Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Global Warming Research
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 133 (442875)
12-22-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2007 1:41 PM


Re: Who to believe
I actually don't know much about Greenpeace, but I know that PETA gets pretty stupid, and I think some group called ELF.
Blocking a nuclear vessel in motion... yeah that's smart.
But I have serious reservations about laying blame with anthropomorphic global warming as the sole or major cause in the warming trend. And since there are a lot of dissenters of the mainstream, each with as much education and training as their counterparts, it makes it difficult to know how much is political and how much is actual, coming from either side.
Let me make something clear that might help you. While there are certainly credible scientists (climatologists) which question current models and assignment of "blame", it is rather hard (or getting pretty hard) to buy their arguments, which at this point are based more on skepticism and less on solid evidence (showing something else is going on).
It seems almost impossible that GHGs are playing no role in the current upswing. The IPCC places the possibility of no role at 5%. Though how much GHGs are effecting the climate can credibly be debated, the evidence and worthy working models tend to indicate a pretty large factor. With no effective counter models, the opposing side is sort of flapping in the wind.
Given the results of the working models, it makes sense that politicians (and everyone else for that matter) should begin efforts at reducing emissions and deforestation. The change will have to come sooner or later (as fossil fuels become scarcer) so it might as well be now, rather than later. And if done well, we really shouldn't feel the pinch of it. Sort of like when we went from horses to trains, or trains to cars, or ships to planes. Or perhaps more accurately, from natural gas lighting, to electricity. It would simply be an advance, not a step backward.
So we don't have to assign any blame to get moving on the change.
I am offended that somebody like Al Gore, who traipses across the globe in the fossil fuel nightmare that is his lier jet to conferences where he derides everyone else, so that he gets awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
I heard he flies commercial, so that might not be true (about the lier jet). And I do understand how he is reducing his carbon footprint at his home (which is commendable).
Then again, he does orchestrate unusual things which do consume energy for no real reason to get his message out. That concert was just ridiculous to me. And (though perhaps he changed it more recently) his website didn't have any information, just hawking his movie and book. If its so important (to him), why does he keep the information to himself unless people pay. And he doesn't produce science, either to discover the nature of our climate, or towards fixing any problems... he makes people "aware"... Yeah give him a medal.
You'd almost swear that they pray for disasters just so they could use it as ammunition to further their agenda. Its sick and deluded.
It seems so similar to Robertson blaming 9/11 on gays and atheists, which is part of the offense to me. If liberals can see what's wrong with that, how can they not see what is going wrong here?
Couldn't possibly be that building a city under sea level, and not listening to the Army Corps of Engineers about shoddy levies had anything to do with it. Just blame mankind in general. Propagate the Malthusian theory that overpopulation is really to blame for the perils of the earth.
Exactly. This problem was known years before... in fact when Gore was Vice President... oops! I still wonder why no one has questioned him about why he never addressed those needs on his watch.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2007 7:38 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2007 8:19 PM Silent H has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5391 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 92 of 133 (442876)
12-22-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by FliesOnly
12-19-2007 3:28 PM


Re: Asking a favor
It's rough when someone behaves that way. With regards to the increase in CO2 being caused by increasing temperature that is abusrd. It is true that temperature rises will gradually cause CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, and Gore was misleading in his film when he implied that it was the other way around, but this takes centuries to happen in a noticeable way. Show him a plot like this:
a) In the last 400K years CO2 has never gotten this even close to today's levels despite periods of warmer temperatures than today's.
b) From this graph, it is obvious that the delay between temperature change and CO2 change is much to great to be involved in today's situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2007 3:28 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 9:56 PM fgarb has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 133 (442888)
12-22-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by fgarb
12-22-2007 9:34 PM


Re: Asking a favor
It is true that temperature rises will gradually cause CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, and Gore was misleading in his film when he implied that it was the other way around, but this takes centuries to happen in a noticeable way. Show him a plot like this:
Exactly. here's a page at RC discussing that issue. I mentioned earlier I could give Flies that link, but I'm not sure it will satisfy anyone insisting data of what is going on at this time.
a) In the last 400K years CO2 has never gotten this even close to today's levels despite periods of warmer temperatures than today's.
That is the key point. While it might be theoretically true that the Earth could have a spike in some gas which it hadn't had before, that is so unlikely as to be rather implausible. And anyone arguing that would have to have some data to back up their claims (giving evidence of CO2 venting out of the Earth somewhere in vast amounts).
b) From this graph, it is obvious that the delay between temperature change and CO2 change is much to great to be involved in today's situation.
My only question might be on this point. While it would not be following the pattern, I'm not sure it is possible to use previous delays as indicators of what they must be. Or at least not make an airtight case. Combined with the above point, however, it does make a good one two punch that an opponent would have a hard time recovering from (explaining).

