An Inconvenient Truth

[MassLiberal]

By the way, I wasn't being sarcastic, your post obviously shows a high level of intelligence, and I was surprised that you were apparently repeating the industry line that, "change would be too difficult to accomplish, so why bother."

However, that assumption ws incorrect, and for that, I apologize.

[retirwntm]

I apologize.

accepted and apologies as well. bike tour sounds impressive...good luck. this is an interesting problem in my own mind because there are no obvious solutions. i do think personal change may be a more effective (though less impactful) tact.

[MassLiberal]

Personal change would be great, unfortunately it'll take strong leadership in order to spark the flame, something that we are sorely lacking.

[freshies]

Christ, there hasn't been a peer-reviewed article that even questioned the fact that we're helping cause global warming in something like 10 years. So you're wrong, it is actually accepted as fact by those scientists who know about this stuff.
It's just not accepted as fact by oil companies/Bush-Halliburton, inc.

All true. This administration has done one of the greatest propaganda/mind control campaigns in recent history. planting energy execs on the EPA that refute, block, censure and distort any "inconvenient truths" that might not be favorable for their corporate clients/cronies, placing religious nuts in similar positions of power and influence to help create doubt about evolution (fucking evolution, people - the earth was not magically created in seven days, sorry!) - The list goes on.

[LegoSkier]

Question that doesn't seem to have been addressed in the thread: why is global warming necessarily a net social and economic cost to the world? Has anyone established that it is a net cost rather than a net benefit? Would global cooling be better?

I find it fascinating because, assuming our industrial activity is in fact causing global warming, it still follows according even to most "greens" that fighting global warming requires massive economic sacrifices over the short term. If I'm asked to make an investment, shouldn't I have some clear sense that 1) the intended results (a cooler earth) will accrue from the investment, and that 2) the cooler earth will have sufficient benefit to, say, my grandchildren to make the sacrifice worth it?

Let's assume for the sake of argument a cooler earth from, say, Kyoto part V as a given. And that if we do nothing the earth will warm to the point that the Brits will be making wine again, as they were in the time of the Romans, and Greenland will again be green and suitable for agriculture as it was when the Vikings first settled there.

I can see how New England ski areas would then directly benefit from Kyoto V, and be ruined by the alternative warmer world. It does not follow that the earth overall would be negatively affected. The Vikings may have preferred that the global cooling that came after them never happened.

It is actually true that the world will become "greener" through global warming i.e. there will be a net increase in tree cover and farmable land (in Science mag issues on "State of the Earth"). But it is also true that a vast majority of human population and infrastructure lies along coast lines and water ways that would be adversley affected by global warming. So as long as we go into this climactic change realizing that it will cause the greatest migratory and economic upheaveal in the history of man, then OK. Otherwise it would probably be good to try and do something about slowing/stopping it.
And those people that say that switching from a fossil fuel economy will cause economic harm are full of crap. It is the greatest economic opportunity ever. Peroid. More money will be made on this change than the industrial revolution, the dot com boom, all the previous economic booms combined. Its just the fearful that will loose.

[Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]

Question that doesn't seem to have been addressed in the thread: why is global warming necessarily a net social and economic cost to the world? Has anyone established that it is a net cost rather than a net benefit? Would global cooling be better?

I find it fascinating because, assuming our industrial activity is in fact causing global warming, it still follows according even to most "greens" that fighting global warming requires massive economic sacrifices over the short term. If I'm asked to make an investment, shouldn't I have some clear sense that 1) the intended results (a cooler earth) will accrue from the investment, and that 2) the cooler earth will have sufficient benefit to, say, my grandchildren to make the sacrifice worth it?

Let's assume for the sake of argument a cooler earth from, say, Kyoto part V as a given. And that if we do nothing the earth will warm to the point that the Brits will be making wine again, as they were in the time of the Romans, and Greenland will again be green and suitable for agriculture as it was when the Vikings first settled there.

I can see how New England ski areas would then directly benefit from Kyoto V, and be ruined by the alternative warmer world. It does not follow that the earth overall would be negatively affected. The Vikings may have preferred that the global cooling that came after them never happened.

I have always kind of wondered something along those lines, but more like "what if we do minimize our impact as best we can, or even get it down to a net effect of zero, and the earth still decides to warm itself?" The earth has had higher ocean levels than we have now and warmer temperatures than we have now for long long periods of its history. So what if all that happens anyway despite our best efforts? I am not saying we aren't having an impact or that we shouldn't try to make as minimal an impact as possible, but when do we get to the point when we say "well the oceans are rising and we have done all we can, time for everyone to move to the mountains( )"? I certainly don't like the idea of mass extinctions but the mass extinctions of the dinosaurs and the climactic changes generally associated with it is what led to mammals gaining a stronger foothold and eventually led to us humans(kind of an oversimplification).

