Gore's climate claims melt under scrutiny...

Moen1305, that was a technical foul. What difference does it make which end it comes out of?

 

Well I have to agree it would be foul either end

 

It's the same in the end(no pun) I guess. It's just an assumption a lot of people make.

 

How cynical, self-interested, and evil do these organizations have to be before you guys realize that they just don't have your best interests in mind? Hum?

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/

 

I don't know of a source that addresses your question directly, but there are a lot of resources. The Wikipedia page is not bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
The ocean is basically the "big sink" that is washing a great deal of CO2 out of the atmosphere, about three billion tons per year (1996 data). In fact, in the early days of global warming theory there was the problem of the so-called "missing carbon". That is; the models showed that the actual rise in CO2 content should have been rather larger than the measured amount. It turned out that the ocean was better at absorbing CO2 than anybody thought. This could have been our salvation, had we been able to limit our CO2 emissions to 1980 levels, but alas we did not. Current models incorporate the most modern measurements of actual oceanic absorption. But there is no question about the solubility issues related to water and CO2. If the ocean warms it will either release gas or absorb less (doesn't matter which way you think about it, same effect) Also, as oceanic water becomes more saturated in CO2 it becomes more acidic (carbonic acid) and therefore LESS able to preciptitate carbonates and thereby permanently sequester carbon.

When researchers looked at an episode of rapid climate change that occurred some 55 million years ago. Known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the period was marked by a rapid rise in greenhouse gases that heated Earth by roughly 9° F (5° C), in less than 10,000 years. The research, based on fossil records of terrestrial plants and oceanic plankton, suggests that the world's climate is highly sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, finding that a doubling of CO2 concentrations can raise global temperatures by at least 4 ºF (2.2 ºC). Current projections show that natural background atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are expected to double around mid-century due to fossil fuel combustion.

Methane is also part of the equation, and exists in large quantities frozen in clathrates in ocean-bottom sediments as well as in terrestrial permafrost in places like Northern Canada and Siberia. Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and as things warm it can be released in vast quantities. The extreme temperature rise of the PETM is thought to have been partially abetted by such methane releases.

So yes, it's true that there have been global warming events that have taken place in the past entirely without help from humans. But it's also true that our activities can be the catalyst for further such changes, and that we will not enjoy the results if we allow such to occur. We have the knowledge, the economic strength, and the engineering ability to solve this problem.

 

Old saying go:

You say more about self when you attakc other with strong word. Sorry bad english.

 

I like that KV Again Cuprum a very interesting post :thumb:

 

It was recently revealed that Philip Morris implemented a disinformation campaign about the effects of global warming in order to muddy the waters of the debate so that they could then take the emphasis off of the effects of passive smoking that had put them on the defensive. Even though the vast majority of reputable scientists came to the conclusion that we were affecting the climate with our activities they were able to amplify the voices of the few that disagreed and labeled any position different from their own as "junk science". Even before ExxonMobil lent it's support to the anti-global warming cause, Philip Morris was already out there making sure that we didn't learn the truth about the global warming debate all in an effort to increase cigarette sales and reduce law suits from smokers and non-smokers alike.
It seems that when cigarette companies like Philip Morris are pushed to be responsible citizens and come clean about the effects of their products they will do anything to preserve their dominance including sacrifice the very environment we all need to survive. If this isn't the ugliest side of capitalism, I can't think of a better example. If you want to read more about this topic, google Philip Morris Global warming
How many of us here bought the disinformation campaign and the junk science claims and are now too proud to admit they were duped? Any smokers out there tired of financially contributing to their own demise and I don't just mean from smoking? Like I have always said, you want to know the truth, follow the money.

 

Moen, what corporations claim is no more relevant than what Gore claims. None of this affects the science. Something isn't wrong because Exxon hopes it's wrong, and something isn't true because Gore hopes it's true.

 

So everybody's opinion is irrelevant and there is no such thing as truth. You my friend are very comfortable sitting there on that fence looking down on both sides. But we all know that eventually those sitting on fences, go....:stooge:
You can't say that corporations claims are irrelavant if they are affecting the debate and they clearly are affecting the debate. The term "junk science" has been used in these decussions and we all know what it means. And if you affect the debate, you can drive policy and public opinion. Pretending to be above the claims and counterclaims in this debate is the only way to achieve genuine irrelevance.

