A Study in Futility - Page 4 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 12:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
You seem to have missed Gore's message entirely. It is not "go back to the days of no energy consuming appliances and cars" it is "do what you will with an eye on your impact on the environment, and make intelligent, thought out choices."

I think you so enjoy rolling the shit of a cheap shot at Gore, missing the message and failing to review his actual energy consumption in context had to be expected.

Gore has a home in an area where there is both a high humidity/heat season requiring air conditioning, and cooler temperatures in the winter, also requiring heating. Gore and his wife have their work offices inside the 10,000 square foot home, and they provide living quarters and offices for the security detail they have as former Vice President of the United States. Gore's energy usage measured in Watt-hours per square foot meets the average for households in his county. Gore buys the maximum number of Watt-hours from more expensive "green" sources as allowed by his power utility. Gore minimizes his use of automobiles by using his home office, and, because he does not need to maintain another place of work, avoids the entire energy costs of rental office spaces.

Gore is a wealthy man. A 10,000 square foot home, with spaces for his office, his wife's office and the security detail's offices, along with an office assistant and possibly other support, is just not ostentatous or flagrantly over consuming, regardless of how you would like to portray it. And, by buying the maximum number of monthly Watt-hours of energy from "green" sources his local utility will allow, Gore is literally doing what he can to reduce his contribution to greenhouse gasses and global warming.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 12:37 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBenz94
Is science based on concensus?
Unfortunately when science begins to examine something as complex as the global warming issue, the answer is yes. A theory is generally agreed upon, and then science sets out to prove the theory wrong.

Go look at the development of any new analytical codes, like finite element analysis of structures, from its inception to its present day form. Or computational fluid dynamics. Or string theory. There is general concensus on what a new theory means followed by validation experiments, any of which can disprove the entire theory if it fails to be validated. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #33 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 12:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
BadBenz94's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2003
Vehicle: 2001 Jaguar XJR, 1994 E320(sold)
Location: Kankakee,IL
Posts: 1,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So its THEORY, not fact......too we can look at the Shrinking caps of Mars(been doing so for the last three years)..is that caused by global warming.......we seem to be leaving out the effects of our main heating source, the sun. Is it possible it is more active of late.....there is too much that we dont know for me to believe that we are the causation of global warming.



Too there is not general consenus in the scientific enviorment to establish global warming (as being caused by human activity) as there is not a majority consensus among scientist.

My Car WOO HOO...... Now SOLD
New car.... 2001 Jaguar XJR!!!!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by BadBenz94; 03-02-2007 at 01:00 PM.
BadBenz94 is offline  
post #34 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 12:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
BadBenz94's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2003
Vehicle: 2001 Jaguar XJR, 1994 E320(sold)
Location: Kankakee,IL
Posts: 1,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh yes, did anyone here where Gore is buying his "credits" from, its from his own damn company!!!! LOL

My Car WOO HOO...... Now SOLD
New car.... 2001 Jaguar XJR!!!!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
BadBenz94 is offline  
post #35 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 12:59 PM Thread Starter
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,253
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
I tried to put some perspective on the "humans are causing global warming" argument before, and Naomilla2.0 just tried, and it just doesn't seem to "take" with some of you guys. Humans are not merely a contributor to the emissions total that affects global warming. The rate of human population growth has increased rapidly with the advent of the industrial age, which flourished with the access to reliable, reasonably safe, energy sources. The human contribution has increased more rapidly than just the population growth rate as the more recent industrialization of some of the larger populations has occured without the foresight to use energy conversion equipment that has the most modern emissions controls.

In general the natural phenomena cited as gross sources of greenhouse gasses are intermittent sources, meaning they are tied to events like massive volcanic eruptions and the like, which are not every day events and do not seem to be happening at an ever increasing rate per hundred years.

Human contributions have been on a steady increase that is fairly well tied to the combinations of population growth and industrialization. Every year is worse than the last in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The issue is that humans cannot change or control the natural events that contribute emissions of greenhouse gasses, but we can control the sources we create and use. So, knowing we are experiencing global climate warming, it should be apparent that the equilibrium has been disturbed. How anyone can conclude the human contribution to this perturbation of the equillibrium is nonsense, without scientific explanations, is not credible.

The point is, humans are contributing to the problem, more every year. Humans can do something about that, so, the question is why shouldn't they? Because some cabal of psuedo scientists funded by petrochemical industry money, and the petrochemical, automobile, and other industries have money to lose if there is a change in human behavior? Sounds like bad judgement to me. Jim
This argument would be much more persuasive if it didn't simply allude to statistics that may or may not bolster the argument. For example, the statment "equillibrium is disturbed" leads one to believe we've really mucked things up. What are the real numbers?

The reason we should be careful about what decisions we make regarding our contribution to airborne pollutants, etc. is because 1) nobody can document whether or not we'll have any substantive effect on the "problem" at hand, e.g. "Global Warming", and 2) the remedies are very, very expensive - costs that consumers ultimately will bear. Nobody minds picking up the tab if we know it's going to make a difference, but we don't.

"Climate Science" amounts to a bunch of guys staring at a thermometer, and freaking out when it moves. None of these "scientists" are measuring & quantifying anything that causes the mercury to rise or fall. If they were, we'd all know what percentage of global greenhouse gasses are attributable to human related activity, and we'd know exactly what impact changes we make would have on the climate. We'd also know whether or not things like solar output, volcanic activity, bovine flatulence, algae, etc. constituted the vast & unchangable majority of contributors to greenhouse gasses.

Humans should act in responsible ways no matter what. If that's what you ultimately want, then argue that point. Don't use bullshit pseudo-science - no matter how impressive the volumes of "data" may look on the surface - to guilt countries into spending trillions of dollars in an effort to fix a problem that we don't know whether or not we can even dent.
Qubes is offline  
post #36 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 02:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
BadBenz94's Avatar
 
Date registered: Feb 2003
Vehicle: 2001 Jaguar XJR, 1994 E320(sold)
Location: Kankakee,IL
Posts: 1,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Hmmmmmm

My Car WOO HOO...... Now SOLD
New car.... 2001 Jaguar XJR!!!!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
BadBenz94 is offline  
post #37 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 03:20 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,526
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBenz94
I like this part:

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

In other words, he's wrong because what he says conflicts with what we decided . . . .

edfreeman is offline  
post #38 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 04:07 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman
I like this part:

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

In other words, he's wrong because what he says conflicts with what we decided . . . .
I cannot find the logic in your conclusion.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #39 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 05:35 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Naomilla2.0's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2003
Vehicle: 1988 560SEL sold:
Location: Level 42
Posts: 4,717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch
DPT is the most unsafe and medically covered up vaccine on the market. What does the 'A' stand for in your daughter's vaccine?
acellular

Quote:
A safer acellular pertussis vaccine has been developed in Japan. In 1991, it was licensed for use in the United States. The old pertussis vaccine is made from dead whole pertussis cells and is mixed with the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines to make the regular DPT shot. The new acellular pertussis vaccine is made of only a few parts of the pertussis cell and is also combined with the diphtheria and tetanus. There are now several FDA approved vaccines containing accellular pertussis (DTaP). Because of its better safety profile, DTaP is recommended over the regular DPT vaccine for children in the United States.
-DrGreene.com

.
.
.
.

馬鹿は死ななきゃ治らない。

.
Naomilla2.0 is offline  
post #40 of 89 (permalink) Old 03-02-2007, 06:14 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
This argument would be much more persuasive if it didn't simply allude to statistics that may or may not bolster the argument. For example, the statment "equillibrium is disturbed" leads one to believe we've really mucked things up. What are the real numbers?
You are shitting me aren't you? Any time there is a change in a "system" like our global climate system, by definition the conditions of "equillibrium" have changed. The data over the time period of the start of industrialization and the exponential population growth of humans shows as CO2 concentrations increased, the global temperatures have increased, actually keeping pace with the rate of CO2 concentration increases. This data has already been posted by others, so if you want to look at data do a search.

While this is not conclusively a "slam dunk" case for humans causing global warming, which is a too convenient framing of the issue for those who argue humans are not affecting the rate of global warming, it is pointing to a cause and effect relationship between the rate of increase in the number of humans, the industrialization of our societies around the globe, the rate of CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere, and the rate of global temperature increases. It is irresponsible to ignore this information and do nothing. It is likely also irresponsible to turn off the energy supply to our global industrial machine. There is a lot of ground in the middle worth examining and exploring on our way to understanding what we can and should do to limit the rate of global warming that is within our ability to control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
The reason we should be careful about what decisions we make regarding our contribution to airborne pollutants, etc. is because 1) nobody can document whether or not we'll have any substantive effect on the "problem" at hand, e.g. "Global Warming", and 2) the remedies are very, very expensive - costs that consumers ultimately will bear. Nobody minds picking up the tab if we know it's going to make a difference, but we don't.
This exact argument was propped up and paraded around by the automakers in Detroit in the late 1960's and lasted until the mid 1980's concerning automotive emissions controls. It is also the favorite argument for those who oppose fuel economy standards. It is a "conservative" argument for no other reason than it advocates doing nothing. Yes, we should be careful and make wise decisions. At this point doing too much and backing off later is likely more "prudent" than doing nothing while we wait for some miracle cure to be found without anyone making any changes to human behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
"Climate Science" amounts to a bunch of guys staring at a thermometer, and freaking out when it moves. None of these "scientists" are measuring & quantifying anything that causes the mercury to rise or fall. If they were, we'd all know what percentage of global greenhouse gasses are attributable to human related activity, and we'd know exactly what impact changes we make would have on the climate. We'd also know whether or not things like solar output, volcanic activity, bovine flatulence, algae, etc. constituted the vast & unchangable majority of contributors to greenhouse gasses.
Yes, it is a complicated "system" of greenhouse gas sources and built in mechanisms to limit their effects, and we understand little of the details of any of the mechanisms. It seems you advocate giving up on trying to understand it. Sounds very short sighted to me. Or like a temper tantrum from an immature kid who wants to know why "we aren't there already" after turning the first corner leaving home on a trip to Grandma's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Humans should act in responsible ways no matter what. If that's what you ultimately want, then argue that point. Don't use bullshit pseudo-science - no matter how impressive the volumes of "data" may look on the surface - to guilt countries into spending trillions of dollars in an effort to fix a problem that we don't know whether or not we can even dent.
Trillions of dollars? Got some data to back that number up? Over what time period? What solutions would be imposed?

The real issue here is that as long as the argument is sustained that there is no evidence that humans are causing global warming, nothing will be done. On the other hand, if it is acknowledged there is data showing the human contribution to greenhouse gasses is adding to the burden sufficiently to cause the rate of global warming to increase, something can be done. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
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:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Media bias study Botnst Off-Topic 6 10-31-2006 04:52 PM
    New ESP study released, even better than before Wolfgang MB Safety & Testimonials 3 06-13-2006 07:14 PM
    Sex Study Check Codes Off-Topic 6 03-15-2006 03:47 PM
    AsianML Study Group Roch207 Off-Topic 67 01-22-2006 07:03 PM
    Here's that JD Powers study I was talking about.. Boxster Boy R170 SLK-Class 26 07-12-2003 10:38 PM

    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 On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome