The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

EdFred said:
Al Gore is no different than the TV preachers telling everyone to follow the Bible while not doing so themselves. Carbon offsets are the equivalent of saying, "Well, yeah, I killed two hookers, but I knocked two chicks up to make up for it."

Why should I listen to one word from any of them?
Click to expand...

Those who preach religion promote superstition. Those who preach Climate change promote scientific reason.

Even the worst hypocrite can can speak a word of truth.
 
steingar said:
Those who preach religion promote superstition. Those who preach Climate change promote scientific reason.

Even the worst hypocrite can can speak a word of truth.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, sort of like the "singer or the song - which do you listen to?"

Whether one is for or against Al Gore, he is a good writer and can frame a presentation. Thanks for posting the article. The scientific evidence that we are drastically changing our habitat is irrefutable. The way that evidence is presented (and challenged) is still evolving. Gore's point of the media being a referee or an entertainer is well put.

Gary
 
steingar said:
Those who preach religion promote superstition. Those who preach Climate change promote scientific reason.

Even the worst hypocrite can can speak a word of truth.
Click to expand...

Kind of a broad brush there, eh?

(I can't go more without it getting SZ)
 
steingar said:
That said, the actions of the author, no matter how hypocritical, do not affect reality.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, they do affect perceived reality, and while MMGW is a scientific issue, fixing it is a political issue so unfortunately that perceived reality is important.

Al Gore would do the planet a huge favor if he stepped down as the spokesman for MMGW. He fails to lead at the most basic form of leadership, which is leadership by example, so his credibility is highly flawed even if he's right.

MMGW solutions will require a new spokesman who lives what he preaches, and who is preferably a political conservative - The liberals are for "fixing" it already, but the conservatives won't come along until one of them is willing to stand up and say it's a problem, they'll just continue to make it a political issue instead of a scientific one.

Sadly, that article was a pretty good one, but half or more of the country won't even make it past the byline.
 
I read the first page until I realized that everything he says is just for him to line his pockets and he doesn't *really* care about the environment. If he really cared, he would set an example.
 
EdFred said:
I read the first page until I realized that everything he says is just for him to line his pockets and he doesn't *really* care about the environment. If he really cared, he would set an example.
Click to expand...

So what would be the lifestyle of a person who wished to advocate global climate change? Seems one could argue that Al Gore is a true capitalist, exploiting his beliefs for his own personal gain.

Gary
 
Gary said:
So what would be the lifestyle of a person who wished to advocate global climate change? Seems one could argue that Al Gore is a true capitalist, exploiting his beliefs for his own personal gain.

Gary
Click to expand...

Cody from Dual Survival would be a good example.
The Amish.
Numerous Masai tribespeople.
 
EdFred said:
Cody from Dual Survival would be a good example.
Click to expand...

No idea who that is - is he a believer in climate change and doing his best to promote it?

EdFred said:
The Amish.
Click to expand...

Possibly, again, I don't see any of them promoting climate change as an important issue.

EdFred said:
Numerous Masai tribespeople.
Click to expand...

Don't know any of them. :D

Perhaps I wasn't clear. If there was a person who wanted to make us aware of our wicked ways and try to convince us that we should change, what type of lifestyle would they have to have for you to give them an audience and a chance to present their case?

Gary
 
Last edited:
Gary said:
No idea who that is - is he a believer in climate change and doing his best to promote it?



Possibly, again, I don't see any of them promoting climate change as an important issue.



Don't know any of them. :D

Gary
Click to expand...


I don't know any of em personally either. But you wanted lifestyle examples of who should. Those sorts of people should. Lead by example.

Then again pretty much any pilot who says we need to change but keeps flying is a hypocrite as well.
 
EdFred said:
I don't know any of em personally either. But you wanted lifestyle examples of who should. Those sorts of people should. Lead by example.

Then again pretty much any pilot who says we need to change but keeps flying is a hypocrite as well.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Those could be fightin words around here. :D Would you consdier that some of those changes could be things like cleaner burning (no lead for example) or more efficient engines? I'm not sure that flying a single engine airplane is, by itself, destructive to the environment.

Gary
 
The most ironic thing about this is W. actually has a place with a very low energy footprint. He never talked the talk, but he walked the walk. Strange.
 
Gary said:
Whoa! Those could be fightin words around here. :D Would you consdier that some of those changes could be things like cleaner burning (no lead for example) or more efficient engines? I'm not sure that flying a single engine airplane is, by itself, destructive to the environment.

Gary
Click to expand...

Well it is kicking CO2 into the atmosphere, which according to the Goracle, is the worst thing we can do.
 
steingar said:
The most ironic thing about this is W. actually has a place with a very low energy footprint. He never talked the talk, but he walked the walk. Strange.
Click to expand...

I've found that most people we should aspire to be like, don't have to sell themselves, or their ideologies. Not that I'm saying we should be like GWB, but yeah, Gore should live more like that, and then he would have more credibility.
 
EdFred said:
I've found that most people we should aspire to be like, don't have to sell themselves, or their ideologies. Not that I'm saying we should be like GWB, but yeah, Gore should live more like that, and then he would have more credibility.
Click to expand...

I can buy that. Plus Al Gore is just sooo boring to listen to!!

Gary
 
Seriously, the advocates should just plant trees, or whatever high CO2 --> O2 plants there are nonstop, then the output would be counteracted. Of course, they keep cutting em down to build their huge homes...
 
steingar said:
Those who preach religion promote superstition. Those who preach Climate change promote scientific reason.
Click to expand...

Those that advocate cooking the books to promote AGW theory are not promoting scientific reason.
 
