Socialized Health Care in the USA

[Jester]

I was thinking of all the scientists who turned out to be right after suffering ridicule during their lifetime (and longer), only to be vindicated many years later.

... and not the hundred-times-more who turned out, after suffering ridicule during their lifetime (and longer) to be cranks with no idea that holds water? If you're using the Galileo defense, then I'm happy to leave you to it. There are few better predictors of crankdom than that.

[*]The climate models do not reflect reality. Even when the data is changed to fit the models, the models continue to fail to predict actual temperature. Clearly we don't understand *all* the mechanisms of temperature within the climate.

The models have predicted the climate trend well enough. No model is going to predict the temperature in any given year, month, or day. Far too many factors enter into the eventual temperature to offer a prediction without very large error bars, and eventually the large-scale "climate" breaks down into unpredictable "weather". No credible climate scientist says otherwise. Could modelers have predicted that this solar cycle would be several years late? Obviously not. But that's not what they need to predict. The specific temperature at any given point is irrelevant. They're not predicting sports outcomes or stock prices. What they need to show is what the approximate trend is going to be for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And on that front, they've done more or less fine.

[*]Findings confirm that global climate can change dramatically within a very short period without anthropogenic sources.

Not disputed by any climatologist I've heard of, but a red herring. Who cares if climate can change dramatically without us? What we need to know is whether what we're doing will change it, and how much.

[*]Environmentalists are quick to point out the causes of CO2, but fail to recognize or model the natural processes of mitigation of CO2.

"Mitigation"? You mean re-absorption of atmospheric carbon into the earth? Yeah, those processes are well understood, and they don't amount to a whole lot over a timespan of mere centuries. The assertion that climate scientists "fail to recognize or model" them is, quite simply, wrong. Here's the IPCC discussing precisely those issues, the most authoritative, mainstream AGW publication in existence.

[*]Ice core analysis show global temperature varies independent of CO2 levels.

Again, nobody with any expertise ever denied that there are other forcings apart from CO2. That would just be stupid. The question is what the role of CO2 is, and on that front, it appears it is important enough that if we keep pumping it into the atmosphere, it's going to warm the planet. This is not really in dispute, although the precise values are not known. (Hence, why you get predictions like "between 2 and 6 degrees" and not "exactly 2.984 degrees")

However, ice core data is *very* strongly correlated with historical temperatures. Some discussion of the issue from Realclimate is here.

So, what to do about it, rather than just warm our planet with more hot air? Here is my list;

1. Stop subsidizing all fuels.<>
   
2. Eliminate barriers to nuclear plant construction.<>
   
3. Better land management.<>
   
4. Require cities to develop a zero sum environmental plan.<>
   [st]

One moment you're panicking about how energy costs are going to ruin the economy, and the next, you're calling for the end of all fuel subsidies? I agree, but I'm not sure how you hold both of those positions at once.

Nuclear power is important, we agree on that much.

I don't know what you mean by "better land management". I'd be for "better anything management", but did you have something in particular in mind?

Similarly, what is a "zero sum environmental plan"? Are cities supposed to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics, and pollute exactly nothing? Or are they somehow supposed to remove as much pollution as they produce (without carbon offsets, which you trashed earlier?) I don't understand what this means, or why it is cities in particular, and not individuals, states, or nations that are expected to be "zero sum".

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

CO2 has been the main contributor to global warming

Good job. By simply asserting the the point in dispute, you cleverly avoid all that tedious debate and all those inconvenient partially founded facts. You arrive to the truth by assuming the truth. Your only mistake is where you did this. theology.com is where you need to be.

During the carboniferous period it was very warm and there was a lot of CO2 in the air, which lead to much plantgrowth, which then lead to the burial of huge quantities of biomass that became our oil.

Coal, not oil. At least try to get the basics right. And the period of greatest overall growth was when the *oxygen* concentration was highest. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

And about your number tricks with amounts of scientists:

Science, unlike democracy, is about the *value* of opinions, not the *number*.

Global warming, the effect of greenhouse gasses, the contribution of particulate matter, the variability of the solar cycles, etc., etc., are complex non-linear interacting phenomena. The only simple solutions are the wrong solutions. The only simple explanations are the wrong explanations. Anyone that claims to fully understand the problem is either a liar or a fool. Anyone who claims to have *the* solution is either deluding himself or trying to get funding.

