Al Gore you turd

[Blumf]

All this controversy over nuclear technology with Iran and North Korea just goes to prove that nuclear physics is plain bunk!

I also saw an advert for toothpaste and now have my doubts about the existence of tooth cavities and plaque, they're just after your money!

[Regular Chicken]

I don't understand the science

[biggytitbo]

Well, erm, there you go then.

Errm no not really. Anyone who takes a 1 dimensional view on such a complicated issue is clearly a bit simple or a zealot. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's informed, shaped and often distorted by many other things. I've been involved in loads of these debates about climate change before and the arguments people have about incredibly complex science are ridiculous, when they clearly haven't a clue what they're talking about. It's just pointless and I'm not going to get involved. A debate about how science is used is far more enlightening and worthwhile.

There's a very interesting response to that link I posted earlier about how the big corporations have learned to stop worrying and love climate change - http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

Lots of interesting stuff about Al Gore ad his chums in there too.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum,

Those guys on the space shuttle are buggered then.

[biggytitbo]

All this controversy over nuclear technology with Iran and North Korea just goes to prove that nuclear physics is plain bunk!

I also saw an advert for toothpaste and now have my doubts about the existence of tooth cavities and plaque, they're just after your money!

You got confused there! I don't really understand what point you are making with the nuclear one, but atom bombs and nuclear power stations do exist, it's not some people saying they have them but they can't prove it. I could go drive to a nuclear power station this afternoon if I wanted to. The political element in this issue comes in because nuclear power and atomic bombs do exist, not because there is a debate about whether they do exist. Hope that clears it up for you.

The same with your toothpaste analogy. It would only work if some people were saying they had a special substance in a tube that helps fight tooth decay. In fact, some people have actually proved this to be demonstrably true as a scientific fact using experimentation - so the point kind of falls down. I actually brush my teeth with it so I know it exists and works.

Both your anologies also fall down on the fact that they are largely irrelevent to the point I was making about how science doesn't exist in a vacuum, and how it is used and abused, and how politics and money in this case are co-opting an issue for their own benefit.

[Mr Colossal]

I thought the the biggest anti-global warming argument was 'the suns naturally getting hotter anyway so its unavoidable!'  which was proved wrong in a study a few months back where they measured  solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years,  and found the direct opposite to be true...  (ok, so its only .4 degrees, but that trend is quite steep considering the grand sceheme of things)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

I guess there are other factors to take into consideration like how much things like aircraft contrails and global dimming could effect the statistics, but the fact is temperature IS gradually rising, meanwhile we're busy mindlessly burning unsustainable fossil fuels, destroying rainforests, carving up the oceans and the other natural systems designed to combat these things, so sooner or later there IS going to be some sort of head on collision.  The other fact is the scientific community can't actually predidict WHEN  (that doesn't mean its not true!), but it would be sensible to analyse the situation and look for trends and warning signs, and work out the ways we can best prevent them before they happen, so that there is a gradual crossover period into a more sustainable way of living,  rather than wait till we hit the brick wall.

I think you should not be swayed by the ground-level 'fueding' of politicians,  rival companies, and people trying to exploit the upper classes desire to be superior by making them feel like 'conscience-appeasing consumers' at a marked up price.  Ok, perhaps an increasing trend in environmentally friendly methods amongst the population is a good thing, but in the grand scheme of things its completely pointless unless it's made mandatory, and we are but a tiny country, when places like china and india are going through something of their own industrial revolution and feel its slightly hypocritical that the west feel they shouldn't have the right to pollute. I guess the sensible thing would be set up a more environmentally sustainable foundation in these places, using the most up to date technology possible, but considering politics, i doubt the west would have that.

Sometimes i feel that these conspiracy theorists are being made a mockery of nowdays. The great global warming swindle was funded by ExxonMobil for example:

In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on global warming. The plan was outlined in an internal memo that promised, 'Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom' for 'average citizens' and 'the media'. Read the pdf of that memo here.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870

Did they intend FACT to feature in this plan, or was it just contrived 'fueding' to keep the general population in the dark so they carry on burning lots of OILZ. Look at where people have investments. what investments do GENUINE environmentalists have- genuine environmentalists who want to RESEARCH these problems to the best of their ability, and prevent the world from being spoilt by profit hungry politicians, and massive corporations funding hackjobs like this.

Then it seems all they had to do was obey the laws of reverse psychology, create a 'counter' conspiracy-theory and send it off and the likes of prisonplanet are going nuts, even though it seems to tick all the boxes of 'misinformation', go against 'the war was about oil!' claims, and everything they've ever stood for.

[Blumf]

You got confused there! I don't really understand what point you are making with the nuclear one, but atom bombs and nuclear power stations do exist, it's not some people saying they have them but they can't prove it. I could go drive to a nuclear power station this afternoon if I wanted to. The political element in this issue comes in because nuclear power and atomic bombs do exist, not because there is a debate about whether they do exist. Hope that clears it up for you.

Errm no not really. Anyone who takes a 1 dimensional view on such a complicated issue is clearly a bit simple or a zealot. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's informed, shaped and often distorted by many other things. I've been involved in loads of these debates about nuclear physics before and the arguments people have about incredibly complex science are ridiculous, when they clearly haven't a clue what they're talking about. It's just pointless and I'm not going to get involved. A debate about how science is used is far more enlightening and worthwhile.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Are you shifting the discussion away from the fact that there is a scientific consensus on climate change - especially with regard to CO2 emissions - Mr Tittybo? Politics doesn't enter the framework of science, except when scientists are working towards predetermined outcomes (bad science). And to suggest that the consensus is in the pocket of some pro-global warming cartel is frankly laughable.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I've nothing to add other than that the Leonard Cohen tag made me smile.

[MojoJojo]

Errm no not really. Anyone who takes a 1 dimensional view on such a complicated issue is clearly a bit simple or a zealot. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's informed, shaped and often distorted by many other things. I've been involved in loads of these debates about climate change before and the arguments people have about incredibly complex science are ridiculous, when they clearly haven't a clue what they're talking about. It's just pointless and I'm not going to get involved. A debate about how science is used is far more enlightening and worthwhile.

So your saying the basis that we decide whether climate change is real should not be based on evidence for or against, but on the political agendas of the pro/anti-camps? What a ridiculous stance to take.

Even taking that stance, it's pretty hard to understand how you come to your view.

The beliefs of mainstream environmentalists are beliefs of the First World liberal middleclass. As such, the global warming myth fits right in.

Oh dear, looney-liberals believe it, can't be true. I'm not even sure what that sentence means, beyond an attempt to tar all opposition with a pretty big brush.

I was going to quote those other bits you quoted, but I can't really see the point. All they seem to say is
1) There are uncertainties in the data (true, and never denied. But you have to balance the probability that global warming won't happen no matter what we do against the damage it will cause if it does).
2) Climate change has been accepted by the conservative establishment. (Which doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true or not).

I disagree with the idea that climate change distracts from other issues - most of the issues mentioned have been ignored for decades before climate change was brought up. And while the establishment like global warming in the short term, it doesn't make sense that a theory that demands major changes to power, industry and transport is somehow inline with conservative agenda.

[biggytitbo]

So your saying the basis that we decide whether climate change is real should not be based on evidence for or against, but on the political agendas of the pro/anti-camps? What a ridiculous stance to take.

Mm I'm not saying that, but this is a difficult one. I'm saying that we're talking about something that is unfathomable and fundamentally unprovable. And I'm saying that the people telling us what is true and what isn't are not trustworthy. Have you read all 2000 pages of the IPCC report Mojo? Have you read all the detailed findings and data? Are you an expert in something that is almost impossibly complicated - the earth's climate? Forgive me for being presumption, but I'm going to guess no to those questions. In that case, you're talking about this in relation to what politicians, the media and self interested campaigners tell you.  Pretty much everyone does that, including the politicians and the campaigners and the media themselves. It's not enough, not when it's so easy to blow a big hole through what they say, and not when they so obviously have other motives. The ignorance is widespread and astoning. Everything that happens in the enviroment is now attributed to global warming, without the slightest shred of evidence. The floods in the summer were a stark warning about global warming according to all the papers and tv news with absolutely no reason or proof. The Global warming theory as understood by 99.9% of the worlds population has absolutely nothing to do with science or reality.

Even taking that stance, it's pretty hard to understand how you come to your view.

Oh dear, looney-liberals believe it, can't be true. I'm not even sure what that sentence means, beyond an attempt to tar all opposition with a pretty big brush.

You're caricaturing my views really. I think its complicated, and there are lots of groups with different motives and different affiliations and different prejudices. Context, historical, sociological, financial and political is very important to try and sift through the miasma.

I was going to quote those other bits you quoted, but I can't really see the point. All they seem to say is
1) There are uncertainties in the data (true, and never denied. But you have to balance the probability that global warming won't happen no matter what we do against the damage it will cause if it does).
2) Climate change has been accepted by the conservative establishment. (Which doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true or not).


I disagree with the idea that climate change distracts from other issues - most of the issues mentioned have been ignored for decades before climate change was brought up. And while the establishment like global warming in the short term, it doesn't make sense that a theory that demands major changes to power, industry and transport is somehow inline with conservative agenda.

Yes there are uncertainties in the data, lots of them. No, this is not acknowledged in the mainstream media or by politicians. It's painted as an apocalyptic certainly were dissenters are portrayed as being on a par with holocaust deniers. (re george Monbiot). In reality its vague uncertainties vs stone cold problems that kill millions every year.

The establishment, and corporate and political power are very much onboard the global warming bandwagon for the long haul. Read the article by David Noble. The reason so many have climbed on is precisely because it doesn't threaten their power  - it's the perfect vehicle for their own agendas. If they genuinely cared about the world they'd be doing something about chronic social injustice, the devastation caused by globalisation, poverty, land ownership, banking, trade, inequality, resources depletion, water, habitat destruction, environmental pollution, starvation, colonialism, corporate fascism, war and all the other issues that the West's greed has helped create and exacerbate.

Tackling all those real issues threatens both state and corporate power precisely because they are created by the wielding of that power. The global warming theory helps maintain and increase their power, not deplete it. I mean what do you actually think they're going to do to combat this great threat other than some ineffectual trading schemes, taxation, more repressive government and an incredible amount of hollow words? Its nothing but PR fluff and that's all its ever going to be. In the meantime they can carry on fucking the world over through old fashioned greed whilst we all wet our knickers, but do fuck all of any worth, about global warming.

[Regular Chicken]

Although I agree with some of what you're saying, I fear you've become so wrapped up in your conspiracy theories, you're fundamentally ignoring the bigger picture.

Are you genuinely saying that the widespread and heavily and openly published scientific consensus about man's effect on global warming is incorrect? Do you disagree that there is a widespread scientific consensus in this regard? Why are all these scientists in big business' pockets? Why would it be in their interests anyway, I would have thought the opposite?

Whilst it may be true that it is fundamentally unprovable until after the fact, do you really want to wait that long?

[SetToStun]

Whether or not you think there are hidden (or maybe not so hidden) agendas at work in the climate change movement, it would be daft to not take it seriously just because some people are inevitably going to get rich out of it.  Waiting for absolute scientific proof that what we're doing is, at the very least, contributing to climate change is leaving one's head in the sand until it's the only bit left not UV'd to fuck. Put it this way, if you're lying in bed in the summer, sweating your nads off do you:

1. Keep the quilt on and wait to see if it goes away;
2. Add another quilt because, Lord knows, it can't be the quilt that's doing it;
3. Take the sodding quilt off and cool down a bit.

Along the same lines, a bloke I used to know suffered a couple of heart attacks (he was about 40). The doctors at the hospital couldn't tell him with that yes, it was definitely the smoking and drinking that had done it and they could give him 100% accurate evidence to back that view up, quite simply because that's not possible. All they could do was point out that they were almost certainly the prime factor. He said he'd give up when they could prove to him 100% that either was was the prime cause. Guess what happened to him.

EDIT: Just realised that looks a bit batey - it's not meant to be and it's also not aimed at anyone in particular.

[Chutney]

I'm wholly against any notion of carbon offsetting. If you feel that bad about things you are doing then DON'T DO THEM. Assuaging your conscience by paying money to someone to not go on a flight so you can or whatever the deal is smacks of the worst kind of hypocricy.

Spot on - best quote I've read about carbon offsetting is that it's akin to attempting to combat rising sea level by drinking more water.

[MojoJojo]

I'm still baffled by this idea that there are more vested interests in the global warming camp than there are in oil/power and transport. I would of thought that between electricity companies (who lose money from people buying power saving lightbulbs), the car industry (who can't be helped by anti gas-guzzling press, never mind all the emission regulation forced on them), manufacting and industry (who also have to pay to limit their emissions), they would be able to  fund research that shows a viable opposing view to MMGW. But they can't. All that comes out are the same scientific fallacies that are in the first half of the essay you linked.

But despite this huge array of comapnies and industries who have an undeniable vested interest against MMGW theories (undeniable since it loses them money), your thesis is that a small "church" of environmental scientists have managed to bias the entire body of scientific literature, influence media, governements and populations that MMGW is real despite any genuine evidence.

It is true that MMGW is not guaranteed, but the consequences are bad enough that even if there is a small chance that it is true effort should be expended to avoid it.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

you're talking about this in relation to what politicians, the media and self interested campaigners tell you.  Pretty much everyone does that, including the politicians and the campaigners and the media themselves.

I can only agree with that.  We are effectively regurgitating what we are told, because that's how we learn things.  What's particularly interesting in that is that our own psychology heavily influences what we choose to believe, and how much weight we give to circumstantial evidence.

I think it's worth pointing out that the majority of people in the UK believe that global warming is happening because they've been told so by the scientific community.  Traditionally, peer-reviewed journals have no particular political leaning (although that's not to say that politicians can't use findings to back up their own beliefs) because they are not limited to people of any particular political persuasion.  In fact, the whole point of peer-reviewing, second to the obvious reason of replicating experiments to prove they work, is to minimise the risk of politicisation.  So if literally thousands of articles in peer-reviewed journals (according to New Scientist) have concluded that global warming is a reality, it seems logical to believe them.

On the other hand, those with vested interests in not wanting to believe the evidence presented to them by these papers (or word of these papers, as it's highly unlikely most of the people with an opinion will have actually read them) will choose to place more weight on the far smaller group of people who state that global warming either does not exist, or could not be man-made.  The problem is that these articles tend to have a political or other consensus behind them, such as those funded by Exxon and so on.  Those with no political links, left or right, tend to be the ones who are shouting loudest about the dangers of global warming.

Basicly the problem is that, from my perception, those who shout down people over global warming tend to have made up their minds because they were told there was no such thing, and have latched on to this because it's inconvenient to their interests (whatever they may be) to accept the notion of global warming being a reality.  Once you've made up your mind, you will simply disregard any contrary argument.

I'd be really interested to know how you, Biggytitbo, came to believe what you do.  Because as you know, you're in the minority here!

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Yay, I think I killed the thread!

[Pylon Man]

The biggest cause of global warming I think is mass overpopulation. 6 billion people is awful lot, it was only about 1 billion 100 years ago and with that many people vying for the same amount of resources each and with population increasing all the time, I can't see a solution apart from perhaps forcing people to have fewer children, which still won't be nearly enough. If there was just a billion people we probably all drive around in 4x4s without a worry in the world.

