Cow Farts

 

 

Which would fall in the same category as HHSDad's renewable energy source, so I think you join me in the "wrong" line.

Actually I read this somewhere along the line. Gas emissions from Cows and other herd type animals contribute far more to the greenhouse gases than any other source. Now, I wouldn't stake the old farm on this as accurate info, but I have seen and read it several times.

Volcanic eruptions

I remember reading an article that said volcanic eruptions were the number one cause of acid rain. Don't know if it was true or not.

I present these for discussion, opinions, comments or for you to ignore if you so desire.

 

These are viewpoints from Gore's opposition on Global Warming.

 

 

 

1: Pollution

 

 

 

I watched the video. Gore was obviously trying to explain the greenhouse effect in terms the average person (who has not had scientific or technical training) could easily understand. His use of the phrase 'global warming pollution' to describe greenhouse gases is, I suppose, a misuse of the common definition of the term 'pollution', which implies harmful impurities or unnaturally occuring chemical compounds, but it does not invalidate the overall message.

 

The geeky little guy who pops in and then jumps all over the screen challenges Gore's comments on the relatively minor point that CO2 is an invisible gas and that his use of pictures of visible stack emissions is misleading. Whoopty do. If you walk away from Gore's presentation thinking that industry and fossil-fuel burning transportation are the major contributors to manmade CO2 emissions, and that these manmade sources are throwing the natural carbon cycle out of balance, you have not been misled. So what's the big deal? He also goes on to make several completely irrelevant statements about how much economic benefit comes from the burning of fossil fuels. That's great, but again, irrelevant if the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to catastrophic climate changes. If someone offers you a million dollars to put a pistol in your mouth and blow your brains out, I guess this guy would be gushing about the economic benefits of getting the million dollars, too.

Breathing...

No.

 

 

 

 

 

Cow Farts

:lol: No.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone else?

3: Warming Rate

 

 

 

 

 

This one is the dumbest response yet. First of all, Rebuttal-man doesn't even attempt to refute that the earth is warming. He merely argues that Gore's statement about the warming trend intensifying recently is incorrect. Again, a fairly minor disagreement that in no way calls into question the main thrust of Gore's presentation--that temperatures have been rising since man has been able to measure them and that greenhouse emissions are the cause. And you could easily make the argument, based on the data in the graph, that the instantaneous slope of the line (representing the average change in temperature over a relatively short period of time) is in fact steeper in the most recent years than at any other point along the timeline. So Gore's comments are consistent with the data he presented.

 

But what really makes this guys argument seem silly is that he basically acknowleges that the earth may be warming at a rate of 1.7 deg C per 100 years and that it shouldn't be reason for concern. Really? Maybe not for this guy--he probably doesn't have kids. But ocean levels are rising and are projected to increase by about 20cm (8 inches) in the next 100 years ( http://www.nersc.gov/news/annual_reports/annrep05/research-news/01-heat.html ). At some point, coastal population centers will be affected, which would have a massive effect on the global economy. He also makes the ridiculous point that an increase of 1.7C (3.1 deg F) over 100 years is less of a change in climate than a retired person experiences when moving from Albany to Miami. So? No one is arguing that the earth will become so hot in 100 years that humans will not be able to live. The concern is that seemingly subtle changes in average temperature could have major effects on crop growing cycles, ocean surface levels, weather patterns, the habitats of plants, animals, etc. Mr. Geek doesn't say anything about that.

I watched the video. Gore was obviously trying to explain the greenhouse effect in terms the average person (who has not had scientific or technical training) could easily understand. His use of the phrase 'global warming pollution' to describe greenhouse gases is, I suppose, a misuse of the common definition of the term 'pollution', which implies harmful impurities or unnaturally occuring chemical compounds, but it does not invalidate the overall message.

 

The geeky little guy who pops in and then jumps all over the screen challenges Gore's comments on the relatively minor point that CO2 is an invisible gas and that his use of pictures of visible stack emissions is misleading. Whoopty do. If you walk away from Gore's presentation thinking that industry and fossil-fuel burning transportation are the major contributors to manmade CO2 emissions, and that these manmade sources are throwing the natural carbon cycle out of balance, you have not been misled. So what's the big deal? He also goes on to make several completely irrelevant statements about how much economic benefit comes from the burning of fossil fuels. That's great, but again, irrelevant if the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to catastrophic climate changes. If someone offers you a million dollars to put a pistol in your mouth and blow your brains out, I guess this guy would be gushing about the economic benefits of getting the million dollars, too.

Because he disagrees with Gore’s, and obviously your opinion, he's a geeky little guy. That’s really opened minded of you.

 

 

You really need to look into the rest of the data available, that's the big deal.

 

 

"IF" being the biggest and most important word in that paragraph. His scare-u-mentary is nothing more than a Chicken Little tactic for his own political gain, IMO. His film is full of holes; I have major problems with the majority of his claims.

Because he disagrees with Gore’s, and obviously your opinion, he's a geeky little guy. That’s really opened minded of you.

 

 

You really need to look into the rest of the data available, that's the big deal.

 

 

"IF" being the biggest and most important word in that paragraph. His scare-u-mentary is nothing more than a Chicken Little tactic for his own political gain, IMO. His film is full of holes; I have major problems with the majority of his claims.

 

How is this documentary any different then, than the frenzy that GWB whipped up to gain support for invading Iraq?

This one is the dumbest response yet. First of all, Rebuttal-man doesn't even attempt to refute that the earth is warming. He merely argues that Gore's statement about the warming trend intensifying recently is incorrect. Again, a fairly minor disagreement that in no way calls into question the main thrust of Gore's presentation--that temperatures have been rising since man has been able to measure them and that greenhouse emissions are the cause. And you could easily make the argument, based on the data in the graph, that the instantaneous slope of the line (representing the average change in temperature over a relatively short period of time) is in fact steeper in the most recent years than at any other point along the timeline. So Gore's comments are consistent with the data he presented.

If they have been rising since man has been measuring them, why were scientists claiming 30 years ago that we were heading for another ice age? I also would like you to tell me what the main contributor to the greenhouse effect is, since Gore so conveniently left it out of his film.

 

But what really makes this guys argument seem silly is that he basically acknowleges that the earth may be warming at a rate of 1.7 deg C per 100 years and that it shouldn't be reason for concern. Really? Maybe not for this guy--he probably doesn't have kids. But ocean levels are rising and are projected to increase by about 20cm (8 inches) in the next 100 years ( http://www.nersc.gov/news/annual_reports/annrep05/research-news/01-heat.html ). At some point, coastal population centers will be affected, which would have a massive effect on the global economy. He also makes the ridiculous point that an increase of 1.7C (3.1 deg F) over 100 years is less of a change in climate than a retired person experiences when moving from Albany to Miami. So? No one is arguing that the earth will become so hot in 100 years that humans will not be able to live. The concern is that seemingly subtle changes in average temperature could have major effects on crop growing cycles, ocean surface levels, weather patterns, the habitats of plants, animals, etc. Mr. Geek doesn't say anything about that.

There are plenty of sources that totally refute that. You are aware that Greenland once was capable of supporting crops, aren't you?

And again with the Mr. Geek.

Because he disagrees with Gore’s, and obviously your opinion, he's a geeky little guy. That’s really opened minded of you.

 

 

You really need to look into the rest of the data available, that's the big deal.

 

 

"IF" being the biggest and most important word in that paragraph. His scare-u-mentary is nothing more than a Chicken Little tactic for his own political gain, IMO. His film is full of holes; I have major problems with the majority of his claims.

 

Gore's movie doesn't seek to advance any view that isn't already backed up by the majority of the scientific community. If anything, it makes a complex and multidimensional scientific subject easily digestible by a general population that is not particularly well educated in matters of science--quite a scary thought in a democracy financed by large business interests.

 

I stand by my statements. Most of what this guy has to say is nitpicky at best, and does very little to refute the salient points made in the Gore presentation.

How is this documentary any different then, than the frenzy that GWB whipped up to gain support for invading Iraq?

What does your comment have to do with global warming?

What does your comment have to do with global warming?

 

Apparently the discussion isn't about Global Warming, but about Gore's presentation of the facts. At least, that's what I'm getting from the posts I see.

 

So, my post is relevant to the presentation of "facts" by a political figure to gain support for their position.

 

You stated that Gore used scare tactics.

 

So, again,

 

How is this documentary any different then, than the frenzy that GWB whipped up to gain support for invading Iraq?

Gore's movie doesn't seek to advance any view that isn't already backed up by the majority of the scientific community. If anything, it makes a complex and multidimensional scientific subject easily digestible by a general population that is not particularly well educated in matters of science--quite a scary thought in a democracy financed by large business interests.

 

I stand by my statements. Most of what this guy has to say is nitpicky at best, and does very little to refute the salient points made in the Gore presentation.

You mean those scientists that depend on funding to keep them in their job? There are plenty of retired Climatologists who totally disagree with data they submit. You know, Climatologists, those scientists that are actually qualified to study the climate.

Fine, you stand by you statements, I stand by those that refute them. So?

Apparently the discussion isn't about Global Warming, but about Gore's presentation of the facts. At least, that's what I'm getting from the posts I see.

 

So, my post is relevant to the presentation of "facts" by a political figure to gain support for their position.

 

You stated that Gore used scare tactics.

 

So, again,

 

How is this documentary any different then, than the frenzy that GWB whipped up to gain support for invading Iraq?

Nice try RM, but this is about Gore's scare-u-mentry about global warming. If you want to talk Bush and Iraq, start your own thread.

Nice try RM, but this is about Gore's scare-u-mentry about global warming. If you want to talk Bush and Iraq, start your own thread.

 

OK....

 

Break it down for this simple-minded fool.

 

Tell me point by point every fallacy of his position.

 

Explain to me how nit-picking through those videos proves that there isn't a problem, or that there won't be a problem?

 

Tell me how we're going to survive as a human species if we don't begin to make changes?