Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/125603-al-gore-wins-nobel-peace-prize.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

Over 20,000 people died in 2003 as a direct result of global warming......kinda puts things in the proper perspective huh??? :eek:

:crazy:

I mean if a global warming website wants to claim that a heatwave was a direct result of this, and it killed 20000+ people, I mean who am I to say thats just batshit insane to claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

:crazy:

I mean if a global warming website wants to claim that a heatwave was a direct result of this, and it killed 20000+ people, I mean who am I to say thats just batshit insane to claim?

If you think this is batshit insane, then you really are completely self absorbed and care nothing about this planet or future generations, including the future of your own children. :shakehead:

Quote:

NRDC works on a broad range of issues as we pursue our mission to safeguard the Earth; its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. Explore our six priority goals below.

Curb Global Warming

Our atmosphere is overloaded with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, threatening large-scale disruptions in climate. If we continue pumping carbon into the atmosphere at current rates, then a drastic temperature hike of 3 to 9 degrees by century's end will become inevitable, with disastrous consequences. We must act now to speed the wholesale adoption of cleaner sources of energy both at home and abroad.

Save Endangered Wild Places

Across the Americas, the last large remnants of wild nature are under siege by chain saws, bulldozers and oil rigs. If we allow these natural treasures to be destroyed, humankind stands to lose vast troves of biological diversity, critical regulators of global climate, and irreplaceable sanctuaries for recreation and contemplation. NRDC's BioGems Initiative combines expert advocacy, online citizen activism, and front-line work by local partners in defense of our hemisphere's most imperiled ecosystems.

Move America Beyond Oil

Our gasoline habit is a major environmental liability, and is fast becoming an economic and national security risk as well. Burning oil in our cars and trucks releases global warming pollution, toxic air pollutants and makes us dangerously dependent on some of the world's most oppressive regimes. NRDC is pushing for federal legislation to cut oil use, expand the market for fuel-efficient vehicles and to ramp up production of sustainably grown biofuels as an alternative to oil.

Revive the World's Oceans

Ninety percent of the large fish like tuna and swordfish are already gone. Every year, high-tech fishing trawlers scrape bare an expanse of ocean floor 75 times larger than all the forests clearcut on land. All six species of sea turtle in U.S. waters are threatened with extinction, and marine mammals are increasingly assaulted by lethal noise from high-intensity military sonar and industrial activity. NRDC is working to create and implement a visionary, comprehensive strategy to revitalize the world's oceans, using proven solutions to restore and sustain diverse ocean life.

Stem the Tide of Toxic Chemicals

Medical science tells us that we can prevent cancers, asthma and brain impairments simply by reducing exposure to environmental pollutants. Yet our economy continues to drive the proliferation of disease-causing chemicals in consumer products: toxic mercury in batteries; carcinogenic chemicals in baby bottles and toys; neurologically damaging pesticides in garden products. NRDC is working to eliminate 10 major families of toxic chemicals by guiding major retail chains to substitute less-toxic alternatives in their key products.

Accelerate the Greening of China

China is about to overtake the United States as the world's largest global warming polluter. Its thirst for oil will double by 2010, requiring another Saudi Arabia to meet its needs. Its air pollution is poised to quadruple in 15 years. Up to 40 percent of the toxic mercury in U.S. soil comes from China. And China's soaring demand for timber makes it the world's biggest driver of rainforest destruction. Fortunately, China's leaders recognize this emerging ecological disaster and are inviting outside help to avert it. NRDC is helping China's leadership shift toward sustainable policies that will balance economic and environmental progress.

http://www.nrdc.org/issues/default.asp

No proof is needed. They all died from heat related injuries. You may recall the record heat wave in France & you also may recall that the planet is warming. The only thing thats really in question, as I've already stated, is the cause of global warming. So these deaths are directly linked to global warming. See, that was easy huh???

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Prove it. Prove that those people died of global warming. Are you sure it wasn't compounded by "popcorn-lung"?

The climate may be changing, but I bet there were numerous other factors that added to the conditions that killed those people...like poverty, poor infrastructure, war, famine, disease, politics (could also be listed under disease), poor hydration, and low SPF... sort of like the dust-bowl days of the late 20's and early 30's.

Meanwhile, back at the crime scene...
"So Chief, what do you think killed the poor bastard, popcorn-lung, low SPF?"
"Nice guess officer Nancy...I can tell you're up on your talking points. However, this is much more sinister."
"You don't mean..."
"Yes, officer Nancy...put an APB out for Global Warming. Now it's personal"

OK, insert heated talking points here with "the real facts":hyper: . Unfortunately this argument will continue to go absolutely nowhere forever, just like in most of the GW threads.

Global warming is not the issue here. It's about the integrity of the award and how it's become so blatantly political.

I never said Al Gore doesn't deserve some sort of acknowledgment for his work regarding the environment. I never said that global warming doesn't exist. Every time the sacred topic is remotely approached, the talking points circle-jerk erupts. It's so predictably dense.

You know, there's actually a pretty vocal group here that doesn't believe that global warming is caused by human activity. They seem as unwilling to listen to the opposition as the global warming fearers are - but also have fewer experts on their side. It's not a popularity contest, of course, but I did want to point out that the skeptics don't really come across too differently from that which you are deriding.

So it's more like two circle jerks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Did you actually read what you quoted?

OK, so if we take "global warming" out of the vocabulary, does a compelling theory on environmental science deserve the Nobel Peace Prize over a selfless act of bravery that saved so many lives? Why can't anyone address this point?

I already did, twice in this thread.

I have not heard from Al Gore in awhile, I wonder what he is up to? What we do know in that his alarmist view of global warming is being met with some very conflicting data, even though he said the matter was scientifically settled.

Quote:

Since Kyoto, a very funny thing has happened to global temperatures: IPCC data clearly show that warming has stopped—even though its computer models said such a thing could not happen.

According to the IPCC, the world reached its high-temperature mark in 1998, thanks to a big “El Niño,” which is a temporary warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that occurs once or twice a decade. El Niño years are usually followed by one or two relatively cold years, as occurred in 1999 and 2000. The cooling is, not surprisingly, called La Niña. No one knows what really causes these cycles but they have been going on sporadically for millennia.

Wait a minute. Starting an argument about global warming in 1998 is a bit unfair. After all, that’s starting off with a very hot temperature, followed by two relatively cool years.

Fine. Take those years out of the record and there’s still no statistically significant warming since 1997. When a scientist tells you that some trend is not “significant,” he or she is saying that it cannot mathematically be distinguished from no trend whatsoever.

More important, as shown in our Figure 1, there’s not going to be any significant trend for some time.

Assume, magically, that temperatures begin to warm in 2009 at the rate they were warming before the mid-90s, and that they continue to warm at that rate.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp...oznan_fig1.JPG

World Climate Report Will the U.N. Chill Out on Climate Change?

It also seems like the EU is back-stepping on their CO2 goals and they met with some criticism at the UN Climate Conference last week.

Quote:

Participants at last week's United Nations climate conference in Poznan, Poland, were taken aback by a world seemingly turned upside-down. The traditional villains and heroes of the international climate narrative, the wicked U.S. and the noble European Union, had unexpectedly swapped roles. For once, it was the EU that was criticized for backpedalling on its CO2 targets while Europe's climate nemesis, the U.S., found itself commended for electing an environmental champion as president.

Cooling on Global Warming - WSJ.com

Pretty pictures sure are pretty.

What does temperature anomaly mean? Doesn't matter. What sort of hypothesis does the p-value refer to? Doesn't matter. What does matter is that we've got these pretty pictures placed next to some words because words are more convincing when there are pretty pictures next to them.

What is important is that if you limit your period of inquiry to the 90's (the warmest decade on record) it is difficult to find or project a trend with respect to global temperatures. If you limit your period of inquiry to the last week or so you'd also find that is was very difficult to find or predict a trend with respect to the US's unemployment numbers. Clearly there is nothing wrong with either of these metrics, since by limiting our period of inquiry we have successfully limited our ability to say anything that we don't want to say.

I'm not saying global climate change is occurring, but I'm not saying it isn't.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of the EU's strategies and such, but I do know that it should be based on long-term trending and continued scientific measurement.

Two thousand and eight was still the 10th hottest year on record.

Coolest year since 2000 but trend still shows global warming | Environment | guardian.co.uk
-----Added 16/12/2008 at 12 : 28 : 32-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitherton

What does temperature anomaly mean?

I don't know, specifically, but it might have something to do with the El Nina at the beginning of the year.

Related issue:

I like Obama's selection of Steven Chu, a Nobel prize winner in physics and a vocal advocate for reducing GHG emissions, for his Sec of Energy.

We may finally see a sensible and sustainable national energy policy.

As Obama's Energy Chief, Steven Chu Likely to Shift Agency's Focus to Renewables - US News and World Report

More on Steven Chu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baraka
I'm sure it has something to do with something.

What I do know is that when someone presents scientific information, but omits parts of it, they either don't know what they're talking about or they are blowing smoke. I know both sides of the global climate change struggle do it, and it irks me either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2573561)

How does someone present all the available data every time they want to make a point?

My point was simply that Al Gore's predictions, with certainty, of an irreversible trend in global warming if we fail to act appears to be running out of steam. On one hand we have anomalies that will impact the trend line that may be due to factors other that human Co2 emissions and we have the EU one of the champions of his cause loosing their commitment to the cause due to economics. That was it, nothing more nothing less.

you might link to actual articles rather than cherry picking graphs.
just a suggestion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2573577)

you might link to actual articles rather than cherry picking graphs.
just a suggestion.

I just checked the links I included, they worked for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2573574)

How does someone present all the available data every time they want to make a point?

One presents enough information to make the accompanying pictures meaningful. Do you even know what the plots represent? Or did you just post them because the text above and below them seemed to agree with whatever assertion you were trying to make?

Quote:

My point was simply that Al Gore's predictions, with certainty, of an irreversible trend in global warming if we fail to act appears to be running out of steam.

Well, if you can lead me to that conclusion based on the data you posted, I will think that you're on to something. Otherwise, it seems to me that you are misinterpreting the meaning or significance of the data you cited.

FYI: Complex systems are frequently characterized by short term random fluctuations. It doesn't seem that far out of the question to presume that, climatologically speaking, ten years, the span of time those plots cover, is fairly short term.

Quote:

On one hand we have anomalies that will impact the trend line that may be due to factors other that human Co2 emissions and

Explain to me the significance of the "Temperature Anomaly" quantity.

Quote:

we have the EU one of the champions of his cause loosing their commitment to the cause due to economics.

So? This has nothing to do with Gore.

ace--first off, your link went to a blog. if you want to make a serious argument, find more reliable information--at least to supplement what you find on the blog and to counter the inevitable objection based on anonymity of authorship, lack of sources within the data etc etc etc. that's why i said what i said. i know the links work.

on a more interesting note...there's alot more that could be said about filtherton's post above on complexity and/or complex systems. complexity in that sense really does wreak havoc with simplistic data and simplistic data-interpretation---but there are problems with measurements and interpretation that go beyond simply not having caught up with the idea and which instead cut to the heart of how scientific knowledge operates. complex dynamic systems don't obviate more traditional modes of knowing--but they do displace them and undercut claims based on them by entailing an ontological register-shift--which in this case simply refers to the rules that structure the games of observation, interpretation and the linkages between interpretations and the world (because the logic which shapes interpretation need not be of a piece with that which shapes observation, and one's conception of the world need not be of a piece with the interal procedures which shape interpretations, etc.)

or something.

roachboy,

I don't generally place a lot of faith in the predictive power of statistical data based on approximations of global-scale dynamic systems. I know some do. I am more interested in the thermodynamic aspects of it, mainly because they follow directly from first principles, they are easy to understand, and the statistical interpretations are less, I don't know, removed. Statistics are funny in that, being the mathematics of guesswork, they always contain the implicit "you just never know" floating in the background. I do think it is odd when people attempt to refute questionable statistical data with questionable statistical data.

I'm not sure, at this point, that CO2 is really all that important with respect to climate change. Last year, I read through a back of the envelope workthrough of the predicted global temperature increase as it relates to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and it kind of shot the global climate change thing in the face for me. I'm not sure why methane doesn't get any press, from my understanding it's far worse as far as climate change goes. It is quite possible I'm missing part of the picture here.

Even so, I would much rather people rally around more tangible and established environmental problems, because there is no shortage of them. It is unfortunate that people must be threatened with complete annihilation before they are willing to make relatively painless, yet collectively significant changes to the way they live their lives. I guess motherfuckers love their drama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2573637)

ace--first off, your link went to a blog.

There were two links. Are you questioning the data or just educating me on the proper techniques to use when doing internet research? I gave finding a pretty little graph more weight than text or chart information. And you know me and "cherry picking" data...