Al Gore: Could Nobel Prize Spur Presidential Run?

[russ_watters]

The people who invented the internet give Gore credit, but that's not good enough for our nay-sayers. Of course not.

I remember him constantly talking about the information super-highway way back before most people knew what it even could be.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing your hatred to blind your minds. Hasn't this sort of nonsense done enough damage? After giving us Bush, I would think that you might have learned something.

I can understand not liking a candidate, but these constant denials of basic truth are just too much to believe.

It is a crazy world we live in where someone who gives a speech about something gets credit right up there with people who actually did something. [that goes for both issues]

If you break it down, Gore basically won a Nobel Prize for making a movie about another guy who won a Nobel Prize.

And for the record, I don't hate Gore, I only mildy dislike him. Bhillary, on the other hand, I loathe.

[edit] Btw, this is a reflection of a difference betwen liberals and conservatives. Conservatives, being for limited government, don't tend to give government credit for much of anything, whether it be the spectacularly good economy of the past 20 years or the development of the internet. Liberals give credit to their favorite politician - so Gore gets credit for the internet, Clinton gets credit for the economy of the mid-90s (and no blame for the crash that happened before he left office), and Bush gets no credit for the great economy of today. For me to actually give someone credit for something, they actually have to do something.

 

[slugcountry]

It is a crazy world we live in where someone who gives a speech about something gets credit right up there with people who actually did something.

... yeah, he didn't do ANYTHING by bringing their work into the public eye...

 

[russ_watters]

ok - I'm sorry that you look down on some humor now and then - care to disprove the rest of the article? not that you would let historical record stand in your way of course...

I think you missed my point. A Berkeley liberal gave Gore an award. How shocking is that?

Anyway, there are plenty of idiocies in that article. Let's start with the first two sentences:

Campbell-Kelly and Aspray note in Chapter 12 of their 1996 text, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, that up until the early 1990s public usage of the Internet was limited. They continue to state that the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s" leading him to develop legislation which would alleviate this problem.

Considering that the IBM PC came out in 1981 and market penetration didn't really get huge for another 5 years, there wasn't enough public to access the internet in the late 1970s. As the article points out, Gore sponsored or voted for a lot of technology-related bills. So it isn't surprising, nor is it terribly interesting, that he took part in the funding for the development of the internet.

[edit] In 1981, Bill Gates was saying no one would ever need more than 640K of ram and no one outside of Xerox PARC had ever heard of a GUI - yet somehow Gore knew the WWW was coming? C'mon, are you guys being serious? You're pulling my chain, right?

 

[russ_watters]

... yeah, he didn't do ANYTHING by bringing their work into the public eye...

I never said he didn't. What I said was that popularizing work isn't the same as doing work.

Heck, Bono would be a much, much better choice than Gore. Bono doesn't just give speeches, he does things. He sits down with the President and then the President changes policy. Giving Gore the peace prize here is laughable. It makes me wonder if they considered giving it to Michael Moore. Perhaps they figured too many people would laugh at them if they did.

 

[vanesch]

Personally, I'm a bit disturbed by a Nobel for human induced climate change as of now. One cannot really say that the scientific case for the issue is closed. There is suggestive data, but the modeling and the internal inconsistencies are to my taste still too big to consider it a proven fact beyond doubt.

Of course, that can be sufficient to be cautious, and maybe it will turn out to be right. But maybe not. Nobel prizes are usually only given to scientific discoveries beyond doubt, based upon experimental work. One cannot claim that climate research and the claims of human induced climate change have as of now reached that state. Some people have to wait 30 years for their Nobel, until their discovery was clearly (with hindsight) a major breakthrough. This can really not be said (yet) of current climate research. It could be true, but it could also be a lot of hot air To be scientifically sure would take at least 2 or 3 more decades. So why the hurry ?

