An inconvenient Irony

[101A]

I also believe that mankind is affecting the global climate in a negative way (wife is a biochemistry professor - not directly related to that research, but she gets enough of the REAL science journals that I peruse that it's kind of beyond even "general consensus" now).

I also believe, wholeheartedly, that Al Gore could give a damn - he just wants to be president.

[RandomGuy]

The Definition is Question:



The assertion that A's claim is false is not available in the authors argument. The piece is ONLY pointing out the apparent hypocricy and free-energy spendign lifestyle of Al Gore; not the merits of his argument - therefore no ad-hominem attack.

Just re-read the piece; the author does make the claim, missed it the first time. RG pointed it out.

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, you are correct that you never said that you dismissed Mr. Gore's claims because of his hypocrisy. This would then negate my claim that you did buy into the ad hominem.

A still stand by my assertion that you did, however, strongly imply that in your statements.

You might not ever have said you think global warming is a fantasy, but it is easy for a reasonable person to draw that conclusion from your posts here. Perhaps a statement of position would clarify that?

[101A]

Perhaps a statement of position would clarify that?

Read my post immediately prior to the one I just quoted of yours.

[RandomGuy]

Read my post immediately prior to the one I just quoted of yours.

Read it.

What does you wife make of increasing acidity in oceans due to acid rain? Biology might be a bit outside her normal expertise, but I remember reading an interesting article a while back about CO2 causing a e in acidity in the pacific ocean that was eating through the s s of the microscopic organisms that make up the bottom of the food chain in the oceans.

(article link is: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html )

Since the pace of change is faster than any geological process, I wonder if the eco-system can really hack it and for how long.

As for Mr. Gore, I am a bit less cynical about him, but still think he is something of a hypocrite.

[PixelPusher]

See also: "American Politics"

See also: "The sum total of Karl Rove's electoral strategy"

See also: "The rhetorical basis for Fox News"

and finally:

See also: "the content of 95% of the posts in the Politcal Forum of SpursTalk.com"

[Yonivore]

Big ing deal, the dude hasn't switched electric companies. It doesn't mean he is wrong about the effects global warming has had on our planet.

No, but what it does mean is that he doesn't believe what he's saying. Otherwise, he'd be "carbon neutral" as he claims to be.

His "sky-is-falling" schtick is all to sell his movie and to keep him in the public eye. Unfortunately, he wasn't smart enough to make sure he was living like he was telling everyone else to live. Kind of like Barbra Streisand.

As for global warming. Maybe it is getting warmer. But, the jury is still out on why; and, let me assure you, man is one of the least considered reasons (outside the looney Algore crowd) as to why that's happening. After all, the planet has been much hotter than it is right now -- as recent as the 1930's -- and as far back as before man ever came along.

Maybe the sun is getting ready to balloon into a red giant and fry us all. Is being carbon neutral going to help that?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Actually, the issue here IS Gore's hypocrisy. None of this calls into question Enhanced Global Warming or our need to change our consumption patterns, the science is all still out there telling us these things. What is in question is whether Gore should be spouting off on these things without modifying hs own lifestyle, and thus DIVERTING THE DEBATE AND WEAKENING THE ENTIRE SUSTAINABILITY MOVEMENT IN DOING SO.

He's an idiot. He should have covered these angles before he said anything. What a fool, and as a green I am ashamed of him.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

As for global warming. Maybe it is getting warmer. But, the jury is still out on why; and, let me assure you, man is one of the least considered reasons (outside the looney Algore crowd) as to why that's happening. After all, the planet has been much hotter than it is right now -- as recent as the 1930's -- and as far back as before man ever came along.

Maybe the sun is getting ready to balloon into a red giant and fry us all. Is being carbon neutral going to help that?

That is absolute NONSENSE. What are your qualifications in? I have a BSc in Ecology and am studying a Masters in Sustainability (to be followed by a PhD), and you are just spouting the PR line fed to you by business/neo-cons.

There is unequivocal scientific consensus on global warming. Geologists, climatologists, ecologists, marine biologists, anthropologists from the world over agree, global warming is a FACT. If you are talking about natural climatic cycles, they cannot account for the speed of change we are witnessing. The polar icecaps and glaciers haven't melted this fast in millions of years. At no time in the history of the planet have we seen CO2 levels rise by 45% in 150yrs as the have in the last century and a half. And then you have basic chemistry - change the concentration of gases in a closed system and you alter the system equilibrium.

The only dissenters are scientists paid by fossil fuels and big business. Keep your spin to yourself.

[Yonivore]

That is absolute NONSENSE. What are your qualifications in? I have a BSc in Ecology and am studying a Masters in Sustainability (to be followed by a PhD), and you are just spouting the PR line fed to you by business/neo-cons.

There is unequivocal scientific consensus on global warming. Geologists, climatologists, ecologists, marine biologists, anthropologists from the world over agree, global warming is a FACT. If you are talking about natural climatic cycles, they cannot account for the speed of change we are witnessing. The polar icecaps and glaciers haven't melted this fast in millions of years. The only dissenters are scientists paid by fossil fuels and big business.

Did I say the globe wasn't warming? What I said is that there is considerable disagreement -- in the environmental scientific community -- over the cause.

And, your credentials mean nothing in here. The fact is there are people more and less qualified than you that believe as you do and; there are people more and less qualified than you that don't believe as you do. In this forum, you're an anonymous voice of one -- just like me. Deal.

Keep your spin to yourself.

Wow, in favor of stifling dissent too.

[Yonivore]

A Rebuttal to the Global Warmers

And, before you attack the messenger, I'd appreciate a reasoned refutation of what I found to be a well-do ented and sourced rebuttal to the "man is causing global warminng" crowd.

Thanks.

Oh, and as I've said before, I believe man can absolutely have a devastating (or beneficial) effects on local -- even regional -- climate. But that isn't the same as affecting long-term global climate.

[IceColdBrewski]

No, but what it does mean is that he doesn't believe what he's saying. Otherwise, he'd be "carbon neutral" as he claims to be.

His "sky-is-falling" schtick is all to sell his movie and to keep him in the public eye. Unfortunately, he wasn't smart enough to make sure he was living like he was telling everyone else to live. Kind of like Barbra Streisand.

As for global warming. Maybe it is getting warmer. But, the jury is still out on why; and, let me assure you, man is one of the least considered reasons (outside the looney Algore crowd) as to why that's happening.

Let's be fair Yoni. They are looking into it. How much money do you think they can afford? Those few extra pennies can kill the finances. As far as the private jet is concerned, you don't expect him to travel like the rest of us do you? He is very special. He invented the internet and should be telling us how to live.

[101A]

Read it.

What does you wife make of increasing acidity in oceans due to acid rain? Biology might be a bit outside her normal expertise, but I remember reading an interesting article a while back about CO2 causing a e in acidity in the pacific ocean that was eating through the s s of the microscopic organisms that make up the bottom of the food chain in the oceans.

(article link is: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html )

Since the pace of change is faster than any geological process, I wonder if the eco-system can really hack it and for how long.

As for Mr. Gore, I am a bit less cynical about him, but still think he is something of a hypocrite.

Asked ger about it over dinner last night.

Got chastised for saying "acid rain" - it's actually disolved CO2 in the water - which apparently dissolves straight out of the atmosphere which is raising the PH of the ocean. And it IS happening; The actual results of this (how calamotous, etc) are still up for debate, but she was aware of the issue.

[velik_m]

Asked ger about it over dinner last night.

Got chastised for saying "acid rain" - it's actually disolved CO2 in the water - which apparently dissolves straight out of the atmosphere which is raising the PH of the ocean. And it IS happening; The actual results of this (how calamotous, etc) are still up for debate, but she was aware of the issue.

while it's not "acid rain", CO2 disolved in water is acid.

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

[101A]

while it's not "acid rain", CO2 disolved in water is acid.

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

I knew that, but thanks for clarifying my (incomplete) point.

[Extra Stout]

while it's not "acid rain", CO2 disolved in water is acid.

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

To be precise, the dissolution of CO2 in the oceans is not producing acid, but is pushing the carbonate equilibrium further from CO3(2-) to HCO3(-) and thus lowering the pH.

[RandomGuy]

That is absolute NONSENSE. What are your qualifications in? I have a BSc in Ecology and am studying a Masters in Sustainability (to be followed by a PhD), and you are just spouting the PR line fed to you by business/neo-cons.

There is unequivocal scientific consensus on global warming. Geologists, climatologists, ecologists, marine biologists, anthropologists from the world over agree, global warming is a FACT. If you are talking about natural climatic cycles, they cannot account for the speed of change we are witnessing. The polar icecaps and glaciers haven't melted this fast in millions of years. At no time in the history of the planet have we seen CO2 levels rise by 45% in 150yrs as the have in the last century and a half. And then you have basic chemistry - change the concentration of gases in a closed system and you alter the system equilibrium.

The only dissenters are scientists paid by fossil fuels and big business. Keep your spin to yourself.

OMG. You should really read a bit more of Dan's posts before accusing him of being a corporate drone. (laughs)

Honestly I agree with you here, that it is a fact.

It is a mark of how effective the right-wing propaganda machine is that there are some hold-outs. The right REALLY hates the green agenda, even though the greening of our economy has some very positive effects on our long term growth.

[RandomGuy]

To be precise, the dissolution of CO2 in the oceans is not producing acid, but is pushing the carbonate equilibrium further from CO3(2-) to HCO3(-) and thus lowering the pH.

Heh, I like chemistry, and am fairly literate about it, but dang. (bows)

Outside of my area of expertise.

[Ozzman]

I like how south park put it: I am Totally cereal guys!!!!

[boutons_]

In spite of the "lead" taken by the perenially toxic landfill, aka Congress:

Cities, States Aren't Waiting For U.S. Action on Climate

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 11, 2006; A01

With Washington lawmakers deadlocked on how best to curb global warming, state and local officials across the country are adopting ambitious policies and forming international alliances aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

The initiatives, which include demands that utilities generate some of their energy using renewable sources and mandates for a reduction in emissions from motor vehicles, have emboldened clean-air advocates who hope they will form the basis for broader national action. But in the meantime, some businesses say the local and state actions are creating a patchwork of regulations that they must contend with.

This flurry of action is part of a growing movement among state and local leaders who have given up hope that Congress and the administration will tackle major issues, and are launching their own initiatives on immigration, stem cell research and energy policy. Last week alone, former president Bill Clinton launched an effort with 22 of the world's largest cities to cut their emissions, while California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they will explore trading carbon dioxide pollution credits across the Atlantic.

Recently, 22 states and the District of Columbia have set standards demanding that utilities generate a specific amount of energy -- in some cases, as high as 33 percent -- from renewable sources by 2020. And 11 states have set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

California also has passed legislation mandating that automakers reduce their vehicles' carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2016, and 10 other states have committed to adopt the same standards if the law survives a court challenge.

( I expect the Repugs/Asshole General Gonzalez to attack all these initiatives as illegal )

In addition, as many as 10 states in the Northeast are working to establish state-by-state ceilings for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and allow industries such as power plants to trade pollution credits for carbon emissions while cutting greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent by 2019. California, Oregon and Washington are negotiating a similar pact.

Some local officials said they are pushing ahead with plans because the Bush administration, which has promoted cleaner technology but opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, has failed to adequately address the problem.

"Like most mayors, I'm disappointed the federal government has not taken more of a lead on this issue, but so be it. We're moving forward," said Albuquerque Mayor Martin J. Chavez, who is expanding public transportation in his city and has persuaded some other U.S. mayors to pledge to make their cities' buildings carbon-neutral by 2030, meaning their net carbon dioxide emissions would be zero.

But some experts say there is a political imperative at work, as well. Tim Profeta, who worked for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) before leaving last year to direct Duke University's Nicholas Ins ute for Environmental Policy Solutions, said local politicians feel greater pressure to address the threat of rising sea levels and other climate-related conditions.

"State and local governments are less removed from their cons uents, so they're more responsive to voters' concerns," said Profeta, who sits on North Carolina's climate-change commission and has met with British officials on the subject. "Climate change is on people's minds, and they're asking for action."

( ... so the Repugs agitate for blocking same-sex unions, flag burning, stem cell research, and FOR a phony war )

North Carolina state Sen. Charles W. Albertson (D) said he is not "completely convinced" that human activity is causing global warming, but he pushed for the climate-change commission because he worries that environmental changes are threatening his coastal cons uents' homes and livelihoods. "What if it's taking place and we're not doing anything about it?" he asked.

