Quote :

"It was a well executed amateur video that was entertaining and informative. That being said, I believe he did the video a favor by playing devil's advocate with himself. In this sense, however, he was able to appear fair while concluding that his devil's advocate persona was incorrect, while the devil's advocate persona actually brought up compelling arguments... especially the one arguing that we should build space invader hamster destroyers in case space age hamsters decide to invade earth."

so...you don't actually have any way to argue against what he said, but you did or didn't like the hamsters? i'm confused...did the video itself annoy you because you can't come up with a way to argue with his points?

Quote :

"I mean, with any type of doom and gloom prophetic teaching (Gore), you will be able to lead the masses to do a lot of things... like give you meals and money for carbon credits."

you know, i'm not aware of too many people touting gore as the planet's savior...in fact, he annoys me a bit, but at least he's doing something, which is more than a lot of people are doing...and the only complaint you have is that he uses scare tactics? i mean, it's not like he's making up the information, just that he puts it in the most negative light (which, for the record, is a POSSIBLE outcome, even if not likely on his timeline)

[Edited on April 16, 2008 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

4/16/2008 9:35:11 AM

not what I'm saying at all. I think the video ultimately has merit in that it is a sane attempt at explaining why we should act against global warming.

I also thought his second persona had merit. With anything that is unproven (ie global warming) we could go to the extreme to prevent it, but it would also be akin to spending resources to stop space hamsters.

When he does the choices and presents as a lottery ticket and asks us to choose which one we would take (the option that he assumes we choose it take action because the risk is far less to take that route)... on the take action parts, he brushes over the consequences of expending resources as just one big if global warming isn't something we cause while the consequences of not taking action gets an entire expose.

I would say that the consequence of taking action for the hell of taking action is quite large. If we spend finite resources fixing something we can't explain... what happens on the day that we can explain it and we have to take action against global warming but we've spent so many resources trying to fix something we dind't know how to work to begin with.

That's why I subscribe to this guy's approach:



That is basically his argument. Are we causing global warming? Verdict is out. What should we do about it? Lets figure it out first, then spend the resources accordingly in a sane and rational manner instead of scaring the masses to do something that is probably the incorrect approach to begin with.

Also, encompassed in that one big under take action and global warming is false is the fact that we are basically damming millions of people to piss poor living conditions across the world because we say they shouldn't industrialize because of a myth. I think that's a pretty big consequence...but not if you're a science teacher in an air conditioned class room.

4/16/2008 9:44:51 AM

Quote :

"not what I'm saying at all. I think the video ultimately has merit in that it is a sane attempt at explaining why we should act against global warming."

okay, gotcha

Quote :

"I also thought his second persona had merit. With anything that is unproven (ie global warming) we could go to the extreme to prevent it, but it would also be akin to spending resources to stop space hamsters."

i don't think his propositions were extreme in any way (he didn't actually propose any that i recall, but even then, i don't think he's suggesting we destroy all internal combustion engines)...even the skeptics admit that global climate destabilization is very REAL possibility, even if they don't believe that it's happening...i think there's probably only a handful of people who think we should start programs to stop space hamsters, so the analogy, while valid, is magnitudes off in terms of reality (or at least our perceptions of what's possible and what isn't)

Quote :

"When he does the choices and presents as a lottery ticket and asks us to choose which one we would take (the option that he assumes we choose it take action because the risk is far less to take that route)... on the take action parts, he brushes over the consequences of expending resources as just one big if global warming isn't something we cause while the consequences of not taking action gets an entire expose. I would say that the consequence of taking action for the hell of taking action is quite large. If we spend finite resources fixing something we can't explain... what happens on the day that we can explain it and we have to take action against global warming but we've spent so many resources trying to fix something we dind't know how to work to begin with."

okay, i can see your point, and i agree with it to an extent...the problem is that you're falling into the same trap that you're claiming he fell into - you both make assumptions that are (at this point in time) unprovable...he says yes, it's true we can't "prove" the problem, but that the vast majority of those who have the training to make educated guesses say one thing, so therefore we should assume they're right and take the economic risk...you say yes, it's true we can't "prove" the problem, and since we can't, we shouldn't waste resources until we know for sure (because, if it really IS a problem, we'll need those resources later to correct it, right?)

