Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?

[JaJae]

Interesting avsp.. here's more:
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

December 20, 2007

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

I just don't understand the logic of the people that don't want to do anything about global warming. Here you have a problem that people may or may not believe, but the cure is something that we need to do anyway. We need energy independence.

Either global warming is a real, serious threat or it isn't, and we either do something about it or we don't. So there are three possibilities. One possibility is destruction, the other is business as usual until the carbon runs out, another is instability leading to energy independence.

If we do something about the problem, at worst we end up dead anyway but go down fighting. If global warming isn't real, we have new and better sources of energy and don't have oil as an international destabilizer. If not, we have a chance to stop this thing before it gets a lot worse.

If we do nothing there are only two options. Mass destabilization and panic or a continued addiction to oil for the indefinite future. Neither one is attractive.

Given that 80% of our oil comes from non-Muslim countries, I don't think independence is really the main issue. (assuming of course that people want independence so we don't have to do business with Muslim countries...I have no problem with doing business with other countries, an international economy is a good thing)

[RhapsodyInGlue]

I just ran across this thread so I'm entering into the "debate" late.

I think I would disagree with the premise of the first post, a premise that it would seem has been supported by others. That premise being that the science of climate change should be debated by the public.

I have a Ph.D. in engineering and computer science. I have read widely on climate change for many years now. I spent a good portion of my career developing software for the modeling and simulation of complex non-linear systems (though a quite different field than climate and atmospherics). Having said all of that, I do not consider myself qualified to make final determinations about whether or to what extent climate change is happening and what is causing it.

I will say that I happen to strongly believe that climate change is being largely driven by human activity and that it is a very serious threat. That belief, however, is primarily based upon a confidence in the scientific process and the overwhelming view of the scientific community, not from feeling qualified to make the determinations myself.

I did not even bother to watch Gore's movie because any science in an area this complex which is boiled down to a level presentable to a non-scientific, non-expert audience is going to inherently be inaccurate simplifications. It may have given a cursory view to the lay audience of what science was involved in researching climate change, but it certainly does not make one qualified to debate the science. Gore himself is not qualified to debate the science, probably precisely why he has not attempted to do so.

What is possibly gained by having people with no expertise in the subject try to debate a highly technical scientific issue based upon source material, such as the Gore movie, that is in itself gross simplifications of the real science?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by RhapsodyInGlue

I just ran across this thread so I'm entering into the "debate" late.

I think I would disagree with the premise of the first post, a premise that it would seem has been supported by others. That premise being that the science of climate change should be debated by the public.

I have a Ph.D. in engineering and computer science. I have read widely on climate change for many years now. I spent a good portion of my career developing software for the modeling and simulation of complex non-linear systems (though a quite different field than climate and atmospherics). Having said all of that, I do not consider myself qualified to make final determinations about whether or to what extent climate change is happening and what is causing it.

I will say that I happen to strongly believe that climate change is being largely driven by human activity and that it is a very serious threat. That belief, however, is primarily based upon a confidence in the scientific process and the overwhelming view of the scientific community, not from feeling qualified to make the determinations myself.

I did not even bother to watch Gore's movie because any science in an area this complex which is boiled down to a level presentable to a non-scientific, non-expert audience is going to inherently be inaccurate simplifications. It may have given a cursory view to the lay audience of what science was involved in researching climate change, but it certainly does not make one qualified to debate the science. Gore himself is not qualified to debate the science, probably precisely why he has not attempted to do so.

What is possibly gained by having people with no expertise in the subject try to debate a highly technical scientific issue based upon source material, such as the Gore movie, that is in itself gross simplifications of the real science?

Great post and welcome to the forum!!

I totally agree with you, however global warming, no matter how scientific the issue is, is no longer solely a scientific issue. Al Gore has created this into a public political issue, and therefore I believe it very proper to ask him, the man who has created this into such a political issue, to step forward and debate this in a political forum.