Bush's top environmental adviser, James L. Connaughton, said the president welcomes state and local initiatives because they complement the administration's approach to global warming.

( exactly, the localities doing something complements the Repugs doing nothing )
"They're pursuing a portfolio of policies, not a one-size-fits-all policy," Connaughton said in an interview Aug. 4, adding that the United States is also focused on voluntary pacts such as China's pledge to improve its power production efficiency 20 percent by 2010. "At the end of the day, what matters is performance, and we're all making about the same rate of progress."

( WH/Repug bull and spin )

Some state officials and environmentalists said their efforts will soon surpass anything Bush has done to combat climate change.

Richard Cowart, who has advised officials on both coasts on carbon-trading systems as a director of the Vermont-based Regulatory Assistance Project, said that together, the two proposed trading systems "represent one of the largest efforts to rein in carbon emissions in the world."

And Dan Becker, global warming director for the Sierra Club, said auto manufacturers will cut emissions now that states representing a third of the country's market are preparing to regulate carbon dioxide.

"Obviously, what we're trying to do is reach a tipping point," Becker said. "We're probably close to where the car companies will have to cry 'uncle.' "

The automakers are suing to block California's law, however, and the Bush administration may block it on the grounds that it amounts to usurping the federal government's right to set national fuel economy standards.

( anybody surprised? )

Margo Thorning, senior vice president of the American Council for Capital Formation, said this array of state regulations could harm the U.S. economy.

( yawn, you knew that bull was coming )

"I don't think it's terribly helpful to have the industry wondering what are the car standards in California vis-a-vis the standards in Arizona," said Thorning, whose think tank is funded in part by Exxon Mobil Corp. "It adds a lot of uncertainty and slows the kind of investment we'd like to see in the U.S."

These overlapping carbon dioxide regulations may force the administration's hand.

( into feeral legal actions to neuter and gut all non-federal regulations )

Robert E. Busch, PSEG Services Corp. president, said during a Washington panel discussion in February that "you sort of don't blame" environmentalists for pursuing state caps on carbon dioxide, but added, "The answer to this problem is not 50 different approaches to greenhouse gases in the United States. That makes no sense at all."

And Richard J. Osborne, vice president of public and regulatory policy at Duke Energy Corp., told a Duke University audience in September that his utility backed federal legislation on climate change because the "patchwork of state actions" might produce "state-by-state chaos."

Clinton, who is establishing an international consortium so cities from Cairo to Los Angeles can bargain for energy-efficient products and trade policy ideas, said state and local experiments could eventually form the basis for federal action on climate change.

"What we need to do is get more case studies," Clinton said in an interview last week, adding that while voters care more about global warming now than when he was president, as for candidates, "unfortunately, it's not one of those issues where if you don't do something about it, you'll get beat."

Some federal officials are participating in the emerging carbon-trading economy: Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) has registered his farm's hardwood trees on the Chicago Climate Exchange, calculating that the 3,440 tons of carbon dioxide absorbed by the trees will trade for more than $15,000.

Matt Petersen, president of the advocacy group Global Green USA, said that over the past decade, he has found state and local officials to be more open to imposing energy efficiency standards on commercial buildings and to renewable-energy tax credits. Global Green is advising West Hollywood officials on drafting green building standards for new private construction and is lobbying the Louisiana government to give developers an incentive to rebuild New Orleans in an energy-efficient way.

"We had to do a lot of work and hand-holding early on," Petersen said. "The people who asked the toughest questions are now the biggest advocates."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Ozzman]

( ... so the Repugs agitate for blocking same-sex unions, flag burning, stem cell research, and FOR a phony war )

So you say you support Same sex unions in HOLY matrimony? AND flag burning? AND Abortion/related subjects?


The union of holy matrimony between two people in the BIBLE where in this country it originated, is described between a MAN and a WOMAN.

And how are you so certain this is a phony war? Did we not get attacked by islamic extremists on 9/11?

[DarkReign]

The union of holy matrimony between two people in the BIBLE where in this country it originated, is described between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Well good thing there is a seperation of church and state or we would be living in a theocracy instead of a democracy.

Whew

And how are you so certain this is a phony war? Did we not get attacked by islamic extremists on 9/11?

Did those who attacked us come from Iraq? Nope....Saudi Arabia. The connection? Their isnt one.

Good point.

[Ozzman]

ya. whatever. I honestly dont' really care much about discussing anymore on the war in Iraq anymore.right now, the issue at hand is Israel and Iran and Lebanon. That is more important than Iraq, IMO/

[boutons_]

Same sex marriage is between consenting adults.

Flag burning harms only flags. I don't burn flags, but I don't care if other express whatever by burning flags. Starting phony wars and wasting military lives dishonors the military a million times more than burning flags.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice.

"And how are you so certain this is a phony war?"

Not a single "reason" the Repugs lied about justifying the Repug Iraq was true.
Iraq was no threat to the USA.
The USA is weaker, less intimidating, not safer, as a result of the phony Repug Iraq war.

"Did we not get attacked by islamic extremists on 9/11?"

Ozzman, you really haven't been paying attention.
Iraq/Saddam did not attackt the WTC, but you can believe head if you want.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yonivore, I am not trying to stifle debate, but phrases like "let me assure you" infer that there is a real debate going on in the scientific community about the cause of the "enhanced greenhouse warming" (which is what people should call the phenomonon). There is not. , even the CIA have accepted it as fact.

I checked out your link and in a way it has some validity, - there is a lot we still don't know. However, it is also written by Steven Milloy, "currently a columnist for Fox News. He is also a paid advocate for Phillip Morris[1], and ExxonMobil[2]. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Ins ute" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy). It has itself been debunked:

http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

and here's the wiki on "junk science" in general, with some nice links at the bottom:

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

If you wanna play the internet referencing game, we can all play at that. But I know many scientists, researchers, professors, well read, respected and published people from a number of unrelated ins utions, and not one of them doubts that changing land use, deforestation and anthropogenic pollution of the atmosphere is changing the global climate (you cannot change regional climate and not have that change affect the whole system - climate is a global system). My own research leads me to the same conclusion.

Note that empirical science is never 100% provable as fact - everything relies on statistics, and they have confidence intervals, so there is always an error factor. The same argument was run at smoking and cancer, asbestos and mesothilioma, evolution and intelligent design, but that doesn't make it any more valid. Do you believe smoking is unrelated to lung cancer? The fact is that the overwhelming avalanche of evidence supports e.g.w. caused by human industrialisation on a massive scale, and that assertion is supported by all but a few of the world's scientists... oh, no, but they've been duped!

A beautifully elegant effect of the warming we are currently experiencing, which is occuring at a faster rate than observed in recent geological time (ie. millions of years), is the melting of the polar icecaps and Greenland ice shelf. It is the rate of change of the atmosphere/climate which is unprecedented and which separates this from a "natural" warming event. We have never seen anything like this scale and rapidity of melting, certainly not in recent geological history... except in our own kitchens.

What happens when you turn off the freezer? As the seal slowly allows heat into the freezer compartment, the ice caking it melts and starts to drip. This is an apt metaphor for the extra heat the altered atmosphere is retaining. We are witnessing a similar process only at a global scale. The question is, how far must the global climate system be disturbed before it is tipped from within the bounds of its current equilibrium and into another equilibrium state which we cannot predict, and which could threaten the continuation of civilisation as we know it? Our comfortable existence is built on a rapidly diminishing piggy bank of dead bones, and complex social and economic system as unstable as a house of cards, and if the climate changes cycles on us (especially combined with rising sea levels), watch the world go to in a handbasket.

[RandomGuy]

What happens when you turn off the freezer? As the seal slowly allows heat into the freezer compartment, the ice caking it melts and starts to drip. This is an apt metaphor for the extra heat the altered atmosphere is retaining. We are witnessing a similar process only at a global scale. The question is, how far must the global climate system be disturbed before it is tipped from within the bounds of its current equilibrium and into another equilibrium state which we cannot predict?

It's a bit like playing russian roullette with the survival of our species. Not worth the risk. God forbid we should ever get over our hyper-individualism long enough to realize that, like it or not, we do share some responsibilities/duties to something other than our own ac ulation of wealth.