Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize - Page 8 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#211 Old 10-26-2007, 11:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by inie View Post

Apart from that, I'm not even sure if your number are correct, what I remember is that the total CO2 level increase was nearly one third, so that would be 0.01 % instead of 0.001 %.





I'm open to your math but help me with more details so I understand.



For example, I believe a third increase in any form does not make CO2 levels go from .001% to .01% since that is a 10 fold increase or 1000%. Strange as it seems, a third increase on .001% still yields .001% as the result unless you increase the number of significant digits to something like this: .0013% or like this .00133333333%. What am I missing?
Kraut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#212 Old 10-26-2007, 11:46 AM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libellula View Post

yes, as was the agenda of those who produced an inconvenient truth.

And what was their agenda exactly, just to be clear? That's not as obvious to me as the agenda of ExxonMobil.

Quote:
everyone has an agenda,

All you're saying here is that everyone acts for a reason. Okay, then. The important thing is not that someone has an agenda, but what that agenda is.

Quote:
you cannot say that funding = fraudulent.

Yeah, that's not what I said. Pay attention.

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#213 Old 10-26-2007, 01:12 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

And what was their agenda exactly, just to be clear? That's not as obvious to me as the agenda of ExxonMobil.



The agenda of An Inconvenient Truth was/is to convince people of the reality of human caused climate change and to attempt to slow or reverse that change by taking corrective actions.



This agenda is upfront, open, and honest. What you see is what you get.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

All you're saying here is that everyone acts for a reason. Okay, then. The important thing is not that someone has an agenda, but what that agenda is.



As far as sourcing goes, it's also important to know if the stated agenda is the actual agenda.
GhostUser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#214 Old 10-26-2007, 01:27 PM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkk View Post

The agenda of An Inconvenient Truth was/is to convince people of the reality of human caused climate change and to attempt to slow or reverse that change by taking corrective actions.

Yeah, that's probably what I would say. Not sure what Libellula is getting at though.

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#215 Old 10-26-2007, 01:42 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Libellula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

Yeah, that's probably what I would say. Not sure what Libellula is getting at though.



i am trying to say that you can't say source X is fraudulent without considering that source Y could be fraudulent as well.



you can say that source X can be biased heavily in one direction, because source Y is as well, but you can't say that one is a fraud without considering the possibility that the other is too
Libellula is offline  
#216 Old 10-26-2007, 01:54 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libellula View Post

i am trying to say that you can't say source X is fraudulent without considering that source Y could be fraudulent as well.



you can say that source X can be biased heavily in one direction, because source Y is as well, but you can't say that one is a fraud without considering the possibility that the other is too



Who's not considering the nature of both sources in question?
GhostUser is offline  
#217 Old 10-26-2007, 02:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
inie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

I'm open to your math but help me with more details so I understand.



For example, I believe a third increase in any form does not make CO2 levels go from .001% to .01% since that is a 10 fold increase or 1000%. Strange as it seems, a third increase on .001% still yields .001% as the result unless you increase the number of significant digits to something like this: .0013% or like this .00133333333%. What am I missing?



Current amount of CO2 in atmosphere: 0.035% by your own statement.

The human CO2 emmisions lead to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere by 1/3rd in the last couple of decades.

Therefore, the 'human made CO2' in the atmosphere is about 0.01% by volume instead and not 0.001% like you stated in your post above.
inie is offline  
#218 Old 10-26-2007, 03:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

"So much conflicting data, so many different opinions, I wonder who is correct...."



If you looked at real peer reviewed science you would see that there is very little conflicting data, and very few differening opions.



Quote:
The only thing I am defending is the notion that rejecting/disbelieving things based on their source and/or funding is beyond silly, its down right dangerous.



I base my beliefs on evidence. I am a skeptic by nature. I read the skeptical inquirer and skeptic magazine. Both magazines which were long skeptical of global warming have come down heavily on the side that human caused global warming is real, dangerous and that almost all accusations to the contrary are fueled by pseudo-science. When even the skeptical societies say that there is zero evidence for skepticism about AGW then people using skepticism as a excuse are only fooling themselves.



Quote:
I have not accepted the new GW religion but I do retain an open mind. GW is in the same category as my belief in God, UFOs and aliens (from other planets, not from Mexico).



Ridiculous. GW is science. With a mountain of evidence. The other two are beliefs with zero evidence to support them. That doesn't meant that they are not true, simply that there is no evidence. There is absolutely no comparison between them.



Quote:
Im struggling with the GW premise that humans can make a tiny change in the overall composition of the atmosphere (small change to CO which is already a small % of the atmosphere) and the planet can not deal with the change so, one way or another, life as we know/enjoy it is over.



I would suggest you read the science then. You can start back in the 1880s when the first experiment showed that an increase in CO2 levels must increase temperatures.



Quote:
I worry every time I burp: maybe I just pushed the atmosphere composition, & the fate of the planet, over the tipping point?? I rest easy knowing the law of large numbers ensures this honor will go to some poor guy in China!



That is total nonsense. When you exhale or "burp" CO2 into the atmosphere you are releasing carbon. Where did that carbon come from? From the food you eat. How did the carbon get into the food? Plants inhaled CO2 from the atmosphere, separated the carbon (exhaled the O2 back into the atmosphere) and stored it as a carbohydrate. Humans do the process in reverse. Therefore it is CO2 neutral. Humans cannot create carbon out of nothing. The problem is taking carbon that has been under the surface for millions of years and spewing it into the atmosphere.
Vegmedic is offline  
#219 Old 10-26-2007, 03:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

35 Inconvenient Truths (aka errors in Gore's film).



Interesting.



So much conflicting data, so many different opinions, I wonder who is correct....



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html



Christopher Monckton has no scientific training. I haven't read the linked document because the last thing he wrote was so pathetic I won't waste my time again. He got even the basic science completely wrong.
Vegmedic is offline  
#220 Old 10-26-2007, 03:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonAmy View Post

Why cling onto the belief that "It's humans and only humans that cause global warming and could never be anything else!!" ?? Why not consider the thought that it could be a combination of things. It could be that our entire solar system is warming,



Scientists can measure solar radiation/flairing/sun spots and they say has not changed over the last 30 years.



Quote:
that the earth is entering another climate change cycle,



Those are through Milankovitch cycles. Scientists say that it not a factor now and won't be for tens of thousands of years.
Vegmedic is offline  
#221 Old 10-26-2007, 03:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonAmy View Post

Considering scientists recently discovered that Mars is also experiencing climate warming, yes.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html



It is amazing how many people I know will reject the mountain of evidence we have for the planet we live on, but elevate the sliver of evidence we have about another.



Quote:
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.



Abdussamatov is not head of space research at the observatory. I looked it up when the story first came out. His position was very far down the ladder. As far as I know when he speaks he is not representing Pulkovo. Like so many deniers he appears to have dramatically inflated his credentials to give his position more weight. Similar to Tim Ball who says he taught climatology for 28 years at the University of Winnipeg. He was off by 28 years.
Vegmedic is offline  
#222 Old 10-26-2007, 07:10 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by inie View Post

Current amount of CO2 in atmosphere: 0.035% by your own statement.

The human CO2 emmisions lead to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere by 1/3rd in the last couple of decades.

Therefore, the 'human made CO2' in the atmosphere is about 0.01% by volume instead and not 0.001% like you stated in your post above.



Sorry if I misunderstood your one third reference.



My previous numbers were mostly from memory. Let’s use the 2007 numbers from wikipedia as they are similar, as far as they go. This site does not break out human caused vs non-human caused increases in CO2.

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



The only reference I could find in the literature (the wiki refererence is a good example) to a "one third increase in CO2" is for *total* CO2 in the atmosphere, independent of the source (human vs non-human). Also, this one third increase occurred over 250 years, not a few decades. The last 33 years saw a rise of 50 ppm or about 15% (50/333). If you have a reference for a third increase for human caused CO2, I would appreciate it.



As my previous post showed, total CO2 is responsible for a very small portion of the total greenhouse effect. Of the total CO2 effect, humans are responsible for only a minority portion of CO2 with the majority of CO2 coming from natural causes. That leaves human CO2 activity responsible for a tiny amount of the total greenhouse effect, certainly less than 1%. This is one of the reasons I think we should use best efforts for now to lower CO2 but not to the extent of ending civilization as we know it today.
Kraut is offline  
#223 Old 10-26-2007, 11:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

Of the total CO2 effect, humans are responsible for only a minority portion of CO2 with the majority of CO2 coming from natural causes. That leaves human CO2 activity responsible for a tiny amount of the total greenhouse effect, certainly less than 1%.



A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Yes natural emissions are far larger than human emissions but that is irrelevant. The natural emissions are a closed loop. Nature inhales as much as it exhales so the natural emissions do not change the overall concentration in the atmosphere.



Lets say that there is a pool in the town centre and in the middle of that pool there is a water fountain. That fountain pumps 100 litres a minute, but the water level doesn't change because the water is just being recycled. Occassionally it rains into the pool and that is offset by evaporation. Occassionally due to natural variance the water level can increase or decrease (due to significant droughts or unusually high amounts of rain), but on the whole the water level stays the same - about 4 inches from overflowing.