[RhapsodyInGlue]

It might indeed be reasonable for him to join a debate in the political arena over public policy regarding climate change. However, that video was not soliciting debate over public policy, it was postulating that the science of climate change should be debated by non scientists with the general public as a jury. That is terribly flawed reasoning, or simply a tactic to create confusion and thus inaction. Both sides of the argument in that video are so grossly oversimplified as to make any scientific conclusions drawn from it utterly meaningless. Further, even if the public were presented with the entire voluminous information on climate and atmospheric dynamics, they still would not have the expertise to assess the information.

As for the science, one must cut through the chatter and realize that the scientists have spoken. They have debated within their own realm of science for at least 30 years on this issue and the verdict came in some time ago. If someone wants to believe that every relevant scientific organization on earth is corrupt and dominated by liberal plotters, so be it, but just state that. It adds nothing to try to cloud the issue be pretending lay people can debate the complexities of atmospheric interactions.

As for a policy debate, certainly. It's long overdue. Even the U.S. military is preparing plans to deal with climate and rising seas. It's time people engage in a discourse as to what risks they are willing to take and what price they would pay to avoid the risks.

In coming years it will also likely become obvious that the IPCC process, because of the length of time to review papers and reach a politically acceptable wording to represent the reality of the science, is itself under-reporting the urgency and peril we face.

A world renowned researcher at the Naval Post Graduate College, not a very liberal institution, has pointed this out stating that the arctic sea ice appears to be disappearing much faster than the most currently published IPCC report would indicate. The Navy by the way has looked at issues of sea ice for a long time due to the fact that they are responsible for keeping the Russians from sailing across the arctic as well as responsible for trying to keep a bunch of our nukes hidden under the ice. Their research into it in no way being driven by a liberal plot to raise taxes.

Oh... Many thanks for the warm welcome

[thatguyoverthere]

Excellent contributions to the forum and the discussion, Rhapsody In Blue. Welcome to the forum.

I think everything you said was spot on, and you made many comments worth commenting on, but I wanted to make a special note of this one:

Originally Posted by Rhapsody In Glue

In coming years it will also likely become obvious that the IPCC process, because of the length of time to review papers and reach a politically acceptable wording to represent the reality of the science, is itself under-reporting the urgency and peril we face.

This is something that I've been wanting to discuss for months now, ever since the UK judge's ruling about Gore's movie. I have been reluctant to bring it up, because the deniers have been so resistant to the most basic facts about the case, I figured it was useless to try and discuss some of the more complex aspects of it with them. But, I'm very glad that you brought it into the discussion.

This ties into the obsession with Gore that the deniers have. The deniers love to call Gore a liar, and their proof is this ruling by a UK judge in a court case where a plaintiff tried to have Gore's movie pulled from the schools.

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

Gores nine statements in his film were only judged to be inaccurate based upon using the IPCC as the yardstick of truth. So, deniers who call Gore a liar based upon the judge's findings are in essence confirming their belief that IPCC reports represent the true scientific consensus.

The deeper level in this discussion is that there are many scientists that believe that the IPCC is too conservative it its predictions.

Here's another example:

The Global Warming Debate | Newsweek.com

Originally Posted by link

...The vast majority of knowledgeable scientists worry that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conclusions are too conservative, and the consequences for humanity are likely to be more severe than projected...

Paul R. Ehrlich
BING Professor of Population Studies
Stanford University

The deniers call Gore a liar, insinuating that any scientific prediction presented in his film that didn't line up with the IPCC's predictions were somehow made up by Mr. Gore out of whole cloth, when in reality, there are many scientists that agree more with the possible scenarios that were laid out by Gore than in what they might consider to be the overly conservative and politically correct predictions of the IPCC.

Yet, for the deniers, it seems that it is easier for them to simply continue and call Gore a liar than to try and realize that there may be indeed more to the story.

