Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Maundering inconvenient truths

  1. May 19, 2007 #1
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 19, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What???? You use HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS as your "experts"?
  4. May 19, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This reminds me of a pro-oil commercial up here for Conico-Phillips. It's played up here in Alaska with all these cute little kids talking about how they want to work in oil and that it impresses the ladies, etc, etc.

    They were all kids from the lower 48!!! (the connected US states), not from Alaska!
  5. May 19, 2007 #4
    That's impressive, getting three fallacies in one sentence.

    Firstly, the straw man, I never called Kristen expert

    Secondly the fallacy of the accident or hasty generalization assuming that competences of any 15 years old kid would exclude judging the merits of the product.

    Thirdly, the implicite appeal to authority, suggesting that if the message is not brought by an autority, it can be ignored, no matter how well argued and sustained by evidence.

    Recall that Kristen is also member here:


    There was once a kid in a fairy tale that shouted that the emperor did not wear clothes. He was no autority too. L'histoire se repete
  6. May 19, 2007 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If she is not an expert then why would you link her work?

    If she is not an expert, then why would you link her work?

    This is an educational forum. We are not interested in links to amateur opinions and evaluations. Kristen is welcome to post her opinions here, but linking to amateur pages has never been appropiate at PF. Are we make an exception for you and your cause alone?
    Last edited: May 19, 2007
  7. May 19, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Andre, at one time I thought you were a solid skeptic... now I'm beginning to think you're just hard-headed about the subject.

    I really don't know what's going on anymore in Global Warming, and one of my current jobs is actually relevant to it (laser scattering off non-spherical particles). I've pretty much lost trust for anyone that thinks they know what's going on.
  8. May 20, 2007 #7
    Okay then, let's call in the experts and judge the accuracy of Kristen's assessment.



    be sure to have a pop blocker on for the next one: or let me copy paste, to save you from a deluge of pop ups.


    Last edited: May 20, 2007
  9. May 20, 2007 #8

    Same pop ups, so this is what it says:

  10. May 20, 2007 #9

  11. May 20, 2007 #10
    Excellent illustration of:

    Just go here and here and note that panical global warming is refuted by the absence of the essential positive feedback and then you can just resume with normal emisivity data. Nothing wrong with that from a climate point of view.
  12. May 20, 2007 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not really concerned with Global Warming; I'm not panicking, and I'm not doing the research to prove anything, I just like the idea of being able to figure out what particles are with long range scanning; it's neat to me. I analyze infrasound signals too for the same reason... long distance information... it's neat!

    Global Warming debate? Well, you've about bored my pants off with it. I just don't care anymore, I'm finding little truths, not big ones, at least not until I understand nature a lot better, and I'm not taking anybody's word for it.

    I don't know how you see me 'taking Al Gore's side' as it were. I know as much as the next guy that fear is a profitable market, and whether Global Warming is true or not, people are going to play off those fears.
  13. May 20, 2007 #12
    Well you choose to enter this thread with some confronting statements. I was merely thinking of doing my duty to warn a hypothetical crowd that the world could be a little different.

    using fiction to impose fear is probably the most used mechanism in history to straighten out the crowd and lead them into the next war. That's how a lot of religions work. So, the essential thing is if we allow us Gore to lead us back into the dark ages with devils and dragons or if we allow factual reasoning to guide us.
  14. May 20, 2007 #13

    Whoa there Andre, read that last paragraph. You apparently are obsessed with defeating the global warming supporters.

    I'd hardly call advocating the use of clean energy sources "leading us back into the dark ages." :rolleyes:

    Whether there is global warming or not is irrelevant to the fact that our current energy sources are polluting the entire planet.
  15. May 20, 2007 #14
    And there you are terribly wrong. of course there is a problem, we have to somehow get Earth going in the light of the increasing human pressure on the ecology. There is no doubt about it.


