Al Gore's Electricity Plan 100% Renewable in 10 Yrs.

The analysis of Gore's 650,000 year timeline shows the lag time to be as much as 800 years-- which strains the accusation of causality.

Another thing from another source: it claims that the computer models are all based on only the last 100 years of climate recording and that such a short time-from does not allow for a bigger picture of change ranges...

 

With this fantasty, you seem to be indicating that I've asked a question which exposes the scam; I don't think that is what you intended.

Wish I could just give you a hug....

 

Oh good grief. It's called a feedback cycle. Increased warming than causes an increase in CO2, continuing to increase warming...

Just because CO2 was not the initial cause for some particular instance has no bearing on whether or not CO2 causes warming. Let me make that perfectly clear: This data in no way, shape, or form, contradicts the greenhouse effect.

More to the point, if CO2 were to be directly injected into the atmosphere, it would become the driver. But people would never be that stupid, right?

The ice cores are also a great place to realize/find other data, no doubt conveniantly ignored within the above clip. For instance, CO2 levels are now higher than they have been for hundreds and thousands of years. And they rose exponentially following the industrial revolution. This would lend one to discern that while CO2 may not have been the driver in past instances of warming, our current trend is anything but natural. Ain't it amazing how science works?

 

once again giddy misunderstands

did you even read the post, john stossel got slapped by a wwf wrestler on 20/20, i have no idea what your talking about or what you could have gotten from my post


edit: i guess I can see how you misunderstood (if you didn't read the note from wiki)

I wasn't trying to make fun of you posting stossel as a source, and then I went on to mention the stossel incident ummkay

 

I just found this:

'"From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

 

This is what you wrote: "Not making fun of Giddy, but all I could think about was him getting slapped by that wrestler" which would seem to make Giddy the him that is referenced.

I read the note. That's how I understood what happened to Stossel and how I paralleled it with your "alleged fantasy." It was a joke, man.

 

Hooray. You could have found the exact same conclusion in about 2 seconds had you read my post (which you quoted, no less ). You also might have come to the startling realization that the above explanation only applies in regard to natural warming cycles - which does not apply to the meteoric rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution. Which, again, I mentioned in my previous post.

Let me try again:

Past data from ice cores seems to indicate that CO2 is not the driver of past warming events. But it can be, and the IPCC has already seen enough data to become convinced that this is the case now. Got it?

 

Oh, the Ego!

I read it following one of rimrocker's links before I read your post; that's why I quoted your post...

At least one of the guy's debunking Gore is indicated to be an IPCC scientist.

 

No, it was more confusion than ego...

That means very little to me without specifics as to what is being "debunked".


Moreover, I find these arguments as to what camp is the "most correct" totally stupid, which is why I really don't post near as much as I used to in them.

Answer me these questions: Why is lowering CO2 output bad? Why is relying less on fossil fuels bad?

Failing a satisfactory answer, arguments against a more environmentally aware lifestyle are really just indicative of an inability to part with the failed experiment of "man apart from nature". Arguments in that vein are more than merely antiquated, they're frightfully ignorant.

Even if you want to pretend that global warming is not occurring, there really is no reason to be so antagonistic to those advocating a healthier and more sustainable future. Unless, of course, you're milking the status quo.

 

Fear of change?

 

Fear of nature too.

 

Just kidding you. I had the part I pasted on my clipboard for about half an hour while I listened to my sister-in-law go on about her lousy 28-YO stepson.

IIRC, he was countering the GW is caused by human CO2 emissions argument. He may have just been resting on there is not sufficient evidence to make that argument...

Lowering CO2 emissions is a good thing. In 1976, I protested a gas station being built on a spot where I wanted a park. My sign read: "Make O2 not CO2."

I'm quite sure that global warming is occurring. The question remains is it an unrelenting trend or just part of the natural cycle. Granted, we humans may just be making the natural cycle worse.

I'm all for attending to the "problem," but it remains to be determined how much of a problem we have and how much we overturn our laws and our economy to address it. Someone is going to get rich and because of that I have a healthy skepticism.

I work at home. I used to drive a car a lot. Now I pay for technology that allows me to stay at home even more. I recycle. I'm turning into my father. I storm around the house turning off lights...

 

The economy won't be crippled in the long run if the Government gave better guidance and direction without meddling too much on exactly what to improve.

We give billions in subsidies to oil and ag. Shifting that "money that makes people rich" to form the basis of a new economy won't negatively impact Americans as much as you think. In fact, rust belt regions are betting on green to jump start their industries long after their manufacturing capacity has long withered away.

 

We are making it worse. Period. There is no debate.

And this is one instance, where the "go natural, yay organic" crowd is out of their league. Just because the planet was naturally crazy warm in the carboniferous period does not make it "ok". You really don't want the planet to return to Permian temperatures. Picture Siberia as the breadbasket of the world and the entire interior of the US a warm tropical inland sea...

No argument. I think a policy-debate is far more important now then a science debate - thus my previous assertion that arguments about the validity of global warming science are stupid.

Someone always gets rich off change. Sometimes they're conniving, sometimes lucky, sometimes innovative like no one else. I personally don't care.

