SFR: Al Gore's mistakes?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Philster, Oct 11, 2007.

  1. riseform Active Member

    Posts: 1,074
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +269 / 0
    I assume these personal attacks are upon Rush Limbaugh (the drug addict), Bill O'Rielly (the groper) and Dick Cheney/Halliburton/"big oil". Missed an opportunity to call Dick "the sniper".

    Does discounting the strong opinions of these openly conservative messengers through personal attack demonstrate an open mind?

    Gore chose to couch his equally strong opinions within a documentary, passed off to the public and school children as "truth". Open minds are obligated to step back and evaluate controversial science behind some of his claims before running like lemmings to the Prius dealer.
  2. chromeseeker Where's the Bucket?

    Posts: 132
    Your City ,State Vancouver, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Gore's book/movie are filled with flaws, as already pointed out and his motives are purely political/money driven. The man flies around in a personal, private jet and owns a 12,000 square foot mansion in Nashville. That is hipocrisy at it's worst. And the Hollywood stars who support this fraud make me nauseous as they are some of the biggest consumers in the world what with their multiple houses, private jets, multiple gas-guzzling vehicles, etc. Please.

    Look, I'm all for environmental awareness and making the world a cleaner place, but not at the expense of developing nations, many of whom don't give a rat's ass about driving a Prius or Carbon buy-backs--all they want is clean water to drink and to not die of entirely preventable diseases, like diarrhea. Gores "Green" movement is basically a bunch of elitists who are going to decimate these countries with their flawed science and greed.

    Makes me sick.

  3. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Didn't think anyone would step up to this. I wouldn't let any of my undergrads make assertions about anything at 90%. Apparently "good enough for jazz" is good enough for the Nobel Committee.
  4. South Sound Fly Fisher New Member

    Posts: 16
    Olympia, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    i find it interesting that nobody mentions the mini ice age that occurred between 1300 and 1830 or so. Prior to that wine grapes were being grown in england. crops were grow at higher elevations in Scotland than they are now. And Greenland was actually inhabited. When you hear comparisons of temperatures they are comparing today's temps to those at the coldest of the mini ice age. Not from before then. I once heard a climitologist say that in the past subtropical forests exisited here as well as glaciers. That is the natural range of temperatures.
  5. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    whooo, a rebroadcast from the FAUX Fantasy Network right here on a flyfishing forum. i am surprised that the invective didn't continue on to Graeme Frost!

    a p value of .9 is not '..good enough...'??? another amazing story to try and digest.
  6. BFK Member

    Posts: 332
    North Sound, Wash.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Considering that changes in solar radiation weren't included in the report-- the satellites provided an incomplete record or some such-- yeah, 90 percent certaintly is pretty much unreliable. When you ignore changes in the primary source of heat, not to mention energy, then what you've done isn't worth a lot, assuming that changes took place.

    Of course, when the 'right wing' National Geographic Society says that Mars is seeing the same overall global warming as the earth, that's an instance of changes that aren't worth noting...I guess.

    Kerry S had it right: it is all about money and power and the desire to make people behave as you wish them to...
  7. ray helaers New Member

    Posts: 1,088
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    A good friend of mine drives around with a bumper sticker that offers some advice I think might benefit a few of you guys: "Don't believe everything you think."

    There is so so much that needs to be said here, but to be perfectly honest, you chaps have rendered me nearly speechless. I read what most of you have written here and all I can really think to say is good Christ help us!
  8. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Yeah... It's not good enough... If it was possible to actually isolate the variables, and they didn't cherry pick their data, it still wouldn't be good enough. there are TONS of things where it's not "good enough". Do you have kids? How do you feel about a 1 in ten chance that a vaccine would damage their brain?

    See GT, the more negative the possible outcomes, the more you need to demonstrate significance. You are so "brainwashed" by the pro side that you are dismissing the negative outcomes of proposed changes. Consider this. If there is futures trading in emissions, someone is betting on things getting better, and someone is betting on things getting worse. Would someone try and manipulate emissions to increase profits? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Nobody would do that! :rofl: How long until I hear "cool aid" drinkers, as you like to say, like YOU Bitching about "BIG Pollution" or "BIG Conservation" instead of Big Oil?
  9. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    had to go back a ways to find the 'official' climate study report. the actual p value they reported was .96 pointing at human caused effects. i guess i would have to flip that coin and point out the nay sayers seem to be the brain washed in this debate.

    from ALL of the reading i have done, excluding opinion pieces and the trash put out by 'scientists' on the payroll of the gas and oil industry, there is no question in my mind regarding climate change.

    now, from a purely scientific point of view, of course we do not understand all of the relationships of all the possible variables in all of their zillions of combinations. we never will.

    oh, and phislster, i taught graduate level statistics and happen to have spent a career developing computer models of complex systems. anytime a global scientific community can conclude with 96% certainty, and they ignored the ice cap melting data, you have a certainty staring you in the face.

    now go ahead and flip on the FAUX Fantasy Network for the latest arguement against and in justification of the worst administration this planet has ever suffered through. or, you can post a link to a refereed journal article which presents evidence to the counter. now remember, only recognized scientific journals with a board which screens the articles prior to publication. i'll stand by...................
  10. fredaevans Active Member

    Posts: 3,115
    White City, Oregon, USA.
    Ratings: +118 / 0
  11. Bob Martin Member

    Posts: 145
    Woodinville, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    There is an article on the editorial page in today's (Oct.16) Seattle PI about Gore and Bush written by syndicated columnist Thomas L. Friedman. It's worth reading and fits nicely into the discussion/argument going on here.
  12. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    GT, there is no easy countering study to throw out there, because single studies will be dismissed by those who believe, and there is no competing effort to the IPCC. You won't accept studies that show that the ice may have "moved" in the arctic even if the probabilities are higher than IPCCs, and is in different places and isn't necessarily being covered by satellite observation, or studies that show that it may have increased in the antarctic. You want one that says the majority of warming is not man caused. There isn't one because the IPCC is a collection of by and large governement fed scientists on a never ending gravy train with an agenda. Not even "big oil" can afford to compete with that. All we can do is look at the IPCC for flaws. I actually find LOTS of "final" probability numbers from the IPCC, and as soon as I can wade through them I'll respond to the 96% number. The chair said 90% repeatedly in Oslow. Backslidding by them or did you find a probability stat that wasn't the final anthroprogenic forcing number? Not accusing you of anything on that. Like I said I've found 3 or 4 numbers, and none are as high as 96% yet. As someone who has lived an breathed stats you know there's a HUGE difference 90 and 96. A scientist making a grant proposal would KILL for those 6 points, and desecrate the body for 2.5 more :rofl: I'm actually amazed you would defend the 90% number, even if it turns out to be wrong, given your background. Perhaps you should examine your bias versus your obviously extensive training?

    Here's some info for you.

    From the IPCC summary for policy makers

    "A few areas of the Globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of Antarctica" All this time I thought it was a closed system? Somebody must have left a window open to let the heat out somewhere.

    "no significant trends of antarctic sea ice extent are apparent since 1978" Lets just ignore that because we don't know why and it hurts our study.

    "changes globally in tropical and extratropical storm intensity and frequency are dominitated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no signficant trends evident over the 20th century."

    "No systemic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events in the limited areas analyzed". Hmmm... I thought all those hail storms through texas and oklahoma last year were from global warming?

    The IPCC says Volcanic activity has no impact and the effects are short term. Mount St. Helens spit out about 2 MILLION tons of sulfur dioxide between 1980 and 1988. In 1999 the US put out about 20 THOUSAND tons. Thats mount St. Helens alone. Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines (some spell it with an F) in 1991, injected a minimum of 17 MEGATONS into the air! Acid Rain anyone! By all means ignoring the volcanoes is good science!

    Let's talk mitigation and socio-political issues they won't ever face. The IPCC says methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Rice paddies pump between 50 and 100 million tons of methane into the atmosphere. US methane, emissions have steadily declined since 1990. In 1997, the most recent year a quick search could come up with it was under 30 tons. You know, I bet with rising populations, rice production will remain stable and won't be going up at all! :rofl:

    Wanna go on. You can find the journal articles that cover all of those statements I made. I'm not gonna wipe folks arses for them. If you care just google Methane Rice or Volcanic Emissions or Tornado Frequency... Or don't.

    I've never said things aren't warming up. I said it's not as bad as the IPCC says, and that the contribution of the US to it are not that big a deal. We should definitely clean up, but having the UN and the World Court set and enforce rules for the world is a recipe for a socialist disaster. I will fight to the end to keep my kids from growing up in a third world country. Folks who feel as you do on the other hand seem to believe that if we weren't industrialized, things would remain in a steady state forever. That's arrogant and downright silly.

    Oh and congrats on that melon on your shoulders. I only taught stats to undergrads as a TA. However there's a difference between "complex systems" and our planets ecology.
  13. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    yes philster, there are ZERO refereed journal articles refuting climate change. your phony arguement regarding why, is just so much hooey. if, in fact, there was any clear scientific evidence that climate chage was not occurring, i can think of a dozen refereed journals who would all be more than happy to publish that study.

    perhaps you didn't notice, but a chunk of the antartic the size of florida split off this summer. hard to ignore i'd say. and did you notice that the model which led to the published .96 figure by the IPCC was incorrect in predicting the artic melt off this summer?? had that been taken into account, i am sure the p value would have been moved to at least .98.

    please, no more opinions and phoney rationales, if you have hard scientific evidence that climate change is fake, post the link, otherwise i might suggest you recognize that FFN has indeed been successful in brain washin'yah.

    events occurring in our environment are just another example of 'complex systems'. now some would have you believe that you cannot understand the prime variables involved and therefore you can't model such systems. i would suggest that it is indeed possible to build such models and to indeed offer up predictions that tend to hold water.
  14. Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Posts: 5,635
    Somewhere on the Coast
    Ratings: +539 / 0
    Certainly a tough call...weeding out the truth from all this global warming evidence...natural cyclical stuff, or human-caused??? Maybe a volcano somewhere will go off really big, and cause a nuclear winter, making all of this discussion moot. Or maybe one of our insane political leaders will set off a nuke somewhere, with the same result. Or how 'bout the horror of a genetically engineered and unstoppable virus set loose by an insane radical terrorist, beyond the help of the WHO or CDC, decimating the earth's population?
    I'm usually more worried about that drunk driver swerving over the centerline and taking me out as I return from gassing up the rig the evening before a planned fishing trip. Will my skin cancer get worse... (gotta go in soon for a "mole procedure")? Of course I don't have any dependents or progeny to worry about, so the "future of the future" is less important to me than is RIGHT NOW. I try to live "day-to-day" and "in the moment," as much as possible. I can't believe i wasted my time reading through this thread when I "should have been" out fishing. Nothing has been resolved or clarified here. I just had to toss in my $.02, though, didn't I? :beathead::beathead::beathead:
    I think Al Gore is an embarrassment to conservationists everywhere. That doesn't negate my hatred for Bush/Cheney and their ilk, though.
  15. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Calm down. I'm not arguing that climate change is happening. I said in my last post I KNOW it's getting warmer. It does that, and then it gets cold again. It happens. Lots of things die everytime it does. We're arguing whether WE are THE cause and whether WE can alter it. Stop saying I'm "refuting climate change" I never have, and it's like arguing with a 5 year old...

    Send me the info on that Florida sized glacier. Larsen B was about that big, but that was 2002? I honestly havent' heard of one this year.
  16. Sloan Craven Active Member

    Posts: 2,464
    NoSho, ma
    Ratings: +30 / 0
    "Nice google search though!" ???? Not sure what you are trying to imply with that. Or the putting the term 'scientists' in quotes. (Actually, I'm not that stupid. I spent quite a bit of time in grad school and am familiar with the behavior. I really understand that is a condecsending attempt at a put down. It happens any time a person comes to the table with a different perspecive, has diffentent information, or read different books. But here's the thing, those grad students and professors thought that their behavior was somemhow more acceptable than just coming out and saying "F*#k you", when in reality it is much, much worse.)

    As for the 90% certainty.... In a 'walkin around knowledge' sort of way, I think those are good odds. Walking across a street in Manhattan? Eating at a Taco Bell? Wading across a river? Walking in a city late a night? Flying a plane? Odds are independent so just because 1 in 10 planes doesn't go down doesn't mean the odds are less than 10% than one of those thousand moving parts isn't going to crap out. But, that information comes from some reading a book written by some guy that made millions as an odds-maker in Vegas and not some other guy that spent most of their adult life on some university campus, so that would not be considered a 'reliable source' by some.

    In a 'scientific perspective', where does the 90% come from? Is it just some guy saying "I'm 90% sure" or was there a series of statistical manipulations? What data was tested? Was the proper test used for that type of data? Was the data biased in some way?

    Observational science can be hindered by a nomological deductive approach, as it assumes control of all variables and encourages the abandonment of multiple working hypotheses. For some reason everyone that relies on a deductive approach likes to say something to the tune of "That is THE accepted scientific method" and when someone doens't want to use their method they call out "postmodernism, postmodernism", because they believe that the whole world is to be viewed through one lens. And that one lens is whichever lens was given to them in grad school. However, in reality there are plenty of researchers that use an inductive approach.....astronomy, paleontology, geology... It's nothing new and nothing special.
  17. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    Ratings: +3 / 0
  18. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Someone who doesn't want to get involved sent me an Email. He says to tell you that your odds of winning at Russian roulette are at about 85% give or take:rofl:
  19. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    depends on whether its a 5 shot or a 9 shot. and that is a great illustration, BTY, of an unsubstatiated opinion being put forth as a fact. the roughly 700 published studies from refereed scientific journals clarify these sorts of things before making inane statements.

    now you may continue to believe the FFN and the talking heads, or you might just do some reading from credable sources, sometimes tough sleding to say the least. or you could just go ahead and bash the messenger and demonstrate your unwillingness to become informed.

    carry on, this thread is going nowhere.
  20. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    If you want to be childish, you should have said, depends if you it's an automatic or not... Info on the glacier please. EXCUSE me for making the assumption that just about EVERYBODY in North America has an image of a 6 shot, double action, revolver as the tool of choice for russian roulette. The detective special is an oddity, and I've never seen a 9 shot. Is that a .22 cal?

    Oh yeah. Info on the glacier please? I can't find anything on it...