    You can debate about the extent of greenhouse effect, you can fear that it's significant, you can prove that it's not so. But willfully deceiting, exagarating and distortion of the truth as Gore admits he does, may have a short term desired effect but will be disastrous in the long end. When all your actions are driven by the urge to terminate the use of energy. No combustion, no nuclear, in the end you may be happy with a few hours light. And then nature decides to launch another little ice age. How are you going to fight that off?

    If we want to convert to a sustainable society we must get rid of the lies, get real, face the real facts and act accordingly. Anti combustion and anti nuclear dogmas are just as likely to ruin what you want to save. We just need reason back and pure science not poisoned by the urge to proof global warming. The longer it takes, the more science has to loose and the longer it takes to restore faith.

    living with a lie as the highest dogma is what I see as the new dark ages.
    Last edited: May 20, 2007
  16. May 20, 2007 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was confronting your hardheadedness; Global Warming just happens to be the subject where you've already picked what you want to be true, and now you're just looking for ways to prove it, digging up whatever you can. Anybody can do that, once they've chosen a conclusion they want to be true.

    Does that mean Al Gore is right and you're wrong? No... It just means that I put you in the same boat as him. You come off as a propagandist, which makes your arguments completely ineffective to someone like me. I'm not going to dig up data that suggests that, I'm just "doing my duty" and pointing out that you're emulating skepticism, and not actually being a true skeptic.
  17. May 20, 2007 #16
    hey, I offer what I consider refuting evidence, you react with ad hominems. recheck the rules of the game here. What does that make you?
  18. May 20, 2007 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Let's not get into a fight.

    It's funny, a couple of years ago I believed in AGW. I started doing research on it in order to back up AGW but what I found instead was evidence against the gloom and doom predictions. I no longer believe that human pollution is capable of "significantly" affecting our climate. Significant is the keyword here, it's a no brainer that pollution contributes to greenhouse gasses, but what is not known is what effect it has on climate. Quite honestly, all of what we see could be quite normal and the effects of human pollution so insignificant as to not really have an impact, we do not know.

    I have to agree with Andre in his post

  19. May 20, 2007 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm just saying, Mother Teresa did much worse things than Al Gore.

    An Inconvenient Truth is something we (climate scientists and scientsts-in-training) joke about at the office. It's not really affecting anyone more than the usual Millennial Fever crowd, and your thread will never touch them anyway.
  20. May 20, 2007 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'm not stating an opinion about global warming because I don't know jack about it, but it looks like what Kristen did is publish a compendium of facts and opinions that were either researched or given by experts. Some of the opinions are hers, but not all of them. Don't forget, our very own Physics Forums was also started by a kid as a high school extra credit problem as a place to compile expert advice, and if people had realized he was a high school kid and concluded they had nothing of value to gain from reading our site, that would have been unfortunate indeed.
    Last edited: May 21, 2007
  21. May 21, 2007 #20
    Thanks Evo and L.Y.N. I'm sorry about that. I was a bit overwhelmed about the strong reactions. I still am.
  22. May 21, 2007 #21


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Seems to me you are just talking the talk, and not walking the walk. Please do some actual 'pointing out'. Any details at all will do, where is he 'hardheaded', not a true 'skeptic', etc.
  23. May 21, 2007 #22


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    (disclaimer: I like Andre more than Al Gore. Furthermore, I'm not an intellectual and I don't think you can change people's opinions with pointing out and proof, because then people start arguing about interpretations of data... then they argue about semantics, then throw more proof/data in and argue about interpretation more. I'm a scientist, I do things, I'm not an intellectual/philosopher whatsoever, I like to drink and fly kites and go hiking, not sit around and think intentionally, I'm an animal. I was just stating my opinion)

    Anyway, for your sake:

    how I arrived at my long-term conclusion:

    I come to this forum occasionally every couple months and it's always the same thing coming from Andre. Just look over all posts by Andre, right here on physicsforums for your evidence, he's obsessed with the subject!

    what triggered it:

    Andre siting a high school girl.

    Now, I don't deny that this may have been an emotional response to Andre, but that doesn't concern me in the least. I'm often proud of my ad homi-whatevers. Just because I insult somebody doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you refuse to see it, that's fine, don't confuse me with facts. Facts don't mean crap if an idiot is interpreting them.
  24. May 21, 2007 #23
    Great post Andre.... except the subject is WMD and the liar is George W. Bush. :biggrin:

    So Gore neglects to explain all of the details of the correlation between the rise in CO2 and rise in temperature. And then he overlays 2 graphs in a visually stunning yet misleading representation of the data.

    :uhh: Andre... Al Gore is a politician. The movie was not about the science and should not be cited as a scientific source. Politicians are going to exaggerate, the media will hype the science press releases. and and the denialists blogs will continue to spin papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

    The worlds scientists, are not by and large part of any conspiracy to cast the world into some kind of solar powered fascist vegan society.

    Well, at least not the vegan part.

    I agree that the scientific community does not know what is going to happen, but unlike you, that frightens me more than Al Gore smoothing a graph to emphasize a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    From the melting of the Arctic ice cap to the upwelling of CO2 from the deep oceans, the scientific community's predictions, as opposed to being alarmist, have consistently been far to conservative.

    There is always hype in the media.

    But when you use a pseudo science blog that cherry picks selected headlines, and then edits them together, and offers it as evidence of scientific doublespeak... well Andre that does tend to lead people to the conclusion that you are... shall we say, more than skeptical. :smile:
  25. May 22, 2007 #24


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think his investigative talents would be better used against more harmful policies that ruin lives like the war on drugs, crusading governments, and embezzling evangelists (to name a few).

    But a movie? Star Wars has a bigger following than an Inconvenient Truth. It may be creepy, but it's just as harmless as GWA advocates.

    Maybe I'm missing something... how does this affect you negatively Andre? I mean, given that politicians and lies aren't uncommon companions.
  26. May 22, 2007 #25
    Another borrowed piece from Andre, from a high school kid no less. Hope it fairs better than the other ones in the past.

    Start maundering

    A somewhat fair description of Al. I will overlook the "put words in his mouth" type minor offense. At least the author didn't bought up the internet joke.

    don't really care.

    Now let science commence
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837/90 [Broken]

    Very nice original research, except she missed the point. CO2 does not triggers GW, it just contributes to GW and keep it going. Thus, the time-line she constructed makes logical sense in support of Al: industrial age starts the melting process, GW continues it.subject to local and short term variation.

    But then, Al only showed a few picture and you can only conclude so much out of a small sample. For more info on glacier, look here
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/115130/58 [Broken]

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236 [Broken]
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666 [Broken]

    So she believes it's solar

    Again, CO2 is not the catalyst. It just keeps the reaction going.

    For anyone who states increased in CO2 is induced by temp, I got a simple question: why? When it's there is the other way around, there is an elegant explanation. So please provide a more scientifically sound argument, or theory, or just maybe. Anything.

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76 [Broken]

    Yep, this one I agree. A mistake is a mistake. Edit out that one sentence please.

    Well, El Nino as the cause of GW, ok. But throwing out an observation can only accomplishes so much. What about the scientific explanation, the theory behind it? Not even an external link?. She sets out a very poor example if she is trying to say Al failed to do his homework.

    People are getting more fat in the past 30 years, and temperature increased during that period. Al Gore failed to account for this fact, which is a crucial mistake. Wow, that's easy.

    Not sure what she's getting at. UHI exists and is well accepted. But is she backtracking and now tries to cast doubt on GW (the only use of UHI for skeptics)?

    :rolleyes: She's more interested in to become a politician than a scientist, it seems. She fully admits things she doesn't understand, yet she's eager to cast her opinion on the subject. Ignorance is strength.

    OK this is getting boring. I will only continue if anybody actually wants to read this. I took a quick glance at the remaining stuff and she's going too much off-topic. She's not going to convince me that the only thing GW gives is the gift of Arctic passageway. Seriously, it becomes comical after awhile with gem like this

    Conclusion. Very nice attempt by this student. It's certainly much better than the last argument I saw, which can roughly be summarize as: cleaner environment is not profitable, so don't do it. :biggrin:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook