I would be ecstatic if this fuels a Gore run for presidency, either as Democratic candidate or third-party. Rove, you magnificent bastard!
Posted at 2007-10-12 05:44:26 [PermaLink]Suzuki is green with envy, does he get carbon credits for that?
Posted at 2007-10-12 05:47:49 [PermaLink]It is a total disgrace! Gore has not done one thing to advance world peace.
Posted at 2007-10-12 06:14:58 [PermaLink]I am still looking for the "peace" aspect of Gore's work.
We know that it wouldn't have made the grade if the award were for science, but they might have slid it in under literature since it is a greta work of fiction.
The international community bestowed the Peace Prize on Al as to give him their blessing to be the next president.The United States will be a slave to the socialist world.
Posted at 2007-10-12 07:21:44 [PermaLink]Al Gore as next president - don't think so. I think this prize will more likely focus attention on his blowhard exaggerations and "inconvenient" falsehoods than boost his run at the White House. That and the fact he needs a dedicated nuclear reactor to power his house. Even the CBC news this morning mentioned the U.K court case concerning An Inconvenient Truth.
As for the Damian Thompson article: "The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet."
I love this guy.
I am appalled at his victory for "peace" -- this is more than a stretch. Al has gone from bubbling old boy to environmental guru -- please -- this guy is as phony as W -- he just hides it better.(remember tipper's crusade agst music lyrics? and that 1500.00 month electricity bill) Not much of a "commitment" to the climate. What is his next morph?
Posted at 2007-10-12 09:42:59 [PermaLink]"...Gore has spent the past couple of years defying his ego and sublimating himself to a larger goal."
BoggleBoggleBoggleBoggleBoggle
Which alternate universe is this in, again? We've got to start labeling these things.
"The Nobel is an acknowledgment that Gore was right about the greatest global threat we face (and that this is the year when most everyone else finally figured out he was right)."
How so? Please come again.
Now Al joins such other immortal figures as Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat.
Posted at 2007-10-12 12:08:39 [PermaLink]Oh, the screams of pain! A veritable howling chorus from the starboard side of the blogosphere! I never realized I had sadistic impulses of any kind prior to this. Keep on screaming. Please. My friend Cardinal Fang will be awarding next year's prize to Cindy Sheehan. *evil chuckle*
Posted at 2007-10-12 13:53:37 [PermaLink]Joey J... You get points for the good line!
Posted at 2007-10-12 15:16:40 [PermaLink]What screams of pain, Mr. Baglow? The Peace Prize is exactly what Algore deserves. Go Algore! Discredited. Boring... rather like his hagiographic movie.
BTW, your socialist pals in Britain now require that Algore's film be shown with an inconvenient litany of disclaimers when shown to kiddies. Awwwww, poor Algore. If only we on the Right would overlook his lies and see the deeper "truth." Then again, his pals on the Left are abandoning him. Life sucks.
Dawg: It's not screams of pain. It's more like howls of laughter since few here take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously. The Goreacle fits in perfectly. If An Inconvenient Truth were a book and not a slide show, it may have qualified for a Nobel in literature (fiction that is). The man is a joke - but I congratulate him on being able to pull it off and make a bundle of dough doing it.
It's a shame Laurie David (producer of Inconvenient Truth) didn't get "honoured" as well. She could then fly to Oslo on her private jet ([External Link]) to collect the prize and use the money to heat her new 25,000 sq. ft. house at Martha's Vineyard. Just don't accept any rides from the other Vineyard blowhard, Ted Kennedy.
John B, speaking of environmental disasters... Quite the raucous hurricane season, huh?
Posted at 2007-10-12 15:36:27 [PermaLink]The phrase "Nobel Nobody" was coined to describe winners of the literary award, most of whom you've never heard of and will likely never hear of again.
I think it's time to extend that appellation to the so-called Peace Prize.
"The phrase "Nobel Nobody" was coined to describe winners of the literary award, most of whom you've never heard of and will likely never hear of again."
Yeah. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. T.S. Eliot. Orhan Pamuk. Doris Lessing. Harold Pinter. Gunter Grass. V.S. Naipul. Seamus Heaney. All nobodies. No one reads these people any more. Well, not in the Red States, where "My Pet Goat" can absorb the total attention of a President.