Personally I do completely bugger all to help the environment. But I'm not going to have children, which will do more to help the environment than any amount of not leaving my TV on standby or driving around in a Toyota Prius. So that's my guilt neutralised.

[Mr Colossal]

The biggest cause of global warming I think is mass overpopulation.

That reminds me of a recent conspiracy theory I was reading:

Global warming cult fronts as camouflage for depopulation agenda!


I liked the amusing collection of Prince Philip quotes provided as evidence:

"I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus."

Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.



"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

Prince Philip, Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.




"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the 'cull' to the size of the surplus population."

Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.

[chand]

That reminds me of a recent conspiracy theory I was reading:

Global warming cult fronts as camouflage for depopulation agenda!

Yeah, the population cull conspiracy theory has been espoused by noted scientician Ann Coulter:

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity

It goes on painfully like that: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/02/28/let_them_eat_tofu!

[Chutney]

Just to pick fault with some of that sillyness, Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian. He often forsake meat on medical advice for a dietary condition he had, but this popular anachronism of the sandal wearing genocidist is just another misrepresenting urban myth.

[mitzidog]

I want to eliminate Ann Coulter, slowly and with maximum prejudice.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Whereas she wanted to invade muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to christianity.  She's all heart, that woman.

It's certainly a worrying sign that she thinks Adolf Hitler was a leftwing liberal.

Oh, and before the industrial revolution, the global population was approximately 2 billion.  Despite the best efforts of two world wars, the global population has rocketed in response to the discovery of oil and coal, the two primary factors of man-made global warming (as well as industrialised farming, resulting in a lot of farting cows).  So I suppose you could say that global warming is a response to an overlarge population, but it was the seeds of global warming that allowed the large population in the first place.

It's also a frightening thought that without readily available energy sources as efficient and useful as fossil fuels, it's unlikely that this population is sustainable.  However my solution is love machines - everyone in the whole population over the age of sixteen will by law have to have sex at least twice a week on a special love machine, which will use the energy expended to generate electricity.

[SetToStun]

It's also a frightening thought that without readily available energy sources as efficient and useful as fossil fuels, it's unlikely that this population is sustainable.  However my solution is love machines - everyone in the whole population over the age of sixteen will by law have to have sex at least twice a week on a special love machine, which will use the energy expended to generate electricity.

What's surprising is how inefficient fossil fuels are as a source of energy - this table gives some percentage figures for mass->energy efficiency. Burning any sort of fuel is never going to get about ~40% efficiency because it's so damned hard to break down the forces holding the mass together just using combustion. Nuclear fission is more efficient; fusion better still. The only 100% efficient conversion is matter/antimatter annihilation and that's just never going to be a fuel source.

Unless sustainables and fusion get off the ground really quickly then even the current population is going to seem wildly extravagant within 20 or so years - even fission will only take us so far.

EDIT: But I'm all for the compulsory twice-a-week shagging. Very much all for it. I believe in doing my civic duty so would be prepared to sacrifice my energy to the cause. Do I get to choose the lucky recipient* of my attentions?

^{* I say "lucky recipient", you say "suicide-victim-in-the-making", whatever - so long as the job gets done.}

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Oh and Hitler wasn't an atheist either.

[mitzidog]

However my solution is love machines - everyone in the whole population over the age of sixteen will by law have to have sex at least twice a week on a special love machine, which will use the energy expended to generate electricity.

That covers one of my energy saving lightbulbs for 30 seconds, what do I do the rest of the week?

Wank in the dark I suppose.

[Pylon Man]

Oh and also, "environmentalists" who oppose nuclear power are complete fools. I'd be perfectly happy driving around in a nuclear car to be honest if it would help cut pollution. Don't know exactly what would happen in a crash though..

[mitzidog]

If all the hot air talked about Global Warming were harnessed to provide cheap energy...

Oh wait - I'm taking metaphors liteerally again aren't I.

[Neville Chamberlain]

Here's a good article...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3965/

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

Al Gore Wins Noble Peace Prize

*biggytitbo's head explodes*