Al Gore you turd

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I think Al Gore must finally be thinking "thank fuck they rigged the election". He comes across as dull Gatesian world saviour while Bush is the dead duck in the office with the deceased cadavar of his presidency being kicked around firstly for fun, but then in quite a bored schoolkid way as the Democrats finally wait for the worst administration in U.S history to shuffle off.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The liberals and the PC crowd now have their delusion raised to Nobel status

Jeremy Mason, Houston, USA

Give me Gore any day over these knob-ends.

[Peking O]

I think Al Gore must finally be thinking "thank fuck they rigged the election". He comes across as dull Gatesian world saviour while Bush is the dead duck in the office with the deceased cadavar of his presidency being kicked around firstly for fun, but then in quite a bored schoolkid way as the Democrats finally wait for the worst administration in U.S history to shuffle off.

You're making the mistake of assuming that Bush cares what people think of him. He clearly couldn't give a shit. It really wouldn't surprise me if he thought that his presidency had been a resounding success.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I haven't assumed Bush cares. He quite obviously doesn't care. I was saying he's been quite awful, whether he cares or realises is of no significance.

[Peking O]

Ah I see, fair enough. Having lived under Bush for over five years I'm somewhat nervous about your "...the Democrats finally wait for the worst administration in U.S history to shuffle off" comment. True, it would take a fuck-up of monumental proportions for them not to get in next year, but this is the USA we're talking about. Anything could happen.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Really? Even The Prezinator?

[Peking O]

The "allow Schwarzenegger to run for President" campaign seems to have gone quiet, or perhaps I haven't been paying attention. It's difficult to imagine them changing the constitution for Arnold, simply because they wouldn't be able to do it just for Arnold (ie. all kinds of foreign muck could potentially become president).

[Pogue Mahone]

What exactly is the justification behind awarding Gore the Nobel Peace Prize?

[surreal]

What exactly is the justification behind awarding Gore the Nobel Peace Prize?

Well it clearly doesn't fit under any of the science categories...

[falafel]

It's not though is it? In what way is man made global warming a scientific fact? It's actually a theory than can never be proved to any reasonable degree of likeliness and is largely the result of politics and institutional biases. MMGW is entirely the concern of the rich middle classes in the West, 99% of the rest of the world  - the poorly paid factory worker in China churning out consumerist tat for the west, the children in iraq dying because of DU, people in Africa whose water isn't fit to drink - don't give a fuck because they have better things to worry about. I'm sure they don't take too kindly to white multi millionaires with private jets and huge mansions lecturing them on how to live.

I know I'm a bit late on this one, but I love this comment. In the grand scheme of things, if global warming is happening this argument is akin to a man stopping in the middle of the road and saying "Don't tell me there's a bus coming, I'm far more worried about this chewing gum I've got stuck to my shoe."

[samadriel]

You have that exactly backwards.

[Tommy Trumpet]

MMGW is entirely the concern of the rich middle classes in the West, 99% of the rest of the world  - the poorly paid factory worker in China churning out consumerist tat for the west, the children in iraq dying because of DU, people in Africa whose water isn't fit to drink - don't give a fuck because they have better things to worry about. I'm sure they don't take too kindly to white multi millionaires with private jets and huge mansions lecturing them on how to live.

This is way off the mark I think. Like you, I'm willing to admit that I haven't spent the time (and probably don't have the scientific mind) to genuinely understand and assess for myself the reality of global warming. However, as I understand it, global warming is likely to hit the poor world FAR harder than the 'rich West', at least in the short term. Partly because they don't have the wealth to deal with any problems, but also just because geographically they are vulnerable and will suffer earlier, more severe effects: drought/famine in Africa and flooding in Bangladesh/Asia. The changes will be less severe in Europe, and we'll have the economic capablities to adjust at least at first.

So I don't think it makes much sense to suggest that global warming is being whipped by our governments. We (Europe and the USA) are the countries who need to make a drastic lifestyle change to stop global warming, something governments know would be hugely unpopular and get them voted out. The scientific consensus suggests urgent and 'extreme' action is needed to slow global warming enough to stop the worst effects. The government know they could never get away with this, and so they just set feeble targets and tell people to use renewable light bulbs, as if that will make a difference when they continue to expand air travel, encourage car use, etc.

[P K Duck]

Consensus science isn't science, it's just consensus, and man-made global warming is perhaps the most obvious modern example of this phenomenum.

There is too much funding at stake for global warming to turn out to be anything but man-made, and so the conclusion is pretty much reached before the experiments are constructed. On top of that we now have thousands of secondary and tertiary jobs surrounding the enterprise.

The UK is to blame for starting the poitical gaming: Thatcher saw nuclear fuel as a union-lite alternative to fossil fuels, and ever since government money has been pumped endlessly into any project that will demonise coal, oil or gas, and equally telling funding has been diverted away from projects that are critical of nuclear energy. Man-made global warming tops the list, as it clearly labels fossils fuels as "bad", and presents nuclear fuels as "good", a mockery of environmentalism.

Sun spots and their effects on CO2 absorption by the oceans accounts for more of the observed data than man-made global warming.

[Mr Colossal]

In the grand scheme of things, if global warming is happening this argument is akin to a man stopping in the middle of the road and saying "Don't tell me there's a bus coming, I'm far more worried about this chewing gum I've got stuck to my shoe."

You have that exactly backwards.

'if' being the operative word, there. 


This is what genuine scientists are busy trying to prove, using evidence.


What is wrong with the movement if their findings are starting to show some substance?   There are only finite resources on the world, and population and pollution is steadily increasing whilst these deplete, so at what point does it become a serious problem?   A more accurate representation of that anology, assuming global warming IS happening, would be that a  blind man is running TOWARDS the bus,  meanwhile he listens confused between the conflicting shoutings of roadside pedestrians who have hedged bets on his survival- one group telling him 'to get off the fucking road!', the others telling him to 'stay where he is', and that 'there IS no bus.'   What would you do in that situation?


Also, im quite confused about the 'dont you want to evolve!?  Bring on scales!' argument you sometimes hear people making- as the human being is just a transitory stage of a never ending 'cycle' of life in the grand scheme of things... A cycle of life in which our meagre existence is just a tiny jot on. Some people have assumed that environmentalist and primitivist attitudes will keep man in the 'dark ages', and that  evolution dictates  we will naturally move onto the bigger and better, in order to survive in the environment we find ourselves in. But like the dinosaurs, we, as a species, are not needed on this earth at ALL  (unless you could give us a kooky universal 'purpose' like our technology enabled us to transport animal and plant life accross continents, and bring life to areas previously 'uninhabitable' or something...) So our survival may one day depend on TOTAL mastery of our environment (which we do on a miniature scale in terms of shelter, warmth, food etc. anyway) on a mass scale,  and hanging onto that narrow range of variables that makes OUR life on this planet possible.

That maybe hundreds of thousands of years into the future, who knows?  but if scientists think there are warning signs, it's something we should perhaps be paying a bit more attention to, and preparing for, no?    Its people who are trying to exploit these worries for their own financial and political gain who are the problem. If it  IS an issue it should be beyond that.  When the leaders of the world, who make all the decisions have conflicting humanitarian interests in things like oil, and war, how can you wait for an 'if it's a serious issue they would tell us'  style decision?   


Thus  it's something I think its worth paying attention to. Im not running around screaming 'The end of the word is nigh!'- And I'm certainly going to be highly skeptical of anybody who thinks I should be giving them money to justify my concern, as well.

[micanio]

Sun spots and their effects on CO2 absorption by the oceans accounts for more of the observed data than man-made global warming.

No they don't.....

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2006-9b/hl2006-9b-en.html

or is this just consensus science?

[Regular Chicken]

Consensus science isn't science, it's just consensus

No, its science.

[samadriel]

'if' being the operative word, there. 

It's possibly ironic that it was I whose reply was exactly backwards.  Disregard please!

[biggytitbo]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070815/nasa_blogger_070815/20070815?hub=SciTech

"Four of the top 10(hottest years) are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

What's the use of that?

[mitzidog]

There is a strong argument for being more energy efficient which has nothing to do with climate, so if there's an even chance that sorting out the wasteful manner we irrevocably use up the resources which the Earth affords might also pay off in slowing down some sort of climatic catastrophe as well, then what's the beef? (Actually reliance on beef that is a part of the problem - trouble is cows are really tasty)

[micanio]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070815/nasa_blogger_070815/20070815?hub=SciTech

Do you actually know what global warming does to the planet? I think you said earlier that you don't understand the science. Well, that's blatantly obvious.....

[biggytitbo]

Do you actually know what global warming does to the planet? I think you said earlier that you don't understand the science. Well, that's blatantly obvious.....

Err, I think the point is that these original figures were used as part of the argument by the climate change aristocracy, notably Al Gore. And they're wrong. That's all. I'm not saying it proves anything.

[Tommy Trumpet]

I'm just struggling to see what motivation you think there is for promoting global warming falsely. For any government tackling global warming seriously would be a tremendous challenge that would involve doing deeply unpopular things - why would they want to force a non existant problem on themselves?

Even if there is some doubt about global warming, the idea of cutting back on fossil fuel usage is clearly a good one simply for the fact that they are running out. It may not be as soon or catastrophic as some 'peak oil' theorists predict, but it's definitely coming so the sooner we make ourselves less reliant on fossil fuels the better really.

I reccomend George Monbiot's book "Heat". Again, I haven't done the research to really know whether his figures are trustworthy, but he attempts to work out how Britain could cut it's carbon emissions by 90% by 2030 - by his calculations this is the sort of change that would be required to give a good chance of stopping the more disastrous effects of climate change. he also has an interesting section on how many climate change sceptics point to dodgy figures that have been produced by 'think tanks' that are sponsored by oil companies.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It still remains sensible to monitor and conserve our fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy to make sure these never run out. Whether climate change is happening, or whether it's man made or happening anyway is of less importance.

[biggytitbo]

It still remains sensible to monitor and conserve our fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy to make sure these never run out. Whether climate change is happening, or whether it's man made or happening anyway is of less importance.

