SFR: Al Gore's mistakes?

#76
thanks for clarifiying mr garton. i am on the opposite side of the scientific debate, obviously. yes, the current change in climate is directly related to human intervention. when probability numbers from scientific studies, published in refereed journals, are in the high 90s, you have just read information as close to certainty as any scientist is willing to put forward. OTOH, you may choose to listen to the drug addict or the groper or the propoganda put out by the Gas and Oil folks, your choice.

for those of you who would rather bash the messenger, i feel'for'yah'cause you folks are truly closed minded. you are demonstrating for all who have read your posts just how uninformed you have chosen to remain. you might ask yourself if you have what it takes to dedicate your current life to voicing concern for an important event, any overwhelming global issue. of course we both know the answer to that, so go ahead and bash the messenger, that is not going to solve climate change, but i am sure you must feel better by displaying that part of your anatomy.

the WSJ is an interesting media source but i always have it for breakfast with a large helping of information from 5 other media sources. at least that way i can get a better perception of what might be actually be happening in our world. try it, you may come out ahead.
Just to make sure I undertand your postion, and where that position arises from... who is "the Drug addict", the groper, and the propogandist you refer to. I'm sure you have some specific dates and times and comments made that you can refer to.

Also, what is the "WSJ" and the 5 other sources of information you reply on. I'd love to be enlightened.
 
#77
whaaaa....? :hmmm: nothing can be proven? can you prove the temperature water freezes at? or what about how many teeth a coastal cutt has on its tongue?

preponderence of evidence is hardly truth. it would be refreshing to hear from the media stories that didn't say, italians commit more suicide because of global warming or global warming keep kids awake at night or gloabl warming is making the planet lopsided. if you think i'm joking, ask and i'll send you the articles
The temperature at which water freezes can be influenced by a wide range of factors. Scientists have experiemnted with super freezing pure water so it remains in liquid state 100 degrees below 32F until something 'disturbs' the water which then allows the molecules to line up and achieve solid state. Since we know there are very many factors that influence the temperature at which water freezes, it is more than likely there are factors which humankind does not know about. So while we can best guess based on the evidence we have seen so far, we can't prove that water will always freeze as predicted.

And I'm sure that if you were clever enough with DNA or had some way of looking at a very large sample of coastal cutt you could find more teeth than you'd expect on a samples tounge.
Read some philosophy of science... things can only be disproved in a nomonological deductive approach or best guesses can be applied to observations in an inductive approach, but nothing is ever really Al Gore's movie is hardly factual, as are stories about italian suicide and children's insomnia tied to global warming. I doubt any of it would stand up to scrutiny. Nor do I condone the increasingly popular thinking that 'the ends justify the means' in spreading misinformation. That's very wrong

However, just because some kid is told the sky is blue because birds painted it that color, doesn't mean the sky isn't blue.
 

Philster

Active Member
#79
I don't know to weather to laugh or pity Philster. What kind of person makes light of and is sicken by honorable self sacrifice?
Are you desperate for any opportunity to attack me, or is your reading comprehension really that poor? I'm saying giving the award to Al Gore and passing over truly deserving individuals is sickening. My reference to "tied for third" in regards to the truly deserving individuals on the planet is a slap at the Nobel committee while simultaneously "whisteling past the graveyard". A coping mechanism to help me deal with the fact that in some cases people are literally dying or being tortured to bring needed change in their countries, and the Nobel Committee decides to make a political statement against the USA and specifically our president, who isn't doing what I want him to do in almost every major policy area, instead of honoring those deserving people. Nice try on the personal attack though! Major points for effort! :beer2:
 

Philster

Active Member
#80
The temperature at which water freezes can be influenced by a wide range of factors. Scientists have experiemnted with super freezing pure water so it remains in liquid state 100 degrees below 32F until something 'disturbs' the water which then allows the molecules to line up and achieve solid state. Since we know there are very many factors that influence the temperature at which water freezes, it is more than likely there are factors which humankind does not know about. So while we can best guess based on the evidence we have seen so far, we can't prove that water will always freeze as predicted.

And I'm sure that if you were clever enough with DNA or had some way of looking at a very large sample of coastal cutt you could find more teeth than you'd expect on a samples tounge.
Read some philosophy of science... things can only be disproved in a nomonological deductive approach or best guesses can be applied to observations in an inductive approach, but nothing is ever really Al Gore's movie is hardly factual, as are stories about italian suicide and children's insomnia tied to global warming. I doubt any of it would stand up to scrutiny. Nor do I condone the increasingly popular thinking that 'the ends justify the means' in spreading misinformation. That's very wrong

However, just because some kid is told the sky is blue because birds painted it that color, doesn't mean the sky isn't blue.
Dude, no offense, but I fear this post is a smoke cloud to obfuscate the whole discussion! The general public's understanding of water freezing at 32 degrees is equivalent to "Lincoln Freed the Slaves". It's true enough for most people to have "walkin' round" knowledge, but if you want to delve deeper there's ALOT more to the story. Science isn't surprised by what you state about water. Hell, the FDA allows Poultry that has been stored for extensive periods below 32 degrees to be labeled as "fresh" because the salts in the meat, and in what they've injected (yuck...) keep the birds from freezing. For space travel computations water is considered "non compressible", is that true? True enough for those critical computations, but is there any possibility of water being compressible at all? I'm open to hearing about the concept. Science has in fact "proven" many things about the freezing points of "water". Nice google search though!

Your science philosophy stuff doesn't help either. It along with your water discussion, and previous posts about science and statistics (perponderance of evidence:eek:) are actually the building blocks for an argument AGAINST the popularly accepted scientific method. Do me a favor. Explain the concept of statistical significance and tell me what it means when the IPCC states that it is 90% sure of its results. Heck, how about some of our other "scientists"? Anyone want to address the 90% certainty of the IPCC? Would you get on a plane if you were 90% certain it would make it (NO!)? Cross the street (depends on what for)? I don't expect anyone to respond. In fact I haven't seen anyone respond to any of my questions or assertions. That either means they are too stupid to waste your time on, or you can't. That's for everyone else to decide on. Except for troutfanatic. But with his reading comprehension skills, I'm afraid of what he makes out of "see dick run":eek:
 

riseform

Active Member
#81
you may choose to listen to the drug addict or the groper or the propoganda put out by the Gas and Oil folks, your choice.

for those of you who would rather bash the messenger, i feel'for'yah'cause you folks are truly closed minded.
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.
 

chromeseeker

Where's the Bucket?
#82
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.

CS
 

Philster

Active Member
#83
Heck, how about some of our other "scientists"? Anyone want to address the 90% certainty of the IPCC?
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.
 
#84
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.
 

gt

Active Member
#85
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.
 
#86
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.
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...
 
#87
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!
 

Philster

Active Member
#88
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.
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?
 

gt

Active Member
#89
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...................
 

Latest posts