The Sky is Falling
- Thread starter oldgrowth
- Start date
- Status
Jim D - please feel free to point out where you think I am mistaken. I did not say there were not other problems with this country or world. I believe Al Gore was brought up and I commented with my thoughts about him.ryder":21ikofyp said:
There have been lots of other comments about Al Gore and those that have posted them, have stated their reasons for disagreeing with him and areas where he is wrong. I haven’t seen anyone post why they believe his “an inconvenient truth” is fact or why they believe it. Do you know what his basic thesis is and if you do, what is it and why do you believe it?
________
Dave
gary allen - thank you for your post about me. I will not answer the part about your hysteria comment, I believe Jay did a masterful job of doing that.gary allen":1adg725z said:
I am not here trying to make anyone look bad or embarrass them. Most people do not know what’s in Al Gore’s “an inconvenient truth”. If you are one of the few and you believe it, I would be happy to discuss it in a civilized manner with you. If you don’t know, (there’s nothing wrong with not knowing) the one liners to those of us that do and have an opinion about it, doesn’t help the situation.
________
Dave
oldgrowth":2d53cbtx said:The earth’s temperature is like the waves and tide of the ocean. It has gone up and down for more than a thousand millennium. Sometimes (just like the waves) a big one comes in. For us to believe we can control it, is as foolish as believing we can control the tide and ocean waves.
There is no doubt we have an affect on the environment. Man has been doing that since he first invented fire, but then are we not a part of nature, just like everything on and some things off this earth.
If you want to make some of us aware of the potential environmental affects our actions may have on this earth, do it in a reasonable way without wild exaggerations. Also, consider what the cost to our economy and mankind will be for any change you are advocating.
Moreover, Yes, I do have a problem with Al Gore. His “an inconvenient truth” is so over exaggerated it is ridicules. Anyone with any common sense can disprove much of it. If his basic thesis is wrong then, you have to wonder why he is pushing it. Could it be $$$$?
________
Dave
Dave,
A few things
* You are quite correct in saying that "The earth’s temperature is like the waves and tide of the ocean. It has gone up and down for more than a thousand millennium. Sometimes (just like the waves) a big one comes in." To be clear there are a few different sources of historical data on temperatures. One source comes from measurements of isotope ratios in old wood - specifically from the bristle cone pine forest in Northern California and another source of data comes from related measurements in ice cores. I knew one of the prinicipal scientists at Caltech who did the bristlecone pine work (Sam Epstein at Caltech - I did postdoctoral work in the department of Geology and Planetary Science).
* I don't feel that your statement "For us to believe we can control it, is as foolish as believing we can control the tide and ocean waves." necessarily follows from observations of natural variances and moreover, it's not "controlling it (temperature)" that is being claimed but rather influencing it. The primary concern is that by any previous sources of data and current measures, the global average temperatures are rising at a faster rate than has been previously observed. Further more, with current models and simulations it's possible to estimate the effect that anthropomorphic (human made) emissions have on temperature. Nearly all well respected scientists in atmospheric sciences today agree that there is very strong evidence that human sources of CO2 are likely responsible for the fact that global temperatures are rising faster than has been seen before.
The big unknowns in all such models are the "feedback" effects and magnitudes. For example, as ice melts and water covers a greater portion of the earth's surface it will be more reflective and absorb less heat. On the other hand, increases in green house gases hold in more heat and cause an increase in temperature which can in some cases increase the greenhouse effect (increased humidity, etc). It is these unknowns that will ultimately determine whether the earth's temperature continues to rise uncontrollably (like Venus did) or whether the temperatures will stabilize.
However, the vast majority of the scientific community who really knows atmospheric science is convinced that the earth's temperature as rising at a much faster rate than has been previously observed AND that human CO2 emissions are a major contributing factor the the increase in average global temperature.
As an aside, to anyone who doesn't believe that human scan impact the atmosphere on a global scale, we have the correlation between the decrease in ozone and the use of CFC refrigerants as the prime example that we can and do impact the atmosphere on a global scale.
Now I know it is quite possible to "due a little research" and find some atmospheric scientists who represent a dissenting opinion. Thanks to the net, we can find individuals (some with apparently good credentials) who are on the opposite side of any argument. However, as I said above, the vast majority of the scientific community who really knows atmospheric science is convinced that the earth's temperature as rising at a much faster rate than has been previously observed AND that human CO2 emissions are a major contributing factor the the increase in average global temperature.
Now does inconvenient truth exaggerate what is really known about the future ? - Yes it does as we really don't have a clear idea of what the future will look like and different models can produce dramatically different results. None-the-less, there is still many a good reason to try to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions based strictly on current evidence. The CFC example is a good one to recall. At first many believed there was no connection between CFC's and ozone and in the 70's and 80's many fought against the ban on the basis of "the science is weak". However, over time, the evidence became clearer and the U.S. and many countries ultimately banned CFC production and use. An economic disaster did not result (as some claimed would happen) and we all still have air conditioning in our cars (and some homes) and we all have working refrigerators and freezers that do not cost an arm and a leg. However, it will take until roughly 2070 for CFC levels in the atmosphere and ozone to return to pre-1980 levels. Had we be willing to act earlier (the ozone hole was first observed in the 1950's), we'd be in better shape now. Many feel that it is better to err on the side of caution with CO2 emissions than to hope the problem will self correct.
Finally, when you attack Al Gore and those who believe in the message on a personal level (e.g. "Don't they have a mind?") as opposed to stating in detail what is wrong with the movie and the argument, I think you open yourself up to personal attacks as well. So shoot at the message and not the messenger would be my advice.
edited to correct typos
Bill.Secure
New member
Roger,
Your response did a fine job addressing points where clarification, amplification and examples were clearly needed.
Thanks so much for you thoughtful and eloquent post.
Bill
Edgewater, MD
p.s. Lynda who prefers not to post says "Thanks" as well.
Your response did a fine job addressing points where clarification, amplification and examples were clearly needed.
Thanks so much for you thoughtful and eloquent post.
Bill
Edgewater, MD
p.s. Lynda who prefers not to post says "Thanks" as well.
News Flash Roger . . . .dotnmarty":3rlt0kzv said:OK, now, what's next?eace:
This is something many of us non scientific people have known for a long time. Looks like the scientific community is slowly coming around.
Sept. 2007
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, found that the data for the break-down rate of dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower (that is 10 times lower) than the currently accepted rate.
Markus Rex said "This must have far-reaching consequences. If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."
He went on to say at a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany
“The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago. If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism.”
John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany said
"Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart."
Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK.
"Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely, now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge." ...
What they are saying is, "we don’t know the cause of ozone depletion." Another News Flash . . . .
It is the Sun!!!
Roger, I am not saying Freon should not have been banned. What I am saying is we acted too hastily with too little information. I sure if there had been more study of the ozone hole back in 1987 (I believe that is when Freon was banned) a more informed decision would have been made. Lets not make the same mistake with global warming.
And there was more of a cost than just $$$. Have you heard of the Space Shuttle Columbia.
I have to admit Roger, you do keep me on my toes. Thanks for the post.
________
Dave
ryder":b1f1z0qa said:
Jim D - I went back and re-read all my post to you and I do not see anywhere that I or anyone else attacked you personally. As a matter fact, I was very respectful with all my post to you, while it is obvious that your quote was referring to me.
________
Dave
Roger - you are too smart to actually believe I was attacking everyone that believed Al Gore. You took my quote out of content and changed it in your post. What I said was . . . .rogerbum":ro184cu5 said:
I did not say all people that believe him. I did not even say most people that believe him. For you to change it to all people that believe him is un-fair to me. And there will be people that did not read my original post and will believe I actually said what you claimed I said.
I enjoyed this thread until my last two post. Now it is no longer fun.
________
Dave
Dave,
If you read your posts you will see that you did insult everyone that believes Gore. Roger did not take you out of context nor did I. You original post in this thread does imply that anyone who believes Gore must not be a a very logical thinker and is easily duped.
The fact is that the jury is still out on exactly what is causing some of the problems. We do know however that pollution in various forms has affected our enviroment. That should be the conversation not attacking Gore because he is a democrat. The fact is whether Gore exaggerated or not, he is bringing global awareness to serious issues. For that he should be ( and has been) commended."Real scientists" never dismiss any possibility.
Many people like myself are very sensitive to the politics of personal attacks. Particularily when there are people in power that have caused thousands of deaths and unimagined horror for many people. All based on lies and duping people. And if you want to talk about money. Well billions are going to the merchants of war.
Dave , I don't want to argue with you nor turn this boating thread into a battle and perhaps I shouldn't be posting this but dam it ,as boaters we should be particularily critical when it comes to protecting our enviroment.
regards
Jim D
If you read your posts you will see that you did insult everyone that believes Gore. Roger did not take you out of context nor did I. You original post in this thread does imply that anyone who believes Gore must not be a a very logical thinker and is easily duped.
The fact is that the jury is still out on exactly what is causing some of the problems. We do know however that pollution in various forms has affected our enviroment. That should be the conversation not attacking Gore because he is a democrat. The fact is whether Gore exaggerated or not, he is bringing global awareness to serious issues. For that he should be ( and has been) commended."Real scientists" never dismiss any possibility.
Many people like myself are very sensitive to the politics of personal attacks. Particularily when there are people in power that have caused thousands of deaths and unimagined horror for many people. All based on lies and duping people. And if you want to talk about money. Well billions are going to the merchants of war.
Dave , I don't want to argue with you nor turn this boating thread into a battle and perhaps I shouldn't be posting this but dam it ,as boaters we should be particularily critical when it comes to protecting our enviroment.
regards
Jim D
El and Bill
New member
Fifty years ago I was boating on New England rivers. Every night we had to scrape the human excrement off the hulls. Recently, I cruised some of those same rivers in our C-Dory -- the water was running clear and clean, fisherman were catching (and eating) fish...
Fifty years ago I boated on the upper Ohio -- my eyes watered from the dense pollution from the steel mills and the water literally ate pits in our hulls. We recently came down the entire Ohio and it was a joyful river trip.
There were days when we couldn`t swim on So. California beaches due to human excrement -- now, that is a rare event -- and one of the members of this pub works diligently to prevent it ever happening.
Throughout my lifetime, either as a citizen who loves America, or as a scientist with data generated (and regenerated by others to prove their validity) I was deeply involved in the cleanup of those rivers and our air.
Those who opposed our efforts then, who knew little or nothing about science, claimed our clean-up efforts would destroy industry and jobs. They argued that natural pollution was more serious than human waste. They claimed we were saying the sky was falling. They had the wrong bird in their comments -- it was instead an ostrich, and their ideas were proven wrong.
There are new and bigger industries in environmental control, more jobs (albeit many are different jobs, and most higher paying) and now we boat on clean rivers and breathe clean air, for the health and enjoyment of us all.
There was no party division on these issues then -- I was Chairman of the Young Republicans in New Mexico fighting a proposed power plant that wanted no pollution controls.
So -- I would suggest that we boat on clean water, travel through beautiful parks and forests, and breathe clean air because all of us enjoy these values, work hard to preserve them, and most of us respect the science that has cleaned up our surroundings.
This is a topic of vital interest to those of us who love boating.
Fifty years ago I boated on the upper Ohio -- my eyes watered from the dense pollution from the steel mills and the water literally ate pits in our hulls. We recently came down the entire Ohio and it was a joyful river trip.
There were days when we couldn`t swim on So. California beaches due to human excrement -- now, that is a rare event -- and one of the members of this pub works diligently to prevent it ever happening.
Throughout my lifetime, either as a citizen who loves America, or as a scientist with data generated (and regenerated by others to prove their validity) I was deeply involved in the cleanup of those rivers and our air.
Those who opposed our efforts then, who knew little or nothing about science, claimed our clean-up efforts would destroy industry and jobs. They argued that natural pollution was more serious than human waste. They claimed we were saying the sky was falling. They had the wrong bird in their comments -- it was instead an ostrich, and their ideas were proven wrong.
There are new and bigger industries in environmental control, more jobs (albeit many are different jobs, and most higher paying) and now we boat on clean rivers and breathe clean air, for the health and enjoyment of us all.
There was no party division on these issues then -- I was Chairman of the Young Republicans in New Mexico fighting a proposed power plant that wanted no pollution controls.
So -- I would suggest that we boat on clean water, travel through beautiful parks and forests, and breathe clean air because all of us enjoy these values, work hard to preserve them, and most of us respect the science that has cleaned up our surroundings.
This is a topic of vital interest to those of us who love boating.
U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errorsstarcrafttom":i07nwyqb said:
By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A12
LONDON, Oct. 11 -- A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's Oscar-winning film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," contains "nine errors."
High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it.
The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia."
Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said.
Another error, according to the judge, is that Gore says "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm.
Kalee Kreider, a spokesman for Gore, said the former vice president is "gratified that the courts verified that the central argument of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is supported by the scientific community." She said that "of the thousands and thousands of facts presented in the film, the judge apparently took issue with a handful."
Kreider also said that Gore believes the film will educate a generation of young people about the "climate crisis" and that the "debate has shifted from 'Is the problem real?' to 'What can be done about it?' "
Burton's ruling said that there is "now common ground that it is not simply a science film -- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political." Burton said Gore's errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis."
Global warming has been a particularly big issue in Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wants to make his country a world leader in limiting carbon emissions.
Earlier this year, British education officials began distributing DVDs of Gore's film to state schools as part of a package designed to educate 3 million secondary school students on climate change.
The lawsuit was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a local school official who has two sons in state schools, in an attempt to block the education department's program. He claimed the film was inaccurate, politically biased and "sentimental mush" and therefore unsuitable for schools.
Dimmock, who belongs to the tiny New Party, told reporters he was "elated" at the ruling. He said guidance and context that teachers now must give along with the film means that students will not be "indoctrinated with this political spin." But he said he was disappointed the film wasn't banned outright from schools.
A spokesman for the Department of Children, Schools and Families said the agency was "delighted" that students could continue to see Gore's film. It has noted that the judge did not disagree with the film's main point -- that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are causing serious climate consequences.
Dave,
If you read the articles about the breakdown of Cl2O2 more thoroughly AND if you look at the other supporting data, you will find that there is little disagreement about the relationship between the ozone hole and the presence of CFC's and CFC derived compounds in the air. The disagreement is over the rate of one chemical reaction (albeit an important one in current models) and the detailed chemical mechanism for the loss of ozone.
Markus Rex himself says "Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.” (from this link in Nature - I apologize in advance that links that I provide to materials in scientific journals may or may not be available to the non-paying public).
Also, in this case I do agree with Jim and don't feel I was taking your words out of context. You most certainly did imply that people who believe Al Gore's stance on the environment are easily duped and unable to think and if you had avoided that aspect of your post, you probably wouldn't have drawn so much fire. Finally, the quote from Markus Rex is taken out of context to suggest that the relationship between CFCs and ozone loss is incorrect. I have filled in a little bit more of the relevant context with the above quote from Markus. If you wish, I could spend a great deal more time and find a lot more of the primary data that demonstrates the link. That will take me a few hours of free time and perhaps a week or two to find said free time but I'd be willing to do so.
Best,
If you read the articles about the breakdown of Cl2O2 more thoroughly AND if you look at the other supporting data, you will find that there is little disagreement about the relationship between the ozone hole and the presence of CFC's and CFC derived compounds in the air. The disagreement is over the rate of one chemical reaction (albeit an important one in current models) and the detailed chemical mechanism for the loss of ozone.
Markus Rex himself says "Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.” (from this link in Nature - I apologize in advance that links that I provide to materials in scientific journals may or may not be available to the non-paying public).
Also, in this case I do agree with Jim and don't feel I was taking your words out of context. You most certainly did imply that people who believe Al Gore's stance on the environment are easily duped and unable to think and if you had avoided that aspect of your post, you probably wouldn't have drawn so much fire. Finally, the quote from Markus Rex is taken out of context to suggest that the relationship between CFCs and ozone loss is incorrect. I have filled in a little bit more of the relevant context with the above quote from Markus. If you wish, I could spend a great deal more time and find a lot more of the primary data that demonstrates the link. That will take me a few hours of free time and perhaps a week or two to find said free time but I'd be willing to do so.
Best,
marvin4239
New member
"So -- I would suggest that we boat on clean water, travel through beautiful parks and forests, and breathe clean air because all of us enjoy these values, work hard to preserve them, and most of us respect the science that has cleaned up our surroundings."
Well put Bill. As I said before I've lived on the ICW all my life. As a kid I thought the neatest job in the world was tug boat captain. Many times I saw tugs and other vessels traveling the ICW simply throw their garbage over the side and I'm sure they dumped their holding tanks where ever.
The Saint Johns River which so many talk about it's beauty was so polluted 50 years ago that everytime we swam in it we developed boils. Their were several paper mills right in Jacksonville that dumped all their waste directly in the river. These mills have either been cleaned up or shutdown. Having worked in industrial construction all my life a large part of my income over the years was due to environmental cleanup. A typical coal powered powerhouse spends as much money during construction today to deal with their air quality discharge as they do the actual boilers and generators. The environmentalist have done a wonderful job cleaning these rivers up.
In 1975 I worked on a paper mill in Fernindina Beach that had two 36 inch wooden pipe lines that ran under the city of Fernindina and out into the ocean. They dumped all their waste through these pipe lines. They were paying a meager fine for doing this so continued. The environmentalist got involved and the fine was raised so they decided to fix it. Now you can actually drink the discharge from this mill
On the other hand during my 60 years along the ICW I've seen the Corp of Engineers do some really stupid things and create some real disasters. Where I live there's and inlet called the Nassau Sound which was the only unaltered inlet in the State of Florida. This inlet is full of tidal islands that are nesting grounds for many species of birds and turtles. On the north end of the inlet "Amelia Island" they always had and erosion problem. The sea would take away the sand from the beach one year and the next year it would redeposit it. The island was developed with Condos by some pretty weathy people. They somehow lobbied to have the Corp build a jetty. The scientific community and environmentalist opposed this but big money talks. After the jetty was completed to the south the inlet began to close in. The tidal creeks began to fill in and the spawning grounds for marine life began to disappear. All this done so someone could have some nice white sand in front of their condo. Now they are building a jetty to the south in and attempt to correct their blunder. In defense of the Corp of Engineers if it weren't for them there would be no ICW so I guess sometimes you've just got to take the good with the bad.
It's a shame we can't all get on the same page regardless of what ever political party we subscribe to. I've been a life long democrat but totally agree with Bill's post which from it I expect he's a republican.
Well put Bill. As I said before I've lived on the ICW all my life. As a kid I thought the neatest job in the world was tug boat captain. Many times I saw tugs and other vessels traveling the ICW simply throw their garbage over the side and I'm sure they dumped their holding tanks where ever.
The Saint Johns River which so many talk about it's beauty was so polluted 50 years ago that everytime we swam in it we developed boils. Their were several paper mills right in Jacksonville that dumped all their waste directly in the river. These mills have either been cleaned up or shutdown. Having worked in industrial construction all my life a large part of my income over the years was due to environmental cleanup. A typical coal powered powerhouse spends as much money during construction today to deal with their air quality discharge as they do the actual boilers and generators. The environmentalist have done a wonderful job cleaning these rivers up.
In 1975 I worked on a paper mill in Fernindina Beach that had two 36 inch wooden pipe lines that ran under the city of Fernindina and out into the ocean. They dumped all their waste through these pipe lines. They were paying a meager fine for doing this so continued. The environmentalist got involved and the fine was raised so they decided to fix it. Now you can actually drink the discharge from this mill
On the other hand during my 60 years along the ICW I've seen the Corp of Engineers do some really stupid things and create some real disasters. Where I live there's and inlet called the Nassau Sound which was the only unaltered inlet in the State of Florida. This inlet is full of tidal islands that are nesting grounds for many species of birds and turtles. On the north end of the inlet "Amelia Island" they always had and erosion problem. The sea would take away the sand from the beach one year and the next year it would redeposit it. The island was developed with Condos by some pretty weathy people. They somehow lobbied to have the Corp build a jetty. The scientific community and environmentalist opposed this but big money talks. After the jetty was completed to the south the inlet began to close in. The tidal creeks began to fill in and the spawning grounds for marine life began to disappear. All this done so someone could have some nice white sand in front of their condo. Now they are building a jetty to the south in and attempt to correct their blunder. In defense of the Corp of Engineers if it weren't for them there would be no ICW so I guess sometimes you've just got to take the good with the bad.
It's a shame we can't all get on the same page regardless of what ever political party we subscribe to. I've been a life long democrat but totally agree with Bill's post which from it I expect he's a republican.
It's just amazing to me how beautiful this C-Brats site is. We are such a disparate group, from different places, with different perspectives, and so on. Here, I think, mutual respect ultimately prevails, and we continue to be friends. Boy, this full spectrum light really works!
iggy - while this is common knowledge for many of us, I can understand why the public is un-aware of it. Your mainstream media did very little to cover this issue.iggy":33481hnf said:
In a nutshell . . . the foam insulation for the external fuel tanks on the Space Shuttles use to be made with Freon. After the Freon ban, they quit using Freon (after all NASA was a big proponent to the Freon ozone hole theory) so for political correctness there are seven dead astronauts.
In 97, the first flight using the Freon free foam, there was 11 times as much damage to the tiles caused by the foam breaking off the fuel tanks as there was when using the Freon foam and it has continued, even after the Columbia disaster. NASA tried rig the investigations so they could keep certain facts from the public.
Do a Google search with columbia shuttle disaster freon in the search string and you will probably be surprised with some of the hits. You will also find cooks on both sides. There will be a lot of miss information from what you would think are legitimate news worthy sites. When you look at their supporting documentation you will find they quote out of content or flat out lie.
You decide for your self, for me it is easy to put 2+2 together and get 4.
________
Dave
- Status