Innovating out of global warming

[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.

[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?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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

Neither, but I love the pic.

[TheMercenary]

Impressive picture:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n.../33983331.html

Companion article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ng-arctic.html

[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.

[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.

[glatt]

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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

So what does that mean? If it was quieter than usual, then it means that if it goes back to "normal" then global warming will become worse and more accelerated.

Then again, if the studies in the U.S. Geological Survey link are correct, it will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our CO2 production. We are currently producing 150 times the CO2 that the volcanoes are producing, and China hasn't fully ramped up its CO2 production. Seems silly to be worried about the negligible role of volcanoes when the world's largest country is about to send human CO2 productions through the roof.

[TheMercenary]

We really need a whole bunch of volcano's to go off or a good nuclear winter. That would reverse things.

[piercehawkeye45]

Minnesota was thinking of giving Gore an honorary degree; I don't think it happened though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

So what does that mean? If it was quieter than usual, then it means that if it goes back to "normal" then global warming will become worse and more accelerated.

Then again, if the studies in the U.S. Geological Survey link are correct, it will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our CO2 production. We are currently producing 150 times the CO2 that the volcanoes are producing, and China hasn't fully ramped up its CO2 production. Seems silly to be worried about the negligible role of volcanoes when the world's largest country is about to send human CO2 productions through the roof.

The fault in your reasoning is what I've objected to from the getgo. There is more to global warming than co2, way more.
A good volcano fart puts a lot more in the air than co2. Along with a shitload of other things, the dirt... oh, excuse me, particulate matter is in a word, shade. With a big one, a lot of shade for more than a year. It's all a very complicated balance, a lot of which we don't understand yet.

I predict todays Supreme Court decision is going to cause inflation undreamed of in the past. I sure hope I'm wrong on that one, and would be greatly relieved if someone would repudiate it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Minnesota was thinking of giving Gore an honorary degree; I don't think it happened though.

Great, have a big ceremony. Just the pollution from the reporters covering it would set things back a year.

[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.