More from Gore - DPChallenge Forums

01/09/2007 05:16:55 AM · #101

Originally posted by Flash:

Thus, if burning fossil fuels are not the root cause, which I believe they are not, then Al Gore's movie is alarmist BS - which I stated was my opinion at the outset.

Flash, you are reading one scientific paper and reaching some very significant conclusions from your interpretation of it.

While I accept that there are challenges to the theories on causes of global warming, those challenges are themselves challenged. I am not enough of a scientist (nor do I have time to research) to find out whether the paper you refer to is written by someone authoritative, independent, and qualified in the relevant field, and how strong their arguments are compared to any couter arguments.

Unfortunately, your "belief" in one paper over another is not very persuasive by itself. Referencing a consensus of the most qualified, independent and relevant people who study this field would be highly persuasive.

I have no idea how authoritative it is (no time to research), but wikipedia under "causes" indicates that the greenhouse effect is not generally disputed (add CO2, get higher temperatures). Without more, I would view the page that you have referenced with some suspicion.

One further danger is to fall into the trap of following party political lines, or personal preference, over the evidence. If the evidence indicates that CO2 emissions are causing the problem, while you may disagree with his politics or his means of presentation, you may have to concede that Gore has a point.

Message edited by author 2007-01-09 05:40:13.

01/09/2007 05:46:42 AM · #102

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I am not enough of a scientist (nor do I have time to research) to find out whether the paper you refer to is written by someone authoritative, independent, and qualified in the relevant field, and how strong their arguments are compared to any couter arguments.

It appears that some other people have already written quite a bit about the author, Steven Milloy.

He misreports his independence, has been in the pocket of the tobacco industry (denying report after report on the dangers of second hand smoke, while receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Philip Morris), and currently receives indirect funding from ExxonMobil.

These should be factors that you take into account when considering how much weight to give to his views over those of people with fewer obvious conflicts of interest and a better record of impartiality.

01/09/2007 07:11:15 AM · #103

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

It appears that some other people have already written quite a bit about the author, Steven Milloy.

This was discussed on page 2 of this thread.

Legalbeagle,

I much appreciate your posts and believe you give much thought and reason to your arguments and positions. Having read many of your postings, I have likewise concluded that although we may not see things the same, I appreciate your perspective on them. You lend a "balance" without being offensive.

Specifically to my point of this post and the "swipe" at Mr. Gore, is the position referenced in the paper by Mr. Milloy (regardless of his credentials, his point is accurate) that the "greenies" harp on the burning of fossil fuels (as in automobile emmisions - as in trucks, large displacement engines and those most evil of machines - HUMMERS) as a primary cause of "Global Warming" ie. the green house gasses.

My position from the outset has been that this tack by the predominently liberal left, is wrong in its application. Specifically that there has been many "warming cycles" through the earth's history that preceeded this current infusion of manburned fossil fuels. Therefore, the evil machines purported to be the cause and the subsequent intent to ban or restrict or limit the choice of, is an adgenda item of a political group and not based on historical proof. Thus, I discount not only the message but the messenger(s) as well.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/09/2007 08:39:11 AM · #104

Originally posted by Flash:

This was discussed on page 2 of this thread.

Apologies - I must have missed on my first skim through.[/quote]

Originally posted by Flash:

Legalbeagle,

I much appreciate your posts ...

Thanks - I appreciate the compliment. I enjoy tackling some of your posts (although you will have to forgive me for being occasionally dismayed by them...!).

Originally posted by Flash:

the position referenced in the paper by Mr. Milloy (regardless of his credentials, his point is accurate)

Is it? Given his history, I would prefer to see a more authoritative source.

Originally posted by Flash:

Therefore, the evil machines purported to be the cause and the subsequent intent to ban or restrict or limit the choice of, is an adgenda item of a political group and not based on historical proof.

It is difficult to identify historical comparators. There is no direct comparison, because fossil fuel release has never happened in the current manner. However, this should not prevent us from considering what appears to be cause and effect, given that we do have historical evidence of periods of high/low CO2 concentrations and related world temperature.

The major consensus of people who study this topic is that there is a link. There is a current large CO2 concentration, and there is not (as must have been the case before) an obvious biological cause for it (eg massive volcanic activity etc). There is an apparent human cause (the unprecedented burning of huge amounts of fossil fuel), and there is evidence that human activity can have significant effects on our atmosphere (eg the ozone layer).

It appears that you are denying that the link is causative based on a scientific principle. I don't have the information to hand to say whether this is a well founded view or not - that is, whether the principle you espouse is correct, and if it is, whether it significantly contradicts the prevailing theory. However, the consensus view appears to be there is a causal link. Mr Milloy does not appear to be a strong voice to the contrary - though you may be able to find better.

