Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well duh.

I think that I made the same argument in my book Moonrush.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 29, 2007 01:19 PM

Al Gore doesn't want to explore nuclear either. I wonder if he's also against that wind installation that NRG is astroturfing in Delaware.

Posted by Adrasteia at March 29, 2007 02:07 PM

I dunno, Rand, this seems a bit of a red herring. The fact that Gore has different motives from those whom he purports to serve isn't much of a cricitism. It's like criticizing the HP salesman when it turns out his motive isn't selling you the most computer for the money, but extracting from you the most money for the computer.

There's nothing wrong with Gore, or ethically questionable about his actions, if he's in the global warming alarmism business for the sole purpose of aggrandizing his own power, so long as he's right, that is, so long as action that suits his purposes also suits ours.

And if he's wrong, then surely that is a damning enough criticism in itself. Being wrong and having the wrong motives isn't much worse than just being wrong.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 29, 2007 02:36 PM

Carl, the point is that most people know that the HP salesman is a salesman. Al Gore attempts to come across as a prophet, and to proselytize us into his WarmMongering religion. And he is wrong, as many critiques of his documentary show.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 29, 2007 02:41 PM

Being wrong and having the wrong motives isn't much worse than just being wrong.

Actually, yeah it is.

Being wrong about something you belive in and are willing to sacrifice for (no, buying 'carbon credits' doesn't count as sacrifice) is just being ignorant.

Being wrong about something which makes you money (selling 'carbon credits' to gullible people) if you can get everyone else to go along with those sacrifices you, personally, are not willing to make...that means you're just another snake oil salesman, and a hypocrite too boot.

Posted by Fuloydo at March 29, 2007 02:48 PM

The other problem with Gore and his bad motives is that, if he's right, he prevents the implementation of good solutions, which is what the quote was pointing out. And Gore prevents those better solutions precisely because of his bad motives.

Posted by Annoying Old Guy at March 29, 2007 02:50 PM

to boot.

The sad part is that i did use preview.

I can't even hide behind my broken hand for that one. It's not a typo, it's a misuse of to/too/two. :/

Posted by Fuloydo at March 29, 2007 02:54 PM

Annoying Old Guy is exactly right.

Gore was behind the U.S. pulling out of the original ITER fusion reactor project in 1993 and eventually we left the entire program in 1998. It was the evil Bush administration that put us back into the program.

However, this delayed this important fusion program by a decade and a half.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 29, 2007 02:59 PM

> It's like criticizing the HP salesman when it turns out his motive isn't
> selling you the most computer for the money, but extracting from you the
> most money for the computer.

Is the HP guy seeking government regulations that would require everyone to buy his computers?

No? Then your argument is a red herring.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 29, 2007 03:17 PM

> Gore says global warming is “a crisis that threatens the survival of
> our civilization and the habitability of the Earth....” He compares it
> to the asteroid that allegedly killed the dinosaurs.

If global warming and asteroid impacts are comparable threats, why do global warming proponents advocate spending trillions of dollars on one threat and ignore the other? I don't remember Al Gore ever mentioning planetary defense.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 29, 2007 03:44 PM

Edward says: If global warming and asteroid impacts are comparable threats, why do global warming proponents advocate spending trillions of dollars on one threat and ignore the other?

That's just it. They aren't comparable threats. They aren't even close. Global warming proponents are as interested in a threat as much as I am interested in my socks. Its the trillions they want and the power to tell others what to do. Mostly, these people would try to hide the amounts of money, but since the case for a threat from GLARMING (New word!) is so flimsy anyway, they throw money amounts first and hope to huckster the rest.

Posted by Mac at March 29, 2007 07:01 PM

I dream of the day that I run into someone who actually believes Algore's BS. It doesn't sit well in the circles I run in. When I do finally make that encounter, I'll mercilessly flog them with their own inconsistencies and ignorance.

But until then, I just keep Algore and the rest of the MSM Chicken Littles in the "irrelevant" file, with all of the other PC morons.

Posted by Dave G at March 29, 2007 07:26 PM

I feel the same way as Jonah does about Gore. I also feel the same way about the Bush Administration's quixotic "War on Terror". I have been reading documents like this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/finaldeaths04/finaldeaths04_tables.pdf#2 Terrorism, as a cause of harm or death in the US is a statistical non-event, even in 2001. It is so statistically insignificant that it doesn't even merit a category or a mention.

I could never understand how a rational mind could justify upending the Constitution and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars fighting something that is not even the remotest threat to the health or safety of Americans.

Posted by Jardinero1 at March 29, 2007 07:28 PM

Jardinero 1 says: Terrorism, as a cause of harm or death in the US is a statistical non-event, even in 2001.

One death from a terrorist is too many. I think that's bears a whole lot of mentioning.

Posted by Mac at March 29, 2007 07:36 PM

"If Al Gore was truly interested in saving the planet he would not be using 20 times the energy of an average American home. He would be leading by example. But saving the world is less important than ruling it."

Posted by Stephen Macklin at March 29, 2007 07:38 PM

Being wrong with the bad motives is WAY worse than just being wrong. The man who is just wrong might eventually realize his mistake. If he's sincerely just wrong, he won't try to suppress contrary evidence. But if he's wrong with bad motives, then he also tries to suppress dissent, and tries to prolong the crisis (or the perception of it) as long as he can, in order to maintain and expand his power.

But Gore scares me because I think he's still a third and even worse type: he's wrong, and wrong for bad PSYCHOLOGICAL motives (desire for power, desire for revenge for his disappointment in 2000), but has convinced his own conscious mind that he's right. I'm concerned that the Dems will realize that neither Obama nor Clinton can win, and looking around for a replacement will settle on this guy. And if, heaven help us, he should win the White House, then we really will see a slide toward fascism in the US. He and a lot of his followers are now a fanatical believers that their own creed is indispensable, and that the people who stand in their way deserve no fair treatment.

Posted by Mark at March 29, 2007 07:48 PM

> Terrorism, as a cause of harm or death in the US is a statistical non-event,

So is Nazism. Does that mean America should not have fought the Nazis?

Or does the current lack of a Nazi threat result from our willingness to fight them?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 29, 2007 08:39 PM

The difference with the asteroid is that our lifestyle has not caused the asteroid threat, and it will not have effect on whether the strike happens or whether it doesn't. But on the contrary, our lifestyle has caused the massive CO2 emissions - it's a relatively straightforward way to think that if we want to return back to more normal trends, we should reduce the CO2 emissions.

Hence the article's main point is a huge non sequitur.

The geoengineering solutions have usually been put forward by people with polluting interests, like people with ties to energy industries. This is of course not bad in itself, it's only logical. But I don't see putting massive amounts of sulfur compounds to the air as a good thing - it's going to cause huge amounts of acid rain, just when we've mostly gotten rid of it (at least in most western countries).

All this global warming and the ongoing mass extinction of species because of habitat destruction (usually not because of global warming but because of direct actions) is just a symptom of the massive amount of people living the resource consuming lifestyle they live...

It's different in different parts of the world of course. USA has relatively little people per area but the people consume a lot. Southeast Asia has little consumption per capita but the amount of people is staggering. Central Europe sits here in the middle, having both relatively high.

Look up an article from Nature on HANPP from 2003. Africa is not so bad, and South America is the most pristine.

Rand posted about sharks - it would probably do nothing if they fished a shark here and there - it's the massive scale that everything's done nowadays because there are so many people craving so many things.

(btw, I'm all for lunar resource use, when it lessens resource use on earth)

Posted by mz at March 29, 2007 10:32 PM

Is the HP guy seeking government regulations that would require everyone to buy his computers?

Of course. Duh. All companies would love to have such government regulations and invest whatever they think is appropriate to get them. Usually that's $0.00, since the chances of such laws passing are normally quite small. But there are certainly some stand-out exceptions in our history, even recently. Do a little Googling of recent changes in bankruptcy law and credit-card firms and educate yourself.

Then your argument is a red herring.

'Fraid I don't see that. My suggestion is that the only really important question you need to ask yourself when someone tries to sell you a computer (or a national CO2 policy) on the grounds that it's good for you is: is he right? Is it really good for me? Whether the salesman is motivated by altruism or a selfish desire to fatten his own bottom line (however defined) is not worth the ounce or so of glucose your brain would consume debating the proposition. It might affect whether you personally like the guy or not, but it should not affect your decision to buy what he's selling.

Whether you agree with my conclusion or not, the question I raise hardly seems a red herring ("irrelevancy").

Posted by Carl Pham at March 30, 2007 01:02 AM

Carl, the point is that most people know that the HP salesman is a salesman.

C'mon, Rand. Surely anyone over the age of 20 or so knows that Al Gore -- and any other politician -- is a salesman, too. How many voting-age citizens do you honestly think are so childish as to think a desire for personal power and fame plays but a minor role in why a man goes into politics, or why once there he favors one policy over another? There are millions, sure. But surely not a majority.

Al Gore attempts to come across as a prophet, and to proselytize us into his WarmMongering religion.

Which is probably a major reason his success has been so minimal, wouldn't you say? I mean, after all, he's got a fair amount of actual science somewhat in his corner. Plus nearly all thoughtful, intelligent people think anthropogenic climate change is a subject worthy of national-level attention, something that we should think about (although reasonable minds can differ about what should be done).

With that kind of wind at his back any competent politician could have ridden to some kind of national leadership, but instead Al Gore has turned more or less into a national joke, a traveling circus. Surely part of the reason for that is because he has been such an insufferable ass about things and tried to play Moses down from the mountain with the Word of God.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 30, 2007 01:16 AM

Terrorism, as a cause of harm or death in the US is a statistical non-event, even in 2001. It is so statistically insignificant that it doesn't even merit a category or a mention.

This may replace some of the anon troll boy's blatherings to rule as the new "Dumbest Statement to Date on TT". It cuts several ways into dumbness.

First, Edward Wright is correct. Should we have stayed out of WWII because statistically we weren't threatened immediately by the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese? At what point should we fight, when the wolves are at the door and we are "statistically" at risk?

In 2007 if you find that you have cancer, statistically you have a much better chance of survival today than you did 30 years ago. But you treat it immediately, you don't wait to see where you fall on the statistics curve after 6 months.

Second, think about the people who work at the CDC. This is the BA, MA, PhD, medical, epidemiological, upper educated, never been out of the research or the university crowd. A group not known for being exactly moderate or conservative in their politics. The CDC may be a government entity, but it is populated by people who think, support and vote to the left. So their official CDC findings are going to go that way.

