Al Gore and Global Warming

[Wyrmlord]

Here's a funny thing. Roger Ebert is a movie critic and talks about a movie only on its own terms and how well it is made. But when he sees a documentary he likes, he talks more about the subject of the documentary rather than why it was good. And that is apparent here in the review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002) he wrote.

Perhaps, global warming is as dire as it is claimed. But consider Al Gore. The man is one of those celebrity liberal hippy stereotypes who want everyone to drive hybrid cars. With that kind of inclination, can you really take the man that seriously? That's the mistake I made with Michael Moore in my more naiive years.

[Chip]

In the 1970 all the top scientist agreed that we were in the process of an iceage. It even made the cover of Time magazine. In the 80s, those of use on the east coast, we were suppose to get hit by a giant tidal wave.
Of course there is global warming. It is a normal planetary cycle.

[zauggru]

There is global warming. Man may have caused a very small part of that, but I think there is too much money, propoganda, etc. around it. When people use global warming to make a living I am very suspect of their research and arguments.

I think cow farts and volcanoes emit more devastating carbon dioxide and other "carbon" gasses than people.

[Wyrmlord]

Originally posted by Chip:
In the 1970 all the top scientist agreed that we were in the process of an iceage. It even made the cover of Time magazine. In the 80s, those of use on the east coast, we were suppose to get hit by a giant tidal wave.
Of course there is global warming. It is a normal planetary cycle. I have talked to some people about this. One guy said that the earth is old and has been through alot, and the global warming isn't as critical as people claim it is. He took the example of the Ice Age and said that if that didn't destroy the earth, how will global warming.

[kyleh]

To play devil's advocate, it doesn't really matter if the Earth lives on if all living things on Earth are dead.

That said, I don't think that's going to happen, and I don't really think there's anything man can do to prevent an ice age if one is coming.

[Wyrmlord]

Did anybody manage to watch the movie?

[Tutin]

Which movie, Ice Age 2 ? I've heard it's awesome and soooo real !

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

I saw a quote which basically went, "If someone points a gun at you, you don't waste time asking if it's loaded. Global Warming is a gun pointed at the whole of Humanity".

Whether it's our fault or not that the Earth is heating up is moot to me. As Kyleh said, the Earth will certainly survive it, but I don't know if we can. We should be worrying abot stopping an undeniable trend, not worrying about the exact causes. Scaling down our contribution to the heating, no matter what you believe the percentage is, will help the situation.

[stingray]

Originally posted by Wyrmlord:
Did anybody manage to watch the movie? Not yet, it doesn't seem to have a wide release. What's the point of making a movie if only a select few can watch it? They didn't have that kind of problem with Fahrenheit 911.

I wouldn't have a problem with hybrid cars if they weren't so darn ugly. graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

As for global warming, I don't really know who to believe. It seems reasonable enough to try to keep the balance of nature intact as much as possible and help it recover from the damage we do cause. Right now we just have no other place to go.

[zauggru]

Originally posted by stingray:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wyrmlord:
Did anybody manage to watch the movie? I wouldn't have a problem with hybrid cars if they weren't so darn ugly. graemlins/av_cheesygrin.gif

</font>[/QUOTE]They ARE ugly. They cost way too much. AND I have read several reports that they really do not save that much gas and money. I don't have any links at the moment, but maybe I'll post some later on today.

[kyleh]

Hybrid cars are one of the biggest scams ever. Any eco-lover who promotes hybrid cars should be ashamed of themselves for diverting money from new programs that might not be ecological dead ends.

As I've said in many other threads, if people want to help the ecology, they should research where they should ACTUALLY spend money rather than just buying feelgood crap that isn't helping in the slightest bit. It's not like the problems and questions surrounding the 'hybrid movement' aren't freely available, but the business of selling cars and warm fuzzies has a much louder voice than any kind of logic.

[tag]

Originally posted by Wyrmlord:

Perhaps, global warming is as dire as it is claimed. But consider Al Gore. The man is one of those celebrity liberal hippy stereotypes who want everyone to drive hybrid cars. With that kind of inclination, can you really take the man that seriously? That's the mistake I made with Michael Moore in my more naiive years. I went to go hear his talk about a year ago, and to dismiss him and his message because you think he is a "celebrity liberal hippy" is foolish and wrongheaded.

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "hippy", but if you mean something out of Woodstock you clearly haven't laid eyes on the man.

Secondly, global warming is an incredibly serious issue, and to argue that it is not a credible threat becuase Al Gore is a "hippy" is a pretty weak stance. Of course, if Gore and other "hippy" politicians were the only ones talking about global warning, then I would agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt. However, there is a pretty strong scientific consensus that a) the world is quickly becoming warmer and b) that man made emissions are playing a significant role in that. And in case you are unclear about what global warning MAY mean to us, I would direct you to go hear one of Gore's talks. If you can avoid getting a contact high from all the dope being smoked in the audience, I think you will hear a credible discussion on the matter.

As for hybrid cars, I agree that they are not a panacea, but since they are able to reduce consumption of fossil fuels by techonologies like regenerative braking, I think some (like the Prius) are worth a look.

[kyleh]

Even the brakes-as-generator models are rediculous and counterproductive. Replacing a pack of batteries that size every 3 years is a lot of toxic landfill. It's like choosing to be shot or stabbed, and frankly it would be more productive to work on a way to not be killed at all.

Of course, the fact that only the Prius even uses the brakes-as-generator thing is not something that is apparent in the marketing materials for hybrids. As the automakers answer demands for hybrids with more cargo capacity, you start getting jokes like the hybrid Chevy Silverado that is maybe 2-3% more efficient in fuel consumption but ALSO have huge battery packs that have to be recycled every few years. What is the point of that?

That's what I'm talking about. Supporting hybrids with your mindshare and your money is going to lead to a hybrid HUMMER H4, not a better tomorrow.

[grammartroll1]

What Tag said.

I saw the movie, and the facts presented are very interesting and very much belie the idea that global warming isn't manmade. The parallels between increased CO2 emissions and rising temperatures is clear and unambiguous.

[stingray]

As far as I know, the overall goal is to reduce CO2 emissions and while batteries do pose an environmental threat (if not recycled properly), I doubt their impact has a large-scale effect on the global climate.

So, I'm not sure that batteries are really that big of a problem in the hybrid car.

[tag]

Originally posted by kyleh:
Even the brakes-as-generator models are rediculous and counterproductive. Replacing a pack of batteries that size every 3 years is a lot of toxic landfill. It's like choosing to be shot or stabbed, and frankly it would be more productive to work on a way to not be killed at all.

Of course, the fact that only the Prius even uses the brakes-as-generator thing is not something that is apparent in the marketing materials for hybrids. As the automakers answer demands for hybrids with more cargo capacity, you start getting jokes like the hybrid Chevy Silverado that is maybe 2-3% more efficient in fuel consumption but ALSO have huge battery packs that have to be recycled every few years. What is the point of that?

That's what I'm talking about. Supporting hybrids with your mindshare and your money is going to lead to a hybrid HUMMER H4, not a better tomorrow. Whoa! I chose the Prius specifically because it was not the Chevy Silverado- it gets great gas mileage, particularly in stop and go situations where regenerative breaking makes sense. I also argued that they made sense becuase they help reduce reliance on fossil fuels (I didn't add reduce emissions, but that is also a strong point). Finally, I said that they were "worth a look" and not a "panacea". By that I mean that they are not the final solution to an environmentally sound energy policy, but perhaps an incremental step towards it. So you and I may not be all that far apart in our thinking.

As for dumping batteries in the land fill- thats an interesting point. I don't own a car, much less a Prius, but I am thinking about buying one so I looked around a little bit. From what I can tell, the life expectancy for the Prius battery is &gt; 10 years, and the warranty is for 8 years. Now, I didn't find any really reliable numbers for average length of battery life that were carefully documented, so who knows? But if you think about it, short of a horse, pretty much any kind of transportation you buy today is going to have a lot of it ending up in the dump, including lots of regular car batteries. And while I realize that landfill space and toxic run-off from it is an issue for lots of people, I think it is an issue we can probably deal with.

[zauggru]

Originally posted by stingray:
As far as I know, the overall goal is to reduce CO2 emissions and while batteries do pose an environmental threat (if not recycled properly), I doubt their impact has a large-scale effect on the global climate.

So, I'm not sure that batteries are really that big of a problem in the hybrid car. In order to charge batteries MORE fossil fuels will need to be burned to create the electricity for them. Electricity is NOT the answer to oil.

[tag]

Originally posted by zauggru:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stingray:
As far as I know, the overall goal is to reduce CO2 emissions and while batteries do pose an environmental threat (if not recycled properly), I doubt their impact has a large-scale effect on the global climate.

So, I'm not sure that batteries are really that big of a problem in the hybrid car. In order to charge batteries MORE fossil fuels will need to be burned to create the electricity for them. Electricity is NOT the answer to oil. </font>[/QUOTE]I am no expert, but I believe most hybrids do not "plug in" to the grid. They recharge their own batteries- partially through techniques like regenerative braking. Some people modify them so that they can be charged at home- but at least for the Prius, you don't charge the batteries by charging them in your garage..

Interestingly, to prolong battery life the Prius does not allow its battery to become overcharged. It typically keeps it at about ~50% capacity. This helps prolong the life of the battery.

You are certainly right that charging at home would use fossil fuels. It may also even be a worse deal in terms of emissions.

For me, the attraction of cars like the Prius is that they get good gas mileage and help reduce emissions because of it. That also reduces (in a small way) our dependency on fossil fuels. Finally, hybrids appeal to the technophile in me because they are clever machines. I don't claim they will save the world, but they may make it a little better.

[Wyrmlord]

Originally posted by tag:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wyrmlord:

Perhaps, global warming is as dire as it is claimed. But consider Al Gore. The man is one of those celebrity liberal hippy stereotypes who want everyone to drive hybrid cars. With that kind of inclination, can you really take the man that seriously? That's the mistake I made with Michael Moore in my more naiive years. I went to go hear his talk about a year ago, and to dismiss him and his message because you think he is a "celebrity liberal hippy" is foolish and wrongheaded.

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "hippy", but if you mean something out of Woodstock you clearly haven't laid eyes on the man.

Secondly, global warming is an incredibly serious issue, and to argue that it is not a credible threat becuase Al Gore is a "hippy" is a pretty weak stance. Of course, if Gore and other "hippy" politicians were the only ones talking about global warning, then I would agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt. However, there is a pretty strong scientific consensus that a) the world is quickly becoming warmer and b) that man made emissions are playing a significant role in that. And in case you are unclear about what global warning MAY mean to us, I would direct you to go hear one of Gore's talks. If you can avoid getting a contact high from all the dope being smoked in the audience, I think you will hear a credible discussion on the matter.

As for hybrid cars, I agree that they are not a panacea, but since they are able to reduce consumption of fossil fuels by techonologies like regenerative braking, I think some (like the Prius) are worth a look. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, so my opinion wasn't fully thought-through. All I said was that I'm not willing to so readily accept it. Either way, I have my good habits. I don't waste anything. I always switch the lights off in the rooms where I'm not in and I usually rely on sunlight and not use the lights in my room. All the usual energy conservation measures, which any idealist would do. So I've done my share.

[zauggru]

Originally posted by tag:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by zauggru:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stingray:
As far as I know, the overall goal is to reduce CO2 emissions and while batteries do pose an environmental threat (if not recycled properly), I doubt their impact has a large-scale effect on the global climate.

So, I'm not sure that batteries are really that big of a problem in the hybrid car. In order to charge batteries MORE fossil fuels will need to be burned to create the electricity for them. Electricity is NOT the answer to oil. </font>[/QUOTE]I am no expert, but I believe most hybrids do not "plug in" to the grid. They recharge their own batteries- partially through techniques like regenerative braking. Some people modify them so that they can be charged at home- but at least for the Prius, you don't charge the batteries by charging them in your garage..

Interestingly, to prolong battery life the Prius does not allow its battery to become overcharged. It typically keeps it at about ~50% capacity. This helps prolong the life of the battery.

You are certainly right that charging at home would use fossil fuels. It may also even be a worse deal in terms of emissions.

For me, the attraction of cars like the Prius is that they get good gas mileage and help reduce emissions because of it. That also reduces (in a small way) our dependency on fossil fuels. Finally, hybrids appeal to the technophile in me because they are clever machines. I don't claim they will save the world, but they may make it a little better. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand how they work. I should have been more specific and said the initial charge requires fossil fuels.

[OmegaBob]

Hybrid Smug Alert 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlKatEDV1KE)
Hybrid Smug Alert 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqaVbAdvcQc)
Hybrid Smug Alert 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w5WDlDN_s)

Go back to France, tree huggers!
graemlins/av_ohmy.gif

[OmegaBob]

Ha ha!

My reply was the last one in this thread to be brought over!

All you damn hippies have been... wait for it...

:owned:

:dancing:

[zauggru]

Ha ha!


My reply was the last one in this thread to be brought over!

All you damn hippies have been... wait for it...

:owned:


:dancing:

I detect some SMUG in the above post.

[Chip]

PUG? :pug:

[zauggru]

:roflmao:

[tag]

OK- since MY last reply did not get brought over, and since it actually took some time and effort to do, I am going to copy it over here.

************************************************** ********

Dan, I am glad you raised the question of causality, because I think it is a very significant issue in the debate. Let's think about what experiment would give us a clear link of causality between CO2 and warming that it be difficult to fault. As far as I can see, it would be to have two Earths rotating the same sun in the same orbit. On one of them, the control planet, conditions would go forward as they currently are. On the other we could do something to very significantly reduce the amount of CO2 and see what happens to the temperature. We could then repeat the experiment many times and do some sort of statistics to convince ourselves of the validity of the data.

Since that type of experiment is not possible people have to rely on the atmospheric models that you have alluded to. In these models, investigators start with what is known about current environmental conditions and then extrapolate what may happen in the future using a mathematical algorithm. The accuracy of these models depends on the quality of the data about the current environmental conditions and the validity of the assumptions that are made about how different things interact. The only way to really know if a model is a good one is to wait and see if its predictions about the future are born out.

You have pointed out that people are unable to repeat the conclusions of at least one of the models because the authors refuse to release some of the data and/or methodology behind them. I suspect you are a scientist or have a scientific background based on the sophistication of your argument, but if so you should know that scientists often misbehave and refuse to report everything they do. Sometimes it is because they don't want to reveal data that would allow others to publish before them (and this is very common and a source of a lot of *****ing in the scientific circles that I have been involved with). Sometimes it is because they are lazy and sloppy and don't want to go to the effort of providing the information (again, I have seen this a number of times.) And sometimes it is because they are lying (see what recently happened in South Korea.)

The point is, scientists aren't perfect and meteorology is an area where direct, controlled experiments are difficult or impossible to do.

You have also pointed out a disagreement between two prominent scientists regarding data from 1992 and the unwillingness of the Bush administration to listen to the advice of scientists. I am not surprised, and I bet you could find even more pertinent disagreements if you looked for them. The truth is- and I bet you already know this- in areas where there is considered to be a consensus, a subset of people still disagree even about fundamental issues. That is too bad, but we have all learned to live in a world where scientists argue because that is just the way things just are.

I think your point is that we can't really believe that there is a scientific consensus on global warming because some people disagree and not all the arguments have seen the clear light of day. I'm not a meteorologist (I am a PhD x-ray crystallographer by training, though I no longer pursue research) and I am not able to argue the technical aspects of the debate. But I do know that the National Academy of Science has on their website a clear statement that human behavior is almost certainly influencing global climate change in a very significant way, and that those changes could have a real and very severe impact. If you want, I could probably find other, peer reviewed data in support of it. But that is tedious and I am not really qualified to evaluate the quality of the data and the general readership on this forum would not be able to follow the argument. And the fact that the National Academy is willing to state these things, I believe, clearly represents a consensus amongst deeply qualified and relatively apolitical scientists.

I wouldn't mind much if this were a less important issue. But it is an incredibly important issue- the most important issue we are facing right now as far as I can see. And we are almost certainly not going to get the kind of data that absolutely everyone agrees on. What we have now though seems to be convincing enough for a majority of informed specialists. Waiting for the irrefutable proof is very likely to take so long that we devastate the world we live on. And just like we can't make another world to test our hypotheses in a rigorous way, we can't make another world where we can all live on.

So I think that it is time to start acting to protect the environment.

[OmegaBob]

Hippy!

[tag]

Just remember O-Bob, when the water starts to rise short little pugs will be the first to go...

[kinein]

Al Gore invented the Internet.