As for the politics, there are two sides to the story. My view is that there is a prevailing scientific view. Politicians may support the majority or the minority views. If you support the majority scientific view, you will be taking a tough and unpopular stance - it will be expensive in the short term and interfere with people's expectations. If you support the minority stance, you are supporting a maintainance of the status quo, the easier route and short term increased profitability.

Despite it being the more difficult route, many politicians throughout the world support the tougher stance. In the UK, all three major parties support CO2 reduction policies.

The US, as the world's largest polluter, has much more to lose and the decision is much tougher still. Yet one party has opted to make that difficult choice. I am not sure why they would do that unless the case for doing so was pretty persuasive.

Originally posted by Flash:

Thus, I discount not only the message but the messenger(s) as well.

Well we agree that messengers who have a bad track record are not to be trusted - but that makes your trust in Mr Milloy's position all the more surprising to me.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/09/2007 11:09:46 AM · #105

Matthew, perhaps this link from Realclimate.org
will suffice as a more "credible" source to those who deny the credibility of others.
The gist of the article says that ice core samples show that typically warming PRECEDES a rise in CO2 by an average of 800 years - followed by a continued rise, possibly, and perhaps even probably exacerbated by the increased level of CO2.

( my opinion follows ): If there is a cause/effect relationship it appears that the cause is warming, the effect is increased CO2, and then the combination becomes self-sustaining until critical mass is reached, at which time the increased level of greenhouse gasses interferes with solar radiation enough to start a reversal.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/09/2007 11:35:06 AM · #106

Although I was a convert to begin with, I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" last night and have to say I was floored. Not that this is happening (like I said, I was a convert), but that such a strong visual and logical argument can be put forward and people still can not be moved.

Wake up and smell the coffee people! (in my best Matthew Brock voice)

01/09/2007 12:30:36 PM · #107

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The "Passion of Christ" was also a very moving movie. Based on the continued refusal of many on this site to "believe", and some to even argue that Christianity has religious elements similar to others through history, and therefore not the "true" faith, your statement does not move me. It does however hinge on your opening sentence where you state that "although I was a convert to begin with"... which signals to me that you were predisposed to the movies message. Similarily to how Christians are moved when watching the Passion movie.

Gore's movie is intended to influence ones feelings toward the receptance of the "Greenies" agenda. As I mentioned on an earlier page, read the Unabombers manifesto, and see if it does not read like Gore's Treatise on the Enviornment. A local radio station did a listener call in whereby virtually no one could decipher side by side readings as to who authored what. With this as my background and the illogical premise that the burning of fossil fuels (via automobile emisions) are causing the green house gasses and subsequent "Global Warming", I cannot give credibility to Mr. Gore.

01/09/2007 12:53:41 PM · #108

Originally posted by RonB:

That's a very interesting read. I think that your opinion follows the reasoning of the article well enough to be said to paraphrase it.

I have no idea how reliable Jeff Severinghaus is, but at least google throws up a page of citations to his work rather than a page of character assassinations.

As I understand it, the Severinghaus article operates on the principle that CO2 does operate to warm the planet (but is not usually the culprit for kickstarting the warming cycle). In our case, CO2 is rising before the cycle has been kickstarted by the natural warming/cooling cycle that Flash refers to. This is unprecedented (and IMO it would be reasonable to attribute this to human interaction). The warming effect of CO2 concentration could, therefore, be kickstarting the process outside the usual cycle.

Originally posted by flash:

the illogical premise that the burning of fossil fuels (via automobile emisions) are causing the green house gasses

Flash - I think that the complaint stems far beyond automobile emissions. Coal fired power stations are far more detrimental. I believe that cars make up only a small percentage of CO2 emissions. This report suggests 20% in the US, and 40% for power plants.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 01:04:58 PM · #109

I just continue to be amazed at the consistency with which a large group of what are supposed to be the best and brightest people in their field will say something is so, and a gang of politicians and CEO's will claim it's not.

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/09/2007 01:38:50 PM · #110

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by boomtap:
I don't know what to expect form global warming, but in CO we have more snow than we know what to do with. And more on the way. And it is cold.

And 70 in New York.

Todays temp 43 in NY, record Record 64 °F / 17 °C (1937).

New York could be the new LA? Maybe Disney would be intrested in Disney NY?

If you want to make a point, plant some palm trees along the road. Or ride your bike and power your home with solar cells and eat toast made by pedaling a bike. That would make a point.

