Al Gore wins Nobel

Christcorp · October 19, 2007, 2:26pm

Just because a government agency is willing to spend a lot of money on something; wow, like that’s a new concept; doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Or that they are doing it because they believe we can have a major impact on the solution.

If the efforts, money, and resources were used in other areas, then we can take care of all that we can, and at the same time improve the quality of life for everyone. But instead, they allow special interest groups and the emotions of people, turn this into a political debate where political gain, power, and money become the leading motivators.

garland · October 19, 2007, 2:26pm

Sorry, Sokkermom. Let me say this more clearly. The part of climate change that anyone, Al Gore, the IPCC, etc are talking about is number 3–anthropogenic climate change. I thought I made that clear, I thought everyone knew that, but thanks for the primer, anyway.

garland · October 19, 2007, 2:27pm

Christcorp–you’re the one who cited the EPA at me as your expert source.

1sokkermom · October 19, 2007, 2:28pm

Re post #202

You and Al Gore haven’t made it clear that #3 is a MAJOR cause of climate change. No one has. But thanks for your intended clarity!

garland · October 19, 2007, 2:45pm

Well, all I’m saying in this little thread is that Christcorp used the EPA as his vaunted source, and there, with a Republican, slow-to-respond administration, they still maintain it’s a major issue which needs to be dealt with some serious though probably not sufficient initiatives.

The IPCC, whose positions we as a nation contribute to and assent to, paints a very clear picture of the issue as extremely major. You could read up on their consensus findings to help clarify for you further.

simba · October 19, 2007, 3:14pm

“Dr. Mitch Taylor wrote in a 12-page document…”

sjmom: It was already concluded that Mitch Taylor was a looney tune.

Why do deniers cite the same source after a day or two has passed by? don’t they have any more/different names/sources?

Again for Mitch Taylor Fans

Polar Bear Population Status in the Southern Beaufort Sea
By Eric V. Regehr and Steven C. Amstrup, U.S. Geological Survey; and Ian Stirling, Canadian Wildlife Service

Polar bears depend entirely on sea ice for survival. In recent years, a warming climate has caused major changes in the Arctic sea ice environment, leading to concerns regarding the status of polar bear populations. Here we present findings from long-term studies of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) region of the U.S. and Canada, which are relevant to these concerns. We applied open population capture-recapture models to data collected from 2001 to 2006, and estimated there were 1,526 (95% CI = 1,211; 1,841) polar bears in the SBS region in 2006. The number of polar bears in this region was previously estimated to be approximately 1,800. Because precision of earlier estimates was low, our current estimate of population size and the earlier ones cannot be statistically differentiated. For the 2001–06 period, the best fitting capture-recapture model provided estimates of total apparent survival of 0.43 for cubs of the year (COYs), and 0.92 for all polar bears older than COYs. Because the survival rates for older polar bears included multiple sex and age strata, they could not be compared to previous estimates. Survival rates for COYs, however, were significantly lower than estimates derived in earlier studies (P = 0.03). The lower survival of COYs was corroborated by a comparison of the number of COYs per adult female for periods before (1967–89) and after (1990–2006) the winter of 1989–90, when warming temperatures and altered atmospheric circulation caused an abrupt change in sea ice conditions in the Arctic basin. In the latter period, there were significantly more COYs per adult female in the spring (P = 0.02), and significantly fewer COYs per adult female in the autumn (P < 0.001). Apparently, cub production was higher in the latter period, but fewer cubs survived beyond the first 6 months of life. Parallel with declining survival, skull measurements suggested that COYs captured from 1990 to 2006 were smaller than those captured before 1990. Similarly, both skull measurements and body weights suggested that adult males captured from 1990 to 2006 were smaller than those captured before 1990. The smaller stature of males was especially notable because it corresponded with a higher mean age of adult males. Male polar bears continue to grow into their teens, and if adequately nourished, the older males captured in the latter period should have been larger than those captured earlier. In western Hudson Bay, Canada, a significant decline in population size was preceded by observed declines in cub survival and physical stature. The evidence of declining recruitment and body size reported here, therefore, suggests vigilance regarding the future of polar bears in the SBS region.

Christcorp · October 19, 2007, 4:01pm

Yes, and from the EPA’s Q&A section, they state:

Q. Are human activities responsible for the warming?
A. Separating out the impact of human activity from natural climate
variation is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded there
is a discernible human influence on climate. This means the observed
global warming is unlikely to be the result of natural variability alone
and that human activities are at least partially responsible.

Of course, even adding 1 part per million will have some affect. Now, assuming the information that human influence on global warming is approximately 0.28%, one has to wonder how much repair we can have on the system. That is my point.

My original point of quoting the EPA, is that while some want to claim that all the “Experts” say we are the problem, the EPA themselves can’t even agree or state how much of the problem mankind is responsible for. Especially when looking back at hundreds and thousands of years and the different temperature changes.

My position is; if we look at the economic factors. energy efficiency factors, and technology factors, to develope a better energy source for our industrial, residential, and mobile needs, then whether or not mankind is a major contributor to global warming will be a moot point. Developing the more efficient/economic/technological means of energy will ALSO take care of our “Contribution” to global warming.

The problem is; if there was 1 Billion dollars available in a pot. if that was all allocated towards the developement of energy that is more efficient, economical, and technologically useful to us, a whole hell of a lot can be accomplished. However. if that money is continued to be used for “Educating” consumers to conserve energy, make automobiles more fuel efficient, advertising, political action initiatives, subsidies to farmers making ethanol, more global warming research, and many other areas that concentrate on using fossil, bio, and other forms of fuel that require changing their chemical composition; which is very inefficient, then that same billion dollars becomes much less efficient. Probably 80% of the resources is wasted.

Now, some people think that we can be more efficient with what we are doing now, and that will be an success. Sorry, but those who think that way are wrong. No matter what side of the isle you are on in the debate over global warming, the continuation of fuels that require change in chemical composition to be used as a fuel, is not a viable long term solution. It is a finite source, it creates polutions to air, water, and soil which causes health issues. And it’s becoming more and more economically prohibitive. And if you believe that they are also the cause for global warming, then you have you own list of negatives. Slowing it down to lower levels, as many are trying to do now, will still not fix the problem.

People need to think outside of the box. Take away the damn politics. Stop using their emotions about the poor people who can drink glacier water and rising see levels. And so on. If we use our resources to develope a true new technology energy source, we will take care of the environment, the global warming issue (If that’s a factor), improve the economy of all world people, and move on to a world where transportation, communications, information, etc… are more efficient, economic, and technologically friendly. Basically, I’m suggesting that people be willing to evolve instead of being complacent and putting band-aids on problems that no one can point to the cause of or a solution to. Hell, we could design a new energy source that has ZERO negative affect on global warming and the environment, and it might not change a thing with the planet. But at least what we are using for energy will be more efficient, cheaper, better use technologically, and we can all feel that we have done everything we could to NOT HURT our world.

Now, you can read into this all you want to mean anything you want. The fact is, the limited amount of money and other resources that we spend everyday on global warming and other similar causes is a waste of money, time, and resources. Sometimes you can’t just “FIX” that old clunker car. Sometimes you have to go out and buy a “NEW” one. It’s cheaper in the long run. It’s better for the environment. It’s safer. It’s more reliable. etc… I am suggesting going the next step. Replace the fossil/bio/chemical comp conversion type fuels with a new source. It’s available. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear (Yes, it’s safe), etc… Kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Unfortunately, it isn’t politically advantageous to spend the money on research. It’s better to BUY votes and pretend to care by putting money into subsideis, PACs, Consumer confidence, etc…

garland · October 19, 2007, 4:16pm

Christcorp–cool! We’re getting somewhere! So, we agree there is human influence on global warming.

Now, as to your caveats–you stated earlier that humans provide .28% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. but of course, that doesn’t mean that they cause .28% of global warming. the global warming that is being talked of and needs to be controlled is the anthropogenic (human-caused) warming. As I said previously, the greenhouse effect is necessary to keep the earth warm and cozy–we don’t want to end it. What we need to consider doing is controlling the .28% of greenhouse gases we’ve added which have tipped a relatively stable balance (the natural changes are much more gradual and longterm than the recent ones we have observed now.)

So, looks like we’re starting to be on the same page here. I agree with much of what you say about needing real energy/greenhouse gas solutions, they all go hand in hand. Telling the hundreds of millions of people to build a reservoir around the glacier is a bandaid solution (and ignorant for many reasons.) But worrying about the potential world catastrophe when hundreds of millions of people lack water is not.

It really does come down to a “we broke it, we fix it” problem.

fundingfather · October 19, 2007, 5:21pm

“But worrying about the potential world catastrophe when hundreds of millions of people lack water is not.”

Can you point me to the part of the IPCC study which concludes this?

Christcorp · October 19, 2007, 5:34pm

garland; while I appreciate the fact that you and I are making progress in our thinking, we aren’t. I do not believe for a second that the 0.28% affect mankind has contributed towards global warming has “TIPPED A RELATIVELY STABLE BALANCE”. Not in the least. I don’t believe it is is causing the ice shelf to melt. I also don’t believe that if we ended ALL man made global warming interference, that it would correct anything.

We did NOT break it. Such arrogance. We don’t have that much control over the environment. You can believe we do, but we don’t. 1 volcano can cause more damage in 24 hours than mankind can do in years.

The only thing we agree on is the need for better energy alternative. We agree however for different reasons. We also disagree on how or why to pay for it.

mini · October 19, 2007, 5:35pm

My problem with Al Gore is significantly different from what I’ve read thus far. Now I happen to think it is likely that the earth is warming, that humans caused it, and, at least in theory, humans could eventually stop (though not reverse) the process. The bulk of the science, from what I’ve read, most of it third hand, seems to be on that side, and I do not possess enough scientific acumen to counter it, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.

My problem with Al Gore’s thinking is that he is either a) a hypocrite (and it has nothing to do with his big house), or b) he really doesn’t believe his own propaganda. Gore puts forward not only the global warming thesis, but the subthesis that we reach the point-of-no-return by 2015. Yet, the “feel good” measures he proposes don’t result in us getting anywhere close to changing trend by 2015. Now one could argue that just because we can’t get there in time doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do “something”. But an equally strong case could be made that we accept man-made global warming as a given, not to be reversed, and that we should expend the bulk of our time, energy, and resources adapting ourselves and the world to this new, warmer condition. I am quite taken with the point of view of the Skeptical Ecologist who accepts the science of global warming, and concludes that we have far better places to be expending our resources for the good of humanity than in trying to cool ourselves down.

Alternatively, Gore is a “chicken-little”, believes in his prescriptions, but not really in the direness of the situation.

Underlying Gore’s hypocrisy is this: there was probably no single individual in the 20th Century more responsible for human caused global warming (if it exists) than Al Gore. Gore’s outfront and very public leadership and support of neoliberal globalization, NAFTA, CAFTA, the World Bank, the IMF, etc. was profoundly influential in the shipping of polluting industries abroad to places where their warming tendencies would not be controlled, in cutting rainforests in southeast Asia and South America, in the destruction of grasslands, coastal areas, the mega-migration of millions of people kicked off their lands in Mexico, Central America, southeast Asia, China, and parts of Africa…my list could be very long.

By not acknowledging his personal role as a leading global warming criminal, he misses the opportunity to put a human face on truly understanding what happened, and what is happening, and, in fact, delays the day of reckoning of coming to terms, one way or the other, with what is happening to the polar bears, and will be in the future.

fundingfather · October 19, 2007, 5:38pm

"sjmom: It was already concluded that Mitch Taylor was a looney tune.

Why do deniers cite the same source after a day or two has passed by? don’t they have any more/different names/sources?"

Perhaps I missed it, but when was Taylor determined to be a looney tune other than by the definition of Simba?

I suppose by this definition, Dr. David Legates is also a looney tune:

A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delaware’s Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist, examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study finds that polar bear populations are in good shape. 

Is the Arctic Warming? In the study, Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts , Legates reviewed the claims that global warming is causing an unnatural increase in Arctic temperatures, posing a threat to the thickness and extent of sea ice and thus to the polar bears who rely upon it. In particular, he examined assertions made in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (hereafter, the Arctic Assessment ), an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). 

Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4°F per decade since measurements began in 1987. 

In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4°F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models. 

However, even if warming is occurring, it has happened before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea show. For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries. And, as expected in response to natural variability, Alaskan ecosystems have responded rapidly and visibly to this recent warmth. By contrast, if the recent warmth were human-induced by constant additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, responses in the Arctic region would be expected to be gradual and modest when viewed within any short time period.

