Al Gore wins Nobel

Parent Cafe
241

<p>Finally, here is an article that presents the most rational view of global warming that I’ve read in quite a while. <a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763&lt;/a&gt;

</p>

<p>So, I’ll repeat my thought that the big problem with global warming as it’s treated today is that it is so politicized. Giving Gore the Nobel Peace Prize is only the most obvious indicator of that. Real science means examining the evidence – all of it, not just that which supports one’s initial hypothesis. When an issue – like GW – becomes a religion of sorts, it is no longer treated in a scientific manner. That’s when poor policy decisions are made.</p>

242

<p>Nice find sjmom. Even though that article definitely supports much of my beliefs and theories, I’d have to do a lot more checking into of his work and theories. I question both sides of ALL issues. No matter if it supports my position or not. </p>

<p>But you are totally correct that the biggest problem with global warming is that it has become politicized. That indeed is the problem. Politicians, special interest groups, others with their own motivations, know that most people can’t be objective. They know that most people will have an emotional reaction; pro or con; for topics that deal with the environment, spotted owls, polar bears, forests, field mice; as well as illegal immigration, welfare, death penalty, etc…</p>

<p>The average person can not be objective about many things. That’s why our representative style of government works so well. All 400 plus reps and 100 senators to try and pass laws and such that are good for society as a whole. It isn’t perfect, but it’s much better than a true democracy where 300 million people go on line to vote for something. Definitely not a good idea.</p>

<p>Anyway, most of the special interest groups are playing off your emotions. They have their own agenda. Giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize is like giving Hilter a Prize for humanitarian efforts. There’s a lot more to global warming, and there’s a hell of a lot more to Gore that people just don’t want to know.</p>

243

<p>Oh, yeah - anyone who thinks that anything should be done to lessen the pace of global warming is an “alarmist.” Or a “true believer.” And we’re in dire danger of “panic” over global warming “hysteria.”</p>

<p>Which no doubt explains why we basically haven’t done a single damn thing about it. None of those big things which might adversely impact the bottom line of any of the major multi-national corporations. (Thanks, Wall Street Journal!) Also, we scorn the little things which might make at least a small difference because, after all, they’ve been suggested by a politician we’ve been repeatedly urged to detest by people we agree with on other issues. And we can always find another source for a fallback position supporting doing nothing: “It’s not happening” becomes “We’re not causing it” becomes “It’s not so bad” - except for those who don’t keep up and get stuck on last year’s excuse for inaction. </p>

<p>So we actually haven’t done a damn thing. Not very impressive for a “panic”, is it?</p>

244

<p>Kluge; there are a lot of good scientists who have spoken on Global Warming issues. Almost all of them agree that it is happening. Where many of them disagree, is on what is causing it and is there anything we can do about it.</p>

<p>Al Gore, and some others, on the other hand are using scare tactics and emotions. They will have you believe that mankind, and especially the USA, are to blame for all of the worlds environmental issues. That we are responsible for the problems and are responsible to fix it. That Kluge, is the problem. Even the government’s own EPA won’t try and commit to how much of an impact mankind has had on global warming and it’s ability to affect change. Most reports show very little affect and impact on global warming by mankind. That isn’t even being debated among scientists. The debate is whether or not this very little amount is having a dramatic affect or not. If it is, what do we do about it? If it isn’t, can we do ANYTHING about it?</p>

<p>Too many people think it’s better to dump billions of dollars into greenhouse and global warming projects. All that is, is a feel good reactionary approach. It will make you sleep better at night, but won’t do a damn thing to fix anything. And then, you have squandered limited resources on something that hasn’t accomplished anything. This is the emotions, politics, feelings, and humanity that people like Al Gore feed off of. Al Gore doesn’t know anything conclusive about global warming or the cause of it. He can say that mankind has an impact on global warming. No $h*t. Every time you fart you have an impact. But he can say how much. As I said, even scientists can’t agree on the impact. They know the contribution is very minor, but does that minor contribution have a major impact or not?</p>

<p>As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of valid reasons to be searching for alternative and renewable energy sources, that aren’t bio or chemical based such as fossil or bio. Energy such as solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, etc… all forms that do not affect the environment through the energy process. There are plenty of reasons to get these designed. They will be beneficial economically, environmentally, socially, technologically, etc… And, JUST IN CASE WE DID HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING with our current use of fossil fuels and such, it will also be our contribution to that remedy. Unfortunately, all the money and resources that could be used for such research, will instead be used for political commercials, consumer advertising, educating consumers on being more energy efficient (With current energy), political campaigning, PAC’s lobbying, etc… They will use all this money and resources to put band-aids on our existing energy policies. They will use it to campaign on global warming issues for things that may or may not have any impact or ability to correct the issue. Instead of investing in a future that will automatically take care of the issue whether it’s being impacting by mankind or not. The concerns would be a moot point if they invested all that money and resources into our future energy resources.</p>

<p>No, this is totally a political game and Al Gore is right there with it. It is the only thing he has ever had that he could call his own since he was running as vice-president along side of Bill Clinton. He has no other way of impressing the american people or getting himself any notoriety. Al Gore is just an opportunist and doesn’t care about real solutions. If he did care, he would ensure that all these donations and resources went straight to future energy research. Come up with an energy source that is cheaper for the consumer, and they will use it, Better for the environment, and the consumer will support it. Contributes to the economy and the consumer will endorse it. The people may generally be ignorant, but they understand dollars and clean environments. Then, all this contributing that we “MIGHT SUPPOSEDLY” do to global warming with be a moot point. We will no longer be contributing anyway, so the Al Gore’s of the world are sill happy. </p>

<p>But don’t worry. They won’t pursue this. That doesn’t help them raise more money, become popular, more political clout, or feed off of your emotions. The way the energy future will be developed will be because of economics. The consumer will get fed up. Energy companies will find the new sources. Universities will find new sources and energy companies will have to address it. And so on down the line. Of course, Al Gore and other environmental alarmists will take credit for making the world aware of these issues. They are wrong, but they will take credit anyway.</p>

245

<p>your hatred for Gore shines through the mumbo jumbo of examining both sides of an issue…Lame excuse.</p>

<p>When was the last time any republican politician has won anything where judges were international?</p>

246

<p>Gore taking credit for environmental change is no more far fetched than Reagan taking credit for ending communism. Of course, scare tactics work to sell a point of view - proven no better than the scare tactics used to sell the Iraq war and the scare tactics that Guiliani so shamelessly uses to sell his candidacy.</p>

247

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow, well said! (So refreshing to agree with you on this, kluge!) May I quote you?</p>

248

<p>Are any of you suggesting that carbon credits do anything worthwhile? I agree that this is a complex problem – I just think that running around like a chicken with its head cut off doesn’t help. Read the article about the skeptical environmentalist again if you think that money spent on foo-foo things like carbon credits is the best use of our limited resources.</p>

249

<p>According to Al Gore’s movie, small things won’t do it. He publicly pegged the point of no-return at 2015. If he believes it (which I doubt), I can’t see how he (or anyone else for that matter) can in good faith advocate for small changes, when small changes now could make big differences in the lives of people who are dying today.</p>

<p>I know at least one scientist - John Christy - who says that building 1,000 nuclear plants and operating him them continuously for a hundred years would result in temperature changes of one hundredth degree per decade.</p>

<p>Kluge - in that context, and with 2015 as the deadline, what “small things” would you advocate?</p>

<p>Meanwhile if you want to see “Al Gore environmental changes”, let me take you on a tour of South India. I’m serious. Contact me, and on my next trip we’ll set it up.</p>

<p>(Oh - what explains that “we haven’t done anything about it?” That’s easy - there isn’t any money in it.)</p>

250

<p>The scientist who shared the Nobel with Al Gore says the tide is turning on global warming.</p>

<p>In 2002, when Rajendra Pachauri was named to head the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Al Gore criticized him as the “let’s-drag-our-feet candidate.” But the crusading ex-veep was quickly proven wrong; Pachauri has loudly campaigned for changes in environmental policies, and the series of voluminous IPCC reports released this year have essentially put an end to the scientific debate over global warming. Soon after his organization won the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, Pachauri spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Fareed Zakaria. Excerpts:</p>

