"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flame On

/\/\
I love how the nay sayers to climate change point to scientific consensous not being 100% as a reason to do nothing. Then turn around and find a single scientist who says one thing to hold on to their opinion.

I love people like you who refuse to even listen to counter-examples or counter-arguments to your position.

A single scientist? Hardly. There's a growing number of scientists who aren't afraid of being shouted down anymore. They're asking questions about this supposed causal relationship between CO2 and temperature (such as the 800 year gap mentioned in the quote above) and how it can exist if one directly causes the other.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the flaws in the position you're supporting, and make up stories about those that disagree with you (ie: "a reason to do nothing" when nobody has said that), then go for it... you're the one being a fool.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by fotze

Is China on the Kyoto targets? Does it actually have lofty targets? How in the hell does a country that big measure emissions accurately? I have always wondered about these things.

I know a gas plant has measurement and can accurately measure the tonnage released, but everyone's car does not plus all the other CO2 sources. Measuring gas production on gas wells that actually have measuring devices is a highly influenced to extremely small assumtions and conditions. How does entire country measure accurately particulate and CO2 emmisions where most sources do not even have a device to measure these things?

Do they use some wide ranging assumptions of emissions based on things that are sort of measurable, like # of cars, # of people, " of cows?

These questions aren't to you hulk but in general?

I'm not 100%, but I think for cars they base it off of litres of gasonline consumed. No clue how they factor in engine effeciency and all that good stuff.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

Very interesting. I must say, I still find electric cars tempting after looking out the window at the thick layer of yellow haze covering the city this week though

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Very interesting. I must say, I still find electric cars tempting after looking out the window at the thick layer of yellow haze covering the city this week though

I'm not going to disagree with you here... I'm all for getting rid of smog / pollution / etc.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, if we posted research from every scientist who has found evidence for global warming, the thread would be hundreds of pages long. So we should probably be content to post something like this:

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Thos guy claims that bacteria disprove evolution! He's a scientist--he has a Ph.D! Therefore, evolution must be wrong.


Burn all your books! It's going to be a long dark age!

I'm not sure I get your post.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I love people like you who refuse to even listen to counter-examples or counter-arguments to your position.

A single scientist? Hardly. There's a growing number of scientists who aren't afraid of being shouted down anymore. They're asking questions about this supposed causal relationship between CO2 and temperature (such as the 800 year gap mentioned in the quote above) and how it can exist if one directly causes the other.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the flaws in the position you're supporting, and make up stories about those that disagree with you (ie: "a reason to do nothing" when nobody has said that), then go for it... you're the one being a fool.

Dude counter examples are all that's been on the table for years and only recently has the other side of the coin found traction. As if the "other side" hasn't had a fair shake thus far and the poor non environmentalists have been drowned out!
I don't mind dispute and counter claims, but I guess I'm saying those that are over eager to listen to them are the ones burying their heads.
Although I guess I shouldn't have assumed that questioning things mean you necessarily do nothing so I concede that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I'm not sure I get your post.

I'm agreeing with you. There are "scientists" who don't believe in evolution--as many, perhaps, as don't believe in global warming. Why should either fringe group be given any credence?

Sorry for being unclear--I was rushing off to go teach.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm agreeing with you. There are "scientists" who don't believe in evolution--as many, perhaps, as don't believe in global warming. Why should either fringe group be given any credence?

Sorry for being unclear--I was rushing off to go teach.

lol no worries, I thought we were in agreement but couldn't be sure.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Speaking of hybrid cars, I have a question:

Are they actually more beneficial to the environment than regular combustion cars?

I ask this because I assume most of our electricity is sourced from coal-burning plants. So if you're charging your car using household electricity, are you still not burning coal? Is it more efficient to charge a battery with household electricity vs. fuel consumption? Is there a general reduction in emissions from using a hybrid charged by burning coal vs. burning fuel? I've always wondered this. Anyone know?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flame On

As if the "other side" hasn't had a fair shake thus far and the poor non environmentalists have been drowned out!

So, those "non-environment" (as you call them) that are dismissed as "in bed with the Energy Giants" are getting a fair shake?

Originally Posted by Flame On

I don't mind dispute and counter claims, but I guess I'm saying those that are over eager to listen to them are the ones burying their heads.

And those that are over eager to dismiss them?

I found this particular article interesting because it echoed my questioning of the graphs that Hulkrogan posted a while back. In particular, it appeared that there were multiple times where CO2 and temperature moved independently. This article articulates and details two of these instances.

There may still be a valid explanation to explain these and maintain the CO2-temperature relationship, but it is definitely something that needs to be answered... not summarily dismissed.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Why should either fringe group be given any credence?

Holy bias batman...

[Flame On]

So, those "non-environment" (as you call them) that are dismissed as "in bed with the Energy Giants" are getting a fair shake?

I'm just observing that the tables seem to have turned.

There may still be a valid explanation to explain these and maintain the CO2-temperature relationship, but it is definitely something that needs to be answered... not summarily dismissed.

Or what? I guess is my question?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Or what? I guess is my question?

Or else you've got a theory that has substantial holes that are being ignored... not the basis for a good scientific theory.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

The climate change community isn't allowed to use "probably" but you are in that accusation?

I don't think suggesting someone who works for a company probably
draws a salary is such a stretch. Nor would it be to suggest that it
might be lurcrative considering his position within the company.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

/\/\
I love how the nay sayers to climate change point to scientific consensus not being 100% as a reason to do nothing. Then turn around and find a single scientist who says one thing to hold on to their opinion.

It was your Saint Gore who erroneously said that their was a consensus
within the scientific community. And now you are suggesting that a single
scientist holds a different opinion. The fact is that many respected scientists disagree with Al Gore and his disciples. Moreover, they disagree
for sound reasons.

I don't believe that the consensus has to be a 100% but it blood well
better be convincing if we are going to harm our economy in order to
offset a hypothetical disaster.

Right now China is the largest polluter in the world. They have little
to no environmental regulations and because of this and basically slave
labor they have an advantage over the rest of the world regarding manufacturing. Their economy is growing by 10% per year which is
the fastest in the world and they are increasing their military spending
by 20% a year. Only the States surpass them in military spending but,
if you factor out America's spending for on going operation you'll find
that China is building up at a faster rate and making up a lot of ground
on the Americans.

Perhaps North America and Europe should hold China to the same standards as they hold themselves. This in itself would eliminate a vast amount of pollution including CO2 emissions. Most of China's electrical
power is generated by coal generators. Just demanding that they up-grade to cleaner burning generations centers would make a big difference
environmentally and for the health of millions.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't believe that the consensus has to be a 100% but it blood well
better be convincing if we are going to harm our economy in order to
offset a hypothetical disaster.

OK--fair enough. So you've said that a convincing consensus would persuade you to get on board. Name a percentage. 80%? 90%?

A few dozen geologists does nothing to contradict the consensus that exists. There are literally thousands of scientists whose empirical data supports global warming. How many more will it take?

If you're not convinced now, it's because you've decided not to believe in it. If thousands of scientists versus a few dozen won't convince you, it's because you made up your mind beforehand.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It was your Saint Gore who erroneously said that their was a consensus
within the scientific community. And now you are suggesting that a single
scientist holds a different opinion. The fact is that many respected scientists disagree with Al Gore and his disciples. Moreover, they disagree
for sound reasons.

I don't believe that the consensus has to be a 100% but it blood well
better be convincing if we are going to harm our economy in order to
offset a hypothetical disaster.

Right now China is the largest polluter in the world. They have little
to no environmental regulations and because of this and basically slave
labor they have an advantage over the rest of the world regarding manufacturing. Their economy is growing by 10% per year which is
the fastest in the world and they are increasing their military spending
by 20% a year. Only the States surpass them in military spending but,
if you factor out America's spending for on going operation you'll find
that China is building up at a faster rate and making up a lot of ground
on the Americans.

Perhaps North America and Europe should hold China to the same standards as they hold themselves. This in itself would eliminate a vast amount of pollution including CO2 emissions. Most of China's electrical
power is generated by coal generators. Just demanding that they up-grade to cleaner burning generations centers would make a big difference
environmentally and for the health of millions.

You're obviously a person of extremes. Is there no way that some things could be done without affecting the economy? Alternatively would it be alright to sacrifice a little economic growth in order to make a dent? Or perhaps a combination of the two?
Or is military spending and a Chinese arms race your major concern?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

OK--fair enough. So you've said that a convincing consensus would persuade you to get on board. Name a percentage. 80%? 90%?

A few dozen geologists does nothing to contradict the consensus that exists. There are literally thousands of scientists whose empirical data supports global warming. How many more will it take?

If you're not convinced now, it's because you've decided not to believe in it. If thousands of scientists versus a few dozen won't convince you, it's because you made up your mind beforehand.

It isn't the percentage. It's the argument. I will not surrender my
right to look at the material on both sides and come to my own conclusions. Scientists are just as fallible as the rest of us. They are
also just as prone to herd mentality and corruption as you or
me.

If the global warming camp were more willing to acknowledge other
significant factors and give an honest attempt to measure their effect
instead of ringing alarm bells and dismissing opposing views as fringe
science I would be more inclined to wards them. "Everyone worthwhile agrees with me" is not an convincing argument in my eyes. Also, Al Gore as a spokesman doesn't help the readability of their case.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, Al Gore as a spokesman doesn't help the readability of their case.

Al Gore isn't a spokesman for anybody but Al Gore. He's a rich, famous and powerful person broadcasting a message that a lot of people have heard, but that doesn't mean he speaks for everyone who might believe that human activity is a factor in climate change.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Speaking of hybrid cars, I have a question:

Are they actually more beneficial to the environment than regular combustion cars?

I ask this because I assume most of our electricity is sourced from coal-burning plants. So if you're charging your car using household electricity, are you still not burning coal? Is it more efficient to charge a battery with household electricity vs. fuel consumption? Is there a general reduction in emissions from using a hybrid charged by burning coal vs. burning fuel? I've always wondered this. Anyone know?

Here you go!