Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

waltert · 10-15-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlbond86

Also, Al Gore's house uses less energy per volume than most houses. It's just really big.

multi-story office buildings are also more thermally efficient than single residences. You have alot more area per unit volume for heat transfer in a small house. I just wanted to point out that your argument is irrelevant.

Nimetic · 10-15-2007, 02:10 PM

First the internet, and now climate change.

What is he going to discover next I wonder. The guy is a techno-scientific wonder.

Seriously now.. while it was probably "a good thing" to produce that film (I've not seen it and will probably never bother) - it's hardly ground breaking to pick up on something that's been known and studied for decades. The smart thing he did was to install himself as a figurehead, at a time when external pressure is mounting on non-Kyoto signatory nations such as US and AU.

DaveOrion · 10-15-2007, 04:03 PM

Why would you bother, you have all the answers and are willing to denounce something you've never seen.

Once again for the slower members, Gore never claimed he invented the internet. He actually said....

Quote:

Al Gore was involved in the development and mainstreaming of the Internet as both Senator and Vice-President. Campbell-Kelly and Aspray note in Chapter 12 of their 1996 text, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, that up until the early 1990s public usage of the Internet was limited. They continue to state that the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s" leading him to develop legislation which would alleviate this problem. [3] Gore thus began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill" [4]) after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network[5] submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet). [6]

In 1999, various media outlets suggested that Gore claimed that he "invented the internet" [7], [8] in reference to a CNN interview in which he said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." [9]

In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a 2000-09-29 article (originally sent via email) which described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill:[10]

“ [A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

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

waltert · 10-15-2007, 06:37 PM

that was poor wording on gore's part...but that pales in comparison to some of bush's poor wording!

Rekna · 10-15-2007, 09:37 PM

Yeah it was poor wording but you won't hear people like Nimetic admit it. Instead these people prefer one line quips aimed to distract from the real topic.

Nimetic · 10-16-2007, 03:50 AM

Ok... I may be wrong on the the internet bit. I'll do some research

The internet was well and truly available in the late 80s, I recall it from uni. And we had bulletin boards and so on before that. But I'll check up on this (contribution). The IT press savaged Gore on this topic, but maybe that's a one-sided view.

host · 10-16-2007, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Ok... I may be wrong on the the internet bit. I'll do some research

The internet was well and truly available in the late 80s, I recall it from uni. And we had bulletin boards and so on before that. But I'll check up on this (contribution). The IT press savaged Gore on this topic, but maybe that's a one-sided view.

Post <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2326309&postcount=79">#79</a> ...is still on the previous page on this thread.... it's full of "research" ....but the only fringe info about Gore and the internet is in the beginning of the post...by that "rock" of accuracy and integrity.... conservative propagandist, Brent Bozell III .

I guess endorsements of Gore's contribution to the development of the internet, displayed in post $79, By Gates of Microsoft, and

Quote:

Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, seconded by Dave Farber, Sep 28 2000

"Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant
credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has
become the Internet."

...it's all there...in post #79....why wouldn't it be enough....? How long have you "known what you;ve known"? Why wasn't what was included in post #79, enough to stop your from continuing to post about "Gore and the internet", and where would you possibly go to do your research, that isn't tainted with Bozell's BS or some other partisan distortions?

We can't have discussions on this forum because some of us don't know how they came to "know what they know".....and we repeat the same pattern, over and over..... Bozell and CNP are very good at what they do. The 1200 station, Salem Comm. radio network, and their townhall.com internet destination, reinforce what you think you know, and everyone else ssems to know what you know....nice and neat....and it helped get us into, abd keep us in an avoidable war, and to think that a political agenda that is good for mega millionaires....is good for the rest of us, too!

But it isn't, it's a well financed campaign to keep a lot of us ignorant....it's like a virus....and it's killing the country.....making us a little more ike pre-Chavez Venezuela, every effing day......

You come from a wealthy country where ten percent of your small population lives in poverty, why is that?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...4-2862,00.html

....with your Mr. Howard at the helm, it seems that you're becoming a mini version of the US conservative led...<h3>"let's make the populists seem like fools while we transfer the remaining wealth that they don't yet own....to our rich benefactors..."</h3>

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708...fset=20&show=1

...But there is a danger or three in reporting by anecdote.

Reporting by anecdote is how we got a president who doesn't windsurf, doesn't order the "wrong" kind of cheesesteak, doesn't wear earth tones, doesn't sigh, and doesn't exaggerate* -- but who does lie to the nation on the way to war, spy on Americans, torture people, threaten to veto health care for children, allow arsenic in our drinking water, politicize the Justice Department, take an à la carte approach to the Constitution ("I'll have the Second Amendment and a little bit of the 10th, but hold the First, Fourth through Sixth, and the Eighth, please") and generally behave like a despot.

