Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 05:26:42 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Satellite images 'show Atlantis'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3766863.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 6784 times)
0 Members and 49 Guests are viewing this topic.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #90 on: March 14, 2007, 11:40:27 pm »

And since you refuse to concede the point that these guys were not,  by any stretch of the imagination, scientists,  but theologians, you aren't anymore right this time than you were any of the other three times you said it.

To set the record straight, it was Allison who brought the religious aspect into the discussion when she said:

Quote from: Allison
I notice that Merlin had this big list of things that he said were once commonly accepted theories (like the flat earth), he forgets that science never actually proposed there was a flat earth - if anyone did it was religion.

Notice that she is the one who said that "science never proposed it" and attributed the theory to "religion".

Now, my very next reply was:

Quote from: Me
I forget no such thing - I, in fact, know the history of the flat earth theory - do you?  I take note that you chose only to criticize the one example (out of so many) that you thought you had found a flaw in.  Many-a-website will claim that the flat-earth theory is purely religious, however; that doesn't make it true.

Note that I never said that any of those were "Commonly accepted" as you assert, at the very most, I said, "Common-sense approach found to be wrong".  However, in this particular thread reply, I simply offered it as "A Theory" that was dismissed due to the application of logic and evidence.  Now, you also assert that it was a purely Church proffered idea and that "science" had nothing to do with it...  Well, I disagree.  On one hand, most astronomy at the time was controlled (or funded) by the church - but on the other, there were a number of "scientists" who authored texts on the subject; arguing for a flat earth.  They are:  Lactantius (265-345 AD), Cosmas Indicopleustes (540 AD), Severian of Gabala (380 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 430 AD), and Diodore of Tarsus (394 AD).  Anyone who has read Aristotle knows that he believed the earth to be round, and historical buffs know that Erasthenes and Ptolemy proved it, but that wasn't my point.  My point was simply that it was a theory, and that evidence and logic disproved it.

I agree that the Christians certainly worked to keep this theory afloat, but it was not they who instituted it, nor they who refuted it.  Looking back to many of the maps from the very earliest periods, we see a round earth - but not a spherical one.  The inability to determine that distances separated radially as one approached the equator indicated than there was no concept of the planet being a "ball", therefore; it is simple deductive reasoning to determine that they estimated the planet to be round & flat.  Earlier than that, we see carvings of lands in a purely rectangular form with no indication whatsoever that they even regarded the planet as a separate object at all.

Take note that I did not emphasize the religious aspect of anything - that's your bag.  Also take note that I referred to them as "scientists at that time ...  arguing for a flat earth ...  authoring texts".  I chose a specific timeframe to look at in that sentence only in order to point out that there were "notables" who believed it and authored papers on the subject.  But then you have to acknowledge the next sentence where I used even more popular men who disputed it - in the same time period.  Then we get to the meat of my proof:  The whole next paragraph!  That was proof for the ages, beginning to end.  That which you have ignored since the first posting.

Here's a bit of info on some of the guys you are so offended by:

Lactantius:  Born a pagan and in his early life taught rhetoric in his native place, Cirta in Numidia where an inscription mentions a certain L CAECILIUS FIRMIANUS.  Lactantius had a successful public career and at the request of Emperor Diocletian he became an official professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia.  He was later forcibly converted to Christianity during the persecutions which he wrote of frequently.  In fact, much of his later "Apologetic" writings for the Church were considered to be heretical and were thought to be subliminal attempts to subvert the Church.

Cosmas Indicopleustes:  Andrew Wiesner of UPENN describes the one remaining text of his, "The Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes" as thus:  Cosmas, a sixth century native of Alexandria, spent the earlier years of his life as a seafaring merchant. He traveled extensively during this time, and his surname would suggest that his travels extended as far as India. He eventually retired from commercial enterprises and gave himself over to the monastic life, probably among the Nestorians. During this phase of his life he composed treatises on geography, cosmography, and scriptural exegesis. The Christian Topography is the only one of his works to have survived, and contains treatments of all of these topics.  Despite his wide store of particular geographical information gained in the course of his travels, Cosmas prefers to present his image of the world with a highly abstract constructive demonstration, not at all descriptive. On the one hand, the argument is very much like Greek geometrical demonstration. It proceeds from postulates upon which the validity of each step of the contruction is ultimately grounded. On the other hand, these *postulates* are like no other.  Cosmas represents a strange confluence of Greek scientific and early Christian theological ideals. The two inhabit the same space at the same time, though uncomfortably, in this text." 

I would say that he was considered to be much more than a "religious guy" by his peers;considering he was cited by geographers and cartographers alike.

I could go on, but it's getting late.

They were speaking from a theological viewpoint, not a scientific one, and weren't anymore qualified to speak on the shape of the earth than Jerry Falwell is qualified to speak on global warming.  Your refusal to concede this, simplest, most logical of viewpoints, is something I find entirely baffling.

What I refuse to concede is that the view was religious.  It was adopted (as I said many times already) for religious reasons, but it did not originate with religion as Allison (and you) claimed.  I have already conceded that the named individuals were religious figures, but I have also made my point clear:  They were also "scientists". 

And just who was citing their "work," other theologians?  Each other?  By the first century (at the time these guys were even writing), the idea of a round world had already begun to take hold (per Pliny), and the flat earth idea was an outdated philosophy.  The only people holding onto the idea were theologians like these guys, who's influence was limited. I harp on this idea because I didn't know that myself until I looked into it. 

No, not just other religious guys.  Go look up bibliographies on their life at a university site.  You can see all of the references and citations for yourself.  And, for the third time, I agree that it was outdated and outmoded by their time...  That's why I offered them up!  They were supporting a defunct theory.  I cannot see why this is so hard for you.

As you said, it's hard to argue with old maps.

Thank you.  I'm thrilled that you got that point {finally}

I would almost agree with you save for the fact that it takes a lot of time and testing (these days) for something to achieve a scientific consensus. So some of the things being thrown out were not widely accepted anyway.

Well - I suppose that you just simply do not want to agree.  It matters not how much you rationalize, the facts remain the same and you would know I'm right if you cared enough to look.  I suspect that you don't find what you don't look for.  Sign of the times I guess.

I agree with Allison in that religion has always been the greatest impediment to science.  The proof is all around us. 

First, that isn't the point we have been debating at all.  If it were, there would have been no debate.  I have entire threads in forums dating back years (and years) saying that the church is to blame for our "stunted scientific growth".  No, that has not been the debate at all - this is an illegal lane change.   Grin 

The idea of the flat earth is symbolic of that impediment.  As I said earlier, the Greeks had already worked out the idea that the world was a sphere by the third century bc.  What was the entity that rejected that wisdom, apparently because the source was pagan in nature?  The church.  And they rejected it through theological ideas, which is why I find it a bit silly to refer to these guys as "scientists."

It's not about winning or losing, it's about getting to the truth.  For the record, you are saying "scientist" now, the same way I was from the beginning.  Use of the quotes (at least for me) means that you are being sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek, or are being 'generally kind'  - as I was when I first made the statement - go back and see for yourself.  At the time, they were "scientists" - I never said they were good ones, just that they were.  Until the time of universities, there were a lot of "scientist", a term typically bestowed; not always earned.  Also, let's not forget that I never dated the Flat Earth discussion - I just offered evidence that the theory predated religion and that the religions upheld it - even in the face of its thorough debunking.  I've been consistent and clear on the subject - and remained on topic.

The same early Christianity that these guys were part of also went around destroying pagan temples and are credited with playing the biggest role in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all because they believed it to be sinful to build on pagan wisdom.  That certainly isn't science, it's stupidity.

No doubt.  Christians have more blood on their hands than the Muslims do; they were pigs.

Well, I'll admit I was wrong right now.  In the topic in other forum, "Science, the Bible & Evolution," the topic of the flat earth came up earlier.  As I remember, I had taken the  viewpoint that all the world had believed in a flat earth (per Christian theology) at the age of Columbus. That's a common myth we all learn back in grade school. Turns out, that was a minority viewpoint, and that most of the world already believed the world was round, they just didn't know how big it was.

Great - I'm glad we're all together now.  Let's get back to where we were going...





« Last Edit: March 15, 2007, 10:33:15 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Essan
Full Member
***
Posts: 29



WWW
« Reply #91 on: March 15, 2007, 09:15:13 am »


Essan, I agree the population expansion is a problem, too, but it has nothing to do with rising temps.  The sad truth is that rising temps will bring flooded coastlines, and more people are bound to die, regardless of how many there are - a lot of the major cities are built by the coastlines.

That depends on whether rising temps are due to carbon emissions: carbon emissions are increasing directly as a result of population increase.  Less people = less energy requirement = less burning of fossil fuels.

Of course, it's far to late to do anything about it now.   But unless we decide the Chinese can't have electricity, the simple fact is that carbon emission will continue to rise by a considerable amount whatever we in the west decide to do ....  Of course, China has other problems due to its massive population (more people in China today than in the entire world in 1900): food and water.   And to provide food they need to cut down the forests to grow more rice ..... which in turn produces more methane ....

Report Spam   Logged

Andy
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #92 on: March 15, 2007, 11:25:08 am »

Interesting answer, Merlin, I do disagree that the use of emotion is a sign that global warming proponents are weak on the facts.  The facts and evidence (anecdotal though some of it may be) is enough to convince the vast majority of the scientific community out there.  I would like to get into the specifics now of what would be needed to convince the remaining dissenters. 

If you had one specific thing you could point to that you would say would make an airtight case for global warming (by humans), what would it be?

Essan, I would also like an answer from you concerning this question as well, if you don't mind:

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?

I would also like to refer that question to anyone else who comes to this thread that takes issue with the general overall scientific consensus on this issue, with the more specific the answer, the better.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #93 on: March 15, 2007, 01:20:03 pm »

Jason - I don't know whether or not you have picked up on this from past forums, but, I am an environmentally minded guy.  I preach conservation and stewardship nearly religiously.  So, although I take issue with GW & GCC as offered, I am not at all against the idea that we are pooping in our own bed.  Just wanted that on record with you.


Essan, I agree the population expansion is a problem, too, but it has nothing to do with rising temps.  The sad truth is that rising temps will bring flooded coastlines, and more people are bound to die, regardless of how many there are - a lot of the major cities are built by the coastlines.

I have to agree with Essan here for a handful of reasons, although I do not discount what you say; not in the slightest.  I wish the GW/GCC experts would make a bigger deal about global population growth and "sprawl".

-  First, I still haven't seen specific data proving any link between carbon and regional temp increase; much less global. 
-  Next, it is a little discussed reality that population expansion is actually at the heart of global increases in "greenhouse gases".   People do not bother to consider the repercussions of their actions in most cases, and the more it occurs, the more complex the problems become.  Unfortunately, as "Complexity" grows, interest in solving the problem decreases.  It's the old, "What can I do" problem.  Here's what I mean:

  • Deforestation occurs for a number of reasons (not just profit taking), most notably to keep up with demand for lumber and cellulose products.  But also to make way for new projects:  housing, industry, roadways
  • Deforestation decreases the region's ability to filter carbon compounds from the air.  Increased carbon content is predicted (current models) to increase the total precipitation, resulting in higher humidity on already hot days.  This causes people to run their A/C even more, sit in idling cars longer - both of which only increase carbon output.  It becomes a perpetual motion machine.
  • Deforestation allows increased amounts of soil to be washed into basins, heads and lowlands, thereby causing an increase in methane release.
  • Higher concentrations of methane has been shown to alter the normal flow of weather (due to density differences), and radically promote the formation of precipitation laden depressions; thereby causing an increase in run-off.  This creates a "mini-loop" that continues until something else (cold air mass) comes along an interrupts it.

On an individual level, most "citizens" cannot control a large enough piece to see results, therefore, many quit trying.

There's an easy way to avoid the power consumption issue - put nuke plants in.  Also, mandate that all new construction (homes & businesses) meet strict energy consumption guidlines by installing "alternate energy equipment" (solar & radiant systems), and force 'brown-outs' in individual properties where consumption exceeds limitations.  Of course, we could always tell China and India that they cannot expand into the 21st century without "knocking and equal number of folks" back into the 19th. 

Stewardship - that's what we need.  We need someone willing to tell people that they are doing it to themselves - but not in an abstract "GW/GCC way".  It needs to be done in a real - in your face - manner, and the issue of global population growth and "consumption" cannot be danced around. 

Everytime we abandon an old neighborhood, industrial facility, hospital, office building or strip mall so that we can clear-cut a forest in order to install a brand new structure - we hurt ourselves.  At the very least, force the developers of new land rehabilitate an equal amount of old & dilapidated land somewhere else.  MAKE IT THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.  In most of the western world, we avoid density increases in habitation, instead, creating massive "urban sprawl".  Maybe we could all take a page from the Japanese and begin increasing density instead of area.  We over-harvest our rivers, lakes & streams of water so that we can spread it on our ever-increasing fields for farming and grazing, so that our bacteria and organic levels soar in the headways and basins - driving methan e production to increasing levels....  Just a few examples of how "stewardship", good planning, and a little investigation could turn-the-tide against Global environmental issues as a whole.

As for carbon - I just haven't seen the evidence, it all seems to be anecdotal in light of the many other "obvious" contributors.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #94 on: March 15, 2007, 01:36:40 pm »

Interesting answer, Merlin, I do disagree that the use of emotion is a sign that global warming proponents are weak on the facts.  The facts and evidence (anecdotal though some of it may be) is enough to convince the vast majority of the scientific community out there.  I would like to get into the specifics now of what would be needed to convince the remaining dissenters. 

I guess I should have picked my words a little better.  After re-reading it, it comes off sounding a little askew of what I intended.  What I was really trying to say is, "I have found, in the past, that research that is incomplete and/or inconclusive will generally allow for the inclusion of materials "other than research related items"; particularly when that research creates an emotional connection with those working on it.  This can include, marketing programs and advertising intended to drum up interest that could not otherwsie be developed.  I see that emotion plays a very large part in this debate and it obscures the deficiencies in evidence that exist.  Even scientists are not immune to emotional issues.

If you had one specific thing you could point to that you would say would make an airtight case for global warming (by humans), what would it be?

It's a toss - up between the top two I named last evening:

1)  An actual correlation of direct pollution in the form of carbon (all other pollutants removed) to area temperature.  Where a direct correlation of total precipitation in areas of increased carbon, correcting for any other potential contributors such as: de-forestation, increased particulate material influx, increased industrial activity (aside from carbon contributions), increased volcanic activity and natural phenomenas like methane and CO2 release. 

2)  A matrix of evidence linking GW to GCC, such as: A detailed satellite map showing an increase in carbon content regionally, an increase in surface and atmospheric temperature, and an increase or decrease  or variability in regional precipitation.  ALL OCCURING IN THE SAME REGION.  Or, A model that shows an average (nominally stated) increase in carbon in the atmosphere, subtracting  all naturally occuring chemicals and activities, where weather patterns change, climates increase and precipitation deviates from a thousand year norm. Or, A graph showing all GW/GCC retrodictions plotted against the exact same analyses (chemical comp, humidity, precip., & temp.) from ice-core, tree ring and geologic - showing an ACTUAL CHANGE in activity over the past 5,000 years.

I would probably lean more toward item #2 if I were compiling a wish list, but I would definitely take notice if someone could manage any of #1.


Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Essan
Full Member
***
Posts: 29



WWW
« Reply #95 on: March 17, 2007, 07:12:53 am »


Essan, I would also like an answer from you concerning this question as well, if you don't mind:

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?


I'd like to see every possible other cause - big and small - eliminated as a possibility Wink   When everything has been eliminated, and only carbon emissions are left, then I will accept that carbon emissions alone are responsible for current climate change.

But my point isn't that human activity isn't causing climate change.  It's than carbon emissions are not the be all and end of of it - as is currently the popular perception.  There are many other ways in which humans impact on the climate.  there are also many natural cycles that impact on the climate. 

I also say that reducing our carbon emissions in the UK  will make no difference since our contribution compared with that of other countries is negligible.  However, most of the suggestions for cutting emissions are sensible for other reasons (removing reliance on Russia for gas, reducing energy costs etc)

I basically sit in the middle with my own views which don't quite make me a 'believer' nor a 'sceptic' - so sometimes I find myself disagreeing with both sides!  Cheesy


(btw I am, for the record, in daily correspondence with a number of climate scientists and include some professional meteorologists amongst my circle of friends)
Report Spam   Logged

Andy
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2007, 11:06:10 am »

I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning regarding Al's movie.  I want people to know that I'm posting it not because I'm a skeptic, but because it comes from a different angle and someone who ISN'T me.  It was thought-provoking and it displayed a level of professionalism not typical of NPR.  Anyway, here is the story.

Environment
Gore on Climate Change: Scientists Respond
by Renee Montagne and Richard Harris
Morning Edition, March 21, 2007


Lead in quote from Paramount Classics :
"Former Vice President Al Gore has claimed the national spotlight as a champion for climate change issues. Though many scientists appreciate his efforts to raise awareness of global warming, some take issue with his data and conclusions."

Former Vice President Al Gore goes to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify on climate change before a joint meeting of two house committees. Gore has championed the issue of global warming for decades; he has books and an Oscar-winning documentary to his credit.

Now that he is firmly in the spotlight on this issue, so are his detractors. They include some scientists who are concerned about climate change, but have raised questions about Al Gore's data and some of his conclusions. NPR's Science Correspondent Richard Harris spoke with Renee Montagne to help sort through some of the questions.

Would you say that Al Gore – given all of his history with this subject – is a credible voice on global climate change?

Gore is a lay person, he is not a scientist, and he's careful to say that. But that said, he does get the big picture very well. Most scientists say he really can see the forest for the trees.

Human activities are contributing to climate change, those changes will become more pronounced as the time goes on, and it is possible that those changes could be severe. But that said, scientists do quibble a little bit about some of the facts that he draws to make those arguments.

Can you give us some examples of some of the concerns that scientists have?

I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously.

But after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right."

Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. There are certainly scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise.

There are also questions about Al Gore's estimates as to how much the sea levels will rise.

Yes, in fact, in his documentary he talks about what the world will look like – Florida and New York – when the sea level rises by 20 feet. But he deftly avoids mentioning the time frame for which that might happen. When you look at the forecast of sea-level rise, no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least. So that's another thing that makes scientists a little bit uneasy; true, we have to be worried about global sea-level rise, but it's probably not going to happen as fast as Gore implies in his movie.

One other dramatic moment in the film has to do with Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed. Gore implies – he never says, but he implies – that Katrina was due to human-induced global warming. And I think if a scientist were to talk about this, most scientists would say, "These are the kinds of things that we expect to see more of as a result of global warming," but people are careful not to attribute specific storms or events to global warming.

Again, Gore doesn't do that exactly, but he sort of leaves the impression, and it's a very lawyerly way he does this. If you actually read it word for word, you can't say, "This he said wrong." But he leaves the impression that Katrina was [a result of] global warming and I think scientists don't go that far.

Is this partly cultural in the sense that, by nature and by profession, scientists care about all of the details?

I think it's partly cultural, and I think that in that sense, Al Gore is very well attuned to the culture of Washington, D.C. The culture of Washington, D.C. is: "Don't do anything unless there is a crisis." And that's been the problem with global warming for all these years: It's something serious to be worried about – the worst case scenarios are pretty scary – but Al Gore has realized that if you want to get attention, you really have to focus on the crisis. You have to make people worry about things maybe a little bit more than scientists would say.

Is there some element of – if you will – professional jealousy here?

Among the scientists? No. I think the scientists are actually pretty grateful by and large that Gore has succeeded in bringing their issue to the public's attention. But scientists do care very much about how precise the details are. And when it's not exactly right, they bristle a little bit. But, [that's] the difference between a popularizer, like Gore, and scientists, for whom the details really are what's most important.



** From here on out is completely my commentary - not to be confused with the article. **

What's disheartening is that everyone who questioned his methods, data and overall science were labeled as detractors and skeptics...  If you actually read what [the scientists] said - you would see that all they were skeptical of was his delivery and the picture he painted.  As a "popularizer", he gets to play fast and loose with the facts - We get it, he's an "Ad Man" in that sense.  We've all 'been there, done that' in order to get attention drawn to something we feel strongly about.  Having said that though, you have to take into account the reality that he bounces back and forth between portraying only the 'worst-case scenario', and acting as a lawyer who treads a fine line between truth and lying by ommission.  I'm not here to litigate Al's trustworthiness or track record for accuracy - I gave that up in the other thread, but history has recorded that Al has, on more than a handful of occurances, 'skirted the truth' and has earned a reputation for speaking in legal-ese that does not do the truth justice.  Politicians and Marketing companies have done this for eons - it ain't new.

That was the point that most of us [scientists] were trying to make with Al's movie - "It's as much entertainment as it is one possible future (hundreds of years away in some cases) - and there is no science in that movie that bears the moniker of actual research.  It's an infomercial".


I, for one, am happy that there has been a resurgence in environmental attention.  If nothing else, we might actually slow our overall pollution down in the haste to do away with all things carbon.  Ultimately, we might even spend a couple of bucks on researching alternative modes of transport and energy.  Research is always a good thing whereas standing on one's laurels never is.  Fossil fuel is so last year - I'm ready for the day when Detroit needs High-E physicists!




« Last Edit: March 21, 2007, 11:09:01 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #97 on: March 22, 2007, 07:10:31 am »

Republicans frosty on Gore's global warming warnings
POSTED: 1:47 a.m. EDT, March 22, 2007


Story Highlights• Al Gore calls global warming a moral issue, not a political issue
• Rep. Joe Barton: "You're not just off a little; you're totally wrong"
• Gore reveals nothing about whether he'll join the 2008 presidential race
• Frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton says Gore's proposals "extremely intriguing"




WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore made an emotional return to Congress Wednesday to plead with lawmakers to fight global warming with moral courage, while Gore revealed nothing about whether he'll join the 2008 presidential race.

The former vice president is a Democratic favorite for the presidential nomination even though he says he's not running.

Fresh off a triumphant Hollywood appearance in which his climate-change documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," won two Oscars, Gore drew overflow crowds as he testified before House and Senate panels about a "true planetary emergency." (Watch Gore compare the planet to a baby with a fever )

He said the issue should not be partisan or political, but Gore faced skeptical Republicans who questioned his personal commitment to reducing energy usage and the science behind his film.

"You're not just off a little; you're totally wrong," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as he challenged Gore's conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures.

Barton and Gore's exchange grew testy at one point -- Barton demanding that Gore get to the point and Gore responding that he would like time to answer without being interrupted.

"Global warming science is uneven and evolving," Barton said. (Watch how seeds of doubt have been planted )

Gore insisted that the link is beyond dispute and is the source of broad agreement in the scientific community.

"The planet has a fever," Gore said. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."

Gore's congressional testimony marked the first time he had been to Capitol Hill since January 2001, when he was the defeated Democratic presidential nominee still presiding over the Senate in his role as vice president.

It comes 20 years after Gore, then a congressman from Tennessee, held the first hearings in Congress on global warming.

It also brought him face-to-face with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who could have her front-runner status threatened if Gore decided to challenge her for the party nomination. But there were no political fireworks between them at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. (Interactive: View one poll's results)

Clinton said she found some of Gore's ideas "extremely intriguing" and asked for more details on proposals such as a carbon-based tax, a cap-and-trade system and a carbon neutral mortgage association.

In a day of testimony, Gore first appeared before a joint hearing by two House committees, with his wife, Tipper, sitting behind him and a stack of boxes beside him containing hundreds of thousands of messages asking Congress to act on global warming.

Chilly exchanges
Later, he testified before the Senate panel where partisan bickering grew even louder.

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has labeled global warming a hoax, complained that the Democratic leadership gave Gore extra time and advantages not afforded typical witnesses.

Inhofe then grilled Gore about his personal energy use at his Tennessee mansion and showed the final frame of Gore's film that read, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" (Read more about Gore's Oscar-night speech)

When Gore tried to respond at length, Inhofe cut him off.

