Science

[inked]

At least GWB kept Al G out of office so Al G could get all the global warming message out. That and the Internet are probably Al G's two really big things to get done. And about equally valid claims for each, speaking of criminally negligent. Or are hanging chads criminal negligence?

There really are causes for adverse events outside of GWB, Gaffer. Tony Blair, perhaps? Or that Iranian President guy who wants nukes... or even the emerging powers of CO2 production in China and elsewhere.

Next you'll be blaming the food crisis on the diversion of grain into green fuel...
but on that one you would be correct (diversion of grain, not global warming) as to the cause of starvation.

[hectorberlioz]

I think we'd better stop with the Al Gore/Internet thing. Some people are starting to believe it.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I think we'd better stop with the Al Gore/Internet thing. Some people are starting to believe it.

Yeah, you know, people like Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn and Leonard Kleinrock, and Marc Andreesssen:

According to Campbell-Kelly and Aspray (Computer: A History of the Information Machine), up until the early 1990s public usage of the Internet was limited and the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s." [1]

Of Gore's involvement in the then-developing Internet while in Congress, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that,

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.[2]

As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill" [3]) after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network[4] submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet). [5]

Indeed, Kleinrock would later credit both Gore and The Gore Bill (High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991) as a critical moment in Internet history:

A second development occurred around this time, namely, then-Senator Al Gore, a strong and knowledgeable proponent of the Internet, promoted legislation that resulted in President George Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This Act allocated $600 million for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network [13–14]. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking.[6]

The bill was passed on Dec. 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)[7] which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway". President George H. W. Bush predicted that the bill would help "unlock the secrets of DNA," open up foreign markets to free trade, and a promise of cooperation between government, academia, and industry.[8]

Text of the bill can be found here [9]

Prior to its passage, Gore discussed the basics of the bill in an article for the September 1991 issue of Scientific American entitled Scientific American presents the September 1991 Single Copy Issue: Communications, Computers, and Networks. His essay, "Infrastructure for the Global Village", commented on the lack of network access described above and argued: "Rather than holding back, the U.S. should lead by building the information infrastructure, essential if all Americans are to gain access to this transforming technology" [10] [...] "high speed networks must be built that tie together millions of computers, providing capabilities that we cannot even imagine." [11]

Perhaps one of the most important results of the Gore Bill was the development of Mosaic in 1993. [12][13] This World Wide Web browser is credited by most scholars as beginning the Internet boom of the 1990s:

Gore's legislation also helped fund the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, where a team of programmers, including Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, created the Mosaic Web browser, the commercial Internet's technological springboard. 'If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened,' Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at least, not until years later.'[14]

.........

Gary Stix commented on these initiatives a few months prior in his May 1993 article for Scientific American, "Gigabit Gestalt: Clinton and Gore embrace an activist technology policy." Stix described them as a "distinct statement about where the new administration stands on the matter of technology [...] gone is the ambivalence or outright hostility toward government involvement in little beyond basic science." [18] Campbell-Kelly and Aspray further note in Computer: A History of the Information Machine:

In the early 1990s the Internet was big news.... In the fall of 1990 there were just 313,000 computers on the Internet; by 1996, there were close to 10 million. The networking idea became politicized during the 1992 Clinton-Gore election campaign, where the rhetoric of the Information Superhighway|information highway captured the public imagination. On taking office in 1993, the new administration set in place a range of government initiatives for a National Information Infrastructure aimed at ensuring that all American citizens ultimately gain access to the new networks. [19]

"Al Gore invented the Internet"

On 9 March 1999, Gore gave an interview for CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, in which he stated:
“ During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." [47]

..................
In response, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a 29 September 2000 article (originally sent via email) which described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill:
“ [A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.[55]

In addition, Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, also argued for Gore's role in the development of the Internet:
“ In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a 'futures group'—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.[56][57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore...ion_technology

OK, in all fairness it's not as important as running a couple of minor oil companies into the ground and getting bailed out by Daddy's friends, Saudi princes looking for favors, and crooked financiers; or pocketing the proceeds from land speculation around a tax-payer financed stadium, but hey, we can't all be George W.

And sorry for the length of the quotes, but this piece of Republican stupidity has been floating around for so long, and gets mindlessly repeated so often, that it needs to be nailed once and for all.

Not that I'm expecting that to happen. The wonderful thing about being a conservative is you never have to let nasty little facts interfere with your talking points.

[hectorberlioz]

I guess you forgot the part about Al sr. being in the coal business and his only beloved son still having a share in it.

If I remember correctly, Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web.

[inked]

Invented, facilitated, what's the difference? Some.

The point is not that Al G invented the internet, it's that he claimed to have so done.

Your quotations prove that he did not in fact do so.

Ergo, if he can be wrong about the Internet and his involvement in it, why should I trust him on global warming? he might be as accurate on that subject as he is on the Internet.

It's truthiness or truth. One is not the other.

But don't get me wrong, Al G may have deserved the Nobel Prize, just for bumfuzzlement rather than global warming (which he may have invented with his travels and respiration and hot air production, by the way ).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Every so often I check into this thread hoping we'll be talking about science.

I'm not sure why.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Invented, facilitated, what's the difference? Some.

The point is not that Al G invented the internet, it's that he claimed to have so done.

Your quotations prove that he did not in fact do so.

Ergo, if he can be wrong about the Internet and his involvement in it, why should I trust him on global warming? he might be as accurate on that subject as he is on the Internet.

It's truthiness or truth. One is not the other.

But don't get me wrong, Al G may have deserved the Nobel Prize, just for bumfuzzlement rather than global warming (which he may have invented with his travels and respiration and hot air production, by the way ).

Hehe sis I know

Let's see what the Norwegian Nobel Institute decided was the reason for handing the Nobels Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html

"Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming."
&
"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

It is not the scientific competence of Al Gore that handed him a share of the Nobels Peace Prize, but his committment as a politician, known worldwide (G. W. Bush can thank himself for that), that is being applauded. It's his activities, raising the awareness of the issue (albeit simplifying, but a message is a message, and often needs simplicity at first to draw attention).

The scientific leverage, the depth of knowledge and research, is not granted to Al Gore (although I am sure he is no fool in this area of science), but to the IPCC. The foundations that Al Gore stands upon when he raises awareness, is built on the work of the IPCC, along with hundreds of scientific organizations, various forums, universities, gov't national and transnational projects, etc.

And the concluding remarks by the Nobel Institute are:
"By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world's future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control."

This, my friends, is pre-emptive language. (& the very type of language that Messier G. W. Bush used before the invasion of Iraq. Sadly the evidence behind the pre-emptive words of the Norwegian Nobel Institute are a whole lot sounder than that which the genious in the White House based his on)
Understanding and being aware of the threat, and translating that into action, before it is too late.

So let's not forget why Al Gore shared the prize.

[GrayMouser]

[QUOTE=inked;620710]Invented, facilitated, what's the difference? Some.

1. invent:to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph.

1. to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.): Careful planning facilitates any kind of work.
2. to assist the progress of (a person).

The point is not that Al G invented the internet, it's that he claimed to have so done.



Your quotations prove that he did not in fact do so.

Well, if you ignore the fact that he actually didn't claim that, then yes.

Ergo, if he can be wrong about the Internet and his involvement in it, why should I trust him on global warming? he might be as accurate on that subject as he is on the Internet.

It's truthiness or truth. One is not the other.

[Edit:at this point in my originalpost I made an intemperate remark about inked, for which I apologise as a violation of the spirit of the Moot. And, yes, my posts were off-topic and I extend those apologies to readers of this thread]

[inked]

A political award.......the truth comes out! Alas for science! But hey, whatever floats your narcissistic boat. Recycle some plastic bags. Walk to the grocer's store. DO YOUR PART to save the planet. BUY SOME CARBON OFFSETS from AL G's company. Pretend it's science.

Have a great day! Feel better? Or did you actually forego a bath to save water and some source of heat and carbon production? Recycle a candy-wrapper? Fund a biodiversity plot in the Amazon?

How much impact does all this "science" actually involve for you personally day-to-day?

Just askin'!!!!!1

[Nerdanel]

Inked, why trust Al Gore on global warming, when there are so many brilliant scientists to trust instead?

I don't think you need science to save water and energy. Just basic, common sense. Science on climate change lets us know what happens when we don't use that common sense, and when we breed like hell - and at least for me, that emphasizes the need to educate and to stop acting like we're living in a world of infinite resources.

So, actually, quite direct effects.

[Nautipus]

For Nerdy or anyone else who wants a fresh topic to discourse upon.

[Nerdanel]

Thank you, Nauti!

*goes off to read*

[Nautipus]

No problem, Nerdy!

*goes off to work*

[The Gaffer]

The researchers summarize their findings as follows:
We found the following: (1) individual groupers and moray eels frequently spent more time in association than predicted by a null model of chance encounters, (2) groupers actively signaled to elicit joint hunting and to recruit moray eels, (3) satiated groupers did not signal, and (4) both partner species increased their hunting success in association.

Groupers were even observed guiding moral eels to prey hidden in crevices.

Thanks for sharing that. Fish are groovy.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

Inked, why trust Al Gore on global warming, when there are so many brilliant scientists to trust instead?

I don't think you need science to save water and energy. Just basic, common sense. Science on climate change lets us know what happens when we don't use that common sense, and when we breed like hell - and at least for me, that emphasizes the need to educate and to stop acting like we're living in a world of infinite resources.

So, actually, quite direct effects.

Al G and Direct effects: Check out the NRO's view on this direct effect
http://imagec11.247realmedia.com/Rea...rd_gore_01.jpg

but really,

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor (Hardcover)
by Roy Spencer (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confus...s_sr_1?ie=UTF8

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1594...tu#reader-link

[GrayMouser]

This is intriguing...

In the epic "Odyssey," one of the cornerstones of Western literature, the legendary Greek hero Odysseus returns to his queen Penelope after enduring 10 years of sailing the wine dark sea.


Now scientists have pinned down his return to April 16, 1178 B.C., close to noon local time, according to astronomical references in the epic poem that seem to pinpoint the total eclipse of the sun on the day that Odysseus supposedly returned on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080623/sc_li
Date Determined for Eclipse in Homer's Odyssey - Yahoo! News

[inked]

Damn! All that ozone repair is going to heat up the Antartic!!

http://sciencenews.org/search/seek?f...e&go_submit=go

See what happens when you reduce human environmental impact!!! You get unintended consequences!!! So saving the ozone layer is heating the Antartic separate from the whole CO2 / greenhouse gas debacle!

My, my, my! You'd think Gaia would be grateful and better behaved, huh?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

This is intriguing...



http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080623/sc_li
Date Determined for Eclipse in Homer's Odyssey - Yahoo! News

Hey thanks GM, that is cool

[inked]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...ffset=0&page=1

THE ROYAL SOCIETY thinks that creationism should be taught in schools! It is a worldview, they say.

Objectivity and true science win!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran.

10 percent? That's a grossly exaggerated figure!