"an inconvenient litany of disclaimers when shown to kiddies."
A judge determined that, in an entire film packed with facts, there were all of nine inaccuracies. Such as the statement that South Pacific islands have been evacuated. Gore was being a little previous, but Vanuatu, for one, has plans to resettle its entire population in New Zealand. As for the polar bears, here's the Wall Street Journal:
[External Link]
Incidentally as a postscript, I've noticed an interesting phenomenon here that may be worth a paper some day as a curious bit of internet behaviour. When people here get sufficiently irritated by me, they start using my real name. Curious.
Ahhh doc, it's got nothing to do with you personally, it's that just you have a pet goat and we don't. Chalk it up to jealousy.
Posted at 2007-10-12 16:13:30 [PermaLink]No, no. I *had* a pet goat, but someone got it.
Posted at 2007-10-12 16:17:14 [PermaLink]"When people here get sufficiently irritated by me, they start using my real name." -- John Baglow (aka "Dr. Dawg")
When people using pseudonyms engage in ad hominem attacks I use their real names.
. "Roundhead is a liar" [External Link]
. "[Rheinstein] is, quite simply, a liar." [External Link]
. "I won't let you [Mike H] get away with [his] lie. [External Link]
etc.
Um, Blaglow, I've always used your real name. Just my style, nothing curious 'bout it.
Posted at 2007-10-12 16:24:40 [PermaLink]It is an insult to those actually working for Peace, mind you the Nobel Peace Prize has been a farce in the past as well.
Posted at 2007-10-12 16:25:08 [PermaLink]Bruce: That doesn't explain anything. What exactly does using my real name express? It's not like I've been trying to hide it. (And you have the advantage of me. Ad hominems on your part cannot lead to similar retaliation. Would you please share with me a nickname that you were given in school that I might deploy when the occasion arises?)
Ran: You've been inconsistent on this. It's "Baglow," by the way. I assume that last was a typo.
Anyway, look, guys, it's Friday night and I was having a bit of fun. I wasn't trying to start anything here, so lighten up (or light up).
On the Gore issue, though, I'm becoming more and more interested in these "nine inaccuracies." We can't trust the scientific consensus, but an English judge will get to the bottom of it. Anyone want to talk about polar bears and South Pacific islands? I promise to stay on topic--perhaps wandering into the Nobel Prize for lit., if anyone wants to pursue that.
Polar bears and Pcific Islands? According to the summary on the New Party website [External Link]:
"The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm."
"The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim."
For the 2000 election, the realchange.org website observed [External Link]:
"Most people feel that all politicians lie, but all Gore has a particular way of stretching the truth. He's actually more of a braggart who consistently exaggerates his role in the successful things he does. There are actually two sides of his truth deficit; the highly publicized tendency to exaggerate, and (what we feel is) the more serious problem of evasion."
Dr Dawg: I've read "Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. T.S. Eliot [at school]. Orhan Pamuk... Harold Pinter. Gunter Grass. V.S. Naipul."
No Lessing or Heaney though. What does that signify?
Solzhenitsyn surely the best. Hope you appreciated him, esp. "The First Circle":
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
Here's a link to Justice Burton's Judgment: [External Link]
Posted at 2007-10-12 17:14:06 [PermaLink]Dr Dawg: From another thread:
[External Link]
"I gave up on big-C Communism in 1968. Prague Spring."
I suppose in 1956 you were young enough to miss the Hungarian Revolution and Nikita the K's "secret speech". Though by 68 one might have thought you had thought about them.
Mark
Ottawa
Dr. Dawg,
"On the Gore issue, though, I'm becoming more and more interested in these "nine inaccuracies." We can't trust the scientific consensus, but an English judge will get to the bottom of it. "
Good point. It isn't very convincing from a strictly scientific viewpoint. But then again, Gore and his movie fall into the unconvincing category for the same reason. The science just isn't there. I wish he would have included all the code for his models so I could debug it.
Dawg: "I *had* a pet goat, but someone got it."
I found out who got it and what happened to it:
"...two Jordanian soldiers were evacuated home with injured penises after attempting sexual intercourse with goats."