Democratic Chairwoman Barbara Boxer kept trying to bring order to the hearing. She told Inhofe he can't control things anymore now that Republicans have lost their majority.

"Elections have consequences, so I make the rules," she said, holding up her gavel to cheers from the audience.

Gore sighed heavily and proposed that he and Inhofe have breakfast and privately discuss it away from the cameras.

Kyoto protocol 'demonized'
Gore said he hopes whoever is elected president in 2008 "can use his or her political chips" to lead the world toward a new global climate treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol that requires 35 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gases.

The Bush administration argues Kyoto would hurt the U.S. economy and objects that high-polluting developing nations like China and India are not required to reduce emissions.

"I fully understand that Kyoto, as a brand, if you will, has been demonized," Gore said.

Gore was warmly welcomed back by some of his critics, such as Rep. Ralph Hall, a Texas Republican who remembered serving with Gore's father and bantered with Gore about an evening boat ride they took together.

"You're dear to us, but I just don't agree with you on this," Hall said.

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avoid a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.

He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information.

"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis," Gore said. "Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/gore.ap/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #98 on: March 22, 2007, 07:14:19 am »

Typical Republican tactics!

First, they whine because they didn't get enough advanced notice that Gore was going to testify, then when he gets up there, jerks like Bg Oil **** Daniel Imhofe won't allow him to answer any of the questions put to him.

So glad that Barbara Boxer put him in his place!

Global warming is real, it IS a moral issue, and we have to do something about it. 

The Republican response to it..?  As always, ignore it and attack the messenger!  Pathetic!

Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #99 on: March 22, 2007, 07:35:38 pm »

I think Barton and Inhofe acted foolishly too, however, the article doesn't portray the discussion quite as it occurred.  I had the good fortune to catch it on TV, and it's real easy to say that this article is one possible opinion of the media circus that the democrats put on.  I thought it was pretty interesting when the CNN commentator said:  "Al gore was in washington today - preaching his gospel of global warming to the already converted.  Gore knew his audience, but there were a few non-believers..."  Yes - that's right, he was an invited guest; invited to stir the emotional pot some more.

Anyway, I would not call what Barton and Inhofe did "Typical Republican Tactics" - particularly from reading this article.  I personally enjoyed the interchange between Barton and Gore early on.  Barton kept asking specific questions and Gore would meander for minutes at a time, speaking from what only could be described as a script, and Barton got tired of it.  I have to admit - I was tired of it too.  Many of his answers were so long-winded and unresponsive to the question asked, I was beginning to think that he [Al] had a hearing problem.  Then I realized (as Barton must have) that Al couldn't answer the question - because he didn't know.  While I was watching it I was given to the image of someone trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.  Al was being evasive as heck and speaking in "legalese".  It was kind of funny to watch Barb Boxer come to Al's rescue a few times.  I thought Barton made a fair case, asked fair answers and only became frustrated because Al proved he didn't understand the science well enough to answer unscripted questions.  Once Barton revealed that, I think it was just in poor taste for him [Barton] to make an attempt to charge after him for a "death blow."  That was just un-professional.

Even though I think Inhofe is a sneaky bastard, I didn't see that he was "out-of-line" with his questions or comments; particularly the ones where he highlighted the fact that Al shouldn't have expected this to be a mutual admiration society meeting.  I didn't think he was "out-of-order" by commenting that the panel had afforded him priviledges that no other witnesses had received either - the facts stood on their own; former V.P. or not.  I also thought that, in this panel meeting, he [Inhofe] was very moderate with his wording.  The first comment that sent Boxer into a frenzy was:  James Inhofe"My perspective has been, that some of the statements you have made have some inaccuracies or are misleading."   Seems tame to me, considering the way the article portrayed him.  The next was the overhead graphic listing a very large sampling of scientists that do not support the "Standard GW Model", and was entitled - "Is There Really A Consensus?".  Yes - Barbie Boxer hit the roof again...  The last time was when Al was questioned as to how he can justify "preaching," when he himself is a huge carbon consumer.  The whole idea of being carbon-neutral because he can afford to buy more carbon credits than most others in the country, particularly when the "credits" are voluntary and subjective, rings hollow with most of us who are REAL CONSERVATIONISTS - eliminating pulltuion from our lives.

I don't like either Barton or Inhofe, I think they're both angry men with as little science to support their contentions as Al has, but the perspective of the article's author was clearly biased and hardly reflects what actually took place in the hearing room.  In the future, it would be nice to see Al stand on his own two feet in a debate that isn't 90% populated by his supporters and without the "moderator" ready - willinging and able to rescue him (from himself).
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #100 on: March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm »

Quote
I personally enjoyed the interchange between Barton and Gore early on.  Barton kept asking specific questions and Gore would meander for minutes at a time, speaking from what only could be described as a script, and Barton got tired of it.  I have to admit - I was tired of it too.  Many of his answers were so long-winded and unresponsive to the question asked, I was beginning to think that he [Al] had a hearing problem.  Then I realized (as Barton must have) that Al couldn't answer the question - because he didn't know.  While I was watching it I was given to the image of someone trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.  Al was being evasive as heck and speaking in "legalese".  It was kind of funny to watch Barb Boxer come to Al's rescue a few times. 


