Al Gore get the Nobel Peace prize

[Gorgon]

I don't get it. How can the batteries cause harm to the environment if they are charged by fuel derived mostly from plants.

 

How alternative fuel is driving up the cost of corn and grain alike is a lot more worrysome, if you happen to live somewhere poor where you import your food.

 

Farmers won't be producing base food items at a low profit margin, when they can supply ethanol plants instead.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Gorgon

[Pidesco]

It's not just that there's a big prestige factor associated with the big cars. I have here a book filled with fifties American magazine ads, and one of the things the ads used as a major selling point was simply the size of the car. The bigger the better seemed to be the mantra.

[taks]

btw, if anyone hasn't read it, kristen byrnes has posted a rather lengthy debunking of al gore's movie... kristen is still in high school. this is why i get so bent out of shape when imbeciles want links for everything because they cannot be bothered to dig into the depths of their high school education to try and figure out the simple stuff.

 

Ponder the Maunder is so named because of the Maunder Minimum (look it up on wiki for god's sake) which was the lowest recorded sun spot activity in recorded history. the maunder minimum was disastrous - temps dropped, crops failed, poverty soared, all because of that little yellow ball of light in the sky.

 

taks

[taks]

I don't get it. How can the batteries cause harm to the environment if they are charged by fuel derived mostly from plants.

oh, their operation is quite clean, but there are two problems:

 

1) they have to be made. the batteries in hybrids contain massive amounts of nickel. this is extremely difficult to process, and it is done in multiple countries. this is the biggest reason the cars cost so much out of the gate.

 

2) disposal. you need to get rid of all the toxic chemicals when the car batteries are done (or even the car dies). there's not much left in a gasoline engine other than the leftover oil or transmission fluid, both of which are typically recycled anyway.

 

How alternative fuel is driving up the cost of corn and grain alike is a lot more worrysome, if you happen to live somewhere poor where you import your food.

 

Farmers won't be producing base food items at a low profit margin, when they can supply ethanol plants instead.

i'm also concerned with the fact that the amount of energy used to grow the corn to make ethanol renders it 30% or so efficient compared to 98% or so for oil. plus, we simply trade the oil cartels for the corn cartels... sheesh.

 

taks

[taks]

it is interesting, btw, that nobody has taken me up on my challenge... can it be that there is no way to reconcile CO2 causing temperature rise, and the longest record of CO2 and temperature that we have showing the opposite? 650,000 years means the confidence level of the correlation is quite high, even if the temperature and CO2 error is large. any takers, mkreku? or are you going to stick to your cop-out "we'll never really know" which is dumb-speak for "i can't argue the point because i don't have a counter." hehe...

 

taks

[taks]

Global dimming might explaing few things.

which is actually an untested hypothesis that turns out to be the opposite of what the backers had hoped. ramanathan has done a few studies and they were discussed at pielke sr.'s site. global dimming ain't quite the right term.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

it is interesting, btw, that nobody has taken me up on my challenge... can it be that there is no way to reconcile CO2 causing temperature rise, and the longest record of CO2 and temperature that we have showing the opposite? 650,000 years means the confidence level of the correlation is quite high, even if the temperature and CO2 error is large. any takers, mkreku? or are you going to stick to your cop-out "we'll never really know" which is dumb-speak for "i can't argue the point because i don't have a counter." hehe...

 

taks

 

Well I can prove that temperature rise creates increases in CO2 (just burn a piece of charcoal). But no I can not prove the reverse which is what Gore assets to be true. Of course neither can he. But as Calax says you have to have faith! It's funny, this whole global warming thing is nearly becoming a religion. And it is a zealous one that hates pagans and heretics (thats you and me Taks).

Edited October 14, 2007 by Guard Dog

[taks]

yes, i'm wrong because i'm a right winger. never mind the years of school and daily study that i'm still doing, both on and off the job... no, that's not why i take a skeptical view, it's all because of fox news. i suppose i should start watching the news, fox in particular, to live up to others' expectations. i'll start attending church, too...

 

i don't expect anyone to have an answer to this challenge, btw, because it cannot be answered. this is a major sticking point for AGW theory, and it's no surprise al gore and similar types are lying about the past record (i recall reading about one children's book that got caught switching CO2 with temp, and once they got called on it, they switched them back but refused to replace the wording which depended upon CO2 leading temperature). any time the opposition begins to lie, you gotta wonder if they're scared.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, here's a link to the original report that said 11 inaccuracies, which has since been reduced to 9 by combining two and omitting another (the final judgement compared to the interim judgement).

 

taks

[taks]

hehe, mkreku's link is to a foreign language NEWS site... my god man, you really are fooled easily.

 

btw, if i'm wrong, you _should_ be able to show how cause can follow affect. it has nothing to do with "believing taks," simply show me how it can be done. i swear i'll concede.

 

taks

[Calax]

it is interesting, btw, that nobody has taken me up on my challenge... can it be that there is no way to reconcile CO2 causing temperature rise, and the longest record of CO2 and temperature that we have showing the opposite? 650,000 years means the confidence level of the correlation is quite high, even if the temperature and CO2 error is large. any takers, mkreku? or are you going to stick to your cop-out "we'll never really know" which is dumb-speak for "i can't argue the point because i don't have a counter." hehe...

 

taks

 

Well I can prove that temperature rise creates increases in CO2 (just burn a piece of charcoal). But no I can not prove the reverse which is what Gore assets to be true. Of course neither can he. But as Calax says you have to have faith! It's funny, this whole global warming thing is nearly becoming a religion. And it is a zealous one that hates pagans and heretics (thats you and me Taks).

did I ever say that you had to be on one side or the other to be right? I'm just raised by an enviromentalist who bought the prius only buys organic and won't do certain things because it's bad for the environment. Are you saying I'm a heretic?

[taks]

no, he's saying that he and i are heretics for not believing. that's all...

 

taks

[GreasyDogMeat]

Science can't decide which is better for your health... Margarin or Butter... so I'll hold my decision on global warming. Both sides have a lot to gain for pushing their own agendas.

 

I don't put much stock in the Nobel 'Peace' Prize. Mother Theresa? Sure. Yassar Arafat? What? NO! Bin Laden will be up for a Nobel Peace Prize next.

Edited October 15, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Calax]

no, he's saying that he and i are heretics for not believing. that's all...

 

taks

don't put words in my mouth.

[Atreides]

Biofuel's renewable, but it still burns and creates CO2. Fuel cells sound more promising,

 

I was watching a documentary on the progression of car technology from its roots (interesting that people tried out electric, steam and gasoline cars before the internal combustion engine proved superior) to where it's headed. I was surprised that gas combustion engines only convert 30% of petrol's potential (higher for diesel). There's still a long way to go in efficiency. If we can get more out of what we have, we should require less I guess. Until we need more output.

[Tale]

it is interesting, btw, that nobody has taken me up on my challenge... can it be that there is no way to reconcile CO2 causing temperature rise, and the longest record of CO2 and temperature that we have showing the opposite? 650,000 years means the confidence level of the correlation is quite high, even if the temperature and CO2 error is large. any takers, mkreku? or are you going to stick to your cop-out "we'll never really know" which is dumb-speak for "i can't argue the point because i don't have a counter." hehe...

 

taks

 

Well I can prove that temperature rise creates increases in CO2 (just burn a piece of charcoal). But no I can not prove the reverse which is what Gore assets to be true. Of course neither can he. But as Calax says you have to have faith! It's funny, this whole global warming thing is nearly becoming a religion. And it is a zealous one that hates pagans and heretics (thats you and me Taks).

I find it funny that supposedly believers in climate change are the zealous ones who hate heretics when its taks who has been consistently posting 3 or 5 posts in a row in this thread. We get less of a reaction out of Sand in EA and Fallout 3 threads.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Tale

[taks]

taks is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of media reports that come out regularly. note too, that my zeal has nothing to do with hate because of someone's belief. i pick on mkreku because of his fundamental inability to actually _think_. gorgon doesn't agree with me, nor many others, but you don't see me riding them the same way. qwerty simply picked an off-topic subject and approached it in an intellectually dishonest manner... not unlike what he did with meta (yes, GD, i remember the thread now).

 

it's pretty obvious, too, that i'm probably the most informed in here on the subject. this is simply because i spend quite a lot of time reading about it, not simply reading stories, either. plus, the statistical practices that are used, and abused, in climate science are very similar to what i do for a living (and my school work).

 

taks

Edited October 15, 2007 by taks

[taks]

no, he's saying that he and i are heretics for not believing. that's all...

 

taks

don't put words in my mouth.

my god... READING COMPREHENSION!!! i put no words in your mouth.

 

GD SAID that he and i are heretics, i was replying to you, not paraphrasing you... sheesh. why is it so hard to understand simple english?

 

taks

[taks]

Biofuel's renewable, but it still burns and creates CO2. Fuel cells sound more promising,

yup.

 

I was surprised that gas combustion engines only convert 30% of petrol's potential (higher for diesel). There's still a long way to go in efficiency. If we can get more out of what we have, we should require less I guess. Until we need more output.

i believe 31% is the limit for a naturally aspirated engine using gasoline. i don't know why, or at least, i don't remember the details. anyone that spends a lot of time working on cars probably knows more.

 

taks

[Gorth]

I am sort of of two minds regarding the whole "global warming" thing. On one hand, I am not convinced by the arguments, no matter how passionate and emotional, that the rise of average global termperature (which I do acknowlegde is happening) is caused by CO2 exclusively. Has anybody calculated what the effect of deforestation has on the reflection/absorbtion of solar energy etc.?

 

On the other hand, I fear that losing the argument will be perceived in some circles as a Carte "License to Drill" Blanche to go completely overboard in ignoring environmental issues in general. Sort of using this as a precedens and point back and say, see you were wrong then, you are wrong now and then turn out the powers knows what crap in our every day lives :ninja10:

 

A good cause but the wrong issue so to say.

[taks]

i don't think the slippery slope really works in this case, gorth. particularly because we're going to run out of things to drill for before the entire debate is ever settled, so it won't matter. every bit of oil will be dug up, rest assured, same for coal and just about anything else that will burn. before we get to the point that we can see the end of the fossil fuel tunnel, it will become so expensive that other means will necessarily be in use... maybe biofuels, probably lots of nuclear for everything except automobiles, and who knows what else, solar, wind, etc.

 

taks

[Gorth]

probably lots of nuclear for everything except automobiles

Tell that to Bethesda!

 

I hope you are right. I believe the world would be a better place without dependancy on fossile fuel.

 

With the improved infrastructure and communication networks, I would love to see the number of cars in the world reduced signifciantly too because of a lesser need for individual mobility (i.e. pendling back and forth to work). Mayby that makes me a hippie in some ways

 

Actually, my main concern wasn't really so much the search for fuel, as you mentioned it is for a limited time only, but things that happened in our own "backyard" just on the other side of the iron curtain (back when I lived in Denmark). Scary images of chemical wastelands full of byproducts of a society focused on productivity and little else. These are the things I fear might be downplayed if environmental conscience becomes a naughty word.

[Calax]

no, he's saying that he and i are heretics for not believing. that's all...

 

taks

don't put words in my mouth.

my god... READING COMPREHENSION!!! i put no words in your mouth.

 

GD SAID that he and i are heretics, i was replying to you, not paraphrasing you... sheesh. why is it so hard to understand simple english?

 

taks

actually I was saying you were putting words in my mouth or rather giving my words a more.... Religious(?) overtone than I had placed upon them. You made it sound like I was saying that people like you and GD were unfit for civil discourse, and should be branded and or ostrasized for being idiots and other similar reactions to the word Heretic. I mean after all many people on this board play warhammer, a heretic in warhammer usually paints his body in blood with the symbols of his masters right before going off to war. Now I can't see you so I'm assuming you didn't paint any sort of symbol on your body and what we do can rarely be called wars so :shruggles:

[Qwerty the Sir]

taks is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of media reports that come out regularly. note too, that my zeal has nothing to do with hate because of someone's belief. i pick on mkreku because of his fundamental inability to actually _think_. gorgon doesn't agree with me, nor many others, but you don't see me riding them the same way. qwerty simply picked an off-topic subject and approached it in an intellectually dishonest manner... not unlike what he did with meta (yes, GD, i remember the thread now).

 

it's pretty obvious, too, that i'm probably the most informed in here on the subject. this is simply because i spend quite a lot of time reading about it, not simply reading stories, either. plus, the statistical practices that are used, and abused, in climate science are very similar to what i do for a living (and my school work).

 

taks

 

Yup taks, you are definitely the most well informed here; about everything. Everyone else who disagrees with you in any matter big or small is ignorant, stupid, intellectually dishonest, or an ass, correct?

 

I actually had a reply coming towards you concerning your remark on correlation and causation, but then I remembered that I would be taking the topic "off-topic" again (although I fail to understand why that is so bad given the nature and evolution of discussions [heck, the topic of global warming is technically off topic]) so I just stopped.

 

Also, if it's "intellectually dishonest" of me to call out someone and explain the distinction between logic and rhetoric, which gets so blurred in polemical debates such as this, then so be it.

 

Personally, I believe that it's pretty intellectually dishonest to use logic as some rhetorical ploy against another poster and intellectually sloppy not to understand what he is talking about in the first hand...

 

Anyway, to get more to the actual topic from the original post, why do some people have such a bad impression of the Nobel Peace Prize, simply due to some of the recipients (Arafat was the one mentioned here, and obviously Gore leaves a sour taste in people's mouths)? Granted, you may not agree with the recipient of the award (there was a guy awhile back who supposedly 'exposed' Mother Teresa as a 'fraud' and 'charlatan' and criticized the fact she received honors like the Nobel Peace Prize), but how does that lessen the award at all?

[taks]

Yup taks, you are definitely the most well informed here; about everything. Everyone else who disagrees with you in any matter big or small is ignorant, stupid, intellectually dishonest, or an ass, correct?

there ya go with the intellectually dishonest reply, yet again. i said that i'm probably the most informed regarding this topic, and only because i spend so much time reading about it. i made no comments regarding whether that makes me more right, as i was only replying to tale's mention that i post the most. sheesh you're an ass.

 

I actually had a reply coming towards you concerning your remark on correlation and causation, but then I remembered that I would be taking the topic "off-topic" again (although I fail to understand why that is so bad given the nature and evolution of discussions [heck, the topic of global warming is technically off topic]) so I just stopped.

i fully understand correlation vs. causation, however, what you don't seem to understand is that a) al gore repeatedly says that the 650,000 year history shows that CO2 causes temperature rise, when in fact the causal relationship is reversed. also, a very high correlation does indeed imply causation, though possibly from some other forcer (think the sun). if you had ever paid attention, you'd understand that's my implication, actually.

 

edit: what i find interesting, btw, is that the correlation vs. causation argument is only dragged out by the likes of you when faced with something that doesn't support your view. indeed, those that bring it up as you have, thinking you've suddenly found a sticking point to get me with, really don't understand the statistical implication of a correlation operation in the first place. when taking the correlation between two signals that have a known physical relationship the results have an even higher probability there is a causal relationship.

 

Also, if it's "intellectually dishonest" of me to call out someone and explain the distinction between logic and rhetoric, which gets so blurred in polemical debates such as this, then so be it.

no, it is intellectually dishonest of you to base an argument on something i never said. you did it twice. first, i never said a tautology was a fallacy. second, i never complained about mkreku's ad-hom in the first post, in fact, i even pointed out that i fully intended to insult him so i was not in a position to complain about such logical failures. you then called me a hypocrite after i grudgingly pointed out what could be construed as a fallacy in his first reply, even though i a) did not originally even mention it (i simply referred to his logical failure in general, i never said the post itself contained anything illogical, you just assumed i did) and b) did not complain about it. intellectually dishonest number 2. added to here, that makes three.

 

you are a complete joke.

 

personally, I believe that it's pretty intellectually dishonest to use logic as some rhetorical ploy against another poster and intellectually sloppy not to understand what he is talking about in the first hand...

it is, yet here you continue your ridiculous dishonesty. what a joker.

 

Anyway, to get more to the actual topic from the original post, why do some people have such a bad impression of the Nobel Peace Prize, simply due to some of the recipients (Arafat was the one mentioned here, and obviously Gore leaves a sour taste in people's mouths)? Granted, you may not agree with the recipient of the award (there was a guy awhile back who supposedly 'exposed' Mother Teresa as a 'fraud' and 'charlatan' and criticized the fact she received honors like the Nobel Peace Prize), but how does that lessen the award at all?

not so much a bad impression, but it's not exactly an objective process if the likes of arafat qualify for a PEACE prize. not a whole lot different than libya serving as the chair of the human rights commission.

 

taks

Edited October 15, 2007 by taks