Gore is no expert....

by Bryan 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AuldSoul

  DanTheMan: I think you overcomplicate things.

  DanTheMan: Now I realize that climatology is way more complicated than this ...

  I disagree that I am overcomplicating things. On the other hand, I think you just admitted to undercomplicating things.

  DanTheMan: ... the fact that C02 is a greenhouse gas, this is just basic!

  So, the geologic record should bear out that elevations in global temperature are always at least accompanied by increase in atmospheric accumulation of CO 2 , right? I mean, from my perspective that seem easy enough to substantiate. If there is an actual relationship then the relationship is easily demonstrable.

  Likewise, we would see that an increase in CO 2 accumulation is always followed by elevated global temperatures—and not ever the other way around. This would scientifically establish cause and effect.

  You state something as fact and then call it a basic fact. Was this a basic fact in ... let's say, 1970? Were you aware of this basic fact in, oh, say, 1985? I strongly suspect not, since you wrote C02 (cee-zero-two) above, instead of CO 2 . Only one of these is the elemental formula for carbon dioxide. That is a basic fact.

  The cause and effect relationship of CO 2 on the climate is not a basic fact. Please stop pretending that there is no need to establish proof for cause and effect simply because of what "everyone knows" about CO 2 . Such examples of baseless rationale used to justify propaganda is why I call science a religion. Perhaps I should limit it to certain segments of science. "CO 2 causes global warming!" is a religion.

  I apologize for the tone, but your casual dismissal of my simple question—which should be the first test any scientifcally minded person applies to any such cause and effect claim—pissed me off. I do have respect for you, but even with your stated caveat I did not feel your reply demonstrated any respect at all for me.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  DanTheMan

  You state something as fact and then call it a basic fact. Was this a basic fact in ... let's say, 1970? Were you aware of this basic fact in, oh, say, 1985? I strongly suspect not, since you wrote C02 (cee-zero-two) above, instead of CO 2 . Only one of these is the elemental formula for carbon dioxide. That is a basic fact.

  Do you believe that CO2 (yes, my use of zero for "o" was a pretty embarrassing error!) is a greenhouse gas?
• 

  AuldSoul

  DanTheMan: Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

  If we can agree that greenhouse gases are defined as natural and anthropogenic gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit infrared or heat radiation, then, yes.

  I do not believe they have been termed "greenhouse gases" for very long. This classification is (as far as I know) a rather recent convention.

  Regarding how the atmospheric accumulation of these affects global climate, I haven't seen enough data to be certain that the increased concentration of these gases is harmful to the environment. Would it have an impact? Definitely, as would its absence. Would be harmful to human cities bordering waterways? Quite possible. Would it be harmful to our ability to use our current coastlines in perpetuity? Quite possible. Would it be able to effect the eradication of all life on earth? Not even a remote possiblity. It can't even eradicate all human life on earth.

  For some inexplicable reason humans think of themselves as not part of the natural balance on earth. For some reason we have learnt to regard ourselves and our actions as intrusive, as though we are separate from everything around us; distant observers. WE BELONG HERE! We are PART of, not caretakers over, this wonderful process we pretend to simply observe, catalogue, taxonomize, etc.

  Here's the rub, in short: we have no crystal ball. You don't. I don't. No panel of 200 or 2,000,000 scientists does. We have been on this rock an eyeblink in geologic terms and have only been aware of the study of physical sciences for a tiny fragment of that time. I culled a quote from a Web site regarding the periodic table of elements (from which elements CO 2 derives): "If a periodic table is regarded as an ordering of the chemical elements demonstrating the periodicity of chemical and physical properties, credit for the first periodic table (published in 1862) probably should be given to a French geologist, A.E.Beguyer de Chancourtois."

  That was 1862; during the US Civil War. This is not ancient history. Geologically speaking we haven't even been at this since one minute ago but we think we have it all figured out. Somehow we fool ourselves into thinking we know the eventual impacts of our actions or inactions and that we have become prescient enough in our wisdom to predict what will and will not be for the good not only of ourselves but for the whole planet. When, in fact, we are stupid and ignorant and we perpetually prove it to ourselves only to have our newfound shard of knowledge puff us out of all proportion all over again.

  Humans succumb to wanton hubris leading to idiotic beliefs throughout history. I want PROOF that demonstrates why this isn't another instance of superstitious paranoia gone political/religious.

  Once again, I do not think history shows me to be ill-advised to check the cleanliness of the hands of he who force feeds me facts.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  DanTheMan

  DanTheMan : Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

  If we can agree that greenhouse gases are defined as natural and anthropogenic gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit infrared or heat radiation, then, yes.

  Regarding how the atmospheric accumulation of these affects global climate, I haven't seen enough data to be certain that the increased concentration of these gases is harmful to the environment. Would it have an impact? Definitely,

  Ok...this is all I was after really. I wouldn't have gotten this from your previous posts.
• 

  AuldSoul

  DanTheMan: Ok...this is all I was after really.

  To clarify, DanTheMan, I do not think I have ever come across an example of unnatural CO 2 . Nor am I aware of humans creating CO 2 . Has this been happening? Has the elemental balance of our universal reality shifted because humans have found a way to create CO 2 ?

  AuldSoul: For some reason we have learnt to regard ourselves and our actions as intrusive, as though we are separate from everything around us; distant observers.

  Anthropegenic increases are natural increases. We are natural, our processes cannot be evaluated separately from the very nature of which we are a part. We are indigenous to this planet (so far as we know) and cannot possibly do or refrain from doing anything that is unnatural. I submit that no human has ever produced carbon-dioxide. And yes, I do mean in the most technical scientific sense, because we are talking about science. Can you refute that statement? If not, then there is no such thing as anthropogenic CO 2 . We are not separate from the rest of reality, we are part of reality.

  I think a lot of times hype keeps people from seeing through the clutter of words to the basic errors in the foundation of such claims.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  DanTheMan

  I submit that no human has ever produced carbon-dioxide. And yes, I do mean in the most technical scientific sense, because we are talking about science. Can you refute that statement? If not, then there is no such thing as anthropogenic CO 2 .

  Nobody believes that "anthropogenic CO2" means CO2 created from nothing at all. Anthropogenic CO2 is simply a term scientists use to designate atmospheric CO2 that has come about due to human activities.

  It embarrasses me to even be saying these things!

  Geez man. Sometimes you're just silly-ly intellectual Auldsoul.
• 

  sammielee24

  ask because I don't know very many people who seriously question whether global warming is occurring. I know many people who question the assumptions about why global warming is occurring and who question the assumption that changes in human behavior will

  That is the question that I want to hear answered as well. In addition, from what I understand in my own research, scientists today can only use data collected for the past 150 years as proof of global warming. That same research has also told me that scientists collectively agree that the earth has warmed and cooled itself in both minimal and major ways for thousands of years. This would suggest that global warming has happened to varying degrees and without intervention by humans and therefore, it may just happen again with or without our intervention again.

  Now - do I think we have contributed to it and that our actions might make it happen faster? Yes. How? Space travel. Air travel, Vehicle Transport. Electricity. Throw away mind set. Rather than simply change our lightbulbs - we would have to cease air travel. Stop manufacturing day and night and overutilizing our electric and manual resources. Stop the space program. Stop selling and using disposable diapers that don't break down in land fill for 500 years. Stop selling cheap goods so that the landfill isn't polluted with a 5 dollar toaster, a plastic kettle, a broken plastic basket. The list could go on but I'm sure if and how much humans can turn back the clock environmentally or if and how much of this posturing on global warming is another political and celebrity push. sammieswife.
• 

  AuldSoul

  But you must admit that the phrase attempts to classify human endeavors and their impacts differently than everything else in nature.

  That was the point I was making. We don't increase CO 2 any more than cows increase CH 4 . We are behaving naturally for humans. We know for sure, because (1) we are humans and (2) humans are natural.

  Your "embarassing" rephrase of the intent of "anthropogenic" is embarassing, in my opinion also.

  Nobody believes that "anthropogenic CO2" means CO2 created from nothing at all. Anthropogenic CO2 is simply a term scientists use to designate atmospheric CO2 that has come about due to human activities.

  CO 2 doesn't "come about" due to human activities. All these elements existed already, their states change, their combinative forms change, but they don't "come about" because of us—I feel silly having to say this to you. Anthropogenic CO 2 is simply a term scientists use to try and segregate the processes humans have invented that result in the combinative form CO 2 . They attempt to evaluate these sources separately from all other sources, and they label all other sources as natural, by contrast to human sources.

  Obviously, they must believe humans are unnatural and that their processes are unnatural. I was pointing out this as a very easily identifiable flaw in their reasoning on the matter. It is a fundamental flaw that flavors the conclusions arising from many scientific endeavors.

  I think you got the point and you don't really like it very much. We are not the aloof guardians and caretakers of this planet. We are part of this planet. We are part of the experiment however much we try to pretend objective observer status.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Satanus

  Gore is a natural born leader looking for a group to lead. He finally found one. I can only imagine how satisfied he must feel.

  S
• 

  AuldSoul

  Satanus,

  If it isn't Tipper trying to save the souls of the young from Dee Snyder, it is Al trying to save us all from drowning 100 years from now. I think Alarmism is the dominant religion in that household.

  —AuldSoul