Innovating out of global warming

[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)!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

Don't for get the 20th century was the quietest century for volcanic activity .... ever.
If you want the source of that dig through that Inconvenient Truth thread.

[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.

[BigV]

Where does President George W Bush's credibility as a Commander in Chief come from, then?

I don't think we disagree much, actually. I believe that when presented with another piece of evidence, such as Gore's cause celebre, it is evaluated in the context of what is already known or decided about the subject. I then add it to the collected information about the subject and if the credibility of the speaker is high, it makes a bigger change in my belief in the subject. I do not say that it makes me believe it more. Because a credible reporter might bring to my attention a piece of evidence that is contrary to my understanding of a subject. The same math applies--it would make a larger impact on my belief in the subject. But the impact would be in the direction of the credible report.

In my experience, there are a very few subjects about which I feel I am an expert. So I try to remain open to new information about everything I know. For pete's sake, that's how I got to know things in the first place. I took reports from credible sources and added them to my own experience. Rinse and repeat.

I apply this successful method to the topic of this thread as well. But I consider the content of the message far more valid than the square footage of the home of the messenger. Seriously. What in the world does that have to do with the questions "Are we warming? Why? How? How fast? Is it important?" The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.

That would be lovely if that's the way public opinion worked ... but it ain't.
You know better than to claim the messenger has no effect on the acceptance of the message by the public at large.

I understand you're trying to convince themercenary it should have no bearing on his decision, but the statement is far to broad to apply to the real world.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I understand you're trying to convince themercenary it should have no bearing on his decision, but the statement is far to broad to apply to the real world.

Yea, that's pretty futile.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by BigV

I apply this successful method to the topic of this thread as well. But I consider the content of the message far more valid than the square footage of the home of the messenger. Seriously. What in the world does that have to do with the questions "Are we warming? Why? How? How fast? Is it important?" The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.

I think the problem is that barring complete knowlege of the subject on our part, we want a messenger who has credibility. We know Gore has no scientific credentials. He has probably taken fewer high level science/mathematics classes than the average Cellar poster. So what does his argument rest on? Personal credibility? He doesn't have that. His lifestyle says the environment is secondary to his personal and political convenience.

I've been really really wrong in the past and don't want to be a roadblock if GW is a serious/fixable problem but putting too many eggs in the Gore basket won't help the cause.

[Hyoi]

Originally Posted by BigV

Where does President George W Bush's credibility as a Commander in Chief come from, then?

I don't think we disagree much, actually. I believe that when presented with another piece of evidence, such as Gore's cause celebre, it is evaluated in the context of what is already known or decided about the subject. I then add it to the collected information about the subject and if the credibility of the speaker is high, it makes a bigger change in my belief in the subject. I do not say that it makes me believe it more. Because a credible reporter might bring to my attention a piece of evidence that is contrary to my understanding of a subject. The same math applies--it would make a larger impact on my belief in the subject. But the impact would be in the direction of the credible report.

In my experience, there are a very few subjects about which I feel I am an expert. So I try to remain open to new information about everything I know. For pete's sake, that's how I got to know things in the first place. I took reports from credible sources and added them to my own experience. Rinse and repeat.

I apply this successful method to the topic of this thread as well. But I consider the content of the message far more valid than the square footage of the home of the messenger. Seriously. What in the world does that have to do with the questions "Are we warming? Why? How? How fast? Is it important?" The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.

You may be interpreting my posts as a denial of the existence of the global warming problem. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming and the problem requires immediate and possibly drastic action. However, your insistance that a champion of a cause need have no credibility, or that this individual not personally participate, is ludicrous. Luckily, there are other options in that I wouldn't follow Mr. Gore to the feed store, much less give his solutions (which aren't his to begin with) a second glance. I'll not sweat while he eats ice cream, and mon ami, that is that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

@ Big V. I believe what you say, but you don't seriously think you're normal, do you?
I really don't think you represent the average Joe. You're smarter, more logical, more dedicated and more interested in how you and the world interact. I'll bet you hardly ever mull over whether to throw the empties out before you get to your home hood.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

@ Big V. I believe what you say, but you don't seriously think you're normal, do you?
I really don't think you represent the average Joe. You're smarter, more logical, more dedicated and more interested in how you and the world interact. I'll bet you hardly ever mull over whether to throw the empties out before you get to your home hood.

xoB, thank you for the fine compliment. I am honored. I really am interested, that's true.

As to the empties, heheh...I can remember traveling to other cities and landing in the airport, and having a snack including a bottled or canned beverage at one of the snack shops in the concourse. I looked, and looked and looked for the recycling bins for the bottles and cans, and for the paper, and never found them. I must have really looked the fool carrying my lunch waste from trash can to trash can searching for a place to put the "trash".

On the other hand, maybe the locals just weren't accustomed to seeing so much wool sock through my Birkenstocks.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

As to the empties, heheh...I can remember traveling to other cities and landing in the airport, and having a snack including a bottled or canned beverage at one of the snack shops in the concourse. I looked, and looked and looked for the recycling bins for the bottles and cans, and for the paper, and never found them. I must have really looked the fool carrying my lunch waste from trash can to trash can searching for a place to put the "trash".

True to form.....duh. Empties... dead soldiers/sailors....beer cans/booze bottles rolling around the floor of the pickum-up truck.
I honestly believe that never crossed your mind.

[TheMercenary]

Another hypocrital celeb joins the circuit as someone who should practice what he preaches. Hey John, nice plane collection you got there at the house....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbi...ent/article.do

[BigV]

Hey mercy, remind me which one is you again, willya?