With the country at war and a presidency in crisis, this may be a good time to remember that a candidate's foreign policy instincts tell us more about his fitness for office than his grooming habits do."....

....But along the way, Sullivan and Powell offered an example of the "Trivial Story": <h3>"Al Gore wears earth tones on the advice of a consultant."</h3> That's trivial, all right, but it is also false, according to all available evidence -- as anyone who has been paying attention should have known for about eight years by now. But Sullivan and Powell don't merely repeat the story as though it is true, they claim it actually tells us something significant:

Reporters argue that seemingly small details can illuminate larger truths about a candidate. And they often do: Gore's sartorial hire told us about his insecurity as a candidate.

No. No, no, no, no. "Gore's sartorial hire" didn't tell us any such thing. It didn't tell us anything at all, because it never happened....

Why isn't your country more populist leaning....like the Swedes or the French? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=108

ngdawg · 10-16-2007, 08:28 AM

What does any of that have to do with the subject at hand??

dc_dux · 10-16-2007, 08:41 AM

The "Gore" Act (High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991) established the funding for the creation of the National Information Infrastructure (the "information superhighway") and the development of the first web browser Mosaic among other high tech developments.

Thus, I think Gore's contributions to the creation and development of the internet is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (to keep it relevant)

host · 10-16-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

What does any of that have to do with the subject at hand??

I thought that the "subject at hand" had shifted from the good news that an American, former VP and 2000 democratic party presidential candidate, Oscar winner, Al Gore had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize....to an effort by those still satisfied with their support for the "other candidate" in the 2000 presidential race, the incompetent, corrupt, failed president, George Bush....to continue to mock Al Gore, the man who could have been president and led us in a way that would have avoided the needless murder and deaths of innocents and the heartbreaking waste of our fiscal and environmental resources, the mortgaging of our future, our standing and reputation with other nations, and the destruction of civil interaction among our own countrymen......

mixedmedia · 10-16-2007, 08:56 AM

Well, I'm happy that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.

For what's it worth.

The 14th Dalai Lama won the prize in 1989, anyone got anything bad to say about him?

dc_dux · 10-16-2007, 09:00 AM

Al Gore didnt write "For What its Worth"

That was Stephen Stills in his early Buffalo Springfield days.

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

How fitting for the current Gore-less state of affairs.

mixedmedia · 10-16-2007, 09:01 AM

Elphaba · 10-16-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Well, I'm happy that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.

For what's it worth.

The 14th Dalai Lama won the prize in 1989, anyone got anything bad to say about him?

He dresses funny.

mixedmedia · 10-16-2007, 03:21 PM

I kind of like the way he dresses. I find the crimson and the saffron to be a very pleasing color combination.

Elphaba · 10-16-2007, 03:46 PM

Granted, and he never has a bad hair day.

ottopilot · 10-18-2007, 11:34 AM

The_Jazz · 10-18-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

* not a thread-jack *

Come on... no matter what you believe about global warming, does Al Gore really deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for theories on global warming? Should they have waited a couple of years to see how things panned out? Will they take the award back if he was wrong?

Right after they take back Kissinger's.

ottopilot · 10-18-2007, 11:47 AM

DaveOrion · 10-18-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

* not a thread-jack *

Yes Virginia, Al Gore never really said he "invented" the internet. And while it’s always entertaining to watch the collective “vein-pop” by the usual suspects when ever it’s mentioned, I think we should give him credit for it anyway.

Since the Nobel Peace Prize seems to have little to do with real humanitarians and peacemakers that have actually saved real lives and fostered real peace, then why not give credit to Al Gore for inventing the internet?

Besides, that actual 92 year old Polish woman who actually risked her actual life to save the actual lives of the actual 2500 children from the actual holocaust during the actual WWII will actually die soon. So why waste such a prestigious and meaningful award on someone who refuses to promote polarizing theories and has zero long-term market value?

Come on... no matter what you believe about global warming, does Al Gore really deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for theories on global warming? Should they have waited a couple of years to see how things panned out? Will they take the award back if he was wrong?

The planet is warming, so thats really not a theory anymore. The only point in contention seems to be the cause.

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

Quote:

What causes global warming?
Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use.

Is the earth really getting hotter?
Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.

Are warmer temperatures causing bad things to happen?
Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.

Is global warming making hurricanes worse?
Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm. In fact, scientists have found that the destructive potential of hurricanes has greatly increased along with ocean temperature over the past 35 years.

Is there really cause for serious concern?
Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:

Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.

Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.

Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.

Could global warming trigger a sudden catastrophe?
Recently, researchers -- and even the U.S. Defense Department -- have investigated the possibility of abrupt climate change, in which gradual global warming triggers a sudden shift in the earth's climate, causing parts of the world to dramatically heat up or cool down in the span of a few years.

In February 2004, consultants to the Pentagon released a report laying out the possible impacts of abrupt climate change on national security. In a worst-case scenario, the study concluded, global warming could make large areas of the world uninhabitable and cause massive food and water shortages, sparking widespread migrations and war.

While this prospect remains highly speculative, many of global warming's effects are already being observed -- and felt. And the idea that such extreme change is possible underscores the urgent need to start cutting global warming pollution.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

Ustwo · 10-18-2007, 03:52 PM

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???

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?

DaveOrion · 10-18-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

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

ottopilot · 10-18-2007, 09:58 PM

DaveOrion · 10-18-2007, 10:23 PM

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???

ubertuber · 10-18-2007, 10:23 PM

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"

. 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.

ottopilot · 10-18-2007, 10:37 PM

ubertuber · 10-18-2007, 10:46 PM

Yup. I read it.

DaveOrion · 10-18-2007, 10:51 PM

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.

aceventura3 · 12-16-2008, 09:06 AM

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.

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

filtherton · 12-16-2008, 09:24 AM

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.

Baraka_Guru · 12-16-2008, 09:26 AM

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.

dc_dux · 12-16-2008, 09:32 AM

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

filtherton · 12-16-2008, 09:35 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 12-16-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

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.

roachboy · 12-16-2008, 10:50 AM

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

aceventura3 · 12-16-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

filtherton · 12-16-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

roachboy · 12-16-2008, 12:46 PM

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.

filtherton · 12-16-2008, 01:07 PM

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.

aceventura3 · 12-17-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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...

10-16-2007, 03:50 AM	#86 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Ok... I may be wrong on the the internet bit. I'll do some research The internet was well and truly available in the late 80s, I recall it from uni. And we had bulletin boards and so on before that. But I'll check up on this (contribution). The IT press savaged Gore on this topic, but maybe that's a one-sided view. Last edited by Nimetic; 10-16-2007 at 04:06 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

10-16-2007, 08:41 AM	#89 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The "Gore" Act (High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991) established the funding for the creation of the National Information Infrastructure (the "information superhighway") and the development of the first web browser Mosaic among other high tech developments. Thus, I think Gore's contributions to the creation and development of the internet is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (to keep it relevant) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-16-2007 at 08:49 AM.. Reason: added link

10-16-2007, 08:56 AM	#91 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Well, I'm happy that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. For what's it worth. The 14th Dalai Lama won the prize in 1989, anyone got anything bad to say about him? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 10-16-2007 at 08:58 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

10-16-2007, 09:00 AM	#92 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Al Gore didnt write "For What its Worth" That was Stephen Stills in his early Buffalo Springfield days. There's something happening here What it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there Telling me I got to beware I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down How fitting for the current Gore-less state of affairs. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-16-2007, 09:01 AM	#93 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	__________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

10-15-2007, 02:10 PM	#82 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	First the internet, and now climate change. What is he going to discover next I wonder. The guy is a techno-scientific wonder. Seriously now.. while it was probably "a good thing" to produce that film (I've not seen it and will probably never bother) - it's hardly ground breaking to pick up on something that's been known and studied for decades. The smart thing he did was to install himself as a figurehead, at a time when external pressure is mounting on non-Kyoto signatory nations such as US and AU.

10-15-2007, 06:37 PM	#84 (permalink)
waltert Insane	that was poor wording on gore's part...but that pales in comparison to some of bush's poor wording!

10-15-2007, 09:37 PM	#85 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Yeah it was poor wording but you won't hear people like Nimetic admit it. Instead these people prefer one line quips aimed to distract from the real topic.

10-16-2007, 08:28 AM	#88 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	What does any of that have to do with the subject at hand??

10-16-2007, 03:21 PM	#95 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I kind of like the way he dresses. I find the crimson and the saffron to be a very pleasing color combination. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

10-16-2007, 03:46 PM	#96 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Granted, and he never has a bad hair day. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

10-18-2007, 11:34 AM	#97 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:31 AM..

10-18-2007, 11:47 AM	#99 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:30 AM..

10-18-2007, 09:58 PM	#103 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:30 AM..

10-18-2007, 10:23 PM	#104 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	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??? __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

10-18-2007, 10:37 PM	#106 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:29 AM..

10-18-2007, 10:46 PM	#107 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Yup. I read it. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

12-16-2008, 09:24 AM	#110 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.

12-16-2008, 09:32 AM	#112 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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 __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-16-2008, 09:35 AM	#113 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.

12-16-2008, 10:50 AM	#115 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you might link to actual articles rather than cherry picking graphs. just a suggestion. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2008, 12:46 PM	#118 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2008, 01:07 PM	#119 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.