Are we in a period of global warming? Yes.
Is it due to human activity? Probably, at least in part.
Are greenhouse gases responsible? Definitely, to some (unknown) extent.
Can we make a difference by regulating CO2 emissions? Maybe, but probably not enough to matter. Methane from the food we eat, deforestation to supply an excessive population, etc., may well, probably will, overwhelm anything we can do.

In the geological history of the world, there have been periods much warmer and much colder than the present. Climatologists cannot, yet, explain why those periods occurred. Yes, there are theories. Indeed, there are too many theories and they often contradict each other. In a field where the experts cannot explain the past, do you really think they can predict the future? Every damned model has so many adjustable parameters that it can be used to predict anything the modeler wants predicted. No model (as of ten years ago when I stopped being involved in planetary science) could reproduce any two given historical transitions using the same set of parameters.

There are many real reasons to reduce our population, to reduce our energy consumption, to clean up our environment. Adding global warming to the list is a mistake because it gives the informed, intelligent opponents to environmentalism a target which they can discredit. By including global warming in the list of environmental threats, the whole is made vulnerable by association.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Who said anything about genius? On the other hand, assuming that people who've spent years studying something know more about it than people who haven't seems like a good place to start.

Hmm? So, I guess Einstein was incompetent to weigh in on the question of reference frames. After all, in 1905, he'd spent less years alive (26) than others had spent contemplating the problem (41).

You are making the common error that, somehow, results depend on effort. Yes, effort does enter the equation; but talent, ability, experience, training, all have equal or greater importance. And, sometimes, it's just sheer luck (ask Alexander Fleming).

Also, experience is not the same as time spent in a field. In many cases, what was said to the job applicant applies; "You don't have twenty years of experience; you have one year of experience, twenty times."

--Pete

[Zenda]

And the period of greatest overall growth was when the oxygen concentration was highest.

The increase in insect and animal size was indeed a result of the higher oxygen concentrations that occurred towards the end of the period (as a result of increased plant life and subsequent binding of carbon, not as a cause). Anyone with a greenhouse knows that plants grow from CO2, though. Besides, when the amount of oxygen in that time was highest, at less then 2 times our current level, the amount of CO2 was 3 times our (pre-industrial) level, so it's not very obvious to think that oxygen was to blame.

Btw, that period was not warmer. It was a glacial period with the same average temperature as today: 14 degrees Celcius. Ofcourse, this can be seen as 'proof' that elevated CO2 levels do not cause global warming. You can also wonder why a large part of earth was a green hell, when it was supposed to be cold.

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
Hmm? So, I guess Einstein was incompetent to weigh in on the question of reference frames. After all, in 1905, he'd spent less years alive (26) than others had spent contemplating the problem (41).

That's not fair. Sure there are other things that are relevant besides time spent but he'd spent pretty much his entire life seriously studying physics. His mind helped but without the gruntwork even he couldn't get anywhere (imho). He was a member of the academia, was doing his Ph.D. at the time, and was in constant dialogue with other scientists so even the counterexample isn't analogous to people taking up climate research as a(n?) hobby.

You are making the common error that, somehow, results depend on effort. Yes, effort does enter the equation; but talent, ability, experience, training, all have equal or greater importance. And, sometimes, it's just sheer luck (ask Alexander Fleming).

Sheer luck? He had two important discoveries in his lifetime (that I know of) so again serendipity played a role but he picked up on what was going on. Just to reiterate, results don't just depend on effort and training but they are necessary. Good Will Hunting aside, people who are not engrossed in a field are not going to be where the huge breakthroughs happen.

Also, experience is not the same as time spent in a field. In many cases, what was said to the job applicant applies; "You don't have twenty years of experience; you have one year of experience, twenty times."

And again, perhaps true, but someone with no experience in the field doesn't even have one year of experience.

[Zenda]

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”-- Physics Professor William Happe

Maybe the professor forgot that there is a reason why we exhale CO2. He isn't a biologist or doctor, after all. Ah well, let's hope he never finds himself locked in a room with more as 10%. He might not be able to correct his statements afterwards:whistling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's not fair.

What's not fair? Presenting a counterexample to your statement?

Sure there are other things that are relevant besides time spent . . .

Right. My point is that not only do those things exist, but that many of them are more important than the number of years spent in the field -- which your post seems to imply is the dominant factor.

. . . but he'd spent pretty much his entire life seriously studying physics.

He was 26 in 1905 when he published his special theory. Assume he started thinking about physics at 12. His "entire life" at that point consisted of 14 years. The problem had been around (and recognized) since 1864 when James Clerk Maxwell showed conclusively that light was an electromagnetic wave. During that 41 year period, people as renown as Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincaré, Lodge, Heaviside, Hertz, and FitzGerald (just to name some of the 'big guns') worked on the problem. Some of these for many years, and all with much more expedience than Einstein.

His mind helped but without the gruntwork even he couldn't get anywhere (imho).

Who's grunt work? His own? Yeah, sure, though by his admission it was *after* he'd figured out what was happening that the grunt work came -- in the development of the details of the theory and the derivation of the consequences.

Somebody else's grunt work? Not according to him. He claimed to be ignorant at the time of his 1905 publication of most of the work others had done on the electromagnetic problem. In his papers on that topic in that year, he does not reference any previous work. He maintained this position for the remainder of his life. Given that he was usually very generous in his allocation of credit, his claims are very believable.

He was a member of the academia, . . .

He was a clerk in the Bern patent office, the best position he could get because of his terrible academic record.

. . . was doing his Ph.D. at the time, . . .

Actually completed it that year. On this point you are at least close to correct.

. . . and was in constant dialogue with other scientists . . .

Nope. His primary circle of friends with whom he did interact did not contain any top level scientists or mathematicians. Indeed, other than their relation to Einstein during his Bern years, they are all complete unknowns. And, as an insignificant and poorly regarded graduate student, none of the luminaries in his field would have given him much attention at that time.

. . . so even the counterexample isn't analogous to people taking up climate research as a(n?) hobby.

Since the counterexample was to the claim that experience is the key requirement for credibility, I think it is excellent. Sorry that I didn't prove what I did not set out to prove. To discredit my argument because it fails to do what it was never designed to do is what's really 'not fair' here.

Sheer luck? He had two important discoveries in his lifetime (that I know of) so again serendipity played a role but he picked up on what was going on.

So what. Had he had a million discoveries due to logic, the one due to luck still proves my point -- that experience is *not* the only, or even the most important, element in success or progress.

. . . someone with no experience in the field doesn't even have one year of experience.

Yes. But since no one is speaking of anyone who has *no* experience in the field, your comment is specious. The point is that there is, at best, only a very weak correlation between experience and expertise. An extreme example is Motzart and Scarlatti. Scarlatti had the training, the experience; but Motzart had the talent.

And, for a great example of scientific self delusion, see the story of N-rays. And that was not even for funding:)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Wonderful, a whole thread devoted to a textbook 'strawman' case :w00t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A universal healthcare debate:
Person A: We should have universal healthcare.
Person B: No, because only communists believe in universal healthcare and communist countries are typically poor, which we don't want to become.
(B has falsely identified A as a communist and then refuted communism).

...Oh wait, this is about socialism and not communism <_<

Socialized health care. OK, how many of you were in the US for a thing called "wage and price controls" in the Nixon Ford era? Those were contributing factors to a thing called stagflation, though not the sole causes.

IIRC, something like 7% of the American economy is health care stuff. (Or is it 12%? Not sure.)

Putting the gov't in charge makes for a wage and price controls regime that makes Nixon and Ford's attempts at a command economy seem a day in the park. The dollar is about to become good for rolling a joint, and little else.

What makes it worse is that the employment and foundation of the US economy isn't on as sound a footing as it was in the early 1970's.


Health care run by the gov't, due to the transition that will have to happen and how messy transitions are in general, will be simply another nail in the coffin. And here I gave up coffin nails. (Since late October)

Maybe Obama, by still smoking, is on to something.

Occhi

[weakwarrior]

My point is that not only do those things exist, but that many of them are more important than the number of years spent in the field -- which your post seems to imply is the dominant factor.

I felt that we were talking past each other and almost clarified my last post, but I wasn't sure so I left it as is. Now I'm pretty sure we were missing each other's points. So first for the clarification. I am not interested (and never meant to imply an opinion) on the order of importance of various factors leading to a scientific discovery. I am just saying time and effort is a prerequisite. The arithmetic of who thought for how long is of course then irrelevant, and there are many problems, such as the earth going around the sun, which existed for far longer and were solved by young scientists. All of this proves your point (one which I don't disagree with) that experience isn't everything. I however feel immersion in a topic is needed.

The rest of this is more or less nits (well except a point towards the end), and I don't have my Einstein biography handy so many are from my memory which sucks.

Who's grunt work? His own? Yeah, sure, though by his admission it was *after* he'd figured out what was happening that the grunt work came -- in the development of the details of the theory and the derivation of the consequences...In his papers on that topic in that year, he does not reference any previous work.

First of all learning Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's laws and Lorentz's work (as a nit let me point out these 3 people, along with Doppler and Hertz are all referenced in his paper), to the point of feeling comfterable manipulating them and what not I consider Einstein's gruntwork (for honesty's sake let me point out that I never had more than a fleeting idea what was going on in Maxwell's laws and never even looked at Lorentz work). However, even if you consider the gruntwork what came after (prepublication) it still shows the need for immersion since otherwise it would have just been one of those vague ideas which don't go anywhere. Of course since I think we're in agreement on this point I see no reason to elaborate more here.

He was a clerk in the Bern patent office, the best position he could get because of his terrible academic record.
Actually completed it that year. On this point you are at least close to correct.

If I'm not mistaken, he also tried to get this accepted as part of his Ph.D. thesis but it wasn't accepted for some reason or other. He published it after he submitted his Ph.D. but wrote it before. Yes he was a clerk in a patent office but that doesn't negate his being a student at the time too. So I think I was more than close.

Nope. His primary circle of with whom he did interact did not contain any top level scientists or mathematicians. Indeed, other than their relation to Einstein during his Bern years, they are all complete unknowns.

I'd consider Weber a luminary. Kleiner, based on the infallible wikipedia seems to have been a someone too. All in all, using a graduate student as an example of someone from outside the academic ranks seems like a stretch to me.

And, as an insignificant and poorly regarded graduate student, none of the luminaries in his field would have given him much attention at that time.

Actually his work was published, and quickly at that, it was accepted in scientific circles very quickly (according to wikipedia anyway) and 16 years later he had a Nobel Prize. I'm not sure but maybe you mean by my standards he'd be ignored in the present, but by my standards he wouldn't be considered an academic outsider.

Since the counterexample was to the claim that experience is the key requirement for credibility, I think it is excellent...So what. Had he had a million discoveries due to logic, the one due to luck still proves my point -- that experience is *not* the only, or even the most important, element in success or progress.

Like I said I think this has to do with a mutual misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply experience is the only or most important factor. My point in this case was that it was not sheer luck - many other people would have thrown out the petri dish and started a new culture. His other discoveries help support the notion that he was a keen observer and allow me to claim that his understanding the significance of what he saw does not imply everyone else would have done the same.

Yes. But since no one is speaking of anyone who has *no* experience in the field, your comment is specious.

The other misunderstanding. My one line comment which started all this was in response to the notion that Kandrathe, who I believe has *no* experience in the field (I could be wrong) now knows more than all the academics in the field. This was not a discussion of Carlin. I thought my posting in response to Kandrathe's post implied that, but looking back at it his post was long and my response didn't quote that part of his post. My bad. Now in retrospect I'm not sure what experience in the field Carlin has. But this is more of a question than me looking to argue. For the record a 30 year old B.S. degree doesn't count in my book.

All this, incidentally, reminds me that I think you misread my first post. I was just suggesting that global warming and its correlation with (perhaps even causation by) CO2 levels may not need a genius to observe. It may just need careful science and scientists would be a good place to look for that. Since, at least at first, I thought we disagreed on other things I got sidetracked and forgot to mention this point.

The point is that there is, at best, only a very weak correlation between experience and expertise.

You haven't shown that it's very weak just that it's not sufficient. And besides I think weak is a compliment:).

An extreme example is Mozart and Scarlatti. Scarlatti had the training, the experience; but Motzart had the talent.

Mozart hard plenty of training. Since he started so young his major compositions could (in my opinion should) be considered coming after some experience too. Yes he had talent too.

And, for a great example of scientific self delusion, see the story of N-rays. And that was not even for funding:)

Awesome story. Never read about it before. The moral of the story is never let anyone see you doing an experiment - although everyone who's done a Ph.D. knows this. This story is from a long time ago so maybe people didn't know this fundamental research law yet, though the number of miracles done in private going back thousands of years would seem to indicate that this researcher was just poorly trained. Like I said scienctific progress needs good training. You've proven my point.

[weakwarrior]

Stupid linear mode. I missed this post though I should have known you'd be indefatigable. Sorry.

I may be the one confused then. I thought you were implying that it was wrong to question science, since we know all the answers. I am not in the camp of people who believe that by not knowing everything we cannot do anything. I am in the camp that says before we head to the caves, and abandon our modern world we should be sure of the imminent melt down. That means to me, reasonable measures taken in response to solid predictions on very likely outcomes.

As I imagine you are well aware a lot of those words are subject to interpretation - "we head to the caves" (since you don't actually mean head to the caves), imminent, reasonable, solid, and very likely. As a result I'm not exactly sure how much you expect of the scientists other than more than they've done so far. However, if the scientists convinced themselves and their peers (the people who spend all their time and energy studying this) that there is enough reason to worry and start doing things then I'll trust them.

The government (EPA) needs to react to potential harm to people. If any harmed party can show that the EPA rules are based upon just the possibility of harm in 100 years, the EPA will get sued and lose. The difference is that of a program (which deals with current emissions), versus a penalty imposed by the EPA.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying there is no way for the government to try and ward off a disaster which will come in 100 years? If the answer is no (the question was in the negative and by 'no' here I mean the double negative) then if there is good evidence that there is a possibility of harm in 100 years then why should the EPA lose? The U.S. government (and others) successfully reduced CFC emissions because of possible harm. Or you mean that you think the evidence isn't good enough and by extension you think a judge will feel the same way? Then it's just the same debate so I'll move on.

That there is always meaningless white noise in any public debate. It is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

1 person wrong 30 years ago = another person wrong now?

Well, according to the British court...

Seems like an interesting link but it's too late for me to look at this now. I will look at it though.

Hypotheses that are based upon non-scientific guesses are nonsense in my book. For example, to suggest that because temperatures are lower for 11 years means we may be entering into a new ice age.

Obviously we disagree on whether it's nonscientific.

[eppie]

Hi,
Good job. By simply asserting the the point in dispute, you cleverly avoid all that tedious debate and all those inconvenient partially founded facts. You arrive to the truth by assuming the truth. Your only mistake is where you did this. theology.com is where you need to be.
--Pete

Sorry Pete, but this is basic science. We even use this in plans for terraforming on other planets. The first thing that needs to be done is creating an atmosphere with water and CO2 (and N2 and O2 of course).

The water concentration in air on earth depends only on temperature (and higher temperature means thinner air), so that will cancel out.

[Zenda]

Socialized health care. OK, how many of you were in the US for a thing called "wage and price controls" in the Nixon Ford era? Those were contributing factors to a thing called stagflation, though not the sole causes...

I think it works far better with a 'Communism' setup. The association there acts like a red flag on a rodeo bull which makes it hard to resist, obviously. Then again, it seems to work best on those who don't need to be convinced, so maybe you are right :whistling:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sorry Pete, but this is basic science.

BS. You said "CO2 has been the main contributor to global warming" That greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming is basic science. That they are the main contributors is less certain. That CO2 is the main contributor is uncertain to the point of being doubtful.

We even use this in plans for terraforming on other planets. The first thing that needs to be done is creating an atmosphere with water and CO2 (and N2 and O2 of course).

Care to give a short list of terraformed planets to back this up. BTW, O2 is a waste product that "poisoned" the atmosphere about 3 billion years ago. That life survived and adapted is amazing.

The water concentration in air on earth depends only on temperature (and higher temperature means thinner air), so that will cancel out.

Not hardly. Check your 'facts'.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I however feel immersion in a topic is needed.

Yes, and for some people and some topics, 'immersion' means a weekend of study.

. . . (as a nit let me point out these 3 people, along with Doppler and Hertz are all referenced in his paper) . . .

I don't have my books unpacked and couldn't find translations of the 1905 papers online, so I don't know if he *refereed* to these people in his papers -- I don't remember any mention of these people (except, possibly Mach), but I read those papers almost half a century ago. I do know that he did not *reference* any of those people (i.e., give an official citation to any specific work) in his 1905 special relativity papers.

Of course since I think we're in agreement on this point I see no reason to elaborate more here.

Agreed.

If I'm not mistaken, he also tried to get this accepted as part of his Ph.D. thesis but it wasn't accepted for some reason or other.

That would have been strange, since traditionally a dissertation is on a single topic. Since his dissertation was on A new determination of molecular dimensions, anything having to do with electrodynamics or the photoelectric effect would not have fit. His work on Brownian motion might have, but I've never heard of it being submitted as part of the thesis.

. . . Weber . . . Kleiner . . .

Yes. They both are run of the mill physics professors. They did some good work, nothing earthshaking. I suspect they could understand his concepts well enough.

For the record a 30 year old B.S. degree doesn't count in my book.

Agreed. A lot depends on what one does in that 30 year interval. In any field, there are people with no official credentials who are experts and others, with impeccable credentials, who are mediocre (at best).

You haven't shown that it's very weak just that it's not sufficient.

Which is all I wanted to show -- that the case is over-stated.

And besides I think weak is a compliment:).

:)

Awesome story. Never read about it before. The moral of the story is . . .

The moral of the story is that scientists are just as likely as anyone to find what they are looking for, even if it isn't there. And especially if it impacts their funding -- though that's not part of the N-ray story.

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

Just some wrap up points.

I don't have my books unpacked and couldn't find translations of the 1905 papers online, so I don't know if he *refereed* to these people in his papers

Here you go. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

That would have been strange, since traditionally a dissertation is on a single topic. Since his dissertation was on A new determination of molecular dimensions, anything having to do with electrodynamics or the photoelectric effect would not have fit. His work on Brownian motion might have, but I've never heard of it being submitted as part of the thesis.

In 2 weeks I'll be home where I believe I know where my Einstein book is. At that point I will try to post the exact details as given there. I should warn you, however, while it seems that there is general agreement that some of his papers which transformed physics were rejected as being sufficient for a thesis, my weak google-fu leads me to believe that no one has any real idea why. To quote you "people are entitled to their own opinions not their own facts". So my update will probably just be one sensationalized story.

[weakwarrior]

Well, according to the British court,

1. The film claimed low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but there was no evidence of any evacuation<>
   
2. It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor". The judge said according to the IPCC, it was "very unlikely"<>
   
3. Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed "an exact fit". The judge said "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"<>
   
4. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established<>
   
5. The drying of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"<>
   
6. Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"<>
   
7. Gore referred to a study showing polar bears that drowned. The judge said "the only scientific study indicates four polar bears recently drowned because of a storm"<>
   
8. The film said that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult<>
   
9. The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"<>
   [st]

First off I should point out that using one nonscientist (the judge) to decide whether another nonscientist (Al Gore) is or is not making scientifically sound claims is generally dicey (given that you question scientists' opinions I am surprised that this judge is your oracle). This is especially the case here since in many of the situations the question is how much the scientific community is united behind one or the other side. Of course this cuts both ways since maybe Al Gore is much more wrong than the judge claimed or maybe less.

Now assuming the judge is correct: the judge himself says that Al Gore's presentation is "broadly accurate" so I think your attack of him "Al Gore (and his junk science) is sensationalist now" is overstated. The article also says
"Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].""

About the various points:

Point 2 unlikely to shut down but yes to slow down so wrong but not in the wrong ballpark
Point 3 as best I can tell is that while the 2 graphs Gore shows do not prove Gore's point scientists have shown that there is a correlation. Seems more like a nit than a major error on Gore's part.

[eppie]

Not hardly. Check your 'facts'.

--Pete

Ouch I should have checked that.

Still, water is available in a physical equilibrium while CO2 is available in a chemical equilibrium.
(I am also not sure about the efficiency of photon absorption by H2O at different temperatures and the extinction coefficient (and if that matters))

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .

Don't underestimate Wiki:) Here's a link to a pretty good article.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Here you go.

Thanks for the link.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Maybe the professor forgot that there is a reason why we exhale CO2. He isn't a biologist or doctor, after all. Ah well, let's hope he never finds himself locked in a room with more as 10%. He might not be able to correct his statements afterwards.

Right, we exhale because we are polluted. People who are in good shape produce less CO2, so maybe the EPA should regulate fitness as well.

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

Yeah? Tell that to a plant.