Rants and Ravings from Cogwheel’s Workshop
Alphabet patch
* Badum CHHH**
** If you can’t play the rimshot sound on that page, you really should upgrade your browser. Chrome, Opera, Safari, Firefox (in no particular order) are all great choices. If you already have one of them, be sure to check for updates.
I wish there was more consumer interest in spectral imaging/display technology. We miss out on many chromatic experiences by persisting in the bland world of RGB (RYGB, RGCB, RGBW, CMYK, HSL take your pick).
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, here’s a quick primer on how our color vision works.
Our eyes have three types of color receptors: “red” receptors which are most sensitive to yellow-orange, longer wavelength light, and also slightly sensitive to blue-violet, short wavelength light; “green” receptors which are most sensitive to a bright lime green, medium wavelength light; and “blue” receptors, most sensitive to, well, blue.* Here’s a chart to illustrate this:
Your perception of color is simply your brain measuring the relative levels of each type of signal. When all three receptors are at their maximums, you see white. If your red receptor is firing strongly but your green and blue receptors are firing weakly, you’ll see red. If your red and green receptors are both firing strongly, you’ll see yellow. And so on…
Since every color we perceive is simply a mixture of three signals, we can use just three colors of light, red, green and blue, to reproduce a huge range of other colors. This is how TVs and monitors work. Images printed on paper work similarly: each color of ink subtracts either red, green, or blue from the white background.
Since we can perceive the same color from different combinations of light wavelengths, we don’t really get a full perception of the “actual” color of things (the wavelengths of light reflected off, transmitted through, or emitted by objects). Without a fundamental redesign of the visual system, we will never perceive color as an accurate representation of reality.**
On top of that, three-color image technology cuts out a huge amount of the already-limited set of possible colors. Here’s a gamut chart illustrating this. Don’t worry about the details; the important point is the size of the triangle relative to the larger area of color.
The triangle here represents the gamut of most reasonable quality displays; that is, the set of colors it’s capable of representing relative to all the colors we can see. The gamut of ink or paint created with only three primary colors is similarly limited, though the points of the triangle are in different places. Dyes and pigments have an advantage over displays; they can be colored with substances that fall outside the usual gamut. Unfortunately, it’s unfeasible at the moment to create displays with a full range of color (though some manufacturers have added “pure” cyan, magenta or yellow for added fidelity).
And that’s the point of this post. A high-resolution spectral display would open up a whole new world of experience. I’d like to share some of those potential experiences.
Poor, neglected cyan. You could almost say we don’t have a word for it; most native English speakers will just call it blue. The cyan you see above is but a pale impostor compared to the true beauty behind turquoise, tropical beaches, and ’80s spandex.
If you have some sunlight and a crystal or prism handy, I encourage you to take a good long look at the color in between green and blue. Now compare that part of the rainbow with the spectrum in the first image above.
What you will (or maybe you won’t?) notice is that the cyan on your screen is washed out—quite literally whiter. The problem? Green contains red. Wait, what?
Cyan is between blue and green. So naturally, to create cyan on the screen, you will mix blue and green together. But take a look at the perception chart again. See where the spectrum is green? The red receptor is at about half its maximum, the green receptor is a little way down from its maximum, and the blue receptor is practically at the bottom. But in the cyan part of the spectrum red is only about 1/5th max, and green and blue are about 1/3 max (blue looks lower because our eyes aren’t as sensitive to it overall; that’s why pure blue looks so dark compared to other colors).
So when you mix green and blue together, the red receptors are firing a lot more strongly than under monochromatic cyan. Since red, green, and blue together make white, adding perceived redness to cyan makes it look more white.
Fluorescent colors have a certain je ne sais quois that just doesn’t come through in print or display. While je might not sais quois, I think je might ai une idée…
Fluorescence is when a material absorbs light of one wavelength, and emits it at another. A photon is absorbed by an atom or molecule, bumping one of its electrons to a higher energy state. A little while while later (understatement), the electron settles back down by releasing another photon. If the electron is excited enough, it might come back down in more than one step. Each step emits a photon with a different wavelength, longer than the original photon’s.
Under sunlight or a black light, fluorescent dyes and pigments become excited by ultraviolet light which we can’t see, and then emit frequencies of light which we can see. From our point of view, it appears as if more light is being reflected than falls on the object in the first place. This effect is exaggerated with a dark room and a black light.