I am no sure what my point is, just kind of thinking out loud. It just seems some scientists and enviromentalists come across as having a lot of intellectual hubris. Like they assume that by simply understanding how the earth and its systems work, they can control them and keep the earth just how they like it and it won't ever change. Anyway I always try to ski today, cause tomorrow we may all have to learn to surf.

[sea2ski]

Since the Weather Channel is premiering a weekly show on the topic of global warming on October 1, thought this might be a good place to mention it. The show will be called "Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen". While it will seek out opposing viewpoints, I know the producers are trying to make it a show were the science behind the issue will be debated rather than have it turn into something like the angry talking heads stuff on most of cable news

[MassLiberal]

Since the Weather Channel is premiering a weekly show on the topic of global warming on October 1, thought this might be a good place to mention it. The show will be called "Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen". While it will seek out opposing viewpoints, I know the producers are trying to make it a show were the science behind the issue will be debated rather than have it turn into something like the angry talking heads stuff on most of cable news

This is exactly the problem. THERE IS NO DEBATE! Humans are causing climate change, period. The only question is what we do about it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

[Tippster]

...without a real consensus as to the problem and a realistic solution, placed in an international framework of laws and controls, this issue is bound to go unresolved.

Thank you for re-stating my argument from 3 pages ago.

[Tippster]

This is exactly the problem. THERE IS NO DEBATE! Humans are causing climate change, period. The only question is what we do about it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

The last paragraph in that article is very interesting:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Fine - we cause it. Now what?

[cj001f]

Thank you for re-stating my argument from 3 pages ago.

And round and round and round and round and round we go.

Until people are convinced the problem is real, or has a good potential be real (and the naysayers have waged a very succesful FUD campaign obstructing this) the peoples representatives, who will inact such solutions, won't act. You want a neatly packaged pretty picture solution plopped or your desk. Science and the world don't work that way; the people who've told you that lied.

[Tippster]

Fine, it's real. The world is getting warmer... AGAIN. Why is this bad? If it IS bad, what can we do to stop it? If we can't stop it, will slowing it down at any cost be worthwhile? (sorry, CTarmchair - just dumbing down your point) If yes - why and for how long at whose expense?

These are the true stumbling blocks in the Global Warming debate. People will SAY "I don't believe it" because they don't see any alternative. Nobody likes to feel helpless. Kinda like the whole "Well, I have to support Bush because I'm a Republican" thing. The environmentalists can't just say "you're fools, we know better, and we'll work out the details later." That hasn't gotten them very far.

[Telenater]

Fine, it's real. The world is getting warmer... AGAIN. Why is this bad?

The reasons are many, but the biggest one to me is that we don't know what the effects will be. ***

If it IS bad, what can we do to stop it?

We can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, moderate the amount of vegetation we destroy.

If we can't stop it, will slowing it down at any cost be worthwhile? (sorry, CTarmchair - just dumbing down your point)

We probably can't stop it. What we can do, is reduce the human impact on climate change. I would not go so far as to say "at any cost."

If yes - why and for how long at whose expense?

Because we don't know what the effectos of Climate change will be. At everyone's expense (and the expense will probably not be as large as the "anti-doomsayers" claim if done gradually, and intelligently.

*** The argument that we don't know what we need to do to combat climate change is the biggest load of bullshit ever. We know exactly what we need to do. We need to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. This can be done in thousands of ways. People that claim that we don't know what the effects of global climate change are and that because of that we should do nothing are a waste of air, food and space on this planet.

The fact is that we don't know exactly what the effects of climate change will be, but that is the single strongest argument for taking early action to reduce the impact as much as we can.

[Tippster]

Unfortunately it is also a very weak argument.

"We need to change this!"
"Why?"
"We don't know, but what if it's bad?"
"O.K...... How?"
"We need to stop emitting Carbon!"
"Just the rich countries or everyone?"
"Everyone, but we'll start with the rich countries, and then when the poor countries catch up we'll make them stop too!"
"And this will reverse Global Warming?"
"We don't know!"
"Right.... I'll call you."

[cj001f]

Unfortunately it is also a very weak argument.

"We need to change this!"
"Why?"
"We don't know, but what if it's bad?"
"O.K...... How?"
"We need to stop emitting Carbon!"
"Just the rich countries or everyone?"
"Everyone, but we'll start with the rich countries, and then when the poor countries catch up we'll make them stop too!"
"And this will reverse Global Warming?"
"We don't know!"
"Right.... I'll call you."

