Apparently not ALL scientists agree with Gore

[MobBoss]

For what it's worth, you replied to my post before I finished editing mine.

Then perhaps you should edit it prior to hitting "submit reply".

 

[Atlas14]

MobBoss, its simple science. I haven't seen Al Gore's movie, don't plan to, and Im not a democrat or fan of Al Gore at all. However, global warming is nothing revolutionary in its concept, simply that greenhouse gases are being spewed into the air at enormous rates throught the heavy use of fossil fuels, aerosols, burning biomatter, and the cutting down of trees which then can't reduce atmospheric CO2. Ozone works to shield our atmosphere from UV rays as a reflector layer, but the depletion and replacement of O3, or ozone by these reactant greenhouse gases translates into greater amounts of UV rays reaching our earth to warm us up. The greenhouse gases, more locally keep the heat trapped down here on earth. Its nothing difficult to grasp, nothing radical being proposed here. Its simple science. Global warming is happening whether we like it or not. Don't expect a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario to occur in the near future, but don't become complacent either.

 

[pboily]

Then perhaps you should edit it prior to hitting "submit reply".

My little one had other ideas, what do you know...

 

[JerichoHill]

I would advise strongly against using trendlines, or cuts of data, to form your analysis.

It is very easy in my line of work to show data that supports one side and not the other, and vice-versa. It is mainly a matter of which swath of data I want to show.

Stastics is meaningless unless there's a theory underlying it.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that we, the dominant species, are changing our environment. Beavers change their environment by building dams, birds build nests, ants build anthills. Each species contributes change which affects their locality to a great degree (just that our locality is the world).

Falling into the trap of projecting current trends outward leads to the Malthusian Vice. It is quite difficult to project even a simple thing like GDP growth out 5 years (one reason why there are upper and lower bands on GDP growth charts).

With the limited resources we have, the better question to be debating is "What is the best use of our resources at the current moment?" Is it to try and solve hundreds of problems with little chance of success, or solve a few, with greater success.

Perhaps we should identify a few problems which are related to many other problems, and solve those. By solving a few, we help out others. (Mainly, I am think that just by being selfish and researching alternative energies and market-regulated pullution controls (coal scrubbers anyone?) may not only address pollution, but energy dependence, asthma, and a host of other issues.

 

[MobBoss]

Have you disobeyed an order from a CO, recently? Or stood up in church and told the pastor he's full of it? Of course not.

For what its worth, one can "question authority" without having to disobey an order or accuse a pastor in church. Do you not agree?

Every time I attend a talk or give one, people ask questions, or try to falsify a theory. That's science. There is no room for disagreement in the Armed Forces or in a Church, if there was, nothing would ever get done.

I would say your wrong. Ever wonder why there are so many church denominations? Hint: Its because they tend to disagree on things. Btw, I have left churches before because I disagreed with them. Indeed, if there were no disagreement in religion there would only be one church woudlnt there? Soooooo...you are a tad wrong on all fronts. Also, there is plenty of room for disagreement in the military as well - there is a time to disagree and a time not to, but to act. Apparently you dont know much about the miltiary decision making process.

The real question now is just how much of a scientist are you? Will you stick with your false theory on disagreement, or recognize my points as valid?

But not only is there room for that in science, it's necessary for it to forge ahead. Being wrong is a requirement for being right.

We shall see.

But it's not science, it's science vulgarization. You had no issue with faulty intelligence gathering when it advanced your agenda, why do you have an issue with this now? Answer: because it would bring your agenda backwards. I love the smell of irony in the morning.

Apparently, even as an educated man, you fail to see the obvious. If indeed I had no issue with "faulty intelligence" I feel compelled to point out that at the time such intelligence was not known to be "faulty" now was it? However, you endorse Gore will full knowledge that his "intelligence" is faulty.

I cant believe that you cant see the difference in this. One would be acting upon what you (incorrectly) believe to be the truth....the other would be to knowingly propagate a lie. Big difference.

Yeah...keep on smelling that irony. Tell me what it smells like.

 

[pboily]

What, not only did Gore invent the Internet, but he also discovered Global Warming as well?

