Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 19, 2006
By: Christina Larson

AL GORE VS. TOM CRUISE... An Inconvenient Truth is gradually rolling out in cineplexes across the country. Last weekend, the film opened in Kennesaw, GA; Olathe, KS; Louisville, KY; Omaha, NE; Albequerque, NM; Dayton, OH; Salt Lake City, UT; Dallas, TX; among other cities. (Find your hometown here.)

Anyone have a scoop about local reaction? We know the NY-LA-DC press gaggle swooned. But the real test will be whether the film resonates outside the choir.

Of note: In last weekend's match-up of middle-age screen idols, Al Gore whupped Tom Cruise in weekend box office grosses. An Inconvenient Truth: $1,750,000 -- Mission Impossible: $1,183,000. Christina Larson 12:22 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (151)

Bookmark and Share

 
Comments

I'm looking at specific theatre grosses from most of the places it opened - the grosses (these are mainly exclusive in mid-size cities) are good, not great, certainly nothing remotely similar to Brokeback Mountain, March of the Penguins or Fahrenheit 9/11.
My sense (and my work involves releases of specialized movies) is that this will be at best a modest success theatrically, and then go on to more interest when it is released on DVD. It should be a modest money maker (Paramount Classics has spent a lot on advertising and promotion). It has not however done quite as well as expected.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on June 19, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Christina, please. Gore WHUPPED Cruise. He didn't yell at him.

Cheers,
b.

Posted by: balisardo on June 19, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Christina Larson --
I don't understand your $ valuations.

In the twin-cities it is showing 1+ week now and I shall go the next few days.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" booked $120million as a record fora documentary. This will far exceed that.

So the fuss that proceeded "F 9/11" will not follow "Inconvenient Truth" because it's a new record within 2 years or so and everyone wants to ignore . . . what? The Inconvenient Truth.

Meanwhile we are on course to burn up the central band of the world, change the climate completely, give fauna and flora no chance to adapt or to mutate. Change the world faster than it has ever been changed.

(Oh! I'm sorry. Some of you don't believe in evolution or genetic mutation although we have the ability to do that deliberately in a lab. Fancy that? We can do what God doesn't allow. Amazing! And we've already made a hash of it. We want to use it before we understrand it. Good luck GM seeds. We are such ignorant, greedy fools.)

Get real! We are doing very real damage that is like a runaway super-super-supertanker. You can't turn it around today, tomorow, or the day after tomorrow.

We need to act now.

Yeah. I hear you. I hear nothing.

IDIOTS!

Posted by: notthere on June 19, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

Looks like Al is pickin up speed while most of the others are losing steam (non-insider observer here)

Gonna be interesting for sure; my area is too blue to be much of an indicator of any trend(s)

"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M. King Hubbert

Posted by: daCascadian on June 19, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Pretty positive review in New Orleans newspaper:
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1150435516228900.xml?nola

Posted by: Brian Boru on June 19, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

I'll be watching the DVD.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 19, 2006 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

An Inconvenient Truth optimistically will have a theatrical gross of $20 million - again, decent, but nothing record setting. That will mean 3 million people will buy tickets.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on June 19, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

FWIW, I saw it and loved it. Obviously, it's Al Gore giving a powerpoint presentation and the material is terrifying but repetitive. That's how it goes when you want to bash everyone over the head with all the data so hard that they finally get the point.

Posted by: Steve L on June 19, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

It's been out almost a month, and it's still pulling in over $4,300 a screen-that puts it number 5 among releases at over 2 theaters.
(Wordplay made $35,000 over the weekend-at 2 screens!)
Tom's pulling in just shy of $1200 a screen-fading fast.

Posted by: doug r on June 19, 2006 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Al Gore in Houston:

I did not see the movie in Houston, but I did hear Al Gore in Houston to speak at the Progressive Forum. He was there for the release of his book, 'The inconvenient truth'. He gave the slide show to a sell out crowd at the Hobby center.

I look at scientific graphs, and plots to make a living. In an hour and a half, Al Gore made a rigorous case with a lot of scientific data. I can imagine that most of the people in the audience would have never seen that many graphs in an hour and a half. He made them interesting, and brought them to life. It was a thorough, interesting presentation that convinced me of the merits of his argument.

I think even those who disagree with the politics of Al Gore should go and see it. I would say to anyone, don't wait for the DVD, just go and see it!

Kari

Posted by: Kari on June 19, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

Just saw it. As someone pretty familiar with the science it's hard to get a perspective on how most people would view the movie. There are a few small inaccuracies that jumped out at me and a lot that was left unsaid. Hopefully people will be stimulated to ask more questions and read more about the subject.

A lot of the movie was about Al Gore. It would be easy to see this part of the movie as a campaign fluff piece, but I suspect they trumped up the messenger to give credence to the message. He seems pretty adamant about not getting into politics again.

BTW, the movie was a bit more optimistic than I am concerning our ability to control our emissions. Maybe I need some of whatever Gore is smoking.

Posted by: rewolfrats on June 19, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

An Inconvenient Truth optimistically will have a theatrical gross of $20 million - ....

Posted by: hopeless pedant on June 19, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

We'll see if you are right. Give me odds: I think you are way low.

More importantly, how do you feel about the message?

My bet? By your interpretation of the film's gross you don't think there is global warming.

Right!

Just another Idiot. How many are there of you out there?

Posted by: notthere on June 19, 2006 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK

I suspect the critical response elsewhere should be at least as favorable. After all, there's essentially nobody outside the hard core Hannity/Coulter fan club who's more hostile to Gore than the Washington/NY media.

Posted by: Alex on June 19, 2006 at 4:22 AM | PERMALINK

I saw it and I think it may be one of the most important films in a generation. I found my reaction to be anger - anger that this Administration remains so blithely ignorant about global warming and so obviously in the pocket of Big Oil and the car manufacturers. Angry that our country took such a wrong turn in 2000 when the SCOTUS installed this numbskull, instead of a thoughtful, intelligent man like Al Gore. How different this county would be if the true winner of the 2000 election had been allowed to govern. I think 9-11 might not have even happened, if we would have had a president who actually did something after getting the warning that dipshit received on August 6th, 2001 in the PDB. How very sad for this country...

See this movie!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 19, 2006 at 6:45 AM | PERMALINK

Who Killed the Electric Car is going to be a million times better! Don't miss the preview at the linked page. I can NOT wait.

Posted by: JamesP on June 19, 2006 at 7:33 AM | PERMALINK

notthere Man, you will never win motivational awards with that schtick, either.While what you say is undoubtedly true, there's a reason for naming the show "An Inconvenient Truth".

Posted by: opit on June 19, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

I compliment Alex, directly above, for his comment on Gore and the Washington/NY media. In his review in the Baltimore Sun (link below), Michael Sragow became the latest film critic to mention the press corps' puzzling hostility to Gore as a candidate. ("Many of us couldn't understand the disproportionate carping even then.") Film critics have noticed this important part of our recent history. Only mainstream and liberal journalists have not. http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/movies/bal-to.truth09jun09,0,1771011.story?coll=bal-movies-utility

Posted by: bob somerby on June 19, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Let's see, the planet has been around for millions of years, has had dramatic climate shifts throughout that time (remember the summer that wasn't recorded in the 16th century), and yet, the left's argument is that since the 1920's industrial revolution we have permanently altered the earth's climate for the worse. Even more mendacious is the claim that had Gore won in 2000, we maybe could have already stemmed the tide.

Please continue to carry that chip on your shoulder from 2000, please continue to tell America that global warming is more of a danger than jihadism, and please continue to think that the general populace could not even sustain their own lives if it weren't for people like you looking out for them. It's hard to believe that we've made it this far without the intellectually superior left guiding our way.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Forgive me if I disrespect the message of An Inconvenient Truth, but in fact I do believe it is quite likely humbug.

Why? Because the world is always either getting warmer or cooler. It is never in stasis. For the last two decades Antarctica has actually been getting colder, even while the Arctic gets warmer. I have been arguing for years that the atmosphere over Antarctica has been getting colder from ground level on up, which is the main reason the ozone hole phenonon attracted attention. A colder upper atmosphere discourages ozone. The ozone hole has not gone away despite dramatic decreases in CFC's released.

So, what about the "disappearing" Antarctic ice sheets? There is reason to think that ice sheets world wide may be calving more because they are actually growing due to increased snow fall.

Our sun has been pouring significantly more sunshine energy on us the last half century, which I think has driven at least 50% of the recent warming.

Russian climatologists take a dim view of the anthropogenic global warming humbug campaign raging in the West. They think it is one of those faddish bandwagons that come along that experts jump on because they want political grant money and attention, not to mention ingratiate themselves with those for whom all green dogma has become the only religion worth believing in.