From the article: "UN acts to stamp out sex abuse by staff in East Timor"
[External Link]
Bruce:
Thank you for the link. The Wall Street Journal article I already cited has more on the polar bears. As for the South Pacific islands, it was Tuvalu, not Vanuatu, that has made arrangements with NZ for resettlement. The latter, though, has suffered from sea-level rise (Wikipedia best I can do for now--give me a little time):
[External Link]
Mark:
Solzhenitsyn is not, in my opinion, in the first rank. Not up there with, say, William Faulkner. But read Seamus Heaney, though--he's wonderful. (I'm not a Lessing fan.)
John B.: Damn! I thought Bruce had it.
Dr. D; Bruce gets your goat...on a regular basis.
;)
Precisely. I never seem to run out of goats, come to think of it. :)
Posted at 2007-10-13 10:08:51 [PermaLink]Dr. Dawg,
"As for the South Pacific islands, it was Tuvalu, not Vanuatu, that has made arrangements with NZ for resettlement. The latter, though, has suffered from sea-level rise (Wikipedia best I can do for now--give me a little time):"
Well, if we're using Wikipedia, they claim a sea level rise of 130m since the last ice age:
[External Link]
This would, on average be less than a metre per century for the past 18,000 years. The IPCC estimate is well within this average for the next 100 years. Any evacuation related to global warming would then have to discount the natural and continuing rise since the last ice and, of course, that has nothing to do with man.
Interestingly, I found the following in that same page.
"Are islands "sinking"?
IPCC assessments have suggested that deltas and small island states may be particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. Relative sea level rise (mostly caused by subsidence) is causing substantial loss of lands in some deltas.[33] However, sea level changes have not yet been implicated in any substantial environmental, humanitarian, or economic losses to small island states. Previous claims have been made that parts of the island nations of Tuvalu were "sinking" as a result of sea level rise [citation needed]. However, subsequent reviews have suggested that the loss of land area was the result of erosion during and following the actions of 1997 cyclones Gavin, Hina, and Keli.[34][35] According to climate skeptic Patrick J. Michaels, "In fact, areas...such as [the island of] Tuvalu show substantial declines in sea level over that period."[36]"
Tying a drowning Vanuatu or Tuvalu to man is not a concensus on which I would want to hang my scientific reputation.
Gosh, Eights (welcome back, by the way), I found this in the very article from which you half-quoted:
"Sea-level has risen about 130 metres (400 feet) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr. Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1993 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1. It is very likely that 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea-level rise, through thermal expansion of sea water and widespread loss of land ice. Church and White (2006) find an acceleration of 1.3 ± 0.5 mm yr–1 per century over the period 1870 to 2000."
Dr. Dawg,
Thanks for the warm reception.
Yes, I noticed that. Hmmm. 1-3 mm/yr times 100 years is, voila, 100-300 mm year. Right in line with the IPCC current estimates, still in line with the average since the last ice age.
Curious that the vast amounts of CO2 contributions by man has occurred in the last half of the 20th century and that the sea level rise has not been catastrophic in any sense relative to historical averages yet it is blamed on man.
How can that be? It seems plausible that even if we weren't around for the last hundred years that the sea level would still have risen by an amount in line with what we are seeing. ie. within an order of magnitude.
"As for the South Pacific islands, it was Tuvalu, not Vanuatu, that has made arrangements with NZ for resettlement"
Perhaps, but there is a substantial difference between making preparations for some event that may occur in the future and stating that it has already happened, which is what Gore is alleged to have done. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know the context.
One more thought. Where are all the drowning polar bears?
Bruce,
"One more thought. Where are all the drowning polar bears?"
You mean the ones who were drowned trying to swim an extended distance during a storm surge. Those polar bears?
It's amazing how 0.6C average increase in 100 years creates such catastrophic conditions yet a 10/20/30 degree swing in one day or a 80 degree swing every 6 months is a yawner.
Bruce:
I had already posted this link. What's your explanation for the rapid decrease in polar bear population in the western Hudson's Bay region, and the congregation on land of unusually large numbers of these bears observed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
[External Link]
Just a small point but how have the science boffins been able to separate geological causes of elevation change from meteorological/climatological changes?