 

[Evo]

Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn both acknowledge Gore's role in funding the government programs (ARPAnet, part of DARPA) that created the internet. It had nothing to do with "private business"

It had everything to do with "private business", AT&T and several other corporations were very involved in developing this with the DOD.

and when the National Science Foundation (NSF) controlled the backbones it was called the "internet."

Wrong again.

In 1986, a higher-speed network, subsidized by the National Science Foundation (NSF), called NSFNET replaced ARPANET.

In 1988, the NSF decided NSFNET would no longer carry commercial traffic. They hoped this move would stimulate the creation of commercial networks such as PSI, UUNET and ANS. In 1995, NSFNET lost its funding. Today the Internet is supported entirely by commercial backbone providers.

As Veltman points out, the AT&T Bell Labs did some of the first digital transmission and switching in 1962, seven years before the "US Internet" began. When the Department of Defense (DoD) commissioned the Advanced Research Project Agency's Network (ARPANET) to do research into networking, it was AT&T that provided 50kbps lines. In 1969, the year that Arpanet began, AT&T's Bell Labs developed Unix which was "the operating system behind the early Internet, and was one of the key operating systems in the middle and late ARPANET."

Between 1969 and 1972, Bell Labs developed the C programming language basic to much of Internet software. In 1970, AT&T installed the first cross-country link between the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Boston. In 1976, AT&T's Bell Labs developed (Unix-to-Unix Copy (UUCP), which was distributed with UNIX one year later."

All of these were important points of origin of the Internet as we know it, so the telco theory, unpopular as it is in Internet circles, should perhaps be explored in more detail. Certainly the physical infrastructure created by the telcos was central, and certainly telcos had worked out protocols for sending voice data between disparate networks early in the piece. In the examples above, they added the component of computers and networked them. Can we completely eliminate the telco origins and contributions to early developments?

http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/69internet.html

1969 will forever be remembered as the year of the "Miracle Mets" and Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon. But, as the Internet's influence continues to grow, maybe 1969 will come to be known as the "Year of the Internet" since it was 1969 that the Internet was launched. The development of the Internet has close ties to the UNIX operating system, which was developed at AT&T Labs. The Internet itself would not exist if it were not for AT&T's telecommunications network, the electronic gateway that connects you to the rest of the world.

Over the past 30 years, AT&T Labs has made many contributions to the development of the Internet and to computer software. Among the programming languages developed at AT&T Labs are C and C++.

http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/69internet.html

Furthermore, it used to be called the "information super highway," when business took it over, it became more about e-commerce rather than information sharing.

No, that was a goofy name that was coined that didn't last very long, *we* did not call it that.

 

[Hurkyl]

unfortunately, if one doesn't go down that path, one cannot make a persuasive argment.

If the truth is not persuasive, then you have no business making an argument.

the repercussion of the British court ruling may now mean that ppl will dismiss the entire film (again this is due to not everyone has the clear thinking you may have), and not just those handful of opinions turned facts. (ie. bad for the symbolism)

Well, there you go. Even if you do decide to take an unscrupulous route, we see that there is a very good reason not to lie.

 

[Art]

First off I'd like to say I currently have no opinion on whether or not Gore made a meaningful contribution to the internet and seeing as how most of this thread is taken up with 'yes he did' 'no he didn't' I still am no wiser.

Surely it shouldn't be hard for those supporting the contention to provide evidence of actual contributions he made and then perhaps the discussion can centre on how meaningful these contributions were.

 

[Art]

Gees I know they have some natsy storms up there but this storm would have had to last for a month.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

From your article

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. “We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds,” said the report.

No drownings have been reported prior to this event or subsequently and why assume more drowned than the 4 observed?? Is there a rationale for this pure speculation?? Does baseless, random, idle speculation from 'environmentalists' constitute scientific proof in your opinion??

If you have 10 close friends and 2 die in a car accident is it then reasonable from this sample to extrapolate 20% of the population of the world will die in car accidents??

One data point does not a trend make.

If the climate change fear-mongers want to be taken seriously then they should show more respect for the public and stop lying to them.

