An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Kuci: Its about the message, not the messenger - even though your attack on Gore reek of jealousy.

I missed this earlier.

1) Isn't Gore the one attacking the messenger here?

2) Why should I pay attention to what a politician says about science? All lay knowledge of scientific questions of any complexity should be based on arguments from authority, since anyone able to make their own evalution wouldn't be a layman.

3) Why would I be jealous of Gore?

[BlackCat]

Sigh. Kuci, when will you learn it ??? The gore are only protecting the right belief against unbelivers, and of course have the right to smear people that dares to question it.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Dang maybe I should have done the same. I should have noticed the hen/egg doubt

This actually makes a great deal of sense if higher temperatures cause more CO2, and also more CO2 causes higher temperatures. The rise of the two would be intertwined in a way where it's hard to say which came first, because in essence either could have come first and caused the subsequent vicious cycle. Of course, their measurements could just lack precision.

It is quite right that levels are rising and on unprecedented levels, but the temperature doesn't catch up at same rate.

I think temperature rise is a more gradual process. Think of the ocean, the water is not warm after the first few warm days in summer. It takes a lot to make the water warm, but eventually after enough warm days it warms up too. As humans we can produce tons (or even megatons!) of CO2, but directly warming the Earth is harder.

Yeah, priorities - mine is to take over the world as the Scandinavs in a C3C

C3C?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


This actually makes a great deal of sense if higher temperatures cause more CO2, and also more CO2 causes higher temperatures. The rise of the two would be intertwined in a way where it's hard to say which came first, because in essence either could have come first and caused the subsequent vicious cycle. Of course, their measurements could just lack precision.



I think temperature rise is a more gradual process. Think of the ocean, the water is not warm after the first few warm days in summer. It takes a lot to make the water warm, but eventually after enough warm days it warms up too. As humans we can produce tons (or even megatons!) of CO2, but directly warming the Earth is harder.

Ehrr - first you agree that there is doubt about what causes what, and then you claim that temp raise is a delayed process ??? If that was the case, shouldn't CO2 precede temp generally ?

C3C?

Civ III Conquests - do it when I need a rest from SMAX

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Ehrr - first you agree that there is doubt about what causes what, and then you claim that temp raise is a delayed process ??? If that was the case, shouldn't CO2 precede temp generally ?

Not if they both cause each other. And well, normally CO2 levels rise gradually allowing temperature to rise happen. I think my analogy was bad.

Rather imagine a stove. If I put a pot of water on it, and gradually raise the temperature of the stove, the water slowly heats up. If I instead put on the pot onto a stove already turned up to maximum, the water does not magically become hot instantly, but it does heat up faster than in the previous gradual situation.

Now, humans have been dumping mass ammounts of CO2 into the athmosphere over about 200 years, which in geological terms is the blink of an eye. In previous cycles this rise took thousands or tens of thousands of years. Of course there's going to be a delay before the temperature rises. If tomorrow our entire athmosphere was made up of pure CO2, the temperature would not suddenly become 400C, though it might eventually get there. (Or something like that. If you don't believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise look at Venus. It's much warmer than it should be even given it's closer relative position to the sun.)

[BlackCat]

Just out of curiosity - what is your source of evidence that CO2 is to blame for the conditions on venus

[civman2000]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Just out of curiosity - what is your source of evidence that CO2 is to blame for the conditions on venus

I learned that in elementary school . Wikipedia confirms it:

Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface about 90 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C. This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance.

[Victor Galis]

Also, I recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond to everyone that doubts humans can **** up their environment. He doesn't really talk about global warming and the like, but talks about how different societies in the past did stupid things or smart things and subsequently collapsed or prospered.

You know Easter Island used to have trees, until they cut them all down? This was particularly bad for a civilization that depended on wood for tools, boats, etc. In hindsight, it looks really stupid, but the book examines the circumstances under which really stupid things like this can happen.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by civman2000

I learned that in elementary school . Wikipedia confirms it:

I won't dispute your elementary school knowledge - I guess that it's fine, but it actually only says something about the current state of Venus - it doesn't say anything about how Venus ended up in this state.

Oh, wiki is fine, but remember to question what it says

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Also, I recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond to everyone that doubts humans can **** up their environment. He doesn't really talk about global warming and the like, but talks about how different societies in the past did stupid things or smart things and subsequently collapsed or prospered.

You know Easter Island used to have trees, until they cut them all down? This was particularly bad for a civilization that depended on wood for tools, boats, etc. In hindsight, it looks really stupid, but the book examines the circumstances under which really stupid things like this can happen.

Just to clarify - humans are for certain able to alter the environment locally and have done it several times in history. Humans too has been eradicated due to common climatic changes (viking settlements on greenland f.ex) - they might even have done it on a global scale in the last 10.000 years - only problem is that we don't know.

My main reason to oppose the "humans are to blame for greenhouse" is that currently noone knows why and how climatic changes happens. Yes, there are theories, but not any proven - worse - theories opposing CO2 outlet are more or less considered herecy.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by BlackCat

My main reason to oppose the "humans are to blame for greenhouse" is that currently noone knows why and how climatic changes happens. Yes, there are theories, but not any proven - worse - theories opposing CO2 outlet are more or less considered herecy.

CO2 and temperature sure do seem to go together though...

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


CO2 and temperature sure do seem to go together though...

Nice pic. What is the source ?

[Spiffor]

"Classroom of the future", a NASA-sponsored educational project.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
2) Why should I pay attention to what a politician says about science? All lay knowledge of scientific questions of any complexity should be based on arguments from authority, since anyone able to make their own evalution wouldn't be a layman.

So you didn't google his education background, then? The fact is:

3) Why would I be jealous of Gore?

He has better scientific credentials than you do

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I missed this earlier.

1) Isn't Gore the one attacking the messenger here?

2) Why should I pay attention to what a politician says about science? All lay knowledge of scientific questions of any complexity should be based on arguments from authority, since anyone able to make their own evalution wouldn't be a layman.

3) Why would I be jealous of Gore?

Because Gore never claimed to have done any of this research himself. He is reporting what he has learned and, as a politician, he is lobbying in favour of it. Furthermore, his points are based on arguments from authority, in fact it is his goal that we start listening to scientific authorities rather than pop-science, industry-payroll pundits.

You really ought to at least listen to what Gore has to say rather than bash him outright.