An Inconvenient Truth

I was discussing his site. As a "great environmentalist" he shares no data freely, even stuff he got for free from other people. And instead shills for his book, movie, and soundtrack.Reduce is the first part of environmentalism. You explain how selling books and soundtracks adds to that cause. You need to get it together. I said "forcing people to buy books to get refs". See those last three words? In order to get the refs you apparently need to buy something. There you go again. I didn't say I wanted anything. If encroaching water becomes an issue for ANY community then coastal engineering is a solution. Why is that unlikely?I mean I really just don't get your point here. Let's forget that most coastal cities face this problem anyway due to erosion, and so already have coastal engineering as part of their planning. Why could cities who are facing such issues because of rising water not be able to construct defenses? I want a serious answer.And just because we do away with CO2 would NOT mean that temps won't continue to go up, or go up sometime years down the road and we still have to face that issue. So what are they to do then, if they cannot do it now? Based on what evidence are you making this conjecture? Yeah you had a fun ride trying to pretend I wasn't asking for that but there it is. The point I had been making is that natural climate changes have been and so certainly can be more drastic than we are seeing today.We can stop CO2 and suddenly the temps spike higher or drop out from under us. The only thing we do by eliminating CO2 (and let me make it clear I think this is worthwhile) is remove our contribution to a raised level of temp, we do not guarantee anything about how temps will change or what we will face from them.So why do you believe removing CO2 will make dealing with anything we face in the future (relating to temp effects) easier? I agree we should. There are many benefits we can get out of it. And I might add along with emissions, is accumulation. We could work on both. I just don't need to pretend the effects of not doing so are going to be insurmountable.To me its a plus plus situation to try and do it. Why can't it be sold that way instead of making misleading commentary about what CO2/temp graphs indicate about climate, as well as boosting models with little evidentiary support?Let me ask, if not for CO2 accumulation, do you have ANY CLUE as to how hot or cold it would be for the next 100-1000 years? What trend and so what effects we'd be facing? That's a good question, and if you look very carefully at some of the graphs that Gore shows, you will see that the answer is NOT CO2. Or maybe I should say not necessarily CO2. Certainly it could play a role at some points, but other times clearly not. Climate is quite complex and the science is still very new.I certainly agree it seems that CO2 is in a position, and has been influencing temps in an upward trend in recent years. As you likely have read, there is no real consensus that temps will continue to follow CO2 levels indefinitely. See this is how fanatics get. When you don't fit the cardboard cutout villain they think you must be because you disagree with certain aspects of their position, or Gods forbid question their icons, they get confused.I already stated my position. Several times. If you weren't so busy assuming what I meant, maybe you'd get it by now. I might even ask if you started with my first post in this thread, or came in late? If that's what you got out of Gore's movie, then my point is made.Is there anyone out there who has seen his movie and come away with a rational picture of what we know about Climate Change, our contribution to it, what issues we might face, and ways to deal with it?The rationale picture isn't the stock dilemma of "easy as snap turn off the CO2 and end severe consequences" or "let it all burn 'cause its going to anyway". You sure ought to. So discussion is limited to only what Al Gore says we can say in his movie? As far as I can tell we cannot discuss manmade contributions without discussing natural fluctuations. And you certainly can't talk about effects of CC, and dismiss natural fluctuations.Say we turn off the CO2, no more accumulation and the temps skyrocket anyway? Or they plunge? We should be looking at what we see as potential effects from current climate change not as something that goes away when we remove manmade factors. Its not very truthful and its not very helpful.I agree we ought to remove manmade contributions, I'm just not about to sell it as some sort of panacea to climate change or effects from climate change. Maybe if you could read my posts more than one sentence at a time you would understand what I am saying. The sentence you quoted was out of context. But that's okay since you didn't get the other part in context either.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's what they're saying. Can't you read? What do you think "the professional status of the complainants has risen markedly" means? It doesn't take the Amazing Carnak to puzzle out the meaning, there. The people who complained under the Clinton administration weren't professionals protesting interference in legitimate research or investigation; they were largely unqualified people who were abusing the complaint procedure.It's right there, Holmes. For someone who complained so much about "how words can say something that isn't explicit" in another thread, you're being remarkably dense in this one. What things? Complaints? Yes, complaints were made. By people the article comes right out and says had a lot less professional qualification to complain than the people who tend to be complaining, now.Cranks, in other words. Trolls. Whatever term you choose for people who complain not because they have a complaint but because they're maliciously abusing the system. How much clearer does the article have to be, Holmes? Who? There's nobody named "Lundtz" in the article. Sure. It's a perfect example of how unreasonable you tend to be.

The temperature in this thread is starting to rise a bit.Please cool down and focus on the issues a bit more so I don't have to close it for a time.

I think it means exactly what it says, especially when figured in with the report under discussion. Under Bush much higher level people (including notable award winners) are complaining.It does not in any sense say that all complaints under the C/G admin were by nonprofessionals, much less cranks. That really is your reading into it. It just blows my mind that you actually believe there were no legimate complaints regarding interference of environmental science under Clinton/Gore. A true believer without question. My having first hand experience with a person setting policy which results in manipulation of data to further that policy, and so distrusting him on facts in the future is NOT unreasonable.Your not believing that I have such experiences is not necessarily unreasonable, but for the record it is sheer ignorance on your part.Your telling me that it didn't happen to me, misrepresenting how it happened to me, and/or telling me that it is unreasonable for me to draw such conclusions from such a first hand experience IS unreasonable.Let's get off this and get back to the point of the thread. You saw this great movie by a politician. If you are correct that it will be out here in Oct I will see it (if I am still here at that time). If I am not here it will likely be longer as I will be in the middle of setting up a whole new life somewhere else. But I sure will see it ASAP, because apparently having seen his PP presentation (which lasted over an hour) was not enough to give me any indication of what the movie based on that presentation is like.Oh yeah and for some reason, while I'm made to feel bad for not watching a movie that hasn't been released here and would be illegal to get otherwise, you have yet to watch his PP presentation? Could you just do that as it would be much faster, and tell me if that approximates what's in the movie?In any case, why don't you present some of the strong points? I don't want a pointer to another thread. Cobble together some examples here and explain how he explained they move from showing what is happening in our atmosphere to the threats we face.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Whoops, cross-posted after your notice. Sorry about that.I think we (crash and I) are both moving toward addressing the issues anyway. Let's say... starting now!Edited by holmes, : No reason given.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I didn't say there weren't. Back to your old tricks, huh? More distortions? We might naturally expect a certain level of legitimate complaints for any human endeavor.Clearly, though, the article refers to a dramatic change in the tenor of those complaints, as well as in their number. I've already told you what the obvious implication of their language is. It's plain as day what they're trying to say, but you're obviously ideologically committed to the idea that Clinton dropped the ball on science, without apparently feeling the need to actually present any evidence that was the case. Woah, wait now. That was what I was trying to get you to defend, remember? That the reason the manager (in your example) was doing what he was doing was because of specific, set policy. Your own article pretty much undercut the idea that there was a top-down science policy to begin with, instead asserting that the Clinton administration was disorganized on science matters.So, exactly what specific policy are we talking about? Can you drop me the link again? I'll take a look. From the way you're talking about it I have a hard time believing you actually found the exact presentation the movie is based on.Also - I don't own Microsoft Office. Is that going to be a problem? When the movie comes out on DVD I'll attempt to do just that. The other post I linked you to was my attempt, as soon after seeing the movie as was possible, to do just that. What about it do you object to? I think the data itself makes a pretty convincing case for anthropogenic climate warming, which is why the data comprises almost the entirely of my post. I think my implication, however, was pretty clear, and none of the participants of the thread seemed to find anything to disagree with.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My GUESS is that it will be like a Michael Moore movie. Enjoyable. Viscerally convincing, yet not 100% accurate. In fact potentially misleading in many areas. Have fun and enjoy what you see, let it get you thinking,...

---

LOL!You know that holmes would frigging nail anyone anyone else on this board if they attempted to criticize a film before they even saw it.

Well, you are not only right, I'll also nail people for misrepresenting what I said. Take a look through the thread schraf, I did not criticize the film itself.In the very quote you put in your post the first CAPITALIZED WORD is GUESS. I was responding to HIS false accusations that I was telling people NOT to see the movie and/or not to believe anything in it. I told him that wasn't true and then went on to say what I figured it would be like, and have previously explained why I would feel so.And what's even better is that my recommendation was to review the data for yourself. Gosh but that sure is radical these days.What I did criticize is: His website for the movie, his PP presentation on which the movie is based, and some of the statements regarding opinions on the issue of CC from people who have seen his movie.Nice hypocrisy schraf.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

AbE: In the interest of brevity, I just cut out a section about Ruch's commentary on complaints. It is a side issue and you appeared not to understand what I said, much less what he was saying. It will become obvious when I deal with other issues in this post. I will leave the issue of "complaints" with the following...In introducing that article I clearly stated that there was a change between administrations and it was much worse under Bush. That you would even admit one single complaint under their administration is support of my position, which was that SOME INTERFERENCE happened. I said I could NOT speak personally for any other org. I do not know... and I was not stating... that there were massive numbers. It didn't matter what the percentage was, as long as you agree that some were legitimate complaints my entire point is supported. They were discussing that it had shifted to a more centralized hands on political control under Bush. I have already agreed the power structure is different. I totally agree that under C/G the science was not micromanaged from the top with overt politics on so much of the science. That does NOT change what I have said and what the article does support. SOME LEVEL OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH SCIENCE OCCURED BY THEIR ADMINISTRATION.The people taking complaints in the article was PEER, which is actually an environmental active group, and the nature of the complaints they would be taking (or want to advertise) were not even of the type I am discussing (which was tampering in SUPPORT of environmental causes). That is also likely why the numbers were less than under the Bush administration, which has a much more solid commitment against environmental causes.That said, you might be interested to note that PEER put out statements blasting the C/G administration at the time for being extremely poor on environmental issues. Here is a statement, which goes on to note...
Notice who said that, Ruch. What I could have said earlier, but didn't, was that I had heard rumors about the above from colleagues in other orgs. But there it is discussed at PEER, by the same guy you quoted earlier.And here is something at PEER which hints at something I am discussing... What appeared to be happening is that C/G policy, as enforced by THEIR appointees, was to generally undercut ACTUAL protective programs, while making huge environmental statements, usually scare statements, to act like they were doing something and people should trust them to solve their problems. You know kind of like Bush with terrorism.I was not in an area to view the protective issue directly, I was to view the latter. There is no way it is as bad as under the Bush administration. That does not change what happened and the nature of POLITICIANS.Hopefully the above will give you an idea that perhaps maybe I am know what I am talking about. If it is somewhat disillusioning, join the club. Sometimes I'd be sick to my stomach watching what went on. Now let's converge on the real topic... Absolutely no prob. Here is the link. You download it at that page. These people liked the movie and the presentation so I don't know why they'd lie about their connection.I don't think there will be a problem if you don't own office. Oh yes I should note, it is not JUST the PP file. I wish it were. It is an actual video of his presentation of that PP file to an audience. Thus we're seeing what the producers of the movie saw and so decided to make their movie. This is why I said it was too blurry for me to see what refs he was using, and I don't see how anyone in his audience could either. Ahhhhh, that does make it pretty relevant. I didn't have a direct objection. My main issue was that some of it I already agree with, and some of it didn't exactly give the info I was looking for. That's not to mention it was in another thread and I didn't want to be crossing over threads.I figured it would be easier for you to streamline, or add data, so that it was focused on the areas of direct dispute. HOWEVER, since you say that that was directly influenced from the movie and a chance to capture it, I'll take a look and bring the relevant portions here in a following reply. It might take a day or two. Or maybe by tonight. We'll see.Edited by holmes, : brevity

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Watch your fingers, Holmes. Those split hairs are getting mighty thin. Wouldn't want you to get a sliver!

I don't see how. Have you forgotten what you originally started out defending? Or have you just backpedaled so far that you believe there's nothing ridiculous about defending the completely uncontestable claim that Clinton's government was not entirely perfect? Let's review: That's you, remember? I don't see how any of the above supports that position. I'm sorry? I thought you said that Clinton and Gore, and their little helpers, were "only interested in science where it helped scare people, and actively hampering it when it did not fit that agenda." How is it, exactly, that they could "actively hamper" something they had little to no involvment in?Which is it, Holmes? Direct, top-down interference, or disorganized lack of manegement? Why is it you can't give me a straight answer on that? As enforced by what appointees? Specifically? No, it pretty much doesn't. Hints and allegations, Holmes. That's all you've brought so far. "Rumors"? For Christ's sake.What was the policy, Holmes? That's what I asked NWR and he couldn't answer; that's what I've asked you and recieved nothing but "rumors" and your own half-assed attempts to imply something, maybe, was afoot in the Clinton administration! Ooo, scary. You're a regular Deep Throat, aren't you?I don't recall saying that Clinton's administration was perfect on any issue, even environmentalism. And he made a lot of compromises. But finding tiny little faults in an altogether human government doesn't substantiate your position that the Clinton administration was derelict on environmental issues. Your little sob-stories and rumors, if they can even be believed (and I'm not in the habit of beliving the fundamentally dishonest) prove nothing. They don't even hint at anything.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Okay I went to your other post and checked more closely. What you have presented, other than the two graphs which are missing, I'm not going to challenge as being bad data.The problem begins in what we can take away from that data. Given the very high expletive to explanation ratio, I'm not sure what you are getting from that data. I'll agree with much of what is said in the science article you linked to at the bottom of your post.What they say is that consensus opinion maintains (and which I have repeatedly agreed in my posts) that human activity is largely responsible for the increase in CO2 accumulation in recent years, that the global average temp is generally rising in recent years (with a very notable exception), that CO2 appears to be a large factor in recent rises in average global temps, and that CO2 levels are higher than recorded levels in paleo data.I think it would be very hard for anyone to argue otherwise. I think your graphs showed that nicely.About the only criticism which could be valid (which I read only recently) is that temp data has been averaged using mercator areas rather than real areas, which could vastly change what the actual temp averages are, and using real areas shows very little change. But I am not advancing that position since I just read about that and I have no clue if it is real. Something to be checked out by those in the field I guess.You also have a graph on glacier mass balance. I'll agree for sake of argument, and it seems rather agreeable, that retreat is a result of warming temps. I have read debates about how they are measured, and I have to say some are convincing, but we can leave that aside right now... assuming that it is happening because of CC.Okay, with that said, there are things which are not within consensus and are rather controversial to be pulled from the data. Your link caveated its remarks, though one might say conveniently understated the caveat... Anthropogenic factors in climate change exist... that is it. What one cannot conclude, and is not in consensus:
1) That temps vary directly with CO2. In fact they sometimes (for very large periods of time even if looking very small on graphs) are inversely correlated.
2) That temps are primarily driven by CO2. This is thoroughly undercut by the above point. Right now CO2 is acting as a large factor, but clearly that is not always the case.
3) That temps currently driven by CO2 will climb to the same degree CO2 increases, or for as long as CO2 remains elevated.
4) That historically high levels of CO2 mean ANYTHING, other than the effects which we are currently seeing on temp which are NOT drastic. Both CO2 and temps have had greater fluctuations throughout history, and temps have been higher than we are at today without such high levels of CO2. If one looks closely at the data one will see that temps have barely increased compared to the CO2 spike and for a short period were driven down by other factors.
5) That removing CO2 will end increasing temp trends, and the effects of increasing temps. Once again, we have seen higher temps for longer periods without as high of CO2 levels. There is no sense that removing our effects will change what happens next in some overtly beneficial way.
6) We cannot even be sure that current levels (as part of a recently seen trend) are higher on average than what has existed naturally since the last ice age. The resolution of the data artificially exaggerates very latest data, and suppresses earlier data. We will not be sure if current temps are statistically elevated for another 100-50 years.I think that's enough points about that. It certainly does not say to people like Bush: go ahead and keep churning out CO2. What it does is limit what we say to a realistic sense of our knowledge on the subject, and what will happen if we end CO2 accumulation. Despite not knowing if our current temp trend is historically high (for very recent times), it seems clear that we are moving the temp currently in an upward direction. Despite historical evidence of higher temps, there is no reason to avoid adjusting our contribution to higher temps.On the flipside, any potential effects we see happening from elevated temps will REMAIN as potential effects even after we remove CO2. As was pointed out, they do not vary directly and the next natural move may just as well be skyrocketing temps as a sudden plunge. And it is pretty safe to say that at some point humans will see such effects, regardless of their input. Unless we get total environmental control of the planetary processes.You provided no suggestion for what the effects of global warming are, much less evidence, besides glacial melting. So if we want to cover that, and I assume AIT includes such refs as his PPP did, you could present those now, if you are agreeable to the caveats/conclusions I have placed above.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Nice joke, but I don't understand the point.Flies accused me of criticizing the movie to the point of telling people not to see it. I responded to him that that wasn't what I was saying, and mentioned what I figured it would be like, such that one could see that at my worst estimate I wouldn't say it had NO redeeming value and people should stay away.The only way one could perhaps read that any other way is to not read what I wrote, except that I mention Michael Moore, and assume I hate MM movies... which is not true. Despite misrepresentations and sometimes some very flawed logic, I find his movies quite entertaining and on some level informative. I just liberally salt my popcorn with skepticism.Then schraf pulled out a quote that was NOT criticizing the movie to pretend to blast me for criticizing the movie without having seen it. This is twice as ironic since she has previously stated she never reads my posts.As much as anyone might like to disagree with or despise me, this was schraf's error, not mine.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Not only do I remember what I started out defending, I will quote what you just quoted again... So, the first sentence limits my claim to my org, and states that there were people in his administration at that org interfering with proper science to bolster publicity campaigns, based on scaring people about envrionmental concerns.The second sentence states that Gore used the environment as Bush uses terrorism.I'm at a loss for what wasn't supported at this point. You have seen and ultimately switched claims to agree that there had been complaints of interference by the administration on scientists. And in the last two articles I gave you from PEER itself, you can see that the administration was actually undercutting enforcement and opening pollutant controls while AT THE SAME TIME, hammering away at the public with environmental notices.Even if you didn't agree the first article supported my position, those last two from PEER itself show that it not only happened, but it was so bad that PEER openly chastised C/G and had to act (if you read the full articles) to protect people from backlash. I'm not sure what you are having a problem with. They are talking about a change in degree and structure between the administrations. This means that the people in an office with Bush and Co would be under more tight oversight and control from above, and that it covered more activities. Under C/G there was less oversight and direct control, and it most certainly covered less activities.Its like you are having a problem when a police officer explains that a mob boss exerted control over a gambling operation, because current gambling houses have ownership records and management on site which directly oversee the croupiers.Yes, it was less structured under C/G. The administration put people in place that wanted to advance certain environmental agendas, and from time to time were pressed hard from above to have those policies followed. Otherwise C/G did not micromanage to the same degree as Bush, and did not have the same mechanisms in place for continuous oversight. Why on earth would YOU need to know that? What difference would it make to you? I love how you accept a statement by PEER when you believe it supports your position, and maybe you still cling to that fantasy, and then dismiss it when it totally rebuts you and supports me. They didn't name anyone and they didn't have to to make their case. I gave you two articles by PEER, who you accepted as a source in an earlier post when they were generally slamming Bush. Oh wait now they slam Clinton/Gore? Now its just a rumor mill?Or did you simply not read their statement? Ruch openly stated that Clinton was less effective than Bush Sr. While that administration was heavy on environmental messages, they did not follow through with actions and in fact made many concessions. Whistleblowers were punished, and if you combed through PEER's site a bit would notice that C/G even cut out protections for such people.You are appearing much the true believer. The only consistent position you have taken is that C/G could not have not done anything I have said, and anyone suggesting that they were generally negative on environmental issues are rumor mongers. I've given you some evidence, a source you readily accepted when it slammed Bush. That you can't accept it now is too bad for you. No, the article stating they were derelict on environmental issues substantiates my position (as well as NWR's). Again, look at the true believer. Tiny faults, human gov't. Just keep explainin' it away.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Thinner and thinner, Holmes.