Gore and the judge
Al Gore has been in the news for two quite different reasons. He jointly received the Nobel peace prize, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a High Court judge in the UK said that while his movie was largely accurate there were nine inaccuracies. It is this second element that interests me.
Probably the most important issue is the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide. Gore’s movie gave the impression that, in the past 650,000 years or so, CO2 increases led to the warming at the end of glacial periods. Whereas it seems more likely that increases in CO2 lagged the initial warming at the end of the glacial periods, and then acted as an amplifier of the warming.
The overall pattern of warming and cooling was most likely driven by Milankovitch cycles. These cycles describe the changing relationship between the Earth and the sun, as the Earth’s orbit, tilting and wobbling varies over periods of tens of thousands of years. This results in changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth (This should not be confused with the argument around solar variability being the reason for recent temperature changes - this has been debunked and I blogged about it previously).
But the Milankovitch cycles don’t explain the magnitude of the temperature change, which is much larger than the changes in solar radiation would produce. The likely positive feedbacks are Co2 and ice. As temperatures creep up, CO2 is released (possibly from the ocean) and ice retreats, both resulting in higher temperatures. The important point is that CO2 does produce warming and the warming we saw in the twentieth century was not due to increased solar radiation but due to the accumulation of CO2 (see New Scientist for more info).
The second issue is the extent of sea level rise. The judge disputed comments in the film about sea level rise. It’s worth recalling that the IPCC latest report only went for 59cm rise by 2100, BUT specifically excluded ice dynamics from their projection as they said there was too much uncertainty. But as I blogged about previously there are respected scientists who suggest that there are real risks of very significant sea level rise this century. Gore was right to raise this danger.
There are some other issues in the judge’s ruling that are well dealt with by the New Scientist article which concludes:
For my part, I would say that strictly speaking, Gore oversimplified certain points, made a few factual errors and, at times, chose the wrong poster child (Mount Kilimanjaro should have been replaced by any number of Alaskan or Andean glaciers, for instance). It’s unfortunate, but it remains the most comprehensive popular documentary on climate change science I have seen.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Expect any number of posts about how this refutes AGW. These will of course ignore the following:
a)The judge is allowing it to be shown with corrections in schools as it is basically correct
b)The inaccuracies have been addressed elsewhere, e.g. Realclimate’s review of the film (which states that the small errors don’t detract from the main point)
c)The film is an attempt to sum up the state of the science in a way that most people will understand: it isn’t the science itself.
Final thoughts from
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/too-convenien-2.html:
[…] I wonder if the judge isn’t secretly on Al Gore’s side. Any honest supplementary materials intended to account for Gore’s so-called errors are bound to make the situation look even worse than he described it.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I often think books and documentaries would be more interesting if they had a part 2 dealing with reaction.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”[2] Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider
“Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.[7] (page 274)…….Only a major crisis would persuade the masses to consent to such a “wrenching transformation.” -Al Gore.
“The earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun.”[3, page 4] Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming
Opposing today’s deceptive propaganda, “more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists (physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists) have dared to publicly disagree with the supposed “global warming” consensus. Their research showed that the increase of “atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates.”
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
“”Their experiments confirmed that cosmic rays, by ionising molecular particles, provide nuclei for condensation of water vapour, thereby significantly influencing cloud cover on the planet. In periods of high electro-magnetic activity in the sun, such as occurred during the past century, cosmic rays are deflected, resulting in a reduction of clouds. This effect plus greater direct radiation from the sun is likely a significant factor in global warming.”
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=12
“The past, both recent and geologic, has seen large and rapid natural changes in temperature. Any onset of warmer temperatures [which increases the rate of evaporation] would be expected to produce a drop in sea level, not a rise.”
http://www.sepp.org/publications/GWbooklet/withfigures.html
“In almost a point-by-point refutation of Al Gore’s unsupportable rant that ‘the debate is over; man is warming the Earth,’ Singer and Avery explain technically but lucidly why nearly every cherry-picked fact in Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is contradicted by science…. Man is in fact all but irrelevant to global climate, as the sun and its accompanying solar system rule.”
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20645
To finish of with:
“Dr. Timothy Ball’s excellent debunking of the IOOP political statement, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? was almost totally ignored by the environmentally correct old media. Dr. Ball’s excellent piece starts with his credentials: “Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian PhDs. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.â€?
AND
“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207Warming.htm
October 13th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
wots u point even, I thought u was on our side???? Uneven???
October 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
what’s my point??? Good god man!!….
I’m on the side of prosperity for all, co-operation and freedom from the tyranny and hierarchies of “group think”.
In short an independent common wealth of the basic dignities of life and leisure available to all as a citizen right. People living their own authentic life, not being dictated one by a rigged debt based rigged system. It is the only way as a collective to get our commonsense back in the driving seat once again.
But in saying that i’m not perfectly logical myself, at other times i can’t be bothered caring about it all,to be honest, but that doesn’t detract from the reason behind it.
Work as a Vocation:
http://www.democrats.org.nz/News/Articles/2007/Work-as-a-Vocation.aspx
October 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I think even is just demonstrating the paucity of the evidence against current climate science. Particularly telling is the quote from Tim Ball, which is direct evidence of his economy with the truth (see DeSmogBlog, at great length).
October 14th, 2007 at 6:46 am
The Greens would be well advised to start to distance themselves from Al Gore.
There is a growing groundswell of opinion that the man is double dipping, by claiming to be carbon neutral through purchasing carbon credits.
Trouble is that he owns the company from which he buys his carbon credits (Generation Investment Management).
http://www.billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html
From which this quote sums up how Al Gore will create a massive negative for carbon trading schemes ever being seen as a good instrument to achieve carbon reduction.
“As one commenter posting here and on other blogs has noted:
Hmmm. The Goracle is chairman and a founding partner of Generation Investment Management LLP, a boutique international investment firm that invests other peoples’ money, for a fee, into the stocks of ‘green’ companies. … So when Al beats the drum for possible future global warming, he’s also drumming up business.
And profiting from hyping the “global warming” crisis.
In a nutshell, Gore consumes large amounts of carbon-based electricity while he trumpets a growing “global warming” crisis that drives up the value of “green” companies like the ones in which he buys carbon offsets invests in their stocks.
A primary rule of good investigative journalism is, “Follow the money.” The media - and perhaps the SEC - ought to take a deeper look at Gore, Generation Investment Management and his carbon offset stock purchases.”
I think the judge is right to question the motives if not the methodology of Al Gore’s film.
October 14th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Mind you Gore wont be in business long. (he will have made fortune and retire to a life of luxury)
Carbon trading is set to fail as there will be more carbon credits available than carbon emisions, causing the price of carbon credits to fall.
http://blog.businessgreen.com/2007/02/emission_tradin.html
Meaning the Russian and Central European countries will have to do an OPEC and restrict the volume of carbon credits available to keep the price up to the 50Euro mark. This is considered to be the value per ton of carbon that is going to have a marked effect on carbon emmision reduction and the climate change desired.
With the volume of carbon credits always increasing (as carbon emmision industries are modified or shut down) the price will plummet further. Making it OK for New Zealand to invest in coal fired electridity generation and buy carbon credits for around 1Euro per ton.
October 14th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I guess the world was always mad…
October 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Nought but perception makes it so
October 14th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Actually it wouldn’t be a bad idea for Gore to produce “An Inconvienient Truth 2″… He would have to deal with criticisms of his own lifestyle however.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Free Carbon Offsets:
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com
October 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I wonder if I ride my bike to work, someone will buy my carbon offsets??
……Anyway even if it just becomes a big laugh it is step in the right direction..
Here’s a concept . combine a blog with a wiki with an argument map and make it one of the basis for government policy………….
October 15th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Are any climate scientists reading this blog? If so, how do you deal with the kind of drivel which is being posted by some people here? Is it best to ignore it, or is it best to spend the time refuting the nonsense?
October 15th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Oh, by the way, there is bad science being used by posters on both sides of the argument of what is causing the current climate change.
For those people who believe that humans are responsible for the current global warming, _please_ make sure you get your science correct. While some of the “deniers” are simply bizarre, there are also some very clued up people who will pounce on any inaccuracies.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:41 am
What do we lose if we follow gore, a few dollars and we get to look at a few trees, what if we don’t follow gore,, ohh we lose the WORLD we live in, i don’t care about you but tell me you don’t want to help the planet i will personally come around and kick your arse
October 15th, 2007 at 7:18 am
how do you deal with the kind of drivel which is being posted by some people here?
YoU ask them
Wot parts/ part of this report do you not agree with>>
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
October 15th, 2007 at 8:29 am
From Kiwiblog
“Fairfacts Media Says:
October 12th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I wonder if Dear Leader will keep praising the film now it has been found packed full of lies.”
October 15th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
if as gerrit says, carbon credits will come to outnumber carbon emissions, driving the price of credits down, this is evidence that the policy is succeeding, not failing.
if as gerrit says, gore is buying his carbon credits from his own company, that must mean his own actions sum to an improvement in emission levels. since his share of the profit on the company’s sale of carbon credits to himself will be small as a percentage of the price he pays the company for those credits i don’t see how this can be called double dipping. it’s not double dipping when a supermarket owner buys a can of spaghetti from their own shop.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Andrew,
If the price of carbon emmisions is very low then the savings will not be great as everyone can afford to buy carbon credits and keep on polluting.
