Global Warming, Is it the end of the world?

Boy Stoirmeil, quasi-biblical word? Hypocritical? You crack me up. I was just calling a spade a spade. So your are saying it's OK for him to not practice what he preaches?

You nailed it stoirmeil,

Although I would have just said that the truth hurts, and there for lets kill, or discredit the messenger. So calling Al Gore a hypocrite, because he uses more power then average household, is an absolute… knee “jerk” reaction to reality.

So when ever anyone one tells me, that they think that global-worming has been over exaggerated. I ask them to imagine seeing the tail pipe in their minds eye, and then I ask them to multiply that image… by billions.

So keep telling it like it is, even if it hurts, or you won’t be aloud to go to heaven.
JC

If you read carefully, you will notice that what I said was:

"What Al Gore does or does not do to practice what he preaches should not have all that much to do with our recognizing that the problem exists, and there is a narrow window of time to contemplate reversing or even slowing the melting of the polar ice before it isn't possible any more."

This has nothing to do with it being "OK not to practice what he preaches."

But you don't read carefully.

You nailed it stoirmeil,

Although I would have just said that the truth hurts, and there for lets kill, or discredit the messenger. So calling Al Gore a hypocrite, because he uses more power then average household is absolutely a knee “jerk” reaction to reality.

So when ever anyone one tells me that they think that global-worming has been over exaggerated. I ask them to imagine seeing the tail pipe in their minds eye, and then I ask them to multiply that image by, billions.

So keep telling it like it is, even if it hurts, or you won’t be aloud to go to heaven.
JC

Stormy, I understand where you are coming from, but look at it from this point of view.

As you know, I'm one of those wacky right wing preachers. (I feel like I should embrace the stereotype, not run from it ) If I preach that a man should be faithful to his wife, what I do does not change the fact that this is true. I think we can all agree on that principal. However, would you not agree that the message loses it's potency if I, as the one conveying the truth, run around on my wife? No, it doesn't' change the truth, but how are my hearers going to react? They would think it is not as important an issue as I make it out to be since I don't practice what I preach.

I am not educated enough to know all the ins and outs of Global Warming. I think there are whack jobs on both sides of the issue, quite frankly. But, If Al Gore is the messenger, why am I supposed to think this is a serious issue if he does not put into practice what he says? It dilutes the message. If he really believes it is serious (and I am not saying he does not believe what he is saying) then why not demonstrate it in his lifestyle instead of tying to get everyone else to do so?

Not trying to be contentious, just asking some questions. Have a great day!

This is a matter of having some mental independence and being able to separate the message from the messenger. Some time before adolescence you learned the limitations of the ubiquitous parental "Don't do as I do -- do as I say." And you learned to move beyond it to find the right way to behave, irrespective of the inconsistencies of the one socializing you. You can't lay it on anyone else.

I'm sorry -- I do not excuse any fully functioning adult from the responsibility of discriminating between message and messenger, explanation and excuse. If a pimp comes into the room with a prostitute on each arm and tells you about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases, it does not dilute the truth of the message one iota. Sorry if the analogy offends anyone. And it is just an analogy, and not a snarky description of anyone we are or are not approving of at the moment. That's another distinction that needs a little working.

Appreciate the condescending tone, Stormy. It's always such a joy to be able to engage in civil discussion.

Have a great day.

Well, haynes, that's just a sarcastic response to condescension, as you seem to have perceived my words, including the "have a great day." And that's regrettable, because even though I spoke strongly and out of a good deal of exasperation, it was certainly not aimed at you personally. If I provoked you into departing from your usual and much needed position as peacemaker, I am genuinely sorry.

That said -- I regret the tone if it offended, but I still stand by what I said about not automatically judging the message by its envelope.

I stand with you stoirmeil, right down to the… “Have a great day?”
JC

Well, haynes, that's just a sarcastic response to condescension, as you seem to have perceived my words, including the "have a great day." And that's regrettable, because even though I spoke strongly and out of a good deal of exasperation, it was certainly not aimed at you personally. If I provoked you into departing from your usual and much needed position as peacemaker, I am genuinely sorry.

That said -- I regret the tone if it offended, but I still stand by what I said about not automatically judging the message by its envelope.

Stormy and John,

Forget it. It was my bad. I was the one out of line.

I still believe that the message is best conveyed through a messenger that backs it up with his/her life, but my response was moronic. Very sorry about that. New day and I'll try and be more "in tune" with my responses. Don't always agree with you two, but I respect you both.

Have a great day (Really!).

Does a problem exist? What exactly is it? Is the polar ice melting? Is there a narrow window of time to correct the situation? Antarctic ice is only melting over water and getting thicker over land. The same is happening in Greenland, which might seem to indicate that the oceans are getting warmer, a different situation from the escalation of the greenhouse effect so relentlessly touted.

Gore didn't discover a problem at all, he's prosthelytising misinformation and profiting off of it. Anthropogenic global warming by C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions is unproven and highly suspect. Even the IPCC reports express uncertainties about correlations between C02 and warming. C02 is not a "pollutant" as Gore endlessly reiterates and humans contribute about 3-4% of the total atmospheric C02 yearly. The rest is caused naturally. The highest concentrations of C02 ever recorded have occurred during an ice age, according to deep core drilling. What does that say about the correlation between C02 and warming? Is warming happening? Is it anthropogenic?

Gore relies on long term projections from computer modeling, a technique whose reliability is so trusted that your local weatherman won't use it to predict beyond 10 days reliably.

What's sad is that Gore is sensationalising unproven postulates, relying on only one set of opinions, ignoring highly pertinent facts because they don't fit his apocalyptic paradigm, misleading the public with unsubstantiated doom scenarios and is making a killing off of it. You're right, not practicing what he preaches is the least of his transgressions.

Information is out there which completely contradicts Gore's assertions which is ignored. Gore of course can't be bothered by facts when there are accolades and money to be had. Even if his motives are sincere, then he's certainly guilty of extremely faulty research. Yet if his research had been more complete, it would have deflated the hyperbolic fantasies he's relied on.

here is something i got off the internet. the original site is http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

the rest were the links in the article i believe read it for yourself.

excerpt

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

....Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

brrrrr i am chilly... *gets sweater*

	The_Inconvenient_Truth.doc
	Size: 47K
	Number of downloads: 121 Times(s)
	Last accessed: 15-Apr-2024, 11:45 PM
	Last Updated: 28-Mar-2007, 03:19 PM

Antwn -- fair enough. There's a university level earth and atmospheric sciences department with some heavy-hitting researchers in it, not fifty feet from my office door at my job -- I do curriculum advising and graduation audits with science undergrads, in addition to teaching psychology, as my daily work and I run into these guys all the time. I will take a poll among some of the professors, as well as collecting some current research citations from them, and get back to y'all. I think this is fair, since I am taking a definite side in this discussion. May not be tomorrow, as we are just starting spring break, and a lot of faculty and staff (including me) will be out for the next ten days. I hope you don't mind if I share your post with them, instead of trying to remember it.

I doubt that Gore is doing his own primary research on any deep level -- he hasn't got the training for that, and he must be relying on reports and having them interpreted for him by qualified people, if he is on the up and up. In any case it isn't Gore I take my cues from on this issue -- I didn't even see the film. But I'm still not willing to say he's just exploiting a bully pulpit and letting off a cloud of methane without a lot more damning evidence.

haynes -- My response was stronger in tone than it needed to be, it ticked you off understandably, I should have tempered it, and there's no need to apologize.

Hi Dundee, just like you and I, scientists have been disagreeing from the beginning. So it always comes down to who you agree with. Or, for that matter, who you think is telling the truth.

So why don’t we conduct our own scientific experiment. Let’s say… foe example. You sit in a running car, in closed garage. And of course the conclusion we’re looking for is… How long do you think they would last?

What I’m saying is, we’re poising the air 24-7, so, even if Gore is exaggerating about global worming. I think that he deserves every single cent he’s made, don’t you?

-----

Antwn, I’m sorry but I have to say this. The last two paragraphs of your post on this subject, sounds an awful lot… like the BS… that got us into the Iraq debacle.

Just like malice, blind faith and ignorance, kills too.
JC

That's the problem here, John. There are scientists, equally qualified on both sides, who say opposite things. Thee are also hacks on each side who would sell out in a heartbeat for any agenda that would benefit them personally. You are right in that it comes down to who you want to believe, unless one is willing to put in a lot of time into personal research.

Not sure the enclosed garage is a good analogy. Obviously, man should be responsible in his handling of the earth's resources, but this old planet is amazing in the way it replenishes itself. There is a huge difference between a wooden enclosure and the atmosphere, although I see where you are coming from in the analogy.
Until politics is removed and scientists approach this issue non-agenda driven, it's going to be difficult to determine the truth of the matter.