SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
That I think is well known (by anyone who has spent some time on TMC).
I actually remember that. (Ok, not in that much detail… :wink
Not really sure what you mean by that though...
If you say so. :wink:
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Far better to have more FlasherZs in the world (who do the right things) than Al Gores (who says the "right" things but does the wrong thing).
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Doing the right thing is as admirable as it gets.
The part I don’t get though, is when folks start disputing 97%* of the world’s most knowledgeable climate scientists (the remaining 3%* are apparently still somewhat undecided).
And what exactly are folks who are opposing these 97%* of the worlds climate scientists basing their opposition on?
To me – being reasonably accurately informed about reality, and also as a consequence honest and upright about what you know, and also about what you don’t know… These are also highly admirable traits.
And IMO, such traits are desperately needed all over the world today. Especially from people who are highly skilled and knowledgeable professionals – pillars really – in their respective communities. And it also seems that they are especially needed in the US, since your country is so influential economically as well as through tech. (Not to mention the far too large gap between the public perception of this issue and the position of the 97%* of the climate scientists. 55%** of the US public thinks the science is unsettled or don’t know. Only 45%** think there is scientific agreement on AGW.)
[Edit: Here I originally expressed some criticism against Gore. Other posters in comments below have since debunked the grounds for that criticism. Hence, I’ve decided to withdraw my criticism towards Gore and remove it from this post.]
*Source: Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? [Spoiler alert: The answer is yes. (My Edit.)]
**Source: the consensus project [And click on "OUR MISSION" (My edit.)]
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
On the other hand blasting rockets into space is not "environmentally sound" yet we give Elon a pass because the ultimate goal is worthwhile. Likewise the message that Gore is spreading about climate change is more important than his individual emissions. Also, as I understand it, Gore's large "home" is also the center of his business operations.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
[Edit: Here I originally expressed some criticism against Gore. Other posters in comments below have since debunked the grounds for that criticism. Hence, I’ve decided to withdraw my criticism towards Gore and remove it from this post.]
I guess I don’t really get Elon’s ‘(b)romance’ with Mars though. But I also guess ‘we’ might eventually find out whether a surface gravity of about 38% of that on Earth will be enough to sustain an atmosphere, prevent muscle atrophy, prevent deterioration of the human skeleton, prevent visual impairment or perhaps even blindness due to intracranial pressure, and last but not least prevent developmental damage to human fetuses. And that’s not even mentioning the non-existent magnetosphere…
But, there seems to be a lot of highly valuable things that can come out of the use of unmanned satellites and various space probes. And it would of course have been good if we would have been able to detect and counter the asteroid that recently impacted Russia… And space travel will eventually be the only way for humans to survive once the sun starts to balloon. That is, if 'we' manage to last that long...
I guess I don’t really get Elon’s ‘(b)romance’ with Mars though. But I also guess ‘we’ might eventually find out whether a surface gravity of about 38% of that on Earth will be enough to sustain an atmosphere, prevent muscle atrophy, prevent deterioration of the human skeleton, prevent visual impairment or perhaps even blindness due to intracranial pressure, and last but not least prevent developmental damage to human fetuses. And that’s not even mentioning the non-existent magnetosphere…
But, there seems to be a lot of highly valuable things that can come out of the use of unmanned satellites and various space probes. And it would of course have been good if we would have been able to detect and counter the asteroid that recently impacted Russia… And space travel will eventually be the only way for humans to survive once the sun starts to balloon. That is, if 'we' manage to last that long...
Last edited:
Please check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw
Frozen methane under the oceans could cause a real disaster to the Earth in case of a rise of global average temperature of 6 degrees Celsius.
- - - Updated - - -
I also would like to invite all TMC Members and guests to share the above linked video with all your friends and relatives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw
Frozen methane under the oceans could cause a real disaster to the Earth in case of a rise of global average temperature of 6 degrees Celsius.
- - - Updated - - -
I also would like to invite all TMC Members and guests to share the above linked video with all your friends and relatives.
Last edited:
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
Thanks Raffy, Tigerade and Swedish Advocate, and others, for the resources and reference materials.
With respect to Al Gore, while the denier contingent has gone to town on some of his personal lifestyle choices (and has tried to use his involvement to politicize the science), his contribution to the public knowledge of this problem cannot be underestimated. He has been consistently working on this for the past 30 years and has done a great deal to put this issue in front of the public. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, the rest of us need to work as tirelessly to educate friends and colleagues and to move this issue to the top of the public policy agenda (where it rightly belongs).
The problem is real, it is man-made and the need for action in becoming increasingly urgent (for the reasons highlighted in the above video).
The solutions, in the form of renewable energy, electric transport, HVAC, energy storage and other technologies all exist. All that is required is intelligent public policy which puts an increasing price on carbon emissions to accurately reflect the harm they have caused and will increasingly continue to cause in the future.
With respect to Al Gore, while the denier contingent has gone to town on some of his personal lifestyle choices (and has tried to use his involvement to politicize the science), his contribution to the public knowledge of this problem cannot be underestimated. He has been consistently working on this for the past 30 years and has done a great deal to put this issue in front of the public. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, the rest of us need to work as tirelessly to educate friends and colleagues and to move this issue to the top of the public policy agenda (where it rightly belongs).
The problem is real, it is man-made and the need for action in becoming increasingly urgent (for the reasons highlighted in the above video).
The solutions, in the form of renewable energy, electric transport, HVAC, energy storage and other technologies all exist. All that is required is intelligent public policy which puts an increasing price on carbon emissions to accurately reflect the harm they have caused and will increasingly continue to cause in the future.
I'd add to the considerations about Gore's home that having people -- sometimes 15 to 20 people -- over for dinner at one's home is a great way to build relationships and influence others. If you wish to influence people with power, hosting a 20-person formal dinner is one of the great ways to do it, but it does require significantly more space than the "humble abode" some have recommended above.
Mostly, I'd suggest that his contributions so far outweigh any potential negatives about his personal choices as to make them negligible. Would that we all could say the same, right?
Mostly, I'd suggest that his contributions so far outweigh any potential negatives about his personal choices as to make them negligible. Would that we all could say the same, right?
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
I feel that I stand corrected, and have decided to withdraw my criticism towards Gore from the posts above.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Also:
If there’s no problem in the first place, then there’s no problem to solve. Right? So then consequently, there is no longer ‘a right thing to do’ (paraphrasing). Because no matter what you do – there won’t be anything wrong with that.
Or maybe I’m the only one who ‘just doesn’t get it’…
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
No. Extremely non-enlightening.
This is just some that I was able to pull together as a complete layman…
The three authors are a Professor in marketing, a Senior Lecturer in Managerial economics (the dude on whose homepage Kaivball found the PDF above), and a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering.
The Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering belongs to Willie Wei-Hock Soon. He appears to currently be a Dr. at the Harward–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
So not exactly any Climate Scientists! So... Wonder why there’s a PDF on the Internet dated 2009? Hmmm…
A little intel on Dr. Soon:
There’s some more here:
Willie Soon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Soon and Baliunas controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nice try though Kaivball…
Last edited:
Let's see... post a misleading/shabby link that you think is groundbreaking, wait for other members here to debunk you, leave without defending your source, and then come back to do the same thing a couple weeks later. Yep, your trolling strategy is pretty sound. But the shtick is starting to get old now. Next time you post, tell us YOUR real thoughts and why you think climate change is a liberal hoax (I'm assuming that's your stance) and respond to us when we provide contradictory evidence. Thank you.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Moderator's Note:
Let's keep the critiques aimed at the publications, not forum members.
Robert's note: I find it helpful to see "what about this article? / It's crap science because..." because these exchanges give me a better sense for the tenuous scientific basis of climate-change skeptics, and because it helps me rebut similar arguments outside the forums.
Let's keep the critiques aimed at the publications, not forum members.
Robert's note: I find it helpful to see "what about this article? / It's crap science because..." because these exchanges give me a better sense for the tenuous scientific basis of climate-change skeptics, and because it helps me rebut similar arguments outside the forums.
I would like to point out this course starting in January 2014 given by Coursera to all TMC Members and guests:
"Why a 4 degree Celsius warmer world must be avoided"
https://www.coursera.org/course/warmerworld?sharebuttons_ref=fb
"Why a 4 degree Celsius warmer world must be avoided"
https://www.coursera.org/course/warmerworld?sharebuttons_ref=fb
I would like to report an abstract concerning the course mentioned in my previous post.
Under current pledges and commitments, the world is likely to reach a 4°C degree warming by the end of the century and 2°C warming as early as 2040. This MOOC brings leading and renowned scientists to provide a synthesis of the most recent scientific evidence and provides an analysis of likely impacts and risks with a focus on developing countries. It chronicles already observed changes in the climate system and its impacts, through the increase in carbon dioxide emissions, corresponding temperature increases and melting of glaciers and sea ice, and changes in precipitation patterns. It also offers projections for the 21st century for droughts, heat waves, sea level rise, with implications on food and water security as well as possible impacts on agriculture, water availability, ecosystems and human health.
The MOOC presents this analysis for the likely impacts of a 4-degree warming trajectory and stresses the need for decision makers and communities to take a firm look at their adaptation choices, while signaling the urgency for mitigation action. Participants will also be introduced to the risks of triggering non-linearity, and tipping elements like the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and large-scale Amazon dieback. This MOOC ends with a discussion on the main policy choices needed to prevent warming to be above 2°C.
Under current pledges and commitments, the world is likely to reach a 4°C degree warming by the end of the century and 2°C warming as early as 2040. This MOOC brings leading and renowned scientists to provide a synthesis of the most recent scientific evidence and provides an analysis of likely impacts and risks with a focus on developing countries. It chronicles already observed changes in the climate system and its impacts, through the increase in carbon dioxide emissions, corresponding temperature increases and melting of glaciers and sea ice, and changes in precipitation patterns. It also offers projections for the 21st century for droughts, heat waves, sea level rise, with implications on food and water security as well as possible impacts on agriculture, water availability, ecosystems and human health.
The MOOC presents this analysis for the likely impacts of a 4-degree warming trajectory and stresses the need for decision makers and communities to take a firm look at their adaptation choices, while signaling the urgency for mitigation action. Participants will also be introduced to the risks of triggering non-linearity, and tipping elements like the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and large-scale Amazon dieback. This MOOC ends with a discussion on the main policy choices needed to prevent warming to be above 2°C.
Yes, but Al Gore has more invested in Carbon credit schemes than anyone else in the world. Be careful what someone is preaching when it only serves to benefit themselves!
Similar threads
