G'day Samwik,
Sorry about the delay. Been sick.
Type I civilisations? I have no real comments. It is a totally made up system of defining civilisations that thus far do not exist (excepting the first level) and there is no evidence yet that they will exist. There may be many civilisations in the Universe that fit the types fantasised about but thus far there is no evidence to support that they actually exist.
I don't see the point at all in relation to global warming or how it may be dealt with or even have the theory of global warming properly tested in, say, the next 25 years.
As to Al Gore. I'm actually a bit of a fan. I would take issue with his house because the work done has actually had a CO2 negative impact in a big way. But that is another issue entirely. I also does not get away from the fact that Mr Gore does not practice what he preaches. Rather than reduce his Carbon footprint he is still using the energy, just in different ways. He is not prepared to sacrifice his lifestyle to "lead the way".
No one can be an expert in everything. They must rely on other experts for 99% of what happens. I just read an interesting comment about civilisations stating that most people have average IQs and contribute nothing to the advancement of the world. It is those very few with much higher IQs that make everything happen, good or bad. Interesting point of view.
Anyway back to Mr Gore. He cannot be an expert on everything and thus must rely on others but where I do not admire him is where it is so clearly shown that an expert on which he has relied has done something fundamentally flawed and he does not attempt to address the issues at all. As someone that is an advocate for Global Warming he should not totally ignore those types of issues as he does. I had not seen the "An Inconvenient Truth" Supplement until this week. I thought it would actually address some of the really major issues such as Lonnie Thompson's reliance of averaging in a totally inappropriate way, or the questions relating to the misuse of other studies to create the "Hockey Stick" curve, or even perhaps an apology for using the reference to the drowning polar bears which has been directly pointed out to him to be a total misrepresentation of the study he relies upon. Instead, it was some additional scare tactics about the affects of global warming as can now be seen on the earth. He added in some new issues that really are starting to stretch the science involved and continues to re-emphasise things such as Wildfires, Hurricanes, Tornadoes and other similar so called indicators of a warming planet.
As an expert he purports to be, he should know that almost everything he used has a rational, non global warming explanation, the experts in the field, such as hurricane experts do not agree that the numbers add up to a trend, and, as I thought was the purpose of the Supplement, to actually address some of the problems with his "proof" or "evidence" he used in the original slide show and movie.
My opinion of Mr Gore dropped substantially after watching this supplement. And the reason for his being in the topic is that he is so important the arguments as they are presented to the public. While he has no importance in a scientific sense, public opinion has nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with the presentation of such things as Mr Gore. I find it amazing how many people are totally convinced of global warming and that it is man made because of either seeing an Inconvenient Truth or worse seeing bits of it. I also find it amazing how easily you can pursuade the average person that there is enough wrong with Mr Gore's arguments to make the whole presentation suspicious who then feel annoyed or that they have been "conned".
Regards
Richard
