Al Gore uses 20 TIMES as much electricity as you do

[rockbottomsound]

This entire thread goes back to the point I was making on the "What is a Liberal" thread a few days ago, that being that conservatives seem to be completely incapable of recognizing the complexities of any issue. They insist on comparing Gore's house - including the security, office space, and size differences - to an average American household, and think that they are thereby proving something. Despite the obvious logical fallacies, they continue to spout their nonsense about Gore being a hypocrite. They see the issue only as black and white.

So...thanks to those of you proving my point about conservatives. It's much appreciated. The only sad part is that there seem to be so many people gullible enough to be taken in by the simplistic argument, rather than looking at the whole picture.

I'm not a conservative and I think Gore's a hypocrite. He is. I don't see how you can even deny it.

 

[Bob Slydell]

This is the problem with this argument in the public arena..people with no credibility are given the same weight as people with advanced knowledge of the situation. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but your opinion - just like mine - shouldn't be given any weight on this subject. We simply do not have all the information needed to have an opinion worth listening to.

I agree with you, but in that same respect, unqualified folks like you and I also tend to pick and choose which scientific theories we prefer and hold them up as the expert, thereby dispelling other equally qualified scientists who hold an opposing theory. Unfortunately, that choice tends to be driven by politics and policy.

 

[TheDoctor]

: THAT is NOT science. Its called JUNK science, which is the type of science you love.

Junk science is the stuff that EXXON and the AEI was putting out before the IPCC report. After the IPCC report EXXON realized that the gig was up and that science could not be disputed. Look even bush was smart enough to realize that man caused global warming is real.

Again, if you do not like science, I urge you again to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the supreme being. At least the FSM has an explanation for global warming that may be acceptable to you. Again here is the chart that is a key part of this religiion.

The fact that you are rejecting all of the peer reviewed scientific studies and the conclusion of real scientists cause me to belive that you are a perfect candidate to accept the FSM as your supreme being.

 

[rockbottomsound]

How nice for you. And...where did you get your degree in Climatology, again? Why is your opinion more important than those of the thousands of scientists that disagree with your assessment?

This is the problem with this argument in the public arena..people with no credibility are given the same weight as people with advanced knowledge of the situation. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but your opinion - just like mine - shouldn't be given any weight on this subject. We simply do not have all the information needed to have an opinion worth listening to.

I DIDN"T say my opinion should be given any weight. No more than any other loser on this board.

But when you are talking about "Climatology" or any study of the entire planet and weather trends etc., in order for a study to be truely scientific, it would have to be done over at least a period of 100 years or more to have any scientific validity.

These pet junk scientists that have done studies over 2 or 3 years or 10 or even 20 are a total joke. What's worse is that you guys pick and choose the ones you want to beleive and believe them, fine. But don't expect everyone else too just because YOU want to believe junk science doesn't mean I will.

A real scientific study on the planet earth regarding warming/cooling trends etc., if scientifically done would need to be done over at least 35 or 40 years to even make a scratch at a theory. And even one done over that short period of time would be questionable. But you guys don't care. You just go on believing your pet Junk science projects and we'll be here hangin' at the coal plant cookin' up some dogs.

 

[brerrabbit]

While certiainly leaning more right than left I think its ridiculous to turn this whole issue into a political debate. I personally have never called Gore a hypocrite, I merely suggested in an earlier post that the environmental movement could have certainly been blessed with a little better spokesman than Gore. I also have personally never said global warming is not happening. I also deferred to experts, experts I happen to know personally and trust. They are not climotologists but have Phd's in evaluating statistics and trends. They have shot tons of theoretical holes in the major studies that have been conducted from a statistical analysis standpoint and have freely admitted to me based on the data that no stastitically valid conclusion can be drawn. Therefore I am not saying it is or is not happening I'm just saying that from my standpoint nothing has been proven. I have also conceded that taking environmentally sound actions to cut greenhouse gasses and carbon emissions is not a bad idea and couldn't hurt. However most of my actions related to them are done in my world for economic reasons because it saves me money! So you guys go on arguing left vs right but at the end of the day the heart of the issue is not that but rather doing the right thing for the right reasons, not doing because somewhat else tells you its right because it fits into their political agenda.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

Today I'm feeling chilly and could really do with some global warming. So, Al, if you're listening, please fly your jet over Arizona.

Thanks,

ILB

 

[rockbottomsound]

Junk science is the stuff that EXXON and the AEI was putting out before the IPCC report. After the IPCC report EXXON realized that the gig was up and that science could not be disputed. Look even bush was smart enough to realize that man caused global warming is real.

Again, if you do not like science, I urge you again to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the supreme being. At least the FSM has an explanation for global warming that may be acceptable to you. Again here is the chart that is a key part of this religiion.

The fact that you are rejecting all of the peer reviewed scientific studies and the conclusion of real scientists cause me to belive that you are a perfect candidate to accept the FSM as your supreme being.

Oh really. How long of a period of time were your pet studies that are sooooooo "Scientific" done over?

And how long has man even known and been able to factor into the equation such things as gamma rays, solar flares, other solar activity?

You would have had to been able to not only "know" about such things, but how to measure them, and factor them into the equation over a significant period of time for a proper study.

Saying that a certain scientific study was done and it is conclusive when it was done over a short period of time in the recent time period means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SCIENTIFICALLY.

 

[rockbottomsound]

Here's a simple question:

Out of these studies you constantly cite and quote, over how long of a period of time was it conducted?

And what factors were factored into the equation?

Ok so that's 2 questions.

Answer these and I'll have a follow up.

 

[TheDoctor]

Oh really. How long of a period of time were your pet studies that are sooooooo "Scientific" done over?.

I guess that you are not up on your satire religions and the attempt to mock intelligent design and so the Church of the FSM was not familar to you. This is a religion that was started in Kansas to be offered as an alternative to evolution and intelligent design to school children. Here is the link to the website of the church.
http://www.venganza.org/ Again, the FSM has an explanation for global warming that meets all of the criteria that you call for. It is based on over a 100 years of observation and the data fits the graph. Since you either do not understand or you reject the scientific method, I urge you to check the FSM out. It is a religion that fits your understanding of science and the scientific method.

 

[rockbottomsound]

I guess that you are not up on your satire religions and the attempt to mock intelligent design and so the Church of the FSM was not familar to you. This is a religion that was started in Kansas to be offered as an alternative to evolution and intelligent design to school children. Here is the link to the website of the church.
http://www.venganza.org/ Again, the FSM has an explanation for global warming that meets all of the criteria that you call for. It is based on over a 100 years of observation and the data fits the graph. Since you either do not understand or you reject the scientific method, I urge you to check the FSM out. It is a religion that fits your understanding of science and the scientific method.

That is a total JOKE, they weren't even measuring nor knew about gamma rays until fairly recently, they certainly knew NOTHING about them 100 years ago.

Not to mention how to calibrate and measure effects of solar flares, solar radiation and a ton of other things. What exactly were they "observing" over that time period, the rain? So by definition that "thing" that you cited is a TOTAL JOKE.

Nice try!

 

[brerrabbit]

The studies are based on actual data back about 100 to 150 years with geological based evidence going back as much as 200 to 300 million years. The geological evidence takes into account the level and density of plant mass in the rocks and extrapolates climatological from this evidence. One of the huge arguements or rather disagreements amoung researchers are the extrapolated data from the geological samples. That by the way is also one of the major concerns amoung my group of statistical analysts. The widely varying extrapolations from the same core sampling data leaves the multimillion years worth of data subject to a broad interpretation. This is also where many of the scientific experts on either side of the arguement have the most disagreement. Science (climotology) depending on other science (geology) to give them sound data to base their models on.

 

[TheDoctor]

Here's a simple question:

Out of these studies you constantly cite and quote, over how long of a period of time was it conducted?

And what factors were factored into the equation?

Ok so that's 2 questions.

Answer these and I'll have a follow up.

Look at this http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf This is the definitive work out there and is the compliation of all known peer review works on the subject as of a couple of months ago. This summary is in pdf format because of all of the charts. Remember that this is the study that convinced bush that man based global warming is real and caused EXXON to accept man based global warming and to cut off the funding of the AEI and to stop otherwise funding fake or junk science studies.

It has more than a 1000 years of data and is the results of many thousands of real sceintists who understand the scientific method and know that they are looking at. All peer reviewed studies on this issue were reviewed in the preparation of this study including the cosmic ray study posted on another thread.

Again even bush is smart enough to accept the results of this
research project which is the compliation of many thousand of studies I am wondering if you are as bright as our president or not.

 

[rockbottomsound]

Look at this http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf This is the definitive work out there and is the compliation of all known peer review works on the subject as of a couple of months ago. This summary is in pdf format because of all of the charts. Remember that this is the study that convinced bush that man based global warming is real and caused EXXON to accept man based global warming and to cut off the funding of the AEI and to stop otherwise funding fake or junk science studies.

It has more than a 1000 years of data and is the results of many thousands of real sceintists who understand the scientific method and know that they are looking at. All peer reviewed studies on this issue were reviewed in the preparation of this study including the cosmic ray study posted on another thread.

Again even bush is smart enough to accept the results of this
research project which is the compliation of many thousand of studies I am wondering if you are as bright as our president or not.

I thought you all thought that Bush was an idiot?

As a matter of fact, I'm kinda thinking that someone could whip out that exact quote if they really wanted too.

 

[TheDoctor]

The studies are based on actual data back about 100 to 150 years with geological based evidence going back as much as 200 to 300 million years. The geological evidence takes into account the level and density of plant mass in the rocks and extrapolates climatological from this evidence. One of the huge arguements or rather disagreements amoung researchers are the extrapolated data from the geological samples. That by the way is also one of the major concerns amoung my group of statistical analysts. The widely varying extrapolations from the same core sampling data leaves the multimillion years worth of data subject to a broad interpretation. This is also where many of the scientific experts on either side of the arguement have the most disagreement. Science (climotology) depending on other science (geology) to give them sound data to base their models on.

Good post and excellent discussion of the science. Again, that is why the fact that so many diffirent scientists all working at the data are coming up with similar conclusions for the IPCC to put a 90% probability on man based global warming is discouraging to me. I am not going to go into each study and check the data but the fact that a conservative organization like the IPCC has come to this conclusion is powerful.

Again, I call to every one's attention that both bush and EXXON changed their positions on man caused global warming after the IPCC report came out. The fact that both bush and EXXON changed their positions due to this study is good proof that there is more than enough science to show that man based global warming is very likely.

 

[TheDoctor]

I thought you all thought that Bush was an idiot?

There is a saying that may be applicable here.

Even a blind hog will come up with an acorn occassionaly

Here bush was convinced by the IPCC report. In addition, EXXON changed its long held positions and agreed with scientific conclusions that are not in its economic interests. Both of these are strong indications that the IPCC may be right.

 

[TCPluto]

...the IPCC may be right.

Which lends to the equally accurate statement that the IPCC may be wrong.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Al's a hypocrite, becasue he does believe it. He wants the rest of us to reduce, while it's business as usual for him to date.

 

[TheDoctor]

Which lends to the equally accurate statement that the IPCC may be wrong.

For your statement to be correct, the probabilities of the two events must be the same. Here on a conservative basis, the IPCC has put a 90% probability of being right on global warming which means that there is only a 10% chance of being wrong. The last time I looked 90% is greater than 10% and therefore the two probabilities are not equal. Simple math says that the two statements are not equally accurate.

 

[rockbottomsound]

There is a saying that may be applicable here. Here bush was convinced by the IPCC report. In addition, EXXON changed its long held positions and agreed with scientific conclusions that are not in its economic interests. Both of these are strong indications that the IPCC may be right.

I tend to just think that Bush is an idiot.

 

[TheDoctor]

I tend to just think that Bush is an idiot.

That is an opinion that I will not argue with. bush however changed his positions and went against the GOP base by accepting the conclusions of the IPCC. Normally bush would not take such an action without good reason and I doubt that bush changed his position due to his repsect for Vice President Gore.

Again even a blind hog does find an accorn occassionaly and it is possible that bush may be right on just one issue during his term and this appears to be that issue.

 

[Andy B]

Here's a simple question:

Out of these studies you constantly cite and quote, over how long of a period of time was it conducted?

And what factors were factored into the equation?

Ok so that's 2 questions.

Answer these and I'll have a follow up.

The studies do not and cannot be done over hundreds of years as the scientist do not live that long. The Data on temperature has been collected for some many years together with studies of ice cores tree rings and many other sources the information was collected as study in a subject is refined and improved (standing on the shoulders of giants) more accurate theories can be put forward. Scientist will tell you there are few if any absolutes but there are highly probables and balance of probabilities.

Baseline models are made for a single cause or co dependant cause then the net result is extrapolated. From that the current widely accepted theory is arrived at.