Wow, you’re right. The opinions of 4 individuals, one of which can be discredited right away as volcanic activity causes atmospheric cooling, should cast doubt on the work on the rest of the scientific community including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, and the IPCC.

Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

it’s a ridiculous argument, because you’re basing it on news accounts rather than real research. You don’t really know what you’re talking about here at all, do you? You might try doing some homework instead of taking the word of singnut websites and the republican owned and operated “news” media. Don’t be so lazy. it cheapens all that you have to say.

Russian researchers neither Republican neither Democrats, but they also agree with that guy you critisize so badly – there is NO global warming due to human activity, this is a scientific myth.

Just few alternative explanations:

Nikolai Yasamanov of Moscow State University, blame volcanic activity. Heavy magma seeps out of the mantle (the layer between the earth’s crust and its core) through mid-oceanic rifts. When it mixes with water, it releases methane, which rises to the surface and then into the atmosphere. Upon reacting with oxygen, it creates CO2.

There are other explanations for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

Geophysisist Andrei Kapitsa, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, points out that the processes of heat exchange in the atmosphere are much more complicated than in a common greenhouse. He believes that the growing concentration of carbon dioxide is a consequence rather than a cause of the warmer climate.

Kapitsa proceeds from the premise that the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean is many times greater than in the air. Rising global temperatures cause the CO2 in the Ocean to evaporate, increasing its concentration in the atmosphere.

Oleg Sorokhtin from the Shirshov Institute of Oceanography came up with his own original theory, questioning the very existence of the greenhouse effect.

He maintains that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere will accelerate the transfer of heat to the upper layers of the atmosphere, cooling rather than heating the lower layers.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov from the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory believes that we should search for the answer in the Sun. The Earth’s climate directly depends on the energy it receives – the more energy the higher the temperature.

You can stick though to your new religion – apparently you want to pay additional taxes..Think for yourselves!

Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

I think Jeremy made the point for Al Gore’s travel expenses already. I’ll try to extend the argument to cover the puchase of carbon offsets also.

Purchasing carbon offsets *should* go to funding alternative fuel resource. I’m not intimately familiar with what actually happens, but I believe a substantial portion of carbon offsets is currently doing this. With this additional research, even the mansion that Gore maintains should eventually be completely carbon neutral…either through the use of solar panels, wind power, etc. This being the case, I think it is entirely environmentally responsible of Gore to keep a mansion AND claim his own carbon neutrality simultaneously given his offsets.

And Socialism isn’t the boogie man you claim it to be. If you’re truely against socialism, then pull yourself off the grid and stay off the roads. Socialism is using individual wealth for the good of the community, and the grades of socialism are measured by how much personal wealth is taken for the good of the community.

I get the impression that you are hanging on to the thread that allows you to continue to believe that Global Climate Change/Warming/etc is a boogieman made by the Left to take your hard earned dollars from your pocket and give them to some hippie scientist to spend on his stuff. That’s the theme of your posts. With your idea that government scientists continued employment depends on them convincing the Grant Masters to continue paying them, so they continue to support global warming shot out of the water, you’re left with the only thing on the Global Warming plate. A direct Ad Hominem attack on one of the leading political voices in support of change in our energy economy.

Bad Captain. Ad Hominems do not support your argument, and if that’s the last thing you have left, then your argument is lost.

As for holding beliefs for 40 years, that’s the nature of life. You think you’ve got things figured out, then some uppity young whipper-snapper comes out and tells you “That’s wrong, this is how it really is.” I assume you’re 50+ years old, as I doubt you had fully formed political opinions when you were

Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

Again, your comparisons are weak.

It is hypocritical for Ted Haggard to preach against homosexuality and then engage in homosexual behavior. That’s pretty clear-cut, right?

But with Al Gore, you criticize him for preaching the global warming mantra and then… what? Riding in airplanes?

His message is we have to change our way of life. One man cannot do that alone. At the moment, the only way we have to traverse the great spaces that have to be traversed is by flying. If Al Gore is going to reach as many people as he can as effectively as he can, he is going to have to travel a great deal. The only way that can be accomplished is by flying, unless you have an alternative. (And no, video hook-up is not an equal alternative. The power of a personal appearance is considerable, both in impact on those attending and on the ability to raise funds for more work.)

As far as his “mansions” go, that is only hypocritical if he wastes energy and damaging energy at that. All reports are that his house is extremely energy-efficient, cutting-edge efficient, and uses a high percentage of renewal resources such as solar and whatever his provider offers (at a premium).

If he is concerned about the path of our planet, and takes visible steps to lead the way (and given the Right’s fears of “economic damage”, living in a yurt and drinking rainwater will hardly entice them to follow) then he is actually fulfilling his mission and not betraying it.

Agreed?

Capt., Would Al Gore have to live in a cave, with no fire, and never travel anywhere except by foot, to qualify as someone fit to speak out re: climate change. Instead of suggesting he’s a hypocrite, suggest someone you think would be a proper spokesperson for such an issue.

There’s a recurring problem afoot when we have the bar being held to the rafters for one competitor, and down on the floor, or not at all, for some other competitors.

Comment by Jeremy in Denver — February 12, 2008 @ 4:57 pm

Understood.

Interesting, Jeremy. We both made almost the same exact arguments in critiquing the Cap’n’s laest post, but you called him “trollish” and I congratulated him for his honesty.

I guess I just thought it was brave of him to admit that his fears of “socialism” were behind much of his formed opinion on climate change.

Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 4:34 pm

Okay, Cap’n — good, honest response.

The seeing GW as tied to “socialist ideas” seems paranoiac, but it explains a lot.

Of course, if you consider “common good” a socialist ideal, then you have a point.

But either way, you’re conflating a scientific issue with a political/economic one, and using a political judgment to color your analysis of scientific data.

What I don’t get about the “transfer of wealth” idea is that wealth is always being transferred, and over the last seven years our nation has experienced a massive transfer of wealth upwards with nothing but cheers from the right. It appears that the only “transfer of wealth” that conservatives object to is a downward one.

And please, please lay off the silly “if Al Gore is serious about GW he should stop flying on airplanes” argument. It doesn’t make your argument look very serious.

That was very trollish of you.

‘Transfer of wealth’ is another code-phrase that Neo-Cons use to discourage investing in other people. THe end result of ‘banning transfer of wealth’ is no money for college, no money for school, no money for anything. Libertarians advocate for such a thing. I see it as just a selfish mentality.

‘Socialism’ is a big boogie-man to the Right. Socialism is nothing more than giving up some selfish wants for some selfless community needs. It’s also a spectrum that ranges from our country’s Social Security to hard-core communism where the individual must give up all of his or her rights in favor of the needs of the community. And every time something is brought up for the good of the community, you guys try to make it into one small step away from America’s ComIntern bureau.

Finally, the last ‘point’ about Al Gore was a classic Attack Against the Person, a logical fallacy known as an Ad Hominem. Don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.

So what does my generation have to show? The Iraq Quagmire.

Gee, thanks, Bush.

Need I say anything more?