Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Eugene Shubert, Dec 23, 2016.
I'm not the choir.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
BIS: My mistake . . . . . but I'd bet you sing well . . . . . . just keep an open mind . . .
This thread is silly trolling. Those who speak truth don't need to resort emotional manipulative rhetoric. Such inflammatory language is a sure sign that the message is an appeal to emotion, not to fact.
DaveC: I TOTALLY agree! Same issue with many of the ideological/political threads . . . . I thought Sciforums was primarily a group of science discussion fora. Evidently that philosophy has been corrupted . . . . (sigh!) . . . . by those with non-science agendas. But, then again, this post is also 'off-topic' . . . . .(another sigh!)
Surely the correct expression is "preaching to the converted"? Preaching to the choir is not self-evidently ridiculous. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Google: 'preaching to the choir'
To commend an opinion to those who already accept it.
'Preaching to the choir' (also sometimes spelled quire) is of US origin. It clearly refers to the pointlessness of a preacher attempting to convert those who, by their presence in church, have already demonstrated their faith. The first reference we can find is from 1973. Many other references date from soon after that, which points to the phrase being coined in that year; for example, this from The Lima News, Ohio, January 1973: "He said he felt like the minister who was preaching to the choir. That is, to the people who always come to church, but not the ones who need it most."
Ah OK maybe that's it, and we in Britain say "preaching to the converted" to mean the same thing.
(speaking as a chorister, my impression is that preaching to the choir is by no means a pointless activity, but maybe my choir is less zealous than some!)
Same in Australia, although more often we use "preaching to the faithful"
Like "I agree . . . . Obama should be deported!!!" Agendas like that?
Yeah, it is.
Or as you put it:
So the question remains,
What you didn't know, to remind you, included among other things: 1) That the evidence from the Vostok ice cores is well known and has been thoroughly analyzed in detail by climate "alarmists" 2) That the origin of the additional CO2 in the air has been reliably determined in several mutually reaffirming ways to be from fossil fuel combustion and related activities (cement manufacturing, etc). 3) The the heat trapping behavior of airborne concentrations of CO2 has been checked in a couple of different ways and found to agree with laboratory measurements - there has been discovered no reason at all to modify the standard physical description of how CO2 and certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation interact.
The odd thing about not knowing that stuff is that you are posting about it, on a science forum. So you must have an interest. So why haven't you run across these commonly known and basic aspects of this matter you are interested in?
The odd thing about not digesting the actual Vostok ice data is that it leads one to believe his/her own prejudices that CO2 increases are ALL caused by fossil fuel combustion and therewith - by (faulty) definition -human-caused. The interaction of CO2 and certain wavelengths of EM (mostly IR) is not disputed, but to interpret the increase in CO2 as primarily human-caused (i.e., fossil fuel combustion) is irrresponsible. and faulty reasoning. BTW: cement manufacturing is a minor process that sequesters CO2. Oddly enough, using an over-the counter acid-based cleaner (like CLR, muriatic acid, etc.) dissolves carbonate precipitates and in the process releases CO2 into the atmosphere now - THAT'S alarming!! - do your part to prevent global warming by NOT cleaning your lavatories!! (HAHA!)
No, it doesn't. That's bizarre. Nobody thinks the CO2 increases of the past were caused by humans, whether they ever heard of Vostok or not.
Which may be why pretty much nobody - certainly none of the famous climate alarmists, such as Al Gore - does any such "interpreting".
Cement manufacturing is a significant source of CO2, mostly from the preliminary production of clinker http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_1_Cement_Production.pdf. Recent innovations offer some hope of reducing that in the future, but not yet: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-technique-cement-carbon-neutral.html
There is also a fair amount of fossil fuel combustion in transporting and using cement - that adds in.
Again: this is pretty much common knowledge among those at all interested in AGW from a scientific perspective. How is it that you have not encountered this information?
Separate names with a comma.