Message edited by author 2007-01-09 13:43:32.

01/09/2007 01:42:32 PM · #111

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

You are correct in stating that the true root cause is much greater than automobile emmisions and as GeneralE stated earlier when challenging one of my posed questions. However, due to a bit of time spent on automotive forums and a UK Saab forum to be specific, there is a venomous passion by some claiming to be "green driven" that greatly opposes SUV's. I suspect that some who have posted in this thread, also side with the anti-SUV crowd. The reason that SUV's are deemed as evil, is due to their increased fuel consumption (burning of fossil fuels) and the argument is typically posed that this fuel consumption is causing the green house gasses and ultimate Global Warming. The conclusion is generally that SUV owners are irresponsible and SUV's should be banned or at least limited. Thus, this movie by Gore is another attempt by this group of "greenies" to challenge the buying choices of consumers and one intent is to influence automobile choices.

If it is true, as you and others have stated here (and I agree with), that vehicle emmisions are NOT the cause of green house gasses and subsequent Global Warming, then the vehicle choices that consumers make should be left out of the discussion.

However, many empassioned believers/converts, continue to paint SUV's as the root of all evil. Certainly the root of Global Warming evil.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 01:44:38 PM · #112

Originally posted by boomtap:

If you want to make a point, plant some palm trees along the road.

No particular "point" to that, except to point out the whatever humor/irony one might find in unusual weather.

I'm pretty sure there's some kind of unusual weather someplace in the world just about every day. Here in the Bay Area, we've had a couple of sunny days, but they expect local temperatures to drop by about 17 degrees F tomorrow.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 01:49:26 PM · #113

It is the inappropriate use of SUVs which drives (pun intended) "greenies" crazy. A 25 YO suburban mom driving herself to the grocery story is an inappropriate use of a two-ton rolling road hazard.

A rural volunteer fire brigade captain or game warden is welcome to drive one as far as I'm concerned.

01/09/2007 01:53:31 PM · #114

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Thank you for making my point. Why is the mom driving a SUV inappropriate? The greenies would say because of its contribution to Global Warming, which you yourself stated was not the root cause.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 02:02:20 PM · #115

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is the inappropriate use of SUVs which drives (pun intended) "greenies" crazy. A 25 YO suburban mom driving herself to the grocery story is an inappropriate use of a two-ton rolling road hazard.

A rural volunteer fire brigade captain or game warden is welcome to drive one as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for making my point. Why is the mom driving a SUV inappropriate? The greenies would say because of its contribution to Global Warming, which you yourself stated was not the root cause.

Being a "root cause" or not doesn't mean it's not a contributing factor.

I view my example as an "inappropriate" because it uses up far more of a limited natural resource than is necessary to accomplish the task. To use up a gallon of gas to accomplish what you could do in perfect comfort (say in a Lexus) for a half a gallon, or more healthily on a bicycle for zero gas, is a clear waste. Plus, they've been proven no safer for their occupants and a danger to others, so safety isn't really a valid excuse to me.

Now, if you want to pay $800 for a stereo you can buy at the store next door for $400, that's your business if you want to waste your money.

But believe none of us has the right to waste what can never be replaced -- in case you've noticed, we're fresh out of dinosaurs.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 02:05:05 PM · #116

BTW: Why do "Conservitives always seem to be so opposed to conserving natural resources, preferring instead to convert them as rapidly as possible to corporate profits?

It seems to me the only thing they seem bound to conserve is individual wealth and power.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/09/2007 02:16:42 PM · #117

Originally posted by GeneralE:

You are using too broad a brush as usual, Paul.
I'm a conservative, and I'm certainly not opposed to conserving natural resources ( or unnatural resourses either, for that matter ). I concientiously combine vehicular outings to minimize gas consumption, I recycle everything I can, do not use bleached or dyed products if possible ( e.g. use brown paper coffee filters ), solar heat my pool, etc. etc. There is an conundrum to conservation, however. Just the other day, I had to drive out of my way to make the last stop - at the UPS store...to recycle 5 large plastic trash bags full of foam packing peanuts. I hated to use the gas, and the plastic bags, but they were needed to transport the packing peanuts.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 02:22:26 PM · #118

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: Why do "Conservitives always seem to be so opposed to conserving natural resources, preferring instead to convert them as rapidly as possible to corporate profits?

It seems to me the only thing they seem bound to conserve is individual wealth and power.

You are using too broad a brush as usual, Paul.
I'm a conservative, and I'm certainly not opposed to conserving natural resources ( or unnatural resourses either, for that matter ).

You're right -- I should have said something more why "Why does it seem like so many conservatives ..."

However, I still think that's the goal of the proponents of unregulated capitalism, who tend to be "political conservatives" -- at least by the current system of labeling -- regardless of their personal habits.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/09/2007 02:23:16 PM · #119

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is the inappropriate use of SUVs which drives (pun intended) "greenies" crazy. A 25 YO suburban mom driving herself to the grocery story is an inappropriate use of a two-ton rolling road hazard.

A rural volunteer fire brigade captain or game warden is welcome to drive one as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for making my point. Why is the mom driving a SUV inappropriate? The greenies would say because of its contribution to Global Warming, which you yourself stated was not the root cause.

Being a "root cause" or not doesn't mean it's not a contributing factor.

I view my example as an "inappropriate" because it uses up far more of a limited natural resource than is necessary to accomplish the task. To use up a gallon of gas to accomplish what you could do in perfect comfort (say in a Lexus) for a half a gallon, or more healthily on a bicycle for zero gas, is a clear waste. Plus, they've been proven no safer for their occupants and a danger to others, so safety isn't really a valid excuse to me.

Now, if you want to pay $800 for a stereo you can buy at the store next door for $400, that's your business if you want to waste your money.

But believe none of us has the right to waste what can never be replaced -- in case you've noticed, we're fresh out of dinosaurs.

GeneralE,

This truly is a classic representation of my entire point. The use of "natural resources" as you state is different based upon the model of vehicle chosen by the driver. If natural resource conservation was in fact the real agenda item, then why not promote (as you state) only bicycles or hiking or horse and buggy, etc. I get lost in the "mine is better than yours" arguments, so, therefore, "your is wrong". The slipery slope argument that SUV's are "inappropriate" because they use more fuel than "is necessary", begs the continuing definition of what "necessary" is? Once necessary is defined, then all vehicles not meeting the "necessary" criteria, would be eliminated. This typically leads to ultimately choosing that it is impracticle to define "necessary", and we remain at the point of origin that you do not like mine because it is less efficient than yours, however yours is less efficient than "necessary". Therefore, I believe that those casting stones, should first insure that they are driving only vehicles using the "necessary" amount of fuel before they point out the lack of efficiency of another's vehicle. Ultimately, I would think that "greenies" would be walking, so as to demostrate their commitment to their belief. However, they typically drive some fuel efficient model, but at maniacal speeds, zooming from stop lights and thus using more fuel than "necessary". Making them hypocrites by virtue of their actions vs their rehtoric.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/09/2007 02:28:17 PM · #120

So Flash, do you think it is necessary for the US to have a CAFE standard of 25 MPG? I'm honestly asking.

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

01/09/2007 02:43:42 PM · #121

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So Flash, do you think it is necessary for the US to have a CAFE standard of 25 MPG? I'm honestly asking.

I personally wish my 4 wheeled vehicles got as good a mpg as my Motorcycle. 50 mpg is wonderful and something I believ is achievable in vehicles as well. The 25mpg CAFE standard does not bother me and I truly support efforts to improve mpg for all vehicles. As an example, GM has 1.5 million Flex Fuel vehicles on the road today. Significantly more than any other manufacturer. Unfortunately they do not get credit for this achievement, nor is the support system in place to provide the corn processing to supply the filling stations with the ethanol.

Hope this answers your inquiry.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/09/2007 02:43:47 PM · #122

Why has no one pointed out the fact that most of the petrolium in the world is used to make plastics. So thus your camera you tv your computer and countless other items that are not nessacery for substaining life should not be made anymore along with the suvs. See this is where Greenie arguements lead to a non real state of existence that will not and cannot work. So all said and done do your part to recycle. Not to waste products or fuels and accept the fact that somethings are not controllable. Like the weather.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/09/2007 02:48:51 PM · #123

My 6 year old car gets about 44 mpg and is exempt from California smog testing because it's considered an ultra-low emmissions vehicle. I have contrived to live within 1.8 miles of each of my two employers, so that I drive less than 1000 miles/month, and canget by filling my tank every 10-14 days.

I have walked/taken the bus to work when I've had car trouble, but my hips are so bad that I can't do that or bicycle on a regular basis, especially since I have to be at work at 6 am three days/week.

I'm not sure you need a distinct definition of "appropriate" to recognize something as clearly inapprpriate.

01/09/2007 02:59:17 PM · #124

Originally posted by GeneralE:

In your particular case, I believe you can criticize the vehicle choice of others. However, please know that my motorcycle gets 50mpg and if you were so inclined, a Trike might make a possible "next vehicle" for you.