Someone was kind enough to bring this to my attention.
(disable my playlist above first)
OMG, thank you.I was pretty pissed when NPR did a brief and obviously incomplete expose on this. I knew the whole story wasn’t being told, and I wanted to know more.
What a fantastic video. Thank you for posting this.
@methodElevated – @Sgt_Pepper13 – You’re welcome : D This guy’s videos are very good from what I’ve seen, especially his ones explaining science, evolution etc.
Blasted youtube! I have to wait until I get home to watch this. But, since the door is open on the topic –I have had some questions bouncing about my head that no one has really addressed, usually because they’re too busy arguing the other beaten-to-death points.My shortcoming is I don’t know the science here. I’m an MIS major, not a climatologist, so much of the science here is greek to me and would presumably take hours upon hours of study to really know enough to form a solid stance on. I find it hard to enter into such a debate when I can honestly say I don’t know what I’m talking about. However, my skepticism has been based on some other points — Namely, I see the government trying to use global warning to control people. That immediately makes the concept suspect in my eyes. (To be fair, it’s the same reason why many atheists claim shenanigans on religion.) It seems all the major talking heads in support of it don’t practice what they preach — Al Gore with his less-then-entirely-green lifestyle, the Coppenhagen thing with everyone showing up in an insulting volume of gas-guzzling limos and private jets, etc. In all appearances, the feudal lords preaching going green expect the mere peasants to do the actual lifestyle change…per their direction, of course.Because of THAT, I suspect shenanigans. However, to put the shoe on the other foot, in the religion example, my general defense is usually “don’t judge the content by the idiocy of the supporters”, so I’m trying to consider that possibility here. So with that laid out on the table, what are your thoughts?
@The_James_Blog – “Blasted youtube! I have to wait until I get home to watch this. But, since the door is open on the topic –“That sucks. The video is good though, so be sure to check it out.”Ihave had some questions bouncing about my head that no one has reallyaddressed, usually because they’re too busy arguing the otherbeaten-to-death points.”My shortcoming is I don’t know thescience here. I’m an MIS major, not a climatologist, so much of thescience here is greek to me and would presumably take hours upon hoursof study to really know enough to form a solid stance on. I find ithard to enter into such a debate when I can honestly say I don’t knowwhat I’m talking about.”It’s not too complicated. The earth gets heat from a few sources, the molten core, radioactive decay of some elements, and chemical interactions (forest fires, whatever) and gets almost all of it’s warmth from the sun. So sunlight basically dictates the global average temperature and decides whether we get to have ice caps, polar bears and whether the people in manhattain will wake up under water one of these days.The sun gives off massive amounts of energy, a tiny portion of which hits the earth. How much this heats the earth is determined by the properties of the earth’s surface and atmosphere which determine how much of that energy is absorbed, and how much is reflected back into space. When you shine a light on something, depending on it’s chemical properties some of the energy is absorbed, and some is reflected. Light colors reflect more energy, dark colors (especially black) reflect much less. This is why you feel cooler in the summer wearing light colors and hotter wearing dark colors. If the planet were painted black it would be much, much hotter, if it were painted white it would be much cooler. The surface composition is more or less constant, but the atmosphere has a greater impact, because if there are impurities in the atmosphere then rather than acting like a pane of glass which solar energy passes through (both when coming toward and reflecting back out into space) it acts as a heat-catcher, absorbing energy that would normally be reflected, and thus making the planet warmer.If you’re not bored out of your tit already, you may enjoy this blog I wrote a long while ago.”However, my skepticism has been based onsome other points — Namely, I see the government trying to use globalwarning to control people.” I don’t think it’s quite that sinister. I think most people who are serious about global warming are trying to address the problem. Of course if you own stock in a company that makes windmills or hybrid cars you may have other motives, but I don’t think that’s the force behind the movement.”That immediately makes the concept suspectin my eyes. (To be fair, it’s the same reason why many atheists claimshenanigans on religion.)” If al gore had thousands of environmentalism brainwashing camps for kids and started a few wars and tried to outlaw being gay etc, etc, etc in the name of his cause you might begin to have a sound comparison to why atheists call “shenanigans” on religion. But fair enough, controlling people is not good. Yet arguing your side rationally and scientifically isn’t exactly the same as arm-twisting…”It seems all the major talking heads insupport of it don’t practice what they preach — Al Gore with hisless-then-entirely-green lifestyle,” He’s been criticized for not driving a hybrid everywhere, flying in planes and having a big house. The big house thing may or may not be bullshit depending on what the local power source is. I tried looking this up and couldn’t find out, I just got the local power company which said they do green energy and I couldn’t get more detailed information.So far as the dilweeds who shove a camcorder in his face when he’s at some event and accuse him of not driving a hybrid, he’s obviously not driving his own car, but rather a rental. He also gets a pass on some of that stuff (having an entourage with several cars) because he’s the fucking former vice president and he’s got a security detail. He can’t ride a bicycle to a conference after taking a rowboat across the ocean.Also people who criticize environmentalists for flying a plane somewhere act as if the plane made a special trip just for them, and the total fuel expenditure of the plane was to haul their fat ass, when in reality when you factor in how much additional fuel the plane needs to expend to keep one extra person in the air it’s probably about as much carbon emissions as smoking a cigarette. Which is why people like him prefer to promote industry-wide adoption of clean and cleaner energies rather than just stay inside all day and never go anywhere to try to make a difference.”the Coppenhagen thing with everyoneshowing up in an insulting volume of gas-guzzling limos and privatejets, etc.” Which coppenhagen thing? Someone alluded to this recently and I had no idea wtf they were talking about.”In all appearances, the feudal lords preaching going greenexpect the mere peasants to do the actual lifestyle change…per theirdirection, of course.”Again I think that’s a bit of a sinister spin. Though I’ll gladly mock any egregious hypocrisy (such as an environmentalist having a private plane, though again if gore has one it might be for security in which case it’s arguably justified).”Because of THAT, I suspect shenanigans. However,to put the shoe on the other foot, in the religion example, my generaldefense is usually “don’t judge the content by the idiocy of thesupporters”, so I’m trying to consider that possibility here.”I judge religions by the contents of their holy books and the fact that “good” christians, muslims, jews etc are largely good by virtue of being huge hypocrites/heretics.When people criticize religion based on the actions of followers, they almost never say “this person was a bad person and he was christian, so christians are bad or christianity is bad” etc. They say “this person did x bad thing because the bible SAYS TO, therefore christianity is a bad religion” etc.”So with that laid out on the table, what are your thoughts?”See the above : D
@agnophilo – THAT is exactly the kind of answer I wanted. I’ll reply later when I give it a bit to sink in and really delve into it. More people need to go into these details.
I absolutely love this video. I laughed out loud so many times while watching it. I’ve never heard of Alex Jones before, but he was hilarious–“carbon dioxide is good for you.” Hahahaha, what? Where did that even come from? And I’m glad that Rush Limbaugh “instinctively knows” science. Thank goodness! Why are we wasting so much time doing experiments when Limbaugh “instinctively knows” what the results will yield. Thank you so much for posting this and thank you to whoever it was that brought it to your attention.
That was incredibly awesome. It’s good know that there are some sane voices left in the world and on Xanga.
Alex Jones was kind of flipping out.
I am but a young student and I can admit there are things I just don’t know. When that happens, I will leave all the science to the science folks. And when, for years, they all agree on the same thing, I think it’s pretty safe to believe them.Why can’t other people do the same? Their 9 to 5 is looking into this stuff, with detail. Yours is not. If out of thousands of nerds one happens to disagree (or appear to disagree) the topic at hand does not become a conspiracy or a lie.
This is awesome, I rec’d this. I think I’m also going to go to YouTube and add this video to my favorites list! :)I’m getting so sick and tired of hearing people like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh insist that global warming is some kind of huge hoax and holding up inadequate “proof” of why they believe it is.
@The_James_Blog – I look forward to your response. : D@TheRiverIsEverywhere – Yeah I know. Everytime I hear these guys I think “how can someone watch them for 10 seconds and not figure out how full of shit they are?”@nephyo – : D His other vids are good too.@TheModernBunny – Just a bit.If you look at his eyes though he seems calm, almost like he’s feigning outrage and emotion. Shocker.@LyricallyCharged – Exactly. These people are not being genuine though.@tracezilla@lovelyish – They’re con men all of them, that’s the irony.
Ok, I finally got some time to re-read your comment and give the linked blog you referenced a read too. I must say I learned quite a bit. I never knew that about Venus. Your points make sense, and are strong enough that I will indeed have to rethink my skeptism. I don’t see anything that seems contradictory, nonsensical, or twisted. I was going to ask another question, but I think you’ve already answered it. Let me attempt to predict your answer and see if I get it right. One of the biggest things I have found fishy has been the claim that CO2 is a big contributer to global warming. The very thing breathing things exhale is killing the planet?? That would mean cows are polluting the planet as much as cars!But, after reading your brief explanation of the concept, I think I may see what explains the concept: Are you saying that, left on its own, the carbon dioxide producing life on this planet produces a balanced CO2 level — plants are pulling it out of the atmosphere in tune with other creatures putting it into the atmosphere. So, to this point, all has been well and good. But now, the massive addition of carbon dioxide producing technology is lop-siding that balance and resulting in more being put into the atmosphere than being pulled out. As a result, we have a sort of “CO2 shield” in the atmosphere that’s trapping too much heat in instead of allowing it to be reflecting back off the planet. That’s a guess drawn just from what I read here, but am I interpreting it right?And BTW, the video was quite informative.
@The_James_Blog – “Ok,I finally got some time to re-read your comment and give the linkedblog you referenced a read too. I must say I learned quite a bit. Inever knew that about Venus.”Yeah I like that blog : D I pull a good one out now and then : )”Your points make sense, and arestrong enough that I will indeed have to rethink my skeptism. I don’tsee anything that seems contradictory, nonsensical, or twisted.” Well don’t flatter me : P”Iwas going to ask another question, but I think you’ve already answeredit. Let me attempt to predict your answer and see if I get it right. “Shoot.”Oneof the biggest things I have found fishy has been the claim that CO2 isa big contributer to global warming. The very thing breathing thingsexhale is killing the planet?? That would mean cows are polluting theplanet as much as cars!”But, after reading your brief explanationof the concept, I think I may see what explains the concept: Are yousaying that, left on its own, the carbon dioxide producing life on thisplanet produces a balanced CO2 level — plants are pulling it out ofthe atmosphere in tune with other creatures putting it into theatmosphere. So, to this point, all has been well and good. But now, themassive addition of carbon dioxide producing technology is lop-sidingthat balance and resulting in more being put into the atmosphere thanbeing pulled out. As a result, we have a sort of “CO2 shield” in theatmosphere that’s trapping too much heat in instead of allowing it tobe reflecting back off the planet. “That’s a guess drawn just from what I read here, but am I interpreting it right?”More or less. Reminds me of this quote from the movie Jumanji:”A little rain never hurt anybody.””Yeah, but a lot can kill ya.”CO2 is created by all animals, but is usually then filtered out and converted into living things, plants etc. We’ve cut down most of the forests in the world in the last two and a half centuries and replaced many of those forests with parking lots. Kind of fucks things up.Here’s NASA satellite telemetry on CO2 in the atmosphere:http://michelledonahue.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/carbon-dioxide-map1.jpgThe atmosphere is quadrillions of tons of matter. Which usually converts very little sunlight into heat. A few parts per million of CO2 and other chemicals spread out over thousands of miles adds up.And yes actually, cattle are a huge part of global warming emissions, especially the fact that we have cattle farms with thousands of cattle producing things like methane. But getting people to buy a hybrid or getting the government to build a better municipal power source is a lot easier than getting people to give up meat.”And BTW, the video was quite informative.”Yes, I thought so : D
@agnophilo – Makes sense. I wish more people answered questions like these this directly. You’ve given me plenty to mull over.
@The_James_Blog – Reminds me of the song “Holier Than Thou” (85 on my playlist, lol), the line “Others’ thoughts are the basis of your own”.Most people can’t defend “their” position because they’ve borrowed it from someone or somewhere else.I wish more people had the courage to simply withhold their opinion when they don’t know enough about something.That’s not directed at you, just thinking out loud.
@agnophilo – Well, I used to be one of those people who mostly held positions borrowed from others. It took getting older and having a part of reality shaken to fix that. I fear few people experience such wake up calls. Nowadays I just want data. Give me good data, and I’ll definitely consider the conclusions suggested.
@The_James_Blog – Yeah, losing faith religion-wise was one of the best experiences of my life. Having your worldview turned upside down is pretty invigorating if you’re not too scared to get anything out of it. Your comment reminds me of the song “I Alone” by Live, (198 on my playlist : ) About faith vs reason.
@agnophilo – Ok, so I have two songs on your playlist to check out when I can crank up the volume.For me, it did not result in losing faith, but did significantly overhaul it. I definitely understand where you’re coming from though. My belief is if someone expects you to ignore reason, then something fishy is afoot. One should always be allowed to ask questions — including questions of oneself.
@The_James_Blog – All of them are good : )And I agree about the fishy thing. I’ve never heard an atheist, agnostic, deist or pantheist say words like “science” or “logic” in “quotes”, but I’ve heard countless fundamentalists do so. Religion is cultural for some, philosophical for others… and also often just mental illness, often brought on by child abuse.Please don’t run to the dictionary definitions of these terms, it’s an idea I’m expressing here.
@agnophilo – Cutting me off at the pass are you? I will refrain from nit-picking words then. Fundamentalists are a subset of the religious all their own, but unfortunately they are very much the loudest. As a result, the rest of us typically get paid little attention to since we’re not bouncing about yelling outrageous things like they are. Personally, I think they pose a far greater threat to my faith than any atheist does.
@The_James_Blog – Actually imho freedom and tolerence pose the greatest “threat” to faith, since it tends to die of natural causes in free, open societies, and flourish in totalitarian ones. Also prosperity – the more poverty and misery there is, the more religion there is. I did this blog about it months ago, you may find it interesting.
@agnophilo – I can only address that on a personal level, but personally, my ideals of freedom and tolerance are actually birthed from my faith. That is another and fairly complicated topic altogether though. I find I have grown more tolerant as my faith has grown. When I had a lesser understanding of my faith, I was far less tolerant of quite a few things.I’ll give that blog a read then.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.