Now lets add an outside source. A man takes a water hose and pours water into the pool from an aquifer under the ground. Day and night water pours in to the pool at about 1 litre a minute. Soon the water is only 3 inches from overflowing, then 2 inches, then 1 inch. Towns people get concerned and they say to the man - "the pool is going to overflow and it is because you are pouring water into it." The man replies "nonsense, I am not causing the water level to rise, it has risen before, so it must be rising because it is raining more." So the towns people go back and gather the records which show that the amount of rain has been consistent. They show the man that it can't be the cause. They tell him that everything has stayed the same and the only change has been that he is now pouring water into the pool. "Nonsense, I am only pouring a liter a minute into the pool, that fountain is pouring 100 liters a minute, so my hose can't be having any effect at all."



Yes, the water fountain is pouring more water into the pool, but that fountain could be turned down to 99 litres a minute and the water level would still rise. It could be turned down to 90 litres a minute and the water level would still rise because even though 10 litres less a minute are flowing into the pool it doesn't matter. The problem isn't the amount of water flowing, but the amount of water being added. Our problem with CO2 emissions is that we are adding ghgs to the atmosphere.



Quote:
As my previous post showed, total CO2 is responsible for a very small portion of the total greenhouse effect.



Again this is irrelevant and it is due to not understanding the basic premises behind the problem. Water vapour contributes far more to the greenhouse effect than CO2 does. But there are several important differences. First water vapour only stays in the atmosphere for a couple days to a couple weeks, whereas CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a century or more. Second, water vapour is a feedback factor, whereas CO2 is a forcing factor. That means that as CO2 increases it will force more water vapour into the atmosphere. So when we emit CO2 from non-renewable fossil fuels we are not just adding the heat trapping of the CO2 but also adding the heat trapping of additional water vapour.
Vegmedic is offline  
#224 Old 10-27-2007, 10:04 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegmedic View Post

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Yes natural emissions are far larger than human emissions but that is irrelevant. The natural emissions are a closed loop. Nature inhales as much as it exhales so the natural emissions do not change the overall concentration in the atmosphere.



Natural emissions are closed-looped/balanced only for the moment in time that you measure them. Most GW proponents focus on CO2 levels over the last several hundred thousand years because that data best fits their models. Unfortunately, current CO2 levels are low compared to levels from the past 600 million years & there is no reason to believe that the climate won't *naturally* return to these much higher CO2 levels regardless of how much pain and suffering humans go through trying to control the process. Humans “fixing” the climate is like a flea claiming responsibility for the activities of the dog.



The real issue is how much pain & suffering the GW crowd wants to inflict on the people to achieve their GW agenda/goals. While most everyone wants to do something to reduce CO2 levels, setting the bar too high creates more GW opponents and makes them fight harder. Achieving the Koyoto levels has proven impossible even for the counties willing to sign on. Short of a massive global depression/war, you can only reduce the growth rate for energy use, not reduce total energy consumption. You can make energy CO2 cleaner but the quickest & most cost effective solution to CO2 clean energy is nuclear power which the environmentalists have effectively stopped (at least in the USA). What’s a world to do?



P.S. – The “burp” discussion was meant to be a joke. Guess I should have used a smiley!
Kraut is offline  
#225 Old 10-27-2007, 10:47 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

Natural emissions are closed-looped/balanced only for the moment in time that you measure them.



No natural emissions are almost always a closed-loop. Atmospheric levels of CO2 can increase or decrease over long periods of time. For instance if due to Milankovitch cycles the earth gets much warmer and the ocean temperatures will rise so the ocean will release massive amounts of CO2. A 14 degree increase in salt water leaves it with half the gas soluability. Similarly if due to Milankovitch cycles the earth gets much colder than the ocean temperatures will drop and the ocean will absorb massive amounts of CO2. Of course there are also changes in vegetation land coverage etc.



Quote:
Most GW proponents focus on CO2 levels over the last several hundred thousand years because that data best fits their models.



Or perhaps because the evidence is much, much stronger.



Quote:
Unfortunately, CO2 levels are quite low compared to levels from the past 600 million years & there is no reason to believe that the climate *naturally* return to these much higher CO2 levels



No reason? There are lots of reasons to believe that the "natural" temperature for the earth at present is different from the "natural" temperature of the earth in the distant past. For starters it has only been a couple million years since Antarctica moved to the bottom of world changing ocean currents in the process and storing massive amounts of fresh water. Millions of years ago all of the continents were one big continent near the equator, we didn't have icecaps like we do today. Tectonic plates were all violently pressing against each other forming the large mountain ranges. There are many reasons.



Quote:
regardless of how much pain and suffering humans go through trying to control the process. Humans “fixing” the climate is like a flea claiming responsibility for the activities of the dog.



That is total baloney. We have caused the atmospheric CO2 levels to go up. 99%+ climate scientists agree.



Quote:
The real issue is how much pain & suffering the GW crowd wants to inflict on the people to achieve their GW agenda/goals. While most everyone wants to do something to reduce CO2 levels, setting the bar too high creates more GW opponents and makes them fight harder. Achieving the Koyoto levels has proven impossible even for the counties willing to sign on.



Kyoto targets were not impossible to achieve. I am reminded of the Simpsons episode where Ned Flanders is a child and his hippie parents take him to a psychiatrist because his is out of control. The father says: "Man, we have tried nothing, and we are all out of ideas." You can't say something was impossible when you didn't try.



Quote:
Short of a massive global depression/war, you can only reduce the growth rate for energy use, not reduce total energy consumption.



There is so much emissions-free energy it is ridiculous.



Quote:
You can make energy CO2 cleaner but the quickest & most cost effective solution to CO2 clean energy is nuclear power which the environmentalists have effectively stopped (at least in the USA).



I don't know if nuclear energy is the quickest or most cost effective solution. Neither appears to be the case in Canada, anyways. But I have long argued that if Global Warming is a serious as environmentalists and scientists say that it is then everything has to be on the table. That includes Nuclear power and that includes GMO food (something that all environmentalists and vegetarians seem to be deadset against - and I was too, but I have studied the issue pretty extensively and I believe that we are completely wrong. GMO foods could provide massive benefits for the environment, land use, CO2 emissions, world hunger etc. I encourage people to research the issue themselves).



Quote:
What’s a world to do?



I honestly don't worry about it too much. Once R&D dedicates itself to creating more efficient and CO2 neutral technologies they will appear very fast. Far from the denier hysteria that reducing emissions will bankrupt the world, I think that in fifty years we will look back and laugh at such ludditte thinking. The change will not be painful, it will be mostly automatic. That's not to say that there will be no problems or that the world will be a utopia - it won't. But just as there have been extreme unfounded fears with every advance we have taken, the same exists today.
Vegmedic is offline  
#226 Old 10-27-2007, 11:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegmedic View Post

There is so much emissions-free energy it is ridiculous.





You reduce the value of your strong arguments with such a weak statement. Non-nuclear non-subsidized emissions free energy sources are not cost effective on a large scale at this time.
Kraut is offline  
#227 Old 10-27-2007, 11:20 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

You reduce the value of your strong arguments with such a weak statement. Non-nuclear non-subsidized emissions free energy sources are not cost effective on a large scale at this time.



I didn't say that they were available at this time. But they will be available very quickly once governments decide they are serious. We have seen how fast technology moves in areas where there is demand. There is no reason why emissions free technology would not be affected by demand the same way.
Vegmedic is offline  
#228 Old 10-27-2007, 11:45 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegmedic View Post

I didn't say that they were available at this time. But they will be available very quickly once governments decide they are serious. We have seen how fast technology moves in areas where there is demand. There is no reason why emissions free technology would not be affected by demand the same way.



OK, that ties in much better with the more rational presentation of the rest of your argument (we can agree to disagree on some points). In my mind, the biggest obstacle to lowering CO2 emissions (ignoring nuclear which I believe produces energy at 1/3 the current cost of oil base energy) is cheap oil & the inability to long term forecast oil pricing. Energy companies can't invest billions/trillions in energy alternatives that are profitable only when oil is over $60/barrel (or whatever price is required) unless they are convinced that oil will *stay* over that required price. Otherwise, they go out of business & produce *zero* energy. Not to mention that these things take many years/decades to develop on a large scale.
Kraut is offline  
#229 Old 10-27-2007, 11:59 AM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

Humans fixing the climate is like a flea claiming responsibility for the activities of the dog.



This is an excellent analogy. One flea will probably not bother an animal so much but have you ever seen the effects of a flea infestation? billions of fleas?
gaya is offline  
#230 Old 10-27-2007, 12:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
I am not a doomsayer on the environment. I care about the science. I, of course, recognize that developing efficient and affordable alternatives on a large-scale takes a long time. However, we have had a long time. The government of Canada, for instance decided to sit on their hands until a couple months ago when they announced they couldn't reach the target on time. Well of course they can't now.
Vegmedic is offline  
#231 Old 10-27-2007, 01:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraut View Post

Non-nuclear non-subsidized emissions free energy sources are not cost effective on a large scale at this time.



Comparing anything that is heavily subsidized to something that has little to no subsidies in terms of cost effective is really not a fair comparison, since those subsidies still come out of our pockets.



I would like to actually see the real costs of the energy sources in terms of all and any costs going into said energy source (including all subsidies) and taking into account distribution costs (since things like solar, wind, and micro-hydro can be really local).

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#232 Old 10-27-2007, 06:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

Comparing anything that is heavily subsidized to something that has little to no subsidies in terms of cost effective is really not a fair comparison, since those subsidies still come out of our pockets.



I would like to actually see the real costs of the energy sources in terms of all and any costs going into said energy source (including all subsidies) and taking into account distribution costs (since things like solar, wind, and micro-hydro can be really local).



I can't answer your broader question but share your interest.



I can give you a single data point: I'm always talking to the electricians & architects around here (northwest Wyoming) about solar and what they see happening in private homes. Right now it's in what I call the "feel good" stage. Not really cost effective but owners of high end homes do a *little* so they can "feel good" about being "green". For the last couple of years, payback is usually in the 18-25 year range, assuming no $$$ for maintenance issues. Still much too expensive for general use but prices have and will come down but very slowly.
Kraut is offline  
#233 Old 10-27-2007, 09:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,032
I wouldn't call it a "feel good" stage. Some people may buy it to just "feel good," but I can see a variety of reasons that for some (many?) it goes beyond just "feeling good."



What other form of energy (I'm including wind, solar, and micro-hydro here) even has a payback period? Coal? No. Nuclear? No. Gas? No. Diesel? No.... Hydro-electricity is pretty cheap (and why electricity is so cheap in the Northwest US like where I live in North Idaho), but I wouldn't say it has a pay-back period. At least not for people buying the electricity.



Part of the reason why solar is so expensive, is because it has little to no subsidies, at least compared to the current standard. If we were to compare the actual costs spent on different forms of electricity, my bet would be that the renewable energies would come out on top easily.



Also in areas that are less populated the infrastructure is not set up to distribute electricity from the grid, so solar still comes out on top in terms of powering a house. The cost to pay the electric company to run the cables can compare to the cost of installing a solar system. Then the upkeep on the solar system is still cheaper than a monthly utility/connection bill. If we include other renewable energies than just solar electricity, like wind and micro-hydro (where available) it will drive the costs down further.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#234 Old 10-28-2007, 05:39 AM
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libellula View Post

i am trying to say that you can't say source X is fraudulent without considering that source Y could be fraudulent as well.



you can say that source X can be biased heavily in one direction, because source Y is as well, but you can't say that one is a fraud without considering the possibility that the other is too



I don't think that one necessarily starts by saying that source X is fraudulent. It's just that it becomes quickly apparent that a large, multinational oil company would have some vested interest in debunking a theory that isn't favorable to them. What is the motivation for the other side? It's not that one doesn't consider that they're not biased, but there needs to be some proof on undue bias, a hidden agenda, etc.. Just saying "everyone has bias" is not sufficient.

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#235 Old 10-28-2007, 07:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Libellula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

I don't think that one necessarily starts by saying that source X is fraudulent. It's just that it becomes quickly apparent that a large, multinational oil company would have some vested interest in debunking a theory that isn't favorable to them. What is the motivation for the other side? It's not that one doesn't consider that they're not biased, but there needs to be some proof on undue bias, a hidden agenda, etc.. Just saying "everyone has bias" is not sufficient.



i don't think that either. Attacking an argument by saying "well, that source is fradulent" is a red herring argument. Attack the argument by saying "because of x and x and y, that source is nto very legitimate"



i'm not saying i don't believe in GW.
Libellula is offline  
#236 Old 10-31-2007, 04:41 AM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libellula View Post

i don't think that either. Attacking an argument by saying "well, that source is fradulent" is a red herring argument. Attack the argument by saying "because of x and x and y, that source is nto very legitimate"

That is all very fine as long as you have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the topic in question. However, in the case of global warming, few people have, and it therefore becomes a question of which experts they are going to believe.

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#237 Old 10-31-2007, 04:44 AM
Ex-*****
 
Indian Summer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 5,391
... partly because of the impact of the meat-production to the climate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendr...achauri#Trivia



Just saying.

I no longer post here after VB was sold in 2012. (See my profile page for details.)
Indian Summer is offline  
#238 Old 10-31-2007, 04:44 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendr...achauri#Trivia



Just saying.

Nice

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off