We may as well wait ten years and do nothing, given that even an enormous unilateral sacrifice by the USA would barely budge the numbers at this point. I will bet that the warming trend has peaked out and is going to reverse that soon, humans have actually nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Those who shrilly insist that, no,no,no we are about to reach a "tipping point" strike me as hyper-ventilating. These are people who should never have real political power of any degree.

Posted by: Mike Cook on June 19, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

In Richmond, VA, the theatre was crowded and everyone that I know that saw it was really impressed - both with the movie and Al Gore. The only problem is that it played at a small independent theatre with mostly libruls in the audience.

It's a great introduction to global warming - covering the basic reasons why it's happening and what it's effects are. It was very accurate - the only noticable exaggeration was at the end when he talks about 'civilization' being at stake. Also, the group I was with misinterpreted his timeframe regarding the melting of the glaciers, but I was listening carefully and I think he was accurate.

The film was entertaining - some good humor, incredible graphics. Some shots were like an IMAX film.

Posted by: JeffB on June 19, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

For a Houston reaction, here's an article from the local paper about a bunch of people's reactions to the film. For out-of-towners, the movie was playing in town at the Landmark, which tends to attract independent movies and, hence, a more progressive crowd than most Houston theaters. So, I don't suggest that the discussion of the movie in the article would be representative of Houston as a whole.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3963892.html

Posted by: Apu on June 19, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

In a local book review of An Inconvenient Truth, a Louisville critic wrote:

The picture of Gore himself is an equally bracing correction. He is a man of deep convictions and consistency: He introduced the first congressional hearings on climate change and has traveled to the North and South poles repeatedly to monitor scientific expeditions. He is humble and devoted to his family. He lavishes praise on Tipper, who contributed numerous photographs to the book and helped guide its overall design. And while An Inconvenient Truth won't change the minds of fierce partisans, those of us who have been ambivalent about Gore in the past will find him likable and worthy of respect.

This followed the AP's movie review by David Germain, which was printed in the Louisville paper.

The only local article about the movie opening in Louisville had no editorial content.

Posted by: E-mart on June 19, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Al will be lucky to much past $20M and he'll need weak competition to get it. Worst is he's only getting the choir. Why would any sane person waste 2 hours watching Al Gore giving powerpoint presentation?

Posted by: rdw on June 19, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Why would any sane person waste 2 hours watching Al Gore giving powerpoint presentation?

Actually the reviews from a broad variety of different types of critics rate it as one of the best made movies out there. See this collection of 105 reviews with an overall rating of 90%: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/

On the other hand, this statement is disingenuous:
Of note: In last weekend's match-up of middle-age screen idols, Al Gore whupped Tom Cruise in weekend box office grosses. An Inconvenient Truth: $1,750,000 -- Mission Impossible: $1,183,000. MIssion Impossible III has already grossed over $130,000,000 vs. $6,400,000. More sadly still Garfield "whupped" them both out of the starting gate with over $7,000,000.

The fact is that this documentary is in an entirely different class of movie in terms of budget and content. The purpose is to inform, which is always a much tougher sale in the US movie business.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 19, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

I tend to agree with Mike Cook.

This movie will be seen by the choir and few others. It will only reinforce the views they already have and thus be of no consequence. Some think this is a vehicle for Al to make a run in '08 but that won't work. The back room boys do not support another run by Gore or Kerry. Both proved they could lose and they want a winner. Gore lost a 25 point lead and couldn't even win his own home state. Kerry's run was a dismal failure. The only man who ran again and won was Nixon and they don't want that comparison made. Gore believes his movie, you may believe it too. But most people will think of it as propaganda and won't bother seeing it, even on DVD. Would most of those on this comment list see a movie made by Bush about Iraq? Or believe it if they did?

Posted by: FrankH on June 19, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

I'll tell you why, rdw, or at least why I suspect people would be willing to watch: because this is a message that is long overdue. What people need to realize is that life is at stake, here. We don't have anywhere else to go if the atmosphere becomes unbreathable thanks to pollution, or if widespread drought in some areas and flooding in others renders huge chunks of land un-livable, and unable to grow food-crops. If there is even the remotest chance that climate change could be our fault (and I think it IS our fault, for the record) and there is any chance of slowing it or turning it around, we have to act. The price of nonaction is just too high.

Posted by: brainchild on June 19, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

brainchild, do you seriously think that man has dramatically altered the climate in the last fifty years of a planet that has been around for millions of years?

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously, it's Al Gore giving a powerpoint presentation and the material is terrifying but repetitive.

Sorry; Gore doesn't use PowerPoint because PowerPoint is a giant box of suck. It hasn't changed for the better in fifteen years.

Use Keynote like Al does, and really keep your audience's attention.

Posted by: F'in Librul on June 19, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, the ozone layer was there for 3 billion years and it was almost wiped out by humans.

BTW, I saw the movie in San Antonio this weekend and the theater was full. I've read a lot of the climate change science and Gore basically achieved the Carl Sagan level of translating it all into a great science lecture.

Posted by: Richard on June 19, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

During Question Time last week,Tony Blair,in responding to questions about nuclear power,reiterated that the UK is putting in place policies to address global warming.Seems that the Brits are believers in global warming.
As I see Mr. Somerby commented above:Bob,please get back to work on your Daily Howler.You took a week off,that's enough.

Posted by: TJM on June 19, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

If you mention movies 3 times in any thread, rdw magically appears to point out that the film sucked because it didn't make as much money as Armageddon.

Posted by: Constantine on June 19, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Despite having read almost all of the Someby posts on the Daily Howler, I still cannot fathom the reasons for the media's hostility to Al Gore. That such hostility exists is without question, as the Daily Howler has so well demonstrated.

Posted by: nut on June 19, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Jay and Mike Cook:

You need to see this film and see for yourself that the evidence (e.g. core samples from Antartica going back 600,000 years) is indisputable that the warming that is occurring is NOT cyclical and is NOT in some "normal range".

It is you who are the fools and the dupes of the oil industry who have circulated memos to the effect that "our best defense is to convince the public that global warming is theory not fact" and "assert that these are normal climactic cycles". Just like the tobacco industry did to convince fools like you that smoking did not cause cancer.

See the movie and come back to this blog and tell us how global warming is all a theory and part of a normal cycle. I dare you. Of course, you won't since conservatives are gutless cowards who are insecure and immature and hide behind bluster and false premises and sheer stupidity, rather than facing the truth.

Posted by: Stephen on June 19, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Mike Cook, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently a good deal higher than any time during the last 650,000 years (and probably a good deal before that, but 650k years is as far back as the reliable ice cores go). We are entering new territory.

Posted by: Joe Buck on June 19, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

It is really quite ironic to read the comments from Jay and rdw and Mike Cook and the other scripted, programmed climate change deniers as they slavishly regurgitate the fake, phony, willfully ignorant talking points that they've memorized from their programmers at Fox News, meanwhile sneering that Gore is preaching to the "choir".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: Let's see, the planet has been around for millions of years,

Try billions, moron.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

paid trolls. all i'm sayin'.

dear dumbfucks:

the debate is _over_. the scientific community has reached a consensus -- global warming is real, and it is caused by us. they are the only people who are qualified to make this judgement, not republican coke-sniffing talking heads on TV who never managed to graduated from college.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: brainchild, do you seriously think that man has dramatically altered the climate in the last fifty years of a planet that has been around for millions of years?

There was a tree in my uncle's backyard that had been around for well over a hundred years. Do you seriously think that one man like myself dramatically altered the landscape in his backyard by cutting down that tree, which has been around for decades and decades, in less than a half hour? And yet it was so....

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

yes, humankind has dramatically altered the climate in a matter of decades. as i said, the debate is over. the people who are qualified to make the conclusion have made it. the only people who are saying there is a controversy are republican shills who probably failed every single science class they ever took. the reason why they are on TV pretending there is a controversy where there is none is that lying is the only 'skill' they have. in fact, with all the hot air they're blowing, they are part of the problem.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK


jay: of a planet that has been around for millions of years?


that's too high...

just ask bush's evangelical base

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 19, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Stephen (American Hater) let's talk about "facing the truth". You continue to advocate that America is the worst violater of human rights this planet has ever seen. You continue to advocate that the 2000 election was stolen by GW. You continue to advocate that Cheney and Rove are guilty of Plamegate despite exoneration from the Special Prosecutor and these are just a few examples of you "facing the truth" Get a life.

Stefan, your analogy of cutting down a tree and drastically altering the climate of a planet was hysterical.

Is it any wonder why the Democrats can not get traction and will lose the '06 and '08 elections in spectacular fashion. I can't wait.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

the theater in Seattle where I saw it Sat night was full, they were turning folks away.

And all you global warming naysayers, go SEE the movie. Then see if you still are of the same opinion. If so, you won't be convinced until the ocean is lapping at your doorstep, I will bet.

Posted by: moe99 on June 19, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

the debate is _over_. the scientific community has reached a consensus -- global warming is real, and it is caused by us.

No, the scientific consensus is that human activity is contributing to global warming, not that it is the sole cause of global warming.

There's no consensus on the issue of how much the planet is likely to warm during this century, or on what our policy response should be, other than in very broad terms, such as the desirability of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I'm on the board of a non-profit indy cinema here in Tacoma WA, about 45 minutes south of Seattle, and "An Inconvenient Truth" opened this weekend quite strongly, selling out several shows.

We also have "A Prairie Home Companion" playing which sold the place out last weekend, and also did very strong business this weekend. This may have sapped some business from the opening of "An Inconvenient Truth". In our market, we tend to see strong films do well over time, not just for a weekend or two. We rather suspect "An Inconvenient Truth" will have some legs here, but time will tell. Our audience tends to be older, and they often choose NOT to see a movie the week it opens as they'd rather wait and not have to stand in line, etc.

Anyway, "An Inconvenient Truth" is doing well here.

http://www.grandcinema.com/

Posted by: riptide on June 19, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

My oh my, we certainly are full of ourselves today aren't we? Science can not explain the origin of the universe, has yet to fully explain the subleties of evolution, can not find the missing link, nor can it fully explain the origin of life and has even yet to identify every species of life. Yet, after a few years of statistical analysis, the intellectually elite have determined beyond any shadow of doubt that human life has negatively impacted the planets climate for the worse and even more disturbing is their desire to pin a lot of on GW and the last 6 years of policies.

So, in short, a planet that has been around for "billions" of years (Stefan knows this for a fact, yet still isn't sure if jihadism is worth fighting) has been negatively impacted in the last 6 years. Wow. That's impressive.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Stephen (American Hater) let's talk about "facing the truth". You continue to advocate that America is the worst violater of human rights this planet has ever seen. You continue to advocate that the 2000 election was stolen by GW. You continue to advocate that Cheney and Rove are guilty of Plamegate despite exoneration from the Special Prosecutor and these are just a few examples of you "facing the truth" Get a life.

Stefan, your analogy of cutting down a tree and drastically altering the climate of a planet was hysterical.

Is it any wonder why the Democrats can not get traction and will lose the '06 and '08 elections in spectacular fashion. I can't wait.

the topic at hand is global warming and the movie An Inconvenient Truth.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

The democrats will be facing an inconvenient truth this fall.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

No, the scientific consensus is that human activity is contributing to global warming, not that it is the sole cause of global warming.

There's no consensus on the issue of how much the planet is likely to warm during this century, or on what our policy response should be, other than in very broad terms, such as the desirability of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

this is flat out bullshit. the rise in concentration of CO2 in the atmophere neatly tracks the rise of industrialization. there may not be a consensus on how fast the changes will progress, but there is NO CONTROVERSY in the scientific community that the changes in the climate are caused by humna beings. NONE.

the only people who are saying there is a controversy are paid liars and the fools who choose to believe them. the scientific community has spoken and they have said that the changes are caused by human beings.

neither is there any controversy in the scientific community that the situation direly needs redress now.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

this is flat out bullshit.

No it isn't.

the rise in concentration of CO2 in the atmophere neatly tracks the rise of industrialization.

No it doesn't. And atmospheric CO2 concentration is not the only influence on global climate anyway.

there may not be a consensus on how fast the changes will progress, but there is NO CONTROVERSY in the scientific community that the changes in the climate are caused by humna beings. NONE.

Nonsense. The IPCC TAR concluded only that human activity is likely to be the cause of most of the observed global warming of the last few decades, not that it is certain to be the cause of all of it. Natural climate variability may be the cause of a substantial fraction of observed warming.


Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

My oh my, we certainly are full of ourselves today aren't we? Science can not explain the origin of the universe, has yet to fully explain the subleties of evolution, can not find the missing link, nor can it fully explain the origin of life and has even yet to identify every species of life.

you are as full of shit as a christmas turkey. evolution and the origins of the universe are not remotely related to the subject of discussion. stop trying to change the subject.

in over 600 articles published in peer reviewed scientific publications, not a single article indicated there was any controversy about what was causing climate change.

not. a. single. one.

Yet, after a few years of statistical analysis, the intellectually elite have determined beyond any shadow of doubt that human life has negatively impacted the planets climate for the worse and even more disturbing is their desire to pin a lot of on GW and the last 6 years of policies.

the data goes back decades, not a 'few' years, you lying little troll. clearly you have no respect for evidence-based thinking if all you can do is throw tired little whiny ass titty baby wah wah wahs over this thread when confronted with the truth.

"..the intellectually elite ..."

hey, if you want to concede that the liberals are the educated evidence-based thinkers, i'm happy for you to let the republicans be classified as ignorant and uneducated. i glad that you're willing to admit it at least.

So, in short, a planet that has been around for "billions" of years (Stefan knows this for a fact, yet still isn't sure if jihadism is worth fighting) has been negatively impacted in the last 6 years. Wow. That's impressive.

we are not talking about terrorism, troll. we are talking about global warming. you have not a single fact to bolster your claim that there's any doubt that human beings are causing global warming or that it's a huge problem that needs immediate attention. your only option is to change the subject. you're full of shit and you know it.

i'm sure your misplaced smug superiority will be a great comfort to you during food riots as ecological collapse destroys our ability to feed and maintain a population of six and a half billion and growing.

"has been negatively impacted in the last 6 years"

as a result of decades of widescale burning of fossil fuels. there is no longer any doubt that global warming is not only real, that it is caused by humans and that it will cause massive environmental damage. we are ALREADY seeing the damage.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

The democrats will be facing an inconvenient truth this fall.

if this is all you have, you are truly pathetic.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

this is flat out bullshit.

No it isn't.

i know you are, but what am i!

i'm just devastated at your fact-filled rebuttal!

the rise in concentration of CO2 in the atmophere neatly tracks the rise of industrialization.

No it doesn't.

you just laid waste to my claims with devastating insight and documentation!

And atmospheric CO2 concentration is not the only influence on global climate anyway.

you are again trying to distract. global warming IS real. measurements of the concentration of CO2 in the atmophere goes back for decades. there is no arguing with the data. you are making shit up out of thin air.

Nonsense. The IPCC TAR concluded only that human activity is likely to be the cause of most of the observed global warming of the last few decades ...

the observed global warming of the last few decades is what we are discussing. that is the subject of concern. keep spinning, blowing smoke, and obfuscating all you want. the facts are not on your side. that is why you can't address the subject. all you can do is distract.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

in over 600 articles published in peer reviewed scientific publications, not a single article indicated there was any controversy about what was causing climate change. not. a. single. one.

If this is a reference to Naomi Oreskes' literature survey reported in Science, the consensus position it supports is the one I referred to earlier: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."

Note the qualifiers "most" and "likely." They're important.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

but what am i!

Ignorant and stupid, apparently.

you just laid waste to my claims with devastating insight and documentation!

I don't need documentation to rebut undocumented claims.

you are again trying to distract. global warming IS real.

I haven't denied it's real. I'm denying that there is a scientific consensus that the sole cause of global warming is human activity. There is a consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming, but not that human activity is the sole cause of it.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

If this is a reference to Naomi Oreskes' literature survey reported in Science, the consensus position it supports is the one I referred to earlier: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."

Note the qualifiers "most" and "likely." They're important.

oh, here we go with the purity troll game. scientists do not speak in terms of absolutes. when they say that 'most' and 'likely' that means they concluded that the greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming. science does not speak in terms of 'always', 'never', and 'all'. you're blowing smoke again. conclusions based on empirical data are not like mathematical proofs. stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby exemplifies the unhinged spectacular failures of the left. Having lost in spectacular fashion on the Iraq war (even Zarqawi memos cite that the US strategy is working), the NSA program (even Feinstein now admits that the program was critical in preventing a NY subway attempt), thwarting two SCOTUS nominees, indicting Cheney and Rove (exonerated by Fitzpatrick), Tax cuts for the rich (ie: see growing eceonomy), the left now focuses their zeal on climate change. Ignoring "billions" of years of climate shifts and concentrating on a "few decades" of data to bolster their claim that humans are evil. BTW, great platform developing for '08 huh?

Actually now I think I understand your motive. You hope to destroy the US and bolster those who want to turn back civilization (jihadists) so that we can all live under oppression in caves so that the climate will not destroy us. BRILLIANT.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

No it isn't.

Provide substantiation for your claim.

No it doesn't. And atmospheric CO2 concentration is not the only influence on global climate anyway.

Provide substantiation for your claim.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

scientists do not speak in terms of absolutes.