<p>ZAKARIA: There are still people who say that the science on global warming is still unclear. How do you react to that kind of talk?
PACHAURI: Well, the calculations are so simple that even a high school kid can do them. The 20th century sea level rise was about 17 centimeters. Our predictions for the end of this century are 18 to 59 centimeters. So even if we end up somewhere in the middle, we have a pretty serious crisis on our hands. The fact that there are storms and coastal flooding even now means there’s going to be major devastation. The ocean takes a long time to mix; thus far the warming has been essentially in the upper layers. It’s now gone down in several places to about 3,000 meters. In a couple of decades or three decades, the warming will be even more serious.</p>

<p>What’s the cost involved in doing something about this – is it too great?
We have completely debunked this fallacy. If you want to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases at the level that will limit temperature increases to 2 degrees to 2.4 degrees centigrade, the cost to the global economy in 2030 will be less than 3 percent. Now, that really means that the level of prosperity that we are going to reach in 2030 may, at best, be postponed by 8 or 9 months. That’s certainly not a high price to pay. If you’re going to translate this into annual cost, it’s only 0.12 percent of the GDP. Various things that can be done with existing technologies—we don’t even need any miracles by which you come up with new technologies. The technologies are all there. You can see them in operation in Japan, you can see them in operation in Germany, but there are some economies that have not used them at all.
…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/57495/page/1[/url]”>http://www.newsweek.com/id/57495/page/1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

251

<p>in 2005 we spent about 4% of GDP on defense.
About 16% of GDP on health</p>

<p>so is 0.12% too much?</p>

252

<p>FF did you miss my post # 193? If so it is below…</p>

<p>explain it to me </p>

<hr>

<p>FF …you have no clue regarding the definition of hypcrisy and its applicability to this situation.</p>

<p>So explain it to me so that I will understand what you are taking about.</p>

253

<p>We don’t need to spend anything on “Global Warming” or “Greenhouse Gas” issues if we used all the money instead on better and more efficient forms of energy.</p>

<p>Personally, I don’t believe that mankind has a major impact on global warming. I believe, as do many scientists, that solar activity is what is causing global warming. It is a natural cycle and has gone through more cycles than anyone cares to count. Through technology, it’s been shown that other planets are also warming. I suppose that’s our fault too. And the fact is, solar changes have always preceeded a rise is CO2. Not the other way around. These solar cycles have many periods as short as 10-13 years to hundreds and thousands of years.</p>

<p>I will continue to push for more efficient means of energy. Solar, Wind, Hydro (to include hydrogen), nuclear, etc… NOT because of greenhouse gas issues. But because these forms of energy are more efficient, more economical, more abundent, more technology friendly, etc… AND, if I and plenty of scientists happen to be wrong about greenhouse gases and mankind’s affect on the planet, which I doubt we will find, then this move to more efficient means of energy will also take care of mankind’s contribution to global warming.</p>

<p>But I won’t support anyone running for office who is willing to spend scarce dollars and resources on trying to make EXISTING fuels more efficient. Advertising of global warming. Consumer education on conserving energy. Any type of political actions. etc… From a strict economic and efficiency perspective, all of these actions is a WASTE of money and resources. EVERY PENNY should be invested into our universities for research and developement of alternative energy. Then we get the benefit of the new energy technology and take care of the slim chance of man’s impact on the environment. It makes absolutely no sense to approach this any other way.</p>

254

<p>^ You are just plain wrong.</p>

255

<p>Wow! I must be. You explained it so well. I stand corrected. You provided such good evidence on how investing our money and resources on existing energy sources and consumer education is so beneficial. I don’t know what I was thinking. CC is so fortunate to have such informative information provided. Thanks simba.</p>

256

<p>You are welcome.</p>

<p>You don’t have an open mind. Your mind is made up and you are in market for finding information that supports your views.</p>

<p>kluge described the three phases of denial the best:</p>

<p>“It’s not happening” becomes “We’re not causing it” becomes “It’s not so bad” </p>

<p>How long it took you to move from one phase to another?</p>

257

<p>“It’s not happening” becomes “We’re not causing it” becomes “It’s not so bad”/</p>

<p>I believe (based on what I can make out) that it is happening, we’re causing it, and it’s bad.</p>

<p>Now that we’ve got that out of the way, what “small things” do you suggest that will turn the tide by 2015, which Al Gore says is the “point of no return”? Don’t tell me about anything that will make a difference in 2030; I don’t need to hear about nuclear plants that won’t go online until 2020; nor about solar panels or hydrogen cars unless you’ve got the money to retrofit the country and replace all the automobiles by 2015(and all those being purchased in India and China as well). </p>