The South Pacific has been very active, geologically speaking, for a very long time, volcanoes and coral atolls being two well known phenomena.
A separate issue; where do scientists THINK the continental ice sheets ended up?! Of course the oceans have risen!
Apparently climate change has been an annoyance for some time ....[External Link]
Dr. Dawg,
Presumably you are talking about two different species of polar bears in two different areas of the world separated by a couple thousand of kilometres. You did say Western Hudson Bay and US (United States) Fish and Wildlife Service in the same paragraph.
The last time I looked, the US did not border on the Hudson Bay.
Also of note, it is an alleged (rapid) decrease in the 1st area and I presume an increase in the second area based on the wording of your post.
Would you be so kind as to post the census for these two species (and the remaining dozen or more) over the last several hundred years so I can have a complete picture of their demographic migrations.
Thanks.
Just a couple of spelling corrections of:
"...Gore has spent the past couple of years defying his ego and sublimating himself to a larger goal."
to:
"...Gore has spent the past couple of years deifying his ego and subliming himself to a larger goal."
There, that's much more accurate....
Dr. Dawg:
You are changing the subject. The Court found nine errors in Gores documentary. You chose this thread to challenge the Court's finding in two, but have yet to rebut the Court's finding in either. For the first, the best you can do is find that people of one small coral atoll have made arrangements to leave in the event their islands disappear. That is substantially different than Gore's allegation they have been evacuated.
With regard to polar bears, animal populations increase and decrease for myriad reasons. Gore makes a specific allegation. According to the Court, Gore presents as fact that “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The Court states the defense was unable to come up with such a study. Please point us to the study establishing the causal effect that polar bears are "drowning" due to global warming. If you can't, I'll consider this debate over.
Bruce:
Some Tuvaluans have already evacuated:
"A tide gauge set up by Australia’s National Tidal Facility indicates that sea levels have been rising slightly but steadily over the past 10 years, and a local meteorologist shows Pollock that during high tides, sea water actually bubbles up on land through the porous coral. Encroaching salty ocean water is ruining pulaka gardens, the main crop, and eroding coconut trees.
"People have lived in Tuvalu for 2,000 years, but some are now beginning to leave, fearing that global warming and rising seas will render their homes uninhabitable. As they emigrate to New Zealand, the Tuvaluans may be the vanguard of a new and growing category of displaced people: 'ocean exiles' or 'environmental refugees.'"
[External Link]
As for the polar bears, here's the study:
[External Link]
I have University access to the whole article, so let me know if you want me to email it to you.
Bruce,
Did you know that every person who ate carrots in the 1700s is now dead?
Coincidence? Perhaps.
Polar bears drowning in ocean storms while pack ice melts and forms again. What kind of black magic is this?
Islands rising and sinking in the oceans, you say.
What are these legends? Hawaii and Atlantis?
Children's fairy tales!
Dr. Dawg,
"Some Tuvaluans have already evacuated:"
Let's see,
previous estimate 0.1 mm/year
current estimate 3.0 mm/year
the difference is 10 mm in a century vs. 300 mm in a century.
Now compare this to 130,000mm since the last ice age.
If they really were that close and the error bar in Wikipedia say it is 0.7mm/year, they were goners long before man started industrializing.
A few families out of many leaving voluntarily for New Zealand, based on some predicted event that may happen in the next 50 years, and an "evacuation" because the island is sinking are not the same thing. The Court had it right. And, quite frankly, having lived on a coral atoll in the Pacific I can think of other reasons, such as standard of living, that people would want to move to New Zealand.
Not being willing to fork out $37 to read the Polar Bear study, I found a government report that cites it. It states, "On surveys following a major regional storm with wind speeds recorded at 46-54 km/hr and seas estimated at 2 meters, four dead polar bears were seen floating in open water and it is presumed that the animals drowned." [External Link] The Court had that one right, too. The animals apparently died from a storm.
Bruce,
Are you surprised that a one-off event was extrapolated into global significance for personal gain by a narcissist backed up by other narcissists living for a doomsday fantasy?
Like I said, 0.6C in 100 years vs 80C every 6 months. Polar bears being mammals should be able to figure this out.
Bruce:
You missed this bit:
"during high tides, sea water actually bubbles up on land through the porous coral. Encroaching salty ocean water is ruining pulaka gardens, the main crop, and eroding coconut trees."
People are leaving because living on Tuvalu is growing untenable *now*.
The study I provided the link to says much more than "four bears drowned during a storm." I renew my offer to send it to you. In the meantime, here's a relevant link:
[External Link]
Dr. Dawg,
Since 1900, the sea around Tuvalu has risen between 10 and 300mm on average ignoring subduction. Since 16000 BCE, it has risen 130,000mm.
If it is bubbling, it was about to do so whether we farted in the atmosphere or not.
Ignoring my posts, doesn't change geological/mathematical reality.
Dr. Dawg:
Al Gore made specific statements of fact in his documentary. The two you decided to raise in this thread -- evacuated islands and finding polar bears drowned because of receding ice -- are false. Tuvalu has not been evacuated, although some families have left, and the bears appear to have drowned as the result of a storm. You now appear to be resorting to some sort of greater truth argument and I'm not going to follow you there.
For one thing, I'm not prepared to determine how much of the damage to the Tuvalu coral atoll is due to rapid population growth (doubling since 1980), beach front sand being used as building material, construction of an airstrip, deforestation as forest undergrowth is used for fuel, and degradation of coral reefs by crown-of-thorns starfish.
Dawg: "What's your explanation for the rapid decrease in polar bear population in the western Hudson's Bay region"
I can't speak for Hudson's Bay but here is what Parks Canada says about polar bears in Torngat Mountains National park in Labrador:
"As the ice breaks up they head to shore and begin to work their way north again. In recent years Inuit have seen an increase in the number of polar bears within the boundaries of the park, especially along the coast."
[External Link]
For what it's worth, here's some info on sea levels:
[External Link]
As I said earlier, the worst is past, and hardly attributable to we humans.
DV:
The massing of bears seen on land correlates with the warming of the sea environment and the loss of sea ice.
Bruce:
You surprise me a little. I have twice offered to send you the study that you challenged me in a rather peremptory way to produce. Instead, you continue to assert that the two examples of "errors" I provided were false. In one case, you rely on a comment on a report that you have not seen. I have that report before me as I type this.
I put "errors" in quotation marks because so did Justice Burton. A general discussion of those "errors" may be found here:
[External Link]
With respect to Tuvalu, that country is presently suing the US and Australia for the loss of their land. The PM of Tuvalu wants to resettle the entire population in NZ where some of them have already fled after their gardens have been overrun with seawater. You would like to ascribe this to other causes. OK. But it's arguable, and Gore is hardly alone in drawing a conclusion about Tuvalu and global warming (and he could have mentioned the Maldives and many other South Pacific islands).
On the polar bears, the point to keep in mind is that Arctic storms are hardly a new phenomenon, but this is the first time that drowned bears have ever been observed. The scientists (Monnett and Gleason) extrapolate on the basis of their observations that 27 bears may have actually drowned. As to the conditions (including the longer distances that they now have to swim), these are expected to grow worse in the future as Arctic temperatures continue to rise.
"Presumably, in the future, more time and energy will be allocated to swimming due to increased distances between ice floes, abandoning sea ice for land when ice concentration falls below 50% (Sterling et al. 1999), or during routine travels searching for suitable substrates in which to hunt seals (Derocher et al. 2004)....
"Our count of dead polar bears related to the 2004 windstorm almost certainly represents an underestimate of the actual number of polar bears affected....Although a number of published papers have discussed implications of climate change on polar bears (e.g., Stirling and Derocher 1993; Stirling et al. 1999;Norris et al. 2002; Stirling 2002; Derocher et al. 2004),to date, mortality due to swimming has not been identified as an associated risk. Evaluations of future
population dynamics and the significance of sources of human-related and natural mortality in polar bears may need to consider this previously unidentified source of natural mortality which may be significant in some years (e.g., mild-ice or late-ice) and may become important in the future if Arctic pack ice continues to regress."
Sorry, the first part of my last comment was directed at John B., not DV.
Posted at 2007-10-14 06:54:11 [PermaLink]Dr. Dawg,
"On the polar bears, the point to keep in mind is that Arctic storms are hardly a new phenomenon, but this is the first time that drowned bears have ever been observed. The scientists (Monnett and Gleason) extrapolate on the basis of their observations that 27 bears may have actually drowned. As to the conditions (including the longer distances that they now have to swim), these are expected to grow worse in the future as Arctic temperatures continue to rise. "
This is the part that I can't understand. Previously, the ice covered a larger area, correct? Presumably, there were gaps at the fringes where roaming polar bears would have to swim greater distances as opposed to those living nearer the core pack. Yet noone ever saw a drowned polar bear.
Now, the ice has retracted yet we still have a core pack and fringes like before. Yet now there are drowned polar bears. Could it be that the particular bears living at the fringe ice previously were just smarter than their descendents and knew enough not to venture too far in the spring or is it a case where we now do more monitoring in the north and hence are just discovering previously unseen events?
Dr. Dawg:
If you think the polar bear study states something other than what the Court and the government report state, then be my guest and email it to me at rheinsteinb-at-yahoo.com. From the summary, it appears the report states they found fewer polar bears and then speculates that they drowned, but the only four apparently drowned bears they report actually seeing were immediately after a major storm.
While I'm prepared to take the study's observational numbers at face value, I'm not willing to accept their speculation as to cause and effect without further support.
Coral atolls are rather odd phenomena. They start as a coral reef around a volcanic island. The island then sinks leaving the ring of coral where it once stood. These coral islands are seldom more than a few meters high at their highest point and may themselves sink as the volcano continues to subside, especially if the creation of new coral is impeded. One would expect that if Gobal Warming is causing ocean levels to rise at a rate that is submerging atolls, they would all be effected, not just Tulavu.
We are now told that Tuvalu is being submerged due to rising ocean levels - those levels rising at a rate measured in at most millimeters a year. But in 2002, it was reported that:
"There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat. "One definitive statement we can make," states Scherer, "is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating." Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches." -- Pacific Magazine
[External Link]
Unless matters have changed drastically since then, the empirical evidence does not support the notion that Tuvalu is being submerged by a rising ocean.
Also, from the same source:
"there are some local problems that have changed the coastline of Tuvalu and mimic sea level rise. Sand is excavated for building material on Tuvalu. The excavation for building material has eroded the beach, thus giving the impression of rising sea to the casual observer. "The island is full of holes and seawater is coming through these, flooding areas that weren't normally flooded 10 or 15 years ago," according to Tuvalu environmental official, Paani Laupepa."
Environmentalism has a history of apocalyptic predictions posing as scientific studies, and Global Warming has all the hallmarks of another environmentalist evangelical effort.
Folks, anthopogenic global climate change is a myth.
The climate has always been changing. It shall for ever yet. The notion of anthropogenisis hasn't even reached plausible hypothesis as of this time...
There simply isn't the human capacity to produce enough green-house gases to flood the background fluctuations of the greatest of them all... WATER.
Fact is, atmospheric fluctuations in H2O vapour and cloud vastly overshadow effects of CO2 et ales by three orders- 1000:1
Further, even IF human causes could be measured, it is simple-minded at best to believe that the "solutions" to the "crisis" lie in the socialist wealth and energy redistribution theories of our dear pals in the socialist movement.
Socialism as a means of raising hopes and wealth has proven itself to be false everywhere and every time it has been tried. It is no accident that the "environmental" movement is comprised to near exclusivity by socialists. Every "solution" to the "environmental" "crisis" proposed is a restriction on free choices and action, a redistribution of energy and wealth, and the concentration of power into the hands of elite SOCIALISTS.
Wanna save the polar bears? Fine. Go for it. I'll kick in a few bucks if the project is feasible. Just don't ask me to buy into the religion of Gaia or Marx or crystals.
Bruce:
Tuvalu, of course, is not the only South Pacific nation that has begun to worry about the effects of global warming. I already mentioned the Maldives, for example.
I am admittedly confused by the mixed messages allegedly coming from Tuvalu. We get these quotes (and I pointed to one myself at my place that the shillsite Tech Station Central was pushing) from "officials" like Elisala Pita and Paani Laupepa: while, at the same time, the Tuvaluan Prime Minster is talking about evacuated the entire population, and Tuvalu is suing the US and Australia for their part in creating the global warming that threatens their island nation.
"shillsite Tech Station Central"
Shillsite for whom?
It seems that anyone who dares question Global Warming alarmism is branded a "shill." For example that renowned environmental scientist Laurie David (she of the private jets and enormous house on Martha's Vinyard) branded MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen, a "shill" for criticizing Global Warming alarmism.
And, according to the Boston Globe, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council (remember the Alar scare?), and other groups have sucked Lindzen, et al., into a lawsuit against GM on the grounds that "We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did." Lindzen denies any communication with the automobile companies and refers to the lawsuit as "the criminalization of opposition to global warming." [External Link]
Ran,
I'm not prepared to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, but I'm also not willing to be stampeded by Environmentalist alarmism and to accept a deeply flawed solution like Kyoto.
"Shillsite for whom?"
AT&T, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation. The usual suspects.
[External Link]
"It seems that anyone who dares question Global Warming alarmism is branded a 'shill.'"
And anyone who accepts the scientific consensus is a "socialist ideologue."
AT&T
Ah, yes. The old phone company conspiracy! First it was party lines and now it's Global Warming! Why didn't I think of that?
Turning the shrill meter to 11 and dismissing legitimate questions on the grounds that any doubt is evidence of a conspiracy is exactly what's wrong with environmentalism.
Bruce:
There's no conspiracy. I don't think you and Ran are "shills." But Big Oil and so on are certainly pouring money into climate scepticism. Again, no conspiracy--it's quite out in the open.
AT&T is feeling the pressure, certainly:
[External Link]
Bruce, "Global Warming" is a fact as far as I know. Its cause has zip, nada, nothing, sweet fuck all to do with "carbon footprints", and it's "solution" isn't to be found in marxist redistribution programmes. (I refer to them as the 'acid' rain dance.)
Oddly enough, there's a huge hot star near the center of our solar system. Hell, even an artsie such as me can see it plainly during the day! And THAT sucker's surface temperature fluctuates. Ergo... "global climate change." Earth, Mars, Neptune, take yer pick.
I may be a "skeptic" but it ain't because of "big oil", it's because of facts learned gaining an Honours B.Sc. in Geology and Physics, U of Toronto 8T1.
Basic data on atmospheric composition, volcanism, industrial output, meteorology, oceanography, astrophysics - it's all out there for those not mind-numbed by Gore's bullshit. [He got his prize, he deserves it, and may it reflect his credibility for the rest of his days.] Go from first principles.
Ran,
"Oddly enough, there's a huge hot star near the center of our solar system. Hell, even an artsie such as me can see it plainly during the day! And THAT sucker's surface temperature fluctuates. "
And you should see what those 11/22/77 year solar cycles do to Earth's orbital debris field. How? You ask.
It causes the atmosphere to blow up and deflate like a balloon affecting drag in LEO.
Gotta wonder about the climate impact of the changing volume and hence density of the atmosphere.
Dr Dawg: Despite your critical attention to capitalism I suspect (tell me I'm wrong) you're confusing within the "usual suspects" the old, quasi-monopolistic, overly state-regulated AT&T
[External Link]
with its Cingular re-invention:
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
Could be, Mark. AT&T is listed over at SourceWatch as a benefactor of the Tech Central Station shillsite. I'll check into this when I have a moment.
Posted at 2007-10-14 19:29:48 [PermaLink]I'll pass on polar bears, but I will take the time to kill the last few myths that just got pushed. I've already pointed Ran to these simple refutations of his personal faves, but it appears he needs a reminder.
1) H20 Cycle is far more important that the CO2 cycle:
[External Link]
2) Human CO2 emissions are too small to make a difference:
[External Link]
3) The sun's cycles are causing it:
[External Link]
Every one of those points, succinctly and scientifically murdered. End of story.
There are a lot more too, so have a look and develop a theory that hasn't already been contradicted.
[External Link]