View Full Version : An Inconvenient Truth
abreu
04-19-2007, 10:12 PM
Watching it in Environmental Science. Teacher is a true blue liberal, and has said he will not allow me to present the other side of the argument.
"All the scientists who deny man's hastening of global warming are paid by the oil companies, and therefore, are not real scientists"
Fun fun
Reagan Smash
04-19-2007, 10:51 PM
Wow a liberal teacher. That's something you don't see everyday.
Wow a liberal teacher. That's something you don't see everyday.
In 8th grade, I have a conservative history teacher.
In 9th grade, I had a liberal civics teacher that made fun of the 8th grade history teacher. It was a hoot.
Then my senior year, I had a very liberal American Government teacher.
No moral to the story. But now that I think about it, those 3, plus my 11th grade world history teacher, were the only people that talked about personal politics in class.
Although, now that I think about it, we watched "Glory" in my 8th grade history class, so apparently, even though she was conservative, she still thought that was a good movie. Weird.
Iron Jaw
04-19-2007, 11:21 PM
I recall that most of my college professors were left-wing libs (I graduated from College in 1980). Many were a bunch of former (?) hippies from the 60's generation.
I recall only three staunch conservatives on the staff. One was a history prof (I took a History of Vietnam class from him) and the others were in the English and Science Departments respectively.
Many a bitter argument on the classroom floor took place. Of course, the student population cerca 1980 was turning considerably more conservative. A flip-flop from the 60's and early 70's. The Reagan Revolution was in full swing.
i_hate_righties
04-19-2007, 11:25 PM
In 8th grade, I have a conservative history teacher.
In 9th grade, I had a liberal civics teacher that made fun of the 8th grade history teacher. It was a hoot.
Then my senior year, I had a very liberal American Government teacher.
No moral to the story. But now that I think about it, those 3, plus my 11th grade world history teacher, were the only people that talked about personal politics in class.
Although, now that I think about it, we watched "Glory" in my 8th grade history class, so apparently, even though she was conservative, she still thought that was a good movie. Weird.
I had a Right wing ethics in law professor....He hated my guts...Any time I tried to present some liberal viewpoint and had the stats to prove it, his reply was always "statistics can show whatever you want them to show"...and then I would pipe in with, "Well that would be unethical wouldnt it?"....I got a B in his class, I should have gotten an A!:mad:
I guess I never really paid much attention to which side of the aisle my teachers/professors sat. Maybe I didn't notice it because they reflected my point of view, or maybe I just paid attention to the facts and not the opinions...or maybe it had to do with me being in a natural resource-dominated field (at least in undergrad), and everything in that way is pretty much a lefty way of life...or maybe I just happened to have teachers that kept it out of their teaching...kinda hard to interject a political agenda when lecturing about genetics, biochemistry, organic chemistry, virology, immunology, cell biology, etc.
The thought that maybe I just didn't pay enough attention in general could also be a valid possibility.
Iron Jaw
04-19-2007, 11:57 PM
I had a Right wing ethics in law professor....He hated my guts...Any time I tried to present some liberal viewpoint and had the stats to prove it, his reply was always "statistics can show whatever you want them to show"...and then I would pipe in with, "Well that would be unethical wouldnt it?"....I got a B in his class, I should have gotten an A!:mad:
In truth, though I'm definitely a right-wing conservative by any standard, I had pretty good relations with my misled liberal profs in the English and History departments. They absolutely loved a good, solid, in-house debate, argument.....knock-down dragout. Certainly, the profs liked having a student with a different point of view who would challenge their liberalism. Much better than having a bunch of fatted sheep.
I loved the fight and enjoyed those classes with the libs. I generally carried an A average in the English and History departments.
pnkpanther
04-20-2007, 12:05 AM
Watching it in Environmental Science. Teacher is a true blue liberal, and has said he will not allow me to present the other side of the argument.
"All the scientists who deny man's hastening of global warming are paid by the oil companies, and therefore, are not real scientists"
Fun fun
most state run school teacher's are liberals, we're the ones that fund them.
In truth, though I'm definitely a right-wing conservative by any standard, I had pretty good relations with my misled liberal profs in the English and History departments. They absolutely loved a good, solid, in-house debate, argument.....knock-down dragout. Certainly, the profs liked having a student with a different point of view who would challenge their liberalism. Much better than having a bunch of fatted sheep.
I loved the fight and enjoyed those classes with the libs. I generally carried an A average in the English and History departments.
College isn't about learning per se...it's about learning how to formulate and present a rational train of thought.
That's why kids these days sometimes struggle in college, because there's not enough of that in high school.
pnkpanther
04-20-2007, 12:07 AM
Watching it in Environmental Science. Teacher is a true blue liberal, and has said he will not allow me to present the other side of the argument.
"All the scientists who deny man's hastening of global warming are paid by the oil companies, and therefore, are not real scientists"
Fun fun
scientist working for tabacoo companies say there's no link for lung cancer.
hey may have a point. Do you think dumping chemicals into the sky is a good thing?
scientist working for tabacoo companies say there's no link for lung cancer.
hey may have a point. Do you think dumping chemicals into the sky is a good thing?
Water and oxygen are chemicals.
pnkpanther
04-20-2007, 12:22 AM
Water and oxygen are chemicals.
true
there is enough methane stored up in depths of ocean to kill us all, the only that keeps it in the deep is the?????
ryr8828
04-20-2007, 12:23 AM
true
there is enough methane stored up in depths of ocean to kill us all, the only that keeps it in the deep is the?????
The algore.
pnkpanther
04-20-2007, 12:26 AM
The algore.
no the answer cold
if the pacfic warms, methane will be released
our oceans are very powerfull
no the answer cold
if the pacfic warms, methane will be released
our oceans are very powerfull
how much heat would be necessary to warm the pacific enough so that the very bottom layer would warm enough to release the CH4? There are lakes in the North that are nowhere near as deep as the Pacific and the temperature never gets above 4 celsius.
BoredWithNoSB
04-20-2007, 09:41 AM
Ugg. The only B I got was in my Managerial Finance class with some Ayn Rand obsessive freak. Needless to say when I pointed out in class how hypocritical he was to bash all non-essential government funding when a majority of his income came from government grants, I lost my A in a hurry.
I don't think I ever realized how politicized Finance could be till I had him and we got in several arguments. I'd get unsolicited emails from classmates on both sides of the spectrum.
I think the political leanings of my teachers did have a relationship to how well I got along with them, which probably isn't good.
My favorite teachers were my AP Comparative Government teacher/Cross Country coach who was also the building union rep. He was way left. The other was my consipracy theory loving AP Econ, Current Global Events, and AP US HIstory teacher. He was awesome. Very liberal.
pnkpanther
04-20-2007, 11:23 AM
how much heat would be necessary to warm the pacific enough so that the very bottom layer would warm enough to release the CH4? There are lakes in the North that are nowhere near as deep as the Pacific and the temperature never gets above 4 celsius.
NOVA didnt go into enough detail...
NOVA didnt go into enough detail...
You should write in and ask Nova, then.
Another thing I thought of is the release of the methane. It makes perfect sense that cooler water holds more gas (that's the case for oxygen as well), so warming will release the gas. But the water temperature isn't going to just hit a magic temperature and boom, there goes all the methane. What will happen is that as the ocean slowly increases temp, the water will slowly release the methane. In the same respect, the water will lose all its oxygen and carbon dioxide and nitrogen, too. And whatever other dissolved gases there are...including probably some hydrogen sulfide, which isn't too good for the living. But still, to release a load of gas will take an extreme temperature change that happens rather quickly.
Add on top of that the dynamics of water and how much energy reaches the depths to warm said water, and to me this sounds like a pure and simple scary idea with no real relevance.
With that said, I didn't see the show, so perhaps there is more to it.
pnkpanther
04-20-2007, 11:39 AM
well i think they're emphasis on the affect it would have on the ocean, but just threw in that tid bit as a scare factor, i didnt watch the whole show
well i think they're emphasis on the affect it would have on the ocean, but just threw in that tid bit as a scare factor, i didnt watch the whole show
I think the ocean can adjust a swing of a few degrees. I think the thing that can't adjust is the world outside of the ocean because of potential changes in water currents and therefore some weather changes as a result. Not to mention the potential for land becoming sea floor...
BoredWithNoSB
04-20-2007, 12:01 PM
But the water temperature isn't going to just hit a magic temperature and boom, there goes all the methane. What will happen is that as the ocean slowly increases temp, the water will slowly release the methane. .
Actually, I don't know if it was teh same special I saw or not, but what they explained was really a waterfall effect. Sure, the release would begin slowly, but the release would increase the rate of increase on temperature, which would increase the amount of methane, further increasing temperature untill we all broil.
Actually, I don't know if it was teh same special I saw or not, but what they explained was really a waterfall effect. Sure, the release would begin slowly, but the release would increase the rate of increase on temperature, which would increase the amount of methane, further increasing temperature untill we all broil.
Oh, I see. I still don't buy it, but I understand what they're saying.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:rFZlh4Jae3cz_M:http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/misc/pictures/nerds.jpg
Nerds!:) :) :) :)
The thing that gets me regarding this whole heat and methane is is that the pacific ocean (which let's not forget is connected to all the other oceans, so basically, all of the oceans combined) is an enormous heat sink because water has such a high (damn it, I'm blanking on the term...anyway, it takes a lot of energy to warm water 1 degree)...to raise the temp of the water so that there's a big rush of CH4 out is just mind boggling (but that's not to say it's impossible).
And that heat is going to diffuse throughout the water, it's not going to concentrate...so we're talking buttloads of heat needed to warm the oceans to the extent that the CH4 would start releasing.
AND, this reasoning is also why a change in temp of fractions of a degree is alarming...so if the average temp of the ocean changes 0.3 degrees...to me, that's a big change, based on the amount of energy needed to increase water temp...
Roy Munson
10-25-2007, 02:06 AM
Don't remember this being mentioned in the movie...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/10013541.html
Ed Who?
10-25-2007, 08:08 AM
Don't remember this being mentioned in the movie...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/10013541.html
Did they burn coal in the 1940's?
Did they burn coal in the 1940's?
As usual, that is an overly simplistic view of what climate change is all about. However, we really needed those mine restrictions eased didn't we? Don't worry, the market will make mines safe.
The thing that gets me regarding this whole heat and methane is is that the pacific ocean (which let's not forget is connected to all the other oceans, so basically, all of the oceans combined) is an enormous heat sink because water has such a high (damn it, I'm blanking on the term...anyway, it takes a lot of energy to warm water 1 degree)...to raise the temp of the water so that there's a big rush of CH4 out is just mind boggling (but that's not to say it's impossible).
And that heat is going to diffuse throughout the water, it's not going to concentrate...so we're talking buttloads of heat needed to warm the oceans to the extent that the CH4 would start releasing.
AND, this reasoning is also why a change in temp of fractions of a degree is alarming...so if the average temp of the ocean changes 0.3 degrees...to me, that's a big change, based on the amount of energy needed to increase water temp...
enthalpy?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.