<p>If you’ve got something, I’ll do my part. Until then, I’ll keep working with the folks who are dying of Al Gore.</p>

258

<p>Because you aren’t willing to look at the logic in my post shows that you aren’t willing to see any other side than your own.</p>

<p>I’ve stated 2 very important facts:</p>

<ol>
<li>There IS global warming occuring.</li>
<li>If we invest our limited resources on alternative forms of energy that are more efficient, less expensive, more abundent, and more technologically friendly, then it doesn’t matter in the least if my position is right or your position is right. It would become a moot point.</li>
</ol>

<p>You are so hell bent on being right, as well as other politically motivated people such as Al Gore, that you don’t care about the actual issue that is more important. My one and ONLY position is that is doesn’t matter if you are right or if I am right. If we take care of finding alternative energy solutions, it DOESN’T MATTER. Instead however, money is going to be spent on “Customer Education”, “Political Ads/Actions”, “Trying to improve combustion engines and fossil fuels”, etc…</p>

<p>Now, if you want to waste all that money, time, resources, etc… on nothing more than a band-aid, then have a nut. I prefer to fix the energy problem. That in turn will also impact mankind’s contribution; “WHETHER WE ARE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION OR NOT”. Then again, if your whole motivation is to “Be Right”, then go for it.</p>

<p>P.S. If Al Gore is so worried about the point of no return on rising sea level, why did he buy property in Arlington VA? Also, why does he have a 10,000 sf house in Nashville? A little excessive electric bill don’t you think. And if I’m not mistaken, Nashville has wind energy available if you pay a little extra per KW. Has Gore ever converted over to Wind power? Last thing I read, about a year ago, was that he and Tipper were looking into it but hadn’t converted.</p>

259

<p>"“It’s not happening” becomes “We’re not causing it” becomes “It’s not so bad”</p>

<p>I believe (based on what I can make out) that it is happening, we’re causing it, and it’s bad.
…</p>

<p>If you’ve got something, I’ll do my part. Until then, I’ll keep working with the folks "</p>

<p>Ok mini let me see if I understand you correctly. You like the premise, but you don’t like the solutions (perhaps because of your intense dislike of the person who is advocating it).</p>

<p>So what do you think YOU will do?</p>

<p>You have explanations, answers and solutions to every major global problems. So what is your practicle solution (not like treating Drug Companies like utilities and so on)What is the personal solution you are willing to act up on? Are you going to do something personally or just pass wind?</p>

260

<p>Simba; I have the same question then to you. Do you propose that we continue spending money on Fossil fuels and trying to make them more efficient? Do you propose that we continue to spend tax dollars on bio fuels that are proving to be just as harmful to the environment, more in some ways, than fossil fuels are? Do you propose to continue spending money on consumer education on being more energy efficient, even though most of the energy issues are at the power generation, factories, and industrial levels?</p>

<p>If we concentrated on producing power more efficiently on our “FIXED” facilities like power plants, factories, industries, electrical grid, etc… then that would reduce significantly more than the automobiles produce.</p>

<p>Then, we can move on to automobiles and mobile usage. And then, if you happen to be correct with mankind’s contribution to global warming, we will have made massive improvements to the correction. If I’m correct about mankind’s contribution to greenhouse gas affect, then nothing has been harmed. Either way, we are then more energy efficient, more cost affective, more abundant and not worrying about running out, and our modern technology can use the energy better. What seems to be the problem.</p>

<p>As typical, there are too many people who think with emotions and want to “Feel Good” with their decisions. Protesting, petitioning, campaigning, spending money, etc… might make you feel good at night, but as long as we continue using energy in the form we currently produce it, none of that is going to accomplish a thing. Other than making you feel good. We will still be using a very inefficient form of energy. We will still be paying more and more for it as more regulations and availability become more intrusive. We will still eventually run out of it. And our technology won’t be able to advance beyone the concept of the legacy style power plants; to include the combution type engine, steam plants, turbines, etc…</p>

<p>I personally don’t care if you are right or if I am right. If you want to be right about mankind and global warming, then fine. Have at it. But until people change their way of thinking when it concerns energy, you are only putting band-aids on the situation and aren’t fixing anything for our children or grandchildren.</p>