[Roonie]

Very good posts as of late on the subject. They brought me out of hibernation. I too agree and have argued so in the past but have taken the back seat on the subject for now. I firmly believe without a doubt we will look back at this time and see how under reported about the true climate change taking place. It could be too late to say "See, I told you so". I know the world is a changing place and will be very much so in the future. I see it everyday in my own life. Skepticism is healthy to a degree as it keeps the forward direction of progress honest as long as it doesn't stop it all together.

Gore unfortunately came from a political background which automatically puts people on the defensive if they are Republican in any way. People can easily dismiss it then and say climate change is all untrue because Gore said so. But as has been stated many times before, Gore is simply using some of the basic facts from the IPCC report and marketing them to the general public to bring awareness to the issue. The oversimplification comes with inherent problems and flaws with the logic presented in Gore's movie. So I am glad someone is bringing this issue to the table to talk about as I have wanted to but have also taken the back seat to the discussion due to hearing myself say the same things over and over again.

Then again I am no climate scientist.

[wanna be drummer]

Of course, Gore should come into the light and debate his theory against real scientists, but then again that might hurt his image. He's had Global Warming at the top of his agenda for a rather long time, so he probably won't risk being discredited. It made him famous, it's what keeps him in the publics eye. Without Global Warming he's a nobody (then again he did invent the Internet).

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I refuse to buy into this hype and fear that he's single-handedly placed on the shoulders of the masses.

But thats just me

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Without Global Warming he's a nobody (then again he did invent the Internet).

Actually Gore is very accomplished and the Global warming thing is in no way his main event. To deny his accomplishments would be stupid on your part but it is typical to downplay his acheivements to make him "look" stupid so as to put his Global warming message into unfavorable light.


Just recently at the end of January 08 Gore filed this with Nasdaq.....

Current Media, the parent company of Current TV and Current.com, has filed for a $100 Million IPO on NASDEQ. Current was famously co-founded by ex Vice President Al Gore. IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) have been thin on the ground in the Web 2.0 era, but in Current's case the money will be used for expansion of their TV network as well as their website offering.

Also his recent Nobel Peace prize

Also this his resume currently........

I'm the chairman of Current TV, and also serve as chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to sustainable investing.

I'm a member of the board of directors of Apple and a senior adviser to Google. I'm a Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and chair the Alliance for Climate Protection, a non-profit organization designed to help solve the climate crisis.

I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1982 and the U.S. Senate in 1984 and 1990. I was inaugurated as the forty-fifth vice president of the United States on January 20, 1993, and served eight years. During the Administration, I was a central member of President Clinton's economic team, and served as President of the Senate, a Cabinet member, a member of the National Security Council, and as the leader of a wide range of Administration initiatives.

I am the author of the bestsellers Earth in the Balance and An Inconvenient Truth and am the subject of an Oscar-winning documentary.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Actually Gore is very accomplished and the Global warming thing is in no way his main event. To deny his accomplishments would be stupid on your part but it is typical to downplay his acheivements to make him "look" stupid so as to put his Global warming message into unfavorable light.


Just recently at the end of January 08 Gore filed this with Nasdaq.....

Current Media, the parent company of Current TV and Current.com, has filed for a $100 Million IPO on NASDEQ. Current was famously co-founded by ex Vice President Al Gore. IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) have been thin on the ground in the Web 2.0 era, but in Current's case the money will be used for expansion of their TV network as well as their website offering.

Also his recent Nobel Peace prize

Also this his resume currently........

My point is, the general public is aware of him, only because he was Vice-President and, more recently, he's help jump-start the Global Warming idea. He might be rich, he might be a successful politician, but he got his Nobel Prize because of Global Warming, and he got his Oscar because of Global Warming. It's why the masses remember him, and it allows him to push forward his agenda. I'm not downplaying any of his former accomplishments, simply stating the obvious. Global Warming keeps him in the news and it will continue to keep him in the news, so long as the media refuses to acknowledge opponent of Global Warming, the way they acknowledge Al Gore.