PDA

View Full Version : An Inconvient Truth


Jenson71
06-09-2006, 10:21 PM
I'm sure many of you have heard of this new documentary, or if not the film, the problem it addresses: global warming.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/


From Roger Ebert:
"I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts.

Global warming is real.

It is caused by human activity.

Mankind and its governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.

If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.
In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

ChiefaRoo
06-09-2006, 10:32 PM
I'm sure many of you have heard of this new documentary, or if not the film, the problem it addresses: global warming.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/


From Roger Ebert:
"I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts.

Global warming is real.

It is caused by human activity.

Mankind and its governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.

If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.
In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

YAWN

jAZ
06-09-2006, 10:32 PM
Great Article from Salon... (pretty long, but page 2 is worth the effort)...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/10/truths/index.html

Did Al get the science right?

The usual oil industry flacks and dogmatic skeptics have surfaced to denounce Al Gore's global warming movie. But climate scientists say that, basically, he got it right.

BY Katharine Mieszkowski

Pages 1 2 Print EmailFont: S / S+ / S++

Competitive Enterprise Institute

A still from "Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story"

June 10, 2006 | To the tune of the Allman Brothers Band's "Ramblin Man," Al Gore's face rides a cartoon airplane across a map of the United States. As he zips from coast to coast in a Web video clip titled "Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story," a ticker at the bottom of the screen displays his rapidly rising CO2 emissions next to the comparatively modest emissions of everyday folk. The climate-change Paul Revere's steed is an airplane, powered by fossil fuels. The implication: Gore's sure spewing a lot of carbon dioxide as he travels the land spreading the word about global warming.

Produced by the industry flacks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funded in part by Exxon-Mobil, the clip dismisses Gore as a hypocrite, leading a carbon-intensive lifestyle while scolding us plebes that we should strive to reduce our own carbon footprints. Of course, nowhere does this oil-industry-funded propaganda mention that Gore used carbon offsets to mitigate the global warming impact of his travel for "An Inconvenient Truth," that Gore pledged to make the documentary carbon-neutral.

(more)

Halfcan
06-09-2006, 10:34 PM
He is a little hot around the collar-har har

Halfcan
06-09-2006, 10:35 PM
Just hearing the name Al Gore makes me sleepy.

Bugeater
06-09-2006, 10:43 PM
http://harleyzone.tenmagazines.com/forums/images/blahblah.gif If it's so damn important for everyone to see this movie, then they should put it on network TV without any commercials. I wonder what Egbert got paid for that endorsement.

Pitt Gorilla
06-09-2006, 10:48 PM
YAWNI will never understand this response. When I'm not interested in a subject, I don't read or respond to it.

ChiefaRoo
06-09-2006, 10:51 PM
Gosh now it's gotta be true because a politician who wants to get elected to office again and a movie critic say so. I mean, what the hell do all those scientists who say global warming is a natural occurance that has to do with Earth's natural cycle including but not limited to rotational wobble, volcanic activity, ocean currents and even the sun. I mean what do they know they're obviously in the oil companies pocket. We should de-industrialize right now and live in harmony with nature.

Halfcan
06-09-2006, 10:51 PM
Yeah Al Bore quit driving a car, flying in planes, and stopped using "Super Hold" hairspray.

He is just an attention Ho.

ChiefaRoo
06-09-2006, 10:52 PM
I will never understand this response. When I'm not interested in a subject, I don't read or respond to it.


It's a crock of shite. Nobody knows what is causing global warming.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 10:55 PM
One man's opinion. The "warmest" year in the geological record: 1491. Did man cause that too?

Halfcan
06-09-2006, 10:58 PM
You can stick you hand up a Polar Bears azz, but does that make you an expert on Global Warming?

Either does watching Al Bore.

FringeNC
06-09-2006, 11:00 PM
Great Article from Salon... (pretty long, but page 2 is worth the effort)...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/10/truths/index.html



(more)

Wow. I thought Salon would be able to do better than ad hominem attacks. That's pathetic.

Jesus
06-09-2006, 11:02 PM
Wow. I thought Salon would be able to do better than ad hominem attacks. That's pathetic.PR 101:

When the facts aren't on your side, be passionate and appeal to the prejudices of your audience.

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:02 PM
I take public transportation every day. If the oceans start boiling ten years from now, it won't be my fault.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:07 PM
I take public transportation every day. If the oceans start boiling ten years from now, it won't be my fault.

What? You mean you deprive yourself of the joy of driving on the Stevenson during rush hour?

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:11 PM
What? You mean you deprive yourself of the joy of driving on the Stevenson during rush hour?

That would be the Eisenhower, not the Stevenson. The Eisenhower is even worse.

CHIEF4EVER
06-09-2006, 11:14 PM
That would be the Eisenhower, not the Stevenson. The Eisenhower is even worse.

I haven't (thankfully) been on either for a good while. Have they got that clusterf*** also known as I-80 fixed yet or is it still tore up between Gary and Chi-town? I heard a rumor from a fellow trucker that a portion of the newly constructed part had to be ripped back up because of faulty concrete.

Frazod
06-09-2006, 11:17 PM
I haven't (thankfully) been on either for a good while. Have they got that clusterf*** also known as I-80 fixed yet or is it still tore up between Gary and Chi-town? I heard a rumor from a fellow trucker that a portion of the newly constructed part had to be ripped back up because of faulty concrete.

Hell if I know - I haven't been to Indiana since last summer. It was certainly torn all to shit then. Right now the Dan Ryan is torn up while the completely redo the express lanes - that's a friggin mess.

Luckily, there are no major projects in my area - yet (knock on wood).

T-post Tom
06-09-2006, 11:19 PM
...

Lurch
06-10-2006, 12:07 AM
...

Okay. If you wanna be a mouthpiece for the Democratic party, you should just say so.

noa
06-10-2006, 12:14 AM
One man's opinion. The "warmest" year in the geological record: 1491. Did man cause that too?


Caring about global warming isn't all about be concerned about record-breaking temperatures. If there are reasonable things we could do that would turn out to benefit our nation in the long run both environmentally and economically, why not do them? Don't be fooled into thinking that being lax about environmental policies benefits our economy. It doesn't. Policies that are mindful of global warming and environmental issues have very practical implications on your life. If we don't enforce emissions standards because we want a company to save a few bucks, who's going to pay for that? You will, in the form of higher health care costs because pollution leads to health problems. Essentially, you are subsidizing this company's pollution. If we ignore the evidence about global warming and continue the current trend of carbon emissions, who will pay for that? You will, because your economy will be hit hard by the cost of relocating people from the coasts when the sea level rises (which is the inevitable result of current trends). Again, its not about temperature. Its about identifying global trends and what their implications are.
What is the harm in caring about global warming?

BigMeatballDave
06-10-2006, 12:41 AM
Yadda Yadda Yadda. If human activity caused global warming, what caused the ice age? Lunatic ****ing fringe...

Lurch
06-10-2006, 12:44 AM
Caring about global warming isn't all about be concerned about record-breaking temperatures. If there are reasonable things we could do that would turn out to benefit our nation in the long run both environmentally and economically, why not do them? Don't be fooled into thinking that being lax about environmental policies benefits our economy. It doesn't. Policies that are mindful of global warming and environmental issues have very practical implications on your life. If we don't enforce emissions standards because we want a company to save a few bucks, who's going to pay for that? You will, in the form of higher health care costs because pollution leads to health problems. Essentially, you are subsidizing this company's pollution. If we ignore the evidence about global warming and continue the current trend of carbon emissions, who will pay for that? You will, because your economy will be hit hard by the cost of relocating people from the coasts when the sea level rises (which is the inevitable result of current trends). Again, its not about temperature. Its about identifying global trends and what their implications are.
What is the harm in caring about global warming?
I can't speak for Jesus (who among us can?), but.....

No harm, other than diverting billions of dollars and millions upon millions of man hours "working" on something we have little or no control over? Got an explanation for the Ice Age too, do you? Man's fault too....OOOoooooppppps. Guess not.

BigMeatballDave
06-10-2006, 12:45 AM
Nobody knows what is causing global warming.I'd say Evolution.

noa
06-10-2006, 12:48 AM
Yadda Yadda Yadda. If human activity caused global warming, what caused the ice age? Lunatic ****ing fringe...


Ice ages are a natural part of the cycle of our planet, no one would argue that. The global warming discussion is about more than the next ice age, because its a given that another ice age will occur and humanity will be threatened. Earth will survive much longer than humans will, so shouldn't we be investigating policies that would prolong our existence rather than hasten our demise?

Lurch
06-10-2006, 12:54 AM
Ice ages are a natural part of the cycle of our planet, no one would argue that. The global warming discussion is about more than the next ice age, because its a given that another ice age will occur and humanity will be threatened. Earth will survive much longer than humans will, so shouldn't we be investigating policies that would prolong our existence rather than hasten our demise?
So, the current warming trend may decrease the effects of the coming Ice Age? That's good enough for me.

Plus, warming rids us of large portions of CA, FL, and much of "Blue" America? What's the downside if you are a "Red" Stater? :hmmm:

noa
06-10-2006, 12:56 AM
I can't speak for Jesus (who among us can?), but.....

No harm, other than diverting billions of dollars and millions upon millions of man hours "working" on something we have little or no control over? Got an explanation for the Ice Age too, do you? Man's fault too....OOOoooooppppps. Guess not.


Who's diverting billions of dollars? Like I said, if the corporations don't spend money preventing pollution, then you will end up footing the bill. Its naive to think that just ignoring a problem means we won't have to deal with the consequences. Either they pay more money to emit fewer toxins or the local resident pays the money when he has to go to the doctor because of the toxins.
All I'm saying is that it makes sense economically and environmentally to explore alternative energy sources and sound environmental policy. Oil men will always want to prevent this because there is still so much money to be made off of oil. But once we exhaust that, do we want to be left scrambling, or feeling secure like Brazil does because it is energy independent?
If you really want to simplify this, just look at who is funding criticisms of Al Gore's movie. Its all companies who stand to profit off the status quo and their "think tanks." They have a motive to discredit Al Gore, and that is profit, but you have no motive to believe what they tell you, so why not approach it with an open mind?

jAZ
06-10-2006, 12:56 AM
Wow. I thought Salon would be able to do better than ad hominem attacks. That's pathetic.
You didn't read the article.

J Diddy
06-10-2006, 12:57 AM
So, the current warming trend may decrease the effects of the coming Ice Age? That's good enough for me.

Plus, warming rids us of large portions of CA, FL, and much of "Blue" America? What's the downside if you are a "Red" Stater? :hmmm:


You get to elect more fugging retards like GW to run what's left.

jAZ
06-10-2006, 12:58 AM
PR 101:

When the facts aren't on your side, be passionate and appeal to the prejudices of your audience.
Any wonder how we ended up fighting a 6 day war in Iraq for 3 years now?

Lurch
06-10-2006, 12:59 AM
Who's diverting billions of dollars? Like I said, if the corporations don't spend money preventing pollution, then you will end up footing the bill. Its naive to think that just ignoring a problem means we won't have to deal with the consequences. Either they pay more money to emit fewer toxins or the local resident pays the money when he has to go to the doctor because of the toxins.
All I'm saying is that it makes sense economically and environmentally to explore alternative energy sources and sound environmental policy. Oil men will always want to prevent this because there is still so much money to be made off of oil. But once we exhaust that, do we want to be left scrambling, or feeling secure like Brazil does because it is energy independent?
If you really want to simplify this, just look at who is funding criticisms of Al Gore's movie. Its all companies who stand to profit off the status quo and their "think tanks." They have a motive to discredit Al Gore, and that is profit, but you have no motive to believe what they tell you, so why not approach it with an open mind?

