Raymond ([info]drsaddam) wrote in [info]_scientists_,
@ 2007-06-03 10:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," free online
[Also, watch Al Gore give this 16-minute speech, 15 ways to avert a climate crisis, if you want to know what YOU can do. He's actually really FUNNY here!

Please also see this excellent LiveJournal blog for more: [info]theclimateblog.]

Someone posted Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, online. It will scare the hell out of you about the real danger to millions of people living on the coasts of the San Francisco Bay Area, China, Europe, Florida, Manhattan, etc. if global warming continues.

:

Please watch it for FREE, before someone takes it down again. It has subtitles in Chinese, too.
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/4/3381

Al Gore likes to call this the "climate crisis," instead of only "global warming." His "Inconvenient Truth" site: http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Also, please check out this excellent, science-filled site, for more on this problem:
http://www.climatechange.net/ It's by Stephen Schneider, Stanford professor of biology and environmental engineering.

This week, NASA said, in a scientific study, that we may have just 10 years left before conditions get critical:
Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."
Please tell your friends and family to watch!
Site Meter



(Post a new comment)

Oh lol
[info]nebachanezar
2007-06-03 06:22 pm UTC (link)
Lawls for propaganda and veiled socialism. No one on either side of the debate has any real idea what they are doing and I can't believe anyone takes this crap seriously. There is more religion in the whole global warming movement than science. Like how all scientific debate is stifled and you have to overlook the effects of any natural phenomenon, also you have to believe that we have the technology to collect enough data to not only "predict" what is happening with climate change, but (and this is the best part) also to say that is all caused by human activity.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Oh lol
[info]artela
2007-06-03 06:28 pm UTC (link)
If there is a chance that we are contributing to climate change and making it go faster, don't you think it would be prudent and logical to actually pay attention and do something about it? Are you a climatologist? Have you seen the raw data? Have you actually looked into this in some depth dispassionately and objectively?

It's odd, but before I even looked at your user profile I just knew that you had to be an American on reading the above... I wonder how many more Katrinas and abnormal tornado runs you need to have over there before it sinks in :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-03 06:44 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-03 06:54 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]igivesafuck, 2007-06-03 07:07 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 07:16 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]igivesafuck, 2007-06-03 07:47 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 07:02 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]witchanteia, 2007-06-04 01:07 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 01:16 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]witchanteia, 2007-06-04 08:08 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-03 09:56 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 10:04 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 06:42 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 09:31 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 10:13 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-05 06:28 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-03 07:04 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 07:22 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]drsaddam, 2007-06-03 08:02 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]_insanity_lost, 2007-06-03 08:17 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-03 08:25 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]_insanity_lost, 2007-06-03 09:36 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 08:16 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]degraine, 2007-06-03 09:52 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 12:50 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 09:59 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 12:51 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 01:38 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 06:31 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-03 10:00 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 01:06 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 01:57 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 09:57 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]lederhosen, 2007-06-04 03:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zandperl, 2007-06-04 03:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 06:36 am UTC
Re: Oh lol
[info]tri_blog
2007-06-03 06:29 pm UTC (link)
Please watch the film first, and see the Stanford professor's site. The scientific data is globally accepted now by climate scientists. In the film, Gore talks about how in 10 years or so of scientific papers in refereed journals, ZERO papers disputed the facts, while over 900 or so papers supported the idea of global warming.

But in the popular press, at least half of the stories kept saying global warming is still "controversial." It's NOT controversial to people who actually know the science. It's a fact.

This is not just an idle debate. It could mean millions of refugees if coastal populations are flooded.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-03 06:50 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-03 06:56 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 07:03 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-03 07:19 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 10:03 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-03 10:10 pm UTC
DEGREE WARZ!!! - [info]adrinna, 2007-06-04 05:27 am UTC
Re: DEGREE WARZ!!! - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 06:39 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-03 07:08 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 07:12 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-03 10:12 pm UTC
BTW - [info]adrinna, 2007-06-04 05:29 am UTC
Re: BTW - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 05:35 am UTC
Re: BTW - [info]whitevelvet, 2007-06-04 06:08 am UTC
Re: BTW - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 06:40 am UTC
Re: BTW - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-04 03:00 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 03:12 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 03:17 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-04 04:59 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]drsaddam, 2007-06-04 05:16 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 06:26 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]moosehead_beer, 2007-06-04 07:39 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 06:24 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]adrinna, 2007-06-04 03:51 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 03:57 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 03:01 pm UTC
Re: BTW - [info]adrinna, 2007-06-04 03:46 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 01:17 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-04 02:31 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 03:27 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 06:29 pm UTC
Science FTW! - [info]adrinna, 2007-06-04 04:05 pm UTC
Re: Science FTW! - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 04:27 pm UTC
Re: Science FTW! - [info]adrinna, 2007-06-04 04:56 pm UTC
Re: Science FTW! - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 05:32 pm UTC
Re: Science FTW! - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 05:33 pm UTC
Re: Science FTW! - [info]cieldumort, 2007-06-06 09:14 am UTC
Re: Science FTW! - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-06 11:48 am UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 06:31 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 06:32 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 07:02 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]dragoon3428, 2007-06-03 06:58 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 10:07 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-03 06:59 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-03 07:13 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-03 07:26 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-03 07:29 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]katsumizer, 2007-06-03 08:12 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-03 10:13 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 10:51 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 01:09 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 03:04 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]drsaddam, 2007-06-04 03:06 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-03 10:09 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]luxanebulis, 2007-06-04 03:36 am UTC
Re: Oh lol
[info]mokele
2007-06-03 09:49 pm UTC (link)
I love how "socialism" is a dirty word in American politics.

So, how's that Interstae highway system working out for you?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-04 02:38 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 06:12 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]icemilk, 2007-06-04 06:17 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol*mart roflhouse
[info]somanesa
2007-06-04 06:08 am UTC (link)
whether or not this is an entirely human caused or entirely natural (dufuses, its most probably both!) phenomena, wouldn't it be desirable to preserve our species?

Yes it's propaganda, but its propaganda aimed at getting people to take steps that will help our species survive. The geological record does indeed show more dramatic climate shifts, and the planet remained livable. But just because life will survive on does not mean we will survive. At the very least, things will get very uncomfortable (and incovenient, harhar) for us during this climate change, if it happens.

Whether its human caused or a natural phenomenon only matters in the following way: if its human caused, we're fucked; if it is a natural phenomenon, we're super fucked. It seems like socialist propaganda to you, I suspect, because of the measures proposed to prevent/slow global warming are WHOA OMG DRASTIC, but remember, most of the people proposing these measures believe the problem is mostly human caused. If the people promoting the natural phenomena theory actually believed it, they would be proposing far more drastic and draconian methods.

Well, maybe the people promoting the natural phenomena theory actually believe it but think that there is nothing we can do about it. So why not help nature out in killing our species and countless others?

Oops, silly me, believers do not think what we are doing affect the planet... It may not affect the planet and life as a whole, bu it will effect us.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh lol*mart roflhouse - [info]ariel88, 2007-06-04 08:20 am UTC
Re: Oh lol
[info]antarcticlust
2007-06-04 01:00 pm UTC (link)
As someone who is in training to be a climate scientist, I have to strongly disagree with you. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true, sadly. And right now, all the skeptics are contributing are grandiose statements that "no one knows." Until the skeptics start playing with the rest of us, conducting research and publishing in the peer-review realm, then I have to say that YOU'RE the ones politicizing the issue, not us. I'd think that would be pretty obvious, but it amazes me how thick some people can be.

How much do you actually know about climate science? Have you taken a class? Read any books? Or are you just spouting what you perceive is "anti-socialist" rhetoric you read on blogs or hear on Fox News?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh lol - [info]nebachanezar, 2007-06-04 02:33 pm UTC
Re: Oh lol - [info]somanesa, 2007-06-04 06:24 pm UTC

[info]surferrosa14
2007-06-03 06:44 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for posting! I have some friends who have not seen this yet, and I'll let them know!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]drsaddam
2007-06-03 08:01 pm UTC (link)
Also, watch Al Gore gave this 16-minute speech, 15 ways to avert a climate crisis, if you want to know what YOU can do. He's actually really FUNNY here!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dravogadro
2007-06-03 07:03 pm UTC (link)
Regardless if there is warming enough, we waste way too much unnecessarily.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ariel88
2007-06-03 08:57 pm UTC (link)
But it's the American Way (Tm)! We're entitled to that wastefulness!

/sarcasm

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]artela, 2007-06-03 10:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katsumizer, 2007-06-03 10:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mokele, 2007-06-03 10:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]katsumizer, 2007-06-03 10:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 01:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ariel88, 2007-06-04 08:22 am UTC

[info]cowbert
2007-06-03 10:54 pm UTC (link)
I didn't bother to read some of the other trolls here, but I'd just like to throw in the fact that it doesn't help Big Al's case that he lives in a giant house1, drives a regular car2, flies privately, and doesn't promote public transport, or electric vehicles for that matter (you'd figure after ending up on 5th Gear, he'd cut a major promo deal with Tesla or Wrightspeed).

On the flip side, I don't see what's wrong with being socialist about something like climate change (even if it's *not* an imminent danger, I don't want to imagine [or have my grandkids find out] what dicking around with the atmosphere will actually do. Science ought to lead to such a concept called "wisdom"). It's the only way to prevent the tragedy of the commons; and I can't think of a greater commons of humanity than the freakin planet. If the dentist can hang the "You've only got one set of teeth, take care of them!" poster, surely we can do better when we only have 1 geosystem!


[1] Although he does use solar and CFLs, I don't know if he uses geothermal for hvac or not. Plus the whole concept of the ability to buy carbon offsets disturbs me - everyone should be forced to cut CO2 emissions, even companies who claim they can't afford it; inefficiency is inherently unsustainable from an economic standpoint.
[2] Apparently he drives a hybrid. But what we don't know is if he drives a fake one (like a Ford Escape hybrid or something; chemistry dictates that for every gallon of gasoline burnt, you must emit 12 kilos of CO2 so fuel efficiency is still directly related to carbon emissions, even if you increase fuel efficiency via hybrid technology).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dravogadro
2007-06-04 12:19 am UTC (link)
Not that I am in TN at this moment, but I believe his house is not just for his living, but also contains his office, his wife's office and all of his staff + security detail. Not saying it can't be smaller because I have never been in it.

I also don't know if electric vehicles are a great idea since we can only generate so much energy for the grid via wind/solar...? I do wish he stressed cutting CO2 more...sure his film is popular but I don't many people that saw it and changed their lifestyle (biking/car-lite, shopping locally, conserving more).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cowbert, 2007-06-04 12:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ariel88, 2007-06-04 08:26 am UTC

[info]antarcticlust
2007-06-04 01:02 pm UTC (link)
Electric cars ARE NOT EMISSIONS EFFICIENT. If you plug them in to the grid, they're drawing power off the same fossil-fuel-fired plants as everyone else.

Not to mention the fact that what Al Gore does or doesn't do has no bearing on the validity of the science.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cosmicdust
2007-06-04 12:19 am UTC (link)
I hate to be a jackass, but Al Gore certainly fails to do himself any favors by flying around in ULTIMATE CLASS *GLORY-THUNDER CLAP* a fuel-guzzling jet. Oh, wait, of course he can do that--he invented the internet.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tri_blog
2007-06-04 01:36 am UTC (link)
First, he never said he "invented the Internet." That's a false quote that has been around for many years.

Second, how else do you expect him to fly around, without fuel? And does focusing on his daily lifestyle change the facts of climate change? He never said "don't fly around in jets." Spreading the message is more important than one person's use of fuel in flying around to promote it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cosmicdust, 2007-06-04 02:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]leon_weirdo, 2007-06-04 02:30 am UTC

[info]antarcticlust
2007-06-04 01:03 pm UTC (link)
Ever heard of carbon offsets?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Metabolic engineering, to produce renewable biofuels
[info]tri_blog
2007-06-04 08:33 am UTC (link)
First, Cure Malaria. Next, Global Warming (NY Times).

New Technology for Energy Needs: Cost-Effective, Renewable Biofuels

Amyris Biotechnologies is developing a large-scale fermentation process to renewably produce biofuels. Amyris is developing a gasoline substitute that contains more energy than ethanol, will result in lower cost and less polluting biofuel blends, and is fully compatible with today's cars and the existing petroleum infrastructure. We are also developing a diesel substitute that can achieve lower costs and much greater scale than vegetable oil based biodiesels. Our next generation biodiesel is inherently stable in cold temperatures and does not break down during storage and transport like conventional biodiesel. Both our gasoline substitute and our diesel substitute will be made from the same feedstocks and production plants that are used to make ethanol.

(Reply to this)

(Deleted post)

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]antarcticlust, 2007-06-04 03:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyssabits, 2007-06-04 05:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 05:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lyssabits, 2007-06-04 08:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 08:46 pm UTC

[info]jakshadows
2007-06-04 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Hmph. Here's one Penn Professor who takes issue with Gore's little film.

I like dissenters. I like people who challenge the consensus. Right now the consensus is with those screaming about global warming. We SHOULD question the information we're getting.
It is disturbing to me that so many seem prone to the "bandwagon effect" and that many so-called scientists are forgetting to be skeptical.
Challenge the information. Verify it, prove it, and then prove it again. It is only through challenge that arguments can be made solid.

Even the American Association of State Climatologists admits that there is room for dissent.

Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.


And that...
Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Engaging a dissenter in discourse has a far better chance of changing minds. I doubt you, or anyone here, has changed [info]nebachanezar's mind at all.

(Replies frozen)(Thread)


[info]drsaddam
2007-06-04 05:08 pm UTC (link)
Believe me, if you actually read the threads, dozens of people have tried to engage this person's mind. But this person won't even watch the film, won't post any actual scientific data or papers, and is failing his/her science classes, so how can we even have an intelligent "debate"?

Have you seen the film, either?

I am a skeptic too, and I like dissent. But it has to be dissent for a reasonable purpose. Scientists don't just "jump on the bandwagon." They are trained to question everything. I question everything. The fact that the overwhelming fraction of climate scientists, and now even George Bush and the Chinese government agree this is a problem should mean something.

Dissent for the hell of it is a big waste of time, however.

I was an engineer, and I would rather talk about PRACTICAL ways to solve this scary problem. Debating questions like whether evolution is true or not is a big waste of time, after the tons of debates in the past. Let's try to debate ways to SOLVE this problem. That's much more interesting.

As Arnold Schwarzenegger says, "The science is in." It's time for us to get off our butts and stop just talking about the problem. Acknowledging we have a problem is the first step.

(Replies frozen)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jakshadows, 2007-06-04 06:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 06:30 pm UTC

(Deleted post)

(Deleted post)

(Deleted post)

(Deleted post)

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 10:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]drsaddam, 2007-06-04 11:00 pm UTC

(Deleted post)

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]drsaddam, 2007-06-04 10:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 06:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 06:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 06:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 07:11 pm UTC
See all the lists of scientists who agree about climate change
[info]tri_blog
2007-06-04 06:45 pm UTC (link)
Please look at this thread:

http://community.livejournal.com/_scientists_/942501.html?thread=12834725#t12834725

The next time anyone tells you that "scientists disagree about climate change," check out the overwhelming consensus here:

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

(Reply to this)


[info]tbschemer
2007-06-04 06:58 pm UTC (link)
Of course global warming is real, and of course humans are contributing to it, but I don't agree with the apocalyptic conclusions Al Gore stresses.

I recently saw a presentation by a climatologist at Caltech who really laid it down like it is. Firstly, he said the "tipping point" idea is incredibly unlikely to occur. All those hypotheses predicting such events, such as the Atlantic conveyor shutting down, are quite far-flung. The Earth is a heavily buffered system, and almost nothing climate-related on a planetary scale operates by building up and collapsing.

He explained some of the possible results (temperature-wise) for the planet over the next 100 years. He showed some computer models representing different predictions that he and his team had come up with. Depending on how cloud albedo was considered, the models showed anywhere from a 5 degree Celsius planetary increase in temperature, to a 2 degree [i]decrease[/i] in temperature. He said any one of these models were equally likely to occur, and some climate change was inevitable at this point.

The inevitability of climate change was a center-point for his presentation. Even if we were to stop all anthropogenic CO2 production instantaneously, we would still see a 1-2 degree temperature gain over the next couple of decades. Political solutions are unlikely to see much, if any, progress. This is especially true in the sense that most political solutions target industry, whereas a very significant (and commonly ignored) portion of anthropogenic carbon emissions comes from crop-burning in South America and Africa. These land-use emissions might even contribute more greenhouse gases than the industrial processes.

As a couple of people have already mentioned in this thread, Al Gore's global warming message is the current dogma, which absolutely needs to be questioned. At the end of this Caltech climatologist's presentation, a couple of audience members started asking questions to try to get him to acknowledge dire consequences of "doing nothing." He merely laughed, "Human civilization is much hardier than you think.

He made very clear what we are certain of, and what we don't really know. He was sure that well-developed nations would not feel the effects of global warming heavily, even if the 5 degree increase model proved true. Poorer nations, however, might experience crises similar to results of that Indian Ocean tsunami a couple years back.

"So then, what's the solution?" someone in the audience asked. The climatologist replied that the surest bet to solving this problem is increased contributions to cleaner renewable energy research, as well as research into different forms of planetary engineering. This is the only reliable solution.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tri_blog
2007-06-04 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for agreeing that global warming is real.

See Stanford biologist Stephen Schneider, whose site I link above.

Look at his page "What is the Probability of 'Dangerous' Climate Change?" This directly addresses your point.

Did you see the overwhelming lists of scientists worldwide who agree with the fact of global warming? (Including the AAAS, AMS, AGU, AIP, AAS, AMA, ACS, etc.)

Also, Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates.

What's this Caltech scientist's name? Please post a link to an actual scientific study that shows some of your claims:

"The inevitability of climate change was a center-point for his presentation. Even if we were to stop all anthropogenic CO2 production instantaneously, we would still see a 1-2 degree temperature gain over the next couple of decades. Political solutions are unlikely to see much, if any, progress." Proof?

What scientific evidence do you see that disproves the NASA "tipping point" study, signed by the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies plus 48 scientists in the U.S. and France? Please see the Washington Post post article. The Bush administration even tried to muzzle James Hansen, the lead scientist, for speaking out.

He merely laughed, "Human civilization is much hardier than you think. Skeptics have been saying this for decades. But why do you think that world scientific and political opinion has gradually shifted towards Al Gore's view? Because it's just a fad?

Again, there are very real practical and economic effects, already occurring, if we don't act now:

Damage from climate change may cost Alaska $10 billion (Reuters)

Victim of Climate Change, a Town Seeks a Lifeline (NYT)

The climatologist replied that the surest bet to solving this problem is increased contributions to cleaner renewable energy research, as well as research into different forms of planetary engineering.

I agree with you there, but that's not enough. We need social, economic, political, and additional scientific and engineering solutions.

You agree it's a problem, yet you think we should perhaps "do nothing"? Do you want to wait till coasts are flooded before you say "Oh...maybe I was wrong?" Yes, we can't perfectly predict the climate. Yes, maybe some prediction are too apocalyptic. But we've seen what has happened on planets like Venus, which is covered by a 96% CO2 atmosphere and has surface temperatures of 450 deg C. Global warming on other planets.

How much more evidence, Hurricane Katrinas, subsiding lands due to melting permafrost, record California forest fires, etc. do you need before you think we should act? Even people living on Catalina Island (near you) are seriously concerned now. We've been studying this subject to death without serious changes in the law.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 08:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 08:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tri_blog, 2007-06-04 08:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]artela, 2007-06-04 08:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mokele, 2007-06-04 10:27 pm UTC

[info]jakshadows
2007-06-05 01:09 am UTC (link)
This is how you argue?? By deleting comments?

Rather than gracefully acknowledge you were wrong, you delete the comments instead? So that only your side of the arguments can be seen? This is cowardly and does you no credit.

Admit it. You were wrong. You hated to be shown the error of your ways and so chose the gutless path.

That disgusts me. Choosing to hide my arguments as if you feared them. Bah! You sir, are a poor scientist. I certainly hope you will do better in the future because right now you do no credit to the scientific community.

(Replies frozen)(Thread)


[info]drsaddam
2007-06-05 01:18 am UTC (link)
Dude, please leave this page. You are a troll and a nuisance.

I deleted your comments because you didn't contribute anything meaningful to the global warming discussion. It's that simple. You refused to have the guts to take a stand either way. How am I supposed to talk to someone with no point of view, who doesn't back up his arguments?

I'm deleting all of your future comments as well.

You are a guy who always must have the last word, I see. Sigh. Can we please get back to the topic of global warming? Thank you.

(Replies frozen)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…