Style vs. Substance. If you can't comprehend 'we don't exactly understand' (i.e. I don't get Science and the hole of western society post Descarte and Newton) go vote for W.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Yeah, saying "we don't know why need to change this, but what if it's bad" as if that represents the argument of those in favor of doing something is not at all accurate. A pretty distorted strawman, actually.
Even common sense, in terms of what rising sea levels would do, dictates that at the very least we should try to slow this down. And presenting this as an overall economic threat is also a distortion--it may be a threat to many established interests, but like past environmental reforms, this looks like it will be a huge net positive.

[sea2ski]

This is exactly the problem. THERE IS NO DEBATE! Humans are causing climate change, period. The only question is what we do about it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

I think your link provides the details of where the debate will be framed.

"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics."

Dr. Heidi Cullen happens to be a climatologist.

I would also add that when you say there is no debate, you fail to understand two things that do need to be debated.

1- If scientists can't reach a conclusion/consensus about at what point there is a tipping point of how this climate change will adversely effect the human race and what those telltale signs are to that tipping point, no serious action will ever be taken to deal with the problem.

2- There will always be costs and benefits to whatever the solution or solutions to this problem and to not understand this part of the equation is to fail to understand how to actually achieve succes in combating the problem of global warming.

[LegoSkier]

There is something else you all should know about. While administrations and other elected officials come and go and can affect policy in small ways, the ones really in charge are the “lifers”. Unelected bureaucrats are the ones really running this country. The ones who have been in the EPA or the DOE or the NSF for decades and will continue to be there long after GW is gone. And you know what? They get it. They understand the problem, the opportunity, and the paths to finding a solution for our current environmental crisis and they are following the old government plan step by step like they always have. The blueprint created during the Manhattan Project and followed again successfully for the Human Genome project (from which sprung the biotech industry) is now being applied to global warming and environmental degredation. And it is all based on the fact that when you pick up a handful of soil you are holding billions of individuals from thousands of species of microbes and we only know about maybe 2 or 3 percent of those. Those microbes are the ones really in control here. If they wern't there, nothing else would be either. And there is currently under way a giant global effort to study, catalog, understand, and eventually engineer those microbes. All this with the stated purpose of green energy production, carbon sequestration, and global warming remediation. The official government effort is called the Genomes to Life Project (http://doegenomestolife.org/) but they are coordination with the J Craig Venter institute (http://www.venterinstitute.org/) and other efforts in systems and synthetic biology (http://www.systemsbiology.org/), (http://bbf.openwetware.org/). Just a little PSA so you know what your government is actually up to. BTW, this area is the one I really, really want to get into from a “software” standpoint of programming new living things. And I almost did but not quite. In the future perhaps.

[mr_gyptian]

Fine, it's real. The world is getting warmer... AGAIN. Why is this bad? If it IS bad, what can we do to stop it? If we can't stop it, will slowing it down at any cost be worthwhile? (sorry, CTarmchair - just dumbing down your point) If yes - why and for how long at whose expense?

These are the true stumbling blocks in the Global Warming debate. People will SAY "I don't believe it" because they don't see any alternative. Nobody likes to feel helpless. Kinda like the whole "Well, I have to support Bush because I'm a Republican" thing. The environmentalists can't just say "you're fools, we know better, and we'll work out the details later." That hasn't gotten them very far.

I'm not against having stricter vehicle emissions laws. Nor am I against working to curb coal fired emissions. I am also for alt energy such as Nuke plants and/or windfarms.

but can you imagine if we'd have combatted the global cooling by dropping coal slag on the North Pole and Antarctica? That was an idea that was given serious credence.

Personally I'd rather not take too aggressive a course of action with Mother Nature.

[Tippster]

Some possible solutions being discussed:

[Squatch]

I think what we need is a giant reflector made by some evil genius that has been converted for good, a la Die Another Day

[Grange]

No surprises here.
_________________________________________________


Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer


WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/...gore_s_science

[MarsB]

Bump because I finally saw this last night. Partisanship aside, this film should be viewed by everyone, and it comes as no suprise that Bush has stated he will not watch it. Intellectual curiosity and introspection are not his strong suits, to say the least.

And for Tippster, who keeps asking 'but what can we do?'

Here are some steps to becoming carbon-neutral, as mentioned in the documentary:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/

[Jer]

this film should be viewed by everyone

Yeah - at gunpoint!!