Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

cityboy 03-14-2014 08:00 AM

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time
 
Skeptics be warned. A Rochester Institute Of Technology professor is proposing that anyone who questions Climate Change be imprisoned.
https://theconversation.com/is-misin...egligent-23111
Fortunately this only applies to Scientists because a recent Gallup Poll found that 76% of the general public don't think Climate Change is a big deal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/cl...top-worry.aspx
But its only a matter of time before its applied to all Global Warming skeptics. Since there is not enough prisons to house everyone I predict house arrest. We will only be allowed outside to shovel off our sidewalks.
Once CO2 is under control scientists will be able to tackle the other Greenhouse gases. The following task will become mandatory.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...lectedIndex=11

Hobbitling 03-14-2014 09:58 AM

Yeah, that's never going to happen. In a million years.
it's not "only a matter of time".

Uncle Alvah 03-14-2014 10:13 AM

So much for Freedom of Thought in Academia.

This guy is about as much a "Professor" as Julius Irving is a "Doctor".

Troy64 03-14-2014 10:22 AM

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time
 
AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Limekiln 03-14-2014 11:26 AM

Once again we see the "You don't get an opinion" mentality......

TCD 03-14-2014 11:30 AM

Yeah, I love these kinds of a$$**les. They should ship out to N. Korea, where their kind of thinking fits right in.

And don't think it's just an isolated mad professor; this is catching on. There was a letter to the Glens Falls Post Star just last week that was asking the paper to censor out and not publish any opinions that disagreed with the current "church dogma" about AGW.

Sadly, academia is rife with this. (Speculation as an amateur shrink - inability to tolerate hearing opposing opinions seems to be a symptom of personal insecurity.)

Hobbitling 03-14-2014 02:20 PM

I feel compelled to point out that this man is a philosophy/ethics professor, not a scientist (although I'm willing believe he probably has a fairly good understanding of science).

As a scientist, I understand the frustration of watching as evidence and science and expertise gets smothered in pseudoscience and well funded propaganda. Scientists, mostly, prefer to let evidence and facts speak for themselves. Although we certainly have beliefs and opinions that are as strong as anyone else, we are also generally very reluctant to step into this kind of politics or policy arena. I would even say we sometimes follow this too far, avoiding confrontations and debates so much that we often do a poor job of communicating science to the public. If anything, the confusion of the public about issues like climate change is largely our own fault.

Unfortunately I think he's harmed his cause by taking what I see as a fairly extreme stance; and I say that as an environmental biologist who believes climate change is real. Any philosopher that feels the need to silence his opponents, rather than doing the hard but necessary work of persuading people his ideas are better than his opponent's, invites exactly the kind of criticisms expressed above.

Philosophical debates like this aren't won by outlawing an opinion, and they shouldn't be. This debate in particular is far too important to skip that essential step, of presenting evidence and convincing the public. People need to be on board, if we are to make any lasting change. Obsolete ideas fade away on their own. I may disagree with someone's opinion, but I'll defend their right to have that opinion, and their right to try to convince others of that opinion. That's pretty much the definition of freedom of speech, isn't it?

Schultzz 03-14-2014 10:12 PM

Global Warming Bombshell
 
Global Warming Bombshell

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
By Richard Muller on October 15, 2004

.







Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago–just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.






I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.


And now a short note to the Professor from Rochester.

Sir, it's no sin to be stupid but don't you think you might be abusing the privilege? :rolling::banghead::rolling:

Hobbitling 03-14-2014 10:35 PM

you might want to read this article, written several years later by the same author, Richard Muller.
The title is a hint: it's called "The conversion of a climate skeptic"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...anted=all&_r=0

Schultzz 03-15-2014 01:02 AM

Global Warming Theory
 
Professor Hobbitt - Thank you for the referral. I read the follow up article and all it really says is that Dr. Muller has changed his stance. The article says nothing about refuting his first findings:

"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does." R Muller

Yes, we see signs of the earth warming but this warming effect may be caused by solar flares. We also have seen shorter periods of cooling too. Do you remember back a few years ago when the scientists all agreed we were entering another ice age? I believe it was back in the 70's.

The earth heats up and cools down. So does the argument. The question should be why cannot we become better stewards of our environment? Certainly "greenhouse" gasses trapped cannot be healthy especially in China. Also the incinerators in Ohio cannot be doing our ADK's any good either. So yes let us work toward taking better care of our bountiful natural wonders, but let us also be aware of the greed which produced them and know that it may still be present in those who would profit from our present condition.

Just as you don't have to be a dog to be a veterinarian - just because you may have degrees behind your name doesn't necessarily indicate that you have the right to make radical statements such as the Rochester Professor. What it does give you the right to be is wrong by the same standard as anyone else "guessing". It's just that by being somewhat prominent more people are reached by your statement. Remember what they say about opinions?

DuctTape 03-15-2014 06:48 AM

It is logical the good professor changed his stance due to refuting his own previous research. The rest of the article posted by Hobbit, goes into some of the questions you pose. The good professor's current research does take into account those other natural variables and still he concludes "I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Richard Muller's current research is available at his institute: http://berkeleyearth.org/

geogymn 03-15-2014 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Hobbit (Post 214894)
I feel compelled to point out that this man is a philosophy/ethics professor, not a scientist (although I'm willing believe he probably has a fairly good understanding of science).

As a scientist, I understand the frustration of watching as evidence and science and expertise gets smothered in pseudoscience and well funded propaganda. Scientists, mostly, prefer to let evidence and facts speak for themselves. Although we certainly have beliefs and opinions that are as strong as anyone else, we are also generally very reluctant to step into this kind of politics or policy arena. I would even say we sometimes follow this too far, avoiding confrontations and debates so much that we often do a poor job of communicating science to the public. If anything, the confusion of the public about issues like climate change is largely our own fault.

Unfortunately I think he's harmed his cause by taking what I see as a fairly extreme stance; and I say that as an environmental biologist who believes climate change is real. Any philosopher that feels the need to silence his opponents, rather than doing the hard but necessary work of persuading people his ideas are better than his opponent's, invites exactly the kind of criticisms expressed above.

Philosophical debates like this aren't won by outlawing an opinion, and they shouldn't be. This debate in particular is far too important to skip that essential step, of presenting evidence and convincing the public. People need to be on board, if we are to make any lasting change. Obsolete ideas fade away on their own. I may disagree with someone's opinion, but I'll defend their right to have that opinion, and their right to try to convince others of that opinion. That's pretty much the definition of freedom of speech, isn't it?

Good post!

cityboy 03-15-2014 08:46 AM

I think regardless of your stance on Climate Change most would agree the RIT professor's suggestion is extreme and also detrimental to the discussion. I suspect we will be seeing an apology soon. I took it as comical but admit its just a logical extension of the argument that the "science is settled" and "debate over".

More interesting to me is the Gallup poll. Here are two explanations for the results from both sides of the debate. Professor Hobbit alluded to the confusion of the public about getting the message. These two articles attempt to explain the results.

First a proponent:
http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/201...e-worried.html

Here is a quote from the concluding argument:
"Whatever the reasons, those who argue climate change is the top problem of our age are no doubt aghast that even now, in 2014, Americans are not more worried or concerned than they are. A lot of the efforts to raise concern levels and awareness to date have obviously not worked well. It may be that new tactics are needed. So far, however, even if it is a case of whistling past the graveyard, Americans are clearly more focused on other issues".

Next from a skeptic:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/201...ganda-working/

And a quote:
"The first one has to be that the message, whatever its form, is nearly always tainted with a certain unmistakable whiff of arrogance which puts people off. There’s never an element of doubt about it, it’s simply do as I say or you’ll all die, and it comes with a none too subtle subtext of if you don’t do what I say, you’ll deserve to die. There’s simply no tolerance of dissent. They carry on like they’re our better informed superiors and that gets right up people’s noses".

cityboy 03-16-2014 04:27 AM

Maybe the good professor at RIT was onto to something. Remember that the analysis of the Pro Climate change analyst where he stated the following "A lot of the efforts to raise concern levels and awareness to date have obviously not worked well. It may be that NEW TACTICS ARE NEEDED".

Here is another opinion by Rod Lamberts: Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University.

"The fact is that the time for fact-based arguments is over".

"What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that THE ENDS WILL JUSTIFY THE MEANS. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before".

https://theconversation.com/facts-wo...ics-will-24074

Is this the start of a new trend in tactics?

HappyHiker 03-16-2014 08:28 AM

The man is probably frustrated. If we put people in jail for being stupid we would need way too many jails.

There is a large amount of people that don't even believe in evolution, some of them really believe the earth is 6000 years old. They have the facts to prove it too. One guy is building a full scale arc with unicorns (They are in the King James version of the bible).

People believe what the want to believe and they also have a strong desire to control what other people believe. People would rather win an argument by arguing than really understand what they are arguing about.

People don't like being told that their culture is all wrong. They are proud of who they are.

People also don't like authority. I mean everyone in the country is a rebel practically.

People are crazy too. My brother in law was going on and on about how bad unions are. The strange thing is that he is a teacher... I did not point out the obvios to him. You can't help people.

How are you going to get people to believe that an oderless, colourless gas is going to destroy their way of life? It is never going to happen.

But the rich people should wake up and start looking at this. They should never forget that the rich were taxed a 90% during and after world war II. They will pay for climate change because only they have the money to do it. If we start now it will cost less.

redhawk 03-16-2014 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 214904)
Professor Hobbitt - Thank you for the referral. I read the follow up article and all it really says is that Dr. Muller has changed his stance. The article says nothing about refuting his first findings:

"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does." R Muller

Yes, we see signs of the earth warming but this warming effect may be caused by solar flares. We also have seen shorter periods of cooling too. Do you remember back a few years ago when the scientists all agreed we were entering another ice age? I believe it was back in the 70's.

The earth heats up and cools down. So does the argument. The question should be why cannot we become better stewards of our environment? Certainly "greenhouse" gasses trapped cannot be healthy especially in China. Also the incinerators in Ohio cannot be doing our ADK's any good either. So yes let us work toward taking better care of our bountiful natural wonders, but let us also be aware of the greed which produced them and know that it may still be present in those who would profit from our present condition.

Just as you don't have to be a dog to be a veterinarian - just because you may have degrees behind your name doesn't necessarily indicate that you have the right to make radical statements such as the Rochester Professor. What it does give you the right to be is wrong by the same standard as anyone else "guessing". It's just that by being somewhat prominent more people are reached by your statement. Remember what they say about opinions?

Ok, so first you refer to his article to validate your opinion. However when he changes his stance, which would be an indication that the article he wrote was flawed in some way or wrong, you then find an excuse to not invaladate your opoinion based on his self admitted flawed inforformation or interpretation of the information?

He admits he was wrong by his change in stance. Therefore it is implied that his "facts" were incorrect or his intrepation was flawed. He doesn't need to ay his earlier facts were incorrect directly he says that inncorrectly with this statement:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.


So here are the facts: He was wrong, he admits he was wrong, and if anyone is basing their opinion about the non existence of global warming on his earlier findings, then they are wrong too. One would hope that they too would admit that they were wrong.

redhawk 03-16-2014 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HappyHiker (Post 214929)
The man is probably frustrated. If we put people in jail for being stupid we would need way too many jails.

There is a large amount of people that don't even believe in evolution, some of them really believe the earth is 6000 years old. They have the facts to prove it too. One guy is building a full scale arc with unicorns (They are in the King James version of the bible).

People believe what the want to believe and they also have a strong desire to control what other people believe. People would rather win an argument by arguing than really understand what they are arguing about.

People don't like being told that their culture is all wrong. They are proud of who they are.

People also don't like authority. I mean everyone in the country is a rebel practically.

People are crazy too. My brother in law was going on and on about how bad unions are. The strange thing is that he is a teacher... I did not point out the obvios to him. You can't help people.

How are you going to get people to believe that an oderless, colourless gas is going to destroy their way of life? It is never going to happen.

But the rich people should wake up and start looking at this. They should never forget that the rich were taxed a 90% during and after world war II. They will pay for climate change because only they have the money to do it. If we start now it will cost less.

Point out what obvious to him? I have worked on Union jobs and been a union worker. Obviously I benefited from being a member (I had no choice, I had to be a union member in order to work). However the union was bad. It protected people who were lazy. It caused employers to be forced to use three people for a job that required one. It forced a lot of down time waiting for someone from a different trade to come an perform a task the union said only he could do. So, while yes, I benefited from the union in pay, to be honest the union was bad because it drove up the price of goods and services unnecessarily. I laud your brother for being honest, I don't think he is the one who needs help.

I think that one of the real problems is that people do understand that there is climate change. And it is "An Inconvenient Truth", because it means that we have to take steps and make sacrifices which requires giving up some creature comforts and most Americans just don't want to do that.

HappyHiker 03-16-2014 11:15 AM

Never forget that some people will work other people to death if they could. I firmly believe that some people loved slavery. The power and excitment of whipping those slaves was a good time for them.

Unions are a protection from that. They do go too far sometimes. Every work bennefit you have comes from a union. I hope you are enjoying your weekend. Sunday off came from organized religion while Saturday off came from a union.

cityboy 03-16-2014 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 214932)
I think that one of the real problems is that people do understand that there is climate change. And it is "An Inconvenient Truth", because it means that we have to take steps and make sacrifices which requires giving up some creature comforts and most Americans just don't want to do that.

Its not just Americans, its worldwide.

"Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern. In the new poll the percentage has gone down to 4%.

The new Eurobarometer poll must be depressive reading for EU’s climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard and her fellow alarmists in the European Commission. The number of people who rank climate change as their most pressing concern is barely recognizable.

Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern. In the new poll the percentage has gone down to 4%. Most likely climate change will soon disappear completely, despite of the barrage of alarmist propaganda produced in Brussels (and funded by European taxpayers).

Only in Malta (22%), Sweden (19%) and Germany (10%) does the number get into double digits. Even in Hedegaard’s home country Denmark, only 9% of the people rate climate change as their main concern. And in seven countries Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Estonia and Greece the number is zero (0%)".

vtflyfish 03-16-2014 07:48 PM

It amazes me that we accept the opinions of those with vested interests as valid. We are now talking about CO2 emissions but the same arguments and tactics have been used since the beginning of our country. Show me an industry that has exercised self-governance and restraint from the beginning and responded to the best science of the day. My industry (aviation) may be the closest.

So what happened to the great pine forest on Cape Cod? Ships masts. And the forests of Maine? Cut to the ground. And the forests of the Catskills and low elevation Adirondacks? What about acid rain and coal-fired power plants? Remember the industry argument that 'you can't prove it's us'? Same as the cigarette industry. And I'm old enough to remember the rivers running toxic with the dye of the day from the thread mills across New England. They put forth the same arguments, too. In all these cases science eventually won the argument.

So I challenge climate change deniers: What's different this time? Why is your argument superior and why should I believe you?

Limekiln 03-16-2014 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtflyfish (Post 214954)
It amazes me that we accept the opinions of those with vested interests as valid.

You bring up a good point....



" Al Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/

TCD 03-17-2014 01:32 AM

Thanks, Limekiln. You made that point better than I could have. There are vested interest on all sides of this "debate." If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science.

Schultzz 03-17-2014 01:38 AM

"If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science."

Good Point.

And where do you think the money comes from for these "research" projects? The universities? Guess again.

Glen 03-17-2014 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 214963)
"If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science."

Good Point.

And where do you think the money comes from for these "research" projects? The universities? Guess again.



So there is money on both sides, but both can't be wrong, or right. The OP was about some ill chosen words from some philosphy professor. Use common sense, is the amount of greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere a good thing or bad? Does it contribute towards what most agree is climate change, or is it a drop in the bucket? Ones biases will always take over since none of us here, so far as I can tell, are capable of doing the actual science. I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!

cityboy 03-17-2014 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 214971)
I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!

People's opinion change all the time. Perhaps Al Gore would like to explain his continued stance since Roger Revelle (his mentor and credited with being one of the first scientists to pose the CO2 threat to the climate) changed his mind and cautioned for waiting for more data before enacting solutions.

"A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/1...g-scare-began/

Glen 03-17-2014 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 214974)
People's opinion change all the time. Perhaps Al Gore would like to explain his continued stance since Roger Revelle (his mentor and credited with being one of the first scientists to pose the CO2 threat to the climate) changed his mind and cautioned for waiting for more data before enacting solutions.

"A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/1...g-scare-began/


First, you're answering for another poster. Second, we could do "he said/she said" all day long. Go back to my post and let me know whether or not what we discharge into the atmosphere is a good thing. Simple question, right?

cityboy 03-17-2014 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 214975)
First, you're answering for another poster. Second, we could do "he said/she said" all day long. Go back to my post and let me know whether or not what we discharge into the atmosphere is a good thing. Simple question, right?

Glen the IPCC already gave you an answer about CO2. If any subsequent rise in temperature is less than 2c than it is livable.

And Glen here is a simple question for you: have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.

redhawk 03-17-2014 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 214960)
You bring up a good point....



" Al Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/

However, there is a flaw in the reasoning. Long before that, back in the 80's. Al Gore was carrying the message of global warming. So, in reality his investments in companies that would be involved in cutting back on climate change was a matter of putting his money where his mouth was. That is a trait that is very uncommon.

And after years of trying to pass on the dangers of climate control to no avail, he felt he had to do something to try to get the message to the masses, so he then published "An Inconvenient Truth". Gore was warning about Climate Change back in the 80's

Would anyone be surprised to know that the first calculations warning about human induced climate change occurred in 1896? Do some research on James Croll.

So, I would laud Gore on investing in a company that worked on solutions to a problem he passionately believed existed, rather then compare him to the people who deny the existence of human caused climate change because it would lower their profits.

Glen 03-17-2014 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 214976)
Glen the IPCC already gave you an answer about CO2. If any subsequent rise in temperature is less than 2c than it is livable.

And Glen here is a simple question for you: have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.


Cityboy, 15 years is not much of a sample. Aren't the oceans absorbing and buffering some of this, for now? Again, I'm not a scientist and I don't know the answer, but this is the same argument that the acid rain deniers would use in the 1970's and 80's. A lot of cherry picked figures with a strong PR campaign tossed in to make it sound like it was insane to think particulates from the mid west could affect us here. This is no longer in dispute but the damage is done. The point being we cannot afford to get this one wrong and since I don't know the answer I will err on the side of caution. Also, it seems your dislike of a certain politician(s) informs your opinion strongly. If it wasn't Gore but a staunch conservative would you feel differently?

Limekiln 03-17-2014 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 214977)
Long before that, back in the 80's. Al Gore was carrying the message of global warming. So, in reality his investments in companies that would be involved in cutting back on climate change was a matter of putting his money where his mouth was. That is a trait that is very uncommon.

That's one way to look at it, but I don't think Al Gore is as pure as you think he is.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.