<hr>

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline: 

Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears — are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown. 

Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.

garland · October 19, 2007, 5:39pm

Christcorp–darn, well I tried.

but, whether adding .28% to the natural atmosphere can tip the balance is not a belief, faith, arrogance, or attitude question of any kind. It is a factual question, with objective parameters which can be studied. And those who study them, as you yourself have quoted, do believe that that amount is enough to tip that balance.

Christcorp · October 19, 2007, 5:39pm

mini, you are quite wise and can see what many can’t. “…we have far better places to be expending our resources for the good of humanity than in trying to cool ourselves down…” That is exactly what I believe to be true. The best part of it all is if we DID do that with our resources, we would ALSO be doing all the things these alarmists like Gore is promoting. Just that our limited resources wouldn’t be used in political and other ulterior motivated places.

P.S. No garland, they haven’t said that it was enough to “Tip the balance”. That’s like saying there is a glass of water 1/4th full. Just because we added water to it doesn’t mean it is going to overflow. Some may believe that, but I don’t. Neither has the places I quoted say that. They say we have had an affect, but not that it tipped anything. Don’t feel bad however. You can keep going on until you feel your position is justified. I personally am not trying to justify my position. If you give me credible evidence that we are emphatically the cause for global warming, I will definitely reconsider. Unfortunately, you are asking me to prove we’re not. Sorry, but even in our basic principle of law, it is not up to me to prove innocence. You are the one accusing man kind. You provide the proof. I’ve provided enough enough that shows plenty of “Reasonable Doubt”

simba · October 19, 2007, 6:08pm

"
I suppose by this definition, Dr. David Legates is also a looney tune:"

NO. He is not loony tune. He is a greedy moron in the pockets of XOM.

The organizations that make him rich are funded by XOM.

sjmom2329 · October 19, 2007, 6:12pm

Thank you, FF.

First of all, it seems quite presumptuous to me to expect that everyone who visits CC reads each and every post before commenting. Secondly, it’s not clear to me that one person’s opinion invalidates the credibility of a source who has been cited. And finally, I find it a little amusing that so many people are somehow certain that they fully understand all of the issues and can point to one answer. It reminds me of a game I played with my kids, where – whatever the question – the answer is “Three!” As far as I can tell, the only poster with even a remote connection to environmental science is sokkermom, who has been ridiculed by those who disagree with the points she raises. Bizarre!

Also, I notice that those of the “Chicken Little” persuasion have studiously avoided any comment on the viewpoint presented by Dr. Lindzen. At least mini sees my point about the cost/benefit analysis of steps required to change the global climate.

<a href=“http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm[/url]”>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm</a>

simba · October 19, 2007, 6:29pm

Lindzen gets money from XOM too.

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US.”

sjmom2329 · October 19, 2007, 7:20pm

You know, I’m as cynical and suspicious as the next person, but I do still have respect for institutions like MIT. I really don’t think they would keep anyone on the faculty who was a complete idiot or was bought and paid for by special interests. Your comments seem really strange to me – we should all just blindly accept Al Gore, who doesn’t have any background in climatology yet ignore any scientist who disagrees with his sensationalism.

For the record, Lindzen admits that he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since. <a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/</a>

When a reporter from the Boston Globe says this:

He’s smart. He’s an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don’t want you to hear from him. It’s easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits.

While vacationing in Canada, I spotted a newspaper story that I hadn’t seen in the United States. For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

``We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science, he should present it to the MIT provost’s office. Otherwise, he should shut up.

**``This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit.** Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.

then I think intelligent people may want to listen. The Globe is as far left as any media outlet in the country, and would never support any right wing point of view.

simba · October 19, 2007, 7:40pm

“I really don’t think they would keep anyone on the faculty who was a complete idiot or was bought and paid for by special interests.”

Once you get tenure, you have to die before you get kicked out.

fundingfather · October 20, 2007, 12:20pm

“Lindzen gets money from XOM too.”

Proof, please? Note that expert witness fees from 10 years ago does not equate to “gets”.

But, if you want to look at money flows with respect to its impact on credibility, the vast majority of the money is flowing to those who ascribe to the politically correct view of global warming. Any scientist who will sell his integrity for money would be a fool to sign up with the skeptic crowd.

Al Gore wins Nobel

CONNECT WITH US