Innovating out of global warming

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Gore is hardly the only messenger on global warming. It him and how many thousands of scientists?

I agree, but funny how it took a political loser and a budget slide show to get the word out to the Congress.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

Gore is hardly the only messenger on global warming. It him and how many thousands of scientists?

I don't know how many, what's 50% of all of them?

The problem is the when you say Global Warming, you are not just talking about global warming. You are inferring a shitload of other things that may or may not be true. When somebody says they agree with you on Global Warming, then they are saying they buy into everything you believe about it.

That's just stupid. To put my opinion at the mercy of someone else's whims? I refuse to buy into that crap. I have my own opinions and no amount of bullying, insulting or accusations of being anti-American from anyone, is going to make me swallow the whole Global Warming the sky is falling package.

If Gore had his way, Global Warming would be right up there with, "Homeland Security" or "It's For The Children", so no questions, do as your told.

You want my help, then break it down. Tell why it's bad? Tell me how bad it will get? Tell me why It's my fault? Tell me what I can do and how it will change anything?
I don't want to hear if I sacrifice then something good may happen somewhere, someday.
Stick your fairy tales. I want facts and you ain't got 'em.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You want my help, then break it down. Tell why it's bad? Tell me how bad it will get? Tell me why It's my fault? Tell me what I can do and how it will change anything?
I don't want to hear if I sacrifice then something good may happen somewhere, someday.
Stick your fairy tales. I want facts and you ain't got 'em.

All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)

Come on that is crap and you know it. Sort of like a child molesting preacher telling you to not hurt the children. Or the pandering TV preacher telling me to be pure and having sexual relations with men and smoking crack cocaine on the side. Or how about the head of the ACLU recently arrested for child porn. Or the Congressman who takes kickbacks from a lobbiest and tells everyone to clean up thier act and not bend to influence by lobbiests. Or how about someone telling you to reduce your energy consumption all the burning up fuels that are 20 times the average user, and that would be Gore. I call bs on that. Don't stand up in front of me and tell me to cut down on my consumption when you jet around the country. If you want to ignore the hipocrites go ahead, I will attack the messenger if you preach one thing to me and do another.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)

What's happening is they are starting the campaign to win people over with big name messengers. Do you think Gore actually knows jack shit about this, or is buying whatever his advisors say? They(advisors) may or may not be right, but this tactic makes me only more skeptical of the message.
The front man should be at least credible in his support of his message if they want people to buy it on the strength of his say so. Like it or not, unfortunately, this is the way the majority will choose sides.
At that point any silly ass piece of legislation to come along that's tagged "for Global Warming", will be politically unhealthy to oppose......and that's a damn shame.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

At that point any silly ass piece of legislation to come along that's tagged "for Global Warming", will be politically unhealthy to oppose......and that's a damn shame.

And most likely they are going to try to attach some gun control legislation to it.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't know how many, what's 50% of all of them?

The problem is the when you say Global Warming, you are not just talking about global warming. You are inferring a shitload of other things that may or may not be true. When somebody says they agree with you on Global Warming, then they are saying they buy into everything you believe about it.

That's just stupid. To put my opinion at the mercy of someone else's whims? I refuse to buy into that crap. I have my own opinions and no amount of bullying, insulting or accusations of being anti-American from anyone, is going to make me swallow the whole Global Warming the sky is falling package.

If Gore had his way, Global Warming would be right up there with, "Homeland Security" or "It's For The Children", so no questions, do as your told.

You want my help, then break it down. Tell why it's bad? Tell me how bad it will get? Tell me why It's my fault? Tell me what I can do and how it will change anything?
I don't want to hear if I sacrifice then something good may happen somewhere, someday.
Stick your fairy tales. I want facts and you ain't got 'em.

Well Bruce, we have had this discussion before and I stupidly believed that I had made some impact on your opinions - at least let you open your mind to the possibility that we might be right. I cited several web sites that covered global warming in a reasonable manner, and you seemed to be satisfied then, but now you have reverted to your old beliefs.

As I said once before, we cannot design an experiment that will "prove" man's influence on global warming. We know that man has increased greenhouse emissions, and we know from statistical analysis and records going back thousands of years (eg. ice core samples), that while the current warming period is not unheard of, the *speed* at which it is taking effect is what alarms us. The fact that there have been other warm periods in Earth's history, and that we are not yet at the highest temperature, does not mean that the current global warming is not man induced. I am not necessarily endorsing Al Gore, because he has a political agenda, but this does not mean that he is wrong.

And the figure is more like 90% of us believe that it is man induced, not 50%.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not true, my beliefs were formed partially by the information you provided and have not changed.
That said, the majority of the population will never see those websites or would bother to read them if they were aware they existed. Don't forget there's a large segment that doesn't know a PC from a microwave.

My point was the majority will be convinced of the severity, or lack thereof, of Global Warming by people like Gore. If they believe him, or not, will outweigh all the studies in the world. At that point they will accept or reject, any and every, thing they're told.

Like it or not, the messenger is very important to the conscription of adherents.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by glatt

All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Come on that is crap and you know it. Sort of like a child molesting preacher telling you to not hurt the children.

So you are saying that if you don't like the messenger, their message is automatically false? That just because the preacher does little boys, then you should too?

Bruce is right that Gore is less effective as a messenger because of his hypocrisy. His hypocrisy is distracting from his message. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his message.

[Hyoi]

Alexander's phalanxes and cavalry followed him because he was leading the charge. It's easier to give credibility to those that practice what they preach.

[Happy Monkey]

Gannett

House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming -- but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.

"I said, 'John, I can't do that,' " Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. "He said, 'Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.' "

Gilchrest didn't make the committee. Neither did other Republican moderates or science-minded members, whose guidance centrist GOP members usually seek on the issue.
...

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a research scientist from Maryland, and Michigan's Rep. Vern Ehlers, the first research physicist to serve in Congress, also made cases for a seat, but weren't appointed, he said.
"Roy Blunt said he didn't think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming," Gilchrest said. "Right there, holy cow, there's like 9,000 scientists to three on that one."

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Hyoi

Alexander's phalanxes and cavalry followed him because he was leading the charge. It's easier to give credibility to those that practice what they preach.

Heh. I give you a solid maybe on this one.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, every time. There are those that believe because of what they see. There are those that believe because of what they hear. And there are those that believe because of who is doing or saying.

In fact, every one of us has all these traits, each of us uses these strategies to believe. But I believe that loud repetition has a dominant influence on what people believe, and, unfortunately, loudness and repetition have no need to be true to be effective.

[JerryM]

My very serious doubt is . . . WHY!?
When one volcanic eruption releases a larger dose of "greenhouse gases" than the human race has generated during its entire existence, it should be obvious that our effect is minimal.

I understand Mars is warming as well. Isn't it amazing how much effect a few little solar powered rovers are having on such a big planet.

My own take on this is that a bunch of eco-terrorist Luddites are trying to pull the developed nations back to the level of the undeveloped nations.

Jerry

[glatt]

Originally Posted by JerryM

My very serious doubt is . . . WHY!?
When one volcanic eruption releases a larger dose of "greenhouse gases" than the human race has generated during its entire existence, it should be obvious that our effect is minimal.

I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.

I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by BigV

Heh. I give you a solid maybe on this one.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, every time. There are those that believe because of what they see. There are those that believe because of what they hear. And there are those that believe because of who is doing or saying.

In fact, every one of us has all these traits, each of us uses these strategies to believe. But I believe that loud repetition has a dominant influence on what people believe, and, unfortunately, loudness and repetition have no need to be true to be effective.

Ivan Pavlov and I agree with your last statement to a degree. However, if I ask someone to sacrifice comforts, I wouldn't expect results whilst eating an ice cream cone. Nor would I feel compelled to confess to a priest that has a thing for little boys' backsides. Alternatively, if someone hums a few bars, I'm more likely to chime in.