An Inconvenient Truth (Gore Exaggerates...)

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:22 pm

Gore exaggerated.
Global warming must be a farce.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:31 pm

Only to get people to listen. What's wrong with that ?

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:19 pm

From the EPA:

What's Known for Certain?

Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarmi ... nties.html

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:31 pm

There weren't any farting cows or humans during that last ice age ?

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:45 pm

Heard yesterday that good ole Bubba Clinton actually came out and said that the Bush Administartions Enviro policies are to blame for the increased number and strength of hurricanes lately. Unfreakinbelieveable........

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:53 pm

He hasn't really invented anything since the Internets (;)) so maybe Al Gore is working on inventing a Global Dehumidifier.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:55 pm

Uncertainties? Of course.
Some things are unknown? Yeah...
Some things are unclear? Uh-huh...

It's called "science."

Do some reading. The EPA site is a good place to start.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.

Calculations of climate change for specific areas are much less reliable than global ones, and it is unclear whether regional climate will become more variable.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarmi ... imate.html

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:59 pm

Uncle Fester wrote:It's called "science."

Oh well that settles it then, science has never been incorrect.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:01 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:It's called "science."

Oh well that settles it then, science has never been incorrect.

It's got a better batting average than fundie preachers who leg press 2000 lbs.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:08 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:It's called "science."

Oh well that settles it then, science has never been incorrect.
It's got a better batting average than fundie preachers who leg press 2000 lbs.

Or an internet poster that tries to infuse a fallacious argument into the WRONG thread.

OUT OF CONTEXT.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:11 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: Oh well that settles it then, science has never been incorrect.
It's got a better batting average than fundie preachers who leg press 2000 lbs.
Or an internet poster that tries to infuse a fallacious argument into the WRONG thread.

OUT OF CONTEXT.

And you've NEVER done that?

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:13 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:It's called "science."

Oh well that settles it then, science has never been incorrect.
It's got a better batting average than fundie preachers who leg press 2000 lbs.

RACK.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:13 pm

Oh well that settles it then, science has never been incorrect.

If you get cancer are you going to refuse the chemo?

The science behind it is imperfect and the treatment costs a lot of money.

We could always let the insurance company or Pat Robertson make the call on your behalf.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:26 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
BSmack wrote: It's got a better batting average than fundie preachers who leg press 2000 lbs.
Or an internet poster that tries to infuse a fallacious argument into the WRONG thread.

OUT OF CONTEXT.
And you've NEVER done that?

I've got a better batting average than a leftie poster who leg press 2000 lbs.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:28 pm

Tom In VA wrote:

Awful.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:39 pm

...statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

Your turn.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:41 pm

Eaglebauer wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:

Awful.

*

I understand you're pretty funny as a troll and, well, comedy is kind of a hobby of mine. Well, actually, it's a little more than just a hobby, Reader's Digest is considering publishing two of my jokes.

*Didn't have a picture of him as Lt. Steve in GMV

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:33 pm

yeah fester it's a conspiracy, and shit. You should know that.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:38 pm

There is not one single iota of evidence to suggest that this barely perceptible increase in temperature is anything other than ordinary cyclical activity let alone that it is due to human activity.

So you keep insisting, no matter what evidence is presented.
You have no credentials, no science background.

You're the Black Knight.

------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I'm not! Come back here and fight, ya pansy.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:00 pm

The references I've cited come from the following sources:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
National Academy of Sciences
The EPA

You've cited...

-your own personal opinion.

Like I said:

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:04 pm

Mvscal has a great point.

So in reality I guesss it just comes down to which scientific "consensus" you want to believe.

That of Corporatre America/Fox News/the Far Right

-OR- that of (damn this is silly)... SCIENTISTS.

FWIW--

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution and climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:15 pm

mvscal wrote: I've cited the fact that we've had ice ages with CO2 levels astronomically higher than what they are today. That isn't an opinion or a "consensus". It is a fact.

Oh, dear.

The brainwashing was particularly effective on this one.

Why don't you check into the timelines of the geological periods you're trying to cite, and maybe do some looking into them. Modern technology is a wonderful thing...you should check it out sometime.

I'm not even going any further down this road with you. The "evidence" you're using to create your case is so unbelievably flawed, I think it would do a lot to better yourself as a person and thinker if you figure out these major flaws on your own.

Unbelievable ignorance.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:21 pm

mvscal wrote: It is completely irrelevant whether or not there are 4,000 scientists on one side of the issue and 200 on the other or even one on the other side for that matter.

Which in essence, means this:

mvscal wrote: lalalalalalalalallalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

Our resident Christers will be happy to hear their 'Earth is 10,000 years old' and evolution doesn't exist arguments just got a new lease on life with this brilliant new line of scientific reasoning.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:25 pm

mvscal wrote:
Eaglebauer wrote:
mvscal wrote: It is completely irrelevant whether or not there are 4,000 scientists on one side of the issue and 200 on the other or even one on the other side for that matter.
Which in essence, means this:

Evidence talks and bullshit walks

Is what it means.

No it means you choose to ignore the collective wisdomw of the scientific community when it's convenient for you.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:26 pm

mvscal wrote:nothing has been presented that can prove or even suggest that this is anything other than ordinary cyclical variation.

Well...yes...yes it has.

It just doesn't play into your arguments, so you choose to ignore it.

But mv...I must take this opportunity to congratulate you. It's not very often that a poster can usurp Sissyroo's position of Superlative Flaming Idiot around here, but you've achieved that stellar goal:

mvscal wrote:The fact of the matter is CO2 does not drive climate change.

Funny, funny stuff.

In case you haven't been following, your entire argument here is based upon the notion that "nobody truly has the facts."

Apparently, you forgot to add a disclaimer -- "nobody truly has the facts...except ME!!!!! "

Fucking classic.

Way to go, mvscrownroyal25.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:01 pm

mvscal wrote:A theory is either correct or incorrect.

You say this based upon your vast knowledge of "science?"

It's getting funnier by the minute.

Since, like most people in CrownSissy's shoes, you have no idea why you're so funny, maybe I can help:

A "theory," despite your misusage of the word(which goes a long way towards your credibilty in the discussion), is, by definition, neither correct nor incorrect -- it's a possibilty.

A "theorem" is a theory that has been proven to be correct. Once a "theory" is proven incorrect, it is no longer a "theory"...by definition.

So basically, what you just said is the OPPOSITE of FACT. BY DEFINITION, "theories" are neither correct nor incorrect.

So maybe...just maybe...you should learn what them thar big "scientific words" mean, BEFORE you start tossing them around in a vain attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Sorry if I can't put too much stock in the "scientific" ramblings of someone who doesn't actually know what the scientific terms he's attempting to use even mean...and even goes so far to make absolute statements that prove he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Score another victory for mvscrownroyal25.

Proving the "theory" that Dick and Jane did, in fact, "run," and did indeed own a dog named Spot is a little more up your alley at this point.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:04 pm

mvscal wrote: There is no "collective wisdom". A theory is either correct or incorrect. The number of people who "believe" (another faith based concept with no scientific validity) in it is totally irrelevant.

You've said a lot, and I mean a LOT, of stupid shit in your days, but this may be the most stupid fucking thing you've ever fucking said.

A theory by definition is neither "correct" or "incorrect". It it was, then it would no longer be theory.

This really shouldn't be necessary...

TheoryIn science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on the context and their methodologies. In common usage, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion." In this sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think.

You are now Diogenes arguing that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

Congratultions.

Get shotgun--insert into mouth--pull trigger.

You're done.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:07 pm

Eaglebauer wrote: You've said a lot, and I mean a LOT, of stupid shit in your days, but this may be the most stupid fucking thing you've ever fucking said.

Nice catch

:faggywinky:

But really -- apart from not knowing what basic scientific terms mean...he really is an expert scientist.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:25 pm

KYOA.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:28 pm

Serious question...

Are you just going to sit there and take this shit, Sissyroo?

I mean, you've spent 5 years nuturing your niche here, and pmsgal is threatening to undo all of your hard work in but a few hours.

Have some pride, Cicero. Don't let him step to your gig.

I mean, it takes a rare breed to play the "Oh shit, I really screwed the pooch on this one...how am I going to save face? I KNOW!!!! I'll accuse everyone else of KTOA!!!! YEAH! THAT'S IT!!!! RACK ME!!!!!"

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:36 pm

mvscal wrote: There is no "collective wisdom". A theory is either correct or incorrect.

mvscal wrote: It is an idea which might possibly be correct or it might possibly
be incorrect depending on the evidence.

It's not going well for you.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:37 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Serious question...

Are you just going to sit there and take this shit, Sissyroo?

I mean, you've spent 5 years nuturing your niche here, and pmsgal is threatening to undo all of your hard work in but a few hours.

Have some pride, Cicero. Don't let him step to your gig.

I mean, it takes a rare breed to play the "Oh shit, I really screwed the pooch on this one...how am I going to save face? I KNOW!!!! I'll accuse everyone else of KTOA!!!! YEAH! THAT'S IT!!!! RACK ME!!!!!"

Actually, if you think this is a new tactic for mvscal, you haven't been paying attention. Just sayin'.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:48 pm

mvscal wrote:If I keep posting everyone might completely gloss over pages 1 and 2 which were an unmitigated disaster for me

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:49 pm

Wow. You really put me in my place.

Way to go...Jeff In SDvscal

Say "hi" to the folks at Stucknut for me.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:00 pm

mvscal wrote:Is this supposed to be your evidence that supports AGW?

Huffing and puffing isn't going to get it done for you here.

Oh, so sorry.

But frankly, I'm not of a mind right now to try and discuss scientific principles with someone who doesn't know the difference between a "theory" and a "theorem."

Sorry, bud.

If you wanted to sit at the grown-ups table, you probably should have paid more attention in junior high school science class. Apparently, that GED program you went through post-high school didn't cover basic science definitions, either.

I'd like to discuss this with you someday, but really -- you've got a LOT to learn before we can ever sit down and have a rational discussion about anything scientific...OBVIOUSLY.

But really, mv in DC...you got over. Put a gold star on your calender. And stop defiling those pogs while you're at it.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:52 pm

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
mvscal wrote:Is this supposed to be your evidence that supports AGW?

Huffing and puffing isn't going to get it done for you here.

Oh, so sorry.

But frankly, I'm not of a mind right now to try and discuss scientific principles with someone who doesn't know the difference between a "theory" and a "theorem."

Not even a nice try, bitch. First off a theorem is a mathematical proof not a "theory that has been proven". That's one reason why you do not see anybody refering to "The Theorem of Gravity". Those who can fire up three or more brain cells understand this and are laughing at you.

Theories that have been conclusively proven are typically refered to as "Laws", but that's really beside the point. A "theory" which is conclusively disproven is discarded. So, yes, a "theory" remains hypothetical and it is either right or it is wrong.

The real world example under discussion here is the "theory" that anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are driving global climate change. This is either happening or it isn't. Two possibilities.

The bottom line here is that bullshit, bluster and semantic hair-splitting are not going to obscure the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and have brought absolutely nothing to the debate.

Sorry kid. You'll get em next time.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:11 pm

mvscal wrote:The fact of the matter is CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 follows it.

Here's another word for you to brush up on, mvsmeds --

"Corollary."

So, since there's an increased level of atmospheric CO2 right now, simple mvscal logic dictates that we're actually just coming out of an ice age, right now.

And silly me, I thought all of those stories from ancient times written by such authors as Plato were factual.

Turns out, there weren't even any civilized people around in Plato's alleged era, since the earth was frozen.

Man, I've been had. Didn't realize that the world just unfroze in the last 150 years. Those lying fucking historians.

C-O-R-O-L-L-A-R-Y...

Would be another great word to familiarize yourself with before you go spouting the stupid.

Chin up, though...you'll get 'em next time.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:25 pm

Criminy...what a mess.

Hypothesis = possible explanation for a set of observations, worded in a way that is testable (and falsifiable). In science, it is NOT the same as an "educated guess," and I beat students who give me that definition and then hunt down their previous teachers and kneecap them.

Theory = a well-supported hypothesis. In other words, a hypothesis is not "bumped up" to theory level until a substantial body of supporting evidence (from multiple experiments or observations) is accrued. For example, the heliocentric theory and atomic theory. Theories can be modified as new evidence is brought in, or even discarded if the weight of new evidence fails to support the theory.

'Theorem' is a mathematical and physics term not really used in biology at all.

Contrary to the incessant repeating on this board, theories DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER BECOME "LAWS."

Laws are statements of proven connected observations without causal explanation. The Law of Gravity states that if I let go of a pencil, it falls. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why. Mendel's laws in genetics merely stated what he saw...not why. It took the gene-chromosome THEORY to explain his observations.

One could even argue that because theories, unlike laws, are explanations of observations, they are substantially more useful than "laws."

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:29 pm

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:'Theorem' is a mathematical and physics term not really used in biology at all.

Uhm...global climate and any changes that may occur within it are functions of physics. Has little to do with "biology," at its root...biological changes are an effect, not a cause...in theory, anyway.

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:33 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Uhm...global climate and any changes that may occur within it are functions of physics. Has little to do with "biology," at its root...biological changes are an effect, not a cause...in theory, anyway.

The topic of global warming is primarily covered in biology classes...and that nebulous course of "earth science" (which always seemed a catchall for everything not covered in bio, chem, and physics..).

And yes, am required to teach about it in my NYS Regents class. I do a whopping ten minutes on it.