Scientists have known about anthropomorphic climate change well before Gore's movie came out. Again, the disagreement between scientists is about what the effects of the climate change will be and how intense the climate change will be.

I endorse the reality of anthropomorphic climate change, not Gore's movie/"science" (note the " " throughout my posts).

Now, hang on while I try to answer the other points.

 

[pboily]

For what its worth, one can "question authority" without having to disobey an order or accuse a pastor in church. Do you not agree?

When a schism occurs, the new church leaves the old church. So questionning the church's "correctness" leads you to leave the church: you cannot question and remain (unless a majority of parishioners had the same questions, than those who didn't would have to leave, I guess).

there is a time to disagree and a time not to, but to act.

I think that this very valid point. Of course, I also think that's what climate change deniers should do: now is not the time to disagree, now is the time to act to stop disastrous anthropomorphic climate change.

The real question now is just how much of a scientist are you? Will you stick with your false theory on disagreement, or recognize my points as valid?

No need to flatter my ego, you had me at hello... I'm sticking to my theory on disagreement, but I also recognize your points as not entirely without merit.

A month ago or so, the Washington Post published a long, long, long article that involves some of the people and the situation we're talking about: The Tempest.

Witty one liners aren't my cup of tea (except for the smell of irony in the morning, more on that later) and I know lengthy texts tend to put people to sleep, but this one is worthy, I think.

 

[Urederra]

MobBoss, its simple science. I haven't seen Al Gore's movie, don't plan to, and Im not a democrat or fan of Al Gore at all. However, global warming is nothing revolutionary in its concept, simply that greenhouse gases are being spewed into the air at enormous rates throught the heavy use of fossil fuels, aerosols, burning biomatter, and the cutting down of trees which then can't reduce atmospheric CO2. Ozone works to shield our atmosphere from UV rays as a reflector layer, but the depletion and replacement of O3, or ozone by these reactant greenhouse gases translates into greater amounts of UV rays reaching our earth to warm us up. The greenhouse gases, more locally keep the heat trapped down here on earth. Its nothing difficult to grasp, nothing radical being proposed here. Its simple science. Global warming is happening whether we like it or not. Don't expect a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario to occur in the near future, but don't become complacent either.

You are mixing up CO2, CFCs and O3.

And weather has never been constant. It always changes. There are too many factors involved. Like Pboily says, where scientists don't agree, or don't know exactly, is how much is mankind to blame.

And since nobody knows exactly how big is the man's part in the global weather equation, or whether the "solutions" to the global warming issue are gonna be better or worse that the problem itself, then the issue gets contaminated with politics, and the contamination corrupts scientists and politicians on both sides.

 

[pboily]

One more point I forgot to address: in the political battle, I prefer Gore's side (with his faulty "science") to the other side (with their faulty "science"), because if Gore is wrong, my daughter and her kids will still have a planet on which to live. If the other side is wrong, well, she won't. So yes, I can live with less than the whole truth that way.

 

[nonconformist]

One more point I forgot to address: in the political battle, I prefer Gore's side (with his faulty "science") to the other side (with their faulty "science"), because if Gore is wrong, my daughter and her kids will still have a planet on which to live. If the other side is wrong, well, she won't. So yes, I can live with less than the whole truth that way.

Do you really want your daughter to live in a world without the freedom to burn hydrocarbons at will?

 

[MobBoss]

When a schism occurs, the new church leaves the old church.

Ah...me leaving a church because I dont agree with it isnt necessarily a "schism". Nice try though.

So questionning the church's "correctness" leads you to leave the church: you cannot question and remain (unless a majority of parishioners had the same questions, than those who didn't would have to leave, I guess).

Ok, instead of admitting you were wrong, you come up with this. Which is another falsehood. Of course you can disagree and remain.....many do simply because the point they disagree with isnt enough for them to pack up and leave. In my current church there are two types...the very old people (70+) and the fairly young (25-35). Our pastor is only 30 years old and has implemented quite a bit of change in the church to make it more appealing to young people....despite objections from the old crowd. Thus the older members disagree, but it hasnt gotten to the point (and it wont) of creating your "schism".

Once more...you can most certainly disagree in a church without causing a schism. In fact, it happens almost weekly. My pastor, who is part of my mens group, tells us all the time about how people in the church complain about various issues. So yeah...your completely wrong on that point and trying to wiggle out from under is pretty obvious.

No need to flatter my ego, you had me at hello... I'm sticking to my theory on disagreement, but I also recognize your points as not entirely without merit.

About what I expected. Stick with it even though your wrong. Fairly typical.

I have never ever said that humans are not affecting the climate to some degree. However, how much effect and to what extent it is affecting the historical trend is what the debate is about. One side, the alarmists, want you think the the Day After Tomorrow is going to happen...well...the day after tomorrow. The other sides not buying it. The real truth? Most likely somewhere in the middle....but where in the middle is up for great debate.

 

[MobBoss]

One more point I forgot to address: in the political battle, I prefer Gore's side (with his faulty "science") to the other side (with their faulty "science"), because if Gore is wrong, my daughter and her kids will still have a planet on which to live. If the other side is wrong, well, she won't. So yes, I can live with less than the whole truth that way.

I can pretty much gurantee that your daughter will have a planet to live on regardless of which side is right.......or do you truly believe the earth will end in the next 100 years or less?

Because if you really believe the earth is going to end very soon, then you are nothing more than another alarmist.

 

[pboily]

If Gore's side is wrong, no doubt it will just be business as usual. But if the other side is wrong, it will be business as not very usual. If you're willing to take that bet with your kids, be my guest. I'm not. "Pascal's wager" trumps it all.

 

[Urederra]

One more point I forgot to address: in the political battle, I prefer Gore's side (with his faulty "science") to the other side (with their faulty "science"), because if Gore is wrong, my daughter and her kids will still have a planet on which to live. If the other side is wrong, well, she won't. So yes, I can live with less than the whole truth that way.

So, at the end what Gore is saying is nothing about science, but apocalyptical politics. It is the renewed universal Flood, but this time is not God who is gonna punish us for being nasty, this time is mother nature.

Like i said so many times in this forum before. That is not science, that is politics.

If Gore's side is wrong, no doubt it will just be business as usual. But if the other side is wrong, it will be business as not very usual. If you're willing to take that bet with your kids, be my guest. I'm not. "Pascal's wager" trumps it all.

Except that Gore wants to dictate politics based on what he believes it is right. And Do you honestly think that the measures Gore wants to impose are not going to handycap business and lifestyles? I would like to have more data before taking any decission, and I would like to be me the one to make decissions that affect my life as well, not a politician based on phoney data.

 

[pboily]

Do you really want your daughter to live in a world without the freedom to burn hydrocarbons at will?

First they came for the SUVs, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a SUV Enthusiast.
Then they came for the Oil, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t an Oil Executive.
Then they came for the Free Marketers, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't a Free Marketer.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me.

 

[MobBoss]

If Gore's side is wrong, no doubt it will just be business as usual. But if the other side is wrong, it will be business as not very usual. If you're willing to take that bet with your kids, be my guest. I'm not. "Pascal's wager" trumps it all.

Does this mean you are a christian as well?

 

[pboily]

Like i said so many times in this forum before. That is not science, that is politics.

I wish you were wrong.

 

[pboily]

Does this mean you are a christian as well?

No, but what I lack in religious fervor I more than make up in ecological fanaticism .

 

[MobBoss]

No, but what I lack in religious fervor I more than make up in ecological fanaticism .

So you claim pascals wager when it comes to global warming, but deny it when it comes to God.

Rather hypocritical dont you think?...not to mention rather inconsistent.

 

[Urederra]

First they came for the SUVs, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a SUV Enthusiast.
Then they came for the Oil, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t an Oil Executive.
Then they came for the Free Marketers, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't a Free Marketer.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me.

Except that It is Gore and the global warming alarmist the ones who came for the SUVs, Oil executives and the Free Marketers... Have you changed your side suddenly?

And what are you going to deprive your daugther from to stop global warming?