Which is a failure, no?
The ultimate goal is nil carbon emmisions so the demand for carbon credits will be extinquished. Meaning the value of the carbon credits is nothing. However before that point is reached it will be possible to buy carbon credits real cheap and keep polluting.
Check out
http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/carbontrading
And see what a disincentive carbon trading will be to saving the planet. It has been taken over by the Al Gore’s of this world, not to reduce carbon emmisions but to keep trading them for etenity (? How long anyway)
Suggest you type Al Gore Carbon Credits in google and see what the rest of the world thinks of his little scheme.
The analogy with the shopkeeper buying his own spagetti is correct and exactly what Al Gore does. However he is selling and buying “Hot Air”.
The shopkeepr is selling a commodity where, growers, canners, wholesalers, shopkeepres and consumers have a stakeholding.
Al Gore is selling “hot air”. Calling it double dipping is a bit harsh true,
http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/carbontrading
October 15th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
no the goal is not nil emissions. the goal is emmissions balanced by absorption.
if credits are so plentiful that they become cheap that means a lot of absorption is going on relative to emission.
my analogy with the spaghetti is correct & exactly what al gore does. he is selling & buying an intangible, namely the product of someone’s effort. it’s like buying someone’s labour by paying wages.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Andrew,
“no the goal is not nil emissions. the goal is emmissions balanced by absorption.”
Well I’ll be, here I thought the world was going down the gurgler because of CO2 and you are saying that if it all balances (emmisions V absorbtion)it will be OK.
Guess we are disucssing different scenarios, especially how to soak up the extra carbon already in the ether.
So, as long as the Russians dont cut down their Siberian forests and dont industrialise back to the pre revolution days we will be OK?
Problem with Al Gore’s company is that they are not buying carbon credit, they are creating them from thin air. They are not bought from an exisitng carbon sink, but as potential carbon credits from dubious carbon saving schemes.
He is buying his companies carbon credits which, unlike the cans of spagetti the shopkeeper buys in physically from his supplier, are created by his company from dubious sources at rates set not by the market in fair trade and exchange but as an Enron type transaction of smoke and mirrors.
If his company bought real carbon credits it would be fair, but it is highly questionable that they are.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Gerrit,
I think you have a good point. I don’t particularly like the idea of emissions trading either, for the reasons you point out.
My gas company gives me the option to “offset” my CO2 emissions from burning natural gas. I am rather suspicious, and think it is better for me to simply reduce emissions by not burning as much gas in the first place (I’ve done things like install a low flow shower head, and am trying to instruct the kids in the virtues of wearing jerseys).
October 16th, 2007 at 12:51 am
JH,
I have a problem with the statements such as those that Even et al. have been posting; but not only the statements of the global warming “deniers”. There is a huge amount of incorrect science in this blog, from both sides of the argument. Some people would have you believe that Earth is rapidly heading the way of Venus, for example.
Can everyone, whichever side you are arguing for, please get your science right? You do not have to be a climate scientist to have an accurate understanding of the science behind global warming, just a few hours reading at the library will probably suffice to eliminate 90% or more of the inaccurate stuff written here.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:18 am
I only agree with one part of your argument carbon trading will fail if its based on keyote, simply because it will not stop global warming they way its setup not anyway. far too much carbon is allowed to be realised and all it will do is move manufacturing to china and such
Gerrit Carbon credits not physical? i think they are, is carbon not a gas which has a physical form?
As for deniers, what if i am wrong, we produce less co2 and more oxygen and my brain works better for it, what if you are wrong we all go to hell.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:45 am
green/literary/cartooning connections..
didya see that the nickname charles schultz (peanuts creator) had..is the same one i gave co-leaders’ partner..?
(this after that ‘unfortunate’ firestarting exercise.?.)
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/good-griefthe-writer-of-peanutscharlie-brown-w as-somewhat-depressedandhis-nickname-was-sparkyjust-like-jeanette-fitz simons-husbandpartnertho-it-is-unclear-if-schultzlike-the-other-sparky earned-his-mon/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2007 at 6:18 am
ekstatek,
Absolutely CO2 is a physical gas. However carbon credits are a fabrication of man and purely mythical.
Al Gore’s company simply print a certificate to say they have planted a new row of trees and the volume of CO2 they soak up is a carbon credit.
There are no audits to see if the row of trees have actually been planted, that the carbon credit is an accurerate representation of the volume of CO2 that the trees will absorb, that the carbon credit for the new trees has been issued only once, that if the trees die replacement trees are planted, that the company selling the carbon credits has the rights to those credits.
Carbon trading has an Enron “lets see how much money we can suck up before the whole thing collapses” about it.
While the intentions are for carbon emmision reduction, the fact that there will be a $15Trillion industry generated, is cause enough to worry that as long as there is a trading industry, no reduction in emmisions will occur.
Just a lot of money flowing into whose coffers? And for what end game?
In theory it is supposed to help developing countries make carbon neutral decisions, however how you would have to question how much of the carbon credit money generated by planting carbon forest soaks or crops will actually flow back to the those people after the Al Gore type companies have taken their clip.
Eventually an auditing process will be require, the funding of which will further reducing the carbon credit being received by the actual owner of the soak.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:52 am
phil u
I emailed the Greens regarding your allegation about a “u-turn” on marijuana policy. I have received a reply ad post it here for you in full. IF you thought the Greens could decriminalise marijuana without support from other parties then you have a misunderstanding of our current parliamentary system.
“I am the Greens spokesperson on Drug and Alcohol issues and I was pleased to recieve your email through Nandor Tanczos’s office.
Decriminalisation simply won’t happen during this term of parliament as we do not have the votes to make the necessary legal changes. We do however have a medicinal cannabis bill on the order paper which we are trying to gather enough votes to have sent to select committee for consideration. You can find the details of our bill here: http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/cannabis.
Our bill will set up a system for those under medical care to be able to grow their own cannabis for medicinal use. They would be monitored by both their doctor and the police, inorder to keep them safe and within the bounds of the law.
We are campaigning strongly on this bill and will continue to do so. It is an issue of compassion and appropriate medical care. If someone is able to achieve some real relief from their pain and suffering then we should, as a compassionate community, support them.
Thank you for your email. I am sorry that we have not been able to move the decriminalisation debate further along. However, if we can get some change to the issue of medicinal use, then we would have at least provided relief to those who suffer the most from the current prohibitive regime.
Sincerely
Metiria Turei MP”
October 16th, 2007 at 7:38 am
2009: The Neighbours took my Medical Marijuanna. A Kiwi psychodrama…we’d need all available Police for guarding the Patches.
I’ll take my guards a cup of tea around nine - otherwise - good luck, good night, and happy Carbon Rewards Week!
cheers you gin freak - now go to work!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:49 am
O no - so sorry, not you Metiria.
The English experiment led to Law Change there.
It was tested, and (perhaps not surprisingly) was given the go-ahead by all paticipants.
Exactly what all the Evidence suggested - a new and non-addictive replacement for dangerous morphiates - who could vote against?
Will check out your campaign
October 16th, 2007 at 8:09 am
ok merlinz..
first point..i have only really talked about medical cannabis..
2nd point..the medical marijuana bill..
despite the official ’spin’ profferred to you by metiria..
(and (laughable) claims of ‘campaigning strongly’ for this bill.
she/the greens have done just the opposite to what she claims..
they have done absolutely bloody nothing to sell the concept/ideas/imperatives of the medical marijuana bill..
either to the new zealand public through the media..
or in lobbying of other party mp’s..
so..nothing will happen..
and it won’t happen/hasn’t happened because the green party powers-that-be are afraid of the electoral backlash from any support of change to the cannabis laws..
that’s it..!..really..!..end of story..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Time for a new Start then Phil…there’s a lot of apathy out there.
No matter what side people are on, how good the issue, a lack of active participation from a groundswell of people always adds up to nothing.
However the evidence is all there. Simply ignore the critic who does not read it. Doctors are still bound to ‘ do the least harm’ in static medical situations. And they don’t look like changing that stance.
Don’t give up.
People (a lot of Police included) do not want to ‘come out’ on this.
Fear of the ‘System’ is administered as a paralytic agent and keeps a lot of mouths firmly closed. Change means work for a Polly and they are Public Servants…
Are there any ball-park statistics on just what NZ’s cannabis consumption rate is? Any indicators? This issue could also be a big vote alienator for the current ‘criminalize’ sector…
Apathy is also why Prisoners Rights attract the least Legislation across the developed world. These people are locked up and don’t have the same voice available.
Recently returned from 20 years field research o/s I am still finding it hard to locate where all the Party’s are standing at any given time - this link might be the most useful info i have found on the issue.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Questions for all of those pushing the “benefits” of medical pot.
Q. If the government was stupid enough to pass this piece of legislation would it still be illegal to smoke the stuff? or would we see a huge increase in the numbers of people with “medical conditions” that can only be cured with pot?
October 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
No,yes,yes and no
October 16th, 2007 at 10:56 am
phil u said: and it won’t happen/hasn’t happened because the green party powers-that-be are afraid of the electoral backlash from any support of change to the cannabis laws..
What absolute rubbish, Phil. If the Greens were really afraid of an electoral backlash, why would Metiria have ever put it in the Member’s Bill ballot in the first place? She would have put in an electorally “safe” Bill instead. The truth is that a deal have been done by other parties that mean it has no chance of going to Select Committee. Lobbying MPs from other parties won’t make a difference, because they will be whipped into towing the party line secured by the deal.
I support the Bill 100%, but I think that Metiria is tactically correct - leave it till after teh election and hope we are in a better negotiating position to forward it, rather than bring it to a vote now and have it defeated, perhaps to not get another chance for 10 years.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:21 am
perhaps metiria needs to take some lobbying/cajoling lessons from sue bradford..(sec 59..)
and..sigh..all your spin to one side toad..
nothing has happened..
nothing is happening..
nothing will happen..
because..zip energy is being expended..
and um..!..toad..your faux-reasons to do nothing..could have been even more apparant/relevant to the sec 59 debate/legislation..eh..?
and yes..you trot out the ‘incrementalist’ argument..long preached/practised by many in the green party..
and to what ends..?
um..!..very little actually..when you look back..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2007 at 11:49 am
and i guess we should be grateful for small mercies..eh..?
and least we now have the ofiicial ‘word’ that nothing will be happening with this bill/golden opportunity..
before the next election..
perhaps you should make a more formal announcement of that ..toad..
y’know..to put those seeking relief from medical pot..and looking to you..out of their misery..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html
October 16th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Does anyone find this interesting……….?
https://debatemapper.com/sf/home.aspx
October 16th, 2007 at 11:57 am
and that the greens don’t seem to want the ‘kudos’ from passing such legislation..is a major puzzle for me..
and that there has been no attempt to engage the public in (the required) dialogue/discussion/’enlightenment’….
couldn’t be more proof of the fact there is no ‘heart’ within metiria/the greens for this battle..
and that is sorta sad..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
thanks for the hat-tip jh..
i’ve shot off..and put in on the record..
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/the-school-governor-who-challenged-the-screeni ng-of-al-gores-climate-change-documentary-in-secondary-schools-was-fun ded-by-a-scottish-quarrying-magnate-who-established-a-controversial-lo bbying-group-t/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Mark
Thank you, as I suspected the so called “medical pot” debate is rubbish, it is simply a Trojan horse for legalized pot smoking.
It will NEVER be passed into law.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
typical heartlessness from BB, so do you favour imprisoning people with serious illnesses? do you favour imprisoning paraplegics?
or do you think that people should use a medicine that is less effective for their condition? they should put up with an inferior medicine because it is “wrong” to use the alternative?
morphine is allowed as a medicine, how come cannabis should not be? eh? BB?
October 16th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Stuey
Please stop with the name calling, these people are current receiving medication, are you seriously telling me that they are suffering right now because they cannot have a joint?
As for those using less effective medicine…thas rich coming from the Greens given they did not support full govt funding of herceptain.
You and I both know this bill has nothing to do with medicine, it is all about smoking pot.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
what name did I call you?
this country has jailed at least one paraplegic in the past because he used cannabis to treat his condition.
yes I am seriously telling you that there are some people who find that they suffer if they cannot use cannabis.
I don’t think there is any point in providing any evidence of this because you ignore any attempts to reason with you on every other issue, e.g. global warming. You believe global warming is a hoax and you obviously also believe that medical cannabis is a myth, despite the copious science proving both.
and greens are often described as irrational and anti-science! sheesh!
October 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
stuey
I have never said that the world is not warming, the issue is the con that surrounds this global warming.
You claim it is caused by man when there is NO PROOF.
But you are right about one thing, medical cannabis is a myth.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
BB is anti-science, BB is anti-science, BB is anti-science, BB is anti-science, there’s some name-calling for you.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
ha ha
I will let you in on a little secret, the emperor is not wearing any clothes!
October 16th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Hmm, BB, when the inconvenient truth court case first hit the news last week you eagerly trumpeted that “a judge in a UK court has ruled that there is NO scientific proof that climate change is man made” when that was not what happened.
Is that what you base your “NO PROOF” statement on?
All the court verdict said was that the supposed inaccuracies should always be aired when an inconvenient truth is shown to school classes to England. Nothing more than that.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Stuey
Facts?…if those pushing the Global warming con used facts then they would get nowhere.
There simply are no facts that back up your argument.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
So we now know that the recent hottest year in the USA is, according to NASA, 1934.
So much for inexorable global warming…
And that’s leaving aside the atrocious state of the temperature measurement stations there which can’t help but increasingly overstate the temperature over the past few decades because of the urban heat island effect…
The fact is that recent warming is almost entirely due to changes in solar activity - the two charts are in virtual lockstep (I know you loudly trumpeted the supposed dismissal of this theory, but you won’t have to look too far to find the refutation of that hatchet job. And how else to explain the almost perfect correlation between temperature and changes in solar activity? Coincidence?)
By contrast, there is not the faintest short-term correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. And there was never even a shred of evidence to support the AGW theory. Not one shred.
We are now approaching a period of significant cooling. We are at a peak of warming, but perhaps not the peak of hysteria. Expect to see a long and bitter rearguard action by vested interests as the temperature drops over the next few years.
Already we know that what warming there has been is quite limited in geographical extent. The USA? Not there. The entire southern hemisphere? No, not there either. So the ugly fact is, there is no *global* warming.
And the rapid ice shrinkage in the North recently? Due to unusual wind conditions, not warming, according to NASA.
The lack of science on the side of those who tout this AGW theory would be embarrassing if such people had any shame.
It seems appropriate the Al Gore receive this Nobel award. It puts him in the same catagory as celebrity terrorist Yasir Arafat, the man who swindled the Palastinians out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
1934 always was within the margin of error of 1998, and it still is within the margin of error of 1998.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-tha t/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov .php
it’s a bit US centric to only focus on US temp record and not global temp record. Global temp record shows temperature much higher now than 1934:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A2.gif
urban heat island effect on the global temperature record doesn’t exist, various different methodologies of study prove this.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/224634/48
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43
the temperature record is already corrected for biases introduced by monitoring station location
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urb an-heat-island/
judge in Gore film case actually approved the use of Inconvenient Truth - it is pure spin to focus only on the “errors” he pointed out.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untru ths/
Perhaps Mouldwarp and BB need to learn how to assess the evidence?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn116 37
October 17th, 2007 at 6:12 am
Stuey,
Lets agree that global warming is happening and it is to the detriment of the human race.
Do you think carbon trading as practised by Al Gore’s company the solution to the problem?
Creating carbon credits, from dubious sources, so that emmisions can continue and using a propaganda film to promote his company (even indirectly)?
This claimed $15Trillion carbon credit industry already has a greater volume of carbon credits to trade than current emmisions.
Meaning that carbon trading will not slow down carbon emmisions nor soak up the excess carbon already in the atmosphere and causing global warming.
Some links in my previous comments explain what is hapening.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Stuey,
Thanks for replying to Mouldwarp and BB.
I have come to the conclusion that some people just want to bury their heads in the sand, and will not listen to any rational argument. I think it will require the sea to actually flood these peoples houses before they consider the possibility that global warming is happening (even then, many of them would rather believe that God is sending a second flood, rather than accept humans are affecting the climate).
I am not going to waste my time refuting the likes of BB and Mouldwarp. They are not scientists, and demonstrably have very little understanding of how science works. I would rather spend my time talking to people with open minds.
Cheers.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I think there more than a couple of people - from other parties, with different agendas, trying to Muddy the Waters - ie obfuscate The Issues, cause distraction and debate on this site….
October 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am
ie; Labour refugees and Neophyte Nazi National Thugs !!!
haha no i love you guys - just go away
October 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Gore Derangement Syndrome
http://tinyurl.com/2f378e
October 17th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Bravo! Perfect example of chutzpah!
Also worthy of mention: redefinition of “lack” to mean “the vast majority “
October 17th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I read your message Sir Henry but all the evidence i see on this thread supports the idea that current global warming is due to natural variation.
And for genuine perposes of knowledge (seriously i dont know this one). It is generally accepted that until the 1970’s global temperatures were going down, despite no coresponding decrease in carbon emmisions and all the doom and gloom merchants feared a new ice age. My question is, what is the official global warming believers explanation for this?
October 17th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Nixy, if this thread is your prime source for scientific proof of global warming then you’re not looking very hard…
Here’s a quickie response to your question :
There is no doubt or scientific dispute about the fact that, prior to the industrial age, climate change was generally a slow process driven by changes in solar radiation (variations in the earth’s distance from the sun, orbital tilt, etc). This is exceedingly well-researched and there is fairly good agreement about the length of various cycles, rate of change etc.
If those well-understood factors were still the predominant effects on climate change, then we would still be on a cooling trajectory now, as we were until the mid-20th century.
However, there have massive changes in the content of the atmosphere in the past, say, hundred years. These changes have been accelerating as more of the planet industrialises.
There are lots of different effects, and some cancel each other out. e.g. it’s quite likely that smoke, soot and dust from industry, which has a net cooling effect, contributed to the overall cooling in the mid 20th century. But in recent decades, the man-made cooling effects have been swamped by the massive emissions of greenhouse gases.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate change — far from it. However, it just so happens that, if you look at the various heating and cooling effects that cancel each other out, the net heating effect is roughly equal to the CO2 forcing. This often leads people to say, as shorthand, or to believe, that CO2 is the only driver of climate change, which is false.
Of course, the natural solar cycles are still going on. But their effect is so slow — requiring thousands of years for a minimal change — that they are completely swamped by the man-made effects, so that they can be effectively disregarded when we’re projecting climate changes over the next few centuries.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
By the way Nick, I’m not a “believer” in anything where climate is concerned — I am a sceptic by nature and I value scientific method above all.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Nick “It is generally accepted that until the 1970’s global temperatures were going down”
oh yes? by whom? have you got a reference for that?
the facts don’t show that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.gif
October 18th, 2007 at 2:11 am
alistair saïd “There is no doubt or scientific dispute about the fact that, prior to the industrial age, climate change was generally a slow process driven by changes in solar radiation ..”
But R Norman posted at top of thread:
“The overall pattern of warming and cooling was most likely driven by Milankovitch cycles….But the Milankovitch cycles don’t explain the magnitude of the temperature change, which is much larger than the changes in solar radiation would produce.”
well there’s ONE dis-agreement right here in an area of “no doubt”..
Cooling/warming periods(imagine that, nature is cyclical…) and therefore associated ice ages are somehow at the same time driven by changes in solar radiation yet cannot be used to explain the magnitude of temperature changes according to you people???
And what exactly does “generally” mean, cherry picked? wasn’t there some log index or something that was generally right but shown to be completely fixed and that the wamest temps were in the first half of last century?
Stuey is reprimanding Nick C for saying about the global cooling habbaloo in the 70’s which Stuey says wasn’t true, yet Alistair is pontificating on a net cooling effect mid-century due to smoke, soot and dust, and the global cooling crisis was aired in the 1970s as reaching armageddon 2000…So what’s it to be??? The only way we can accomodate you two here is by saying we went from one extreme crisis to the other in a very short space of time….or else we have another disagreement among the “non-deniers”…
If i wanted to, i could bombard you all with links saying how great neo-liberal economics has worked out for people and societies, and back that up by saying that’s what the theory is in the majority of University economic courses, is what gets funded and given widespread media coverage, and use those type of sources to represent the FACTS etc etc
And some people might think(but few here) well that’s all very well and good but….that’s F#$%$N MAD!
This global push to enforce tyranny against the availability of energy utilisation for societies’ benefits and prosperity(and quite possibly for the greening of the globe ironically, which will be very advantageous when the cooling cycle starts if we really want to play God..) needs to be seen for what it is, and i hope one day it is and the price is paid.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:27 am
No contradiction there, Even :
“But the Milankovitch cycles don’t explain the magnitude of the temperature change, which is much larger than the changes in solar radiation would produce.”
You truncate here, but Russ continued : “The likely positive feedbacks are Co2 and ice.”
Know what a positive feedback is, Even? I’m sure a neo-liberal economics fan must have heard of them.
What people said about global warming or cooling in the 1970s has about as much relevance to current understanding of the subject, as does cutting-edge research in computer science or biochemistry in the 1970s to the current state of the art in those subjects. All very interesting from a historical point of view, not very useful.
Your analogy between anthropogenic global warming and neo-liberal economic ideology has me completely stumped. Choosing an economic policy is clearly a subjective exercise. Depending on what outcomes you value (wealth maximisation; wealth equalisation; maximising well-being; sustainability…) you choose different policies… By contrast, the study of climate and the observation of climate change are a matter of scientific observation, with no ideology or value judgement involved.
Once we can agree on the facts, then we can decide on the policies we might want to change.
It often seems that those who subscribe to neo-liberal ideology are resistant to the facts on climate change, because they find them somehow threatening to their world view. But that’s just silly.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Nick/even: This planet’s climate system is very complex. There are no easy answers, or simple solutions. You should read Spencer Weart’s excellent The discovery Of Global Warming - or perhaps a locally produced book? I could recommend one…
even: Global warming is not simply a matter of politics. It isn’t a vast conspiracy - it’s a dangerous threat to our way of life. The science is clear. If you choose to ignore the evidence, then you are doing a disservice to everyone. The most important thing is to recognise that the problem exists, then you can contribute to the solution. Deny the problem, and you become irrelevant.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Alistair, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
1)No contradiction there Even…yes apart from the one i mentioned there you are right.
Further: “sunspot activity (increased solar turbulence, which heat the earth in 9 to 13-year cycles). During the coldest years in the “Little Ice Age,” there were “virtually no sunspots at all…” S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007).
2) “All very interesting from a historical point of view, not very useful.” There we have it, historical points of view that don’t fit this agenda are not very useful…or as BucolicOldSirHenry put it, “deny the problem and you become irrelevant”….yes, and you can kiss any funding and advancement goodbye. Another irrelevant historical point of view is that the people who formulated the global cooling crisis back in the seventies and were interwined in J Carter’s administration; provided the framework, which they have helped update, for the reponse to this latest climate crisis…
3) “Your analogy between anthropogenic global warming and neo-liberal economic ideology has me completely stumped.”
….”As a result a mass of legislation is being turned into law, subjecting any activities that increase greenhouse gas emissions or are seen as ‘crimes against nature’ to severe financial penalties…. It won’t be long before all households feel their effects.”…Paul Johnson, “The Menace of the Lobby,” Forbes, 4-23-07
Gore calls for “a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily.” Hmmmm, a central organizing principle hmmmmm….Then he warns us that…
“Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”[7] (page 274)
Appeasement is usually used when referring to an enemy by the way, that enemy being the public in this agenda.
“But the undisputed leader of the environmental movement during the last three decades has been Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong. Though usually operating behind the scenes, Strong is no minor player in this global contest for the minds of the masses. He led the UN Environmental Programme, directed the 1972 and 1992 UN Conferences on the Environment and Development, founded Planetary Citizens, directed the World Future Society and founded and co-chaired the World Economic Forum. He has been a member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, a member of the UN Commission on Global Governance, and the Senior Advisor to the World Bank as well as to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.”
Hmmmm..Billionaires, Bankers and a “legitimate UN” world governing body as G W Bush put it….hmmmmmm.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Well I’d just like to point out that I didn’t reprimand Nick, I merely asked him to provide a reference. Which it would be great if you could do as well Even. (i.e. your 1st and 2nd quotes are referenced but your 3rd and 4th ones are not).
P.S. have you got your tin foil hat yet?
October 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
alistair said: “Your analogy between anthropogenic global warming and neo-liberal economic ideology has me completely stumped.”
well it shouldn’t. haven’t you ever noticed that deniers of anthropogenic global warming theory, and low tax - small government right wingers are the same people?
they simply have to dismiss agw theory in order to maintain their free market ideology, since they can’t recognize the existence of a problem which must be dealt with on a governmental, global scale.
global warming has been known about for over a hundred years. the global cooling fad was just a temporary flash in the pan. global warming deniers like to give it far more importance now than it ever had before, to make it seem that global warming theory is a new fad & a complete revolution from previous thinking. it’s not.
gerrit it may be desirable to reduce carbon build-ups in the atmosphere a little, but you must see that once it has reached a certain level, matching emmission & absorption must be the long-term goal. even if you don’t see that, it doesn’t change the economic dynamic that if credits are becoming abundant compared to emmission, thus driving the price of credits down, this means the mechanism is working. i don’t see how you can remain blind to that.
you originally made out your problem was with gore buying credits from his own company. now you have explained that your objection is the lack of auditing for his company. this doesn’t make his company or him guilty, it just reduces our certainty that it is doing its work properly.
again, buying something from one’s own company is not a problem.
carbon credits are a fabrication of mankind & purely mythical? so is money, so are patents, goodwill etc. fortunately 21st century minds are sophisticated enough to comprehend intangibles
October 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
man-made global warming is as real as man-made global cooling is as real as martian made mars warming….which is also concurrently happening in sync with the sun’s activities.
And there are independent scientists making cases, which will not be given exposure, that CO2 is actually greening for the environment.
Andrew….the obvious similarity being pointed out between what you are referring to as free-market ideology and this push for cutting back on energy consumption is the creation of artifical scarcities as a means of control. Another words, same old same old, and the exact opposite of what your conclusion was saying it was.
The third quote is from Al Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance”, where “Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, EVERY TACTIC AND STRATEGY, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment . . . . ” hmmmmmm.
The fourth quote about Strong, is also from the same web sight:
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/rapid-reaction99.htm
“His true plan for UN reform is documented in Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN Commission on Global Governance, which Strong helped write. Like “Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations”, this report calls for a volunteer UN army under UN command, with UN police stationed in every region of the world:
“In many of today’s crises, it is clear than an early intervention could have prevented later negative developments…. This underlines the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force that is willing, if necessary, to take combat risks….This would be particularly useful in low-level but dangerous conflicts.
Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive authority of the Security Council.” hmmmm that ole central organizing principle thingy again huh.
Well, if that’s the goal, how about this:
Controlling the flow of information(man made global warming ring any bells?) is vital to the envisioned global management system. To this end, each nation must fund and implement its part of the massive global information and monitoring system. In the following section of Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations, notice the reference to Information Management.
“The types of technologies which could play a greater role in peacekeeping operations are: surveillance technologies, communications equipment and enhanced information management systems….
“An attractive technology for a variety of peace operations is aerial reconnaissance of ground activity. Access to satellite capability… may have great strategic potential.
“The ability to locate, identify and monitor virtually all vehicular movement… has obvious applicability to monitoring, surveillance and control missions.
“….surveillance technologies and information management systems could be integrated into an organization-wide system to enhance contingency planning….” (pages 56-57)