 

I agree that there is a lot of junk science involved here. The questions that remains to be determined is which side is junk. I think it's incumbent on those who wish to gain control of and reorganize the world economy and political struture around their perception of acceptable carbon emmissions to make a stronger case than they have before they are appointed to the position of economic/political dictator. Everyone should be concerned about this outcome because the permanent loss of economic liberty isn't something to be given up to a small group of radicals with a new climate theory just because they use scare tactics to silence the opposition. It should be even more suspicious that most of the supporters of global warming are also supporters of global government. Even if the global warmists turn out to be correct, many people, if permitted, might choose to maintain a high level of economic and political freedom inspite of warmer climate.

 

Okay... here we are at the crux of the matter. You have stated that you don't care about what the science says, you care about the political implications of it. Fair enough! Let's dispense with the squabbling, admit that global warming is for real, and FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH IT in a responsible manner that takes your political concerns into consideration!

I agree 100% that we do NOT need or want an economic/political dictator. Such would be a road to ruin and anybody suggesting such a thing should be voted down poste-haste. Whatever we do should be done with utmost respect for the principles of the American founding fathers respecting the rights and liberty of individuals. But we do need action and we need it soon. Liberty for me extends only to the limit where my actions begin to restrict the liberties of others. Absolute liberty for anyone results directly in absolute slavery for someone else. The balance must be maintained. If we are to avoid regulation of energy resources and the free market is to solve the problems by using private capital investment in clean-energy technologies, then there will need to be adjustments in the way both coporations and individuals calculate their costs and benefits. This can only be done via a taxation scheme of some sort. The free market CANNOT solve this problem without help, because the global environment is a "commons" and Garrett Hardin long ago expressed the "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario which we have seen play out again and again in real life whenever many people have access to a commons resource base.

A taxation scheme is regarded as progressive if it taxes those activities which we wish to reduce and allows free expression of those activities we wish to support. Income taxes are regressive in that the penalize those who work and make income. Real estate value-taxes are regressive because they encourage people to let their property go to ruin. A top to bottom restructuring of the tax code which eliminates income tax, mandates site-value real-estate tax (with homestead exemption) and replaces those with progressive taxes on energy, royalties on mining public lands or logging public forests, taxation of luxury items, and high fees for polluting activites would preserve individual liberty, encourage entrpreneurship, and at the same time conserve natural resources and address global warming and quality of life.

Exactly how it would work and how it would be implemented are valid subjects for extended debate. We must always be on the defensive against incursions against the foundations of personal liberty, but we also have to recognize facts as facts and deal with them. An event is taking place which is unprecedented in the history of civilized humanity, and we have this one moment in time to recognize and react to it before circumstances move beyond our ability to control them.

 

Wow. If you argue exactly the reverse, it just makes so much more sense. You see this as a takeover of the existing world economy and I see it as the existing world economy trying to maintain it's position. I don't see either position as being mutually exclusive but I completely mistrust corporations that have consistantly proven their ruthless disregard for society such as Philip Morris and the like. You have to know that when you aren't privy to every fact on some issue or another, you probably would be doing yourself a favor to not be on Philip Morris' side of the issue or ExxonMobil's side for that matter. When you can't possibly know everything and sitting on the fence isn't your cup of tea, you go with the proven track record. Philip Morris hasn't exactly been your best friend over the years.
You've never answered me on how I'm going to lose my economic liberty or even what that means but again you use the terms in your arguement. Am I excercising my economic liberty by paying over $3 a gal for gas or ruining the environment, or helping the oil companies to reap record profits, or keeping us involved in endless wars in the Middle East? Forgive me, but I can do without that kind of economic liberty.
Why are you so concerned about scare tactics when you see them used even more frequently by big tobacco and big oil and you yourself with the amorphous threat of loss of economic liberty. This is just nonsense. And by the way, speaking of a small group of radicals, how about the ones that grew out of the Middle East as a result of our energy policies of the past? Do you prefer that group to the one's that are trying to bring us a more environmentally sound world? Good God, when you pick an ally, you certainly set your standards pretty low.


Junk Science

The term "junk science", as used in political and legal disputes in the United States, brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.

The terms 'junk science' and 'sound science' do not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; they are primarily terms of political debate.

 

I'll just add a few comments...

First, I didn't say that I don't care about the science. You misread what I wrote.

Second, until we have better science on global warming, no political action is wise.

Third, your argument that absolute liberty for one person means absolute slavery for another person is more of a "law of the jungle" opinion, and doesn't have much in common with the Constitution that protects the rights of all individuals.

