Apparently not ALL scientists agree with Gore

[MobBoss]

Interesting article on the great global warming debate. This time from a braniac from MIT: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

A quick snippet:

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

Ouch.

 

[pboily]

There was another "interesting" sentence at the end of the article:

"Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."

What I wouldn't give for the "if it's said often enough, it must be true" approach to disappear from Western Politics...

 

[skadistic]

Surely them there "scientist" were bought and payed for by Bush and the neo-con christian right.

 

[Cuivienen]

His arguments, as are in the bold, are a complete joke.

"The Arctic was a warm or warmer in the 1940s" -- Yes, but in the overall scheme of things, it has been warming since the late 1800s.

"Icebergs have been known since time immemorial" -- Well, yes, and Al Gore did nothing to suggest otherwise. (This, kids, is what is known as a "straw man".) However, increases in the number of icebergs, and, more importantly, the size of icebergs, are of serious concern, something completely unaddressed by this statement.

"Evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is growing on average" -- Evidence apparently too ephemeral to cite, or to elaborate upon. Or perhaps he misunderstands "thinning and spreading wider" as "growing".

(Just to clarify: Greenland's ice sheet will shrink and the Antarctic's will expand, approximately balancing each other out. The latter is because warming will have no appreciable effect on bringing Antarctica's temperatures closer to the melting point of water, but will cause more moisture to be carried by the warmer air and deposited as snow. The former is obvious.)

 

[Kozmos]

Ice sheets are predicted to grow as an result of global warming. What a tard of a scientist.

 

[pboily]

Come now, let us not play games: disagreeing scientists make science (and progress) move forward.

People using these disagreements as a "proof" that a given position is hogwash (think Evolution vs. Creationism/Global Warming vs. Global Warning/etc...) are to blame for missing the point entirely. In this episode, you can blame the Gore camp for making it an all-or-nothing proposition (such as: every scientist agrees that Global Warming is a reality), and you can ask yourself why he has to stoop to this tactic.

1. He's a flat out liar: well, no. Not every scientist believes in Global Warming, but there is enough evidence floating around for some (between 30-80%, say) scientists to concede some degree of anthropomorphic climate change.

2. We're suckers for certainty: take me, for instance. It would take numerous studies showing without the shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as anthropomorphic climate change for me to accept that notion, simply because I already believe in the certainty of anthropomorphic climate change. I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the sweeping generalization that, conversely, if I was already certain that global warming was a fraudulent theory (advanced by commie-loving enemies of capitalism seeking to weaken us, say), anything less than a complete consensus would get laughed out of my consciousness in less time than it takes for Michael Jackson to get out of his pants at a Boy Scout sleepover. In order to get a point accross or to save his behind from a well-deserved spanking, the wily politician stretches the truth (I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With This Woman, Mission Accomplished, All Scientists Know There is Global Warming, The Vietnamese Attacked Us First, etc...)

[As an aside, that's why the WMD issue (or any other polarizing issue) is really irrelevant: those who support the war won't change their mind if WMDs are never found, those who oppose it won't change their mind if they are found.]

Expecting a complete consensus from scientists is as silly as asking for a 100% majority in order to elect a Head of State. It would be nice, but we're not going to lose sleep over it if we win with less than a Stalin-like victory. For instance, GOP supporters surely didn't mind a 55% plurality when it got their boy the top spot, and they have no problem with him making decisions that affect 100% of the nation (neither should they, after all he's the head of state)... but apparently, not every republican agrees with the President.

================

Now, as long as we have hippies and/or fundamentalists running our schools, nothing is going to change. And that sure as hell ain't about to change anytime soon.

As unrelated as it may sound, the Social and Economical Libertarians never looked so appealing.

 

[puglover]

Surely them there "scientist" were bought and payed for by Bush and the neo-con christian right.

 

[MobBoss]

Ice sheets are predicted to grow as an result of global warming. What a tard of a scientist.

Rofl the guy is a professor at MIT. He most likely knows more in his pinky toe than you will ever comprehend.

 

[MobBoss]

2. We're suckers for certainty

Apparently, we are even bigger suckers for alarmism. The old iminent "end of the world" story will always cause people to gasp and (a certain number) readily believe whatever sounds good (or bad rather).

I guess people love to think the end is coming and things just suck all over.

 

[sysyphus]

Or some other people just want to bury their heads in the sand about a real problem so as they do not have to make adjustments to their lifestyle.

 

[MobBoss]

Or some other people just want to bury their heads in the sand about a real problem so as they do not have to make adjustments to their lifestyle.

Well, apparently, whether it is a "real" problem is still very much up to debate. Perhaps a spokesman other than Al Gore would help? Because in my humble opinion, he only comes off doing this as a politician, not as some well-meaning messenger.

Plus I also disagree that people have not made adjustments to their lifestyle. Isnt the air quality in LA a lot better than say, the mid 60s through 80s? People are more than happy to make some adjustments, but they can also see through the false picture being drawn that the world is going to end in a very short time.

 

[batteryacid]

@ Mobboss
I heard a plenary lecture this year at the ASMS in Seattle
It was made by the research leader from the NASA concerning Sattelite measurements, and their interpretation concerning water temerapture, sea level height temperatures, Thickness of Ice, movement of glaciers etc. and ALL DATA shows the loss of Groenland ice, warming of the sea, etc. - change in weather cannot longer be denied (e.g. The loss of glaciers in the alps is now a question of one or two decades now, the increase of Hurricans in Florida, the increasing and no longer regularity of "El Nino" years etc.)

The disagreement of the scientific community concerning global warming is not, if it taking place, but how far it will go - especially concerning some positive feedback mechanisms concerning Methane and CO2 soluted in water, Methane production through microbiological discomposure of biomass when the permafrost regions will get too warm, and the indirect aerosol effect (means the forming of clouds through aerosol production), which can have a huge positive and negative effect depending on which sort of clouds will increase and how their droplet size distribution will be.

 

[.Shane.]

What I don't understand is this, why are people so driven to try and discredit it?

In that, I'm not too versed in the subject, but I think common sense tells you that you just don't suddenly (and 200 years is "sudden" in the history of the earth) start pumping tons and tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and NOT expect something to happen.

TBH, I don't care if that something is "global warming" or "partially hydrogonated yak hearts", but I find the lack of alternate thesis by the attackers to be stultifying.

 

[Lotus49]

There is no such thing as global warming. Mt. Kilimanjaro's snow cap is not melting away. And this chart is merely leftist trickery.

I don't know what's so hard to understand. If you pollute a bunch of hydrocarbon exhaust into the atmosphere, on such a large scale (how much oil does the USA use? And now China? India?), how can you think it won't have some kind of affect? The mere fact that there is a hole in the ozone should indicate that human industrial products can affect the planet's atmosphere.

How can it not be common sense? How? Industry creates pollution... and pollution affects the atmosphere. Even a guy like me that's never set foot in college can grasp that pretty easily.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Apparently, we are even bigger suckers for alarmism.

is this not a tad ironic with regards to WMD's?

Anyway, even if what you say is true, you still have to convince people with debate, not OMG your DUMB! Or otherwise insulting them *ahem*

 

[blargh]

Another view:

Abstract
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Summary​

World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.​

LINKY (VERY LONG)

 

[Rik Meleet]

Rofl the guy is a professor at MIT. He most likely knows more in his pinky toe than you will ever comprehend.

A well-known trap to fall into. This guy may be a professor at MIT - if he states that 1+1 equals 9 he is clearly wrong in that. Vice versa: someone who has never told a truth in his life, claiming that 1+1=2 is right.
This MIT professor could be right about global-warming not existing, but his job is not a backing.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was mowing the other day, and thought about all the irrigation we're doing. We're pumping water out of the water-table faster than it's being returned. And we're pumping it to where we let it evaporate (crops).

Since evaporated water is a greenhouse gas, and our irrigation has increased ... I wonder if water could be blamed instead.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Just as a remark: the term global warming is since some years replaced with global climate change, as it fits better to what is happening. The actual, local effects on weather caused by an increasing abundance of greenhouse gases (and there is no doubt that this is caused by humans) includes cooler weather or more snow/rain besides warmer temperatures.

 

[sysyphus]

Well, apparently, whether it is a "real" problem is still very much up to debate.

It is pretty obvious it's a real problem. As batteryacid said, while there are differences on the details, that we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change IS pretty much an agreed consensus.

Perhaps a spokesman other than Al Gore would help? Because in my humble opinion, he only comes off doing this as a politician, not as some well-meaning messenger

So if Al Gore is just doing this for political reasons, what is his gain? Who stands to make money on it? What office is Gore likely to gain out of it?

If you want a non-politician spokesperson, consider Dr. David Suzuki. I believe you live in Michigan right? If so, I'm sure you haev access to CBC where you can become familiar with the greatest living Canadian.

Plus I also disagree that people have not made adjustments to their lifestyle. Isnt the air quality in LA a lot better than say, the mid 60s through 80s? People are more than happy to make some adjustments, but they can also see through the false picture being drawn that the world is going to end in a very short time.

A few minor adjustments do not make real effort. North Americans have evolved a disgustingly glutonous lifestyle and largely refuse to give it up. The abhorrent state of mass transit on this continent is proof of that.