When scientists say "most," they usually mean "most," not "all." When scientists say "likely," they usually mean "likely," not "certainly."

when they say that 'most' and 'likely' that means they concluded that the greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

No, the statements mean what they say: that scientists have concluded only that "most" (not "all") of observed global warming is "likely" (not "certainly") to have been caused by an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

This thread is pretty funny. Science and technology are crap unless they're used to expose American muslims that don't like Bush or fire weak infrared lasers at third world missiles.

Posted by: rewolfrats on June 19, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

you just laid waste to my claims with devastating insight and documentation!

I don't need documentation to rebut undocumented claims.

they are documentated in hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific literature based on decades of data.

I haven't denied it's real. I'm denying that there is a scientific consensus that the sole cause of global warming is human activity. There is a consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming, but not that human activity is the sole cause of it.

purity troll: keep spinning. don't think i don't know exactly what you are doing by focusing only on the absence of absolute claims (which is not what scientists deal with) in order to muddy the waters. there is indeed a scientific consensus that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels.

i'll allow for the possibility that there's an elf at the north pole with a coal stove which is making a miniscule, tiny contribution to global warming, but that tiny contribution would be completely irrelevant when making plans for stopping it. of course, i'm sure the bloated and corrupt republican party will be more than willing to send the army to depose the elf. afterwards, they'll get together at the Watergate hotel for hookers, booze and coke. may as well party like it's the end of the world.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

You would think that the democrats would learn not too jump too conclusions by now.

A few months of polling and they're convinced that the '04 election was theirs. Oops.
A "sealed indictment" was a the proof of Rove's guilt in Plamegate. Oops.
A forged document was sure to shed negative light on GW's military career. Oops.
The NSA program was designed specifically to spy on US civilians. Oops.

And they call themselves the "reality" based community. They are fun to watch though.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Do you really believe that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only factor influencing global climate? Seriously? You've never heard of solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, volcanism, or any of the other influences on climate?

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

An inconvenient truth is if someone really wanted this subject to be taken seriously by ALL sides they would not have used a politician who is suspected by the 'other' side to want to run for office in '08. By having Gore as the front man for this movie they guarantee that only those who already agree with him would see it.

Why?

If Gore really wanted this information to get out to 'everybody' he would have had someone front this who would be accepted by everybody as a non partisan. He did not do so and therefore his motives about why HE was the center piece of this move are suspect. Wether you believe his facts outlined in this movie or suspect then is no matter. He put himself at the forefront of this divisive issue for what I suspect are political reasons. I think he wants to run again and he is using this movie to further those goals, not to promote the ideas in the movie. And no, I'm not going to see his movie any more than you would see a movie made by Bush about Iraq. Gore is not the right person to be trying to convince those who do not buy into his politics about this issue. I don't trust him to provide fair balance on this issue and don't trust him because I think he is using this issue to further his political goals.

Posted by: FrankH on June 19, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

scientists do not speak in terms of absolutes.

When scientists say "most," they usually mean "most," not "all." When scientists say "likely," they usually mean "likely," not "certainly."

hello, deliberately obtuse one! you are purposely distorting the nature of scientific conclusions based upon empirically gathered data because the emprically gathered data regarding global warming blows your obsfucating ass right out of the water. in this realm, scientists do not speak in terms of certainties because they know that not every single variable cannot be accounted for or controlled. when they say 'most' and 'likely' in these cases, they mean there is no better conclusion that fits the data.

No, the statements mean what they say: that scientists have concluded only that "most" (not "all") of observed global warming is "likely" (not "certainly") to have been caused by an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

scientific research is not written like the bible. science does not make absolute claims. when they say 'most' and 'likely' there is no good scientifically sound reason to conclude otherwise.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Do you really believe that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only factor influencing global climate? Seriously? You've never heard of solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, volcanism, or any of the other influences on climate?

That's not substantiation, that's spinning. Provide substantiation for your claims.

When scientists say "most," they usually mean "most," not "all." When scientists say "likely," they usually mean "likely," not "certainly."

Provide substantiation for your claim. Where do you draw this conclusion about "when scientists say" from? And when you say "when scientists say...they usually mean...", how do you know this is what they "usually" mean? Have you surveyed all scientists?

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

they are documentated in hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific literature based on decades of data.

Tee hee hee. Please show me the "hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific literature" supporting your claim that CO2 concentration is the sole cause of observed global warming, rather than just one of many potential causes of that warming.

don't think i don't know exactly what you are doing by focusing only on the absence of absolute claims

You have certainly made an "absolute" claim. That's because you don't know what you're talking about and are just blazing away in your usual state of ignorance. As I have explained, the actual scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is qualified and uncertain.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

You didn't answer the questions. Do you really believe that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only factor influencing global climate? Seriously? You've never heard of solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, volcanism, or any of the other influences on climate?

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

You would think that the democrats would learn not too jump too conclusions by now.

A few months of polling and they're convinced that the '04 election was theirs. Oops.
A "sealed indictment" was a the proof of Rove's guilt in Plamegate. Oops.
A forged document was sure to shed negative light on GW's military career. Oops.
The NSA program was designed specifically to spy on US civilians. Oops.

And they call themselves the "reality" based community. They are fun to watch though.

we aren't talking about politics. we're talking about science. specifically, we are talking about the global scientific community's conclusions about global warming. i hope you're being paid really well to troll this blog. i'd demand a lot in return for making a complete jackass out of myself.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Tee hee hee.

Do grown men really say this?

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Where do you draw this conclusion about "when scientists say" from?

The meaning of the words "most" and "likely." Hint: "most" does not mean "all." "Likely" does not mean "certainly." Don't you understand the difference?

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

As I have explained, the actual scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is qualified and uncertain.

Provide substantiation for this claim. Please show me the hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting your claim that the actual scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is qualified and uncertain.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK
Do grown men really say this?

That's not fair. I mean, did GOP (either under this or any of his previous handles) ever claim to be a grown man?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 19, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Do you really believe that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only factor influencing global climate? Seriously? You've never heard of solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, volcanism, or any of the other influences on climate?

even if this had more than a tiny tiny tiny little contribution to global warming, the causes over which we have control are the important ones to discuss. we couldn't do anything about the other things you claim are contributing to global warming, so it's not terribly important to discuss them when dealing with energy policy. unless you're interested in being a distraction.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby, you are correct: Don P, posting as "GOP", is indeed a bullshit artist. His purpose is to entertain himself by wasting your time with his bullshit.

On this subject, his bullshit is to claim that (1) there is no scientific consensus on how much of observed global warming is anthropogenic and how much is due to unspecified, unproven, entirely speculative "natural causes", and (2) as a consequence of this uncertainty there is no basis for determining what the policy response to global warming should be.

This is, of course, very clearly the script that Exxon-Mobil and its ilk, and their bought-and-paid for, corrupt politicians and propagandists have handed out to ignorant dumbasses like Don P to regurgitate at every opportunity.

Don P's bullshit has two main parts:

1. Consistently using outdated reports, like the five-year-old IPCC Third Assessment Report, and the five-year-old National Academy of Sciences report, to represent what he claims to be "the scientific consensus" on anthropogenic global warming and climate change, while ignoring and flatly refusing to consider or respond to all of the science on climate change that has been done in the last five years and more recent statements representative of the current scientific consensus.

2. Deliberately distorting through selective quotations and omissions the state of the scientific consensus represented even by the outdated reports that he cites.

3. Simple and pathetic lying -- to the point of lying to you about what you, yourself, have posted in this very thread!

Don P, posting as "GOP", is a malicious liar, willfully ignorant, a fake, a phony, a fraud, and his only purpose is to deliberately waste your time with his slavish regurgitation of scripted, programmed, right-wing crap.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

I completely understand your reluctance to talk about the other issues spacebaby. I was merely pointing out other issues the left have completely lost on which this current issue will be added to in short order.

If only there was a society where we could all live in caves, distribute wealth evenly, embrace same sex marriage, support abortion on demand, have open borders, observe no higher power, and acquiesce to our enemies demands, the liberals might finally be happy.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting bullshit as "GOP", wrote: You've never heard of solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, volcanism, or any of the other influences on climate?

Provide citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature that shows what portion of the currently observed global warming can be attributed to solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, or volcanism.

In previous threads on this subject, you have claimed that two-thirds, or more, of the currently observed global warming may be due to such "natural causes". You have never, ever, not once, provided any scientific support for that claim.

That's because that claim is bunk, and you are a bullshit artist and a liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Provide substantiation for this claim.

I already did. It's in the IPCC TAR.

Stefan, do you really believe that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only factor influencing global climate? Seriously? You've never heard of solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, volcanism, or any of the other influences on climate?

