pageok
pageok
pageok
Al Gore Versus the Unabomber:

I took the test many years ago, and got 50%, no better than guessing. I decided to try my luck again. Once again, 50%.

Justin (mail):
::groan::
6.2.2007 5:10pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Sorry, I'm currently playing who said that George W. Bush or Stalin. Funny thing is for most of the questions the answer is both.
6.2.2007 5:27pm
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
I couldn't tell Al Gore apart from the unibomber either. For all we know, the two of them could be pen pals. We know they both have a lot of free time on their hands.

The thing about Stalin and Bush doesn't make as much sense since any direct correlation would depend on your translation from Russian to English. Also, wouldn't Stalin have shot anyone who reported on him making Bushism type gaffes?
6.2.2007 5:40pm
New World Dan (www):
There are a few key phrases that ID some of the quotes as belonging to the Unabomber, like "isolation of man from nature". While that did make a few quotes easy (3, 5, and 7), I did bad enough on the rest to bring me back down to 50%.
6.2.2007 5:54pm
scote (mail):
Wow, not as easy as you would think. Does it mean that Al Gore is a ludite or that the Unabomer was a college educated professor with moments of lucidity?

Of course, this inflammatory quiz doesn't show that Al Gore's premises or conclusions are wrong, but it does serve as a lovely way of distracting people from the increasingly clear picture that humans are contributing to the current global warming trend.

Nice try.
6.2.2007 6:05pm
Anomolous:
Pfft. I've never read anything by Al Gore, and read the manifesto about 10 years ago, and I still scored 100%. I'm guessing the 50%'ers out there haven't read anything by either author.
6.2.2007 6:26pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Actually Stalin was from Georgia. I am informed they speak something like English there.
6.2.2007 6:33pm
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
"Increasingly clear picture "

translation: we don't have proof, but we have almost fooled enough people that we would come out on top in a fight.

All I see is a bunch of Luddites and anti-capitalists that have cooked up man-made global warming as the perfect justification for the agenda. These clowns were pushing the same agenda back in the 60s to fight global cooling.
6.2.2007 6:33pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail):
50%. Really thought I bested Bernstein, but no.
6.2.2007 6:35pm
NicholasV (mail) (www):
I got 75%... mis-identified two Gore quotes as Unabomber, and one the other way around. I mainly distinguished them based on style rather than substance.

Eli, Stalin was evil, but not stupid either. He said many things which were true. He also did many really horrid things. I think you have to have a special kind of brain to think that one of the greatest living genocidaires should be compared to the current US president in any way.
6.2.2007 6:56pm
NicholasV (mail) (www):
Err, sorry, I meant one of the greatest ever genocidaires, of course. Unless Stalin has risen from the dead and commands an army of communist zombies, in which case, god help us all...
6.2.2007 6:58pm
Cato (mail):
83%

The Unibomber is more honest.
6.2.2007 7:00pm
Hattio (mail):
Jim FSU 1L,
If that's all you see, you might want to have your sight checked. Nicholas V are you really that insulted because somebody compares quotes from a president to quotes from Stalin? But comparing quotes from veep to a homicidal killer is just A-ok? Is it maybe, just slightly possible that your letting your political affiliations control your perceptions.
6.2.2007 7:53pm
James Grimmelmann (mail) (www):
It's "Unabomber" with an "a."

Gah.
6.2.2007 7:53pm
NicholasV (mail) (www):
Hattio, what political affiliations might that be? And who said I was insulted? I didn't even say that one comparison was more valid than another (although I do think that's the case).

It's not like I expect Al Gore to become a hermit and start making bombs, but let's face it, his brand of environmentalism has some similarities to Theodore Kaczynski's beliefs. Now, it's pretty clear to me (especially based on his past comments) that Eli was trying to draw a comparison between George Bush and Joseph Stalin with his comment. Can you please explain the basis of such a comparison, using actual facts?

For bonus points, guess which country I live in.
6.2.2007 8:03pm
Andrew Okun:

When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

There comes a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are. At that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted.


Cheney or McVeigh?

I don't mean to compare the two, but the whole Gore/Unabomber thing is low-end. The Unabomber's text is rather long and you can find a lot in it if you look. If you hunted around in the works of Lyndon LaRouche, you could find stuff indistinguishable from nearly any politician out there. The presumed lesson of the "test" is that Gore, who has a decades-long record in politics and government being moderate, centrist, pro-capitalism and so on, wants to dismantle modern life. Drivel.
6.2.2007 8:17pm
NicholasV (mail) (www):
Andrew, Gore may not want to dismantle modern life, but he enables people who do, in my opinion. Are you aware that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, is quoted by people who have explicitly stated that we must cut back industry by 90% over the short term, and used as justification? I'm not saying he's to blame, but I do think that he should take pains to distance himself from such people if he truly is moderate.

(I think it was the Stern report which produced that 90% figure but it could also be that Monbiot fellow.. I wish I could remember where I read it.)
6.2.2007 8:35pm
Steve Lubet (mail):
What a fun game. How about other sets of matched quotes:

Sam Brownback and David Koresh?

Rudy Giuliani and Bull Connor?

Barry Goldwater and Harvey Firestone?

The Republican of your choice and David Duke?

Wheee . . .
6.2.2007 8:37pm
NicholasV (mail) (www):
Ah, found it. It was Monbiot, who wrote:

To avert [global warming], the latest figures suggest, we need a 90 per cent cut in carbon emissions from every economic sector in the rich world by 2030.

And here is Monbiot defending An Inconvenient Truth from charges that it misrepresented evidence, as presented in the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (in conjunction with which I first heard the name Monbiot).
6.2.2007 8:47pm
Maureen001 (mail):
Sorry. It seems like splitting hairs to tell the difference between Mr. Gore and the Unabomber. I can't do it with any more accuracy than chance.
6.2.2007 9:20pm
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
I don't think I need my sight checked at all. I've been watching this for years and it always had the smell of a political struggle to force a peculiar set of prejudices upon a doubting society. The science of global warming was always an afterthought, almost like someone was trying to plug a fresh set of batteries into a dying movement.

I mean, if no one believes that your changes would be good for their own sake, what is left to do but cook up a cataclysm to weigh against the slightly less complete disaster that a collectivized return to nature would bring?

Humans just don't produce enough carbon dioxide to have an effect on the overall levels of carbon dioxide, let alone an effect on the temperature of the planet. If you don't have causation, what is left but fiery rhetoric and a movement with some otherwise completely unpalatable goals?
6.2.2007 9:25pm
Curt Fischer:
Jim FSU 1L wrote:

Humans just don't produce enough carbon dioxide to have an effect on the overall levels of carbon dioxide [...]


This statement is false, as I am sure most VC readers are already aware. I support hattio's call that Jim FSU 1L have his vision checked.
6.2.2007 9:43pm
Common Sense (mail):
I read the manifesto in 2000 and scored a 50%. Three times I thought a Gore statement was a Unambomber statement; three times I thought a Unambomber statement was a Gore statement. The reason their statements are so similar is that both were educated at Harvard at around the same time: the Unambomber graduated in 1962; Gore enrolled in 1965. Same professors, same ideology. The difference, of course, is the means used to advance their cause.
6.2.2007 9:45pm
AppSocRes (mail):
I got 33% and this was after assigning (and reading) the unabomber's manifesto for a course I taught one semester ago. Gore is a remarkably inept thinker and writer (assuming this wasn't ghost written like "Profiles in Courage"). Some have suggested that they could do something similar with verifiable quotes of, e.g., J. Stalin and G. W. Bush. Prove it. (Of course, you can't and everyone on this post knows it.)
6.2.2007 10:34pm
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
Non-human causes are responsible for 95% of the carbon dioxide released in the average year. The environmentalists claim that humans are still responsible because the 95% is "cancelled out by natural sources" and thus doesn't count.

From the 1997 United Nations Environment Programme - World Meteorological Organization study, which tries to spin their data as supporting the stupid man-made warming theory.


Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.


Get that? 6 billion humans and all their factories, cars and planes don't produce more than 5% of the CO2 emitted. 95% of the CO2 is coming straight from mother nature.
6.2.2007 10:50pm
Philistine (mail):
Wasn't there a similar test a few years ago to distinguish between Ann Coulter and Hitler?
6.2.2007 10:51pm
alkali (mail) (www):
Jim FSU 1L:

Did you read the paragraph you quote? Do you understand what it says? Are you of the view that climate scientists are unaware that there are substantial natural sources of CO2?

