Going over the line: 10:10

now now ... let's not do too much stereotyping ... after all, if the ex-CIA head guy can think renewable, maybe there's still hope:

Former CIA Director James Woolsey on how to end America’s Addiction to Oil

maybe?
And the beauty of his position is that he doesn't have to talk about carbon this or carbon that ... he simply has to think national security


.

 

Al Gore should hop on his private jet touring around followed by his 12 limousine entourage to promote this video while telling the rest of us how to conserve.lane:

Better yet, all the leaders from every country should individually fly private jets to Copenhagen to discuss this and how they will sell carbon credits to the rest of us.
lane:lane:lane:lane:lane:lane:lane:
Better yet, I will print up some flyers that say Carbon Credit on them and sell them for $100 each to owners of SUV's in the Walmart parking lot. That will make the difference right there. When their money is in MY pocket, that's the real motive in all of this. Because you too would be appalled at how WASTEFUL even the camera crew who made this video really are.:director:

From USA Today:
"Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.":hungry:

 

He should be able to have three big houses if he wants to, but equally, considering his teachings perhaps he should reduce his energy usage or even become carbon neutral. I'm sure he has the best insulation, the best glazing, super efficient heating and a bank of pv panels on his properties to offset his home electricity use.

If he has I will respect him and his views.

If he hasn't, then he deserves to be treated with contept.

I think I have an idea which applies but it would be nice to be proved wrong!

 

In the on going conversation(s) with Spiderman, he has stated publicly that he doesn't believe in some of the the basic tenants of science and that he has no interest in reading and perhaps learning.

There is no danger in turning off people like this from the debate, as they are already outside any rational debate. The issue is important enough that I support (nearly) any means possible to inform people who, for what ever reason have come to conclusions that are contrary to that of the vast majority of climate scientists.

I will listen (read) the arguments of others who have some credentials rather than their "opinion". Several posters here, including, Sage, F8, and Tochatihu come to the debate with some scientific credentials and therefore credibility. The deniers generally do not, and mostly cite denialist links, if they cite anything.

I have no time or interest in debating people who are not interested in accepting the basic building blocks of science. It's only a waste of time.

 

Once again, you chose to misquote me,, .

If you noticed, I said I support (nearly) any means possible, never have I nor would I advocate violence. You sir are the one that owes an apology!

As for your basic acceptance of science, was it not you who after it was suggested that you might learn something by reading "Origin of Species" By Charles Darwin, countered that you didn't believe in evolution and that all you needed to know about the subject was contained in the Bible? (If this was not you, then I do offer my sincere apologies). You are free to believe in and have faith in anything you wish, without interference from me or anyone else, but when your basic beliefs are contrary to established science your ability to make a credible argument refuting climate science is suspect.

No apology from here!

 

Groundbreaking studies are great, they're exciting, they get good press (who would read an article stating "yep, humans need oxygen to live"), and there's that feeling the writers are "sticking it to the man".

The trouble is, that they cannot always be relied upon.

If Toyota had taken Eestor at their word back in 2004, then they would have not developed the nimh Gen3 Prius, or the upcoming PHEV with li-on - there would have been no point. However, they took a considered opinion that, given it was just one group saying it was possible, with lots of naysayers, and their own research suggested it was not possible, they chose to ignore it.

Science is generally formed on consensus, with the caveat that experimental proof can debunk any theory. Sadly we cannot run an experiment on the entire planet's atmosphere, so we must rely on the consensus. At the moment it tells us humans have released millions (or billions) of tons of CO2 into the air - that's an irrefutable fact. It also tells us that CO2 heats up quicker via sunlight than some other gases - also an irrefutable fact. Lastly we see some (contested) data showing the global temperature is rising, and according to some mathematical models, rising by the amount of CO2 released.

Maybe it's solar flares. Maybe it's TV transmissions. Maybe it's sex out of wedlock? We can NEVER say it's definitely because of one thing as we cannot design an experiment to isolate the variables we're interested in. What we can do is apply Occam's razor.

 

Says you. I would think that since the majority of climate and environmental scientists do believe there is not just global warming, but agw as well, don't you think they are also taking all the gases into consideration when they are studying the atmosphere? Not just CO2 nor H2O...but all gases. I know in the past you've claimed CO2 does either nothing or next to nothing for the environment (but you've insinuated it has something to do with fossil fuels)

If you believe that Meg Ryan was ever a scientist, then there's your problem! You're still not reading through all the peer reviewed journals by actual scientists! And no, they have not all been funded by Enron.

I would encourage you to read all the responses: and especially that of Tochatihu. It is an interesting study for trying to determine what early Earth was like before life. But you are the only one out of the whole consensus that then draws a conclusion that CO2 has had nothing to do with global warming in the entire past. Even when apparent environmental scientists like Tochatihu do say that CO2 is in fact a global warming gas....do you completely ignore that, and still draw vast generalizations. Science is not like the editorials or punditry that you get your news from. It is a study of gathered data that has a fluid hypothesis that may change over time. Scientists are not so impulsive as to say "Now that they've concluded that CO2 didnt cause warming in the past,theres less of a case for CO2 causing global warming in the future." (mojo)...especially when just looking at one article about conclusions of a 3.8 billion year old model.

 

Thats the beauty of studying a period with no clouds ,it does isolate the variable.

 

When the Earth was primordial and uninhabitable by humans. It was a different environment that scientists are trying to study to figure out the origins of life. It is not meant to be a study of anthropogenic global warming.

 

No it doesn't. The ancient world with no clouds has no humans, a star in a different period of it's life, no uranium being blasted into the atmosphere, no satellites beaming electromagnetic rays around and who knows what other POSSIBLE VARIABLES.

You're trying to determine whether your cheese is supposed to blue or not based on how the cow was feeling at the time it was milked.

 

I could just as easily say, prove to me the existence of God.

 

This is called a "Fallacy of Presumption", as it presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. Often times this is referred to as a "circular argument".

Tom

 

Just to refresh your memory,

When it was suggested that perhaps you might benefit from reading "Origin of Species" you responded with:

"I haven't even read the entire Bible yet (OT), why should I ever read that? I read his Bio and even he knew of his own holes in the his Theory."


I took that to mean that you didn't believe in the Theory.

__________________

"http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/83300-great-global-warming-blunder.html#post1163201

PS Who's name calling now?

 

Mr. Parker,

As for the name calling:"

First you say you never said you didn't believe in the Theory of Evolution, and then:

So it seems you wish it both ways. Darwin's theory is a basic tenant of biology, one of the basic sciences. You seem to believe in OT creationism, (which is your right) but it leave you zero credibility in any debate about science.

Thank You.