Merlin,

what a load of bull!!
Boxer came to Al's rescue simply because he couldn't answer the question??  How about, they wouldn't let him answer the question, nothing more.  Long-winded?  Sure, that's Gore!  They wanted yes and no answers to complex questions.  Point is, neither of these guys even wanted the answers to the questions, they just wanted to look good on TV, which they didn't.  Imhofe finally had his first big shot at Gore and was completely embarrassed on TV and Barton came across as a simply another global warming denier.

You know, even Joe Lieberman and John MCcain believe in global warming and even co-sponsored legislation on it.

I know you have a dislike of Gore, but it amazes me how two people can see the same thing so differently.  Gore was studied and detailed on his testimony, and always polite. Many of his Republican questioners, on the other hand, came across as argumentative, petty, and a joke.  They will be playing that exchange between Imhofe and Boxer for years, for instance.  It was like a kid being taken to the woodshed, people even cheered and applaused when it happened. 

I'd also like to add that if she would have hit him in the head with the gavel, he would have deserved it.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #101 on: March 23, 2007, 03:39:12 pm »

Long-winded?  Sure, that's Gore!  They wanted yes and no answers to complex questions.  Point is, neither of these guys even wanted the answers to the questions, they just wanted to look good on TV, which they didn't.  Imhofe finally had his first big shot at Gore and was completely embarrassed on TV and Barton came across as a simply another global warming denier.

The fact that Boxer came to Al's resuce made him look pathetic and Boxer look petty.  Inhofe, if you remember, was laughing as well.  The difference is, he wasn't in a room full of supporters like she was.  So, of the two of them - she was smiling because she finally had a chance to look tough on TV, and he was smiling because she squandered the opportunity by looking petty. 

You know, even Joe Lieberman and John MCcain believe in global warming and even co-sponsored legislation on it.

They are both conservatives - so that must mean.......  What exactly?   I have no idea why you made this comment in the middles of your thought process.

I know you have a dislike of Gore, but it amazes me how two people can see the same thing so differently. 

** ASSERTION ALERT **
Actually, I don't have any feelings either way for him.  He's like any other "celebrity personality" as far as I'm concerned.  Just like Sean Penn, The Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon and her wife Tim Robbins - they attempt to trade on their "popularity" as if it is some form of credibility.  That's what Al's doing.

You're right though...  If you have watched the whole event - begining to end, then the two of us have completely different opinions of what transpired.  If however, you only watched the soundbites on CNN, you missed what I spoke of and you really cannot comment.  It just so happens that I had a relative covering that event who also shared my opinion - so I feel vindicated.


Gore was studied and detailed on his testimony, and always polite. Many of his Republican questioners, on the other hand, came across as argumentative, petty, and a joke. 

Of course, it could also be said that Gore was measured, unresponsive and evasive to the simply put - easy to answer questions that he did not, or could not answer honestly, on TV, without contradicting previous statements.  I was hearkened back to the days of him as a senator, dodging questions like a bumblebee in rush hour traffic.  His lawter-speak was pretty telling, unless of course, you were a staunch supporter and believe everything he says; bar none.  You say tomato - I say...

They will be playing that exchange between Imhofe and Boxer for years, for instance.  It was like a kid being taken to the woodshed, people even cheered and applaused when it happened. 

In some opinions, yes, maybe it did look that way.  In others, she looked like an abused child taking her anger out on a pet (that was the one reference I heard this morning on the radio that rang true with me - some others were just awful).   I doubt they'll be playing it much longer once the whole transcript makes the rounds of the papers.  The "soundbites" on the news don't really paint the picture of how petty she was being, but the transcript does.  The transcripts also tell the tale of just how much time Al spent hiding behind the hem of her skirt.

I'd also like to add that if she would have hit him in the head with the gavel, he would have deserved it.

That would have made the abused child analogy a lot more clearly I suppose, but resorting to violence never helps solve anything in a debate.  It's a sign of a weak mind to become violent when you aren't getting your way.

It really wasn't my intent to get off the subject of The Inconvenient Truth - any comments on the "Gore on Climate Change: Scientists Respond" article?  If I remember correctly, it was you who said that I was THE ONLY SCIENTIST in the world that disagreed with Albert, or that GW hasn't been proven to be man-made...  By my count, the "skeptics" are numbering in the thousands now.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 12:22:09 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #102 on: March 27, 2007, 03:04:30 pm »

Report: World's greatest rivers in danger
POSTED: 10:21 a.m. EDT, March 20, 2007


Story Highlights

• Pollution, global warming and development are threatening rivers, report says
• About 20 percent of freshwater fish, plant species are extinct or endangered
• Report calls on governments to radically step up efforts to preserve rivers
• Pollution near Yangtze River has increased more than 70 percent in past 50 years



The Danube has lost 80 percent of its surrounding wetlands and flood plains because of dams, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature.

GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The Yangtze River gets more than half of China's industrial waste and sewage. Europe's Danube has lost most of its surrounding wetlands. And the Rio Grande has become so shallow that salt water is seeping in, bringing ocean fish that threaten freshwater species.

Pollution, global warming and rampant development could destroy some of the world's most iconic rivers in the coming decades, threatening to wipe out thousands of fish species and cause severe water shortages, the World Wide Fund for Nature said in a report Tuesday.

Only 21 of the planet's 177 longest rivers run freely from source to sea, with dams and other construction destroying the habitats for migratory fish and other species by altering the water's natural ebb and flow, the WWF said.

About a fifth of the world's 10,000 freshwater fish and plant species are either extinct or endangered, the report said, calling on governments to radically step up efforts to preserve rivers, lakes and wetlands.

"Unabated development is jeopardizing nature's ability to meet our growing demands," said Jamie Pittock, who heads WWF's freshwater program.

The report focused on some of the world's most important rivers: the Nile, the Danube, the Rio Grande, South America's La Plata, Australia's Murray-Darling and Asia's Yangtze, Mekong, Salween, and Ganges rivers.

The Danube -- home to more than half of Europe's fish species -- has lost 80 percent of its surrounding wetlands and flood plains because of dams, the report said.

Construction to ease shipping channels -- dredging, pumping water or straightening banks -- also threaten animals and plants in the river, which runs from Germany to the Black Sea, WWF said. Less than 7 percent of its basin is protected.

In China, pollution in the main stem of the Yangtze River has increased by more than 70 percent over the last 50 years. Almost half of the country's industrial waste and sewage is discharged in the river, the report said.

Garbage heaps, pig waste and discharge from factories, hospitals and mines -- possibly including radioactive waste -- lie at the bottom of the reservoir at the Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydroelectric project, the WFF said.

In the Rio Grande, low water levels have allowed salt water to enter and ocean species to crowd out freshwater fish. Excessive extraction, primarily for agriculture, is threatening the river, which flows along the U.S.-Mexican border.

At the same time, rising populations along both sides of the river need more and more water, increasing pressure on the 69 fish species found only in the Rio Grande, the WWF said.

Global warming is threatening fish populations in Africa, where even small temperature changes can dramatically alter water levels and fish productivity, the report said. The Nile, the world's longest river, is expected to reach a critically low level by 2025, threatening a source of drinking water for thousands of years.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Report Spam   Logged
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #103 on: March 27, 2007, 03:06:47 pm »

Study: Global warming may create 'novel' climates
POSTED: 11:25 a.m. EDT, March 27, 2007




Story Highlights• Study: Global warming may destroy some climates and create new ones
• Rain forests could face unexpected changes, species may struggle to adapt
• Current climates in the Peruvian and Colombian Andes may disappear





WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet continues to warm, a study says.

Such changes would endanger some plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.

Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists, reported in February that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes, particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams' researchers concluded.

This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the tropics tend to have little variation in weather.

But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a region that is accustomed to regular changes.

Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said, adding that that is speculative and needs further study.

Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula may also be affected, the researchers said.

And they said mountain areas such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing altogether.

That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all -- rather their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas would not occur elsewhere on Earth.

That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams observed.

If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said. "But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current experience and outside the experience of these species."

Alan Robock, a professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers University welcomed the report, calling it the first he has seen "that not only looks at species extinctions, but also looks at regions where novel climates will appear."

"While the idea of novel climates may seem like a positive consequence of humans using the atmosphere as a sewer and causing rapid, unprecedented climate change, I would argue that mitigation of our pollution should be an even stronger reaction to these results," said Robock, who was not part of the research team.

"The potential consequences and how these new regimes will be populated are poorly known, and the potential for new threats to humans through disease vectors could be a real danger," he said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/26/climate.change.ap/index.html
Report Spam   Logged
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #104 on: March 27, 2007, 03:12:13 pm »

Quote
The fact that Boxer came to Al's resuce made him look pathetic and Boxer look petty.  Inhofe, if you remember, was laughing as well.  The difference is, he wasn't in a room full of supporters like she was.  So, of the two of them - she was smiling because she finally had a chance to look tough on TV, and he was smiling because she squandered the opportunity by looking petty. 


You must have been watching that debate with your heart and not your mind, Merlin.  I don't know anyone else who saw that characterized it in the same way.  Boxer came to Gore's rescue?  Well, in order for someone to come to another's rescue, they would, by definition, first have to be in some kind of trouble first. 

The only trouble that Gore managed to get himself in was that he was asked a question that his questioners would not give him time to answer.

Apart from the typical petty commentators in the conservative press, Boxer got good reviews for it. Imhofe, by still pretending he was the one who was the head of the committee, was the one who came across as petty and unfair.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy