I've taken power systems and generations classes on a college level, and everyone agrees that the only large scale way to generate power without CO2 emmisions is nuclear.

Gore in his movie (maybe not the book) doesn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.

In the US, all of the best places to build dams are taken, wind and alternatives do help but are drops in the bucket compared to our demand for power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm
notice most of those faclities are measured in KW not MW

http://www.wired.com/science/p...h/news/2005/11/69528
Solar is a bit better, but still, where in the world are they generating 1000MW of solar power?  Just looking at google most are under 100MW

I mentioned this in a prevous post, but I suggest seeing the global warming swindle if you've seen an inconvinent truth.  People should listen to more than one explanation as to what is causing global warming (allthough this fall has been crazy cold for some reason)
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:37, Fri 02 Nov 2007.

I agree, Tychos.  I checked the dictionary first, but the definition is too broad for our purposes (which is why I gave you the option of making up your own definition).  Wikipedia touches on the 'bad' definition when it says "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented."

It sounds like you would categorize it as being a case where the person is trying to make a point, but in doing so is using arguments that don't work.

I would ask to what degree we allow 'simplicity' in such a definition.  While the Bohr model is not perfect, it is functional for explaining certain things.  However, if he used the Bohr model to explain something else (I don't know enough about atomic physics to be able to extend this example too far, I apologize), say quantum physics, and the model fails, he could be straying into the area of propaganda.  Another example might be the case of evolution.  Scientists say evolution is the process in which one species generates another, but people can take that model and apply it to the specific, rather than the general case.  Even though the model is functional in its place, it is not functional when applied to a specific case (how does a monkey turn into a human?), and using it that way could be propaganda.  Any case where we are presented an overly simplistic model where there is another, more functional model which may provide a different result could be considered propaganda (I suspect).


Paulos - yeah, it's a tough spot for environmentalists.  Ultimately, the problem is there are too many people asking for too much stuff.  We ARE going to change the environment and there is just no way to change that short of killing off most of the population or giving the population new places to live (for instance, space).  This is where I start to get sick of a movement that ultimately should be doing something good.  Like people from PETA who march against using animals in medical testing but who still use insulin, or environmentalists who drive to campaign against things in other cities, they're finding there's a limit to what they can 'reasonably' do.  They hem themselves in.  It seems to me that a logical environmentalist would encourage testing on animals, nuclear power, investing in space exploration, higher property taxes, pro-hunting, and keeping the economy going strong.  Yet most of these things seem to be antithetical to the current environmental stance.  It bothers me.

Under that definition, I guess it would qualify as propaganda.  Though under that definition, I don't think the propaganda is necessarily bad (though it's not necessarily good, either).  I don't think producing an emotional response is necessarily a bad thing, and I think everyone making an argument uses only those facts which support their argument.


I'd add also that they realize that their arguments don't work, but use them anyway.  Someone making mistake in their argument doesn't necessarily qualify as propaganda, to me.


I think the last line sums it up well.  It's okay to use a simplified model, if the better models give the same results.  If more detailed, more accurate models give different results, you shouldn't be using the simple model.


I agree that nuclear power is the only way we can go to quickly reduce our carbon output.  Solar power is great, but it simply doesn't produce enough energy to make a big dent in our power consumption.  Wind is better, but is still isn't enough to make a big dent, quickly.  As for the other stuff, don't put all environmentalists in the same lot!  I'm definitely in favor of more nuclear power, I support animal testing (though it should be done as ethically as possible), I'm pro-space exploration (But think other sciences, especially ocean sciences, give us a much bigger return on our investment), I'm all for higher property taxes, I'm not pro-hunting, but I think hunted meat is better than factory farmed meat if people insist on eating meat (sport hunting I think is unethical, but not something that I get particularly bothered about), and keeping the economy strong is a good goal, but we need to weigh it against any costs (ie, "a strong economy no matter what it costs us" isn't a good strategy).

On a slightly different tack, I went to a talk today by an engineer who was designing autonomous ships that would go out in the ocean, spraying sea water up in the air to increase the number of nucleation sites for clouds, which would increase their reflectivity, and thus change the heat balance of the planet, and offset the eating due to greenhouse gases.  I was a bit skeptical of some of the specs, but overall it's a far more attractive "geo-engineering" solution to the problem than I've heard so far (eg, iron fertilization), as it's easy to shut off quickly if we realize there's some unwanted side effect we hadn't anticipated.  The salt particles that get sprayed up would stay in the air about three days on average (or so the guy said), that if all the ships were shut off, it'd only be a week or so before the cloud cover returned to normal.  It was also interesting that they weren't trying to change the amount of clouds, but rather the reflectivity, but making more, smaller drops instead of relatively few larger drops.  The amount of water in the clouds would be the same, but the number of drops would increase, which would increase the reflectivity of the cloud.  Interesting stuff.

I think my original statement was that it's either propaganda or incompetence (or something along those lines).  So in other words, if I can show where Gore relies on arguments that don't work, my statement is right (whether it's propaganda or incompetence, I don't care, neither is worthy of a Nobel prize, which is why I originally balked).

As an aside, as I read through the book, he generally focuses on one or two 'facts' per two-page set (with some sets focusing more on his personal life, which I wouldn't count as facts, even though they strictly are, and some including a few more).  So at 325 pages, that's round about 325 facts.  If 10 facts are provably wrong, that's around a 3% error rate.  If 30 facts are provably wrong, that's 10% error rate.  I don't feel that proving 30 facts wrong (or at least highly disputed) would be especially difficult.




Yeah, I know, I shouldn't.  I really should have specified the DC lobbying environmentalists :P  I would categorize myself as an environmentalist, even though I would never in a million years donate to PETA.




Very neat!  That does sound pretty cost effective, plus can help get rain to places that need it (like my backyard!)

My wife read something lately about how jet contrails do the same sort of thing.  They increase reflectivity and decrease global warming.  Apparently there was a study done on 9/12, when all the jets in the US were grounded, that showed a sudden rise in temperatures.  So clearly, if we had more giant jets flying across the country, it would help the environment!

Truthfully though, it always confused me a bit that a bunch of things global warming is supposed to cause would decrease global warming - warmer winters and more available land means more plants, higher temperature means more evaporation and more cloud cover.  The planet naturally comes back into balance.  Unfortunately, the same isn't true of global cooling, I don't believe (up to a certain level at least).

Fair enough, but remember it's a nobel peace prize, not a nobel prize for some branch of science.  It's by nature a political prize, and one that one wins for causing changes in behavior.


I think there's a big difference between "proven wrong" and "highly disputed," though.  If there weren't, I could say everyone who believes global warming isn't happening has been proven wrong. ;)


Ack!  certainly not!  I don't consider those guys "environmentalists," really.  I also think their methods are unethical in many cases, which is more my problem with them than their goals (which I sometimes disagree with as well).




Unfortunately most of the clouds would end up over the ocean.  So it might help you in Maryland, but it would be able to help anyone in the midwest, or central Africa, for example.  At least in terms of giving them cloud cover.  I'm also not sure if it increases rain or not, as it didn't increase the amount of water in the clouds, just the number of droplets the water is divided into.


Yeah, the speaker mentioned that too.  I think the way he put it was that Osama Bin Laden was one of the few politicians to ever have a significant effect on global temperature (by grounding the US jets for a time), so he didn't have much faith in waiting for other politicians to make the necessary changes.


It's definitely true that there are some negative feedbacks going on.  But there are also positive feedbacks as well.  For example, thawing permafrost could release large amounts of methane, which is a more effective green house gas than CO2, or how melting of polar ice caps decreases the reflectivity of the planet, so that we end up getting more heat from the sun.  Also, the rates of the feedback are an issue.  How long will it take for a formerly ice-covered area to turn into a forest?  While it's true that the planet will end up in a state of equilibrium, it's not necessarily true it will end up in the same equilibrium that we're used to.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:36, Fri 02 Nov 2007.

Well...  I should be more specific, I suppose.  If he says "scientists say this may or may not be the case", that's one thing.  He's presenting both sides.  If he takes something that is disputed, let's say whether the universe will continue to expand forever or will collapse in on itself, and says 'scientists agree the universe will continue to expand forever', I would consider that questionable.  Not that there aren't some scientists who believe that, but because it is implied that ALL (or at least most) scientists agree with that.

And that is sort of where we hit some problems with Gore in general.  While he says a lot, there's a lot more he doesn't say explicitly, but leads you to believe.  He'll talk about say the rising in the sea levels, then show you places that have been flooded.  While he does not SAY the flood was caused by global warming, it is heavily implied.  If there really is no correlation, I can't say 'well Gore said'.  It frustrates the scientist side of me to no end because of how he put it all together (and I SUSPECT that's not on purpose, it's just he assumed it should be sufficiently obvious and he'll just 'show us the evidence', but there's a good reason science is not conducted like that).

That's legitimate.  I agree that Gore is overly vague at times, and that he implies more than is agreed upon.  I think when he uses terms like "scientists agree" he's usually fairly accurate, in that the vast majority agree.  At other times he'll just say, "scientists think," which is doesn't necessarily mean that it's well agreed upon (though I admit he could make that fact clearer).  And while those faults frustrate me too, I don't think it's accurate to say they indicate places where he's been "proven wrong."  Especially if what is meant that it was proven wrong at the time he said it, so he should never have said it in the first place.

So yes, I agree he speaks like a politician, not a scientist.  I agree he's not as explicit as I would like.  On the other hand, people have been talking like scientists for a long time, being as explicit and precise as you could hope for, and no one's taken much notice.  The thing is, the way scientists talk drives most people a bit batty, so if (or when!) a scientist makes a film about global warming, a handful of people watch it, mostly other scientists, and nothing gets done.  Probably millions of people have seen Gore's movie by this point (that's speculation on my part, I really have no idea how many have seen it, but it's grossed $49 million world wide, so it seems likely that millions have seen it).  He's managed to accomplish a great deal with the film, and I think that's a good thing. Is there parts of the film I would change?  Definitely, but at the same time, I almost certainly couldn't get millions of people to watch my version of the film. ;)

I also wanted to mention "The great Global warming Swindle," that Paulos urged people to watch.  If you watch it, be aware that it has largely been rejected by the scientific community as being a dishonest representation of the data.  Even one of the scientists in the film felt that they had so misrepresented the statements he made in the interview that he had threatened to take legal action against the people who made the show.  In this case, I think the label of propaganda would be appropriate, because I think the people who made this were deliberately trying to be provocative and attract viewers, at the expense of accuracy and honesty.  They knew they weren't being straight with the audience, in my opinion because they knew it would cause controversy, and grab attention.  Anyone who complains about errors or exaggerations in Gore's movie should not be suggesting this one to anyone, as it's looked upon far less favorably by scientists, to the point of being considered intentionally dishonest and misleading, instead of just sloppy or inaccurate.

I'm not about to declare myself some kind of expert, so I'm not going to say anyone's wrong on this particular issue, at least, not based on my information alone. But, I've come to some rather logical decisions about the issue, at least, I find them reasonable.

I'm aware the traditional stance for the past couple of decades or so of the Conservatives was to deny the existence of Global Warming. Ask Rush Limbaugh on the stance now, and this is what you get. However, the movement as a whole seems to be defining the problem differently nowadays, now not stating that there is no Global Warming, but that it's not the result of human activities. While I can certainly understand why one would adapt this stance, now with a lot of consensus that it is happening. But, I can't tell whether this is a stance taken cause they really are starting to be convinced by studies, or if they're curtailing to the opinions of more and more of their voters and supporters. Neither is outside the realm of reasonable possiblity to me.

Understanding science, it's also logical to come to this conclusion. Studies that show these various differences in ice flow, in glacial size, in temperature, humidity, CO2 content, etc., fall under simple observations, compared with other observations. This falls under the category of low control in science, which means it's a correlation at best. But, correlations can't determine cause and effect. In science, only experiments, those of higher controlled observations, can. We have no way of performing an experiment that could simulate the environment enough to account for the countless extrenious variables that envitably occur in the real world. Thus, cause of Global Warming really can't scientifically be establish, only inferences based on correlations. At least, that's as far as I understand it.

Still, I must conclude that differing on what is the cause of Global Warming is much less important than the idea of it actually occuring. Even if we call it a natural disaster, something completely out of the hands of humans, that still leaves us with the burden of dealing with it. For example, Hurricane Katrina was something completely outside human cause, but that didn't absolve us, as people, to have to deal with such a thing, or suffer the consequences.

So, what is it about a man-made Global Warming that makes it different than a completely natural Global Warming? If it is occuring, we will still have to deal with it, or suffer the eventual consequence.

I suppose this is my stance, less of a "we must stop it now or we'll all die" and more of a costs-benefits outlook. Honestly, what could it hurt?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:04, Tue 06 Nov 2007.

I think you may have a slight misconception about how science works.  This actually came up in the discussion earlier, which started in the US politics thread.  You might want to check out some of the discussion I had with Trust in the Lord there.

Bottom line, though, is that you don't have to do a controlled experiment in a lab to do science.  Astrophysicists can't actually bring a newly forming start into the lab and observe it, and even if they could, it would take much longer than their life times to really do anything anyway.  Paleontologists can't dissect a dinosaur in the lab (with the excepts of birds, I suppose), or even observe living dinosaurs in the wild.  But astrophysicists and paleontologists can still do science.  Sometimes inferences based on correlations are all we have to go on, and we just have to make do.  Climate science is similar.  It's true that we can't take the whole planet into a lab and change variables and do direct tests of the theories, but we can still test hypothesis that we make about the climate.

As to whether it matters at all if it's man made or not, I kind of agree with you.  In reality, the cause isn't nearly as important as how we react.  However, a lot of people feel they shouldn't react if it's not human-caused, which is a problem.  Convincing people to do something about it often requires convincing them that they're part of the cause of the problem in the first place.

I'm sorry if i gave the impression, but I didn't mean to say that correlations don't have a place in science or that they aren't science. A lot of studies in sociology, for example, are based on correlational studies. A lot of science is, actually.

And science, at large, is based on inferences. By no means am I trying to downplay that. You can make some pretty educated inferences based on observations, and these inferences are often the basis for more studies. But, the lower the controll, the less one can place direct claims of relation to such things, at least, credibly. That's the reason I feel it would be extremely difficult to actually prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is actually man made.

And I'm in agreement with your conclusion as well, about people needing the extra motevation of cause to take responsibility. Unfortunately, when you have people willing commiting fallacy, it's difficult to use logic to convince them otherwise. Most people here in Cali agree going green is a good thing. Too few, however, are willing to actually take measures themselves, even knowing full well they should.

Okay, sounds like we're more or less on the same page.  Just wanted be sure.  One comment on your last statement, though:  Science doesn't actually prove things, even under ideal conditions.  Hypotheses can look more and more likely to be true as tests fail to disprove them, but no test can every actually prove them true.  A bit of a subtly, I know, but a rather important one in my eyes.

As for whether it can be shown "beyond a reasonable doubt" that man is the cause of climate change, I guess I'm a bit more confident that it can be shown.  The argument that man is responsible for the increased concentrations in CO₂ is very solid, in my opinion.

Saw this in the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_.../629/629/7074601.stm
and thought it might be of interest to the people following this discussion.

By the by, any further thoughts on Gore's book, Katisara?

I finished the book, but didn't feel like commenting on it much.  I think I've made my general feelings known - not enough science, lots of stuff which I find to be questionable at best.  There's a section at the end with 'how can you be more environmentally friendly', and that was pretty good, although nothing new.  I like that he specified 'when you're buying a new X...'.   A lot of people think it's a good idea to get rid of your old car/fridge/wife RIGHT NOW and go get a more environmentally friendly one, which really isn't the case.  Use the one now until it stops working, since it takes a LOT of energy to make them, so there's a pretty hefty energy investment just in the initial manufacturing.  If you want me to mail you the book, just give me an address (I admit though, I won't be as fast as you were).

Interesting site.  Let me bring up some complaints: (beyond the fact that they spell 'skeptic' wrong)





I think this is *HUGELY* relevant.  If we're finding that greenhouse gases aren't a cause but an effect, not only could that mean all of our effort is for nothing, it might in fact mean that our CO2 levels will really contribute to LOWERING temperatures which are rising due to other causes.  Regardless, the answer isn't much of an answer at all - if you're arguing CO2 is a major driving cause of warming, why is it that it follows, but doesn't lead changes, and that there's a sudden drop in temperature when CO2 is at its absolute highest?

Additionally, they don't address my previous question which...  I've now forgotten.  It'll come back to me.

Dictionary.com begs to differ. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sceptic

Acording to the dictionary, sceptic is a legitamate variant of skepitc. I'm sure it was a mistake on your part, we all make them, but it pays to not automatically assume a person is wrong for presenting something you've not heard before.



I can see your point, but you'd have to recognise that there's plenty of evidense within current happenings to see this as different. The CO2 climb has been going up with the tempurature, not after it (after implying to me that it's done rising, which, it isn't). Currently, CO2 has been climbing for years, and it's at as high as it's been for millions of years, yet the tempurature shows no sign of slowing down. You're right that it could be nothing, or unrelated, but I'd say there's plenty to believe otherwise too.

I was teasing about 'sceptic'.  I assume it's the British spelling.



That's not quite true.  They're going up simultaneously, but we don't know if today's rise in CO2 is because of yesterday's rise in temperature, or if today's rise in temperature is due to yesterday's rise in CO2.  Since they're both going up rather steadily, without sudden shifts one way or the other, the only real way to guess is by looking at the beginning or the end.  We haven't seen the end yet and the beginning is poorly documented, HOWEVER, looking at previous spikes, the CO2 FOLLOWED rising temperatures, it does not look to have been the CAUSE.

So yes, we could be seeing rises in CO2 in part because of rises in global temperatures caused by other things.



It shouldn't.  Given the charts we've seen, we have at least a few more decades before we hit the peak.  THEN it should drop rather suddenly.  On the flip side, even though our CO2 levels are astronomical compared to previous spikes, the spike itself doesn't seem especially unusual.

That's just it. Let's assume your theory is correct. So, we'll have another few decades of this. Bad things are already occurring, and in the comming couple of decades, scientists say it could get much much worse. What should we do, simply ride it out and hope too many people don't die in the process, that cities aren't flooded, that drout doesn't continue, that weather patterns stay the same?

So, in the end, we still need to deal with it. I could honestly care less about what's causing it as so much as what do we do about it. Assuming it's a natural disaster, what then?

And for your reference, I wasn't infering a casual link betwen CO2 and heat. I simply was stating they're both rising.

Initially I'd say of course not, whether natural or not, we need to deal with it.  However, since reading Al Gore's book, I'm of the opinion that the US would actually come out ahead in the case of global warming, so now I think it would be in our nation's best interest to actually encourage it.



Fair enough.  Most people say they're both rising, therefore CO2 causes warming.  The problem is, it is possible, just looking at the statistics that the reverse is true, in which case cutting down on CO2 could be lengthening this heat wave.  Or it could have no real impact whatsoever, in which case we'll be wasting money on nothing.

Profitting at the pain and suffering of others. How very Christian of you. What would Jesus do again?

I think you're reading into that a bit too literally :P

Did you feel it was saying things that were as unorthodox as many people seem to feel?


I would like to see it, but I'd guess it'd actually be cheaper (and more environmentally friendly! ;) ) for me to buy it brand new here than for you to ship it over here.  Next time I'm heading back to the states, though, maybe I'll have you mail it to me while I'm there.


I think the problem here is that you're talking about two different processes.  Yes, in the past it looks like CO₂ was the effect rather than the cause, but what's going on now isn't what happened in the past.  Scientists aren't saying this is just another natural cycle.  They're saying that CO₂ is going to lead to increased temperatures because it's a greenhouse gas.  We know that CO₂ has increased a great deal since the industrial revolution, and that it's increase faster every day.  Is there any reason why you think that won't lead to a warmer planet?  Do you not believe the concept of greenhouse gases, or that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas?

Think of this way:  A leaky boat can sink if the bilge pump stops working.  It's also possible for the pump to stop working because the ship has sunk.  If you see the pump stop working, you've got a good reason to worry, even if every other time the ship sank first for other reasons and caused the pump to break.

Unless you have a good reason to believe that huge increases in CO₂ won't lead to warming, I don't see why there's any reason to be skeptical.

Unorthodox?  Hard for me to define that question, really.  It didn't say anything I didn't expect, although it also didn't say a lot of things I DID expect.  I can't read it and say it is clearly scientific truth or draws significantly on scientific fact.  But nothing he presented was any more 'unorthodox' than what we're already seeing in the news already day.



And this is precisely where we go from 'global warming is a fact we understand' to 'we have no idea what the heck to expect in the near future'.  It hasn't happened before and we don't really understand it.



I think the global system is infinitely more complex than we can begin to understand at this time.  If we could, meteorologists would actually agree and be right more often than they're not.  We can't even figure out if the weather will go up or down next week, much less ten or fifty years ago.  Yes, CO2 will immediately result in slightly higher temperatures, but we don't know what happens next is the problem.  Ultimately it could go the other way because of dozens of complex sequences of events and cause global cooling, or the earth could just naturally balance itself out.  We just can't say with any degree of certainty which direction it'll go.

Okay, it's rather important we distinguish the difference between weather and climate here.  The two are most definitely not the same, though a lot of people treat them as the same.  The "we can't predict the weather next week..." argument comes up a lot, and is completely fallacious.  No one is claiming to predict the weather next year, or any number of years in the future.  It's entirely different to say "the average temperature of the planet will be 1 degree higher" vs "it will rain on this day in this place."  Predicting the weather is like predicting a dice roll.  Predicting climate is like predicting the sum of hundreds of dice rolls (which is easier).  It's much easier to predict averages than individual realizations in most cases.

So yes, the environment is extremely complicated, and there are many different predictions about what the future will look like.  But they all tend to have similar trends.  It's one thing to say that we don't have a very good idea what will happen in 50 years, but it's another to assume that therefore it's probably just going to take care of itself and we shouldn't take any action.

Predicting the climate is based on trends, true.  The problem is the current situation does not match any trend previously known.  If climate were increasing at a rate similar to the increase in CO2, that would indicate a serious trend as well. Since it appears to be increasing around the same rate as the last time the globe heated up, it's harder to say there's a trend.  Sure it's like predicting dice rolls, except where the success of one die changes the size of the next die, creating an avalanche effect.  We can't say for certain WHY the globe cools or heats over the long term, we just have best-guesses without any way to properly test them.

Believing that natural selection occurs is not the same as saying that it's a good thing when natural selection goes on.  Sure, you could argue that some species make others go extinct, and create selection forces, and whatever else, and largely be correct.  But that doesn't mean that we should make other species go extinct, etc.


I think it's hard to argue that the current CO₂ levels are part of any natural cycle.  Certainly not on any 100 year time scale.  Look at the numbers.  Tell me how much the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has changed since the industrial revolution.  Tell how much they've changed in the last 10 years.  Tell me how much is a "natural" cycle that you're talking about.  I'm being serious here.  Do a quick web search.  Answer these questions, and see if you can honestly say that you believe the increase is CO₂ isn't caused by human activity.