish.

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#205 Old 10-25-2007, 03:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Libellula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,341
yes, as was the agenda of those who produced an inconvenient truth. everyone has an agenda, you cannot say that funding = fraudulent.
Libellula is offline  
#206 Old 10-25-2007, 06:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savannah View Post

Have you gone back and verified the claims made by the source you cited? If not, why are you accepting the criticisms as being accurate? Perhaps because they fit with your view of the world? On the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences has stated that it is a 90% probability that the global warming we are now experiencing is due to human activities. The Academy and the Nobel Prize winning scientists deal in peer reviewed science, not in junk science bought and paid for by energy producers bent on spreading misinformation. Where have the claims made by your source been reviewed and evaluated?





You must have missed it so Ill just point out that I am on record in post 192 as saying:



"So much conflicting data, so many different opinions, I wonder who is correct...."



I dont have a dog in this GW fight nor the time/background to analyze/validate all the issues and sub-themes. The only thing I am defending is the notion that rejecting/disbelieving things based on their source and/or funding is beyond silly, its down right dangerous. Im always surprised that I get so much knee-jerk violent left wing push back for such a notion.



We are all born not believing in anything, and at this point in time, I have not accepted the new GW religion but I do retain an open mind. GW is in the same category as my belief in God, UFOs and aliens (from other planets, not from Mexico). Im struggling with the GW premise that humans can make a tiny change in the overall composition of the atmosphere (small change to CO which is already a small % of the atmosphere) and the planet can not deal with the change so, one way or another, life as we know/enjoy it is over. I worry every time I burp: maybe I just pushed the atmosphere composition, & the fate of the planet, over the tipping point?? I rest easy knowing the law of large numbers ensures this honor will go to some poor guy in China!
Kraut is offline  
#207 Old 10-25-2007, 06:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post


We are all born not believing in anything, and at this point in time, I have not accepted the new GW religion but I do retain an open mind. GW is in the same category as my belief in God, UFOs and aliens (from other planets, not from Mexico). Im struggling with the GW premise that humans can make a tiny change in the overall composition of the atmosphere (small change to CO which is already a small % of the atmosphere) and the planet can not deal with the change so, one way or another, life as we know/enjoy it is over. I worry every time I burp: maybe I just pushed the atmosphere composition, & the fate of the planet, over the tipping point?? I rest easy knowing the law of large numbers ensures this honor will go to some poor guy in China!

I bet this has absolutely nothing to do with the political alignment of "the new GW religion"?

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#208 Old 10-26-2007, 05:05 AM
Veggie Regular
 
inie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

You must have missed it so Ill just point out that I am on record in post 192 as saying:



"So much conflicting data, so many different opinions, I wonder who is correct...."



I dont have a dog in this GW fight nor the time/background to analyze/validate all the issues and sub-themes. The only thing I am defending is the notion that rejecting/disbelieving things based on their source and/or funding is beyond silly, its down right dangerous. Im always surprised that I get so much knee-jerk violent left wing push back for such a notion.



We are all born not believing in anything, and at this point in time, I have not accepted the new GW religion but I do retain an open mind. GW is in the same category as my belief in God, UFOs and aliens (from other planets, not from Mexico). Im struggling with the GW premise that humans can make a tiny change in the overall composition of the atmosphere (small change to CO which is already a small % of the atmosphere) and the planet can not deal with the change so, one way or another, life as we know/enjoy it is over. I worry every time I burp: maybe I just pushed the atmosphere composition, & the fate of the planet, over the tipping point?? I rest easy knowing the law of large numbers ensures this honor will go to some poor guy in China!



I disagree that it is silly or dangerous to be mindfull of the source and funding of papers. On the contrary, it's common sense. Science should be independent, I would be very carefull in trusting a paper about global warming that is written by someone from Shell or Exxonmobile or whatever other company that clearly has interests in that area. It might be good science, I'll need to see the paper first, but I'll definately be carefull with trusting it.



Another thing, the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is low (relatively, at least), makes it more, instead of less likely that it can be influenced easily. Because there is little of it in the atmosphere, any addition to that small amount makes a big difference.



The increase of CO2 is something that is measurable, by the way, so I'm honestly curious as to why you would not believe that it is true.
inie is offline  
#209 Old 10-26-2007, 08:45 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by inie View Post

I disagree that it is silly or dangerous to be mindfull of the source and funding of papers. On the contrary, it's common sense. Science should be independent, I would be very carefull in trusting a paper about global warming that is written by someone from Shell or Exxonmobile or whatever other company that clearly has interests in that area. It might be good science, I'll need to see the paper first, but I'll definately be carefull with trusting it.



Another thing, the fact that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is low (relatively, at least), makes it more, instead of less likely that it can be influenced easily. Because there is little of it in the atmosphere, any addition to that small amount makes a big difference.



The increase of CO2 is something that is measurable, by the way, so I'm honestly curious as to why you would not believe that it is true.





I never said "being mindful" of the source was a problem. I said that rejecting the data solely because of its source was not appropriate.



I never said CO2 is not increasing. I accept the measurements that say it is increasing. I did say I am not convinced that the human-caused CO2 is meaningful in terms of the overall greenhouse effect. If memory serves me, when you include water vapor,

1) total CO2 is about .035% of the atmosphere by volume

2) human-made CO2 is about .001% of the atmosphere by volume

3) total CO2 causes about 3.5% of the total greenhouse effect

4) human-made CO2 causes about 0.1% of the total greenhouse effect
Kraut is offline  
#210 Old 10-26-2007, 10:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
inie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

I never said "being mindful" of the source was a problem. I said that rejecting the data solely because of its source was not appropriate.



It could be, depending on the source, and the situation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post


I never said CO2 is not increasing. I accept the measurements that say it is increasing. I did say I am not convinced that the human-caused CO2 is meaningful in terms of the overall greenhouse effect. If memory serves me, when you include water vapor,

1) total CO2 is about .035% of the atmosphere by volume

2) human-made CO2 is about .001% of the atmosphere by volume

3) total CO2 causes about 3.5% of the total greenhouse effect

4) human-made CO2 causes about 0.1% of the total greenhouse effect



If your numbers are correct, it still doesn't mean much on absolute terms. The 'total' greenhouse effect is what keeps this planet from being a lifeless iceball, an increase of 0.1% of this effect may very well be of great consequence.



Apart from that, I'm not even sure if your number are correct, what I remember is that the total CO2 level increase was nearly one third, so that would be 0.01 % instead of 0.001 %.

The volumetric abundance of CO2 in relation to the other greenhouse gasses is not relevant, as not all greenhouse gasses have the same heating effect.
inie is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off