That's something we can all agree on. The most pressing issues facing the world today are inequality, economic exploitation and debt slavery. Issues that effect pretty much every single human being on the planet. Renewable energy and self sufficiency promise to free 6 billion people from poverty and oppression and that's something we should all be working to do. Giving the bastards responsible for all this even more power over us is not the solution - it's aggravating problem. Global warming, true nor false, is a diversion from the real issue, the fact that deliberate policies by a tiny minority keep billions of people in poverty. This can be changed, and with it any potential environmental issues, but only if we recognise its THE problem and are not sidetracked. That's the thing about this whole debate - we're all on the same side. Man made Global warming if true, is ultimetly about one thing and one thing only - economics. Fix this problem - that keeps the majority of the world poor to the advantage of a few and everything else follows.

[falafel]

(re consensus science being mere consensus)

No, its science.

Quite. That's the whole point of the peer-review system - so you don't get some twat producing dodgy science and making ridiculous claims and not being called to account until some malinformed fuckwit journalist has successfully and comprehensively broadcast this amazing news of "the marvellous discovery of a cure for gays". Science is bloody complicated, it would seem, and the best way of making sure that the stuff that directly affects your man in the street is legit is through letting other scientists have a look first, just in case you''re an incurable racist or you've forgotten to carry the one or something like that. The more scientists agree, the more solid the foundation. Of course the obligation is always there to question, one should never assume that the consensus it incontrovertibly right, but it has to do fow now while we try and do better - and indeed as far as I can tell the case for global warming is pretty compelling; and even so surely it's better to be 'green' anyway? I don't see the point in waiting till the oceans are burning.

Surely?

[Chutney]

I reccomend George Monbiot's book "Heat". Again, I haven't done the research to really know whether his figures are trustworthy, but he attempts to work out how Britain could cut it's carbon emissions by 90% by 2030 - by his calculations this is the sort of change that would be required to give a good chance of stopping the more disastrous effects of climate change. he also has an interesting section on how many climate change sceptics point to dodgy figures that have been produced by 'think tanks' that are sponsored by oil companies.

Seconded - an excellent, informative book.  Doesn't underplay the seriousness of the issue, but at the same time is sufficiently pragmatic to realise that we don't want to have to regress to the dark ages to achieve such a cut.  Unfortunately the overall impression is that the political will to implement what's needed in time just won't be there.

Ah well.

[P K Duck]

No they don't.....

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2006-9b/hl2006-9b-en.html

or is this just consensus science?

Nope... it's a set of wafer-thin reporting that takes either sun spots or CO2 absorption by the oceans at face value, and doesn't try to understand what either phenomena actually mean, let alone their implications.

For example: it takes the oceans about a hundred years to respond to a significant sun cycle, so to quote sun data from 2000 is either ignorant or just plain deceptive.



Fuckssake, consensus science isn't the open peer review system either, it's a bunch of scientists from the same funding group reviewing each other's work: it's a mockery of peer review. Pro-man made global warming scientific debates are nothing of the sort, and that's what raises warning flags with some people, irrespective of the reality of the underlying phenomenum.

[MojoJojo]

There is too much funding at stake for global warming to turn out to be anything but man-made, and so the conclusion is pretty much reached before the experiments are constructed. On top of that we now have thousands of secondary and tertiary jobs surrounding the enterprise.

If you had any experience of the academic world, you would know the suggestion that they are falsifying results "for funding" is ludicrous. If the scientists wanted money they could get jobs in industry, and double their income easily. The vast majority really do work out of curiosity and for recognition. And jumping on bandwagons doesn't get you much recognition. In my experience, about half of journal papers are responses to other papers saying "They're wrong, and here is why" - academics like to be disagreable.

And even assuming all the scientists have been bought out, you are again implying that between the car industry, manufacturing and power industries, they don't have the money, wit or will to provide funding for any research which doesn't agree with global warming.

Again, the idea that their is a conspiracy of scienctists who are falsifying their results to further their political aims ("We want guaranteed funding for at least two PhD students per proffessor! When do we want it? NOW!") is ludicrous.

[biggytitbo]

I find it quite amusing that you're praising Moronbiot's book. He's part of the problem, not the solution. Yet another innefectual son a rich tory establishment vetted faux lefty Uncle Tom - who thinks any debate and questioning of the current order should never go beyond the very narrow terms that his masters approve of. If the problem really is as apacolyptic as he says it is he's literally the last person equipped to help us get us out of this mess.

No doubt he is friends with other cluesless spawns of the establishment like Billionaire 'enviormental adventurer' David meyer De Rothschild(like Al Gore he flies around the world in private jets telling people poorer than him, ie 99.999% of the world how to live), who wrote the official book to go with the climate change aristorcracies laughable Live Earth concerts, and once said in response to been asked why the polar ice caps are also melting on mars despite the fact there are no people there and responded:

"Because that planet is closer to the sun, my friend.

If man made global warming is true and these are the kind of twats deigned to save us from our awful fate - we are well and truly fucked.