 

[Evo]

He sponsored the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 along with 24 other senators http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00272:@@@P

I'd have to agree that he has a long record of pushing environmental protection issues. Although, I think he's gone over the edge the past couple of years.

But then there's his resolution to establish the month of October, 1991, as "Country Music Month".

 

[Astronuc]

They were just being pc to try to get Gore's foot out of his mouth, if you knew about the growth of the internet, you would know that. He did nothing to encourage businesses taking over the internet. You *do* know what the internet is, right? I was working with it at AT&T in 1973, before it was called the internet. (want to make clear, I was not working on the internet project, I was in data networking for them)

I suppose one could go back even further. In 1968, I did a course in programming (primarily BASIC) and we used a teletype to a computer in another city. We had to use a dialup modem, place the phone in cradle. How far back does teletyping go?

 

[Evo]

I suppose one could go back even further. In 1968, I did a course in programming (primarily BASIC) and we used a teletype to a computer in another city. We had to use a dialup modem, place the phone in cradle. How far back does teletyping go?

They go WAY back, according to wiki, they went into general use around 1922. I remember pulling news copy off the teletype machine when I worked at the radio station.

 

[edward]

So where do polar bears typically die? If the carcasses were found on land, would they have said they died from walking too much? Seriously, with as much body fat as polar bears have, is it even possible for them to drown?

Yes they do drown. Usually exhaustion is the underlying cause. As far as I know they die at whatever location they happen to be when they become to weak to hunt or swim.

SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.
The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.

Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.

 

[sneez]

vanesh

Personally, I'm a bit disturbed by a Nobel for human induced climate change as of now. One cannot really say that the scientific case for the issue is closed.

Exactly, and now its another form of political support, how unscientific. It purports already distorted "religious view of the topic" that researching otherwise and reporting results that do not support this hypothesis are somehow against science/planet/life/blahbalh.

Plus the fact that Gore is as much scientists as bush is politician (uups, I had to :D)

 

[slugcountry]

Surely it shouldn't be hard for those supporting the contention to provide evidence of actual contributions he made and then perhaps the discussion can centre on how meaningful these contributions were.

If you've read through the thread then you should know full well that evidence has been provided, in the form of quotes by the very PEOPLE who actually designed the infrastructure of the net.

 

[mheslep]

If you've read through the thread then you should know full well that evidence has been provided, in the form of quotes by the very PEOPLE who actually designed the infrastructure of the net.

No, that was evidence that he has supporters. What they said was still in the abstract; there's nothing there in the Cerf quote about what he actually did

 

[BobG]

The text of the HPCA should probably be included, as well:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:S.272.ENR:

Gore was also one of the driving forces behind http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:3:./temp/~c1044tWMBG:: of 1996, even though, as VP, he played no official part in its passage in the Senate.

Every 'creation' has its plusses and minuses:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.9135/pub_detail.asp

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/index.html

Regardless of how much value you put in Gore's internet efforts, it's undisputed that his actions eventually led to the enrichment of our culture with this Dan Quayle comment: "If Gore invented the Internet, I invented spell-check."

 

[mjsd]

If the climate change fear-mongers want to be taken seriously then they should show more respect for the public and stop lying to them.

I am not sure what your personal position on climate change, but I think that, certainly, you are no fan of ppl exaggerating things. fair enough.

I personally feel that this debate of whether human activity is the main culprit in global warming, is a bit like the debate about whether "smoking is bad for you" 40 years ago. yeah, today we have slightly more scientific evidence and "proof" about the harm that smoking may do to you, but surely there were a lot of anti-smoking campaigners being branded as fear-mongers back then. So, my point was really that there is a fine line between outright lying and constructing a persuasive argument that is easy enough for the public to understand (without being far too technical); for the public to related to (ie. that "fear factor" of what may happen if we don't act etc...) and has the appeal to the wider audience. Now if you drop all that in name of getting all facts right, you will inevitably lose a large amount of your arguments as well as the audiences. Gore may have overstepped the line on several occasions (9 according to the British court, right?), but the critics of his film/ideas also tend to dismiss the entire film rather than just the 9 facts in an attempt to construct a persuasive argument against the idea of human activity led to warming of themselves...so the battle is more than just about the facts... if you don't like it being fought that way, well may be you should make a film of your own on that point.


recently, Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts and long-time professor at Colorado State University, gave a lecture at uni of North Carolina accusing Gore and others for "brainwashing our children". He also mentioned how other scientists may refuse to speak out against something (ie. human activity led to global warming) that is scientifically wrong in the fear of losing grants.

But in a sense Dr Gray is also a fear-monger himself by making claims that we are brainwashing the younger generation (he thinks we are all stupid or something?). In any case, the jury is still out on this issue, the only question is whether it would be too late to act when we wait until all the facts are known.



various news sources used for this post
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003946751_nobelgray13.html
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22579885-663,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601959.html (earlier this year)

 

[Curious3141]

I have to agree, Gore had nothing to do with the internet (which is run by businesses, not the government). Most people don't know that though.

The internet started with ARPANET, completely a DOD initiative. It has evolved and continues to evolve, with the influence of private enterprise, governments and academia.

Al Gore did have something more than a marginal role in the evolution of the internet. He obviously saw the benefit of having a massive network of computers as far back as 1986, and made efforts to ensure funding for such initiatives. Many even credit him with coining the phrase "information superhighway".

This site gives the dope : http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/#w4 You can scroll down and read about Al Gore's involvement.

That Gore became such a laughing stock in connection with the internet is unfortunate, and the reasons are somewhat unfair to him. The press never bothered to give much coverage at the time to his speeches about the potential of the internet in the 80s and 90s. Then, when Gore happened to mention his involvement in an interview, he was widely (and probably maliciously) misquoted as having claimed he "invented" the internet (he has never actually used those words). When the boffins actually involved in designing the infrastructure of the net speak out in defence of Gore, the press conveniently ignores it.

I'd rather see Gore as President of the USA *any day* than either the blithering idiot Bush or the scheming Hillary.

 

[Art]

If you've read through the thread then you should know full well that evidence has been provided, in the form of quotes by the very PEOPLE who actually designed the infrastructure of the net.

Evidence of what exactly? He spoke in favour of what has become known as the internet as did several other gov't representatives but did this have any material effect on it's development? Was his contribution greater than the other sponsors of communication related legislation? How much federal money for it's development is directly attributable to his support?

To claim as he did that he took the initiative in creating the internet is to say the least exaggerating his own contribution but likewise his critics who misquote him as claiming to have invented the internet are also guilty of exaggeration.

Would early supporters of Einstein's Theory of Relativity be entitled to claim they took the initiative in creating the Theory of Relativity?

 

[vanesch]

In any case, the jury is still out on this issue, the only question is whether it would be too late to act when we wait until all the facts are known.

I agree that there is sufficient material on the table to be cautious. So as a policy, the argument that there is *a possibility* of human-caused global warning, it to be taken seriously, and no, the biosphere shouldn't be considered as a big laboratory for a mad scientist's experiments. So I do recon that it is a good idea to take the *possibility* seriously, to investigate more, and to see if we shouldn't already, as precaution, take preventive action and limit the emission of potential greenhouse gases until we find out for sure that they don't harm, or on the contrary, that they were the culpritt and that we did a good thing in anticipating it. So from that point of view, I agree.

But to me, a NOBEL goes much further than advancing a plausible hypothesis. It goes about PROVING EXPERIMENTALLY BEYOND DOUBT a very important scientific, political or social fact.

So Gore can receive his prize, if it is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED that he was right, a proof we will only have in several decades.

Gosh, the people proving experimentally the existence of the neutrino, after it was already theoretically proposed since many years, still had to wait for 30 years for their prize.

There was much less scientific doubt in that case, than in the case of human-induced global warming.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that there is sufficient material on the table to be cautious. So as a policy, the argument that there is *a possibility* of human-caused global warning, it to be taken seriously, and no, the biosphere shouldn't be considered as a big laboratory for a mad scientist's experiments. So I do recon that it is a good idea to take the *possibility* seriously, to investigate more, and to see if we shouldn't already, as precaution, take preventive action and limit the emission of potential greenhouse gases until we find out for sure that they don't harm, or on the contrary, that they were the culpritt and that we did a good thing in anticipating it. So from that point of view, I agree.

But to me, a NOBEL goes much further than advancing a plausible hypothesis. It goes about PROVING EXPERIMENTALLY BEYOND DOUBT a very important scientific, political or social fact.

So Gore can receive his prize, if it is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED that he was right, a proof we will only have in several decades.

Gosh, the people proving experimentally the existence of the neutrino, after it was already theoretically proposed since many years, still had to wait for 30 years for their prize.

There was much less scientific doubt in that case, than in the case of human-induced global warming.

Gore didn't receive his Noble for science, he got it for his public service. I believe that the quote from the Noble committee was that he has probably done more to educate the public about GW than any other single human being.

Of course Bush senior called him "Mr Ozone" when Gore was talking to Congress and the public about GW over twenty years ago. Which reminds me, didn't he play a large role in arguing to ban CFCs as well?

Eat your words Bush.

On the role of humans in GW, the IPCC [2500 experts who had to agree on a number] puts it at 90% certainty. Also, no matter the role of ACO2 in our weather today, which is debatable, I believe that human produced CO2 is expected to dominate the climate system within the next twenty years or so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it amazing that what once earned Gore the title of "Mr Ozone" is now argued to not have happened.

History rewritten, once again.

 

[Art]

I find it amazing that what once earned Gore the title of "Mr Ozone" is now argued to not have happened.

History rewritten, once again.

I haven't seen anybody argue against the contention that Gore has for many years been a vocal supporter of AGW could you quote the posts where this happened?

The question is should he have received a Nobel prize for his support of an unproven theory and why the Peace prize?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't seen anybody argue against the contention that Gore has for many years been a vocal supporter of AGW could you quote the posts where this happened?

I was responding to the notion that others have worked on this far longer. Gore has probably worked on this as long as just about anyone.

The question is should he have received a Nobel prize for his support of an unproven theory and why the Peace prize?

He won it for his education of the public about an issue that threatens humanity and that will certainly play a role in world peace. Already we see political tensions arising over the opening of the Northern passage. The Russians even planted a flag using a Submarine! And GW is no longer considered to be an unproven theory, so regardless of AGW's role, GW is a critical issue for everyone, and this fact is no longer disputed in mainstream science. And IMO, those who argue that 90% confidence isn't good enough to justify action are being irrational. Those who argue that we don't have 90% confidence are fringe and should post their evidence in S&D. I'll even make a sticky for it; right next to the UFO section.

Just wait until people start running out of drinking water, which is close to happening in Atlanta right now.

If you don't understand the connection between peace and climate change, then you don't understand the impact that AGW might have. Not long ago I posted a paper done for the Defense Dept that is part of an effort to evaluate the potential impact of GW on national security. I tried to spot it but will have to post later. It is somewhere in Earth Sciences.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A huge underground lake has been found in Sudan's Darfur region, scientists say, which they believe could help end the conflict in the arid region. "The root cause of the conflict is resources - drought and desertification in North Darfur."

http://www.care2.com/news/member/101256935/427716

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, as for his role in helping to bring about the modern internet, it seems that many here don't understand the concepts of leadership and spearheading important issues. Change often begins with a voice crying from the wilderness. Politically, Al Gore was that voice for the information super-highway, ozone depletion, and GW.

So with that and his opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq, he has been correct, correct, correct, and, correct.

 

[Art]

http://www.care2.com/news/member/101256935/427716

There was a follow up to that story

Ancient Darfur lake 'is dried up'
A vast underground lake that scientists hoped could help to end violence in Sudan's Darfur region probably dried up thousands of years ago, an expert says.
Alain Gachet, who used satellite images and radar in his research, said the area received too little rain and had the wrong rock types for water storage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6908224.stm

and anyway isn't GW supposed to cause greater precipitation not less or is that only on Tuesdays and Thursdays??

 

[Art]

Whilst on the subject of U-turns and rewriting history, after years of dire warnings of severe drought in England with hot, arid summers guaranteed because of GW incredibly without turning a hair the climate alarmist folk publish this;

Country England under water: scientists global warming link to increased rain
Source: Copyright 2007, Independent (UK)
Date: July 23, 2007
Byline: Michael McCarthy

It's official: the heavier rainfall in Britain is being caused by climate change, a major new scientific study will reveal this week, as the country reels from summer downpours of unprecedented ferocity.

More intense rainstorms across parts of the northern hemisphere are being generated by man-made global warming, the study has established for the first time * an effect which has long been predicted but never before proved.

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=80663
It is spectacular U-turns such as this which makes many people sceptical of the whole GW issue. It seems every prediction they have ever made has been wrong which is why these days they simply rewrite their predictions after the fact!

I guess a theory that claims if it's dry it's GW and if it's wet it's GW is going to be very hard to disprove

 

[vanesch]

On the role of humans in GW, the IPCC [2500 experts who had to agree on a number] puts it at 90% certainty.

The question is: how is that number (90%) obtained ? Is it a number of standard deviations from a carefully worked out distribution of variables ? To claim discovery in elementary particle physics, you need at least 5 sigma. For my PhD I had a 2.8 sigma deviation, and I still had to formulate it as "suggestive data but not conclusive".
As others point out, the predictions and modelling of AGW seem to be a moving target. That's not really "hard scientific fact", that's still in the speculative and mostly suggestive domain.
Do I consider AGW as bogus ? No. It is a serious possibility. Do I consider it as scientifically established ? No. Not at all. But what's worse, there has been as of yet no sound and clear prediction by a sound and clear model that has been tested without failure against new data. It's all "explaining data after the fact". It's not yet "repeated predictions by clearly deduced models who are verified after the prediction", the way science is normally done. If it were so firmly established, there would be no difficulty

So, again, the very fact that some scientists (many scientists) now claim that the possibility exists should be taken seriously in policies: you cannot wait for the scientific establishment of a global disaster before taking preventive action. But it is not because the possibility exists and is taken seriously, that it is a proven fact.

The danger I see with things like the IPCC is that it is now publicly declared to be politically not correct to ask critical questions about AGW. Or you TAKE IT FOR GRANTED, or you're a fringe. That's not the way to conduct science. If that were so, then the modelling and predictions would be already beyond doubt very precise and fringe claims would have to go against mountains of predictions which had been verified experimentally with high precision. That means that if you ask for means to investigate in the reality of AGW, that you will not get grants. However, if you ask for means to establish a bit more AGW, that this is a politically correct thing to do and you'll get your money. As such, one biases the scientific research. It would be interesting to know in what measure there IS GW, in what measure it is antropologically induced, and WHAT ASPECT of human behaviour is doing so, and what positive feedback mechanism is responsible for what contribution.

You cannot, at the same time, claim that the effects are beyond doubt and the causes are well-known and that it is fringe to be critical about it, and having to change your models and predictions every 10 minutes to explain new data, and be uncertain about the contributions of different effects or certain essential mechanisms.

As such, claims such as 90% certainty is a non-scientific statement. That's what bothers me with the whole AGW issue. I understand that there is a political issue. Scientists take the possibility for real, and have suggestive data. They don't understand the whole thing yet, and scientifically, they are not sure at all. But they realize that as long as they say that it is not scientifically established, that politicians will not take their claims seriously if that means making unpopular decisions. The scientists also know that IF they are right, that it is NOW that one has to do something, and not WHEN they will know for sure and that it will take decades to find out for sure. So all this is "pretending to be sure" because it is the safest bet: if they ARE right (and they'll know 30 years from now) then it was a "good lie to tell them that we were sure", because by this lie, we pushed politicians to the right decisions. If it turns out NOT to be correct, then nothing really bad did happen (and my carreer is finished in any case).
So this is a kind of "lie for a good purpose". But it is not scientific.

 

[Art]

On the role of humans in GW, the IPCC [2500 experts who had to agree on a number] puts it at 90% certainty. Also, no matter the role of ACO2 in our weather today, which is debatable, I believe that human produced CO2 is expected to dominate the climate system within the next twenty years or so.

This oft quoted fallacy is a prime example of how numbers are simply plucked out of the air to support a poor argument.

The IPCC simply doesn't work that way. Each of the 2,500 reviewers work in isolation with the end result being 'interpreted' by the governmental appointees of the IPCC many of which are not themselves scientists.

This makes sense to some degree as the fields are so highly specialised it would be impossible for a reviewer of say for example the calibration method used in the extraction of ice cores in the Antarctic to have any sensible or worthwhile input into how this affects other totally unrelated elements of climate science.

Some high profile reviewers have resigned from the panel in disgust at how their reviews have been 'interpreted' and then portrayed by the politically biased IPCC board.

It is also worth remembering the IPCC itself does zero research. It only reviews papers submitted by scientists who wish them to review their work which means from the start there is a blatant bias with funding going to those researchers who support AGW and denied to those who wish to debunk it it stands to reason practically every paper submitted for review will be pro AGW. With only one side of the argument being presented it is not surprising that the AGW fanatics are in the driving seat.

In November 2006 a survey of the members of the 12000 member U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions.

As you can see even the so called consensus claimed by the 'chicken littles' is a lie.

 

[mjsd]

As such, claims such as 90% certainty is a non-scientific statement. That's what bothers me with the whole AGW issue. I understand that there is a political issue. Scientists take the possibility for real, and have suggestive data. They don't understand the whole thing yet, and scientifically, they are not sure at all. But they realize that as long as they say that it is not scientifically established, that politicians will not take their claims seriously if that means making unpopular decisions. The scientists also know that IF they are right, that it is NOW that one has to do something, and not WHEN they will know for sure and that it will take decades to find out for sure. So all this is "pretending to be sure" because it is the safest bet: if they ARE right (and they'll know 30 years from now) then it was a "good lie to tell them that we were sure", because by this lie, we pushed politicians to the right decisions. If it turns out NOT to be correct, then nothing really bad did happen (and my carreer is finished in any case).

I kind of like this assessment of the situation. It is better be safe than sorry. After all, if global warming is indeed induced by human activity, it is probably irrevesible. And perhaps if we start some cutting back now, we may find it easier to adapt, than say 30 years from now, we have no choice but to cut back immensely, causing significant change in our lifestyle, the economy etc immediately. Even if we are wrong (or lucky enough that some other future events make the situation reversible), it would only be a short term loss.

as far as whether this is

a kind of "lie for a good purpose".

well.. it depends how you look at it. it is "good purpose" if you are concerned about the environment, but it is probably not so good if you are concerned about continual economic growth and domination of your state. Certainly, many are hoping that the status quo (emission target etc.) won't be changed in the near future just for the sake of $$$ and standard of living. so for some it can be really bad should this GW issue turns out to be just a farce. I am sure all of you understand this point better than I do.


then, the remaining question would be why does the IPCC want to take the "biased" view towards AGW? Does it has the thinking that "it's better be safe than sorry"? or does it want to use this as an excuse to curb the growth of developing countries like China, India fearing that they may become too powerful one day? Or too want to slow the growth in dominance of the USA? OR are those ppl at IPCC just a bunch of lunatics?

we may probably need another 30 years to work that out...

 

[vanesch]

I kind of like this assessment of the situation. It is better be safe than sorry. After all, if global warming is indeed induced by human activity, it is probably irrevesible.

It for sure is not irreversible by itself, but irreversible "damage" may have been done, such as the end of humanity. In how much this is really "damage" or the ultimate ecologist's victory is a philosophical issue .Given that the main result of all these climate change models is: a change in temperature (and some other variables) as a function of CO2 release, I guess they are more or less reversible (maybe with some hysteresis), at least when I read the primer about the models on the IPCC website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

The problem I see is that scientists are not being 100% scientific for politics' sake. Should a scientist lie about his science in order to influence "dumb" politicians in the right direction (the direction of "better safe than sorry" ) ?

And perhaps if we start some cutting back now, we may find it easier to adapt, than say 30 years from now, we have no choice but to cut back immensely, causing significant change in our lifestyle, the economy etc immediately. Even if we are wrong (or lucky enough that some other future events make the situation reversible), it would only be a short term loss.

Well, that still remains a political decision. I, for one, am only ready to suffer a little bit for the sake of the hypothetical well-being of eventual humans in 100 years. If I have the choice between leading a miserable life right now, to make Earth a better place to live in 100 years, or live my life decently, but with as probable consequence a disaster in 100 years, I resolutely opt for the second option. Sorry.
Of course, if I have to do a moderate effort, I'm maybe willing to do so. But I won't go back to the stone age just for the sake of the well-being of people that don't even exist yet.

well.. it depends how you look at it. it is "good purpose" if you are concerned about the environment, but it is probably not so good if you are concerned about continual economic growth and domination of your state. Certainly, many are hoping that the status quo (emission target etc.) won't be changed in the near future just for the sake of $$$ and standard of living. so for some it can be really bad should this GW issue turns out to be just a farce. I am sure all of you understand this point better than I do.

Well, this is an issue that shouldn't be neglected. Imagine that we are too careful, and impose such drastic cutbacks that this generates an economical crisis on world scale which triggers terrible conflicts, and total war. First of all, this will probably generate a lot more ecological problems, and moreover, we've now traded hypothetical future wellbeing for immediate misery. I don't think that's a good deal.

So we should be cautious, on both sides. We should try to take the best decision. And you can only take the best decision when you have the best information available - and of course smart and responsable decision takers.

then, the remaining question would be why does the IPCC want to take the "biased" view towards AGW? Does it has the thinking that "it's better be safe than sorry"? or does it want to use this as an excuse to curb the growth of developing countries like China, India fearing that they may become too powerful one day? Or too want to slow the growth in dominance of the USA? OR are those ppl at IPCC just a bunch of lunatics?

I'm not a climate scientist and I take it for granted that there are serious indications about all this stuff. But I've seen also an attitude about the IPCC which, to me as a scientist, doesn't smell good: the lack of critical attitude. I wonder if there's not some group think phenomenon going on in the climate sciences.

That said, I think the issue IS serious. We should take all the measures we can, without doing damage to our way of living. And we can! Nuclear power, for instance, is a good solution, but people - especially ecologists - still don't want to see that. Nuclear power, even in its wildest disaster phantasies, is uncapable of generating an ecological catastrophe as the one that the AGW predictions hold out for us. Even 100 crazy accidents like Chernobyl are a joke compared to what is predicted (100 Chernobyls generate about as many casualties as 1 year of car traffic, btw).

So instead of thinking of "cutback" we should maybe think of "technology change".

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, that still remains a political decision. I, for one, am only ready to suffer a little bit for the sake of the hypothetical well-being of eventual humans in 100 years. If I have the choice between leading a miserable life right now, to make Earth a better place to live in 100 years, or live my life decently, but with as probable consequence a disaster in 100 years, I resolutely opt for the second option. Sorry.

Ah, you many-worlders are a tough lot!

 

[vanesch]

Ah, you many-worlders are a tough lot!

Hey, I tried to be nice: I said that I was willing to do an effort