The color of a fluorescent object is a chimera of sorts. The substance might have a normal, reflected color on its own which is is mixed with the very different frequencies of light from fluorescence. I suspect that the aforementioned je ne sais quois is exactly this juxtaposition of colors, creating novel ratios of receptor signals.
Magenta is a good example of this. It’s created with a combination of red and blue, colors on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Your brain tries to treat it as a single color, but it still has that special something that makes it stand out from the rest.
Black lights are one of the more spectacular failures of imaging and display technologies. On the imaging side, most cameras simply record them as blue. Very bright blue, occasionally white, even. When was the last time you were blinded by a black light? Of course, this can be solved with filters, but that’s too advanced for most people to bother.
Displays could probably do an OK job making black lights themselves look right, but the “black lit” objects wouldn’t be made up of the right frequencies.
It would really be cool if full spectrum displays extended into the near ultraviolet. TV or movie scenes with black lights, sun light, office fluorescents, etc. would have a more natural effect on objects lit by the display.
Beautiful things, they are, though I’ve never seen a photo do them justice. Never. Sure, I can imagine what it might have actually looked like, but regardless of film, lens, and photographer quality, the shots are always underwhelming.
I don’t know whether we’ll ever be able to truly recreate the breathtaking majesty of the universe. I certainly hope so, and I believe it’s within the realm of possibilities. What I can say for certain, though, is that we’ll never get anywhere close without looking at the bigger picture of color.
* Some research indicates that we actually have ultraviolet-sensitive receptors as well, but our lenses block out the light before it reaches them.
** I wonder if some sort of rapid cycling through the spectrum would be noticeable to our retinas. Perhaps spinning prism + DLP? Implants? Nanobots? =) I’m sure our visual system would learn to work with that kind of signal. If you build it (signals to the brain) they will come (new neural pathways to interpret them).
Definition courtesy of Bones. Word courtesy of me.
Thank you for proving my point about you. Have a nice day! =)
PS: Look at me hiding here all alone in my intertubes!
PPS: The best part of it all, Spencer Hughes (Sarah's husband) is the person who introduced me to WoW.
This is a follow-up to my earlier posts.
In Part 3, Spencer posted a link to a video he wanted me to watch. Subsequently, he posted that video directly to his wall. Here’s the final thread.
Aside: it looks like this thread just won’t die. I’ll edit with any future discussion if it’s worthwhile.
Spencer Hughes - For the Reality Challenged folks out there who are still drinking the EARTH IS ENDING nonsense...THESE are the people who should get an Oscar, not Gore.
David - gore does deserve an oscar, but it should be for acting like he cares about the world
Spencer Hughes - NICE one, David! HAHA.
John - A liberal that loves Al Gore is a liberal that loves censoring rock and rap music lyrics ala his wife Tipper.
Sarah - I did a report on Tipper and censorship in high school. Not a lot of people remember her rampage on the music industry.
Mario - Good one David. Sarah, I remember how the likes of Frank Zappa and Dee Snyder made a monkey out of Tipper in the hallowed halls of Congress when the censorship trial was going on.
Sarah - I do too. *sigh* Those were the days.
Matthew Orlando - So, just finished watching the video as promised.
A large portion of it was devoted to the political issues which, as I've said in other threads, should be addressed entirely separately from the science. Treating them as the same issue only confuses matters and makes it harder for people to differentiate rhetoric from reality.
However, the video did make some specific claims. If you aren't averse to exposing yourself to an opposing point of view, there are several resources which attempt to refute the claims. E.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Sarah - *yawn* I ALREADY READ THAT. So now what? I still don't agree with you and??? Let it go, dude.
Matthew Orlando - So now i can't even respond to the video that I was urged to watch, without getting a snide remark? And you wonder why I got defensive earlier? Why are you taking this so personally?
I get that you've read it. I get that you don't agree. I don't get why you would try to keep me from sharing my opinion with others... I haven't made a single comment to this particular post. This post might be something someone sees without ever looking at the other ones. It was a more appropriate place to put my direct response to the video, which you and Spencer insisted I watch.
Sarah - Hey Matthew...you are so missing the point. No one is trying to keep you from sharing your opinion. What I am saying is that, much like if you were a guest at our house for dinner, I would expect that you would have manners enough to recognize that once you start name calling, the argument is over. (If you were at my dinner table and called my husband and me "denialists" you would be asked to leave.) Spout your opinions on YOUR facebook page. Healthy debate is welcome, but when you reach a stalemate, the appropriate thing to do is zip your lip, not whine about how you are being censored.
And Matthew...the two posts go hand in hand. It is completely irrelevant WHERE you respond. It is the same discussion.
Matthew Orlando - I'm sorry for insulting him/you with my "denialists" remark. I honestly didn't think it was any worse than the swarm of "kook-aid" comments that were directed at me. If that's what this was about, then yes I did miss the point and I'm certainly happy moving on
Aside: At this point, Sarah (who happens to be Spencer’s Wife) responded to the above message with a snide remark. She completely missed the fact that I was apologizing for doing the thing that originally upset her.
In the same post, she also stated that none of the “kook-aid” comments were directed towards me personally. Part 1 would beg to differ. As I was writing my next post below, she deleted the post. I assume she realized just how wrong she was. In fairness, I removed the parts of my response which shot her down for that transgression.
Sarah - OMG you are from Sebastopol. I should have read your profile and saved myself a lot of aggravation. Do you stand on the street corner on Main St and 116 on Friday too?
Matthew Orlando - I don't understand where you're coming from. I was being totally sincere when I apologized for insulting you. I really did miss the point.
And that Sebastopol comment? Talk about prejudice... Who's the one not moving on now? I don't even live there. In fact, my job isn't even "in" sebastopol. It's about 10 minutes north, but the Post office still calls it that.
Sarah - Matthew. I was raised in Sebastopol. I am a fifth generation Sonoma County resident. Berkeley transplants and moral fascists drove me out of my home town. I couldn't take living there anymore because of the mental illness being spewed at my children in a SCHOOL I ATTENDED as a child. My 10 year old came home crying because some ponytailed granola chomper told him that if I didn't stop driving my Expedition, he wouldn't live to see 20 years of age. Make peace? HELL NO. Take your Sky is falling crap somewhere else. It is CERTAINLY not welcome here.
Matthew Orlando - I agree about sebastopol. It's full of kooks. Did you know sebastopol schools have the lowest rates of childhood vaccination in the country?
"Make peace? HELL NO. Take your Sky is falling crap somewhere else. It is CERTAINLY not welcome here."
Wow... just . wow...
Elie - I became a Prince fan because of Tipper. It was because of the Dirty Mind album that we now have those stickers she fought for.
Sarah - Beat it, dude.
John - I forgot another reason why "Global Warming", "Global Climate Change" etc has been grasped on either side by both Conservatives and Liberals (from as high up as the parties and leaders themselves by way of their respective lobbyists) is to make sure that the people of the USA remain divided. Why is it in their parties best interest? Votes. But most importantly - diversion. If we are attacking each other over science (which I am willing to bet about 99% of us here REALLY understand) then the bad guys win. Trust me, this is diversion from noticing what is really going on in the background. So I plead with both Sarah and Matthew - agree to disagree! We are all here because Spencer runs one of the best radio shows out there and fosters great debate! (By the way - I think both Sarah and Matthew are great.)
John - Whoops! I should have said 99% of us REALLY DON'T understand! haha
John - By the way this whole topic proves again that party or "Conservative vs. Liberal" loyalty decides what people's opinions are. The last conspiracy that proved this was the Iraq war. Time to think outside of the boxes that have been set up for us all to think inside of.
Elie - Well said John.
Sarah - My being here has relatively little to do with Spencer's show, actually. I have been telling Matthew that he isn't going to convince me in seeing things "his way." He doesn't like that answer. I am not asking him to change his mind like he is asking everyone else here to do.
Sarah - John-I TOTALLY disagree. My stance on global warming has nothing to do with my political affiliation. If that were the case, then by definition I would be against gay marriage and pro-life. Who is thinking inside the box?
Matthew Orlando - "My being here has relatively little to do with Spencer's show, actually. I have been telling Matthew that he isn't going to convince me in seeing things "his way." He doesn't like that answer. I am not asking him to change his mind like he is asking everyone else here to do."
Wow... just . wow...
Obviously you haven't read even half of the posts I've written on the topic.
" So I plead with both Sarah and Matthew - agree to disagree! "
Tried that. Here's what happened:
"Make peace? HELL NO. Take your Sky is falling crap somewhere else. It is CERTAINLY not welcome here."
Sarah - Matthew...I have only read your posts in this thread and the other one from today. Have you not been trying to change our minds? Or was that just something I read into your words? I could spend time quoting you, but I only have 2 minutes between contracts at work...and I would rather grab a cup of coffee.
Wow just wow? FAR OUT, MAN... Hey, I hear that they are having a wicked folk song jam in the square by Whole Foods. I can't even drive through Sebastopol anymore because of you...so yeah. I am hostile.
Matthew Orlando - Hmm, let's see... Quoting myself:
"I really don't care if you come away from it with a changed mind, but it's always better to expose yourself to more information whether you agree with it or not. This is why I read blogs and listen to radio shows from all different political persuasions. I'm confident that the decisions I make and the conclusions I reach are based on the broadest set of facts at my disposal. If you do the same, and reach different conclusions, then I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree."
And that's a sentiment I've repeated several times over the past few hours.
"Wow just wow? FAR OUT, MAN... Hey, I hear that they are having a wicked folk song jam in the square by Whole Foods. I can't even drive through Sebastopol anymore because of you...so yeah. I am hostile."
Oh goodie! An ad hominem! Haven't seen one of those in a while. *rolleyes*
Lora - Sarah, you're a hoot! You go girl! Bet you keep Spencer on his toes... :) I have never believed in the global warming stuff... I'm glad Climategate is happening, in fact. I love when the truth comes out. I am a conservative traditionalist but I don't need a government party to tell me how or what I think. I read all sides and come up with conclusions on my own. Mr. Gore has found a way to make a lot of money. Interesting that he cancelled his appearance in Copenhagen - the man who won an oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth". "Climategate" is the inconvenient truth now, isn't it...
Sarah - Oh deep, man...you know Latin, man....Far out.
Matthew Orlando - I love how you keep avoiding the fact that you've displayed absolutely no willingness to reach some sort of middle ground, even if it's making peace with the fact that we disagree. This is making great blog fodder. Keep up the good work =)
Matthew Orlando - Republicans and peace just don't mix, i guess.
Sarah - I am no republican. And who says we HAVE to reach a middle ground? Sometimes there ISN'T a middle ground. Why are you HERE? I am not avoiding anything. I have stated PLAINLY that I don't want to make peace with you. Let me get as CLEAR as I can: VAPORIZE.
Sarah - Wait...before you say it...WOW. JUST WOW. Right?
Matthew Orlando - How'd you guess? ;)
Sarah - Because I am smart. I will turn this over to my husband now.
Spencer Hughes - Matthew, dude...why are you here? HONESTLY. Why? You ridicule my view on ghosts (although they ARE real...I have several sharing my house with us)...you think I am a misinformed on global warming (although YOU apparently don't watch anything but the mainstream channels, who are NOT reporting what people are calling THE BIGGEST shame on the scientific community perhaps EVER). If my page is BLOG FODDER for you, you can take a hike. My page is not a punching bag for you. Do you see why I have always said my page is for like minded people I would probably hang out with in real life, over a pizza and a beer? Am I really someone who you'd want to have dinner with? Other than to ARGUE with? You are snarky and self righteous and I am frankly getting bored of it all.
Sarah - I didn't know about the ridicule of the ghost stuff. His profile says Ignostic...is that a cross between agnostic and ignorant? What exactly does this yahoo offer people here exactly? What contribution does he make? Maybe he should focus on making this a good day for the Alliance instead of buzzing like an obnoxious mosquito around everyone's heads.
Sarah - I GET IT! WOW just WOW means World of Warcraft just World of Warcraft. God I am slow.
Matthew Orlando - Feel free to unfriend me if you feel that way. I've always enjoyed your show, and I know we agree on a lot of issues. I also thought your followers would have a bit more class than to begin throwing rampant insults around when someone disagrees with them.
As I've said before, any hostility in my responses is only a reaction. Where I've misunderstood things, I've apologized. I've attempted to make peace, but certain people in the discussion can't seem to get over petty squabbles. I have no hostility towards the opposing view, I have hostility towards the assumptions made about me, the gross prejudice, and the dismissiveness.
None of this discussion has centered around the science, which is all I wanted to put forward in the first place. If you really can't be bothered to see the differences among science (pro- or anti-global warming), politics (pro- or anti-regulation), and personal interaction (pro- or anti-agree-to-disagree), then I have nothing more to say.
Sarah - Sweetheart, I am not a listener. I am his wife. YOU are making good blog fodder. Please continue...and I do believe you cast the first insult? Am I wrong? Why don't you save Spencer the trouble of unfriending you and just disappear?
Sarah - Sorry...I am not a "follower." My mistake.
Matthew Orlando - I HAD disappeared two hours ago and then you brought me back into the discussion with
"My being here has relatively little to do with Spencer's show, actually. I have been telling Matthew that he isn't going to convince me in seeing things "his way." He doesn't like that answer. I am not asking him to change his mind like he is asking everyone else here to do"
And yes, I know you're his wife. You're taking all of this way to personally for anyone without an emotional attachment.
Trucker - YEEEAAAAAA... I KNEW IT WAS ALLLL B.S.
Sarah - I have a very emotional attachment to the decay of my hometown brought on by the "green party" transplants and propagandists. It used to be a quiet, tranquil apple farming community until it became the mecca of liberalist mental illness. You are one of the people I blame for not being able to give my children the beautiful childhood I had growing up there. It is VERY personal. How long have you lived there, Matthew? I mean, 10 miles NORTH of there? Let me guess. Occidental? Graton? I am the first generation in my family NOT to live there... I would not allow my children to be exposed to your fear mongering and misinformation any more that I would let them play with fire.
I visit often. Let's meet over some organic free trade chai at Hardcore Coffee on Bloomfield and Hwy 116...which used to be FRANK'S CORNER...I knew Frank. Did you? My treat.
Sarah - P.S. My mom is calling me from Sebastopol. She asks if you have been outside today...cuz she is freezing her ass off. Global warming indeed.
Matthew Orlando - Quoting myself:
"I have no hostility towards the opposing view, I have hostility towards the assumptions made about me, the gross prejudice, and the dismissiveness."
Here you go again on another one of your prejudicial rants about Sebastopolians.
First off, as I said, I don't live in sebastopol, I WORK near sebastopol. If you absolutely must know, I live in Santa Rosa (not that it should matter).
Second, sebastopol has been that way my entire life. I certainly wasn't a contributing factor.
So, what exactly is your point?
Matthew Orlando - "P.S. My mom is calling me from Sebastopol. She asks if you have been outside today...cuz she is freezing her ass off. Global warming indeed."
You've heard of Winter, haven't you?
Global warming isn't about "OMG Its soooooo hot today!!!!." It's about "The average surface temperature over the last hundred years has experienced a statistically significant increase."
Spencer Hughes - Of about ONE degree, Matthew. OH NO!!!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!! Matthew. I am officially DONE with this thread.
Yamasaki - Matt, just a question........Why is global warming such an issue to you? Your profile says you are a member of the "Come Out as an Atheist Group" as an atheist dont you also believe that the world ends in 1103 days? And no I'm not an Atheist, I'm a proud and practicing Christian who studies religion.
Sarah - My point is you would not be welcome in our home, so I don't believe you are welcome here. I have a funny feeling you are about to go bye bye, Matthew. And um...yeah. Heard of winter...it's like...when things get all COLD and stuff, right, man? Far out. Say goodnight, Matthew.
Matthew Orlando - Yamasaki: you do realize all the word "atheist" means is that I don't believe in god, right? It says absolutely nothing about whatever else I may or may not believe...
Matthew Orlando - Goodnight, Matthew.
This is a follow-up to my earlier post. See also: Part 2, Part 4.
Spencer’s next pots was a link to an article about Arnold Schwarzenegger. This time I was prepared for a first strike. =)
Spencer Hughes - Even Arnold is guzzling the Kook-Aid on climate change. He is a Kennedy through and through.
Arnold Schwarzenegger unveils dramatic climate change map which shows flooded San Francisco of the f www.dailymail.co.uk The map, which demonstrates the devastating effects of global warming in just a century, shows how San Francisco Airport would be completely underwater if sea levels were to rise by 150cm (60in).
Matthew Orlando - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Spencer Hughes - Matthew, Matthew. The SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES ARE ADMITTING THEIR DISTORTIONS AND LIES!! They were CAUGHT in their lies!! Are you just not listening to the news?? Oh that's right. The networks are refusing to cover the story, so it's really not your fault that you are misinformed about Climategate!
Kay - It's snowing in Texas, cold in California....if the oceans rise that much maybe they will put in a desalinization plant, Lord knows they need the water and then maybe the farmers will get their fair share for the crops....Wait until they realize the earth is cooling and a mini ice age is coming.
Matthew Orlando - Spencer, Spencer. SOME scientists are admitting distortions of SOME data. That proves absolutely nothing but that those particular scientists were fraudulent about their particular data. That doesn't mean you can throw out everything else that has come before.
Spencer Hughes - For YOU, Matthew...They were right THEN and they are right NOW. THESE are the people worthy of an OSCAR, not that blowhard Gore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s
The Great Global Warming Swindle......
Matthew Orlando - Unlike you denialists, i'm actually going to take the time and visit the link you posted. I'm not afraid to consider views that are different from mine.
Sarah - Look out, Matthew! The SKY is falling the SKY is falling!
Amy - OMG! That's exactly what my husband and I were talking about last nite! Well more like I was schooling him! lol He married a Kennedy...what do u expect?!
Spencer Hughes - Matthew, the only thing that is falling is the FRAUD. Honestly, if you watch only the alphabet networks, you AREN'T reading or hearing about the THOUSANDS of docs and e-mails revealing this FRAUD. Are you NOT watching FOX, Matthew??
Matthew Orlando - If you'd take the time and actually read my posts I made in the other "thread" for content rather than assuming I'm part of the liberal conspiracy, you might find out that I'm not of the sky is falling variety... Reality > ideology.
Sarah - Matthew. Now you are just being rude. Spencer is not a denialist because he feels strongly about something you don't agree with. Be nice or leave.
Matthew Orlando - I'm not offended by being called a kook-aid drinker, I'd hope my similar attitude isn't being considered offensive. I have no hard feelings save for frustration at having the things I say completely ignored.
Amy - That's very diplomaric of you Sarah-:)
Sarah - The difference is, Matthey, we are not on YOUR facebook page. If you want the things you say listened to, go somewhere that people are open to it. Most of the people here can see through the crap. We can't help it if you can't.
Matthew Orlando - Now who's being insulting?
Sarah - AGAIN...this is not your page. Go pick a fight somewhere else.
Matthew Orlando - You're not "seeing through the crap" you're summarily dismissing everything i say as already settled. I on the other hand am actually taking the time to think out responses and look at the materials (articles, videos, etc.) that have been presented to me.
Matthew Orlando - Trust me, I didn't come here to pick a fight. I came to give another side to the story. Any hostility you detect in my writing is entirely a reaction.
Sarah - Then go check out the video and THEN get back to us. I don't detect hostility. Just arrogance.
Matthew Orlando - I am, and I appreciate Spencer for posting the links. My frustration is that I've posted similar (opposing) information which has been consistently ignored. Obviously, you're free to do so, but it seems a tad disingenuous.
Sarah - Why disingenuous? I have educated myself VERY thoroughly on this topic and have been screaming from the rooftops that it was crap for years. It is nice to watch all of the HYPE unravel.
Christopher - just an idea. maybe Matthew should read Telling the Truth About Damned Lies and Statistics. By Joel Best, Chronicle of Higher Education, 5/4/2001, Vol. 47, Issue 34
Matthew Orlando - It's disingenuous (and I'm not speaking directly about you, but the general trend in this and other thread) because the link I specifically posted to this specific thread specifically addresses the claims made in the video with citations to research.
Like I've said multiple times, if you take the time to look at the actual evidence and you come to a different conclusion, that's fine with me. I just want your conclusions to be based on the maximum amount of information.
Is that arrogant of me?
I'll respond more directly to the video in spencers actual post of the video.
Sarah - Matthew...you keep saying how no one is listening to you. You are not listening to me. I HAVE seen the so-called actual evidence. I am VERY well versed in this topic and my opinion on this, as in everything else, is a very educated one. Why do you feel threatened by someone disagreeing with you?
Sarah - Specifically, I mean. Heh.
Matthew Orlando - I say no one is listening because no one has bothered to say they've even read the information I linked, let alone respond to any of the points specifically. Political rhetoric about fascist conspiracies and hypocritical morons like Al Gore does not a scientific discussion make.
Sarah - Matthew. I read it. Get over it.
Matthew Orlando - Thanks =) will do.
Elaine - doesn't arnie have enough to keep him busy already?????
This is a follow-up to my earlier post. See also: Part 3, Part 4.
After the discussion got underway on Spencer’s status, he posted the following link on his wall:
Spencer Hughes Losing his LAME Oscar would be the least of Gore's problems as this global warming FRAUD continues to unravel. He deserves to go down with this filthy ship.
FOXNews.com - Hollywood Conservatives Say Gore Should Lose Oscar Over Climate-Gate www.foxnews.com Two conservative screenwriters say Al Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.
Matt - AG is such a clown...
Matthew Orlando - Agreed. Doesn't make global warming any less true.
Susan - Al Gore is a fraud. If he were living the "green" life and truly believed and practiced what he preaches - but we all know he drives SUVs and lives in a mansion. So stop telling us we need to be green.Even his Hollywood counterparts... they fly all over the world to give their global-warming concerts are are leaving a horrific carbon footprint.
David - thatll take him down a few pegs. frickin smug clown
Spencer Hughes - Matthew, INFORM YOURSELF FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. This is NOT the calamity that it's been made out to be!! THEY HAD TO LIE AND DISTORT TO SHOW WARMING to the degree they insisted it was happening. So WHAT the earth is WARMING?? It has melted over and frozen over and melted over again for MILLIONS OF YEARS, Matthew. It's called earth CYCLES.
Matthew Orlando - Like i said, even if everything you say is true about one particular group of scientists, you are committing a logical fallacy by applying it to the whole. Science isn't about people, it's about research. Just because some people do bad research doesn't mean that all the other research is bad.
Oh and, btw, the earth does go through cycles of warming and cooling. Have you ever actually heard a global warming supporter say otherwise?
Sarah - Matthew, the issue isn't whether or not there is global warming. The issue is whether or not it is caused by PEOPLE. Al Gore has made obscene amounts of money by fear mongering. He SHOULD go to prison.
Spencer Hughes - Matthew...the earth MIGHT JUST MELT OVER SOMEDAY. It probably WILL, based on the past cycles. Have you ever considered that since it happened BEFORE WITHOUT OUR HELP, it could NOT BE our fault?? WHO was to blame when the earth melted over the last several times?? WHO, Matthew?? Honestly?
Matthew Orlando - I don't understand why you're all so caught up on Gore. As I've said multiple times, I think he's a hypocritical douche. Luckily he's not THE voice of global warming scientists. At least not to the same extent as the republicans would like to claim.
Nicole - Ok Matthew... listen to yourself! The earth will warm and cool naturally, we all know this. The question is what makes this "warming" cycle different than any of the previous and are we at fault? I don't really think so... actually I'm watching it snow right this very second in Houston. Damn this global warming!
Matthew Orlando - What makes it different? It's the greatest increase in thousands of years.
Are we at fault? While the science isn't as certain as in the previous question, it's certainly not as weak as the republicans would like to claim.
Sarah - If you ask Maryann on the street who they think the father of the Global Warming movement is, they WILL say Al Gore. He won the nobel prize and an Oscar and made gazillions of dollars peddling bull$hit. That is why I, personally, am caught up on him.
Spencer Hughes - Matthew, Gore is perhaps THE MOST INFLUENTIAL speaker on this FRAUD!! The average American who believes the sky is falling got it from the likes of GORE, not some nameless scientist in a lab. He IS the voice of global warming, Matthew.
Heidi - Matthew, unfortunately majority of americans listen to these celebrity types of people than actual real professionals.
Matthew Orlando - Heidi: agreed wholeheartedly!
Spencer & Sarah, while I agree joe on the street is most familiar with gore, I'd sincerely hope that the people in charge of the future of this country aren't so easily swayed. Gore is just a messenger, and a horrible one at that.
if you really want to further your cause, you should convince people to ignore him and look at the science. If reality is truly on your side, it will eventually win out. As resistant as science is to changing its mind, it WILL change its mind if the facts are against it.
Sarah - How sad is it that Al Gore is a "celebrity?" Excuse me while I vomit.
Nicole - Bahaha Sarah...
Nicole - "It's the greatest increase in thousands of years." So your point is the earth HAS warmed significantly before and without the help of the destructive human beings? Uh, Matthew, by earth time thousands of years isn't that long, so... the point is this has HAPPENED BEFORE and it will happen again, even if every human being is dead and gone the earth's climate will warm significantly and cool significantly. Should we treat the earth better? YES, but we can't take the blame for this warming period.
Sarah - Well said, Nicole.
Nicole - Why thank you, Sarah ;-)
Trucker - LET ME DO IT... I would be glad to RIP it out of his hands, and give it to a REAL humanitarian.
TRUCKERS... STOP STAYING BROKE http://wallymartguide.com
