|
Post by DrCank on Feb 23, 2007 9:53:05 GMT -5
got to say looks like you had a big day at the office yesterday James. Stated watching the YouTube video, got through about fifteen minutes I plan to watch the rest but unfurtuneatly I don't have 115 min to burn right now. got to say he started off preatty strong, but when he got to the ozone it became clear that he doesn't have much of an understanding of the upper level atmosphere. Which in his own defense he claims from the begining. The ozone is not a static hole like an open window to space. first of all the basics, ozone is O3 (three bonded oxygens) it is the same substance in urban smog (among others). this ozone layer is very useful to earth because it absorbs UV light with wavelengths of 310 to 200nm. I think we all now the effects of UV light on human skin (liver spots, cancer). Now here is the important part, the ozone hole changes size every year grows and shrinks, grows and shrinks, over and over, year in and year out. It usually reaches its largest size in September (the end of the southern Hemispheres winter). If you compare september of every year the ozone hole is not growing linearly (although 2006) was the largest on record. this is also because 2006 was a very cold winter in antartica. So as we can see there are many factor that effect the size of the ozone hole. and now to where the internet skeptics thesis falls apart. he states "If CFCs where outlawed and they are the reason for Ozone depletion, than why is the hole still growing"? well the answer is simple, just because we are not throughing CFCs into the atmosphere at the same rate doesn't mean that are atmosphere isn't still Swimming with CFCs. in his theory once you stop releasing a compound into the atmosphere all of the previous contaminant should disappear. how does this make logical sence. (if I continually add blue dye into a glass of water, when I stop does the water magically become clear again? of course not). It is going to take a long time for all of these halogens to work their way out of the upper atmosphere (inparticular Flourine, Chlorine, and Bromine). So assuming we where correct about CFCs being the primary destructive force to Ozone we should see a gradual trend of thickening ozone, but over multiple decade scale. not in ten years and it is fixed. Also just to address Global cooling, more because Sen. James Inhofe, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, brought it up on the floor of congress than because james points it out. This whole theory consists of basically two magazine articles from the seventies. and when you say "that was only thirty years ago" it sounds alot different than when I say "man, that was funkin' thorty years ago". in scientifc research 30 years is a crazy amount of time. You Have to think about what didn't we have 30 years ago. here is a small list: -knowledge of upper atmospheric composition -Computer models -ice cores showing long term changes in climate -global communications linked thousands of researchers all around the globe. -satellites (other than for communications) hell we didn't even know about the mid atlantic ridges until the 1960s, don't under estimate the academic learning curve wth respect two time. and two articles are no match to thousands of researchers preforming calculated studies in everytime zone around the globe. There have been millions of mislead hypothysis throughout time through further testing "global cooling" just turned out to be wrong. If global warming was wrong there would be a larger outcry against it but as of right now, it appears to valid. And just a note from my personal experience: this is how acedemics get funding. you go to undergrad, funk around with a few courses figure out what interests you (in this case climatology). then you go to grad school take more specialized courses in your field and find something within the discipline that you are willing to spend 80 hrs. a week studying (lets say O3 composition in sub-polar upper-atmospherics). then finally you are so interested in that field (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics) you start teching broad based classes which allows you to keep researching on (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics), finally you start working on a docterate program, because hell what kind of job are you going to get in private industry that will allow you to continue figuring out all of the ins and outs of (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics). Finally you are ready to do a docterate thesis so you find some grant money to get satelite time to test a hypothesis you have (CFC interaction with O3 causing a thinning of Upper atmospheric Ozone). then you get your Phd and teach upper level (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics) and continue to get grant money so you can ensure you are teaching the most accurate information, and not to mention you get to feed the love you have (in our example: CFC interaction with O3 causing a thinning of Upper atmospheric Ozone) and spend only 45-60 hrs a week at it. If you wanted to be rich go into, business or Real estate. but don't make people who have a thirst for knowledge, and are willing to spend time and effort (you most of all have no right to question someone who places time and effort into something) studying something that either interests them or feels applies to a greater good. you don't have the legs to stand on to bad mouth these individuals. I am not saying there aren't exceptions to this rule (there normally are) but in my experience it is drive and curiousity that motivates acedemics not greed. as I said if you want to be rich you make it in the private sector.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 22, 2007 8:27:57 GMT -5
