• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What Al Gore doesn't understand about climate change

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Save the Earth in Six Hard Questions
WHAT AL GORE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Oct. 22, 2007


Barring a last-minute intervention by the Supreme Court, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize will be shared by Albert Gore Jr. Admittedly, Gore has been less of a menace to world peace than some previous laureates (think Henry Kissinger). But there is nothing particularly peaceable about Gore's rhetorical approach to climate policy. At his most pugnacious, Gore has depicted the fundamental trade-off as one between environmental responsibility and personal greed. Of course, as everyone over the age of 12 is perfectly aware, the real trade-off is between the quality of our own lives and the quality of our descendants'.

In other words, climate policy is almost entirely about you and me making sacrifices for the benefit of future generations. To contribute usefully to the debate, you've got to think hard about the appropriate level of sacrifice. That in turn requires you to think hard about roughly half a dozen underlying issues.

1. How much does human activity affect the climate? This is actually a whole menu of questions: What can we expect given the current level of carbon emissions? What if we cut those emissions by half? By two-thirds? And so on. These are questions for physical scientists, not economists or politicians.


2. How much harm (or good!) is likely to come from that climate change? This is partly a matter of physical science and partly a matter of economics. If the world temperature rises 3 degrees, agronomists try to predict the wheat yield in Oklahoma; economists try to predict when Oklahomans will turn to alternate ventures—and when it will become profitable to grow wheat in Alaska. Climatologists estimate what it takes to put New York underwater; economists estimate the cost of moving New York inland.

3. How much do we—or should we—care about future generations? Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel laureate for economics, argued long ago that you (and I) should care exactly as much about a stranger born 1,000 years hence as we do about a stranger who's alive today. Phelps' view has been highly influential among economists, who now take it as more or less the default position. But even economists are sometimes wrong, and there are powerful arguments for "discounting" the welfare of future generations. First, many people (myself excluded, however) believe we should care more about our countrymen than about a bunch of foreigners—hence the sentiment for a border fence. If we are allowed to care less about people who happen to be born in the wrong country, why can't we care less about people who happen to be born in the wrong century? And second: Few of us feel morally bound to churn out as many children as we possibly can, which means we think nothing of denying future generations the gift of life. If it's OK to deny them their very lives, shouldn't it be OK to deny them a temperate climate?

There is a ton more to be said in response and counter-response, but in the end, you've got to take a stand. Does the next generation count 100 percent as much as our own, as Edmund Phelps demands? Or 99 percent? 95 percent? 90 percent? I'll show you later how much the answer matters.

4. How likely are those future generations to be around, anyway? If you think life on Earth will be destroyed by an asteroid in 200 years, it makes little sense to worry about the climate 300 years from now. (Of course, the issue is complicated by the fact that our climate policies change the survival odds.)

5. Just how rich are those future generations likely to be? If you expect economic growth to continue at the average annual rate of 2.3 percent, to which we've grown accustomed, then in 400 years, the average American will have an income of more than $1 million per day—and that's in the equivalent of today's dollars (i.e., after correcting for inflation). Does it really make sense for you and me to sacrifice for the benefit of those future gazillionaires?

6. How risk-averse are we? This matters not just because of uncertainty about the effects of climate change but because it affects the way future generations want us to behave. Imagine yourself as a disembodied soul, waiting in line to be born—possibly next year, possibly 100 years hence. If you have little tolerance for risk, you'll want us to pursue policies that make life about equally good at all times; if you're willing to roll the dice, you might prefer a policy that allows some generations to live riotously at the expense of others.
Only after you've addressed each question in turn can you say something sensible about climate policy. To carry out that program in detail would indeed be a Nobel-worthy achievement. I don't propose to earn my Nobel Prize in this column space, but I can at least offer a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation to show you how this stuff works.

First, I'll make the extreme assumption that our environmental recklessness threatens to shave 1 percentage point off economic growth forever. Because of compounding, our disposable incomes will be reduced by 9.5 percent a decade from now and by 63 percent a century from now—perhaps because we'll spend 63 percent of our incomes relocating coastal cities. Now toss in some standard (but arguable) assumptions about risk aversion and discounting. (Note to econogeeks: I assumed a risk-aversion coefficient of 1, and I discounted future generations' welfare at an annual rate of 5 percent, partly because we might care less about them and partly because we're not sure they'll exist.) Run this through your calculator, and you'll find we should spend up to about 17 percent of our incomes on climate control—provided that our investment is effective. That's an expenditure level that I expect would satisfy Al Gore.

Change the numerical assumptions, and you'll change the numerical conclusion. Make the discount rate 1 percent instead of 5 percent, and you can justify spending up to a whopping 62 percent of our incomes on climate control; lower the discount rate to 10 percent, and you can't justify spending more than 8 percent of our incomes.
The moral of that story is not that economists can justify anything; it's that assumptions really matter. Therefore you need to be clear about your assumptions, and you need to be prepared to justify them. If you're not talking about discount rates and levels of risk aversion, you're blathering.

The most thoughtful assessment of climate change is the Stern Review, prepared in October 2006 at the behest of the British government. The Stern Review reaches conclusions generally compatible with Al Gore's worldview, but only after laying out the underlying assumptions so clearly that skeptics like me can tinker around with them and see how the conclusions change. In other words, they've taken a hot-button issue and reduced it to its constituent pieces so that opposing parties can stop yelling at each other and say, "Let us calculate." That's what I call a contribution to world peace. I wish the Nobel Committee had agreed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2176156?GT1=10538
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, since they can control the weather through weather modification (by chemicals injected into the air), I wonder how much of that affects global warming. That's why it is important for people to research the house bill and senate bill before congress and let their leaders know there needs to be some responsibility assumed by the government if they are going to subject people to hurricanes, floods and drought.


Here's something interesting I found out ..... how the Nobel Peace Prize is selected and its a farce...........The Nobel Committee consists of five people appointed by the Norwegian parliament, or Storting, who serve for six-year terms. Its membership is supposed to reflect the relative strengths of Norway's political parties.

--------------------------
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA562.html

Poor Al Gore. He's been in a downward spiral all year long.

First, he received an Oscar for his documentary (or was it a "mockumentary"?), An Inconvenient Truth, from the out-of-touch motion picture industry. Then he received an International Emmy from the out-of-touch television industry - the international branch, no less.

Now he's received the Nobel Peace Prize, which ranks right up there with the Daytime Emmy - or it should.

Al Gore now joins as a Nobel laureate former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who won the prize in 2001 for, among other things, his work for a "better organized... world."1 You may remember some of Annan's better world organizing: The Oil-for-Food Program.

Other past honorees include Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), who received the honor for helping end the Cold War2 (by losing it); Yasser Arafat (1994), who supposedly advanced Mideast peace3 by adopting a terrorism-with-a-smile approach; Rigoberto Menchu (1992), who opposed abusing indigenous peoples,4 except, of course, when oppressed by communists (a feat accomplished, in part, through a self-serving and largely fictitious "autobiography");5 and Le Duc Tho (1973), communist North Vietnam's negotiator during the Paris Peace Accords, a treaty to end the Vietnam War6 that the North violated7 before the ink was dry. Le Duc Tho at least exercised more sense than the Nobel Committee - he declined the honor.8

One wonders if the Nobel Committee is made up of comedians.

It's not, but that's not far off the mark. The Committee is made up entirely of politicians.

The Nobel Committee consists of five people appointed by the Norwegian parliament, or Storting, who serve for six-year terms. Its membership is supposed to reflect the relative strengths of Norway's political parties.9 This has meant the Norwegian Labor Party has had enormous influence over the Committee for decades, as it has been dominant since World War II.10

To ensure the committee has at least a thin veneer of independence, no active member of government is permitted to serve on the committee.

This hasn't always been the case. The Storting banned government officials from serving on the Committee in 1936 after controversy erupted over its selection of Carl von Ossietzky,11 a German-Jew peace activist languishing in a German concentration camp, as the 1935 Nobel laureate. The choice didn't sit very well with Adolph Hitler, who viewed the selection as a statement of Norwegian foreign policy.12

The Norwegian government didn't flinch, of course. It exhibited unwavering courage and pretended it no longer had anything to do with the Nobel Prize.

The Norwegians' cowering did them precious little good. Hitler's fleet and paratroopers paid Norway a visit in 1940 anyway.

Today, the Nobel Committee's membership includes one representative each from the Christian Democrats, the Socialist Left Party, the Labor Party, the Conservative Party and the Progress Party.13

All but one member is a former Norwegian parliamentarian and all five have held elective office.14 To suggest that the Nobel Committee is anything other than a reflection of the Norwegian government's opinion (albeit a delayed one, due to staggered terms) is as absurd as suggesting that Al Gore's work is what Alfred Nobel meant by the contribution of "greatest benefit to mankind."15

At first glance, the Nobel Committee's present composition appears favorable to rational decisions. Three of five members come from what are - for Norway - center-to-right parties.

But, as Paul Harvey says, here's the rest of the story.

Norway's Christian Democrats are more green than even Norway's Labor Party.

In 2000, Kjell Magne Bondevik, a Christian Democrat, allowed his three-party minority government to fall over its opposition to construction of new gas-fired power plants in Norway. Bondevik argued that construction should be delayed until new technology could be developed to remove 90% of carbon emissions - effectively delaying construction indefinitely.16

The Labor Party joined Conservatives in supporting the power plants to meet the country's growing energy needs, defeating Bondevik and sending his government to the bench.

Bondevik had a second chance to form a coalition government in 2001. He opted to form a minority three-party coalition government rather than a majority three-party one by including the left-leaning and environmentally-activist Liberal Party17 instead of the free-market oriented Progress Party.18 The Liberal Party had won just 2 seats in parliament while the Progress Party had won 26.19 That's a statement.

With three votes essentially locked in for the radical environmentalism, it's not surprising that Al Gore received the Nobel Committee's endorsement. Since the Nobel Committee's rules specify that its proceedings remain secret20 and members abstain from speaking publicly, we may never know how the vote came down, but it is all but certain to have been a divided one. Where are the left's cries of censorship when you need them?

Americans now recognize that the Oscars and the Emmys are self-serving and inconsequential. They are abandoning their annual awards broadcasts in droves.

It's time they do the same with the Nobel Peace Prize.

The honor is not in being nominated, but in losing.

[/b]
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
All the money spent by countries all over the world & all the time spent by scientists the world over and you 2 chicks know something that ' they' don't?


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

passin thru

Well-known member
So let's see if we get your reasoning down pat.................if we spend a bunch of money then the answer is always correct. Money is never poorly spent.

Climate warming "is both natural and unstoppable," http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Global Warming model may be wrong
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

Carbon emissions don't cause warming
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

Al and Tippers luggage
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/08/gore-takes-train-oslo-airport-luggage-takes-mercedes

Two minutes top in searching on these

GTEMPS.gif


Have you been reading Snores book
Complete_Idiots_GlobalWarmi.gif
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Well...now you're going against the sainted Bush Club. As of last week they have accepted the Bali agreement that Gore was speaking of and have accepted that Global Warming Does Exist!!


Once again....they've done a 180. You can't even keep up your own pack of yapping dogs, PT!

See below:

http://justworldnews.org/archives/002713.html


Bush blinks, Bali succeeds!

Posted by Helena Cobban at December 15, 2007 08:52 AM

Exciting news from the UN's Bali conference on climate change. The conference went into an unscheduled extra day of work Saturday, and at the very last minute the US delegation withdrew the objections it had sustained steadfastly, allowing adoption of the painstakingly negotiated final document to proceed.

CNN describes the scene thus:


The head of the U.S. delegation -- Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky -- was booed Saturday afternoon when she announced that the United States was rejecting the plan as then written because they were "not prepared to accept this formulation." She said developing countries needed to carry more of the responsibility.

While rhetoric at such conferences is often just words, a short speech by a delegate from the small developing country of Papua New Guinea appeared to carry weight with the Americans. The delegate challenged the United States to "either lead, follow or get out of the way."

Just five minutes later, when it appeared the conference was on the brink of collapse, Dobriansky took to the floor again to announce the United States was willing to accept the arrangement. Applause erupted in the hall and a relative level of success for the conference appeared certain.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Funny how they go to places like Bali to talk about global warming.

Why not Meadow Lake or Yellow knife or Whitehorse. Some place they could use a little HOT air. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Funny how they go to places like Bali to talk about global warming.

Why not Meadow Lake or Yellow knife or Whitehorse. Some place they could use a little HOT air. :roll:

Or find some way to harness the hot air in your posts. :wink:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
passin thru said:
Let's get this right..................you saying you agree with Bush :lol: :lol:
She is saying Bush is agreeing with her, and the rest of the world, including the majority of scientists of the world. I suppose this means FAUX Noise was wrong too, doesn't it?
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, I hope you all are happy now........ we've got a global tax coming up and its a matter of a few years and they'll want a limit on how many kids you can have and don't forget cattle emit greenhouse gases so we can't have those anymore ......

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/general/bush_sells_out_america_at_u.n._conference_2007121783/

Bush Sells Out America at U.N. Conference
By Cliff Kincaid

Our national “news” programs have been preoccupied with baseball players on steroids, but they should devote some attention to the Bush Administration’s approval of a plan to put the United Nations on steroids. Apparently looking to leave office with the blessings of the “international community,” the Bush Administration just sold out American interests at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia.

Official conference documents speak of “a new global deal” by 2013, under which the U.S. dramatically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions under international supervision and transfers more money and technology to other countries. Marc Morano, who works for Senator James Inhofe and provides information that the U.S. media will not give to the American people, notes in a dispatch that the Bali conference featured a panel discussion of a global carbon tax to force U.S. taxpayers to cough up the money. An official U.N. report (PDF) prepared for Bali speaks of “a need for new and additional external sources of funds.” That’s U.N.-speak for global taxes. This is actually an old story I have been following for years. You can read more at my www.stopglobaltaxes.org website.

In a related matter, the Medical Journal of Australia has published an article advocating a carbon tax on a family having more than two children because every baby “represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions…” The author, a medical doctor, says that, as “citizens of the world,” populations need to be controlled “to ensure the survival of the environment.” He suggests “carbon credits” for those who are sterilized so they can’t have children.

This is where the global warming crusade is leading: an emerging world government with control over the most intimate details of our personal and family lives.

In addition to putting his stamp of approval on this suicidal course, President Bush is pushing the dangerous U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty, which establishes another independent revenue stream for the U.N. Never mind that the evidence shows that the treaty’s International Seabed Authority is as corrupt as any other U.N. bureaucracy.

So the President who doesn’t want to raise domestic taxes on the American people will leave a legacy of global taxes.

“The United States joins the consensus Decision of the Conference of the Parties in Bali that is a critical first step in assuring that the U.N. negotiation process moves forward toward a comprehensive and effective post-2012 arrangement,” declared the Bush White House press secretary in a statement released on Saturday. This is bureaucratic jargon for letting the United Nations and the rest of the world decide the fate of the U.S. economy.

It was a story the media had to cover in some form. The U.S. “concession” at the end of the conference, in agreeing to the final document, sidetracked charges that the U.S. had been “obstructionist,” the New York Times reported.

So the Bush White House got some semi-favorable press from the leading liberal paper in the U.S. But at whose expense? As usual, Americans will pay and get nothing in return. This time, it is worse―a U.S. administration is giving away our Sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats and global elitists. It’s quite a reversal―from rejecting the first U.N. global warming treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol, to endorsing a much tougher and “comprehensive” treaty. It demonstrates, once again, how Bush has LOST control of his administration and allows renegade bureaucrats at such agencies as the State Department and the CIA to set policy.

The media noted the turnaround when the State Department decided at the last minute to support a document that not only commits the U.S. to another treaty that will dismantle even more of the U.S. industrial base, but will plunder American taxpayers for more of their hard-earned tax dollars to be sent to the rest of the world. This is called, in the words of the White House press secretary, “financing the deployment” of “clean technologies” in the developing world and “assisting countries in adapting to climate change.” Another term for it is “foreign aid.”

Americans oppose additional foreign aid. But when it is presented in terms of saving the planet, it sounds more palatable. It is also popular to promote more foreign aid in the name of fighting AIDS, except for the fact that the U.N. has been caught exaggerating this problem, too. It is not fashionable to say―and even Rupert Murdoch of Fox News has jumped on the global warming bandwagon―but plenty of experts note the evidence that climate change is a natural phenomenon that we can’t do anything about. However, the U.N. sees the “problem” as another means by which it can increase its power. The scam is getting rather old, but people keep falling for it.

If there ever were a time for Republican presidential candidates to break with Bush and stake out a position against the U.N. and for American sovereignty in foreign affairs, this was it. And yet, at the December 12 presidential debate, as the Bali conference was underway, Senator John McCain said that while he thought the climate was changing because of human activity, it didn’t really matter whether humans were a factor or not. “Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we’ve done is given our kids a cleaner world,” he said. McCain seems oblivious to the prospect of giving the U.N. more power and authority and reducing our living standards in service to a lie.

“I agree with John. Climate change is real. It’s happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it,” declared Rudy Giuliani. “I think the best way to deal with it is through energy independence.” But how can American “independence” be achieved when politicians are making our economy subservient to the dictates of a global elite operating through the corrupt U.N.?

Where does Giuliani get the idea that human beings are “contributing” to global warming anyway? The U.N. says so, and that’s apparently good enough for him.

Alan Keyes, the new entry in the race, had the best answer on the topic. “I’m in favor of reducing global warming, because I think the most important emission we need to control is the hot air emission of politicians who pretend one thing and don’t deliver,” he said.

It is tragic to watch America decline while corrupt international bureaucracies grow in power and influence over us. It looks increasingly like Al Gore did win the election and is president today.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
All the money spent by countries all over the world & all the time spent by scientists the world over and you 2 chicks know something that ' they' don't?

That's the point ALL the money! Global warming is a money maker. The scientist get money to continue their research, the politicians can tax to save everyone, Al Gore gets millions in appearance fees and pay, many countries will make money with carbon credits.

Global Warming is all about the money and power. If we are fearful of it we will not cry at taxes to stop it. If politicians can offer a solution then we will put our trust in them.

Global warming and its threat will go down in history as the largest and most costly hoax ever pulled on mankind!
 

TSR

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
All the money spent by countries all over the world & all the time spent by scientists the world over and you 2 chicks know something that ' they' don't?

That's the point ALL the money! Global warming is a money maker. The scientist get money to continue their research, the politicians can tax to save everyone, Al Gore gets millions in appearance fees and pay, many countries will make money with carbon credits.

Global Warming is all about the money and power. If we are fearful of it we will not cry at taxes to stop it. If politicians can offer a solution then we will put our trust in them.

Global warming and its threat will go down in history as the largest and most costly hoax ever pulled on mankind!

Think it will cost as much as when the senior Bush as president baled out the Savings and Loans corporations???
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
All the money spent by countries all over the world & all the time spent by scientists the world over and you 2 chicks know something that ' they' don't?

That's the point ALL the money! Global warming is a money maker. The scientist get money to continue their research, the politicians can tax to save everyone, Al Gore gets millions in appearance fees and pay, many countries will make money with carbon credits.

Global Warming is all about the money and power. If we are fearful of it we will not cry at taxes to stop it. If politicians can offer a solution then we will put our trust in them.

Global warming and its threat will go down in history as the largest and most costly hoax ever pulled on mankind!



BUT...if they're right...and even YOU know they are....mankind won't be around to point fingers and there will be no more history! So it's very safe for you to spout off such foolishness.
 

Mike

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
All the money spent by countries all over the world & all the time spent by scientists the world over and you 2 chicks know something that ' they' don't?

That's the point ALL the money! Global warming is a money maker. The scientist get money to continue their research, the politicians can tax to save everyone, Al Gore gets millions in appearance fees and pay, many countries will make money with carbon credits.

Global Warming is all about the money and power. If we are fearful of it we will not cry at taxes to stop it. If politicians can offer a solution then we will put our trust in them.

Global warming and its threat will go down in history as the largest and most costly hoax ever pulled on mankind!

There is no telling how much Gore made from DuPont when he led the world to ban R-12 refrigerant.

Just in time too. DuPont's patent had run out and other companies were making it generic. :roll:

Global Warming is all about big Corporation profits, and lowering the bar for the American way of life down to the level of the 3rd world countries.

Global warming and cooling has been going on since way before Elvis.....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
All the money spent by countries all over the world & all the time spent by scientists the world over and you 2 chicks know something that ' they' don't?

That's the point ALL the money! Global warming is a money maker. The scientist get money to continue their research, the politicians can tax to save everyone, Al Gore gets millions in appearance fees and pay, many countries will make money with carbon credits.

Global Warming is all about the money and power. If we are fearful of it we will not cry at taxes to stop it. If politicians can offer a solution then we will put our trust in them.

Global warming and its threat will go down in history as the largest and most costly hoax ever pulled on mankind!



BUT...if they're right...and even YOU know they are....mankind won't be around to point fingers and there will be no more history! So it's very safe for you to spout off such foolishness.

So you are so sure they are right you say IF they are right?
Looks to me like you are a little confused as to the issue at hand.
 
Top