[gojeda]

Is it more dishonest than oil company paid FUD?

You can doubt the message of the oil companies, but I fail to see how can call it FUD. Where are the elements of fear, uncertaintly and doubt are in their message?

It really doesn't have to be considered. People are talking about global warming - not running in the streets or building bunkers for christs sake.

Indeed....Algore's hysteria agenda has failed in that regard.

Now perhaps shill is a big of a strong word so I apologize. But you and I both know you work for the oil industry helping map ocean floors for places to drill oil, correct? You've also interned at large oil companies as well, haven't you? Now I think you're a very very bright young man but you are someone that has been working in and around oil companies for quite some time as a geophysicist. So while I respect your credentials I also cannot help but view your opinions through the "oil industry insider" prism.

Wow.....off in la-la land here a bit, don't you think?

Funny, I was just in the UK and while the court found 9 errors in the movie it was largely upheld as one based on fact.

The court said that there was a lot of substantial science in the movie, but that the movie played with the facts 9 times on various issues. Therefore, according to their laws, it can't be called what it purports to be.

Which, of course, leads one to the question, why?

Incidentally, most of those 9 inaccuracies deal not so much with the science of global warming, but with the "doom and gloom" effects that Algore and company loves to scare people with.

But then if you felt that way I'd think you'd hardly be someone willing to sincerely consider the other side of the argument since you've obviously already made up your mind.

As it seems, you have yourself.

Fortunately many others have not made up their mind at all. And many others needed to be motivated to help determine a path forward - some of those in which may only be motivated by fear to get them off their collective a$$es to at least examine the issue.

It seem you, and Algore for that matter, seem to underestimate the public's ability to reason and adapt.


The cold war was won because of the arms race. What in the world are you talking about? It left the soviet economy in tatters. I thought you were a Reagan Republican?



So is creating FUD by telling them to "please go about your business...do not look at the man behind the curtain" to delay the (hopefully) inevitable move away from fossil fuels.[/QUOTE]

[lifes2short]

Funny, I was just in the UK and while the court found 9 errors in the movie it was largely upheld as one based on fact. To the extent I thought they will still show it in the schools, but with a disclaimer. If it were "propaganda" I am reasonbly sure the Brits would not allow it to be shown in the schools at all. I guess it depends on your vantage point, which again, we now all know yours is pretty firmly well planted behind the desk at an oil company.

The nine errors, ruled on by a british court, was the result of a school leader who just happens to be a member of "The New Party", an hard-right political group which appears to be the marriage of a Dr. Dobson social philosophy to a pro-mining and pro-oil/nuclear energy expansion as laid out in their manifesto. Although a better plaintiff could have been found for their "cause", it's likely the judge's decision would've been the same, which frankly, doesn't amount to much.

Of the nine, the judge ruled that:

1. The sea levels will not rise 20 feet in the near future. This, if it does occur, can only happen over millennia.

2. Global warming will not shut down the Meridional Circulation (the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe).

3. The film errantly contends that low-lying Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropological global warming.

4. The claims that the two graphs showing the correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures supporting the idea that there is a connection, but they are not perfect matches.

5. Snow disappearing from Mount Kilimanjaro is not directly related to global warming.

6. The drying up of Lake Chad is also not an example of global warming, and it has significantly more to do with poor farming methods than carbon levels.

7. There are no links between hurricane Katrina and global warming.

8. The film cites a study which concluded that polar bears may have to swim (and die) up to 60 miles looking for packed ice as the icecap continues to melt. The court found that the study attributed 4 polar bear deaths to a storm which placed the polar bears into harms way of having to swim extraordinary distances, and thereby discounted its veracity.

9. Global warming is not currently a major cause of coral bleaching. Over-fishing and pollution are greater factors at this point.

Despite finding nine errors the judge said the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC.”

Within the context of the thousands of claims made within the film, in particular, Judge Burton agreed with the main thrust of Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide."