EdFred said:
Looks like it is still burning fuel, I also don't get how the laws of thermodynamics are avoided. Burning fuel to produce electricity to power a prop is not as efficient as just removing the electric motor from the equation.
Click to expand...
Yea but it is only a 30kw (40hp) Wankel which should be extremely efficient although it turns a 70kw (94hp) electric motor so the batteries will run out after a while. If it makes you feel any better I intend to keep my DA40 which is a very efficient airplane.
 
Gary F said:
Yea but it is only a 30kw (40hp) Wankel which should be extremely efficient although it turns a 70kw (94hp) electric motor so the batteries will run out after a while. If it makes you feel any better I intend to keep my DA40 which is a very efficient airplane.
Click to expand...

Ah, so there is electricity that needs to be generated to charge the batteries. Where is that coming from? Hydro damages the environment, do does diesel, and so do coal.

TINSTAAFL
 
EdFred said:
Ah, so there is electricity that needs to be generated to charge the batteries. Where is that coming from? Hydro damages the environment, do does diesel, and so do coal.

TINSTAAFL
Click to expand...
If somebody is an adherent of the religion of man made global warming then using less energy is better and you would not need to buy as many offsets (indulgences) from Al Gore.
 
dmccormack said:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

This is the most hilarious post I've read in a long, long time.

Sorry, Professor, but your assumptions are showing...
Click to expand...

Obviously you think books written by unknown individuals featuring talking snakes, mythical beings and magic are more trustworthy than careful observation, factual reporting, and enlightened discourse. Whatever works for you.:mad2:
 
Gary F said:
If somebody is an adherent of the religion of man made global warming then using less energy is better and you would not need to buy as many offsets (indulgences) from Al Gore.
Click to expand...

Do they figure in the energy required to charge the batteries?
 
EdFred said:
Do they figure in the energy required to charge the batteries?
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters as long as you have good intentions. Gaia will be pleased.

Actually, I like the idea that somebody is investing the resources in improving energy efficiency. I expect that fuel will get very expensive in the future and this type of technology may eventually become a viable option. There is a great deal of unused electric generator capacity at night.
 
Gary F said:
I don't think it matters as long as you have good intentions. Gaia will be pleased.

Actually, I like the idea that somebody is investing the resources in improving energy efficiency. I expect that fuel will get very expensive in the future and this type of technology may eventually become a viable option. There is a great deal of unused electric generator capacity at night.
Click to expand...

I bet if you run the numbers on the fuel consumed by the wankel plus the fuel consumed at the power station used to produce the electricity to charge the batteries, you are putting more carbon into the atmosphere than if you just put a 120kW diesel engine on it.
 
EdFred said:
I bet if you run the numbers on the fuel consumed by the wankel plus the fuel consumed at the power station used to produce the electricity to charge the batteries, you are putting more carbon into the atmosphere than if you just put a 120kW diesel engine on it.
Click to expand...
Possibly true depending on the source of electricity but it wouldn't appear as Green as a hybrid. I was disappointed when federal rules made it much more difficult to employ diesel engines in cars.
 
Gary F said:
Possibly true depending on the source of electricity but it wouldn't appear as Green as a hybrid. I was disappointed when federal rules made it much more difficult to employ diesel engines in cars.
Click to expand...

So we've come to the crux of the issue. The political environmentalists want to appear they are doing something, without actually doing anything.
 
The one advantage to electric vehicles is they tend to be designed more efficiently than those with petrol motors. Light weight, aerodynamics and that sort of thing. Thus while there are very reasonable questions about efficiency in electric vs. petrol, the electrics tend to win because of the overall design.

Nothing will be truly green until we use microbes to pull CO2 from the atmosphere to make into fuel. And that day may be sooner than anyone thinks.
 
I've read this entire thread, enjoyed it greatly, but there seems to be one viewpoint missing here, which can be summed up succinctly as: "Who cares?".

Let's say, for the moment, that the data shows that temperature increases ARE caused by humans. I'm willing to admit that this is certainly possible (along with a host of other possible causes) -- but, really, who cares?

Are we willing to dismantle our civilization based on this? Am I going to stop driving my truck and flying my airplane? Am I willing to go without air conditioning? Am I willing to allow the Gulf coast to be covered with giant windmills? Will I approve of 500 square mile solar collectors? Will I be willing to shut down our remaining industry in order to meet certain greenhouse gas emission targets?

The answer is "No."

So carry on, climate-change advocates. I'm not sure what you expect to happen, based on your findings, but if it requires inducing hardships greater than the perceived threat, on an already exasperated American public, you're in for an uphill battle.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I've read this entire thread, enjoyed it greatly, but there seems to be one viewpoint missing here, which can be summed up succinctly as: "Who cares?".

Let's say, for the moment, that the data shows that temperature increases ARE caused by humans. I'm willing to admit that this is certainly possible (along with a host of other possible causes) -- but, really, who cares?

Are we willing to dismantle our civilization based on this? Am I going to stop driving my truck and flying my airplane? Am I willing to go without air conditioning? Am I willing to allow the Gulf coast to be covered with giant windmills? Will I approve of 500 square mile solar collectors? Will I be willing to shut down our remaining industry in order to meet certain greenhouse gas emission targets?

The answer is "No."

So carry on, climate-change advocates. I'm not sure what you expect to happen, based on your findings, but if it requires inducing hardships greater than the perceived threat, on an already exasperated American public, you're in for an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

That's what the greenies want. Equalization through legislation.
 
We didn't have civilization before cars and AC? I suspect there are some folks who would disagree with that sentiment. Nonetheless, I think the goal of the "greenies" is to spur society to some action on the issue, like heavy investment into energy generation that does not involve fossil fuels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top