James notes: in regards to articles discredtiting global warming "(mostly by europeans whom dr cank claims are the most concerned about global warming)" just so no one thinks I am talking out of my ass as well here are the articles showing not only concern but action on the part of europeans: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/19/london/main2373761.shtmlnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6380401.stmwww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251918,00.html www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17241347/abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2784808Here are just a few articles about The europeans furthering efforts to minimize their environmental footprint. I hate posting links to articles because I really don't think anyone reads them from this forum. I prefer to read the articles and sum up their findings (w/ Citations) Oh, and sorry I could only find articles from accredited news organizations. yeah know organizations that are veiwed by tens-to-hundreds of millions of people around the world, assuring that they are held to public scrutiny. Not saying that "Capitalsim Magazine" (www.capmag.com) and "americasfuture.net" don't carry the same amount of ethos. Although I did find an article on the Denver Post (one of your sources) that references the meeting in Paris earlier this month, that inspired my mentioned of a proactive europe: Report: Global warming man-made, unstoppable A U.N. group of scientists says temperatures and seas will rise for centuries no matter how much humans control pollution.www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5140117*I myself am an opptimist, So I say it is still worth trying and definately check this one out (everybody it is really cool and interactive): www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/and of for the fourth or fifth time (this easy cause I just cut and paste from my earlier posts) Plus again you keep failing to answer my question. What is the advantage of lying about the industrializations effect on the environment? Who prospers by telling people to consume less?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 20, 2007 13:22:48 GMT -5
according to the principles of Milancovitch we are in a pweiod of cooling. Isn't that odd.
I will cite this info shortly.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 20, 2007 9:16:00 GMT -5
So I see you are reduced to hiding behind semantics. You are correct “truth” was an inappropriate word choice. And also even when I reread most post I knew I was going to hear some hell for “recorded history”, because this phrase has an alternate meaning in paleoclimatology. It is used to reference times in which hard data has been collected. So in paleoclimatology “recorded history” goes back tens of thousands of years (thanks to ice cores). It is Ice cores that play a huge role in the global warming debate, by tracking both chemical composition as well as other impurities in the ice (such as pollen, and minerals), we can derive a pretty accurate curve of global temp. Because due to cause and effect we know warmer atmospheres lead to reliable, measurable conditions within the atmosphere (yes some data needs to be inferred, but that comes with any scientific investigation (you just have to state and defend your inferences)). And as for the regurgitated data, I don’t think you quite understand me when I tell you I have studied under the leaders in this field. Todd Sowers, Barry Vought (Jon Vought’s brother) and in particular Richard Alley (Possibly the most respected climatologist in the world) are the individuals who actually go to the Greenland and the Antarctic to collect and analyze ice cores. This feat actually makes them rarer than astronauts. These are the people being reiterated by other researchers. And I guess I am getting off track from your statements, because it appears that I am only proving that the world is getting warmer, and not connecting it to human-activities. But what I keep trying to reiterate is the rate of CO2 increase and the correlation of earth system effects. I know not a single model has been produced that is 100% accurate, however the amount of retreating global ice (and its continually increasing rate of disappearance). Fluctuating localized temperatures, the shifting pH of the oceans, and of course increases in mean global temperatures. Are all indications of the earth system being flooded by CO2. Focus on the rates, that’s what is worrying note the rate leading to the last warming period and now look at todays increase Please note there are a lot of things that I did not place on this list that a lot of news anchors do. Because we don’t understand enough about: Increasing strength of el nino/la nina cycles. Increased magnitude and frequency of hurricanes Slowing speed of certain ocean currents (Not everything is CO2 fault) But the fact remains since the beginning of industrialization we have seen a sharp spike in atmospheric CO2. And with this spike in CO2 we have seen a lot of results that can be expected. This is not a self-fulfilling prophesy. And for those of you who doubt humans can actually influence the environment all that much, I am at a loose of words. Man has shown again and again its ability to triumph over nature, and history has also shown repeatedly that man has started many events before fully understanding all of that action’s results. You honestly don’t think that burning through fossil fuels that took millennia to deposit (pulling from one place in earths carbon cycle, and place into either strata (coal) or liquid deposits (oil)), and burning them in only a few decades won’t have a negative effect on our environment. (I am not saying we burned through all carbon resources in decades) What I am saying what we burn through in a day what took centuries to deposit. The earth is a machine with carbon, lots of places to store it, and lots of places to make it available. Be it in strata, the atmosphere, or held up in biological life carbon is always changing phases. But it is a regular slow moving machine and in the last century, we have opened the flood gates on atmospheric carbon. There is a thing called reciprocity, you should look it up. Plus again you keep failing to answer my question. What is the advantage of lying about the industrializations effect on the environment? Who prospers by telling people to consume less? (because a lot of people prosper by saying continue to consume more) and don’t bring up that weak argument about grant money (it is insulting to people that I know quite well. To say they would fake results for grant money. That stuff does happen but checks and balances normally bring these rare occurances to light rather quickly). Honestly to who gets rich when man becomes more efficient in resource consumption?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 19, 2007 15:39:13 GMT -5
What do you mean I can't support my theory. For one it isn't my theory I am just in support of it. Why do I support this theory you ask, because the facts are proving it every day. No where in recorded history have we observed such a high rate of Temp increase. you can go on and on about milankovitch but it doesn't explain our current rate of CO2 and temp increase. I showed yoiu this earlier and just like every other unwaivering bush blower out their you refuse to look at the data (I can speak on your level also, it is called lowering myself). and for the third time I do not support Al Gore he is a tool in my mind, we just happen to agree on this one issue. Just like I say any guy who likes madonna is a homo. I am sure their are lots of people I don't like who will support my opinion.
What I am looking for is your evidence discrediting global warming, that is all I have asked for in this forum. And truth is I have successfully condemed all your arguments as incorrect. Do we understand all of the process of this planets temperature regulation, no. We have know Idea where all these carbon sinks that continually showing long term models to be varied from actual readings. But we know where the data is leading us. A planet that is increasing at an alarming rate.
What are the finicial benefits of peopple telling us to consume less? Because I surely understand where egotastical shits like Chenney get off saying "environmentalism is vanity" he makes alot of money off that idea. and don't bring up that BS about grant money, you can get grant money to research anything, Global warming or, the mating habits of ants, or why James's shit doesn't stink. I have studied under these people you keep calling liers, and let me go on the record that you have no place to question their honesty. Because that's what your attacks have become, since it is clear you can't beat the truth with your arguments you have gone to name calling, shame on yourself.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 19, 2007 13:46:41 GMT -5
You make to very interesting statements in this article, that I believe are directly correlated.
The first statement that caught my eye concerned the inaccuracies of global models produced in the 1970's and 1980's. The second remark I would care to touch on is this, true but again some what misleading statement, on a scientific consensus.
Believe it or not both of these arguments are 100% related. You have to remember that in Earth sciences, there are 100,000s if not millions of isolated system reactions working together to regulate planetary controls. This existence of an almost incalculable amount of variables the reason for both computer model inaccuracies, as well as the unfortunate need for scientific consensus on cause and effects on this scale.
Your example of Copernicus, though rather easy to conceive, is inappropriate for this comparison (but at the same time perfect). The dynamics of the solar system is actually rather simple to understand when placed in comparison with "predicting" a future earthly climate. The main reason is the amount of variables acting as a control. Planetary physics is almost completely controlled by Newtonian physics (3 simple formulas comparing mass, motion and gravity). Where as Earth system sciences include more variables then I can even begin to list here. The most difficult of them to understand is actually biology. If you every want to study something you can be reasonable sure your getting right, study physics. However if you want to be on the cutting edge of human understanding go for a doctorate in Biology. Again the more variables; the harder to classify and understand.
Oh, and the reason I thought the Copernicus example was “perfect” is because Copernican theory was made by consensus. Because it was Galileo and his telescope that solidified Copernican theory. And don’t forget on the original drafts (and in fact well past Copernicus’ own death) Copernican theory dictated that the ”the center of the universe is near the sun”, which we now know to be false. Science is based on reexaminations of possibilities and through trial and error reaching a consensus of opinion.
Not to mention there is no way hell one person will ever be able to understand the entirety of living in this existence. The only way answers will be obtained is by the communication and interaction of niche thinkers.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 19, 2007 12:15:35 GMT -5
Antarctic Water “Blisters” Uncovered Giant "blisters" containing water that rapidly expand and contract have been mapped beneath the Antarctic ice sheet, according to a recent study in the journal Science.
Fed by a complex network of rivers, the subglacial reservoirs force the overlying ice to rise and fall. By tracking these changes with NASA's Ice Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) scientists were able to map the extent of the subglacial plumbing. The results show that some areas fell by up to 30 feet over just two years.
"We didn't realize that the water under these ice streams was moving in such large quantities, and on such short time scales," said Dr Helen Fricker of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California and one of the authors of the study. "We thought these changes took place over years and decades, but we are seeing large changes over months."
The results are important for understanding how the Antarctic Ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world's ice, might respond to global warming and how much it might contribute to sea level rise.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 15, 2007 7:48:43 GMT -5
If i remember correclty CO2 was only one of the compouds that the analysis was looking for. I am preaty sure they were using a Gas chromatograph to identify all compounds (and amounts) captured the ice sheets. The professor's name was Todd Sowers: www.geosc.psu.edu/~sowers/
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 13:16:36 GMT -5
I don't see how either would effect my theories? there is volcano eruption every minute of every day. When I said we are in a light period of volcanism I should have said no huamn as ever lived in a heavy period of volcanism. Not washigton in 1980 and not even the people of pompie. and we don't know what a pole shift would do, if anything.
but how would either blow a hole in my theory/truth?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 12:22:49 GMT -5
this makes the ~ 1 hundred years of warming wich has caused such a stir within the climatological field only 0.025% of the line you are showing, where it is 10% of line I displayed.
make sure you don't hide behind grand numbers and the geologic scale, I did that for a while myself. Good questioning of logic though.
Check out the the CO2 (ppm) on both of our graphs. the lowest value on mine is ~270 ppm see where that places us on yours. and while your at it check out the max values on both. (don't forget mine is going to be more accurate, but it is still a little worrying.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 12:14:10 GMT -5
Yes but the scale you provided also proves it's own inaccuracies. Unfortunately I doubt that their is a model they can show us, using my 1,000 year scale any where else in geologic time. Don't you allow yourself to be tricked either. If we compare scales my image is only about 3 pixels on you line. (my entire time-line is only 1/10th of a tick mark on yours) so what looks like an upward trend on your graph is what is realtively flat on mine. Now think of the rate of increase.
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 11:56:18 GMT -5
CorrectionWhile reading through my last post i came a across a major inconsistency. I used the term “heinrich Cycle”, this is extremely wrong. I meant to say milankovitch cycle. Hienrich events, are events involving floating sea Ice, and sediment transportation, most commonly viewed in srata deposited after heavy glacial periods. Where as Milankovitch Cycles involve the earth’s rotation around the sun. The earths orbit shifts over set periods of time. There are three main types of shifts in Milankovitch cycles. 1. The earths Orbital Shape (the elliptical orbit stretches pulling us further and closer to the sun) 2. Axil Tilt 3. Axil Orientation (both 2 & 3 effect how much of the earth is directly exposed to the sun. Check out wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycleJames referenced this principle earlier as the main source of heating causing the observed global warming trend. What he neglected to tell you is that these cycles run on geologic scales the shortest of the three cycles taking about 26,000 to show influence, the longest being a 100,000 cycle. Not to mention if you simply run global temp off of Milankovitch we have been in a cooling period for the 6,000 years, that shouldn’t end for about 23,000. I know that means the trend in 29,000 and I said the shortest was 26,000 but you have to remember all 3 cycles play off of each other. That's why our society accommodates for physicists to run these type of numbers, while the same society accommodates James to.... Well as I have said before "I don't have all the answers"
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 13, 2007 11:18:24 GMT -5
OK buddy lets try this again. And by the way it is easier for my to rebut your statements when you itemize them, so I went ahead and did that for you. In your Reply #26 I found 4 main points: 1. Ice caps melt and will raise the sea level over 200 feet 2. Scientist claim areas of the earth are becoming desert with out proof 3. Ice caps are actually thickening in areas 4. There have been temp. fluctuations in the past. 1. Ice caps melting will raise the sea level over 200 feetHonestly, I have no idea about the estimated raise of global ocean levels. However, I am not truly concerned with what quantative values you place on amount change. A raise of only 4 feet would still not cause large areas of the northeastern metropolitan area to be submerged under water. Also, You have to remember what it will do to effect things like hurricane storm surges. Katrina’s storm surge is estimated at 18 – 22 feet (NOAA national hurricane center) if sea levels are already only four feet higher the storm surge would become come equivalent to a 22-26 foot surge, reaching much farther into land and causing a greater amount of economic damage, not even to mention the effect on human life. 2. Scientist claim areas of the earth are becoming desert with out proofThis statement (which I did paraphrase) is probably the most outrageous of all your statements. A simple Google search of “desertification” will render 3,480,000 hits(not very scientific, but effective). I thought you where a fan of Steinbeck, what do you think the Grapes of wrath was about. Desertification is perhaps one of the best understood principles of the human effect on the environment. Over farming, logging, and in particular over grazing, has shown to be one of the detrimental results of the human condition. Infact it is because of the economic implications of this plague that so much research has been funded into the field. Below I have provided an image courtesy of the USDA showing threatened areas. (also there is another side-effect of desertification, without biomass to restrain soils and sands from wind erosion, massive amounts of soils and sands are be deposited on glaciers and ice caps, making it easier for the sun energy to melt them. (drop some black sand in the middle of a sheet of ice, put it in the sun and which part of the ice melts first. The sand will retain the heat and in essence core down into the ice.)) 3. Sections of ice caps are thickeningAnother troubling James quote: “ The environmentalists base their “proof” of the existence of global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are thickening, and those thickening areas are many.”. I don’t know what crack-pot hippies you are getting your information from, but regionally thickening ice sheets fall completely within every global climate shift model I have seen. Again people get caught with the term “global warming”, though for all intensive purposes it is correct, it is also very misleading. Yes the planet as a whole is warming, but different regions are going to be effected differently by the change. We do know a warmer planet will increase the amount of water vapor in the air (more evaporation, with lower condensation values). So this increased water vapor in the air has to fall somewhere, so it is really no surprise that some areas will increase in precipitation (ice sheets come from falling snow). But this is still a bad sign. Things not changing = good, things changing quickly = bad. As for the “militant to the point of violence”, statements like that need to be cited; If you don’t cite them it kind of sounds like your talking out your ass. 4. There have been temp. fluctuations in the past.Yes James you are finally starting to put it together, there have been many temp fluctuations in the past. But don’t start puffing your chest out yet. Most in the scientific community agree with you 100%, there are so called, “natural cycles” to our planets temperature. It is theorized that heinrich cycles are responsible for the most dramatic changes, and yes things like continental orientation and volcanism, also play large roles in regulating our global climate. But as of yet no one has been able to contribute any of these “natural cycles” with the amount of global temperature change we have exhibited in the past century. That is a very important item that sometimes gets glazed over one century, there are few cycles that act in only 100 years. Volcanism can do it, but nothing out of the ordinary there, we actually have very good records of mountains exploding in the past hundred years. And to tell you the truth we live in a rather quite time for volcanoes. But what does volcanism place in the atmosphere which allows it change a climate so quickly, oh yeah CO2 (carbon-dioxide). Wait aren’t there other things that can increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, oh yeah Fossil Fuels. Fossil fuels have massive amount of carbon in them, infact they are derived from dead carbon based life-forms. I bet burning extremely large amounts of dead carbon based life-forms can put extra CO2 into the atmosphere. But if that really where the reason you would have to expect to see some kind of correlation between the timing of industrialization (when we really got into burning fossil fuels) and an increase in global temperature. And industrialization only really came into its own about one hundred years ago. Holy crap industrialization (burning of carbon based life-forms for energy) and global warming all started about the same time. Man I think we found some thing here. But James is right there have been a lot of dramatic climate changes in the past, and they always seemed to be accompanied by something. What was it that goes hand-in-hand with dramatic climate changes throughout the geologic record. Mass- somethings mass…, oh yeah, mass-extinction events. Also knowns as ELEs Extinction Level Events. This is the problem with all those jackasses out there saying global climate shift isn’t a problem, its natural. Shut-up and face the funkin’ music if the planet changes too quickly, we die. It’s as simple as that, so if indeed we are the cause of the planet changing quickly, we arepulling back the hammer on the revolver that is up against our head. It is well known a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere will make the climate shift really fast (the cretaceous shows us that) (remember: fast change = we die). So the audacity of people to sit back and run this gamble baffles me. Here’s the plan, we minimize our effect on the environment and hope for every man, woman, and child sake that we are indeed causing global warming. (that way we have atleast a chance of stopping it) and if we minimize our environmental effect and the global temperature still keeps rising I will admit defeat and take you out to lunch. But how can you actually gamble not to try. The most important factor that makes life, life. Is it’s striving to continue its own, as well as species existence. So that’s why I get a little pissy when people say there is no such thing as global warming it is a fact. Avoiding the truth doesn’t make it go away. Are we responsible, I would yes, but does it really matter?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 12, 2007 15:13:19 GMT -5
yeah Joe only in a civilized setting like philly does someone leave a pile of human feces at the back door of the medina field office. I bet in vermont people are still digging holes and sh!tting in the woods. you barbarians
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 12, 2007 9:38:50 GMT -5
I ran into James this weekend, and he questioned me, “why had I not rebutted all of his 6 points on discrediting Al Gores movie?”. Well the answer is I didn’t really think there was really a need to. None of your arguments really hold any water. But, so there is no question on just how I feel about this subject we will go through them one by one. Lets get started:
point #1: James says, why would I listen to a politician they only use scare tactics to pass a personal agenda, they are all liars?
Dr Canks response: As hard as this may be to believe coming from me (the constant skeptic), not all politicians are liars. Some do have good intentions; that is why they got into politics to begin with. And don’t forget the fact that at least in respect to global warming, Al Gore has the vast majority of the scientific community standing behind him. G. Bush’s scare tactics can not be used as a corollary, due to the fact that most of the scientific and academic communities feel that his actions are driving us into a more unstable global condition and thus a less secure America.
point #2: James says, The melting of glaciers and ice caps would not lead to an increase in global sea level due to displacement laws. Ice cubes in the bath tub model
Dr Canks response: Even though I felt this was your most convincing argument about the farce that is global warming, I didn’t feel the need to respond to this point. If you reference Joe’s earlier post, you should see that you are 98 percent wrong in your logic. Granted some of our global ice is held up in icebergs, but the vast majority of Earth’s frozen water is ice-sheets. Don’t forget that both Greenland and Antarctica (5th largest continent) are land masses covered in ice. They fact that all of this ice sits on terra-firma means it is excluded from your displacement theory. Approximately 5,773,000 cubic miles of water are held up in Ice caps, glaciers and permanent snow *. ( Interesting fact , the shores of Maine are not sandy beeches, rather they are cliffs. This is due to the fact that without the massive glacier weight on the continent Northern North America rose in elevation after the last Ice Age.) It is projected that the oceans encroached 13 miles onto land after the Pleistocene ice age forming are current coast lines.
point #3: James says, Al Gore lead to increased censorship in the media, and pissed James’ buddy Dee Snyder off.
Dr Canks response: If we where in a court of law, and you brought this up I would only have to look at the judge and say three words, and this point would be dropped; “Your honor, Relevance?”
point #4: James says, Al Gore starts off by saying that this is not a political issue, and then talks about himself for half the movie
Dr Canks response: As I willingly stated before, I never saw this movie. Some of the choir chooses not to be preached to. However, my remarks are directed to questioning your reasoning of not believing in a human induced global climate shift (aka. Global Warming). This seems more like a stylistic complaint of the film rather than a reason not to buy into global warming.
point #5: James says, Farmers Almanac is 70-80% correct this should discredit Al Gore.
Dr Canks response: Well, you failed to mention where the farmer’s Almanac is not in agreement with Al Gore. You really didn’t put enough information in this point for anyone to draw a clear conclusion. What does the farmer’s Almanac say about long term global climate trends?
point #6: James says, Al Gore doesn’t mention what corporations should do to aid in the slowing of dramatic global climate changes, he only mentions what individuals can do. Plus he flies around in a jet to promote the movie, wasting fuel.
Dr Canks response: Well you, yourself are a pretty good public speaker so I figured you would have known the first rule to addressing a crowd. Know your audience, this movie was not made for corporations it was made for average citizens. I would say it would be a waste of time pointing fingers at what big-business does and doesn’t do, and how they should change. This is not a Michael Moore film, everyone is in at least partially responsible for their own condition. You can bitch and moan about how people with all the money don’t do enough, but sometimes you have to worry about the things you can do. Everyone can make a difference, but sometimes it does take a little work (maybe this was your problem with the film). As for the private jet remark; weak non-sequitous, personal attack that has very little to do with anything you are claiming here (but I assume you knew that when you wrote it). Not to mention, a gas bill for a jet would be a small cost if this movie does indeed cause people to think about their personal responsibilities in living in a dynamic environment.
I just want to reiterate, I am in no way defending this movie or Al Gore. I never saw it and I truly doubt I ever will. It just worries me when someone says that humans aren’t negatively impacting our environment. I look forward to your response.
*Source: Gleick, P. H., 1996: Water resources. In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, ed. by S. H. Schneider, Oxford University Press, New York, vol. 2, pp.817-823.
|
|