[poochee]

Originally Posted by compushlep

How desperate can the hamsters get? Forget the pertinent stats, shoot the messenger instead

That approach does sell papers and increases viewership though, unfortunately ... WWF style, eh?

Not everyone falls for it.

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Same kind of thinking that bought the WMD scare!

Did you notice how none of the people who signed asked any questions, even though they had absolutely no idea what the topic was? Also, the video showed no one who laughed their head off at the petition ... my guess is there were quite a few, though that part of the video probably ended up on the editing floor

[bill.aam]

I'll agree that those couple of sentences appear to be misleading, the data is still correct..

Originally Posted by compushlep

The whole IPCC report consists of 3 parts (maybe 4), the link I provided is for part I. Part II, which apparently has the data "he" used, is not scheduled for public release till April 6th. So I can't comment on the exact numbers he's supposedly talking about (maybe he's got accesss to the draft copy) ... I don't have it yet.

But what the article says doesn't make sense, because it's comparing two different quantities ... which is very misleading. One is measuring the greenhouse gas intensity which is a quantity tied to economy performance, while the other measures total greenhouse gas emissions change ... as I said, two different measurements.

The latest data available to me, from 2000-2004:

GH intensity -- U.S. down by 7.5%, EU-25 down by 4.5%
total emissions -- U.S. up by 1.3%, EU-25 up by 2.4%

The actual numbers the article quoted are slightly different but right in the ball bark (close enough for this comment). But do you see how the article misleads when it compares U.S. "rate of growth" to EU's "emissions"?

I won't comment on the relative quantities cuz I don't have the time for that, except to say that the differences between U.S. and EU are lot less that the article want's us to believe, not meaningless ... but almost.
-----------

"The Earths atmosphere couldn't care less about greenhouse gas intensity. It's not as if the planet turns around and says -- Oh, guess what, you really are putting more pollution into the air but it's less than you used to in terms of your economic growth ... so it's fine, I'll stop warming!! --"


quote from Phillip Clapp, as I heard it

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by poochee

ATTACKING GORE: The right wing is angry that Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, influential Internet gossip Matt Drudge yesterday published details of Gore's electricity bills under the screaming headline: "Gore Mansion Uses 20x Average Household; Consumption Increase After 'Truth.'" (Drudge's attack comes two weeks after Fox News host Sean Hannity accused Gore of hypocrisy for taking a private jet to President Clinton's State of the Union in 2000, and a year after "a seemingly amateurish Youtube video mocking the 'An Inconvenient Truth' turned out to have been produced by slick...public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.") Gore rebutted Drudge's recent attack, pointing out 1) that his family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology; and 2) Gore has consistently purchased carbon offsets to make up the family’s carbon footprint -- a concept the right-wing fails to understand. (Calculate your own carbon footprint.) These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about Gore’s electricity bill -- and even then it distorts the truth.

www.americanprogressaction.org

I'd actually like to know more about this, like where are the monies going, where are the monies coming from. What about the poor people that can't even afford to buy food, clothing and medical care, how can they afford to purchase carbon offsets.?

[LANMaster]

What's a carbon offset? A new way the Democrats have found to tax people?

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

What's a carbon offset? A new way the Democrats have found to tax people?

It's paying someone else to use less carbon so you can use more and not feel bad...

[bill.aam]

Like I said earlier, I'd like to see the money trail for these "carbon offset" purchases. I'm pretty sure they don't lead to Haliburton...

Wiki...

A carbon offset is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.[1] A wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits.

The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming.[2] The appeal of becoming "carbon neutral" has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.[3]

[bill.aam]

even though this is a sad, and painful to have happen to anyone..

Frostbitten expedition member evacuated
Sam Cook, Duluth News-Tribune
Published Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Team member Elizabeth Andre of Ely has been evacuated from the Global Warming 101 Expedition after she suffered frostbitten fingertips setting up camp Saturday night on Canada’s Baffin Island, according to expedition officials.

The 1,200-mile expedition, led by Ely’s Will Steger, is being made to call attention to global warming. The expedition began Saturday from Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada. By Sunday night, the team had traveled about 15 miles, Steger said in a dispatch to the expedition’s Web site, www.globalwarming101.com.

I have to admit though, I did experience a little chuckle.

Global Warming 101 Expedition

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

I'll agree that those couple of sentences appear to be misleading, the data is still correct..

Heh ... just noticed ... you and I almost agreed on something in this thread.
What kinda a beer do ya drink? ... I'll e-mail it

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

What's a carbon offset? A new way the Democrats have found to tax people?

It's paying someone else to use less carbon so you can use more and not feel bad...

You sure have an active imagination Lan!

PS It's a GOP idea!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Did you notice how none of the people who signed asked any questions, even though they had absolutely no idea what the topic was? Also, the video showed no one who laughed their head off at the petition ... my guess is there were quite a few, though that part of the video probably ended up on the editing floor

I bet your right!

[sy2]

Originally Posted by bassetman

I bet your right!

Oh I'm sure that it happened, and I'm sure that it wasn't aired, but don't you think that the same thing happens on the other side of the argument? Everyone's got editing rooms, it doesn't detract from the main point of the piece - tons of people signed the petition.

And most people DID have something to say. Many asked what it was, what it did, and one woman went so far as to interrupt the woman explaining dihydrogen monoxide and cutting her off while saying that she was already familiar with the substance! I mean come on!

[sy2]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Did you notice how none of the people who signed asked any questions, even though they had absolutely no idea what the topic was? Also, the video showed no one who laughed their head off at the petition ... my guess is there were quite a few, though that part of the video probably ended up on the editing floor

What's ironic is that the metaphorical equivalent of the folks "who laughed their head off at the petition" in this context would be the people that are skeptical of jumping onto a bandwagon because it's popular, not the people gathering around Chicken Little, warning of impending doom and the collapse of society as we know it.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by sy2

What's ironic is that the metaphorical equivalent of the folks "who laughed their head off at the petition" in this context would be the people that are skeptical of jumping onto a bandwagon because it's popular, not the people gathering around Chicken Little, warning of impending doom and the collapse of society as we know it.

Or that Iraq had WMDs!

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by sy2

Oh I'm sure that it happened, and I'm sure that it wasn't aired, but don't you think that the same thing happens on the other side of the argument? Everyone's got editing rooms, it doesn't detract from the main point of the piece - tons of people signed the petition.

And most people DID have something to say. Many asked what it was, what it did, and one woman went so far as to interrupt the woman explaining dihydrogen monoxide and cutting her off while saying that she was already familiar with the substance! I mean come on!

Did we watch the same video? The one you posted a link to? If so, I heard one woman say "what for?" when asked if she'd like to sign a petition. That was pretty much it for Qs, even Penn mentioned later in the video that " ... they didn't even ask! ... ".

As to your original statement " ... approached with scientific language that inspires fear" one hardly has to be a scientist to fool people with anything, nevermind 'fear'. Just ask P.T. Barnum who purportedly said that thing about suckers' birth rate

Originally Posted by sy2
What's ironic is that the metaphorical equivalent of the folks "who laughed their head off at the petition" in this context would be the people that are skeptical of jumping onto a bandwagon because it's popular, not the people gathering around Chicken Little, warning of impending doom and the collapse of society as we know it.

Think about this statement, or say it out loud if you feel like it:

"I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%".

Granted of course that the percentage of expert Chicken Littles could be adjusted downwards slightly, to say maybe 95% ... I don't have the exact breakdown handy at the moment, but I don't want to alter the quote as it was originated by another fearmongering scientist (horror of all horrors!! )