Al Gore = Nobel prize? W..T..F..

[bokko]

Why are you so angry, is daddy a republican?

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

Yup... his BS in it means nothing at all .

B.S. in biology... they are quite distinct fields.

[zSilver_Fox]

Whatever the degree is, he has one. I couldn't remember the specific title. But of course, it's all a load of bullshit because it goes against what you believe.

[Etzell]

He has a degree. Doesn't make him an expert.

[Ihmhi]

Etzell has a degree in Veternary Medicine and looks how he turns that on its head!

Anyway, why has no one here mentioned that he only won half of the prize? The other half was shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You know, those people who review the information about global warming and make suggestions to the U.N. on what to do about it. They're not terribly important, though.

[ekiM]

"Whatever the degree is, he has one"

Tell me you're joking..

[uBeR]

I meant B.S. in biology, rather than "is."

ikeM, I mentioned the IPCC on the first page. I said they are the real scientists doing the research that makes a difference.

[zSilver_Fox]

I couldn't remember the exact title of the degree, but it's in Climatology. I'm willing to trust him over a random person on the internet or someone without a degree that uses his influence to garner attention to a subject in his bias (same goes for Crichton).

[uBeR]

OK, if it is in climatology, he shouldn't be teaching biology. Lol. Either way, a B.S. in climatology wouldn't give any person a qualification to dictate what is propaganda.

Crichton is a medical doctor if I am correct, which doesn't really give him any meaningful credibility.

But I think your lack of noticing your teacher's bias is key here. No person is without bias. We give these people the responsibility to teach our nation; our assumption is that we can trust what these people say--that they will be objective and forthright. That is what makes it disturbing when a person would abuse this position to impose ideological views to mar an institution so valuable to the advancement of a society. In this case, the teacher's is rather clear; there'd be no reason for him to attack a film in such a way he did for what is considered a generally accurate film. (I still don't think it deserved him a Nobel prize, which is the topic of this thread). Either way, I'm interested in the science of things, in which case things are pretty telling. It's when you begin to politicize things that it becomes riddled with incongruous twaddle.

[zSilver_Fox]

I'm aware of that. When I asked him why he chose to teach biology and earn the required degrees, he stated he preferred to teach highschoolers. Was his first year out of college after getting his degrees.

I'm aware people have bias. You do, I do, Gore does, he does, my asshole does. But when there are people out there to fill specific agendas, bias gets to be greater. Now, would you please explain the medieval warming period to me?

[uBeR]

Yeah sure. The MWP, as it suggests, is a period during the High Middle Ages (c. 1000-1300) that was marked by particularly high temperatures. This was not a global phenomenon, however, as it was constrained to the Northern Hemisphere, mostly in the areas that surrounded the North Atlantic. The era seems to coincide with the Medieval Maximum, a period of high solar variability (via proxy), which suggests the two might be linked. Other hypotheses suggest it may the result of changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation or the ENSO. Hope this helps.

[zSilver_Fox]

It does, thanks .

Next question. How much of a role is solar activity playing in global warming?

[uBeR]

Well, first we have to define global warming. To be both broad and accurate, we can say it is the warming since the Industrial Revolution (c. mid-1700s), since that's when humans began large-scale emissions of greenhouse gases. To be sure, it has indeed warmed since the mid-1700s, and carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, etc. are indeed greenhouse gases.

When we compare solar variations with variation in temperature, the two match pretty well until about the early 1980s.

Before 1850, measurements are mostly based on proxies. Our reliable record of temperature didn't begin until about 1850, when the thermometer was used to measure temperature. Even then though, the measurements didn't truly represent a "global" record for temperature (considered quasi-global). A truly global measurement of temperature didn't begin until the 1970s, when we were able to use satellites.

Based on measurements of how much greenhouse gases have been emitted and the rise in temperature, the IPCC (the Nobel Peace Prize winners) concluded that most of the warming observed since 1950 is the result of human activity (as opposed to natural phenomena such as volcanic activity and solar variability). Since about 1985, however, there's really no correlation at all between the rapid increase in temperature and changes in solar output. To be sure, this is based on research by those most skeptical of human involvement with global warming, such as Scafetta, West, Soon, and Baliunas.

[Credge]

Having a degree doesn't mean anything. It's a piece of paper that says that you did what was required to get it.

Example of what I'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

[uBeR]

Well obviously it means something. It doesn't mean everything though.

It can mean a person with a specific degree probably has greater knowledge in that area than the average person. It also means they've gone through an academic process that will help them in their career (working hard, writing papers, doing experiments, etc.). So it's not useless. What a person says, however, is not dependent on their degree (e.g. Kent Hovind).

[Teh Hwoling Manz]

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

(because German Americans obviously were much less of a threat).

Germany didn't go out of their way to bomb an American navy base thus bringing us into the war.

[zSilver_Fox]

And what does that have to do with throwing citizens into relocation camps? We may as well do the same to Islamic followers.

Events were isolated and few major iirc. The biggest one used to defend the actions was a downed Japanese pilot in Hawaii convinced fellow Japanese to go against local people, which didn't last long at all. The country went apeshit, because God forbid the suspects psychological conditions were studied, and the reason as to why they were so easily influenced (hint: It wasn't because they were Japanese).

America's sadly infamous for its intolerance (eugenics craze, Nativism, slavery, et cetera). And most of it was politically based (except maybe slavery, but even then the Civil War wasn't fought soley for that like our social studies teachers told us).

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Teh Hwoling Manz

Germany didn't go out of their way to bomb an American navy base thus bringing us into the war.

Japan's actions in no way justify what Roosevelt and the American government did to tens of thousands of Americans and Japanese.

[zSilver_Fox]

Is that sarcasm or are you being serious?

[ekiM]

"in no way"