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

[moderateinny]

You can doubt the message of the oil companies, but I fail to see how can call it FUD. Where are the elements of fear, uncertaintly and doubt are in their message?

You aren't up here telling people to Fear Al Gore casting both Uncertainty and Doubt about anything counter to your opinions?

Indeed....Algore's hysteria agenda has failed in that regard.

Where has he said to build bunkers? Where has he said to be hysterical? I've seen him say we need to act now. I've seen him ask you to write your congressmen and senators. So what exactly about his call to action are you so vehmently opposed to? Face it - you don't like the man because you work in the oil industry and are a blindly loyal Republican. That is why you don't like him.

Wow.....off in la-la land here a bit, don't you think?

Now now neo, we both know that I am not. It's OK, really. I'd welcome your perspective if you'd stop being so darn rhetorical and intellectually dishonest about your unique perspective.

The court said that there was a lot of substantial science in the movie, but that the movie played with the facts 9 times on various issues. Therefore, according to their laws, it can't be called what it purports to be.

Which, of course, leads one to the question, why?

Because he is a former politician of an opposing party to the ruling party and because the movie did have inaccuracies. Truth be told, the movie should not be shown in schools at all. But that has little to do with the fact that your first post about the UK ruling was an attempt to cite their court's finding in a less than positive way.

Incidentally, most of those 9 inaccuracies deal not so much with the science of global warming, but with the "doom and gloom" effects that Algore and company loves to scare people with.

OK, so you don't like the gloom and doom stuff....whatever that means. Then again, since there is no consensus as to what the consequences could be I fail to see why reporting to the world at large, in a MOVIE, that the outcome could well be a major global catastrophy constitues fear mongering. So while you find this to be irresponsible I find him to be forthcoming about possible outcomes. If only we had known about the possible outcome of 9/11 I'm sure we would have done some things differently.

It seem you, and Algore for that matter, seem to underestimate the public's ability to reason and adapt.

I've done no such thing. I've suggested that elements of the population may require fear to motivate them. But I've certainly not suggested that the ENTIRE world needs to be motivated by fear. So as usual, you're distorting my views on the matter. And by the way, I don't see it as fear mongering at all - instead, I see it as being forthright about potential dire outcomes.

[moderateinny]

The handle may or may not be truly unique.

Perhaps. But then again his ability to pull up links from sources that would most typically be read by a geophysicist are a rather remarkable coincidence, don't you think? http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...postcount=1249

[Toby]

Perhaps. But then again his ability to pull up links from sources that would most typically be read by a geophysicist are a rather remarkable coincidence, don't you think?

I'm not sure what's remarkable about them. It could be an interest in the subject and seeing the links in discussions previously elsewhere.

[moderateinny]

I'm not sure what's remarkable about them. It could be an interest in the subject and seeing the links in discussions previously elsewhere.

No worries Toby. Believe what you want. Seriously...no hard feelings.

[gojeda]

You aren't up here telling people to Fear Al Gore casting both Uncertainty and Doubt about anything counter to your opinions?

Fear Algore? No, its Al Gore's fear.....a big difference.

Where has he said to build bunkers? Where has he said to be hysterical? I've seen him say we need to act now. I've seen him ask you to write your congressmen and senators. So what exactly about his call to action are you so vehmently opposed to? Face it - you don't like the man because you work in the oil industry and are a blindly loyal Republican. That is why you don't like him.

Well, there is the link in the film that Hurricane Katrina was, somehow, a product of global warming.

Then there is the hysteria of telling people that oceans will rise 20 feet in mere decades.

The falsehood that Antartica is shrinking when, in fact, it is actually accumilating ice.

Playing on people's emotions by asserting that polar bears are drowning because of a lack of ice, when in fact, there has been little or no documentation to that effect.

Now now neo, we both know that I am not. It's OK, really. I'd welcome your perspective if you'd stop being so darn rhetorical and intellectually dishonest about your unique perspective.

Such as you idiotic claim that I work for the oil industy you mean?

Because he is a former politician of an opposing party to the ruling party and because the movie did have inaccuracies. Truth be told, the movie should not be shown in schools at all. But that has little to do with the fact that your first post about the UK ruling was an attempt to cite their court's finding in a less than positive way.

Well the movie can be shown because, after all, I believe in freedom of speech - but I do think the British wisely warned viewers that the movie is not as factual as it claims it is.

OK, so you don't like the gloom and doom stuff....whatever that means. Then again, since there is no consensus as to what the consequences could be I fail to see why reporting to the world at large, in a MOVIE, that the outcome could well be a major global catastrophy constitues fear mongering.

The movie, and the protagonist, have become the primary tools of a movement.

So while you find this to be irresponsible I find him to be forthcoming about possible outcomes. If only we had known about the possible outcome of 9/11 I'm sure we would have done some things differently.

Can I pull "outcomes" out my ***, put in a movie, and call it fact?

I've done no such thing. I've suggested that elements of the population may require fear to motivate them. But I've certainly not suggested that the ENTIRE world needs to be motivated by fear. So as usual, you're distorting my views on the matter. And by the way, I don't see it as fear mongering at all - instead, I see it as being forthright about potential dire outcomes.

Of course you do. Those who deify the man feel he can do no wrong.

[moderateinny]

Fear Algore? No, its Al Gore's fear.....a big difference.

I think you mean, "...fear Al Gore's fears". But whatever. The FUD you are throwing around about the man, his fears, our fears, your fears, whatever are at least as outrageous as some of the claims he makes in his movie that you find so offending.

Well, there is the link in the film that Hurricane Katrina was, somehow, a product of global warming.

Then there is the hysteria of telling people that oceans will rise 20 feet in mere decades.

The falsehood that Antartica is shrinking when, in fact, it is actually accumilating ice.

Playing on people's emotions by asserting that polar bears are drowning because of a lack of ice, when in fact, there has been little or no documentation to that effect.

Ahh yes...and I can see from the mobs rioting in the streets caused by his fear mongering that you have every right to be angry with the man! Seriously you act as though he created an entire film of fiction when in large part most of the movie is based on fact.

Such as you idiotic claim that I work for the oil industy you mean?

Oh now you're just being a silly boy. You've worked for at least two oil companies in college and since 2004 have been working for another one in particular.

You're either a master poker player or have simply tipped too much of your hand. I'll go with the latter.

Well the movie can be shown because, after all, I believe in freedom of speech - but I do think the British wisely warned viewers that the movie is not as factual as it claims it is.

Wisely indeed. And while I don't think it should be shown in schools at all, it seems the British felt it also wise to continue to do just that since it is largely based on facts.

Can I pull "outcomes" out my ***, put in a movie, and call it fact?

I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time you've pulled something out of your a$$ and called it fact. So have at it.

Of course you do. Those who deify the man feel he can do no wrong.

Ah yes, the old fallback position of deification. Well I've done no such thing and even said that he is an imperfect man, which by most standards would remove him from contention for deification.

Good to see that keg full of rhetoric you have hasn’t run dry just yet. Nicely done.

[lifes2short]

Moderateinny-"The falsehood that Antartica is shrinking when, in fact, it is actually accumilating ice" claim is not one of the 9 errors, among the thousands of claims made in the film, the british court named as being in error as I previously posted. I have no idea where that "falsehood" originated.

[moderateinny]

Well this is somewhat reassuring...it seems even the GOP candidates are sensible enough to know that the problem is real and must be dealt with. Of course, some of them may be pandering more than anything but it beats the heck out of the usual "global warming is a fraud" rhetoric we're used to hearing from the Glen Beck's of the world.

Try not to break out into hysteria over McCain's claims that, "...I can tell you this. I have had enough experience and enough knowledge to believe that unless we reverse what is happening on this planet, my dear friends, we are going to hand our children a planet that is badly damaged."

Hand that man a Noble please.

Warming starts to split GOP hopefuls
Candidates divided over policy solutions, but most recognize the threat
By Marc Santora
The New York Times
Updated: 4:16 a.m. ET Oct 17, 2007

While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.

Within that camp, however, sharp divisions are developing. Senator John McCain of Arizona is calling for capping gas emissions linked to warming and higher fuel economy standards. Others, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are refraining from advocating such limits and are instead emphasizing a push toward clean coal and other alternative energy sources.

All agree that nuclear power should be greatly expanded.

The debate has taken an intriguing twist. Two candidates appealing to religious conservatives, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, call for strong actions to ease the effects of people on the climate, at times casting the effort in spiritual terms just as some evangelical groups have taken up the cause.

The emergence of climate change as an issue dividing Republicans shows just how far the discussion has shifted since 1997, when the Senate voted, 95 to 0, to oppose any international climate treaty that could hurt the American economy or excused China from responsibilities.

The debate among Republicans is largely not about whether people are warming the planet, but about how to deal with it.

The issue inserted itself into the presidential campaign on Friday with the announcement that Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize for work highlighting the threat posed by climate change.

The leading Democratic candidates rushed to praise Mr. Gore, underlying how that party has sought to seize the issue with proposals like higher standards for fuel mileage and taxing emissions of carbon dioxide.

The issue had been gradually bubbling up among leading Republicans as top corporations, including some in petroleum, have been pushing to address it.

Mr. McCain, who acknowledges that he knew little about the climate problem when he sought his party’s presidential nomination eight years ago, held a Senate hearing on climate change in 2001 and quickly became a convert to the notion that carbon emissions were warming the planet.

In recent years, he has fought to introduce measures for caps on dangerous emissions. Last week, Mr. McCain promised to demand sharply higher fuel standards from the automobile industry.

He also promised to have the United States join the international climate treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, although only on the condition that India and China join, too. Many experts say that condition is unlikely to be met at the moment.

“I don’t know what it is going to be like the rest of my life on this planet,” Mr. McCain said at the Global Warming and Energy Solutions Conference on Saturday in Manchester, N.H. “But I can tell you this. I have had enough experience and enough knowledge to believe that unless we reverse what is happening on this planet, my dear friends, we are going to hand our children a planet that is badly damaged.”

The full text can be read here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21337492...playmode/1098/

[gojeda]

"All agree that nuclear power should be greatly expanded."

Those BLASPHEMERS!!

[moderateinny]

"All agree that nuclear power should be greatly expanded."

Those BLASPHEMERS!!

Why?

[whmurray]

"All agree that nuclear power should be greatly expanded."

While it is potentially the cleanest and safest source, nuclear in the US is contracting, not expanding. In my lifetime, nuclear has gone from prospectively "too cheap to measure" to too expensive to compete. It will continue to contract for at least another decade and probably a generation.

We are retiring nuclear plants and not replacing them. We must retire plants at the end of their economic life but are unable to replace them at the same time. Even if new plants could compete with (artificially) cheap fossil fuels, it is not a market decision. Given the present economic, technological, political, and regulatory environments, we are unlikely even to commit to a new plant. From firm commitment to the first production would be 15-20 years.

[We are also closing gasoline refineries and not replacing them. The difference is that the industry is increasing the efficiency of the remaining plants fast enough that our net capacity is keeping up. Not to worry, we can import from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. Of course, the cost of transportation will have to go into to price at the pump.]

It is tragic that we have gotten ourselves in this bind. Fortunately for us, the rest of the world is using nuclear; that decreases the total demand for fhe fossil fuels that we must use.

[moderateinny]

It is tragic that we have gotten ourselves in this bind.

Agreed!

[moderateinny]

The latest government Arctic report card is now available http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/index.html

It's not pretty.

[Woof]

interesting thread

everyone knows global warming exists and everyone also clearly sees the extremely likely associations between humans and global warming.

This is the consensus of a mountain of evidence by the scientific community, this is not marketing.

So cell old buddy, you have gone into the polling business? When did you have time to talk to everyone? These kinds of statements make you look foolish regardless of what the reader's opinion is. You're better than that.

I recently read an interesting novel. "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Sure it's a novel but raises some very interesting points on the fear aspect of global warming. A must read IMO for anyone looking into this subject.

[BARYE]

interesting thread

So cell old buddy, you have gone into the polling business? When did you have time to talk to everyone? These kinds of statements make you look foolish regardless of what the reader's opinion is. You're better than that.

I recently read an interesting novel. "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Sure it's a novel but raises some very interesting points on the fear aspect of global warming. A must read IMO for anyone looking into this subject.

hey Woof !!!

(I can't say much because I've been extreme renditioned -- were those your interns that helped track me down ?? ...also its become increasingly hard to have serious discussion with folks that deny global climate change -- or that Larry Craig is still not gay...)

[gojeda]

Why?

Because the greenies, who are generally very good at complaining, but not so good at offering solutions, generally eschew nuclear power based on (in their minds) prohibitive environmental concerns.

[gojeda]

While it is potentially the cleanest and safest source, nuclear in the US is contracting, not expanding. In my lifetime, nuclear has gone from prospectively "too cheap to measure" to too expensive to compete. It will continue to contract for at least another decade and probably a generation.

To clarify, that was not my quote, though I do believe that nuclear power is a fine solution.

I agree with your sentiments here, and it is a travesty we have turned our backs what was to be a cheap, abundant and clean form of energy.

We are retiring nuclear plants and not replacing them. We must retire plants at the end of their economic life but are unable to replace them at the same time. Even if new plants could compete with (artificially) cheap fossil fuels, it is not a market decision. Given the present economic, technological, political, and regulatory environments, we are unlikely even to commit to a new plant. From firm commitment to the first production would be 15-20 years.

I would say that the biggest roadblock here is political. The other "obstacles" can be easily overcome.

[We are also closing gasoline refineries and not replacing them. The difference is that the industry is increasing the efficiency of the remaining plants fast enough that our net capacity is keeping up. Not to worry, we can import from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. Of course, the cost of transportation will have to go into to price at the pump.]

You touch on a salient issue that no one seems to talk about.

In one measure, the fact that we import a good deal of our fossil fuel needs is a GOOD thing. I would rather consume the resources of other countries than the resources of our own (few realize that we are the world's third largest producer, and we keep our production artificially in check).

What I would like to see is a percentage of our domestic production go straight into our reserves (this may or may not be happening, I'd have to do a bit of research).

It is tragic that we have gotten ourselves in this bind. Fortunately for us, the rest of the world is using nuclear; that decreases the total demand for fhe fossil fuels that we must use.

Indeed.....this coupled with the fact that we are consuming their oil, and not so much ours, means that the energy outlook is not as bleak as some would like to have us believe.

[whmurray]

............You touch on a salient issue that no one seems to talk about.

In one measure, the fact that we import a good deal of our fossil fuel needs is a GOOD thing. I would rather consume the resources of other countries than the resources of our own (few realize that we are the world's third largest producer, and we keep our production artificially in check).

What I would like to see is a percentage of our domestic production go straight into our reserves (this may or may not be happening, I'd have to do a bit of research).........

Of course, this means that we are smarter economically than our political rhetoric would suggest. The rhetoric about "energy independence" is silly. While we do not want to be in a position where we cannot meet our own needs if absolutely necessary, when consuming a finite resource, one clearly wants to hoard ones own (whether one does that in the ground or in a tank) while using everyone else's. True energy independence is to be the last man standing.

One reason that we import is that the cost of extraction is lower elsewhere than here. When oil was relatively plentiful and the cost of extraction was a major part of the market price, importing made sense for that reason. Today the market price contains transportation, political risk, and a huge scarcity premium.

Oil now plays a role in international trade that gold once did, that is to balance a nation's imports and exports with the value of its currency. As we continue to import, mostly oil, the value of our currency falls. (Note that only the price of oil imports is rising in dollars while the price of manufactured goods falls, even in otherwise cheap dollars.)