Perhaps you should call the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University at (850) 644-4581 and alert them to your shocking discovery. I'm sure they'd be astonished to hear about your discovery.
6.3.2007 12:01am
Eli Rabett (www):
Jim, the set up is that that the 95% of CO2 emissions that come from natural sources are absorbed by other natural systems (the oceans, plants, etc.) Thus in the absence of human emission the CO2 content of the atmosphere stays constant on time scales of hundreds to thousands of years. Of the 5% we emit, about half is removed by the ocean and additional plant growth (worryingly the oceans appear to be becoming saturated). The other 2.5% remains in the atmosphere, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
6.3.2007 12:07am
Eli Rabett (www):
Ah yes, but it is perfectly fun to compare quotes ripped out of context from Gore and the Unabomber. OTOH, here is one for you, who said:

"Never in the history of the world have there been such really free and really democratic elections"

Josef Stalin or George W. Bush?
6.3.2007 12:12am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
I'm saying that if you look back over history and prehistory, CO2 and temperature both fluctuate enormously, regardless of the industrialization or even existence of humans.

In the past millennium, humans experienced extreme hot and cold periods before industrialization was even conceived of. On million-year timescales, temperature and CO2 fluctuate over even wider ranges. Going back to the end of the dinosaur era, you see CO2 levels that are multiples of today.

Honestly, if you asked me to guess what ways humans effect CO2 the most, I would say it has nothing to do with human CO2 production at all and more to do with deforestation in tropical regions. Note that CO2 levels fluctuate yearly with the growing periods of vegetation. They fluctuate by much more than 5%. Ergo, the human impact is smaller than the impact of vegetation that withdraws from the entire supply of atmospheric CO2. This is going to have a much bigger effect in tropical regions that get direct sunlight because sunlight is the limiting ingredient in photosynthesis.

Note that the obvious solution to this (if it is indeed the cause of an impending global catastrophe) isn't to limit first world industry but to limit third world procreation and expansion into wild areas.

Of course let's not forget non-human causes of deforestation. The slight natural cooling of the sahara desert destroyed the monsoon over the past four thousand years. That is tons of vegetation gone. How much CO2 would a saharan savana or forest consume?

I have an extensive science background as well, in case anyone was wondering. Biology mostly but also engineering in unrelated fields.
6.3.2007 12:49am
Mike Keenan:
Boy, some touchy defenders of Al Gore here. Seems more of a compliment to the Unabomber than a put-down of Al Gore anyway (guess we finally found out who his ghostwriter was!).

58% and I don't recall reading the manifesto back then. Really surprised I couldn't tell, especially with such long detailed quotes.
6.3.2007 12:59am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
Before someone challenges my figures... The math isnt widely advertised, but you can easily gather it from a variety of pro-global-warming sites.

There is currently 377ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere or 3 trillion tons of CO2 total. There is also 500 billion tons stored in the deep ocean, according to german scientists in Nature. Seasonal fluctuation for northern hemisphere growing season is 6 ppm out of 377ppm total atmospheric CO2.

Yearly production of CO2 is:
480 billion tons
of which 24 billion is from humans
of which 1/4 is US, 1/6th is China, 1/6th is EU.

So lets do the math:
10 billion tons per atmospheric ppm.
Seasonal fluctuation is 6ppm or 60 billion tons.
Human yearly production total is 24 billion tons.
Total yearly production is 480 billion.

See where this is going? Just the spring/summer growing seasons of the northern hemisphere sucks up more than twice as much CO2 as all humans everywhere produce in emissions from personal, transportation or industrial activity in an entire year.
6.3.2007 1:14am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
Whoops 8 billion tons per ppm for a seasonal fluctuation of 48 billion tons. Still twice as much instead of "more than twice as much."
6.3.2007 1:16am
Andrew Okun:
Are you aware that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, is quoted by people who have explicitly stated that we must cut back industry by 90% over the short term, and used as justification? ... (I think it was the Stern report which produced that 90% figure but it could also be that Monbiot fellow.. I wish I could remember where I read it.)

Al Gore is not responsible for nutty people who quote his film. I have no clue who Monbiot is, and as long as Al Gore continues to advocate for technology, for our standard of living, for progress, for individual participation in private business, politics and society and for a host of other things the Unabomber thought a joke or a charade, I'm not going to take Monbiot as evidence that Gore and the Unabomber are the same guy.

By the way (and I saw your later post where the 90% came from Monbiot), the related number you are looking for from the Stern Report is a shade less than 90% ... it's 1% (of GNP spent on combatting climate change, rather than of industry cut back.)
6.3.2007 1:19am
Hattio (mail):
Nicholas V writes;

Now, it's pretty clear to me (especially based on his past comments) that Eli was trying to draw a comparison between George Bush and Joseph Stalin with his comment

That's funny. I took a test that my memory says was Hitler/Bush. I took it at the urging of a friend of mine who is quite the radical leftist. I didn't consider it very valid. When Eli made his comment, I assumed it was actually Stalin/Bush, and my memory was wrong. But I considered the comparison no more valid thant he Gore/Unabomber one. The fact that you consider one of the comparison's noteworthy in the slightest goes to your lack of perception.
6.3.2007 1:57am
Hewart:
Boy, some touchy defenders of Al Gore here.

Some rather reactionary critics of Al Gore here, too.

I always found it odd, in a sad way, when someone questions someone else's patriotism or smears their reputation or slyly equates them -- using cheap rhetorical tricks -- to an evil person and then, when someone else rises to the defense of the one so crassly besmirched, calls that defender "touchy" or "defensive".

I was always taught that rising to the defense of a man unfairly accused was a meritworthy act. And that people who engage in cheap devices to smear the reputation of good men are beneath contempt. But that's just my personal bias - obviously there are some who disagree.
6.3.2007 1:58am
Hattio (mail):
My, My.
What a shock. There is a Hitler/Bush test.
I can't for the life of me figure out how to import a link, but go to google, type in Hitler Bush Quotes Test, and it is the very first link. It looks like there is more than one.

And shockingly, I scored 55%. See if you score higher. So, I guess Nicholas V, you are right, Eli is wrong. It wasn't Bush Stalin, it was Bush Hitler. I'm sure if he'd said it was a Bush Hitler test you would have taken his comment with so much more sincerity.


PS. For those who are really clueless, I'm not claiming that a Bush Hitler test has any validity or is at all noteworthy. Only that it is just as (un)valid and (un)noteworthy as a Gore/Unabomber test. I don't want to put words in Eli's mouth, but I kinda got the feeling that his point as well. But, who knows, Nicholas V could be right.
6.3.2007 2:11am
Andrew Okun:
Sorry. It seems like splitting hairs to tell the difference between Mr. Gore and the Unabomber. I can't do it with any more accuracy than chance.

Ok. Perhaps we should review for you then...

Gore: Believes environmental problems can be solved through combined public and private action and development of new technology.
Unabomber: Believes environmental problems can only be solved by extermination of industrial society.

Gore: Long-time advocate and champion of science and technology generally.
Unabomber: Believes science and technology are source of terrible evil, cannot be redeemed.

Gore: In favor of politics and reform.
Unabomber: In favor of violent destruction of underpinnings of modern society.

Gore: When he wants to influence masses, goes on a lecture tour.
Unabomber: When he wants to influence masses, murders people.

Gore: Believes our wealthy modern lifestyle can be retained, notwithstanding environmental issues, by focusing on high tech "jobs of the future."
Unabomber: Our wealthy modern lifestyle is unredeemably anti-human and must be wiped out by force. Jobs of the future are "peasant" and "fisherman."

Gore: Is either a centrist or, if you believe people here on VC, is a leftist.
Unabomber: Hates leftists and considers leftism to be a psychiatric symptom arising from our industrial lives.

Gore: Law-abiding participant in modern society.
Unabomber: Lived in shack while on the run from multiple murder counts.

Gore: Served in military, served in House and Senate, served as Vice President of the United States.
Unabomber: Serving life without parole.

Gore: Longtime advocate of better education. Approves of parents encouraging their children to study science and math.
Unabomber: Believes parental push to education is symptom of involuntary drift to totalitarian social structure in which children are forced to do unnatural and harmful things like study science and math.

Gore: Has leftist view about helping plight of starving, providing emergency relief, foreign aid.
Unabomber: Believes end of industrial society will probably result in mass death but, "well, you can't eat your cake and have it too."

Unabomber: Lived in shack while criticizing rich, modern lifestyle.
Gore: Lives rich, modern lifestyle while being criticized by the right for not living in unabomber-style shack.

Gore: "Please switch to compact flourescent lightbulbs."
Unabomber: "FC" (BOOM!)

We clear now...
6.3.2007 2:24am
Andrew Okun:
Boy, some touchy defenders of Al Gore here.

Yall are insulting our guy, and in a particularly nasty way, so yeah, touchy.

And a few people here have got touchy quick about "Bush v. Stalin" and "Bush v. Hitler," so lets call the touchy thing a wash.
6.3.2007 2:31am
Andrew Okun:

When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

There comes a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are. At that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted.



Nobody took up the challenge. Two statements ... which one Cheney and which one McVeigh?
6.3.2007 2:36am
LM (mail):
Jim FSU 1L:

Are you suggesting that the data you cite is unknown to most climate scientists or just that they've reached different conclusions than you? If the former, how would you explain it? If the latter, why should those of us without your expertise believe your results over theirs?
6.3.2007 2:37am
LM (mail):
Andrew Okun:

Sorry. It seems like splitting hairs to tell the difference between Mr. Gore and the Unabomber. I can't do it with any more accuracy than chance.

Ok. Perhaps we should review for you then...

Gore: Believes environmental problems can be solved through combined public and private action and development of new technology.
Unabomber: Believes environmental problems can only be solved by extermination of industrial society.

Gore: Long-time advocate and champion of science and technology generally.
Unabomber: Believes science and technology are source of terrible evil, cannot be redeemed.

Gore: In favor of politics and reform.
Unabomber: In favor of violent destruction of underpinnings of modern society.

Gore: When he wants to influence masses, goes on a lecture tour.
Unabomber: When he wants to influence masses, murders people.

Gore: Believes our wealthy modern lifestyle can be retained, notwithstanding environmental issues, by focusing on high tech "jobs of the future."
Unabomber: Our wealthy modern lifestyle is unredeemably anti-human and must be wiped out by force. Jobs of the future are "peasant" and "fisherman."

Gore: Is either a centrist or, if you believe people here on VC, is a leftist.
Unabomber: Hates leftists and considers leftism to be a psychiatric symptom arising from our industrial lives.

Gore: Law-abiding participant in modern society.
Unabomber: Lived in shack while on the run from multiple murder counts.

Gore: Served in military, served in House and Senate, served as Vice President of the United States.
Unabomber: Serving life without parole.

Gore: Longtime advocate of better education. Approves of parents encouraging their children to study science and math.
Unabomber: Believes parental push to education is symptom of involuntary drift to totalitarian social structure in which children are forced to do unnatural and harmful things like study science and math.

Gore: Has leftist view about helping plight of starving, providing emergency relief, foreign aid.
Unabomber: Believes end of industrial society will probably result in mass death but, "well, you can't eat your cake and have it too."

Unabomber: Lived in shack while criticizing rich, modern lifestyle.
Gore: Lives rich, modern lifestyle while being criticized by the right for not living in unabomber-style shack.

Gore: "Please switch to compact flourescent lightbulbs."
Unabomber: "FC" (BOOM!)


Nit picker.
6.3.2007 2:43am
Andrew Okun:
Some have suggested that they could do something similar with verifiable quotes of, e.g., J. Stalin and G. W. Bush. Prove it. (Of course, you can't and everyone on this post knows it.)

No, not everyone ... I'm working on it now. It's just awfully hard to find those confusing quotes when one guy has a vast ministry full of party drones to compose text for him and the other is an inarticulate oaf.


"If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected."


I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together.


Not that tough a call which is Stalin and which is Bush, know what I mean?
6.3.2007 2:49am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
We came to different conclusions because I don't have millions of dollars in grant money riding on continued paranoia over global warming.

Tune in next week as we anger a few billion dollars worth of taxpayer funded physicists by discussing the practical applications and provability of string theory.
6.3.2007 3:29am
NicholasV (mail) (www):
Jim FSU 1L, I am about as far from a global warming supporter as 99% of people will ever get. I would not agree that humans can't produce enough CO2 gas to affect temperatures.

What I will say, is that the prospect that our effect on temperature is going to be so dramatic as to actually cause problems is not very well supported at all, and much of the "science" that claims to show it is not in fact science, and probably wrong (it's hard to say since a lot of it is simply unverifiable).

The question is not do we affect the climate - we probably do - the question is how large is our effect vs. natural variation, and is that effect large enough to cause any problems? If natural variation is large and our effect is small, we'll just have to learn to adapt won't we. That is the bone of contention, not whether CO2 can trap heat at all, but just how much of an effect we have on the amount in the atmosphere, and how much of a follow-on effect that has.

I'm not 100% convinced that the majority of the CO2 changes in the air are driven by humans, but it's entirely plausible, so I wouldn't argue that particular point. Where the theory really falls down is the cause and effect between that and the warming, and that's where I think the research should be aimed.
6.3.2007 3:36am
Random Commenter:
"Actually Stalin was from Georgia. I am informed they speak something like English there."


So you think Stalin was maybe from some town outside Atlanta?
6.3.2007 4:45am
Bravo:
Yes, Jim. We are very foolish to doubt your math and science conclusions. You obviously did so well as a biology and engineering major in college that you parlayed your success into admission to the Florida State University School of Law.
6.3.2007 5:46am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
But that's the point. I haven't seen proof that:

1-the human-produced 5 percent of global output is the cause of the rise in CO2. As I pointed out previously, an enormous amount of CO2 is constantly added and removed from the atmosphere. Even large amounts of human emissions constitute only a tiny part of this system.

I'm very doubtful of the man-made emissions theory because no one has taken into account deforestation, non-human output or the contribution of the oceans in the past 200 years. We are taking 5 percent of one side of the equation and trying to say that this controls the entire system. That seems so obviously insane to me that I can't fathom why everyone believes it so readily.

2-CO2 is a cause of the warming we are seeing. We have seen huge rises and dips in global temperatures with very low CO2 levels. We see this going back thousands and thousands of years, even up to very recent times. The existence of warming is not unusual and historically at least, not due to CO2 levels in the slightest. If it has had other causes historically, what are these causes?

There are many who believe that warming is due to idiosyncrasies in the earth's orbit or cycles in solar activity. In other words, more energy is arriving at the earth rather than more energy being retained by the atmosphere.

3-elevated CO2 isn't caused by oceanic heating instead of vice versa. We already know that warmed water doesn't exchange CO2 as well as cold water because the thermocline stays in place year round. If the ocean was warmed for other reasons, wouldn't it begin to reject CO2?
6.3.2007 6:05am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
Ad hominems are the last refuge of someone with no argument to make. OK, second to last before violence.

I parlayed my undergrad work into a successful career and then went back to school when it got boring.

I've done the elite school thing before and I don't think it makes much difference at all unless you are aiming at certain very narrow areas where a school's name matters. In most cases, all you have are your networking contacts, the quality of the work at your last job and a pile of debt from an expensive school. Note that you can have the first two without the last one and you will be that much farther ahead.
6.3.2007 6:20am
Milhouse (www):
Yes, there was a Coulter/Hitler quiz doing the rounds. I got 14/14, and nobody I know who took it got less than 12/14. Which says a lot about the person who put the test together, and the people who circulated it.

The McVeigh/Cheney quotes? McVeigh made a lot of sense. What he did was wrong not in principle, but because of the circumstances in which he did it. In a different context he could be a hero. Consider the case of John Brown.

Oh, and the Bush/Hitler quiz? If you mean this one, I got 100%. Next.
6.3.2007 6:24am
Milhouse (www):
Oh, and on the Gore/Unabomber test? I got the same 50% as everyone else.
6.3.2007 6:24am
Curt Fischer:

But that's the point. I haven't seen proof that:
1-the human-produced 5 percent of global output is the cause of the rise in CO2. As I pointed out previously, an enormous amount of CO2 is constantly added and removed from the atmosphere. Even large amounts of human emissions constitute only a tiny part of this system.

I'm very doubtful of the man-made emissions theory because no one has taken into account deforestation, non-human output or the contribution of the oceans in the past 200 years. We are taking 5 percent of one side of the equation and trying to say that this controls the entire system. That seems so obviously insane to me that I can't fathom why everyone believes it so readily.


"The sun emits 3.8 x 10^26 watts of energy into space; of this, only 1.7 x 10^17 watts, or 0.000000045%, falls on Earth. This constitutes only a tiny part of this system, so theories which claim that the sun warms the earth are stupid and wacky."

I hope a well-educated type might be able to help us: is there a Latin name to the fallacy these arguments succumb to?


2-CO2 is a cause of the warming we are seeing. We have seen huge rises and dips in global temperatures with very low CO2 levels. We see this going back thousands and thousands of years, even up to very recent times. The existence of warming is not unusual and historically at least, not due to CO2 levels in the slightest. If it has had other causes historically, what are these causes?

There are many who believe that warming is due to idiosyncrasies in the earth's orbit or cycles in solar activity. In other words, more energy is arriving at the earth rather than more energy being retained by the atmosphere.


This is quite a retreat from your earlier statement that "
Humans just don't produce enough carbon dioxide to have an effect on the overall levels of carbon dioxide[.]"

But a retreat though it is, I am glad to see it, because now you are on firmer ground. The uncertainty on how the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 affects the climate is considerable. It is an indisputable fact of physics that increased CO2 will lead to increased global temperatures. However, many other factors also influenced by CO2 (e.g. cloud formation and ocean circulation) may be mitigate the CO2-caused warming, so that the total warming caused by CO2 is insignificant.

Earth's natural cycles may play a role in the warming observed today, as you note. However, uncertainty is a two-way street, so it is also entirely possible that the extra CO2 that humans put in the atmosphere is causing the warming. Ultimately, however, it is of little concern to me whether the warming is anthropogenic or not. The warming is happening; climate scientists say that warming could bring real economic harm; atmospheric CO2 is the only variable in the climate system that can be readily controlled by humans. Thus, CO2 control schemes are logical and desirable as a hedge on unfortunate economic consequences even if the current warming is not anthropogenic.


3-elevated CO2 isn't caused by oceanic heating instead of vice versa. We already know that warmed water doesn't exchange CO2 as well as cold water because the thermocline stays in place year round. If the ocean was warmed for other reasons, wouldn't it begin to reject CO2?


You are right -- the ocean would begin to reject CO2 if the Earth was warmed. This is an example of a "feedback", wherein a trend (e.g. the warming of the Earth) causes a consequence (the reduction in the ocean's CO2 holding capacity) which further amplifies the initial trend. The existence of feedbacks is well-known by climate scientists, but their enumerating and quantifying them are difficult. Unfortunately for you, the existence of this feedback does not bear on the question of what caused the initial warming. Warming causes the oceans to reject CO2 regardless of whether the warming is anthropogenic or natural.

P.S. Can we find out more about your career as a scientist and engineer? These details are fascinating.
6.3.2007 8:45am
Mike Keenan:
Two men have similar ideas. One holes up in a cabin in Montana and cowardly sends bombs through the mail (uhm because he is basically nuts). The other becomes vice president, almost president, and thoroughly distinguishes himself.

But isn't it at least passing interesting that with highly detailed quotes (not just single short sentences but well-written paragraphs) one cannot distinguish the Unabomber and Al Gore? These other tests referenced are in no way comparable.
6.3.2007 9:21am
SenatorX (mail):
To get to a global government, a global currency, and of course a global controlling elite it might be useful to have a global cause. The main purpose of this cause would be to transfer wealth from the developed nations to the global elites.

I guess a way to show this is a foolish conspiracy theory would be to show that the cost of implementing the CO2 standards would be universal. I think however the message has been pretty clear that as the greatest PAST offenders, the developed nations will be REQUIRED to bear the greatest costs.

Great, not enough that I have to bear the brunt of the boomers welfare retirement, but now I have to pay for global warming too?
6.3.2007 9:54am
Philistine (mail):
Statement #1

We came to different conclusions because I don't have millions of dollars in grant money riding on continued paranoia over global warming.

Tune in next week as we anger a few billion dollars worth of taxpayer funded physicists by discussing the practical applications and provability of string theory.




Statement #2

Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.



OK--New test:

Which one is Jim FSU 1L and which one is the Unabomber?

Hey... this is fun!
6.3.2007 10:05am
DavidBernstein (mail):
Despite the extremely cursory quotations in the Bush-Hitler test, I got 100%.
6.3.2007 10:50am
AppSocRes (mail):
I got 33% on the gore-unabomber test and 100% on the
bush-hitler. As earlier posts note, other posters have done the same. As mentioned earlier, I had some prep for the gore-unabomber test and none for the bush-hitler. Suggestive evidence perhaps that algore (or his gohost writer) has mental processes similar to the unabomber while gwbush's are not at all like those of hitler. Can't any algore lovers do better than this

"The sun emits 3.8 x 10^26 watts of energy into space; of this, only 1.7 x 10^17 watts, or 0.000000045%, falls on Earth. This constitutes only a tiny part of this system, so theories which claim that the sun warms the earth are stupid and wacky."

I hope a well-educated type might be able to help us: is there a Latin name to the fallacy these arguments succumb to?

yes: innumeracy, or perhaps mathematical incompetence. However, the statement was so idiotic on its face that I assumed it was a lampoon of algore type thinking.
6.3.2007 11:58am
Dave N (mail):
No one will ever accuse me of being an Al Gore apologist but I find the quiz rather silly--and likewise I find those who add their their own dash of BDS to this thread to be just as silly.
6.3.2007 12:08pm
Eli Rabett (www):
""Actually Stalin was from Georgia. I am informed they speak something like English there."

So you think Stalin was maybe from some town outside Atlanta?"

No, considering how he mangles English, I think George W is from some small town outside Tiblisi.

Thank you for playing.
6.3.2007 12:16pm
SenatorX (mail):
Yes "the wacky" is built right into that disproof. If you wanted to disprove the Sun's roll in an increase of global warming wouldn't you have to look at changes in the Sun's output of energy? Or the energy received, or better yet both and compare the data.

I'm glad I went to UoF...
6.3.2007 12:17pm
Andrew Okun:
Two men have similar ideas. One holes up in a cabin in Montana and cowardly sends bombs through the mail (uhm because he is basically nuts). The other becomes vice president, almost president, and thoroughly distinguishes himself.

But isn't it at least passing interesting that with highly detailed quotes (not just single short sentences but well-written paragraphs) one cannot distinguish the Unabomber and Al Gore? These other tests referenced are in no way comparable.


A good summary and a good question. Here is the answer. It doesn't even slightly raise a question that these quotes are hard to tell apart. The fact they are hard to tell apart reveals almost nothing about Al Gore but says a lot about the people who made up the test.

First of all, both men wrote at length on the effect of the industrial age on the world, so it is not surprising long quotes can be found that are in the same ballpark. I went hunting around for Bush and Stalin quotes and our president, it turns out, not only doesn't write books, he doesn't write paragraphs and barely speaks in sentences, plus he and Stalin don't talk about the same things most of the time.

Second, Gore and the bobmer don't have similar ideas except for one, which might be summarized as "the industrial age has had a profound and bad effect on the natural world." Every other idea they have is different. The quotemeisters who created the test, oddly enough, picked only quotes on that one idea. It is, by the way, not the unabomber's main idea, which seems to be more that our modern life is ruinous to human psychology because it has replaced the basic tasks we do.

I happen to agree with the unabomber that industrialism has been bad for the environment. So does, I don't know, at least 40% of the population of the developed world. Do you disagree? Maybe you disagree, maybe you agree but disagree whether it is important given the vast benefits to humanity, but you should find yourself hard-pressed to believe it is a rarely held view.

Thirdly, the quotes of Al Gore's that are noton the test are notbarking really loudly. There have been any number of commenters on VC who allege that Al Gore and his gang hate our modern life, want us to go back to a hunter/gatherer life, won't be happy till we all live in caves and want us all to worship "nature" as some kind of bogus replacement religion. These are all ideas that the unabomber went on about at length and yet not one quote from Al Gore on any of it. All Al's quotes are about idea 1 above.

Fourthly, the unabomber's quotes were all chosen, out of his vast manifesto, to be the ones that sounded like Al Gore. Pick a different target and you would pick different quotes.

Suppose I were gunning for Rush Limbaugh

Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.


How about, say, Dennis Prager

Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

I don't know who, but just to switch sides...

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

Chomsky?

Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice "safe sex"). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.

Tony Benn? Fidel Castro?

Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what could be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a rights to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system.


Foucault?

Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn't fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a "cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.

... on second thought, that's a bit to straightforward for Foucault.

Jared Diamond?

In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.

Doing a Rush v. Unabomber would be tremendous fun.

Fifth, a few people here found themselves doing worse than 50/50. Why? Because the testmakers picked quieter quotes from the unabomber and louder quotes from Al Gore. The inclusion of the vague how we won WWII quote sums it up.

I'll agree the Bush v. Hitler and Stalin things are bogus, but not because they are harder to do. All these things are bogus. The Bush ones are harder to do because Bush can't string eight words together. Please point to some Bush paragraphs somewhere and I'll have a go. I can't find any.
6.3.2007 12:25pm
Eli Rabett (www):
"I'm saying that if you look back over history and prehistory, CO2 and temperature both fluctuate enormously, regardless of the industrialization or even existence of humans."

Not on time scales of less than 100 years. On scales of millenia and millions of year, yes. The original climate apples and nuts argument. Both are fruits.

"There is currently 377ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere or 3 trillion tons of CO2 total. There is also 500 billion tons stored in the deep ocean, according to german scientists in Nature. Seasonal fluctuation for northern hemisphere growing season is 6 ppm out of 377ppm total atmospheric CO2."

The deep ocean is isolated from the surface. Overturning (exchange between the deep ocean and the surface) takes about 500-1000 years. Eventually (~500-1000 years) the extra CO2 emitted into the biosphere (upper ocean, atmosphere, plants &soils) will be diluted into the deep ocean. In that long run we are all dead and so are our kids.

The issue of time scales is inherent to manmade climate change. Those who ignore it are always wrong.
6.3.2007 12:28pm
Zathras (mail):
Jim FSU 1L: Non-human causes are responsible for 95% of the carbon dioxide released in the average year.

Jim, I suggest you don't go into business for yourself, since you don't understand the crucial difference between gross and net.

It doesn't matter how much CO2 is produced by humans, as compared to how much is released out there. What matters is how much is the net effect. It's like a company with a 1% profit margin doubling their profits by raising prices by only 1%.
6.3.2007 12:36pm
whackjobbbb:

"It is an indisputable fact of physics that increased CO2 will lead to increased global temperatures.

...climate scientists say that warming could bring real economic harm; atmospheric CO2 is the only variable in the climate system that can be readily controlled by humans. Thus, CO2 control schemes are logical and desirable as a hedge on unfortunate economic consequences..."



Mr. Fischer, as we discussed in here the other day, it's become apparent that the planet has seen past eras of warming in which CO2 levels were a LAGGING factor... not leading. Not saying your first statement is false, but the global warming chicken littles are yelping that CO2 levels are CAUSE... and this doesn't appear to be the case historically. If they're not "cause", or even significant contributors as the FSU guy claims, then let's not treat them as such.

As for your "climate scientists", and their opinions as to what constitutes "economic harm", well, I'd recommend they focus on their own work, which is woefully deficient to this point, since the CO2 "lag" is only now working it's way into the mainstream debate... which is a shocking indictment of their work to date. Leave pocketbook issues to others... and do your own job, professors. We certainly don't want to plunge into a "hedge" based on chicken littlism.

I like the FSU guy's approach, and I'd like to see more of this spill over into the discussion, as it's healthy, and rare to this point. I'd add one more thing, as we argue over what the true "system" is, and the inputs and outputs to that system (i.e., we can't even agree as to the basis for a discussion, to this point): Fossil carbons are a part of this system, and always have been... they are not a new thing. I hope that intuitively, that recognition would allow clear thinkers to remove the chicken littles' apocalyptic nonsense from the discussion. The FSU guy's type of analysis... and others'... is what matters here.

As for comparing Mr. Gore with the Unabomber, we know that this castle-building, dogmatic bedlamite Gore sh!ts on the scientific method, shrieks at us that the science is "absolutely settled" and that anybody who disagrees with him is the enemy of all mankind, and then mails them letter bombs.

Whoops, I'm a bit premature on the Gore/Unabomber continuum there!
6.3.2007 2:05pm
nobody (mail):
this doesn't merit my writing but what the hell. this is why people don't vote, this crap. david bernstein you should be ashamed of yourself for adding b.s. to a world this is already overfull. i supported gore, but this doesn't make my observation that this is complete b.s. any less valid. there is no reason here. it is induendo(sp). well this proves it, you are no better than the leftists you castigate.
peace
6.3.2007 2:09pm
Eli Rabett (www):
@ whackjob
"Mr. Fischer, as we discussed in here the other day, it's become apparent that the planet has seen past eras of warming in which CO2 levels were a LAGGING factor... not leading."

a. So, let us use logic. At the end of an ice age, a variation in the earth's orbit, warms things up enough to release considerible CO2 from the oceans. This, in turn, accelerated the warming.

b. Now consider today's situation, burning fossil fuel releases considerable CO2 into the atmosphere. That leads to warming.

Yet a is considered a reason why b cannot be happening. Truly whacky.
6.3.2007 2:24pm
whackjobbbb:
Well, good to see you're starting to agree with the "lagging" theory, as you seemed to dispute it the other day. I'd suggest you go back and review my comments to your buddy "Stoat's" comments to the lagging data presented in the paper you referenced... and the referees' and edito's comments who reviewed that paper... neither of whom disputed it's central point. Thanks for posting that link and proving the point, by the way (as much as you attempted to twist it into the opposite point).

In any event... is "a" true?

And... is "b" true?

Who knows? That's what we'll discover, hopefully, as we apply the scientific method to this system... which the chicken littles have ignored to this point.

... but one thing we DO know... historically, the planet has warmed and the CO2 levels have increased as a LAGGING factor in various eras... not as it's "cause", as the chicken littles have screeched.
6.3.2007 2:48pm
Hewart:
whackjobbbb: As for your "climate scientists", and their opinions as to what constitutes "economic harm", well, I'd recommend they focus on their own work, which is woefully deficient to this point, since the CO2 "lag" is only now working it's way into the mainstream debate... which is a shocking indictment of their work to date. Leave pocketbook issues to others... and do your own job, professors. We certainly don't want to plunge into a "hedge" based on chicken littlism.


One presumes, then, that you are a professional economist. Otherwise this statement of yours would seem to indicate the most flagrant hypocrisy.

And as a professional scientist, myself, I can say that your condemnation of Gore's attitude toward science is simply risible.

Unless you are a professional, credentialed environmental scientist or economist, perhaps you could leave the economic and scientific "issues to others...and do your own job"?

That's your own standard, no?
6.3.2007 2:49pm
whackjobbbb:
Nice try, Hewart, but this is a discussion forum, and I'm not practicing professionally. My fee is $145 per hour, if you're interested in having me work professionally.

And Gore is a divinity school dropout, likely can't balance a checkbook, and I've seen nothing in his statements to indicate otherwise. Rise all you want about it.
6.3.2007 2:58pm
Curt Fischer:
@whackjob

Mr. Fischer, as we discussed in here the other day, it's become apparent that the planet has seen past eras of warming in which CO2 levels were a LAGGING factor... not leading. Not saying your first statement is false, but the global warming chicken littles are yelping that CO2 levels are CAUSE... and this doesn't appear to be the case historically. If they're not "cause", or even significant contributors as the FSU guy claims, then let's not treat them as such.


I do not dispute that in the past, CO2 concentrations lagged temperature changes. Today, however, that is not the case.


As for your "climate scientists", and their opinions as to what constitutes "economic harm", well, I'd recommend they focus on their own work, which is woefully deficient to this point, since the CO2 "lag" is only now working it's way into the mainstream debate... which is a shocking indictment of their work to date. Leave pocketbook issues to others... and do your own job, professors. We certainly don't want to plunge into a "hedge" based on chicken littlism.


I have not seen Mr. Gore's movie, but I have heard that like many environmentalists, it at times oversells the case for global warming. Some today characterize global warming as a problem which will inevitably bring economic ruin unless we take drastic action now. I suppose this is the view you characterize as "chicken littlism". This view is not backed by the current state of climate knowledge; uncertainty in the basic climate science is considerable. The uncertainty is compounded when attempting to extrapolate to the possible economic consequences. Even if truly disastrous consequences today seem improbable, science has not proven they are impossible. My current understanding of the science is that less disastrous but still somewhat negative consequences may even be probable. Hedging seems like a smart thing to do.


I like the FSU guy's approach, and I'd like to see more of this spill over into the discussion, as it's healthy, and rare to this point.


His approach is riddled with falsehoods and incomplete mathematical innuendo. For example, consider his post where he said "So let's do the math", gave a few numbers, and then said "see where this is going?" I did not see where it was going, because the math he did supports no conclusions (in either direction) about human impact on climate. He, as Zathras correctly pointed out, and as I tried to do with my sun analogy, is missing the concept of the the net vs. the gross.

For these reasons I refute the claim that his approach is "healthy".

To me, your support for him seems inconsistent with your view that climate scientists should do their job and improve the "woefully deficient" state of the science today, given that he believes climate scientists are all alarmists because they are attempting to score more research grants.


I'd add one more thing, as we argue over what the true "system" is, and the inputs and outputs to that system (i.e., we can't even agree as to the basis for a discussion, to this point): Fossil carbons are a part of this system, and always have been... they are not a new thing. I hope that intuitively, that recognition would allow clear thinkers to remove the chicken littles' apocalyptic nonsense from the discussion. The FSU guy's type of analysis... and others'... is what matters here.


For millions of years fossil carbons were trapped in the earth, not the atmosphere. Today, we obtain energy by removing these carbons from the earth and burning them. The CO2 formed from the combustion goes into the atmosphere. The rate at which we burn the fossil fuels is orders of magnitude greater than the rate at which they are formed. These are facts. Intuition and hope need not be invoked to recognize that these facts are true.

I would hope that intuitively, you would realize that rejecting the fallacies of climate alarmists is not synonymous with rejecting the possibility that impending climate change may bring negative consequences.


As for comparing Mr. Gore with the Unabomber, we know that this castle-building, dogmatic bedlamite Gore sh!ts on the scientific method, shrieks at us that the science is "absolutely settled" and that anybody who disagrees with him is the enemy of all mankind[.]


I agree that undue alarmism is unproductive. But it is illogical to conclude that just because some alarmists are overselling the current state of scientific knowledge, doing nothing at all is the only solution.
6.3.2007 3:47pm
scote (mail):

Nice try, Hewart, but this is a discussion forum, and I'm not practicing professionally. My fee is $145 per hour, if you're interested in having me work professionally.

...and yet you have not answered Hewart's question. What field is that? And why do think that you have a right to say that others should not comment outside their field but grant yourself a special exemption?
6.3.2007 4:27pm
whackjobbbb:
Comment away... it's a discussion forum, and nobody here's preventing you or anybody else from commenting.

But, as for judges/lawyers/politicians/scientists, as always, I'd recommend they confine their professional activity to what they know about, and when they step off that reservation, it'll be pointed out. It'd be particularly wise of the "climate scientists" to stick on-task, and avoid such as "economics", as it appears some of their recent collective work is being debunked, after being shrilly foisted on us.

As for me, I'm involved in work that the dropout Gore couldn't possibly fathom, and yet this zealot attempts authoritatively to force policy on technical issues of at least equal complexity. Rightly, this crank is being called out, as we're seeing these days.
6.3.2007 4:52pm
Mike Keenan:
"Please point to some Bush paragraphs somewhere and I'll have a go. I can't find any."

This is a good point.

I still find it interesting. Especially since (if I recall correctly) his brother fingered the Unabomber based on the writing. It may say next to nothing about Al Gore, of course. And, I can understand taking offense at the presumed snarkiness of the entire exercise.
6.3.2007 5:18pm
scote (mail):

As for me, I'm involved in work that the dropout Gore couldn't possibly fathom

So you claim, but won't even say what that work is so that your comment remains un-falsifiable.

You seem obsessed with Gores' college years. Of course, Gore's SATs were a lot higher than Bush's. Would you also say that Bush shouldn't make any comments about Global Warming or the related economic impact?
6.3.2007 5:53pm
Hattio (mail):
Mike Keenan
I think the writing may have tipped him off. But I believe because he had letters etc from him as well. I think what clinched it for the unabomber's Bro was realizing that the bombs kept getting sent from different places where his brother had moved to.
6.3.2007 5:59pm
dwlawson (www):
Let's say we are in a natural cyclical process of warming/cooling trends...a steady state process.

Let's say man's overall contribution to global warming is minor.

However, it is possible for a minor contribution to throw a steady state process out of whack.
6.3.2007 6:08pm
dwlawson (www):
Here, you can choose:

Porn Star or My Little Pony?
http://www.brunching.com/pornorpony.html
6.3.2007 6:13pm
whackjobbbb:

I do not dispute that in the past, CO2 concentrations lagged temperature changes. Today, however, that is not the case.


But, then we have the big question. If they are not cause, then why are you treating them as such... and forcing this "hedge" cost on us?


"...uncertainty in the basic climate science is considerable..."


Thank you for the honesty of this statement, but it doesn't square with the absolute beneficial need for the "hedge" fund you're advocating.

While the climate scientists are playing economist, they might also consider playing sociologist, and recognize the cost of the hedge fund, and the potential negative consequences resulting from it's creation. While we're being honest here, can you name me 10 different things that will suffer if we plough cash into the hedge fund? And do you actually BELIEVE your hedge fund can do anything worthwhile? Are you that certain?

I'm still stunned by the absolute certainty of the climate scare types... first at their blatant disregard of the scientific method, second at the messianic fervor with which they push their certainties.

I think the FSU guy's approach is healthy, simply because he's trying to look at an entire system, and searching for a mass balance driven descriptive approach to the issue. The chicken littles seem to snatch small, discrete bits of data, and plaster them about, including up on a movie screen. That ain't the scientific method.

You seem to feel that you have a perfect model for all this, the entire system modeled accurately, and can even extract and discretely identify the "net" and the "gross". I question your thinking, even as I give value to FSU guy's thinking, at least his approach if not his results, because he's struggling to map out the SYSTEM. Go back to your statement above... there is much "uncertainty"... and your first charge then is to describe the system you're seeking to understand. If you haven't done that, why am I seeing terms like "net" and "gross" in your discussion? I shouldn't be, is the answer.


For millions of years fossil carbons were trapped in the earth, not the atmosphere.


Yes, agreed, the fossil carbons and all other carbon have always been part of the total system, whether located in the earth or in the atmosphere or elsewhere, and have been influenced by inputs originating inside the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere. That's the planet's carbon "system", I think most would say. The master model we build must be based upon that system, not upon whichever arbitrary subset of that system that some ex political hack thinks is pretty, for example. The FSU guy at least attempted to describe the system in this way... a rarity.. and even you in all your (welcome) honesty seem to be avoiding that.


The rate at which we burn the fossil fuels is orders of magnitude greater than the rate at which they are formed.


No, again, you're walking away from the systemic approach. We don't "form" carbon... it's always been here... as a part of the system. Can we at least agree on that much? A good step for you would be to take the "fossil" out of the term and simply reference "carbon"... the system component in question here.

Yes, I can agree that it took longer to form a gallon of crude than it takes to burn it, but in order to get me to believe that burning crude is boiling the ocean, can you describe to me the systemic model you're using to describe this carbon system and it's effects on global warming, to include the above 2 reactions and how each fit into it, and demonstrate that you can control for the durational variability of those 2 reactions, and come up with proof that an increase/decrease in one of them boils/freezes the ocean?

And following that exercise, can you explain to me why the planet has warmed up in the past with CO2 LAGGING as an indicator?

A lot of work, eh? Much to do, and all I hear is screeching out there. Not from you of course, you at least got some sense.

And please, for now, don't throw around terms like "orders of magnitude", until we get this basic system mapped out and described. I question the validity of the data implied by your use of that term, based on your lack of acceptance of the system concept. No offense, but you're pushing an agenda here, and I'm seeking to advance our knowledge.



...the possibility that impending climate change may bring negative consequences.


It might, but is it caused by man, and is there anything we can do about it even if it is? You'll have to answer both of those questions, and to do that you'll have to begin blocking out the systemic model. FSC guy took a shot at it, can you advance that process? Rhetorical question, so don't go off on it, but as mentioned, with the introduction of research that's blasting holes in the dogma presented by many "scientists", I think we haven't scratched the surface on this. We haven't even agreed to the framework of the discussion.




But it is illogical to conclude that just because some alarmists are overselling the current state of scientific knowledge, doing nothing at all is the only solution.


A "solution" may be required if you have a defined problem. Define your problem, then show us the methodology you used to define that problem. I'm still waiting for that approach, and haven't seen it. Further, I see far too much dissension to the dogma presented by the chicken littles, originating in the researcher ranks (including the NASA guy the other day) to simply dismiss that dissension.

The UN hockey stick guy still hasn't released the data he used to construct that hockey stick, but smart guys evidently reverse-engineered his data to expose what his assumptions MUST have been in order to arrive at his data... and now the smart guys say he's a proven jackass. Is he? Well, for a start, he can release that data, and let us know what HIS system model was.
6.3.2007 6:21pm
whackjobbbb:
scote, if you think I'm a dumbfuqq, so be it. I'll survive.

Your buddy Bush is just as bad as Gore, by the way, on the global warming scam as well as many other issues.
6.3.2007 6:24pm
Random Commenter:
"""Actually Stalin was from Georgia. I am informed they speak something like English there."

So you think Stalin was maybe from some town outside Atlanta?"

No, considering how he mangles English, I think George W is from some small town outside Tiblisi.

Thank you for playing."

I do hate to see a good setup go to waste.
6.3.2007 7:23pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
The quiz does tell one a good deal ... about those who take it.
6.3.2007 7:50pm
scote (mail):

scote, if you think I'm a dumbfuqq, so be it. I'll survive.

Wow, I think you have just invented the self-fulfilling straw argument.

My point was that you busy being high and mighty and using distracting points in order to gloss over the substantive issues that you are avoiding. I don't think that such rhetorical tricks necessarily mean you are stupid, only that you are using them as a substitute for meritorious argument.
6.3.2007 8:37pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Historically no thing has burned fossil fuel to power an economy, before people no one had an economy. As to whether CO2 leads or lags coming out of an ice, well it has generally been considered that there was an 800 year lag. That may be wrong.

But the question is whacky, because, what is 100% certain is that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere WILL increase global temperatures, no matter if the CO2 results from warming of the oceans or from burning fossil fuels. We KNOW that the increase in concentration we see today IS from fossil fuel burning because of the changes in isotope ratios, data on how much fossil fuel has been burned and much else.

The carbon cycle describes the movement of carbon among reservoirs such as the atmosphere (CO2) the upper and deep ocean (CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, CO32-), land (mostly carbonates such as CaCO3 and fossil fuels) and the biosphere (soils, plants, animals, etc.) Any discussion of changes in the carbon cycle has to start with the time needed carbon to flow from one reservoir to the other. The time for fossil fuels to flow into the atmosphere was millions of years until people started burning the stuff. Now it is one, maybe 1.5 hundred for oil, three, four hundred for coal.

The time for that carbon to be shared among the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the upper ocean is a few years. This leveling effect is what reduces the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from what would be expected given human emissions, to roughly the half that is observed.

The time necessary for the observed increases in carbon in the three upper reservoirs to be diluted into the larger deep ocean and lithospheric reservoirs is ~1000 years and ~10,000 years respectively.

As I said above, anyone who talks about the carbon cycle without noting the time it takes to get stuff from one reservoir to the other is whacky, unknowing or trying to deceive you.
6.3.2007 9:01pm
Milhouse (www):
Of course, Gore's SATs were a lot higher than Bush's.
I'm not sure how the USAn SAT system works, but is a 150-point difference (1355-1206) that significant?
6.3.2007 9:24pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
The RNC is sinking very low if this is what it looks like -- Republican anti-Gore election propaganda. It has a very Rove-esque flavor.
6.3.2007 11:49pm
Atlantic06 (mail):
I think we can safely say that Professor Bernstein has with this post jumped the shark.
6.4.2007 12:52am
midlantan (mail):
I was just taking the "David Bernstein vs. David Bernstein's Ass" quiz. Boy, do I feel cheated. Turns out the whole thing is a trick -- David Bernsteins *always* seems to be talking out his own ass.
6.4.2007 1:21am
Jim FSU 1L (mail):
My math is not vague in the slightest.

-We know with absolute certainty how much CO2 is in the atmosphere at any given time.
-We have a reasonably certain idea of what atmospheric CO2 looked like before that.
-We know how much mass a given concentration accounts for.
-We know how much is currently being ejected into the atmosphere both by humans and by natural sources.
-We don't know how much CO2 is in the oceans. We are beginning to see that it is much more than previously thought, especially at the greater depths.

From what we do know, we can determine that the amount of carbon entering and leaving the atmosphere in any given year is far greater than the amount humans produce by burning fossil fuels.

We can also determine with first grade math that humans produce only 1/20th of global CO2 emissions and an even smaller portion of the absorption.

This is a very active system that we play a very small role in. It's exactly like worrying about NYC being depopulated because 5 extra guys leave the city each commute. Millions of people arrive and leave in NYC every day- that five guy deficit is no more likely to explain a huge fluctuation in the population than human emissions are likely to explain significant rises in global CO2 concentrations.

Why does this contradict the idea that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming?
1) Because the global warming guys are arguing from the standpoint of correlation and implying that humans play a dominant role in the CO2 system, which we do not.

Once you get rid of the notion that humans are emitting most of the CO2, the idea of correlation = causation begins to seem more and more foolish.

2) Because you could make far smaller changes almost anywhere else in the system and see a big effect. And none of these other causes have been ruled out- in fact, most of them are poorly understood.

The global warming scientists barely even understand the other portions of the CO2 system and how it has changed over the past 200+ years. We don't properly understand deep ocean CO2 retention and we don't know how it has trended over time. We don't understand the role or the history of cloud activity in CO2 levels or warming(clouds are a heatsink, a sunlight reflector and an ocean cooler, not to mention the effect they have on rainfall). We don't really understand how human agriculture has affected CO2 levels by replacing wild flora with cultivated crops and replacing wild fauna with ruminants. This would have multiple effects on CO2 removal and also on the introduction of CO2 and methane.

It is hard to fully express in a quick post the complexity of all the changes humans have made to the earth over the past millenia, for better or worse. And even fully understanding that would only give us a small part of the equation.

In conclusion...
The idea of global warming caused by 1st world industry is likely to remain unprovable because the facts aren't likely to be friendly to it. Look how well it does here now, bereft of any proof. The message of the global warming doomsayers is too simple and fits too conveniently with their preexisting political goals to be anything more than a hoisting of the latest banner for a political cause.
6.4.2007 2:53am
Eli Rabett (www):
Jim missed class the day they were discussing isotopic ratios. He also was not there when we talked about how the amount of CO2 varied seasonally and much else. A good, though now ancient place to start is Jan Schloerer's FAQ on global warming (written in the mid 1990s).
Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only
a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic' input is enough to disturb the delicate balance. "Anthropogenic CO2 is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions" [Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2.

The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only two things that are known with high certainty. Natural CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more than an order of magnitude. The sizes of the natural carbon fluxes are only approximately known, because they are much harder to measure than atmospheric CO2 and than the features pointing to a human origin of the CO2 rise.

>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to 315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling] [Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is human-made:

* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year 1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and 290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago, but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94, p 44-45] [White]

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].

* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions. Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo, p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].

* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time. The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43] [Siegenthaler]

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon 13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly 1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago. Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the `Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings, dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257] [Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2 source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon, almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom) [Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257] [C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2 source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher, p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is extremely unlikely.


Please remember before you go off half cocked about this that it was written in 1995 and much has been learned since then that reinforces the point
6.4.2007 9:18am
Stating the Obvious:
Andrew Okun, responding to: "Some have suggested that they could do something similar with verifiable quotes of, e.g., J. Stalin and G. W. Bush. Prove it. (Of course, you can't and everyone on this post knows it.)"

No, not everyone ... I'm working on it now. It's just awfully hard to find those confusing quotes when one guy has a vast ministry full of party drones to compose text for him and the other is an inarticulate

----------

OK. I give up on your quiz. Which is the one with a vast ministry full of party drones?
6.4.2007 1:04pm
courtwatcher:
Let's be serious. One of the quotations on the Gore/Unabomber" quiz is:

"Again, we must not forget the lessons of World War II. The Resistance slowed the advance of fascism and scored important victories, but fascism continued its relentless march to domination until the rest of the world finally awoke and made the difference and made the defeat of fascism its central organizing principle from 1941 through 1945."


Here's another:

" All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before."


What highly controversial, political observations! Yep, that proves that Al Gore is a radical.
6.4.2007 2:01pm
whackjobbbb:

My point was that you busy being high and mighty and using distracting points in order to gloss over the substantive issues that you are avoiding. I don't think that such rhetorical tricks necessarily mean you are stupid, only that you are using them as a substitute for meritorious argument.


scote, presentation of my professional qualifications here, or absence thereof, have nothing to do with the "substantive issues" being discussed here. Sorry if your life is incomplete without possession of my CV, but that's just a little problem you'll have to overcome for yourself. You and Hewart can go off and commiserate, but for crisakes stop whining about your problem.

And if it makes this all any easier for you, just assume I'm a dumbfuqq. I'll survive.
6.4.2007 2:01pm
scote (mail):

You and Hewart can go off and commiserate, but for crisakes stop whining about your problem.

Ah...the Master Pontificator punts again. I simply can't say enough about your masterful redirects, your straw arguments, you hypocritical standards of argument. Oh, and framing my calling you to task for avoiding the subject and dogging the issues, "My Problem!" Masterful use of invective. Really, you are fabulous! O'Reilly, watch out whackjobbb is up and coming...

I'd hardly call asking you what field you work in a demand for your CV. It is a rather reasonable request given your critizcizm of Gore for talking outside of his field. Clearly, your field is neither related to climate nor economics or you would be touting expertise. Instead you are still tap dancing and yelling, "Look! Over there!" to avoid the obvious double standard you've attempted to dismiss and dodge over and over again.
6.4.2007 2:15pm
whackjobbbb:

As to whether CO2 leads or lags coming out of an ice, well it has generally been considered that there was an 800 year lag. That may be wrong.


Your buddy Stoat says it's "wrong", by referencing the paper that says it's RIGHT. Again, has your buddy corresponded with the 2 referees and the editor who've approved the understandings presented in that paper? And have you figured out yet how to explain why CO2 levels LAG past planetary warming periods, as per those understandings?

The world awaits these answers.


We KNOW that the increase in concentration we see today IS from fossil fuel burning...


Perhaps, but can you answer the question above about the lag? And since you haven't yet modeled the entire carbon system, why are you playing whack-a-mole with one portion of that non-existent model, which you can't even demonstrate is causing the output condition you're attempting to "control"?

Oh that's right, an ex political hack arbitrarily decided this... so let's get busy with the latest round of whack-a-mole (I lived throught the last round... "global cooling"... and some of the same hacks are involved this time around, ironically).


Any discussion of changes in the carbon cycle has to start with the time needed carbon to flow from one reservoir to the other.


Good start! We'll piece this system model together eventually, we just need to start small... with small applications of the scientific method... like your halting little first step here, a recent and most welcome occurrence I must say. You've described one of the many, many, many presumed portions of that model. Very encouraging!

But still, much work to do developing the model, before we get to any actual analysis and validation of that model... much less draw any conclusions from that analysis... and even much less to make decisions based on those conclusions... and even much much less assigning work tasks to execute those decisions based on those conclusions.

Much work to do here. We're barely started. Suggest you start with the CO2 lag, and build from there.


As I said above, anyone who talks about the carbon cycle without noting the time it takes to get stuff from one reservoir to the other is whacky, unknowing or trying to deceive you.


Actually, those of us who believe in the scientific method are seeing this behavior in the chicken littles... who ignore the comprehensive approach and prefer to grab bag data, and portions of the model, to suit a quite unscientific agenda.

We want it all to be included in the system model, the chicken littles only want a portion... which is the real inconvenient truth here.
6.4.2007 2:28pm
whackjobbbb:

Clearly, your field is neither related to climate nor economics


Well heck, sounds like you've found the answer to your little problem concerning knowledge of my CV... you can fantasize one for yourself!

Always better to be self-sufficient, and not let yourself be victimized by those nasty old internet people, keeping you trapped in your problem. Well done!
6.4.2007 2:32pm
whackjobbbb:

A good, though now ancient place to start is Jan Schloerer's FAQ on global warming (written in the mid 1990s).

Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic' input is enough to disturb the delicate balance.



Hmmmm, your buddy Schloerer uses the word "balance". So one presumes he's developed the carbon system model... you know... to demonstrate this "balance"... with... you know... an " = " sign and everything all technical like that... which he can show us?

And has HE managed to explain why CO2 concentrations LAG past eras of planetary warming cycles?

And can HE answer the question as to why we should plough trillions of dollars into resolving an atmospheric CO2 "problem" that hasn't been demonstrated to cause planetary warming in past eras?

Much work to do here... much work.
6.4.2007 2:53pm
Eli Rabett (www):
If there is one thing I enjoy it is attitude coupled to ignorance in a whacky sort of way. Makes a splendid pinata. Box models for the carbon cycle have a long history, and, hey, wadda you know, here is a relatively simple model with equal signs and all that, but you have to read the explanations and maybe learn something.
6.4.2007 3:40pm
scote (mail):

Well heck, sounds like you've found the answer to your little problem concerning knowledge of my CV... you can fantasize one for yourself!

Always better to be self-sufficient, and not let yourself be victimized by those nasty old internet people, keeping you trapped in your problem. Well done

Ahh, so many nasty words just to say, "no comment..."
6.4.2007 4:00pm
whackjobbbb:
Man, for crisakes... stop whining!
6.4.2007 4:55pm
whackjobbbb:

If there is one thing I enjoy it is attitude coupled to ignorance in a whacky sort of way. Makes a splendid pinata. Box models for the carbon cycle have a long history, and, hey, wadda you know, here is a relatively simple model with equal signs and all that, but you have to read the explanations and maybe learn something.


Hmmmm, "long history", eh?

I wonder how they managed to miss that CO2 lag in that "long history"?

But hey, we can always validate this alleged "model" you've presented. After you finish up touting that Stoat crank's work, itself a misreprentation of the actual paper you linked, maybe you can point us to refereed review of this "model" that you and Comrade Professor have managed to cook up? Thanks in advance.

By the way, you may not be qualified to understand this, but the little cartoon you linked to is NOT a mass balance based model fo the carbon cycle, but simply just another regurgitation of the CO2 nonsense... you know... the stuff that LAGS past planetary warming.

And you can always go back and actually answer the CO2 lag question, if you ever stop running from it.

We'll wait on a true carbon system model. Let me know if you become the first to develop it.

Much work to do....
6.4.2007 5:02pm
scote (mail):

stop whining!


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -Inigo Montoya.
6.4.2007 5:13pm
Jim FSU 1L (mail):

The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only two things that are known with high certainty.


Shame that they aren't the only things affecting the system. Just because you only know two things doesn't mean that is everything you need. This isn't a fifth grade math question.
6.4.2007 5:20pm
whackjobbbb:
For those truly interested in applying the scientific method, this Solomon guy has a series of articles up, speaking to the lack of the scientific method's application to the chicken littles' work-to-date. It's pretty stunning... the level of incompetence these "climate scientists" have demonstrated. Well worth your time, and I'll give you a couple links to the more interesting pieces:

]]]The Unabomber and Gore might be ready to FedEx the letter bombs to those supposedly "few" scientist deniers opposing the IPCC dogma, but here Solomon asks: They call this a consensus?

And here, Solomon reminds us that, as always, we must apply the scientific method to this work, but points out that sadly, the "climate scientist" chicken littles haven't been doing so: Statistics needed

Here, Solomon introduces us to a young astrophysicist, who brings us some understandings of the inputs originating from outside our atmosphere, and comments on theLimited role for C02 in the system model still under construction.

My only question to the young astrophysicist is: Since Mars is warming up too, any chance we can those Martians to sign for Kyoto, and give up all those Martian SUV's?
6.4.2007 9:15pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Wacky, the carbon cycle models are not what you fantasize, so stop trying to pretend you have a clue. You are describing something that would come out of a global circulation model (GCM). Unfortunately the high quality information from the climate data network established 100,000 years ago was lost in Noah's flood. Therefore conclusions about what happened coming out of the ice age will always be tentative and based on indirect information and models. Indeed, the models may in that case be more accurate than the proxy data that we have.

Jim appears to suffer from the same disease. Greenhouse gas emissions are the elephant in the climate room, an effect so large and determining that one need not be overly concerned about the nice carpet on the floor, other than that the elephant is standing on it.

Once more, I would point out that Schloerer's FAQ was written over 12 years ago. In the words of Sam Goldwyn, we have all passed a lot of water since then.

The Canadian national post articles by Solomon are a joke. They have been taken apart elsewhere. Google is your friend.
6.5.2007 12:21pm
abb3w:
AppSocRes: I got 33% and this was after assigning (and reading) the unabomber's manifesto for a course I taught one semester ago.

83%; I read the Unabomber's manifesto around when it came out, and thought he had some insightful observations. Mind you, a lot of his logic is lousy and his conclusions are execrable.

The biggest clue is the Unabomber uses a much simpler grammatical sentence structure than Gore does. I suspect the former's background in mathematical proofs as cause.
6.5.2007 1:22pm
whackjobbbb:
It is always gratifying, to see a charlatan finally tip his hand! And the global warming chicken littles are giving us this pleasure, thankfully.


...the carbon cycle models are not what you fantasize...


Hmmmmm, so then you can point me to something other than the cartoon I remember from 9th grade "Introductory Physical Science"? And what do you fantasize a mass balance based carbon cycle system model to be, by the way? I use these terms in a precise way, but it appears you don't understand them... so explain yourself. I would think basic physics and chemistry training would suffice to allow you to describe such a system model... but let's see if you have even that capability.

And following that, point me to one such... and refereed review of it's validation.

And I'm still waiting on the CO2 lag explanation!




Unfortunately the high quality information from the climate data network established 100,000 years ago was lost in Noah's flood.


Most/all of the matter involved in "Noah's flood" still exists as a part of the system in question here, and is located in recognizable patterns, should we ever begin to model those patterns. Can you do so? You'd be the first... fyi... and that's what we need to begin to accomplish, after we dispense with the chicken littlism.

And after we build the model, we can validate, decide, act... etc. You know, the usual progression. But start from the beginning.


Therefore conclusions about what happened coming out of the ice age will always be tentative and based on indirect information and models.


Not so all the certainties expressed up on the Hollywood movie screen though, eh? Why bother with that messy scientific method, when you've got Sean Penn on the case?


Indeed, the models may in that case be more accurate than the proxy data that we have.


Why then, let's review all these carbon system "models" you've such faith in. Source and peer review status, please. And leave out the cartoons this time.



Greenhouse gas emissions are the elephant in the climate room, an effect so large and determining that one need not be overly concerned about the nice carpet on the floor, other than that the elephant is standing on it.


Well, thank you for the so-eloguent admission of your dismissal of the scientific method. It is always gratifying when a charlatan finally tips his hand.



Once more, I would point out that Schloerer's FAQ was written over 12 years ago. In the words of Sam Goldwyn, we have all passed a lot of water since then.


Yes, we know so much... except that we don't know much, seems to be the common theme here. I like the way this discussion is proceeding though. Gore and the Hollywood freaks are at center stage, fronting for the "climate scientist" chicken littles. Hate to say it, but as a practical matter, that should all serve to slow the feverish nonsense, and get us back into some sound science. So it all works out for the best, however inefficient.



The Canadian national post articles by Solomon are a joke. They have been taken apart elsewhere. Google is your friend.


Well hey, take one apart here for us. Just one...

Start with the astrophysicist's work.
6.5.2007 2:42pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Whacky, you got several explanations about why CO2 would lag temperature coming out of an ice age. That you are hard of learning is a problem. Yours.
6.5.2007 7:07pm
whackjobbbb:
Hmmmm, so you agree that CO2 lags the temperature rise... and yet you want to treat it as cause of global warming.

And since you don't want to go near the astrophysicist's work (and are not likely qualified to do so), perhaps then you can address Solomon's debunking of the chicken littles' shoddy statistical analysis (but then, neither are you likely qualified to do that).




Well, that about settles the discussion, I guess. And it's these simple disconnects that kill off the chicken littlism, and gets us back to the scientific method. I'm grateful for that, anyway, as that's the only real answer to this discussion, and takes us to sound science, and truly advances our knowlege base. Pity you don't see that.
6.6.2007 10:36am