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by fgarb, posted 12-22-2007 9:34 PM fgarb has not replied

  
sikosikik5
Junior Member (Idle past 5940 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 94 of 133 (442910)
12-23-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by 1.61803
12-12-2007 4:45 PM


i believe in my humble unbiased opinion that global warming is just part of plank one of karl marx's communist manifesto

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by 1.61803, posted 12-12-2007 4:45 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by subbie, posted 12-23-2007 12:17 AM sikosikik5 has not replied
 Message 96 by AdminPhat, posted 12-23-2007 11:21 AM sikosikik5 has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 95 of 133 (442912)
12-23-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by sikosikik5
12-23-2007 12:12 AM


I believe global warming is caused by cows lighting their farts. The advantage that my position has over yours is that I'm at least positing actors that are actually in existence.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by sikosikik5, posted 12-23-2007 12:12 AM sikosikik5 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 1:44 PM subbie has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 133 (442995)
12-23-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by sikosikik5
12-23-2007 12:12 AM


Opinions should have supportable links
Welcome to EvC. I know that we live in an age of communication, but we also live in an age of information and it would be useful for you to provide some links to support the assertions that you are making. EvC is more than just a giant blog. Anyone can voice an opinion, but it is useful to link your opinions to sources that may explain your beliefs more fully. Follow the Forum Guidelines and you wont get any more flak from me!

What Is A Discussion Board Anyway?

  • New Topics should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Keep them short and don't attempt to explain your entire point in the first post. Allow others to respond so that you can expand your discussion.
  • If you are warned by an administrator or moderator for any reason that is not explained in the Forum Guidelines you can argue your case here.
  • If you are not promoted, feel free to discuss your reasons with the administrator in the Proposed New Topics Forum who responded to your topic proposal. Feel free to edit and modify your topic and inform the administrator that you have done so.
    You may also take your argument here and get feedback from other administrators.
    Usually, we leave topic promotion to the first administrator that responds, unless that administrator invites others to comment.
    ************************************
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by sikosikik5, posted 12-23-2007 12:12 AM sikosikik5 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 97 by sikosikik5, posted 12-23-2007 12:37 PM AdminPhat has not replied

      
    sikosikik5
    Junior Member (Idle past 5940 days)
    Posts: 5
    Joined: 12-22-2007


    Message 97 of 133 (443003)
    12-23-2007 12:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 96 by AdminPhat
    12-23-2007 11:21 AM


    Re: Opinions should have supportable links
    im sorry about that. here is a link to the planks: Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto (American-Style)
    although it doesnt say global warming in it, i think that it is a possibility that it ties into it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by AdminPhat, posted 12-23-2007 11:21 AM AdminPhat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by Chiroptera, posted 12-23-2007 1:18 PM sikosikik5 has not replied

      
    fgarb
    Member (Idle past 5391 days)
    Posts: 98
    From: Naperville, IL
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 98 of 133 (443006)
    12-23-2007 12:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
    12-22-2007 1:41 PM


    Re: Who to believe
    "Nemsis" writes:
    Of course they are of some factor. But I have serious reservations about laying blame with anthropomorphic global warming as the sole or major cause in the warming trend.
    While I agree that it is not conclusively proven (and won't ever be), I cannot think of any other probable causes. Sorry if I've missed a previous explanation that you gave, but can you tell me what else you think could have been at fault for recent global warming?
    Nemesis writes:
    And since there are a lot of dissenters of the mainstream, each with as much education and training as their counterparts, it makes it difficult to know how much is political and how much is actual, coming from either side.
    I don't think there are very many of them at all. For example, between 1993 and 2003, there were no peer reviewed scientific papers that directly challenged the consensus view of human caused climate change. This from a study by Naomi Oreskes
    Nemesis writes:
    Personally, I am offended that somebody like Al Gore, who traipses across the globe in the fossil fuel nightmare that is his lier jet to conferences where he derides everyone else, so that he gets awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
    Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize not for good personal behavior, but for sounding the alarm about global warming in a very effective way. Perhaps he can be criticized for having to burn excessive fossil fuels himself, but flying around the world repeatedly was necessary to spread his message widely.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by Fosdick, posted 12-23-2007 1:11 PM fgarb has not replied
     Message 101 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 1:42 PM fgarb has replied

      
    Fosdick 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
    Posts: 1793
    From: Upper Slobovia
    Joined: 12-11-2006


    Message 99 of 133 (443017)
    12-23-2007 1:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by fgarb
    12-23-2007 12:45 PM


    Re: Who to believe
    fgarb writes:
    Nemesis writes:
    Personally, I am offended that somebody like Al Gore, who traipses across the globe in the fossil fuel nightmare that is his lier jet to conferences where he derides everyone else, so that he gets awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
    Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize not for good personal behavior, but for sounding the alarm about global warming in a very effective way. Perhaps he can be criticized for having to burn excessive fossil fuels himself, but flying around the world repeatedly was necessary to spread his message widely.
    Hi fgarb,
    I think NJ speaks for all those people who must take a mindlessly cynical approach to global warming. An argument like the one he uses could be applied in any cynical opinionation. But I see where he's coming from”futility, I suspect”which is about where I come from on this issue. I seriously doubt that there is very much humans can do now to avert a GW disaster. When I look at China's and India's growing in air pollution problem, for example, I get the feeling that Al gore is making himself popular by doing little more that rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
    Now I'm waiting for AdminPhat to tell me I can't state my opinion on this matter in the Coffee House thread. Oh, well, that's just the way things go on in the cliquish tyranny at EvC.
    ”HM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by fgarb, posted 12-23-2007 12:45 PM fgarb has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 100 of 133 (443018)
    12-23-2007 1:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by sikosikik5
    12-23-2007 12:37 PM


    Re: Opinions should have supportable links
    although it doesnt say global warming in it....
    Then it's not on topic, is it?

    "The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
    Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by sikosikik5, posted 12-23-2007 12:37 PM sikosikik5 has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5820 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 101 of 133 (443025)
    12-23-2007 1:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by fgarb
    12-23-2007 12:45 PM


    Re: Who to believe
    Oooooo, this will be our first solid disagreement. I hope it turns out okay.
    Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize not for good personal behavior, but for sounding the alarm about global warming in a very effective way. Perhaps he can be criticized for having to burn excessive fossil fuels himself, but flying around the world repeatedly was necessary to spread his message widely.
    I don't understand how it could be said that he sounded the alarm in a very effective way. He was a rich guy that was already famous, and used his political clout and stature to get a movie made on a subject that many (if not most) scientists already agree, and so does much of the world. The only major nation (besides perhaps China) where climate change is in question is within the US. And while his movie may have sold well... how is that an indication that it did anything? Michael Moore's movie F911 sold very well too and did not change a thing in this nation. His movie Sicko, is not only better but addresses and even more important issue (for people in the US) and it may not do anything.
    Is there any reliable evidence that Gore's movie or slideshow did anything but sell well to the chorus, some of whom actually know the data better than him and must forgive his misinterpretations and misstatements to pat him on the back for the message?
    In the end he was given a medal for base propaganda, not good science, or even results. Indeed, the idea that "sounding the alarm in an effective way" should be rewarded for itself, seems a bit odd. McCarthy effectively sounded the alarm about Communism. That is simply propaganda, and is not deserving of an award... to my mind... especially (in Gore's case) when it is pretty widely accepted already.
    As to your second point, there is absolutely NO reason Gore had to fly anywhere to do any promoting (or anything else) for the movie. Heck, I would have been more impressed overall, if he had made the movie digitally, powered only by noncarbon-based fuel technologies, and then distributed it for free in venues (like the internet) which do not require large energy consumption, promoting it through same techniques to show an example that technology can be our friend and allow us to do things in new ways that minimize environmental impact.
    I mean to have him say, well that's how you have to get a film (or whatever event) done. How is that any different than someone else saying, well I gotta fill up my gas tank and drive my SUV that's how you have to get X done? Be on the forefront, and then I'll start buying the medal business.
    Okeydoke, hope that wasn't too harsh.

    h
    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by fgarb, posted 12-23-2007 12:45 PM fgarb has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 103 by fgarb, posted 12-23-2007 2:35 PM Silent H has replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5820 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 102 of 133 (443026)
    12-23-2007 1:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 95 by subbie
    12-23-2007 12:17 AM


    I believe global warming is caused by cows lighting their farts.
    There's a novel line of research. But I'll go you one better.
    I'll bet it's the result of frat boys lighting their farts. Not only are they in existence, but they have the appendages to do so. Moreover they are the kind of people to be tipping cows, which explains methane production in those areas. Frat boys framing the cows, how like them.

    h
    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by subbie, posted 12-23-2007 12:17 AM subbie has not replied

      
    fgarb
    Member (Idle past 5391 days)
    Posts: 98
    From: Naperville, IL
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 103 of 133 (443043)
    12-23-2007 2:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by Silent H
    12-23-2007 1:42 PM


    Re: Who to believe
    SilentH writes:
    Okeydoke, hope that wasn't too harsh.
    Oh God, how could you say such things!? No, I'm just joking. I actually don't know much about Gore's personal behavior, so I probably will get myself into trouble here, but I am willing to argue it. Why don't we take this to a more appropriate thread. I think the topic of this one should be about whether global warming is real and what causes it, not the behavior of a politician. We could discuss here, or you can start a new thread if you want. I'm about out of time to spend debating today, but I will try to come back to it tomorrow.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 1:42 PM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 4:39 PM fgarb has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5820 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 104 of 133 (443057)
    12-23-2007 4:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by fgarb
    12-23-2007 2:35 PM


    Re: Who to believe
    I'm not really that interested in punking Gore, but I guess I stand by my point his Nobel wasn't really worthwhile, and the nature of his media activity were not necessary (and a bit hypocritical), so I'm willing to defend if you are willing to pursue.
    I agree on the change of venue. See you there!

    h
    "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by fgarb, posted 12-23-2007 2:35 PM fgarb has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 105 of 133 (443111)
    12-23-2007 7:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
    12-22-2007 9:28 PM


    Re: Who to believe
    I heard he flies commercial, so that might not be true (about the lier jet).
    You heard that from his own source -- namely, from his movie. But, uh, its just not true. Sure, when he is aware that camera's are around, he flies commercial. But when he is unaware, its a completely different story.
    And I do understand how he is reducing his carbon footprint at his home (which is commendable).
    Probably because quite a few people mentioned to him that his 16 room mansion eats more energy than you or I could ever hope to do.
    And then of course there is the scandal where his Tennessee residence was being used as a dumping ground.
    Nobody would chastize Mr. Gore for these things if only he wasn't chastizing people for doing the exact same thing.
    And he doesn't produce science, either to discover the nature of our climate, or towards fixing any problems... he makes people "aware"... Yeah give him a medal.
    Yes, and then of course there is that. Some climatologists have devoted their careers to global warming. This guy happens to be famous. I guess because of his clout, he gets the medal since the exposure is coming from him.
    quote:
    You'd almost swear that they pray for disasters just so they could use it as ammunition to further their agenda. Its sick and deluded.
    It seems so similar to Robertson blaming 9/11 on gays and atheists, which is part of the offense to me. If liberals can see what's wrong with that, how can they not see what is going wrong here?
    I certainly do! I think TBN and CBN, while they have the occasional decent program, makes a mockery of the conservative position. I have always had a problem with politicizing Jesus. Surely the Founding Fathers had the forethought to know why we shouldn't do that. The end result is Pat Robertson.
    The truth of it is that personalities like Gore and Robertson aren't trying to be malicious about anything. I'm sure some people choose to believe that, but I highly doubt it. It still doesn't take away the fact that its maladjusted.
    Exactly. This problem was known years before... in fact when Gore was Vice President... oops! I still wonder why no one has questioned him about why he never addressed those needs on his watch.
    You can't just use a disaster inappropriately (as if hurricanes never existed before the GW debate) to foist an agenda. Waiting for some horrific disaster so you can smugly say, "See, I told you so," doesn't help anything.

    “First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 91 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 9:28 PM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 109 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 11:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024