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

The meaning of the words "most" and "likely."

That does not provide an answer for when you said "when scientists say...they usually mean..." How do you know this is what they "usually" mean? Have you surveyed all scientists? How do you know this is what they "usually" mean as opposed to "sometimes" or "never" or "always"?

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

Consistently using outdated reports, like the five-year-old IPCC Third Assessment Report, and the five-year-old National Academy of Sciences report

"Outdated?" Tee hee hee. If you think you have more recent statements of the scientific consensus that contradict the IPCC and NAS statements, please present them.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP", wrote: I already did. It's in the IPCC TAR.

Which you deliberately misrepresent, to distort its clear meaning, by selective quoting and omitting key statements.

And which is also now FIVE YEARS OLD, and does not represent current climate science or the current scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming.

You need some new lies, Don. Your old ones are tired and stale and have been debunked many times now.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP" wrote: If you think you have more recent statements of the scientific consensus that contradict the IPCC and NAS statements, please present them.

I have done so multiple times, in multiple threads. You are still, in your pathetic cowardly way, pretending that I haven't done so, since you are completely unable to respond to them.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

Provide citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature that shows what portion of the currently observed global warming can be attributed to solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, or volcanism.

Scientists don't know what portion of currently observed global warming can be attributed to those causes.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP", is a malicious liar, willfully ignorant, a fake, a phony, a fraud, and his only purpose is to deliberately waste your time with his slavish regurgitation of scripted, programmed, right-wing crap.

Whether GOP is actually your old friend DonP, his/her/its fixation on the words "all" and "only" in the context of this discussion remind me of Charlie's fixation on the word "imminent" in Bush's call to arms about Iraq.

Posted by: Qwerty on June 19, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

So let me get this straight secular, you're relying on data compiled over decades to support your contention of undeniable human involvement in global warming but refute entirely a five year old report which opposes your argument. Is that an example of being reality based?

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

I have done so multiple times, in multiple threads.

No you haven't. You've never produced any statement of a scientific consensus that contradicts the IPCC and NAS statements I have cited.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Qwerty,

... fixation on the words "all" and "only" ...

"Fixation." Tee hee hee. Yes, let's just ignore the carefully qualified IPCC and NAS statements, and pretend that "most" actually means "all," and that "likely" actually means "certainly."

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Scientists don't know what portion of currently observed global warming can be attributed to those causes.

Provide substantiation for this claim. How do you know that "scientists don't know"? Have you surveyed all scientists? On what do you base this claim? If you think you have recent statements of the scientific consensus that scientists don't know what portion of currently observed global warming can be attributed to these causes, please provide them.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, let's just ignore the carefully qualified IPCC and NAS statements, and pretend that "most" actually means "all," and that "likely" actually means "certainly."

And yet in the "Dems on Iraq" thread Friday Don GOP was quite happy to ignore the commonly accepted definitions of the word "casualties" and pretend (read: lie) that "casualties" only meant deaths, rather than deaths plus woundings. Until I caught him at it, that is, and he slunk away, never to return to that thread.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Provide substantiation for this claim. How do you know that "scientists don't know"?

Because they say they don't know. I suppose they might be lying. Do you think they're lying, Stefan?

Also, do you really believe that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only factor influencing global climate? Seriously? You've never heard of solar variability, orbital variations, plate tectonics, aerosols, sulphates, volcanism, or any of the other influences on climate?

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

An inconvenient truth is if someone really wanted this subject to be taken seriously by ALL sides they would not have used a politician who is suspected by the 'other' side to want to run for office in '08. By having Gore as the front man for this movie they guarantee that only those who already agree with him would see it.

good grief. i'm convinced that the human race is doomed due to its own partisan stupidity. Al Gore has been talking about this for _decades_. he became interested in it long before he ever ran for office. he didn't just up and decide to make a movie because it would get him elected in 2008.

since you felt the need to bring this up as if it were important: i would like a president who actually gives a shit and one who engages in evidence-based thinking. scientific claims are judged based on the data backing them and the methods used to gather that data, not the person presenting the conslusions based on the research.

If Gore really wanted this information to get out to 'everybody' he would have had someone front this who would be accepted by everybody as a non partisan.

the people who rush to discount the conclusions based on his party affiliation have their gigantic heads firmly planted in their asses. global warming is not a political issue. not. a. political. issue.

He did not do so and therefore his motives about why HE was the center piece of this move are suspect.

the data and the science are the important things to pay attention to, not the person presenting the data. scientists also have party affiliations. do we check their registration cards before we accept sound evidence gathered via sound scientific methods that they present?

Wether you believe his facts outlined in this movie or suspect then is no matter.

i tend to believe facts. i don't believe unsupported conjecture or faith-based claims.

He put himself at the forefront of this divisive issue for what I suspect are political reasons.

global warming is not a divisive issue. it affects every single human being and other lifeform on the planet.

I think he wants to run again and he is using this movie to further those goals, not to promote the ideas in the movie.

omigod! he might actually want to be in a position to do something about global warming! what a partisan asshole!

And no, I'm not going to see his movie any more than you would see a movie made by Bush about Iraq.

then stop talking about it. if you haven't seen it, you don't have a single reason to doubt any of the claims he makes in it. we're not talking about Iraq. the topic of the thread is global warming.

Gore is not the right person to be trying to convince those who do not buy into his politics about this issue.

global warming could potentially displace hundreds of millions of people and result in widescale starvation. but, the really important thing to carp on is the political affiliation of a person whose movie you haven't seen and don't intend to see.

I don't trust him to provide fair balance on this issue and don't trust him because I think he is using this issue to further his political goals.

there is no 'fair balance' to provide. Gore accurately presents the data and conclusions of the scientific community regarding global warming. there is no 'other side' of the story. since you haven't seen the movie and don't intend to see it, then why are you here talking about it?

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, you are brilliant Stefan, so sharp in fact that you have completely misunderstood the issues that have resulted in the left losing control of congress and five of the last seven POTUS elections.

BTW, all of this debate over the meaning of the words "all" and "only" reminds me of the debate over the word "is". You guys really have clarity of vision and leadership.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

And yet in the "Dems on Iraq" thread Friday Don GOP was quite happy to ignore the commonly accepted definitions of the word "casualties" and pretend (read: lie) that "casualties" only meant deaths, rather than deaths plus woundings.

You used the word "casualties" to refer to deaths, and my responses used the word in the same way. If you now wish to include injuries in counts of "casualties," then the total number of casualties caused by Clinton's sanctions against Iraq certainly exceeds the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by those sanctions.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP", is a malicious liar, willfully ignorant, a fake, a phony, a fraud, and his only purpose is to deliberately waste your time with his slavish regurgitation of scripted, programmed, right-wing crap.

i know who he is. i'm not replying to him for his or my edification. i'm doing it for the benefit of the silent lurkers who might be fooled by the gargantuan clouds of gas he's blowing directly out of his ass.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

"I tend to believe facts......" spacebaby

That's great. Tell me your conclusions then from these facts:
1972 Munich Olympic Games hostage crisis
The 1980's embassy bombings
U.S.S. Cole bombing
Jakrta nightclub bombings
Khobar Tower bombings
US Marine barracks bombings
London train bombings
Madrid commuter train bombings
Beslan elementary school disaster
Moscow theatre hostage crisis
The 1993 WTC bombing
9/11
televised beheading of hostages
Mass graves uncovered in Iraq
Zarqawi's writings indicating a losing effort on the jihadist movement
A thwarted attempt on the NY subway
etc., etc.

What's your conclusions on these facts spacebaby.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

I completely understand your reluctance to talk about the other issues spacebaby. I was merely pointing out other issues the left have completely lost on which this current issue will be added to in short order.

i understand exactly why you infestation of sockpuppets, frauds, and liars keep trying to change the subject to something else -- the scientific case for global warming is devastating and it is clearly and accurately presented in An Inconvenient Truth. so, you collect your ill-gotten paychecks to spend all your time repeating talking points and engaging in the same rhetorical strategies of obsfucation, spinning, lying, and shilling because you can't refute the claims made in the movie.

it just chaps your pathetic little asses that intoning terruh-rists 911 jihadists iraq iraq iraq iraq resolve free-duhm march flag burning homo marriage tax cut tax cut moral values christian christian abortion abortion abortion isn't doing a fucking thing to improve idiot-boy's popularity ratings.

most people finally come to accept reality when it floods their homes, empties their bank accounts, kills their children in a lied-about war, puts poisoned air into their children's lungs and refuses to cover the medical care to treat the cancer those children get from that poisoned air. you're a fucking broken record and people with more than two IQ points to rub together see it.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

What's your conclusions on these facts spacebaby.

i'm not going to allow you to turn this thread into a discussion about something other than the data and conclusions about global warming that Al Gore accurately presented in An Inconvenient Truth. that is the subject of this thread, my little-shilling-sockpuppet-for-hire.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

You used the word "casualties" to refer to deaths, and my responses used the word in the same way.