Fourth, I agree that the free market might not be able to solve energy problems. But neither can government without the free market. And neither can "solve" global warming because there are too many unknowns, including knowing whether it even exists.

Fifth, I agree that income taxes are completely inappropriate in a free society. But so is large government, so systems to efficiently collect massive sums while controlling behavior are also to be feared.

Finally, you have accepted and are assuming that global warming is (1) real and (2) bad. Until someone comes up with something more scientific than climate models, both remain unproven. The cure, in reduced fossil fuel usage, could potentially and unexpectedly cause the death of a couple of billion people.

 

Moen, as you mistrust business, I mistrust government. I should add that I don't trust the large global corporations either, but that really is irrelevant to the global warming debate. I've explained over and over to various folks the different ways that their liberty will be lost, but you pretend that I didn't. There isn't anything I can do about that. $3 per gallon gasoline doesn't inhibit liberty. That's about 19 cents per cup, cheaper than bottled water. How cheap does gasoline have to become before the price is right? And I would remind you that profits exist in a capitalist system to attract additional investment to areas of the economy that need additional supply. So capitalism is working, but the collectivists can't stand it. Oil production is up something like 1/3 over the last 25 years despite the fact that reserves are harder to find. Just about every credible national and international energy group repeatedly admits that massive energy infrastructure investment will be required to meet future needs. This won't happen unless we either (1) allow profits or (2) nationalize everything. I know which side you are on.

 

This issue isn't private industry vs government, heck I'd say they are in the same bed if anything. This is powerful money interests whether they be big oil companies, Saudi rulers, the U.S. government, or any stockholder with an interest in maintaining the status quo until every ounce of oil is used and every corner of the globe has been damaged beyond recoverability. You ask many irrelevant questions that couldn't have less to do with this issue if they were put out there merely to refocus the debate on a different topic. I don't care how gas prices compare to drinking water, I don't care if oil production is better than it was 25 years ago, and I don't care to nationalize oil companies either. Those topics are just foolish red herrings and unrelated to the real issue which is that burning fossil fuel is slowly killing our environment.
I've pointed out that these powerful money interests are muddying the debate intentionally in about the most cynical way possible and still you believe their version of the science. If these organizations are found to be contributing to the problem, don't you think people are going to start demanding they pay for the clean up even though most of us burned their product in our cars? They probably have insiders that knew all along that they were damaging the environment and kept silent. Can you see how the other side of capitalism will work when people begin to sue these companies just like they sued big tobacco? Of course they are going to stall the debate for as long as possible. They are not your friend. Realize it.
And please, indulge me, what economic liberties am I going to have to give up?

 

Moen, if/when restrictions to "prevent global warming" become law, you can expect to pay a variety of new taxes, expect to pay higher prices for things produced by companies that have to pass along their increased costs, etc... Things that are now legal may become illegal. If you are not free to spend your money as you see fit, and have to pay additional taxes, and can't get the products you want to buy because of political decisions rather than economic reasons, then you have sacrificed economic liberty. Now, this might not bother you, but don't project your lifestyle on the rest of us.

The cost of production for energy resources and the quantity that can be produced is not a foolish red herring. It may become the most critical economic issue of the 21st century, and lives hang in the balance.

 

And you sir had better get used to the idea that everyone doesn't accept this to be fact as you do, and therefore believe there are greater sins than burning fossil fuel.

 

Your whole arguement sounds pretty speculative at best. If supplanting oil products with cleaner more eco-friendly alternatives actually happens, why on earth would you assume that the government or anyone else would try to disincentivize the use of oil products through higher prices? Look at the example of more the expensive Toyota hybrids. People are lining up to buy them without any coersion from the government. Quite the opposite in fact, the tax incentive to buy hybrids is one of the attractive features sold along side of the stereo and airconditioning. Incentives not disincentives will drive the change.
Higher prices, things MAY become illegal, IF you are not free to spend your money, CAN'T GET the products you want to buy, I'm sorry, you're just reaching here grasping at straws to make an arguement using scare tactics that aren't even all that realistic. You're going to have to do better than this. I think your arguement has run it's course and you should take a serious look at the other side for a change. Think positive. :thumb:

 

And your whole arguement sir is redundant. You keep saying the same old thing over and over, always starting with a "IF". At least turn the record over or else read a new book on the subject. I for one would be interested in hearing something new from you in the future.