the problem i have with your argument is that you're a fan of cure instead of prevention...i don't think we'll EVER be able to "prove" global climate destabilization until we've hit the tipping point (and that's not just me, that's thousands of people more educated than you or i in this matter), at which point we likely won't have the resources to fix it...so, sure, your method takes little in the way of risk and keeps people happy for right now, but it also guarantees that we can't do anything about it until it's too late

Quote :

"That's why I subscribe to this guy's approach: That is basically his argument. Are we causing global warming? Verdict is out. What should we do about it? Lets figure it out first, then spend the resources accordingly in a sane and rational manner instead of scaring the masses to do something that is probably the incorrect approach to begin with."

again, so we wait until we know for sure...how will we know? massive typhoons and hurricanes? raleigh as new beach front property? i'd love to know what his proof would consist of, because i suspect he's waiting for the corpse to prove the crime, at which point it's too late to save the poor sod from being killed...it'll be a great place for assigning blame, but will allow absolutely no chance to undo the deed(s)...besides, what would this incorrect approach be? how can using less of something finite (like fossil fuels) be a bad thing when the alternative technologies are already here and affordable? so people can't water their lawns during droughts...this is awful? new homes being built using more efficient materials and components? the only real resource we lose is money, and it's only america that gets pissy at the idea of it

Quote :

"Also, encompassed in that one big under take action and global warming is false is the fact that we are basically damming millions of people to piss poor living conditions across the world because we say they shouldn't industrialize because of a myth. I think that's a pretty big consequence...but not if you're a science teacher in an air conditioned class room."

i only halfway agree with you on this...i agree 100% that it's VERY easy to make these decisions from the comfort of A/C after driving my car to work and having a great, filling breakfast...what i disagree with is that we're actually damning anyone to anything...it'd be silly to assume that we have any REAL control over what other countries do (really, what are we going to do? cut off services to them? it's not like we actually have any real exports to threaten them with)...what we CAN do is offer alternatives that fulfill the same need, and this is, to an extent, what we are trying to do

4/16/2008 10:25:35 AM

^ Points taken.

I'm not saying that global warming/global cooling/climate change/climate destabilization/other monicker isn't necessarily false. I do, however, see a very real correlation between those who are hyping it (Gore) and the money they make. The proof is ultimately in the pudding. And if Gore has done his research as he says he has and he is 100% convinced that we are causing a worldwide epidemic, then why does he continue to live the way he does? Why doesn't he take personal actions to help the problem? I take issue to this in a large degree.

However, being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Smoking a cigarette in front of a classroom of children while offering the advice of "you shouldn't smoke" doesn't make you wrong. But it removes your legitimacy. And if there's anything global warming needs right now... it's legitimacy.

I'm not anti-environment. I think we should all be proactive and mindful about what we put into the air, the water, and the land. However, the science is inconclusive and we have the unfortunate position of performing the experiment while we're in the test tube. Given that, the risks are certainly higher. However, I still think we can be sane about this and we shouldn't have to resort to scare tactics (an inconvenient truth) or fraud (carbon credits).

We can take a sane and reasoned approach to this and act rationally. The Kyoto Protocol is the opposite of this. Al Gore is the opposite of this. Lets work it out first and figure out how to best spend our resources on a problem that we have figured out.

[Edited on April 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

4/16/2008 10:41:07 AM

^ i agree very much with what you've said...i think our only disagreement lies in the timeline

4/16/2008 10:47:08 AM

Chit Chat is where TSB threads come to resolution.

[Edited on April 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

4/16/2008 10:52:29 AM

Quote :

"It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria. On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." "

http://newsbusters.org/stories/al_gore_used_fictional_video_inconvenient_truth.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

4/22/2008 3:41:54 PM

is anyone really surprised? i mean, really?

4/22/2008 3:58:20 PM

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

There is some good info from a real climatologist

4/22/2008 3:59:51 PM

^ there are "real" climatologists on both sides...anyone who quotes al gore is an idiot, but anyone who pretends like there aren't scores of real scientists on his side (in that, global climate destabilization is a very real possibility) is also an idiot

4/22/2008 6:07:52 PM

i agree quagmire...i've said all along that its still up in the air...that some scientists believe in it, others dont, others still are on the fence

the problem has been, at least on TWW, that anybody who wasnt completely convinced that anthro co2 was causing warming was automatically an exxon shill or some spokesman for BP...essentially saying "there IS no argument" when there has ALWAYS been an argument/difference of opinion

every scientist can see the data...the conclusions they draw from that data are what vary tremendously

4/22/2008 6:21:28 PM