No, I used the word casualties to refer to casualties. If you believe otherwise, please provide substantiation for that claim.

Hint: "casualties" does not mean "deaths." Don't you understand the difference?

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

You're exactly right spacebaby, human involvement in global warming is undeniable according to scientists who have compiled data over the last few decades on a planet that has been around for billions of years despite the fact that scientists have yet to fully identify all species that occupy this planet. Volcanic activity in the 19th century resulted in huge climate shifts and bringing snowstorms to the northeast in July. That event pre-dated industrial emissions. Do you suppose that other conditions may have an effect on our current climate shift and that this is all part of the evolution of the living organism we call earth?

Now let's talk about changing the subject. I am not hearing so much anymore about the "quagmire" in Iraq, the NSA domestic spying program or the impending indictments of Rove or Cheney. Why?Whenever the left is cornered they throw out the strawman argument of the Christian right, which is far more balanced than the lunatic left.

This being said, I do not want you to stop with your inane and insane arguments. It is the reason why the left will lose in spectacular fashion come this fall. That is what I will call the inconvenient truth.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Because they say they don't know. I suppose they might be lying. Do you think they're lying, Stefan?

Where do they say they don't know? Provide substantiation for this claim.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, doesn't it all depend on the "meaning" of all of those words. And what does the meaning of word "meaning" mean.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

on a planet that has been around for billions of years

If nothing else, this thread has at least moved Cut 'N Run Jay to move away from his lunatic's belief that the earth is "millions" of years old to his newfound understanding that it is "billions" of years old (until, of course, his idol David Koresh appears to him in a dream and tells him otherwise).

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

With regard to GOP's comments.

Just to get some context, here is the Scientific consensus:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

All you have to do is read the first few pages of the NAS report to get this. The new IPCC report will paint things with even less qualifiers.

Is there "uncertainty"? Sure, they don't know how much warming will happen, but this is argument for action, not complacency:

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/wheel.degC.html

Posted by: JJ on June 19, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

"....newfound understanding that it is billions of years old..."
Please provide substantiation for your claim

"...of course until David Koresh appears to him in a dream...."
Please provide substantiation for your claim.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

You're exactly right spacebaby, human involvement in global warming is undeniable according to scientists who have compiled data over the last few decades on a planet that has been around for billions of years

we conveniently have ice core samples from the Antarctic demonstrating that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest they've been for millions of years, and that they rose at an unprecedented rate to these levels starting in the mid 1800s with the advent of the industrial revolution.

there is no other source than human beings burning fossil fuels to account for this rise. the rise in CO2 levels is accompanied by an equally astonishing rise in surface temperatures here on earth. the science is irrefutable.

... despite the fact that scientists have yet to fully identify all species that occupy this planet...

meaningless non-sequiturs are not good arguments. this is irrelevent.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

anyway, i'm done here.

to anyone who reads a lot of blogs, keep in mind that there are a large number of people with dozens of sockpuppet identities who post on comment threads because they are paid to spin or derail the discussion at hand.

if you see someone repeating the same stuff over and over again on multiple threads as if past threads had never occurred or even suffering from a case of amnesia about the current thread, you might be dealing with a 'fake' poster who is paid to post several times a day under different names. keep in mind that you are never free from stealth advertising and propaganda.

Posted by: spacebaby on June 19, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan: "....newfound understanding that it is billions of years old..."
Cut 'N Run Jay: Please provide substantiation for your claim

You're exactly right spacebaby, human involvement in global warming is undeniable according to scientists who have compiled data over the last few decades on a planet that has been around for billions of years despite the fact that scientists have yet to fully identify all species that occupy this planet. Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

"Since we are confronted with two plausible arguments leading to opposite conclusions, the only rationale response is too admit our ignorance" This statement is from your link spacebaby, concluding that scientists are unsure whether or not global climate change is harmful or not. Thanks for the link.

Stefan, I first attributed the "billions years old" claim to you in an earlier post. I was hoping you pick up on that, but like unfortunately like most issues, it went right past you. Thanks for playing though.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Well, which is it, Cut 'N Run, millions or billions? Think hard, now.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Shit-for-brains Stefan is convinced the world is billions of years old despite his pathetic existence of only a few decades. While I tend believe that myself I don't have the mendacity to claim that it is irrefutable.

Scientists argue on the age of the universe, on whether or not global climate change is real or not, is harmful or not and is due to human activity or not. But shit-for-brains extrapolates the information he agrees with and claims that it is irrefutable. And that is exactly why he bashes the GW administration, for citing certain information is irrefutable. Are you a republican shit-for-brains Stefan?

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Shit-for-brains Stefan is convinced the world is billions of years old despite his pathetic existence of only a few decades. While I tend believe that myself I don't have the mendacity to claim that it is irrefutable.

Troll or caveman. You decide.

Posted by: JJ on June 19, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP", wrote: You've never produced any statement of a scientific consensus that contradicts the IPCC and NAS statements I have cited.

You are a liar. I have posted such citations numerous times. You continue to do the only thing you have ever done in response: you lie.

You cite outdated reports. You deliberately misrepresent the outdated reports that you cite. You lie about what I have posted here.

You are a liar, a phony and a complete waste of time.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

But if I were a caveman, I wouldn't be responsible for industrial emissions therefore there would be no global climate change. Woo Hoo!!!!

We should all be caveman.

Posted by: Jay on June 19, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

No, I used the word casualties to refer to casualties.

You used "casualties" to refer to deaths.

If you believe otherwise, please provide substantiation for that claim.

It's in your post right here. You said: "US casualties in Iraq under Bush: 2,500 and counting." But the 2,500 figure refers only to the number of U.S. deaths, not deaths plus woundings. In my responses to this post, I used "casualties" in the same sense you used it, noting that Clinton's sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the 1990s.

Hint: "casualties" does not mean "deaths." Don't you understand the difference?

Well, make up your mind. You used the word "casualties" to refer to U.S. military deaths. So I guess it must be you who doesn't understand the difference.

I just love it when you shoot yourself in the foot like this. And you do it on a daily basis.


Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

JJ,

With regard to GOP's comments.Just to get some context, here is the Scientific consensus: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

Right. That post at realclimate.org cites the IPCC TAR conclusion that I stated, the one SecularAnimist falsely claims is "outdated."

All you have to do is read the first few pages of the NAS report to get this.

Yes, indeed. As the NAS says in its report Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, echoing the position of the IPCC:

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities."


Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

The name calling by everyone makes this discussion a little hard to read and unfriendly to new commenters, but I'll do it anyway.

The Earth is really old, and has gone through a lot of changes. Each new species that comes and goes does some amount to change what happens to the earth in many ways. Some do more. We do a lot. We certainly have changed the face of the earth clomatologically and that will never change. But I'm not willing to get reactionary based upon information that only goes back 650,000 years when the earth is billions of years old. The Earth will not fail, it will change. We will have to adapt. This will likely happen on some level eventually anyway. People are working on cutting down greenhouse gas emissions and this research will allow us to use things that are less harmful to the atmosphere. We will never not contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. Everyone relax.

Posted by: smitty on June 19, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

They define "likely" as between 66 and 90 percent. Pretty good odds.

The next IPCC study adds even more certainty:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4761804.stm

Even if the temp rise is partly due to human activities, that's still a basis for action. But maybe you're a gambling man. There is a sliver on the wheel for your point of view. It's very thin, but it's there:

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/wheel.degC.html

We may not know the full extent of how much is human caused. We may not know until the CO2 is all out of the smokestacks, so to speak. But by then it's going to be hard to put it back.

Posted by: JJ on June 19, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:Scientists argue on the age of the universe, on whether or not global climate change is real or not, is harmful or not and is due to human activity or not.


Actually, it appears that no scientists are disputing global warming and its link to greenhouse gases, at least not in the 928 peer reviewed papers published on the subject between 1993 and 2003:

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Posted by: cyntax on June 19, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

People are working on cutting down greenhouse gas emissions and this research will allow us to use things that are less harmful to the atmosphere.

Not working hard enough. We're not producing less CO2, we're producing steadily more. Kyoto was about keeping emissions at 1990 levels (which is still adding CO2 to the atmosphere). We're even having trouble doing that.

There are a lot of interests lined up against limiting GHG emissions.

Posted by: JJ on June 19, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

It's in your post right here. You said: "US casualties in Iraq under Bush: 2,500 and counting." But the 2,500 figure refers only to the number of U.S. deaths, not deaths plus woundings. In my responses to this post, I used "casualties" in the same sense you used it, noting that Clinton's sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the 1990s.