The CDC saying we are OK statistically with respect to terrorism, is a case of, "figures don't lie, but the CDC can manipulate the facts to prove their touchy-feely, hug a bunny, hug a terrorist, the U.S. caused all the problems of the world" issues.

Posted by Steve at March 30, 2007 05:35 AM

Wow, I didn't think I would so disagree with Carl. There is no doubt that Al Gore is using Global Warming as a means of giving him political clout. Further by his actions, it seems apparent he is spending that political clout on things other than actually solving the root problem. How can anyone concerned about global warming consider carbon offsets a reasonable solution?

If you assist on using the HP salesman analogy, what happens if the HP salesman is too successful in selling you a computer box which doesn't solve the problem? Do you go back to that salesman? What if he was just a try salesman, skilled at parting fool from money, and really knew nothing about the technical uses of the computer; would you still go back to him for another computer? Would you feel better knowing the guy was just as ignorant about computers as you were, but he was simply doing his job, which he did well?

Posted by Leland at March 30, 2007 05:40 AM

mz says: But on the contrary, our lifestyle has caused the massive CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions, yes. The MASSIVE CO2 emissions, no. One volcanic eruption exceeds the amount put into the atmosphere by man in a full year.

Can we reduce, yes. Should we? Yes. Should the US reduce more? Yes, but allowing developing countries a free pass is wrong. Did man cause Global Warming? No, for two reasons. One: There is no Global Warming. Two: CO2 emissions from man are almost insignificant compared to natural emissions.

Posted by Mac at March 30, 2007 06:14 AM

We would be building giant wicked-cool lasers and bomb-carrying spaceships to go out and destroy the thing.

Can we get funding for this project, and make it a reality already? Asteroid,or no Asteroid, I want giant wicked-cool lasers.

Posted by Wickedpinto at March 30, 2007 06:21 AM

Steve, so the statistics are relevant, but flawed by nature of who produced them? Interesting argument...

Posted by Andy at March 30, 2007 06:39 AM

(I had a call and had to stop my last comment)

The statistical increases for terrorism are as follows,

In 1993, terrorists representing the Islamic Radical movement bombed the WTC with a truck bomb. They killed 6 Americans

In 1998, terrorists representing the Islamic Radical movements bombed two American Embassies. They killed 17 Americans.

Statistically thats not quite a 300% increase.

In 2000, terrorists representing the Islamic Radical movements bombed the U.S.S. Cole and killed 17 American Sailors.

Statistically there was no increase in deaths between that attack and the embassy attacks 1998. Does that mean that we should have ignored it?

In 2001, terrorists representing the Islamic Radical movements killed 2973 people in NYC, D.C. and Pennsylvania. Statistically thats a 17400% increase from 1998 to 2001.

That's a big increase with terrorism weighed against terrorism. But the left wants us to weigh that 2973 lives in 2001 from terrorist strikes against dog bites and e. coli over X number of years.

If we had a 17400% increase in AIDS deaths from 2004 to 2007, there would be no other news being reported. it would be the only story alive on the front page every newspaper, the total story on every newscast and Daily Kos would be calling GWB a murderer because he didn't do enough to fund research.

You don't weigh the probable or possible deaths and effects of the attacks of your countries enemies against dog bites and e.coli outbreaks. Dog bites and e. coli outbreaks are not premeditated attacks against us as a nation and our culture. We are not allowing dog bites by a single species of dogs, or even just one particular dog or deaths and illness from a specific strain of e. coli to continue on a slow ramping up rate because it's "statistically" not too bad as weighed against the mean.

We track down and eradicate e.coli. as soon as we know it exists in the food chain. If a dog bites more than once, or if a breed of dogs bites more than others, we get a "60 Minutes" expose, 50 newspaper articles and people quit buying the dogs from "Doggies - R- Us" at the mall. If a particular dog shows too much aggression, it is put down

On to Al Gore and GLARMING,
The real problem with Algore and his "thinking" is that what he proposed in front of Congress was a return to an 19th century technology in a 21st century world.

He advocated an immediate stop to living and relying on carbon based technologies.

I'm sure if he got his wish millions if not billions would die from starvation and thirst with a few days or weeks. That would certainly stop global warming. But isn't that like killing a fly on your friends forehead, with a sledge hammer?

If everybody died who'd run Algore's airplane or clean his heat leaking house in Nashville?

Posted by Steve at March 30, 2007 07:44 AM

Can we get funding for this project, and make it a reality already? Asteroid,or no Asteroid, I want giant wicked-cool lasers.

"You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!"

But on a more serious note,

Whether the salesman is motivated by altruism or a selfish desire to fatten his own bottom line (however defined) is not worth the ounce or so of glucose your brain would consume debating the proposition.

It's worth it to me. A salesman's job IS to sell me something, for sure. But knowing the salesperson's motivations can help me determine if the facts and benefits he's pushing on me (this PC has more power than any other PC on the market, the speed to cost ratio is the lowest, it's the most stable, etc) are true or not. Granted, with the growth of the internet and the increased education level amongst consumers, it's harder to lie about the basic specifications of a product, but one need only look at the number of Monster brand anything that are sold for 600-1500% of production cost at a big box store to know that the masses are still ill-informed and uneducated.

If a salesperson sells me something based on facts, I'm less likely to have buyers remorse than if it's sold to be based on lies. And the cost of some of the proposals to combat climate change are way too high to not examine the motives of the salesman.

Posted by John Breen III at March 30, 2007 07:56 AM

one need only look at the number of Monster brand anything that are sold for 600-1500% of production cost at a big box store to know that the masses are still ill-informed and uneducated.

Heh!

Posted by Leland at March 30, 2007 08:32 AM

Responding to various posters:

CO2 emissions, yes. The MASSIVE CO2 emissions, no. One volcanic eruption exceeds the amount put into the atmosphere by man in a full year.

Maybe on the planet you're living on. On Earth, volcanic emissions average about 1% of anthropogenic emissions. The mass of CO2 that will be emitted in this century by fossil fuel combustion under business-as-usual will approach the mass of the water in Lake Michigan.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Two: CO2 emissions from man are almost insignificant compared to natural emissions.

The annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than the CO2 emitted by combustion of fossil fuels. Are you claiming that if fossil fuels were not being burned, CO2 in the atmosphere would still be increasing at the same rate? I guess on your planet, fossil fuels must be composed of amazingly special carbon atoms that clean themselves out of the atmosphere with no effect, unlike those natural carbon atoms you're blaming instead.

Gore was behind the U.S. pulling out of the original ITER fusion reactor project in 1993 and eventually we left the entire program in 1998. [...] However, this delayed this important fusion program by a decade and a half.

'Important' if you get your funding for this sort of thing. If you consume energy, not so important. Repeated engineering studies of tokamaks have failed to come up with designs that will be more than marginally competitive with easier alternatives (if that). The nuclear side of a tokamak will be, per unit of power, more than an order of magnitude more expensive than the nuclear side of a fission plant (the turbine/generator side, which is a significant part of the cost of the plant, will be similar in the two systems). The tokamak is far more complex than the fission reactor core, and (because hands on maintenance will not be possible) promises to be much less reliable.

The waste argument for fusion over fission fails under detailed examination (the costs of handling fission waste are too low to justify the cost increase of fusion). Ditto reactor safety. The remaining argument would be fuel availability. However, if seawater uranium extraction is feasible then even this issue is not pressing for centuries or more, even with greatly expanded use of once-through reactors. And even without that, fission breeders are likely easier and cheaper than fusion.

ITER and tokamaks have boondoggle written all over them.

But I don't see putting massive amounts of sulfur compounds to the air as a good thing - it's going to cause huge amounts of acid rain, just when we've mostly gotten rid of it (at least in most western countries).

This is not clear. The sulfur (or whatever) would be placed in the stratosphere, not the troposphere, so it would rain out more slowly. The total emission rate could be less than released today at low altitude.

Anyway, metallic scatterers are much more effective than dielectric ones, so I expect if geoengineers actually did this they'd avoid sulfur entirely.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 30, 2007 09:00 AM

Why is the argument on Global Warming an either or? Who made the decision that it IS a problem or IS NOT a problem? Why do the proponents ON BOTH SIDES disagree to such extremes? Is it not possible that there are indeed credible ideas/thoughts/sciences/etc... for both arguments such that a middle ground can be agreed upon and progress made from that point?

Just wondering....

Posted by CJ at March 30, 2007 09:26 AM

Thank you Paul, I was incorrect on the CO2 emissions. But then you say: Are you claiming that if fossil fuels were not being burned, CO2 in the atmosphere would still be increasing at the same rate?

Nope, I'm not claiming that at all. I'm saying that nature has been releasing CO2 for as long as the planet's been here. I do like that the article you linked to mentioned this tidbit..."The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature." As we have been actively recording global concentrations for that long..."

Average mean temp for the US in the last 100 years (with the most complete and consistant reporting of all nations that track it) didn't waver a tenth of a degree. Weather is cyclic, and a chaotic system. Greenhouse gasses affecting weather and temperatures hasn't occurred in the 100 years the temps have been kept. Again, yes we can cut back our emissions and probably should. Other nations should have as tight of restrictions as we have too. I just claim that anyone who says mankind is solely responsible for GLARMING is right. GLARMING is made up, by man. ANyone that says greenhouse gas emissions are solely man's fault is incorrect.

Posted by Mac at March 30, 2007 09:29 AM

Average mean temp for the US in the last 100 years [...] didn't waver a tenth of a degree,

"Across the contiguous United States, temperatures rose linearly at a rate of 0.06 C (0.1F) per decade since 1901, increasing to 0.33 C (0.6 F) per decade since 1976 [...]. The last five five year periods [...] were the warmest in the last 109 yr of national records."

You were saying?

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ROEIndicators/pdfs/US_AND_GLOBAL_MEAN_TEMPERATURE_AND_PRECIPITATION_FINAL.pdf

Nope, I'm not claiming that at all. I'm saying that nature has been releasing CO2 for as long as the planet's been here.

Yes, nature's been releasing (and, of course, absorbing) CO2. But you appear to be imagining implications of this fact that just aren't there, or at least repeating it like a comforting mantra of denial.

The simple fact is that without athropogenic CO2 emissions, the atmosphere CO2 level would be falling right now, natural emissions notwithstanding. This is because the enormous bolus of CO2 we've injected and continue to inject into into the atmosphere is still out of equilibrium with the ocean surface waters and the biosphere. But even this absorptive capacity will be increasingly overwhelmed as emissions continue; the fraction of released CO2 that's absorbed has been declining, IIRC.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 30, 2007 11:06 AM

"The changes in global CO2 concentration during the past 600,000 years have mimicked the changes in global temperature." As we have been actively recording global concentrations for that long..."

Mac, I guess you were trying to be sarcastic...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

Is this yet another part of the big lie that Gore is promoting? I'm open to being convinced it is.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 30, 2007 12:46 PM

Right on the money TNT

That was a precious tidbit included in the emissions article that Paul posted.

Posted by Mac at March 30, 2007 01:44 PM

Right on the money TNT

That was a precious tidbit included in the emissions article that Paul posted.

Posted by Mac at March 30, 2007 01:47 PM

Sorry about the doble post. Here's an interesting article from this year.

http://pesn.com/2007/03/19/9500463_Global_Warming_Swindle/

Posted by Mac at March 30, 2007 02:04 PM

That was a precious tidbit included in the emissions article that Paul posted.

Um, you are aware that information about the composition of the ancient atmosphere can be obtained from glacial ice, right? Tiny air bubbles become trapped in the ice as the snow is compressed into more solid forms. This record from ice cores goes back, you guessed it, about 600,000 years.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 30, 2007 02:48 PM

Ah, I see that's just what the BBC story was about. D'oh.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 30, 2007 02:56 PM

The simple fact is that without athropogenic CO2 emissions, the atmosphere CO2 level would be falling right now

Really? With all of the deforestation that man has been blamed for (and rightly so in some cases), there is still so much excess CO2 absorption capacity left on the earth to take care of *all* naturally occuring CO2?

The natural inference of that would then mean that, before all of the deforestation, there was even *more* CO2 scrubbing capability in the world?

Does that then mean that there was *zero* atmospheric CO2 prior to the Industrial Revolution?

At what point did man tip the scales from net CO2 reduction to net CO2 increase?

Posted by John Breen III at March 30, 2007 03:59 PM

>> Is the HP guy seeking government regulations that would require everyone to buy his computers?

> Of course. Duh. All companies would love to have such government regulations

Evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

> Do a little Googling of recent changes in bankruptcy law and credit-
> card firms and educate yourself.

Did Google say you'd go to jail if you declined a credit card offer?

Al Gore would throw people in jail for not obeying his energy policy. Whether you like computer salesmen or credit-card companies is beside the point. Neither threatens you with jail if you don't do what they want. That's the difference between salesmen and politicians.

> 'Fraid I don't see that. My suggestion is that the only really important
> question you need to ask yourself when someone tries to sell you a computer
> (or a national CO2 policy) on the grounds that it's good for you is: is he right?

Yes, but I don't accept your suggestion. There are other important questions, including the question of individual freedom. An individual is free to refuse a credit card or an HP computer. An individual would not be free to refuse a national CO2 policy. Offering a voluntary transaction is not equivalent to trying to pass a mandatory policy.

> Whether you agree with my conclusion or not, the question I raise hardly
> seems a red herring ("irrelevancy").

It does until you show some evidence that HP salesmen are trying to take away our freedom to not buy HP computers. When that happens, I will become much more concerned with the motives of HP salesmen. However, I don't believe it has happened.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 30, 2007 05:46 PM

> The difference with the asteroid is that our lifestyle has not caused
> the asteroid threat, and it will not have effect on whether the strike
> happens or whether it doesn't.

I disagree. Our non-spacefaring lifestyle is the main reason for the asteroid threat. Changing to a spacefaring lifestyle will greatly effect the chances of an asteroid strike.

> it's a relatively straightforward way to think that if we want to return
> back to more normal trends, we should reduce the CO2 emissions.

It's just as straightforward to think that we should go into space, if we want to prevent the possibility of global extinction from asteroid strikes.

So I ask again, why does Al Gore advocate spending trillions on global warming and nothing on planetary defense?

Posted by at March 30, 2007 06:03 PM

Yes, and this can be immediately deduced from the fact that annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions are greater than the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The net flux from all other contributions is obviously negative.

Does that then mean that there was *zero* atmospheric CO2 prior to the Industrial Revolution?

Obviously it doesn't mean that. I already explained why (absent human emissions) the net flow is out of the atmosphere: we've increased the atmosphere's CO2 level so much that CO2 is dissolving into the oceans (and, to some extent, being taken up by plant growth) faster than the reverse processes are emitting it.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 30, 2007 06:07 PM

Paul says: Um, you are aware that information about the composition of the ancient atmosphere can be obtained from glacial ice, right? Tiny air bubbles become trapped in the ice as the snow is compressed into more solid forms. This record from ice cores goes back, you guessed it, about 600,000 years.

Completely aware. However, even the smallest hint of doubt remains simply because we weren't there. Just because you have a map doesn't mean you know where you're going. What we have at the base of it is a theory. It has not been proven, nor disproven. You make think it is proven, but some of us don't. We have theories too, and no one knows who's right. Once again, I admit that we can reduce emissions and it would be a good thing to do, but not because Chicken Little says the sky is falling. I applaud FrankenGore for taking up a fight, but his purposes are not right. Also, he is the son of a KKK Grand Master...which really pollutes his ideas in my opinion.

Posted by Mac at March 30, 2007 06:20 PM

"So I ask again, why does Al Gore advocate spending trillions on global warming and nothing on planetary defense?"

Quite. Especially since, if you look at it the right way, the solution to one is the same as the solution to the other.

Get enough hardware and people into space, and the killer asteroid becomes a non-problem. We just mine it into nonexistence.

And in the same circumstance, all the energy used by Earth could come from space. In the limit, the power available is four hundred trillion terawatts.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 31, 2007 03:57 AM

"Al Gore attempts to come across as a prophet"

He attempts nothing of the sort. People consider him oracular because he's been consistently right, years and sometimes decades ahead of the ball, and the only people who seem to have a problem with that are the sort who think intelligence is a character flaw.

Edward Wright: "If global warming and asteroid impacts are comparable threats, why do global warming proponents advocate spending trillions of dollars on one threat and ignore the other?"

Winning the lottery is comparable to creating and selling a Fortune 500 company, but you have a much greater chance of doing the latter than the former. Why, then, do most people buy lottery tickets instead of starting companies? For the same reason some choose to focus on asteroid defense rather than global warming--it's a much simpler proposition.

Mac: "One death from a terrorist is too many."

One death from anything is too many, but we have to make rational priorities based on reality, not emotion. Terrorism is not a significant cause of death in this country, and it should be a priority only to the extent that it's disruptive to the economy and civil society.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 06:12 AM

ITER will burn continuously, generating net power. It will test the systems for collecting that power and breeding tritium. The follow reactor will demonstrate a prototype power plant. It isn't a bondongle in the traditional sense - we are going to get a working thermonuclear reactor for the money. Whether we want want or not is another question.

Posted by anon at March 31, 2007 08:20 AM

"People consider him oracular because he's been consistently right, years and sometimes decades ahead of the ball, and the only people who seem to have a problem with that are the sort who think intelligence is a character flaw."

He is more anicular than oracular.

No, it is not Gore's intellignece that troubles me. Gore is obviously a very intelligent man. He simply has a total lack of the necessary Wisdom to productively apply that intelligence. Perhaps he was so sufficiently miseducated at an early age his though process became hopelessly corrupted.

I have know many idiots with a very high IQ. Generally they are the one who are so unemcumbered by common sense they don't know to stop at the edge before they go over the cliff.

Gorebot does remind me somewhat of Wile E. Coyote come to think of it.

IQ in and of itself is a begining, not an end.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 31, 2007 09:01 AM

However, even the smallest hint of doubt remains simply because we weren't there.

I find it quite interesting that you seem to throw doubt to the winds when it comes to believing anti-GW pseudoscience, though. Some of your earnest pronouncements in this thread were just plain and obviously wrong. You seem to have very one-sided skepticism, mister.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 31, 2007 09:08 AM

Mac:

"However, even the smallest hint of doubt remains simply because we weren't there. "

That's ridiculous. I guess we shouldn't try to infer anything at all about the history of the universe either, then, should we. After all no one was there making measurements! Cosmologists beware!

You could have raised a more valid argument about the CO2/temperature correlation such as whether there was a several century lag or lead or something more complicated than a direct proportionality and instead you make this silly statement. As I said before I remain open to being convinced that Gore is full of crap.

Can we talk about these ice cores and varying opinions about what they actually mean? Is it CO2 and temperature and perhaps something else we haven't paid enough attention to?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 11:54 AM

Carl says in his Phamplet here:

"With that kind of wind at his back any competent politician could have ridden to some kind of national leadership, but instead Al Gore has turned more or less into a national joke, a traveling circus."

If he is such a national joke why is he on the couch being analyzed so much of the time on every right leaning blog?

It must be a case of Zemmiphobia.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 01:14 PM

"Al Gore would throw people in jail for not
obeying his energy policy." - Ed Wright

Can you point to a quote on this? (I admit I
haven't been following the specific details of
the Gorean dogma myself - I consider the man
to be a politician and a film-maker, not an
engineer.)

On the question of reducing the dependency on
petroleum fuel (probably a good idea for reasons
beyond Global Warming itself), I find it schizoid
that our leaders are making such a fuss, and then
turn around and whine like it's a Bad Thing when
gasoline prices go up... seems like market forces
are going to do a better job than regulations in
driving the adoption of reduced-petroleum-use
technology! (Or would that be too "Republican"
for the global-warming-response advocates?)

-dave w

Posted by dave w at March 31, 2007 07:08 PM

Mike: "He is more anicular than oracular."

***GOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG****

Mike: "He simply has a total lack of the necessary Wisdom to productively apply that intelligence."

Being nearly half a century ahead of the ball on global warming doesn't suggest much trouble there. Nor does having been one of the handful of legislators who pushed the commercialization of ARPAnet.

Mike: "Perhaps he was so sufficiently miseducated at an early age his though process became hopelessly corrupted."

Or maybe the Non Sequitur button on your keyboard is stuck.

Mike: "Gorebot does remind me somewhat of Wile E. Coyote come to think of it."

Please, keep a record of this statement so you can bask in my own prophetic power: Al Gore will be President of the United States within the next three presidential election cycles at most, and his little slide show will be the reason.

"IQ in and of itself is a begining, not an end."

Indeed, the internet and a liveable world are the end. I fully think Al Gore has Roosevelt-level potential.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 11:07 PM

"Al Gore would throw people in jail for not
obeying his energy policy." - Ed Wright

Can you point to a quote on this?

Did you miss the part where Al Gore wants the US Government to inact laws?

Posted by Leland at April 1, 2007 07:09 AM

Zemmiphobia sounds about right. Not sure about Brian's AlGore presidential prediction though. His best chance is now; vanquish the Clintonistas.

Posted by Offside at April 1, 2007 07:42 AM

Now is probably not the time for Gore to run. Once climate change becomes an emergency rather than a political issue, he won't have to say a single word about it to win the public trust on it, so he could focus on rounding out his agenda while his opponent would probably be stuck in defensive mode. But if he runs now, it's still an issue, and he would be compelled to focus on it by his association with it, meaning his prospects would be uncertain.

Although it wasn't a result of global warming, the Katrina disaster got people's attention to the potential cost of more powerful storms, and now the public is receptive to leadership on the subject. However, even though they're concerned, they still haven't worked out how to prioritize the problem, so a Gore campaign in this cycle might be counterproductive. Besides which, I want Obama in the White House--he's the reincarnation of Robert Kennedy, albeit more easygoing due to the Hawaii influence.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 1, 2007 08:53 AM

"Please, keep a record of this statement so you can bask in my own prophetic power: Al Gore will be President of the United States within the next three presidential election cycles at most, and his little slide show will be the reason."

Your sad little sock puppet is a joke to much of the public. He will never be President except on the first day of April in the minds of Fools.

However, I will wager money against that outcome if you dare and that is no joke.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 1, 2007 10:10 AM

"Your sad little sock puppet is a joke to much of the public."

Yes, "much." Just not the overwhelming majority, or the scientific community, or the world at large. That a bitter, insulated fringe minority who squandered their influence clinging to George W. Bush still hates Gore is not, at this point, important to anyone other than them.

"He will never be President except on the first day of April in the minds of Fools."

That will be your line until he is President, at which point the mantra will be a one-term presidency. Reality is a battle to a conservative, and always a losing one.

"However, I will wager money against that outcome if you dare and that is no joke."

How much? I already buy political futures contracts, but I do it a bit differently than most who bet on elections: I bet on the candidate I *want* to win, regardless of the odds, and if they lose I get a consolation prize. The way I look at it, I win either way, so if I lose the money it's almost like I've bought the election. :D

Not as many people accept straight win/lose, but you can find them if you look.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 2, 2007 05:23 AM

Correction: I bet AGAINST the candidate I want to win.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 2, 2007 05:27 AM

Couple of points here I'm not sure have been brought up before;

Earth Getting Warmer: Sorry to say but "Mac" has it very wrong here. The Earth has been getting warmer since the last ice age. Period, with two exceptions; The "little" ice age, (starting around the 13th century) and a slight 'cooling' period in the mid-70s.

Now having said that, I would note, (and Rand you might want to bring this up at some point if you haven't) that according to most of the "Global-Warming-Is-All-Mankinds-Fault" they point to a study by the Max Planck Society and University of Oulu (Finland) as 'proof' that the Sun has little effect on Global temperatures. So of course the 'only' cause must be man made CO2 emissions.

The press release is here:
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

You'll note the acutual 'conclusion' of the report is that the entire trend of Global Climate change EXCEPT for (possiblly) the last 30 or so years, falls RIGHT in line with increased solar activity!
The study method tracks back more than 1,000 years through ice core, tree ring and other historic sampling methods to find that the sun has been increasing in output till very recently.

The 'problem' occurs in the last 30 years or so of the study. The temerature rise for the last 30 years is NOT in line with solar activity, in that global average temps have gone up, despite a stabilizing of the suns output since the mid-70s.
Which leads the study to conclude with:
"This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming"
Which is not at ALL what the study concludes as a whole. What it acutally means is that the Sun is not causing the CURRENT (last 30 years) of temperature rises, HOWEVER, this is not 'conclusive' in that there is about a 10 year gap in scientifically reliable solar data. After the Challenger disaster in 1986 several science satellites were pushed back on the launch manifests and one of these was a replacement for a failing solar observation satillite which was used to provide data for this study. As a 'replacement' other satillites were used to try and gather data on the sun using sensors that were not quite up to the job.
So much of the data collected through these 'make-do' sensors may or may not be accurate enough to project the suns activity level as those used for the rest of the study.

In either case, the study DOES conclude that solar activity is leveling off, and/or dropping. According to a more recent study by the Russian Science Academy is predicting a DOWN-trend in solar activity leading to significant global COOLING trends starting around 2012!
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm

Randy

Posted by Randy at April 2, 2007 08:01 AM

"Yes, "much." Just not the overwhelming majority, or the scientific community, or the world at large. That a bitter, insulated fringe minority who squandered their influence clinging to George W. Bush still hates Gore is not, at this point, important to anyone other than them."

If he is so damn popular, why is he not walking away with the Demo nomination RFN?

Because he is like your nutty uncle. You pay him lip service and trot him out when he can do something and the rest of the time you sequester him. Speking as a member of the Scientific community, his renown is not what you were led to believe.

Wait till the next solar cycle after this one and then we can watch you and Gorebot flail to explain 'Global Cooling'.

No, I am really not a bit worried about ever dealing with 'President Albert Gore'. Hell, he could not carry his own home state against a mediocre candidate on the Republican side.

Brian, Revenge of the Nerds was a movie, it will not translate into a Presidential Campaign. Gorebot is a nerd and nerds make lousy presidential candidates. I know this will demolist your vicarious 'Revenge of the Nerds' fantasy but it is a simple fact of life. Gore could not win wiht a mediocre opponent in what was basically a campaign handed to him on a silver platter. He will not be able to fool enough people with his voodoo over the long haul to pull it out.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 2, 2007 09:45 AM

Brian, Mike is right, sorry. In fact I'm quite impressed with Mike's comments which clearly show that he is not a right/left wing moron. Good stuff. All you need is a charismatic Republican candidate who also buys into Anthropogenic Global Warming and Poof - Gore is likely trumped. We've got to elect candidates based on something more than fear, whether of Fascist Islamic hordes swarming our streets or Manhattan being swamped in boiling sludge.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 2, 2007 07:17 PM

Gore could not win with a mediocre opponent in what was basically a campaign handed to him on a silver platter.

No doubt. This is what the far left doesn't grasp. Many who voted for Bush didn't do so because they liked him. He was simply more preferable than Gore or Kerry. Again, this doesn't speak well of Bush, but it says how many people didn't like Gore or Kerry. As Mike pointed out, Gore didn't even carry his home state.

I believe if Gore hadn't got on his tangent of claiming:
"I was the father of the internet"
"I discovered Love Canal"
"I was the topic of Love Story"
Then people might have given him more credibility. Probably enough to give him the edge of Bush he needed. Since he did go on his tangent, he was seen as a geek wishing he was something more.

Posted by Leland at April 3, 2007 06:56 AM

"If he is so damn popular, why is he not walking away with the Demo nomination RFN?"

His popularity is as an advocate for a cause the public does not, as yet, assign high priority. It is just one of many issues at this point, and doesn't translate into political capital.

"Speking as a member of the Scientific community"

(Chuckle). Look up my IP some day.

"Wait till the next solar cycle after this one and then we can watch you and Gorebot flail to explain 'Global Cooling'."

We'll leave that to the climatologists, unlike you and Exxon.

"Hell, he could not carry his own home state against a mediocre candidate on the Republican side."

The thing about liberals that 'cons of any stripe never could understand--we learn from mistakes. But as for "mediocre candidate," Bush was more than supplemented by the overwhelming and egregious support of the media. It was shocking, seeing what I'd thought were newspapers transform themselves into Bush campaign circulars, calling Gore names and attacking his character in front-page columns. Frankly, it's a miracle Gore won.

"Brian, Revenge of the Nerds was a movie"

A movie I've never particularly liked. The '80s were a lot of fun on film, but that one was a cinematic skidmark.

"Gorebot is a nerd and nerds make lousy presidential candidates."

Conventional wisdom before 2000 was that snide illiterates make lousy presidential candidates.

"Gore could not win wiht a mediocre opponent in what was basically a campaign handed to him on a silver platter."

He did make a lot of mistakes, but it was hardly that.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 4, 2007 05:02 AM

"Conventional wisdom before 2000 was that snide illiterates make lousy presidential candidates."

They don't and treating Bush as one is why Gore's and your Nerd instincts failed and fail today.

You 'misunderestimated' him again. That is why Bush won twice.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 4, 2007 07:05 AM

"(Chuckle). Look up my IP some day."

Why? Rand does not give me access to his software? Why would another user be able to see your IP?

"We'll leave that to the climatologists, unlike you and Exxon."

Yep, it gonna suck when you have to eat a big I told you so shit sandwich with a big Exxon brand printed on it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 4, 2007 07:09 AM

"They don't"

Snide illiterates don't make lousy presidential candidates?

"treating Bush as one is why Gore's and your Nerd instincts failed and fail today."

Then why did Gore get more votes despite waging a universally ridiculed campaign? He phoned it in and still got half a million more Americans on his side, yet to this day Republicans act like the public rejected him.

"You 'misunderestimated' him again."

I estimated him perfectly around April of 2000, and he's been proving me correct ever since.

"That is why Bush won twice."

Bush took the White House because of Pat Buchanan and five Supreme Court Justices, and he kept it by waging the dirtiest, ugliest, and lyingest campaign in American history. But of course none of that actually involved him--he just read his cue cards, tried mightily (and largely unsuccessfully) not to embarrass himself, and did as he was instructed while built-in GOP resources operated autonomously.

"Yep, it gonna suck when you have to eat a big I told you so shit sandwich with a big Exxon brand printed on it."

Just try not to have an Exxon decal on your car when the first 200 mph hurricane debuts on the streets of an American city.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 11:51 AM

"Then why did Gore get more votes despite waging a universally ridiculed campaign? He phoned it in and still got half a million more Americans on his side, yet to this day Republicans act like the public rejected him."

Because that idiot in NH dropped that old drunk driving charge story 4 days before the election. Your dirtry tricks squad just didn't quite pull off the october suprise that time. Problem is Bush got more viteds where it counted, in the Electorial college.

"Bush took the White House because of Pat Buchanan and five Supreme Court Justices, and he kept it by waging the dirtiest, ugliest, and lyingest campaign in American history."

Again you demonstrate a total lack of knowledge regarding American history and near criminal overuse of hyperbole.

Posted by at April 6, 2007 05:29 PM

Post a comment