Kudos.

 

Well, yeah, but we just can't stop living. I saw a guy, and he was a green guy, on a cable show last night lambasting Gore's plan because of it's naivete. He said that we couldn't get completely off of carbon-based fuels in 100 years... and he's a green guy. Reduction, great. Termination, forget it!

He also cut the legs off of the Apollo Program analogy because that was such a specific focused project, whereas this carbon thing is pretty much universal.

You can't ignore the science debate because out of that comes the timeline at which we work on the solution.

Yeah but when that someone is stumping for the policy change as well. Gore as Energy Secretary?

 

I find that to be absolutely not the case. All my research/reading indicates that policy problems are by far the number one driver for timeline. The science is already beyond perturbing.

Please... - in any other instance the standard American capitalist response would be to shrug and say "good for him". Why is Gore any different? I think he is right (one way or another, alternative energy is coming) - and if he stands to make some money on it - congrats to him.

 

Except that it's not, unless you are referring to so many peoples' astonishing credulity and lack of skepticism regarding said 'science'. Not only is there no actual evidence that man is is causing or even affecting the natural changes the Earth undergoes (along with, curiously, many other planetary and lunar bodies in the Solar System, hmm), there is not even any compelling evidence that trying to 'reverse' this 'trend' would not be far more harmful than beneficial. And don't say 'yes it is', because there is not. There are only computer models, which have already been shown to be wildly inaccurate. One cannot make sound policy on the back of unsound science.

Gore is different because America is, or was, last time I checked, a 'Free Country', where we are free to make our own choices, and not have them dictated to us by our 'betters'.This global warming thing amounts to little more than attempt to get power into the hands of the social engineers, to satisfy their whims of how best to run our lives. So no, not 'good for him'. If he cares so much, he can wait for actual proof, instead of trying to frighten people into agreeing with him.

And look, I'm not suicidal, and I'm not stupid. I have children. So the future is at least as important to me as it is to anyone. But the amount of money and resources which will have to be dedicated to this 'problem' is beyond astronomical. And at a time when health care, education, care for the elderly, cancer research, aids research, drinking water, mosquito control, infrastructure upgrades and the Rockets' third scorer (and any number of other things as well) are all more important and pressing issues, throwing away such resources at a problem that no one really even knows is a problem strictly on the basis of computer model 'guesses' is foolish in the extreme.

Proof. That's all. Actual proof. Not some 'consensus' of people who primarily have a vested interest in their 'guesses' being bought-into. But actual proof. And barring that, we have more important things to worry about for now.

 

Really...

I'm sure you're an expert.
I'm also sure you're open to alternative viewpoints on this subject.

 

Yes, I am open to alternative viewpoints. But when an issue comes down to 'It depends on who you want to believe', then the one thing that is *not* a part of that equation is proof.

The thing that puzzles me is why so many people are so eager, rabid even, to believe something so terrible and fundamentally humanity-altering without even a shred of proof? Why? Don't you want proof? I don't understand why each and every intelligent person would not be standing up and DEMANDING actual proof before one penny is spent on any of it.

 

Ignoring how r****dedly and fundamentally stupid your argument is regarding proof...-well no, I take that back - I don't want to ignore it, because it's the number one reason your little spiel here is so confoundedly WRONG.

So, I suggest we apply this standard of ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE PROOF to every scientific phenomenon that relates to complicated ecological systems. For example, hurricanes. Why evacuate - we only have models. They don't supply proof of the path. How about dose response curves? Most of them are estimates based on an absolutely trivial amount of data. Go ahead and drink that tablespoon of drano, nero - we don't have HARDCORE IRREFUTABLE PROOF that it will kill you. How about carcinogens - most labels warning of this potential are based on one study - usually conducted on mice. Douse yourself in benzene, Nero - we lack any ACTUAL PROOF that it's cancerous. Hey - why should we attempt to go to the moon - gravity is a mere theory (like global warming), and models explaining orbital mechanics are not perfectly proven - there is no way we could ever get to the moon with such inaccurate models... oh wait.

Models are not some goofy guesses prescribed by a cadre of scheming scientists to procure funding. They are meant to mimic, as best we know, the interactions that govern the natural world. They get updated, and tuned, and better all the time. They are not meant to provide proof at all - they are meant to forecast and explain and AID. Engineers don't just model a system and move on - they model it to provide confidence, and then add safety factors to boost that confidence appropriately given the complexity and criticality of the system. It appears you lack even an ounce of undertanding regarding how research, data, and models interact.

More importantly, there is TONS of data pointing to this proof. Is it able to absolutely, positively ascertain a no-error confirmation of models and theories? No, and it never will (well, until it is obviously way too late). But that's a silly argument to make. And one that betrays not some honest inquiry into the science, but a jaded and close-minded attitude that the status quo is somehow perfectly acceptable simply because, at the moment, it's conveniant and comfortable.

If you would like to argue the contrary - by all means. But I think you'll need to provide more (cough) proof than a blindingly ignorant proclamation of "there is none" to convince me.

Because rational people unafraid to admit reality are not that idiotic.