Aaargggh! Damnit, you're partly right. I did indeed make a mistake in my first post, though, for the record, I corrected myself in my next sentence after that. I wrote

US casualties in Iraq under Bush: 2,500 and counting, with no end in sight. What didn't Clinton accomplish? He didn't accomplish tens of thousand of American casualties and the waste and theft of hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars.

Obviously the 2,500 refers to the dead, while my reference to "tens of thousand of American casualties" later in that passage refers to the casualties, both killed and wounded. But it was my initial mistake due to carelesness.

Never let it be said I don't acknowledge a mistake when pointed out to me. Touche, sir.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

JJ,

They define "likely" as between 66 and 90 percent. Pretty good odds.

66% probability means 1 chance in 3 that it's wrong. And what is "likely" according to the IPCC consensus statement is only that "most" of the warming is due to human activities, not that all of the warming is due to human activities.

The next IPCC study adds even more certainty

There is no "next IPCC study" yet. A draft of the next assessment report is currently in the peer-review process and is scheduled for completion next year. The IPCC explicitly warns against quoting or citing anything from the draft, because it has not yet been completed and reviewed.

Even if the temp rise is partly due to human activities, that's still a basis for action.

The optimum policy response depends crucially on how much of the temp rise is due to human activities. The more global warming is caused by natural mechanisms that we cannot control, the more our policy response will need to focus on adaptation rather than mitigation.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

The Earth will not fail, it will change.

Ultimately the question isn't whether the Earth will change, because when it comes down to it the Earth doesn't care whether it's a molten slag heap of lava fields, a blasted waterless desert, or a lush jungle full of life. As long as it continues exising, it's neutral on what form that existence will take.

Human beings as a species, however, are not. We care about the difference between a blasted waterless desert of rich habitat full of life, because it will affect whether we are able to keep existing. Anb average temperature change of a few degrees per decade won't affect the Earth's continued viability -- but it can really fuck us up. It's a question of looking out for our own self-interest and quality of life.

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Never let it be said I don't acknowledge a mistake when pointed out to me.

You're still desperately spinning. Not only did you yourself use the word "casualties" in a way that you now claim is incorrect usage, but you accused me of "lying" about what the word means because I adopted your own usage of the word in my responses to your post. Yet you now claim that your own incorrect usage was merely a "mistake" rather than a "lie." You consistently apply one set of standards to yourself, and a completely different set to your opponents. You really are a piece of work.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

GOP:

I don't know about "wrong", but according to the last IPCC report, there was 66-90% percent certainty that "most" of the warming was due to human causes. That's a strong statement.

And there is still only a new IPCC draft, but we can cite the science that will produce that draft:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full

And then there is the draft itself, which according the Guardian makes it " 'very likely' Human Influence is 'Dominant' Cause of Warming":

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5914&method=full

I believe "very likely" means that it is above a 90% chance that fossil fuels are responsible for the lion's share of the warming we've seen. Yes, we have to wait until next year to see the draft, but it's plain that we have plenty, plenty of basis to be doing much more than we are, and we've had that basis for a while.

I think Gore is smart to be doing his movie. I think it's causing movement on the issue that otherwise wouldn't occur.

Posted by: JJ on June 19, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

(Whoops. I meant to say we have to wait until next year to see the report, not the draft.)

Posted by: JJ on June 19, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

JJ, Don P (who posts as "GOP") is a liar and a phony. He is wasting your time with his thoroughly dishonest bullshit. That's what he does. That is all he ever does.

He prefers to misrepresent five-year old reports, grossly distorting their actual conclusions by omission and selective quotation-out-of-context.

He will have nothing to do with current, 2006 climate science. He won't look at your links; if you post excerpts or the full articles he will either arbitrarily declare them "irrelevant" or he will lie about what they say. That's right -- he will lie to you about what you yourself have posted in the very same thread! It's hard to believe, but he's that dishonest.

If you enjoy wasting your time arguing with a malevolently dishonest bullshit artist as much as he enjoys wasting your time with his bullshit, then carry on. Otherwise, stop wasting your time.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Grace, thy name is Don GOP....

Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

JJ,

I don't know about "wrong", but according to the last IPCC report, there was 66-90% percent certainty that "most" of the warming was due to human causes. That's a strong statement.

It's a much, much weaker statement than "The scientific community has reached a consensus -- global warming is real, and it is caused by us," which falsely implies that there is a scientific consensus that all or almost all global warming is caused by human activity, and that there is no real doubt or uncertainty about that conclusion.

And there is still only a new IPCC draft, but we can cite the science that will produce that draft

Er, your link is to be website citing various research items from the 1990s that predate the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which was released in 2001. So I have no idea how you think this science is relevant to any alleged differences between the Third Assessment Report and the upcoming Fourth one. In fact, if you read your own link, you'll see that the author is referencing the Second Assessment Report, from 1995. I think you need to examine your sources more carefully.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

He prefers to misrepresent five-year old reports, grossly distorting their actual conclusions by omission and selective quotation-out-of-context.

Do please show us this "context" that you believe somehow negates the qualifications "likely" and "most" that appear in the IPCC and NAS statements of the scientific consensus.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: The optimum policy response depends crucially on how much of the temp rise is due to human activities. The more global warming is caused by natural mechanisms that we cannot control, the more our policy response will need to focus on adaptation rather than mitigation.

Even more pathetic than your constant, deliberate phoniness and belligerent dishonesty about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is that all of it -- ALL of it! -- serves to support the so-called "point" that you state in those two sentences.

And that point, in and of itself, is ludicrous.

First, regardless of whether the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations accounts for 100% of all observed warming, or 90%, or 75%, or only two-thirds (as you have suggested in other threads without any scientific basis whatsoever), the "optimum" policy response is the same: reduce anthropic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That policy response is absolutely NOT "crucially dependent" on the exact percentage of the observed warming that is attributable to anthropogenic causes.

Second, and conversely, even if human activities are responsible for 100% of the observed warming, a policy response of adaptation is still needed anyway. The simple reason is that the CO2 that human activities have released into the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for many decades -- and of course we are adding to it daily. That means that the anthropogenic warming, and the effects of that warming, that we are already experiencing will continue for decades to come, even if we stop burning all fossil fuels tomorrow (which is not going to happen).

So very clearly, (1) the need for policy responses to reduce GHG emissions from human activities is NOT contingent on knowing the exact percentage of warming that can be attributed to anthropogenic GHGs, and (2) the need for policy responses to adapt to warming and climate change that our cumulative GHG emissions have now made inevitable is NOT contingent on knowing the exact percentage of warming that can be attributed to anthropogenic GHGs.

So, the "arguments" you offer in support of your point are lies, and the "point" that your lies supposedly support is itself nonsensical rubbish.

And that's all you have ever had to offer on this subject: lies and rubbish.

In a word, bullshit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP", wrote: Do please show us this "context" that you believe somehow negates the qualifications "likely" and "most" that appear in the IPCC and NAS statements of the scientific consensus.

I've done that many times before, and you are quite aware of the sentences that you have deliberately omitted from both of those reports in your pathetic attempt to misrepresent their clear meaning. You are a lying sack of shit, and you know it. Lying is all you do on these comment threads. Lying is all you ever do.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 19, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

First, regardless of whether the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations accounts for 100% of all observed warming, or 90%, or 75%, or only two-thirds (as you have suggested in other threads without any scientific basis whatsoever), the "optimum" policy response is the same: reduce anthropic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That policy response is absolutely NOT "crucially dependent" on the exact percentage of the observed warming that is attributable to anthropogenic causes.

This claim is utter nonsense. The more global warming is caused by natural mechanisms that we cannot control rather than human activities that we can control, such as anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the less mitigation of global warming we can achieve from a given change in that human activity. The degree of mitigation is obviously a crucial component of the cost/benefit ratio of any mitigation policy, and thus a crucial component of the merits of that policy. If a given reduction in CO2 emissions mitigates global warming by only half a degree celsius, it is obviously of much less benefit than if it mitigates global warming by 1 or 2 degrees celsius.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

I've done that many times before

No you haven't. Where is this "context" that you believe somehow negates the qualifications "likely" and "most" that appear in the IPCC and NAS statements of the scientific consensus. Produce it. What part of the NAS's crystal clear statement...

"it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities"

...don't you understand?

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

GOP: If a given reduction in CO2 emissions mitigates global warming by only half a degree celsius, it is obviously of much less benefit than if it mitigates global warming by 1 or 2 degrees celsius.

It seems reasonable to say that reduction of half a degree is of less benefit than a reduction of two or three degrees. But what argument do you want to make from this statement? If you are arguing that we must have a completely 100% accurate model for predicting what reduction a given change in emissions will cause, I think you're setting an unreasonably high bar.

As an example of taking effective action (regulating industry, standard setting, etc.) look at how we've handled acid rain:we've handled acid rain:
"...since 1991 acid rain emissions have declined 36 percent, and the cost has been only 10 percent of what industry originally forecast."

Obviously we didn't have a 100% accurate predictive model going into our attempts to mitigate acid rain, but we were able to make a serious difference with a much smaller negative impact to the industries involved. Why can't we do someting similar for CO2 emissions?

Posted by: cyntax on June 19, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

It seems reasonable to say that reduction of half a degree is of less benefit than a reduction of two or three degrees. But what argument do you want to make from this statement?

I already explained this: It changes the cost/benefit ratio and therefore the merits of the policy. If spending X trillion dollars on reducing greenhouse gas emissions buys you only half a degree in temperature increase mitigation, rather than 1 or 2 degrees, then it may be better to spend that X trillion dollars on some alternative policy that has a better cost/benefit ratio.

If you are arguing that we must have a completely 100% accurate model for predicting what reduction a given change in emissions will cause, I think you're setting an unreasonably high bar.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing our ability to mitigate global warming depends crucially on how much of that warming is caused by human activities that we can control rather than natural mechanisms that we cannot. It would be extremely harmful to spend trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions in the expectation that they will reduce warming by two degrees only to find, 5 or 10 or 20 years from now, that they will actually reduce warming only by a much smaller amount, and that we could have obtained a much greater benefit by spending the money in other ways, especially on policies of adaptation.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

GOP:

Why do you assume reducing CO2 will be all cost and no benefit? New technologies produce new wealth. History has shown that time and time again. Or do you fear the disruptive effect to "old money"? Your arguments are all based on false presumptions and outdated thinking. No wonder you are a conservative....

Stephen Kriz

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 19, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

So Al Gore is now a movie star and making millions, while George W. Bush is an international laughingstock and well on his way to claiming the title of "Worst President Ever".

You gotta love it.

Posted by: haha on June 19, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm arguing our ability to mitigate global warming depends crucially on how much of that warming is caused by human activities that we can control rather than natural mechanisms that we cannot.

And I'm arguing that there's a good chance we may never know this to your satisfaction, until the damage is already done and the CO2 has already left the smokestack, so to speak.

I'm arguing that we should use the precautionary principle. For some time, we've known way more than enough to know we're at risk.

Just look at this document from the insurance company Swiss Re:

http://www.climatechangefutures.org/pdf/CCF_Report_Final_10.27.pdf

Sometimes I'm not convinced that some on your side are all that curious about this. You just want to make arguments that are actually based on certain investments, ideological and financial, having nothing to do with science. You're arguing like lawyers protecting your interests, not scientists.

Posted by: JJ on June 19, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you assume reducing CO2 will be all cost and no benefit?

I don't.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

JJ,

And I'm arguing that there's a good chance we may never know this to your satisfaction, until the damage is already done and the CO2 has already left the smokestack, so to speak.

Well, we may never know it to your or anyone else's satisfaction either, so this seems a rather irrelevant observation.

I'm arguing that we should use the precautionary principle. For some time, we've known way more than enough to know we're at risk.

The precautionary principle only applies if you know which policy is the most beneficial (or least harmful). We don't know that. The risk of spending large amounts of money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that it will produce little benefit at great cost, and that the money would have been much better spent on other policies, including policies of adaptation. The point you don't seem to understand is that any course of action (including not doing anything, of course) carries risks. Every dollar we spend on, for example, adding CO2 scrubbers to power plants is a dollar we don't have to spend on, for example, fortifying coastal areas against rising sea levels.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

There isn't enough dollars to fortify coastal areas against rising sea levels

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 19, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

There isn't enough dollars to fortify coastal areas against rising sea levels

Huh? The degree of fortification will depend on how much is spent.

Posted by: GOP on June 19, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Fortification [whatever degree is blah, blah] is a negative move.

Looking to reduce pollution is a positive, "fight terra-ism over there" choice.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 19, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

I'm most impressed with how many comments this post has generated.

Posted by: aaron on June 20, 2006 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

Al Moore takes on Evnirontology.

Posted by: aaron on June 20, 2006 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

or... Environtologist vs Scientologist.

Posted by: aaron on June 20, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

GOP: You make some pretty silly arguments. Like I said before, you argue like a lawyer, and not a very good one.

I said: I'm arguing that there's a good chance we may never know this to your satisfaction, until the damage is already done and the CO2 has already left the smokestack, so to speak.

You said: Well, we may never know it to your or anyone else's satisfaction either, so this seems a rather irrelevant observation.

Yes, once the offending CO2 is in the atmosphere, it will be irrelevant what anyone knows, because then we'll already be--what's the term of art?--Screwed.

I said: I'm arguing that we should use the precautionary principle.

You said: The precautionary principle only applies if you know which policy is the most beneficial (or least harmful).

Dead, dead, dead wrong. Here's the precautionary principle:

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=18&articleID=000C3111-2859-1C71-84A9809EC588EF21

So as not to waste my time or the readers' (assuming we have any) this will be my last comment on this thread.

Posted by: JJ on June 20, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Saw an interesting stat yesterday. It is calculated that 50% of all US energy use is to heat or cool buildings. The remainder is split fairly evenly between transportation and industry.

Oregon just tore down the shell of its one nuclear energy station and no new one is planned. They also want to tear down some of the dams that Roosevelt built on the Columbia. If anyone deserves to freeze or swelter in the dark, it is the Oregonians. Wind or solar power just are not up to the consistent energy production necessary to power a home or an office
building, not without major prohibitive up-front investment in infrastructure.

I get downright angry about the brain-dead insistence that nuclear waste is an insurmountable problem. All nuclear waste decays constantly, becoming inert and harmless. That is what radioactivity is, the process of certain isotopes degrading into relatively harmless elements. Yes, after ten thousand years there will still be a tiny amount of radiation left in most dumps and that amount could get out and harm something, in the sense that you can drown in your own toilet bowl if you stick your head in it, put the lid down, and have a friend sit on the lid. Radiation leaks 10,000 years from now will be extremely localized and even if they get into groundwater they will be so diffuse it really does not matter.

And who assumed that a thousand years from now or ten thousand there will not be intelligent life around to fix and localized leak problem that develops? I say it will be child's play to them--no problem whatsoever to deal with.

Lastly, there is the urban myth that there is no safe minimum level of radiation. Want a surefire method to identify a crackpot scientist? They agree with that proposition. Not only are low amounts of radiation good for you (which is why people for many decades actually paid to go down into radon mines) trace amounts of anything are probably good for you. There is truth to the homeopathic notion that tiny amounts of substances that are poisonous in mega-dose are actually welcomed by the body in micro-dose.

Build nuclear plants, then run our rechargeable hybrid autos with them off the grid. No problem.

Better yet, we need to do more deep hard-rock mining to find platinum, so that fuel cell technology can become more common. I like the idea of all my energy coming through natural gas pipes, to be converted in my home into electricity for the air conditioner and auto. Of course, I have invested in natural gas fields, so I may be biased. We probably need to tap the frozen methane on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico for the reason that if that stuff thaws out naturally and comes up it will be ten times the greenhouse gas problem that CO2 represents.

Posted by: Mike Cook on June 20, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

So Al Gore is now a movie star and making millions, while George W. Bush is an international laughingstock and well on his way to claiming the title of "Worst President Ever".


GWB ALREADY made millions and he's only a laughing stock in the communities where it matters the least. That would be among the American left and the French. GWB is exactly where he wants to be.

Al Gore's re-emergence it perfectly timed to remind the world of the dicks the Democrats manage to nominate. John Kerry and Al Gore can't get enough publicity to satisfy Karl Rove.

Posted by: rdw on June 20, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

"Let's see, the planet has been around for millions of years, has had dramatic climate shifts throughout that time"

Don't worry folks: if you're in the Sacramento River delta region and the levees break, or if you suddenly find you're in a 10-year flood plain because the ice-pack melting period has shifted forward to coincide with the rainy season, because the Earth was an iceball during the Ordovician.
.

Posted by: Urinated State of America on June 20, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Urinated State of America"

Tee hee hee.

All the Republicans need to do to win is to expose you guys to a wider audience.

How you expect to govern a nation which you hold in total contempt is a complete mystery to me. Take this one to the election though.

The Brits believe this crap, that's why they have six-dollar-a-gallon gas. Take that proposal to the electorate. I can't believe that Gore's chances would survive the first question about what he thinks gas aught to cost.

Posted by: tool on June 20, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

We're getting a wider audience. All you have to do is go see Inconvenient Truth.

Not just Britain. The only countries that declined Kyoto was us and Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

Posted by: JJ on June 21, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly