Drudge has linked to Al Gore's latest thoughts on global warming. In typical polemic style, Drudge calls attention to Gore's equating "warming deniers" with racial bigotry, homophobia, supporters of Apartheid, and the Tea Party in general.
I was more alarmed by Gore's use of the difference between 32 and 33 degrees Fahrenheit to make a point about small differences in degrees leading to large differences in kind. Is he ignorant about phase change energy diagrams and latent heats of fusion for water? It would be pedantic to call a layperson on this ignorance but this man is supposed to be savvy about such things. And to think that I voted for him in 2000 (shudder).
Also, I found his alarm over 4% more water vapor in the air than 30 years ago as portending a future when water vapor will be as demonized as CO2.
71 comments:
I thought chemists understood the importance of measurement. Sometimes the dose makes the poison, dude.
Al Gore is not a chemist. He took a lot of chemistry, no doubt, but it didn't improve his intellect.
But I would think that his unwillingness to dismissively deride and/or willingness to passionately support what mainstream science says counts for something. Maybe not, though. Would an embrace of more faith-based policies and public discussions more clearly redound to his intellectual reputation?
I'd like to see a weighted poll of scientists.
The poll answers of respondents, who derive their livelihood [i.e the IPCC scientists]from GW hysteria, would get a weight of ZERO in tabulating the poll results.
But Al Gore musings on global warming are faith based.
It is not based on science after all. At least not on science that is not in dispute. He bases it all on faith.
He believes that the poor polar bears are doomed.
Also that every masseuse wants to blow him.
So the dude has faith in some pretty strange things.
Would an embrace of more faith-based policies and public discussions more clearly redound to his intellectual reputation
R&B: I have known some chemists to be against fossil fuels since the late 1970's when I was in high school. The reasons constantly changed. No embrace of faith was ever necessary other than "we know what's best."
Talk about faith-based policies, Al Gore is a fucking true believer and all the bullshit appeals referencing the sacred and gnostic knowledge of "science" won't change the fact that he's made hundreds of millions of dollars fronting for the scumbags who have been opting our Treasury for decades. He has to maintain the fiction, especially to himself.
Gore is a fucking buffoon who can't even get a hand job without making a spectacle of himself.
That's looting the Treasury.
Mother Gaia must be protected from the non-believers!
Talk about silly superstitious bullshit!
And, since the "science" is settled, what is the correct temperature for the planet?
How did that ever change prior to internal combustion engines?
Is the ice 2 miles thick where you live? No? Fucking dinosaurs had some bad-ass SUVs then, right?
I will say one thing: if Al Gore is wrong then the whole editorial stance of Editor Bruce Alberts at Science Magazine is also wrong. There is a lot of credibility at stake.
He believes that the poor polar bears are doomed.
This is true.
Cite another thing he believes without evidence.
Is he still selling indulgences?
I have known some chemists to be against fossil fuels since the late 1970's when I was in high school. The reasons constantly changed.
There just so happen to be a lot of good reasons to oppose fossil fuel dependence.
No embrace of faith was ever necessary other than "we know what's best."
Yes. People with evidence and reason do tend to know things much better. Are you saying that you don't need to refute empiric evidence with evidence and reason yourself?
The planet is trying to commit self-murder. I thing Gore is just trying to talk her down off the bridge. It's not the first time she has tried this shit, you know.
I think what a lot of people despise about him is the ugly, shameless hypocrisy. It's the same reason to hate a lot of the rich and powerful.
The Kochs are rich, powerful and hypocritically endorse policies that they'd be too entitled to be impacted by. But I don't want to offend certain people here who would become uneasy with hating them.
If Al Gore were a hippie you'd still deride his willingness to believe that the science behind his positions is important. Well, you'd deride him personally, but that's really as much the point also, right?
The planet is trying to commit self-murder. I thing Gore is just trying to talk her down off the bridge. It's not the first time she has tried this shit, you know.
This reminds me of a funny cartoon I saw taped to a geologist's door before I was done with college. It showed a newly elected W. stooped atop of a tall building, holding his middle finger up at everyone while mainlining a gasoline pump into his arm.
I really need to see if the internets has a link to that one.
No, the point is to point out that you follow a religion that is even sillier than Scientology.
There is no data that supports global warming, the hockey stick model returned the same results regardless of input, Al Gore is a grifter, probably a hippie, and even after all this time he still has adherents who think he knows something and is capable of being anything other than self serving.
He is not. He is a liar and a charlatan.
I certainly hope that you have nothing to do with any work that requires logic or the scientific method, you seem more suited to being a politician or snake oil salesman, like your boy Gore.
We can play a tit-for-tat game, R&B, but that's fruitless.
My point stands, and has nothing to do with partisan politics.
Understanding behavior is not fruitless, and what people can learn from it also stands regardless of politics.
If you really believed that the science shouldn't be a partisan issue then I doubt you would have relegated your comments to talk of indulgences and overlords. You'd have attempted to critique the science, as Chickie had done.
I'm not going to ask what you do for a living Sixty Grit, because I'll reject your bait to make this personal.
That's what scientists can do.
There is no science. The data is lost. The monitoring stations were misplaced. The desired results were cooked into the calculations.
The best part is that even if it gets colder, it's due to global warming. What a great theory.
Now quit burning fossil fuels and killing your mother.
There is no science. The data is lost. The monitoring stations were misplaced. The desired results were cooked into the calculations.
I urge you to provide me the link to your peer-reviewed publication on this, once it comes out - as I'm sure it shortly will. I'll be very interested in reading it.
You are not a scientist, you are an adherent. A follower. An acolyte at the church of stupid.
But as Palladian says, it's pointless to argue religion with a true believer - those dumb fucks will go all jihad on your ass.
I'm sure you must believe these are very scientific, highly logical, completely objective and impersonal assertions. Einstein would be proud.
R&B: If you read the article, Gore talks about the impact of fracking on natural gas prices and hence electricity and how that negatively affects alternative energy because it isn't as competitive. Also, he claims that China unfairly subsidized solar energy, making it uncompetitive to produce (I presume) panels in the US.
Gore and his kind were never honest about the higher costs of alternative energies. I've never seen a simple comparative study for how much energy goes into making a solar panel (silicon purification, single crystal growth, etc). Such a study would be analogous to revealing how much actual energy goes into fuel from ethanol.
In a way, it is fundamentally arrogant for people like Steven Chu and Al Gore to unilaterally decide that the poor should have less access to energy (a consequence of higher intrinsic costs). It should make one fearful that having the power to feed machines, the Government will one day control the feeding of people as well.
EPR:
Are you unwilling to separate the economics of current industries with the science of climate itself?
Is it easier just to make this all about Gore? I don't expect him to be perfect. I'm just glad that he has had much more intelligent and less belligerent things to say than:
"An acolyte at the church of stupid."
and
..."those dumb fucks will go all jihad on your ass."
Climate is too complex to be understood, much less modeled, by dimbulbs like Gore.
But you love him and agree with his policies of destruction and impoverishment. So be it. Facts will never sway your advocacy for a lie.
Climate is too complex to be understood, much less modeled, by dimbulbs like Gore.
Gore is not the one who modeled it, or even collected any data on his own.
But you love him and agree with his policies of destruction and impoverishment. So be it. Facts will never sway your advocacy for a lie.
So trying to assassinate my character and Gore's is the best substitute you have for actually discussing any facts related to any of what he stated.
If you read the article, Gore talks about the impact of fracking on natural gas prices and hence electricity and how that negatively affects alternative energy because it isn't as competitive...
Gore and his kind were never honest about the higher costs of alternative energies.
Anyways, let's be honest and admit that exempting fracking from any EPA review must almost certainly put those using it at an incredible financial advantage - especially given the proprietary and secret chemical cocktails of what they get to dump into the easily cracked pipes that seem to light people's drinking water on fire.
Luckily, others have been able to analyze these mixtures. I'm sure their effect on human and environmental health is of no concern, right?
Are you unwilling to separate the economics of current industries with the science of climate itself?
In a sense, that's what I'm trying to do. This would resolve the need understand the climate from the need to use more expensive sources of energy.
I view carbon energy sources as the unquestioned "cheapest" source of energy. It's like comparing money in the bank versus deciding to live hand-to-mouth. Of course it's easier to live off of accumulated wealth. But these are hardheaded decisions to be made -- balanced ones even -- and part of the decision is an existential one: what about the risk of shying away from oil and unilaterally converting to more expensive sources in a world where other countries would not do so and would benefit from less competitive access to cheaper oil.
I'll give you a head start to retort what I just wrote and that is to point to a nation or group of nations who have improved both their economies and sustainability through a reduction in fossil fuel consumption. But any such country must also have a bright demographic future (unless you're a zero population growther who ignores burgeoning subpopulations).
Chickie/EPR:
Do you think that fracking should be unique among industries in its exemption from any EPA review? Is this not an uncommonly uncompetitive advantage of sorts?
Do you think an industry is more likely to write that sort of exemption into a bill out of confidence of what could be revealed or fear?
Is he ignorant about phase change energy diagrams and latent heats of fusion for water?
You can bet your booty he is. I am too but I'm not making outrageous claims based on nothing.
I'm having trouble making sense of what you just wrote. On one hand, you say you'd like to separate economic discussions from discussions of what affects climate itself. But then go right back into the economics.
But that aside, your point stands, only to a point. A point at which you allow things to get pretty convoluted. Sure carbon is cheap. We've had it forever. Villagers still burn peat moss and dung. Or firewood.
If you want to let the 3rd world continue doing not only that (as if they don't already), but whatever other magical goodies the fossils industries wants to bequeath unto them, that's not really my fight. If anything, people are finding pretty cheap, renewable answers on the scale that makes sense to them. Using bottles to collect lighting, for instance.
The point is for advanced economies to lead. The 3rd world will follow the example based on what innovations we bring ourselves first, and then to them.
I don't know what Denmark's growth rate is (low growth rate actually correlates positively to wealth - AND longevity), but life there is pretty good and the percentage of energy they get from wind/renewables is pretty high, comparatively.
It seems hard to avoid the fact that that's really the kind of trend we're talking about when it comes to national wealth and energy development, except in countries that care more about avoiding polluting restrictions as a shortcut to keeping development costs down. Fortunately, those are few, but we sure seem to have them.
The Living Redwood has never let facts get in the way of science.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I think what a lot of people despise about him is the ugly, shameless hypocrisy. It's the same reason to hate a lot of the rich and powerful.
The Kochs are rich, powerful and hypocritically endorse policies that they'd be too entitled to be impacted by. But I don't want to offend certain people here who would become uneasy with hating them.
Care to specify?
Well, ed, I don't see much of anything to be proud about when it came to how they wanted to change the districting of North Carolina schools.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Well, ed, I don't see much of anything to be proud about when it came to how they wanted to change the districting of North Carolina schools.
Had to look that one up. I read it was that they supported initiatives to end force bussing. Were you bussed as a kid? Nobody likes bussing. Not even POTUS who prefers to send his kids to private schools.
One electric car is the equivalent of adding 3 houses to the grid. I wonder how Gore, et al propose we handle that. Solar and wind are no where near being able to meet that demand. Plus, wind is not really viable on a large scale. Want to see an environmental disaster, just put up millions of wind mills disrupting wind patterns, killing birds, casting "blinking" shadows that make areas uninhabitable, etc.
Wow, I'm impressed.
Funny how you can't find an account on something other than a Lefty belchfire.
Gore is nothing more than a global warming hobbyist. Yet he speaks and acts like he is Einstein-like and he deserves to be revered. As do his many acolytes in the librul fascist community.
Had to look that one up. I read it was that they supported initiatives to end force bussing. Were you bussed as a kid? Nobody likes bussing. Not even POTUS who prefers to send his kids to private schools.
It's arrogant to presuppose an attitude of your own (and you don't say if you were bussed) on the good people of the state and communities affected, who from all accounts, enjoyed their diverse and successful schools and resented having their school board members bought off by outsiders who didn't represent them or appreciate their widely shared interests.
Which kind of makes the most compelling argument that's been mustered against bussing moot and hypocritical. ;-)
Libruls are freaked out by the fracking industry because it offers good paying jobs to Americans meaning there will be fewer potential librul voters just happy to get a govt handout. And fracking makes them look like dreamers when they claim wind power and solar power will soon or ever be economically competitive.
One electric car is the equivalent of adding 3 houses to the grid. I wonder how Gore, et al propose we handle that. Solar and wind are no where near being able to meet that demand.
Depends what you put into the grid, but its indisputable that wind's growth and development potential outpaces most others. Plus, decentralizing the grid is something that I'd like to see more conservatives support. At that point we'll see who prefers putting a smokestack or fission reactor on their roof as opposed to a windmill or solar panel.
Storing wind energy is a great way to improve its reliability. Us yokels call them "batteries" and developing hydrogen or some other storage medium to better fit that demand would also be economically beneficial.
Libruls are freaked out by the fracking industry because it offers good paying jobs to Americans meaning there will be fewer potential librul voters just happy to get a govt handout. And fracking makes them look like dreamers when they claim wind power and solar power will soon or ever be economically competitive.
Right. That's exactly it. Because if you're willing to drink their frack-tapped water and trade them your own in exchange then we know that you'd offer to let them keep the leasing rights. Because their economic development is that important to you.
Come on, A.J. Do it! Show those Marcellus Shales people how important they are to you!
...resented having their school board members bought off by outsiders who didn't represent them or appreciate their widely shared interests.
I'm not sure of the mechanism you're suggesting that the Koch Bros used to undo the bussing initiatives. I assumed that they bought airtime and swayed voters one way or the other. Are you suggesting that cash money was actually exchanged and school board members were bribed?
I'm explaining (not suggesting) that Koch force-bussed his own hand-picked comrades onto their school board with an agenda they found repugnant and damaging before the residents became furious and threw the bastards out.
Lefties have been doing it since South Baaston in the 70s.
Wake County evidently preferred their schools the way they were before Koch tinkered with them, ed.
Those kids look pretty happy. Also diverse. Same with the parents and same with their achievement scores. This prior to and after Koch's attempted cock-blocking, which they happily reversed.
Does that bother you?
Have a good one. I'm off to consume some carbon.
I want to ban all Libruls from using any gas or oil.
I want it on the November allot.
ballot.
Did they?
As I say, it would be nice to see some of this from a source even marginally objective.
Does that bother you?
Tell you what, next time you want to make sure a district is "diverse", why not ask Choom and Moochelle to send Sushi and Mongolia there?
I kind of wish some sort of climate change shit would wipe out half this country....just for laughs.
And then see the left and right bitch about whether it is climate change or not.
Now fight losers!
Yeah Titus, it might be kinda funny to see the roof blown off a certain PH in Cambridge just like would have happened in 1938 before there even was global warming.
Plus, decentralizing the grid is something that I'd like to see more conservatives support. At that point we'll see who prefers putting a smokestack or fission reactor on their roof as opposed to a windmill or solar panel.
I support the decentralized model. I'll go a small reactor.
Link about electric cars and the grid: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/518066/could-electric-cars-threaten-the-grid/
Wind is bad. The environmental impact of thousands/millions of turbines hasn't been adequately studied. Because wind mills don't burn coal, gas or uranium people assume they're OK. Nearly 600,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year. Up to 10,000 at Altamont Pass alone.
Wind is not reliable either. Consider hydro-electric power. Clean and cheap for the most part. But, the dams and lakes they create totally destroy the environment where they lay. Fields, streams, forests, farms, what have you, all are totally destroyed.
We are able to contain the impact due to the nature of water being damned. With wind we can't physically contain it. What will happen, no body knows it appears. Will weather patterns be affected after a certain point? We are taking energy out of the air (wind) and converting it to electricity. Thus, less energy will be left in the winds. How much energy can we take without adverse effects.
Then, there's the strobe effect and noise of windmills which makes putting them close to dwellings hazardous to your health. How do those affect animals?
LOL Chickie.
I wondered how this thread got up to almost 60 so fast.
Then I clicked and there's the Ritzer.
You know what? The moon is full and he's howling.
If you would like to see Al Gore and the climate religionists eviscerated just YouTube Michael Crichton's speeches on climate change. He was a powerful critic and took some financial hits for his stance prior to dying too young.
I'm so glad that Michael Crichton knows everything. Except the secret to immortality.
You'd think that if someone was omniscient, that's the first thing they'd figure out how to do.
Are you saying this thread couldn't have gotten up to 60 comments otherwise, Cody? Don't you hurt Chickie's feelings now!
And the moon ain't nothin'! Haven't you heard O'Reilly? It's not even responsible for the tides! Nothin'! Faith-based, emotional reasoning always wins!
How'd the moon get there? Huh? How'd the moon get there?
Who said anything about O'Reilly? Or is that another of yer straw men?
I dunno. I think I hurted Chickie's feelings on another thread, but I'm not sure.
O'Reilly's a great example of people who believe that less evidence is better than more. Sure, he goes to the extreme of saying Jesus does everything that he can't explain. But inventing a "conspiracy of science" to account for what somebody doesn't understand about the atmosphere is almost as fanciful.
Al should be happy that the growing area for coconuts is expanding...
Given his love of that type of oil.
Even if his family had all that oil money thanks to running interference for that old communist traitor Armand Hammer.
I bet there is at least 10 times the evidence in the form of study results and "expert" opinion for the efficacy of homeopathy than there is evidence collected against it. Probably 100 times the evidence for ESP. Similar lopsided bodies of "evidence" for things like herbal remedies, as well as the powers of pyramids and crystals, not to mention an endless parade of dietary breakthroughs and dangers followed by their equally well supported reversals a few years later.
There is always much more evidence proving hypotheses that pay and fit current sensibilities than there ever is for the less lucrative and seductive alternative views. That's the way it has always been.
I'm not suggesting that AGW is as ridiculous a hypothesis as the curative power of a 1 part per trillion solution of table salt, but rather that the amount of research out supporting a particular view is not reliable as evidence itself of anything.
The important thing I see about AGW is that it doesn't matter what the evidence shows until: 1) it shows it with much less doubt, shenanigans, and profit motive than it currently does, 2) there is much more proof that it will be a bad thing rather than an improvement or an insignificant change, and 3) some realistic explanation of how we could actually effect a change to the course of events much different than what will happen if we proceed on our current path of human development.
I don't see us succeeding in altering carbon usage much from the path it would take without making the sacrifices being suggested. The majority of the world does not give a shit about the luxuries our affluent minds are free to contemplate for sport.
We would be smarter to spend our time and money monitoring and preparing for what we see coming regardless of whether we are responsible for it or not. The chances are that natural and unexpected forces will throw something overpowering into the mix anyway, and our own untamable nature is overpowering already. We can't realistically control either enough to control the climate, like it or not. Believing we can is not evidence based.
It doesn't matter if global warming is happening or not. There isn't an alternative to carbon-based fuels, ergo we will keep using them.
The only question is whether we waste a lot of money on Potempkin solutions in the meantime.
"There just so happen to be a lot of good reasons to oppose fossil fuel dependence."
Economic reasons because dependence is never good. But that doesn't justify making up stuff and calling it science in order to push economically disastrous policies.
Nor does "we know this is bad and we don't like it" and then looking for "evidence" to support those pre-set conclusions resemble any type of "science" other than "creation science."
Diversity in Wake county.
Ritmo, Gore or Crichton..Gore or Crichton, hmmm. CHRICTON!! A scientist not a glad handing "sex poodle."
goddammit spinelli. I was hoping no one was going to pull out the "sex poodle" thing.
That'll be with me for 2-3 days now, and used in conversation.
There are going to be very annoyed when they get called sex poodles.
I'll give them your name.
Cody, Give them my name and tell them I love to bust balls.
I'm glad I don't find that ignorance as enlightening as you apparently do, Synova and Revenant.
Post a Comment