What motive I do I have to believe Al Gore, when his whole life has been dedicated to interest group pandering and the politics of class warfare and division?

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:00 AM
You get to elect more fugging retards like GW to run what's left.

The best government is the government that governs least. It's been true for centuries. Turn your life over to nanny-government if you will. I can do better myself, on my own.

Guru
06-10-2006, 01:01 AM
What motive I do I have to believe Al Gore, when his whole life has been dedicated to interest group pandering and the politics of class warfare and division?
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:01 AM
You didn't read the article.

I did. And he's right.

noa
06-10-2006, 01:03 AM
What motive I do I have to believe Al Gore, when his whole life has been dedicated to interest group pandering and the politics of class warfare and division?


I absolutely agree...all politicians suck. Like the old saying goes, we have the best politicians money can buy. Having said that, I still think its smarter for us to pursue policies that will set us up for sucess and wealth in the future rather than trying to milk as much money as possible right now and build up massive debt just because we want to pander to corporations.

jAZ
06-10-2006, 01:03 AM
No harm, other than diverting billions of dollars and millions upon millions of man hours "working" on something we have little or no control over?
God forbid we develop sustainable, domestically produced, American corporation patented technology to power the nation and the world without polution and without dependency upon unstable dictatorships in remote and desolate regions of the world.

God knows that would suck ass.

jAZ
06-10-2006, 01:04 AM
I did. And he's right.
You didn't read it either then.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:07 AM
God forbid we develop sustainable, domestically produced, American corporation patented technology to power the nation and the world without polution and without dependency upon unstable dictatorships in remote and desolate regions of the world.

God knows that would suck ass.

Then don't lie to us about the motives. Sell it as a conservation/an energy alternative venture. Couching it in half-truths and lies only increases the skepticism of the public about it, when they see through the fog of politics. That's advice both parties would do well to take.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:08 AM
You didn't read it either then.

I did. Apparently, you have comprehension difficulties.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:09 AM
.... I still think its smarter for us to pursue policies that will set us up for sucess and wealth in the future rather than trying to milk as much money as possible right now and build up massive debt just because we want to pander to corporations.

FDR's critics, from both sides (left and right), said that during the 1930s too.

jAZ
06-10-2006, 01:12 AM
I did. Apparently, you have comprehension difficulties.
If you had actually read the article you'd know that the entire latter 2/3rds of the article (page 2) was a critical review by salon and scientists about what they think Gore either got wrong or might have left a false impression of the facts.

Of course, that probably falls into the "ad hominem attacks" catagory.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:28 AM
If you had actually read the article you'd know that the entire latter 2/3rds of the article (page 2) was a critical review by salon and scientists about what they think Gore either got wrong or might have left a false impression of the facts.

Of course, that probably falls into the "ad hominem attacks" catagory.
Whatever:
... Schmidt says a 20-foot rise in sea level is not unrealistic in the long run -- the very long run. "The 20 feet number comes from an analog with the last time the planet was a degree warmer than it is now -- 120,000 years ago. Sea levels were about 20 feet higher. Where did that water come from? Half from Greenland, and half from Antarctica." How long would it take for that rise to happen again? "Maybe 1,000 years," says Schmidt. "There's some uncertainty about how quickly that could happen, but Gore was very careful not to say this is something that is going to happen tomorrow."

If in fact there's 800 to 1,000 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, Battisti says, it's going to be a very different world. Twenty feet of additional sea-level rise could occur if Greenland melts. "That's most likely if we get to 800 parts per million by the end of the century; within 500 years Greenland will be gone," he says. In fact, there was a time when there were 1,000 parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere. That was during the Eocene, about 50 million years ago, when there were crocodiles in the Arctic and palm trees in Wyoming, which was then 10 degrees farther north than it is today. "This was a time when the planet was so warm that you had amazing hot swamplike conditions," says Battisti. "You had a lot of plant life dying that was actually forming the oil and coal we're now burning."
Okay, jerkoff. There you go. While the article qualifies what Gore says, it remains very supportive of his dubious claims (because of their own political biases.) "He's wrong on this point, but right overall" is hardly a repudiation of Gore's propaganda. The true overall tone is "anyone who doubts us are right wing corporate sell-outs," while we are all-knowing and right....whatever the facts may really say about our claims.

Rausch
06-10-2006, 01:32 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139220&highlight=gore

Yeah, NOW it's worth a debate.

****ers...

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:34 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139220&highlight=gore

Yeah, NOW it's worth a debate.

****ers...

Then, no one had seen it. Now, Gore's family and cronies have seen it, so there's some discussion over this abortion of a movie. Sorry.

noa
06-10-2006, 01:34 AM
Whatever:

Okay, jerkoff. There you go. While the article qualifies what Gore says, it remains very supportive of his dubious claims (because of their own political biases.) "He's wrong on this point, but right overall" is hardly a repudiation of Gore's propaganda. The true overall tone is "anyone who doubts us are right wing corporate sell-outs," while we are all-knowing and right....whatever the facts may really say about our claims.


What are his motives and why is it propaganda? If you look at all scholarly written articles about global warming (meaning articles written by and approved by people who actually understand science and scientific reasoning) and identify how many deny human contributions to the process, you will find very very few, if any. On the other hand, if you look at popular media, you will find many articles that challenge the notion that humans contribute to a phenomenon known as global warming. Now which side sounds like propaganda?

jAZ
06-10-2006, 01:35 AM
Whatever:

Okay, jerkoff. There you go. While the article qualifies what Gore says, it remains very supportive of his dubious claims (because of their own political biases.) "He's wrong on this point, but right overall" is hardly a repudiation of Gore's propaganda. The true overall tone is "anyone who doubts us are right wing corporate sell-outs," while we are all-knowing and right....whatever the facts may really say about our claims.
Got it... unless everyone comes out and says the globe is actually cooling, Gore hates America and Liberals bite ass... they are by default participating in "ad hominem attacks".

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:37 AM
What are his motives and why is it propaganda? If you look at all scholarly written articles about global warming (meaning articles written by and approved by people who actually understand science and scientific reasoning) and identify how many deny human contributions to the process, you will find very very few, if any. On the other hand, if you look at popular media, you will find many articles that challenge the notion that humans contribute to a phenomenon known as global warming. Now which side sounds like propaganda?

TRANSLATED:

Ideological propaganda and bias is not really propaganda; real propaganda has to be based in profit-motive, because rich bastards only care about the bottom-line ($$$)....now. And nothing else, like children, or the future.

:rolleyes:

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:38 AM
Got it... unless everyone comes out and says the globe is actually cooling, Gore hates America and Liberals bite ass... they are by default participating in "ad hominem attacks".

The question isn't over whether there IS global warming. It's a question over whether man is to blame, and if he can do anything meaningful to intervene. Duh.

noa
06-10-2006, 01:40 AM
TRANSLATED:

Ideological propaganda and bias is not really propaganda; real propaganda has to be based in profit-motive, because rich bastards only care about the bottom-line ($$$)....now. And nothing else, like children, or the future.

:rolleyes:

I couldn't help but notice how you didn't answer my question. Why is it propaganda? And please, if you're trying to tell me that oil men and those funding the fight against gore care about "children, or the future" you might as well try to sell me some swamp land in florda.

noa
06-10-2006, 01:41 AM
The question isn't over whether there IS global warming. It's a question over whether man is to blame, and if he can do anything meaningful to intervene. Duh.


Whether man is to blame? Gore is not saying that man causes all of our Earth's problems. He is asking whether man contributes significantly to global warming, and if so, what does this mean for our future and what can we do to mitigate its impacts.

jAZ
06-10-2006, 01:44 AM
The question isn't over whether there IS global warming. It's a question over whether man is to blame, and if he can do anything meaningful to intervene. Duh.
So far the only "ad hominem attack" provided anywhere is you calling me a jerkoff.

Not to hijack your hijack.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:46 AM
I couldn't help but notice how you didn't answer my question. Why is it propaganda? And please, if you're trying to tell me that oil men and those funding the fight against gore care about "children, or the future" you might as well try to sell me some swamp land in florda.

Propaganda?

From the dictionary: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

You don't think that's Gore's intent. I'm not saying either side doesn't engage in it; but if you think only one side does, you are fooling yourself.

My point about "children and the future" is my identification of emotional and self-serving propagandizing appeals from your side, on this issue.....not my side.

Ultra Peanut
06-10-2006, 01:48 AM
I will never understand this response. When I'm not interested in a subject, I don't read or respond to it.I DON'T FIND YOUR RESPONSE WORTH READING AND I WILL NOT DEVOTE ANY TIME TO REPLYING TO IT

noa
06-10-2006, 01:52 AM
Propaganda?

From the dictionary: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

You don't think that's Gore's intent. I'm not saying either side doesn't engage in it; but if you think only one side does, you are fooling yourself.

My point about "children and the future" is my identification of emotional and self-serving propagandizing appeals from your side, on this issue.....not my side.


To me, that definition is meaningless becuase its way too broad and vague. What we're talking about is a movie. That's what I don't understand about this. You have to pay to see it. Its not being broadcast into your living room. To me, this is not propaganda. Its just his opinion and his conviction about something that he has pursued since he was in college. I absolutely think Gore's intent is to further the cause of global warming awareness, but that's so obvious it can't possibly be propaganda. Why is it wrong for him to care about this, think this way, and then try to convince others he is right? If we are going to discount everyone who proposes an idea in the public forum just beacuse they are "furthering their cause", we can no longer engage in any sort of discourse.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:52 AM
So, this isn't ad hominem?

"Some people believe the earth is flat, too." That's Eric Stieg, an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington...He'd posted his own largely favorable review of "An Inconvenient Truth" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#comment-14433)

:rolleyes:

Lurch
06-10-2006, 01:54 AM
... Why is it wrong for him to care about this, think this way, and then try to convince others he is right? If we are going to discount everyone who proposes an idea in the public forum just beacuse they are "furthering their cause", we can no longer engage in any sort of discourse.

It's not wrong. But it is still propaganda, because it portrays only his side.

jAZ
06-10-2006, 01:55 AM
So, this isn't ad hominem?

"Some people believe the earth is flat, too." That's Eric Stieg, an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington...He'd posted his own largely favorable review of "An Inconvenient Truth" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#comment-14433)

:rolleyes:
Well first it's Eric Stieg, not Salon.

Second, no... it's a fact.

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

jAZ
06-10-2006, 02:00 AM
Now that you've decided to get back on track... I'll address this non-sense as well...
The question isn't over whether there IS global warming. It's a question over whether man is to blame, and if he can do anything meaningful to intervene. Duh.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cb0c3b94-ee84-11d9-98e5-00000e2511c8.html

Bush admits to role of humans in global warming
By Caroline Daniel in Copenhagen and Fiona Harvey in Gleneagles
Published: July 7 2005 03:00 | Last updated: July 7 2005 03:00

President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in the past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight industrialised nations.

"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:02 AM
So far the only "ad hominem attack" provided anywhere is you calling me a jerkoff.

Not to hijack your hijack.

One more, ad hominem example, to satisfy you:

....... Economists and climate scientists believe it will continue to rise as dramatically over the course of this century. To demonstrate the skyrocketing increase, Gore rides a mechanical lift to rise as high as the CO2 is likely to go. While the temperature line does not jump up that high in the film, the audience is left to assume -- with horror -- that it will follow. Scientists predict the jump in temperatures will be serious, but more modest than the graph implies. "

The graph shows CO2 going through the roof, and the thing is the temperature doesn't follow that line with the same amount of jump," says Battisti. "

noa
06-10-2006, 02:02 AM
It's not wrong. But it is still propaganda, because it portrays only his side.


I understand what you're saying, but portraying the other side in this case would be a form of propaganda in itself because it would give some legitimacy to the "other side" which is actually non-existent in the scientific community. Like I said earlier, you will not find scholarly articles written by experts that will disagree that humans are contributing to global warming. Moreover, if you look at the so-called experts who are criticizing this movie, they are largely funded by the oil industry and other corporations that have vested interests in keeping our country's environmental policies lax and criticizing any moves toward energy independence. Showing their side would be a disservice to the debate.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:04 AM
....the "other side" which is actually non-existent in the scientific community. Like I said earlier, you will not find scholarly articles written by experts that will disagree that humans are contributing to global warming....

You are just wrong about this, insofar as you imply humans are the clear CAUSE of what is happening. I'm not disputing it is happening; I'm disputing what you are attribuing the cause to....

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:05 AM
Now that you've decided to get back on track... I'll address this non-sense as well...


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cb0c3b94-ee84-11d9-98e5-00000e2511c8.html

Bush admits to role of humans in global warming
By Caroline Daniel in Copenhagen and Fiona Harvey in Gleneagles
Published: July 7 2005 03:00 | Last updated: July 7 2005 03:00

President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in the past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight industrialised nations.

"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
SO, now....YOU of all people, now want to cite George W. as a credible source? ROFL

And does he seem delusional enough to think man can really change what is happening?

Rausch
06-10-2006, 02:06 AM
There are only two ways to look at current climate change:

1) Humanity is screwing up the planet. If true, humanity may not survive what we have enacted, but life will. Just not human life.

If true, we got what we asked for and we failed the Darwin exam.

2) This is yet another climate change in the natural pattern of the planet. Man has little or nothing to do with it. Considering that we've only had decent computers for about 30 years (being very generous) and very little data to compile an idea of what "normal" climate is odds are we can't change what man may or may not have created.


The cause is irrelevant if we lack the ability to reverse what we consider deprimental climate conditions...

jAZ
06-10-2006, 02:07 AM
One more, ad hominem example, to satisfy you:
Do you even know what the term "ad hominem attack" means? It would seem that you have no idea... none of that is even remotely an "ad hominem attack".

It is however, exactly what I said it was... a "critical review by salon and scientists about what they think Gore either got wrong or might have left a false impression of the facts".

Thanks for that.

noa
06-10-2006, 02:08 AM
You are just wrong about this, insofar as you imply humans are the clear CAUSE of what is happening. I'm not disputing it is happening; I'm disputing what you are attribuing the cause to....

Look back at my posts, I have never claimed that humans are the clear CAUSE of all of our planets problems. I have simply said that it is wise to recognzie what problems we face (like the potential of rising sea levels) and pursue policies that take this into account. I'm not playing the blame game as to who caused what, I am blaming people who ignore the evidence or delay responses out of the desire to maintain the status quo.

jAZ
06-10-2006, 02:09 AM
SO, now....YOU of all people, now want to cite George W. as a credible source? ROFL

And does he seem delusional enough to think man can really change what is happening?
At least we have gotten rid of the garbage you were presenting as doubt.

We are finally down to the things that are actaually in dispute.

1) How bad is it?
2) What can be done to fix it if its that bad?

Rausch
06-10-2006, 02:10 AM
Look back at my posts, I have never claimed that humans are the clear CAUSE of all of our planets problems. I have simply said that it is wise to recognzie what problems we face (like the potential of rising sea levels) and pursue policies that take this into account. I'm not playing the blame game as to who caused what, I am blaming people who ignore the evidence or delay responses out of the desire to maintain the status quo.

The problem is that if you aren't even sure what the disease is you can't prescribe a cure...

noa
06-10-2006, 02:10 AM
There are only two ways to look at current climate change:

1) Humanity is screwing up the planet. If true, humanity may not survive what we have enacted, but life will. Just not human life.

If true, we got what we asked for and we failed the Darwin exam.

2) This is yet another climate change in the natural pattern of the planet. Man has little or nothing to do with it. Considering that we've only had decent computers for about 30 years (being very generous) and very little data to compile an idea of what "normal" climate is odds are we can't change what man may or may not have created.


The cause is irrelevant if we lack the ability to reverse what we consider deprimental climate conditions...


We don't have to reverse anything, we just have to be mindful of our effects on the planet and seek to minimize the harm because that is what is in our best interests in terms of survival.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:12 AM
Do you even know what the term "ad hominem attack" means? It would seem that you have no idea... none of that is even remotely an "ad hominem attack".

It is however, exactly what I said it was... a "critical review by salon and scientists about what they think Gore either got wrong or might have left a false impression of the facts".

Thanks for that.

Did YOU even read the article? I mean, yes they are critical....but only in the details; they are sucking off Al, for the propaganda and message he is trying to put out.

As for ad hominem, "appealing to feelings (emotions) or prejudices rather than intellect".

If you don't think the examples I provided, are blatant appeals to emotion over reason, then I don't know what to tell you.

noa
06-10-2006, 02:13 AM
The problem is that if you aren't even sure what the disease is you can't prescribe a cure...


Its definitely a problem that there is no specific "cure," but that doesn't mean we should just concede the worst case scenario withot trying to improve anything.

noa
06-10-2006, 02:16 AM
Did YOU even read the article? I mean, yes they are critical....but only in the details; they are sucking off Al, for the propaganda and message he is trying to put out.

As for ad hominem, "appealing to feelings (emotions) or prejudices rather than intellect".

If you don't think the examples I provided, are blatant appeals to emotion over reason, then I don't know what to tell you.


Dude, I'm sorry, but what you quoted are NOT ad hominem attacks. Just because you can cite the definition doesn't mean you actually understand what they are. Ad hominem attacks would be "Don't believe people who say global warming isn't a big deal because they are stupid." Ad hominem means you are discounting a person by way of insulting them or their stance rather than advancing an actual argument. It doesn't mean any appeal to "feelings" is an ad hominem attack.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:16 AM
Well first it's Eric Stieg, not Salon.

Second, no... it's a fact.

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

It may be a "fact," but that Salon PRINTS this transfers responsibility for the propaganda to them....

And, please, don't tell me you are in any serious way disputing the notion that association with a "Flat Earth" society is a pejorative....an intentional insult, or slight?

You may be that dumb; I'm not.

Rausch
06-10-2006, 02:17 AM
We don't have to reverse anything, we just have to be mindful of our effects on the planet and seek to minimize the harm because that is what is in our best interests in terms of survival.

Ok, for the sake of argument pretend it's NOT due to any action by humanity.

We're screwed.

What do we do? Tilt the earth? Add CFC's? Lessen them? Even if you can reach an agreement on cause AND cure there's go gaurantee the planet as a whole will agree to the solution. Or even that we CAN enact a solution.

And if it IS due to human actions do you think the people currently in power in the major states care longer than their lifetime? Would enough people act to change anything, if we DO somehow find a way to reverse things? Would that knowledge even filter down to the average Joe one way or another?...

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:17 AM
Dude, I'm sorry, but what you quoted are NOT ad hominem attacks. Just because you can cite the definition doesn't mean you actually understand what they are. Ad hominem attacks would be "Don't believe people who say global warming isn't a big deal because they are stupid." Ad hominem means you are discounting a person by way of insulting them or their stance rather than advancing an actual argument. It doesn't mean any appeal to "feelings" is an ad hominem attack.
And if you, for one minute, think that is not CLEARLY implied in the tone and tenor of the articles.....then you aren't as bright as you appeared to be. Politicians and interest groups sophists are smart enough to be indirect.

Otherwise, they come off as, obviously, arrogant and condescending. Of course, educated folks see it anyway.

noa
06-10-2006, 02:18 AM
It may be a "fact," but that Salon PRINTS this transfers responsibility for the propaganda to them....

And, please, don't tell me you are in any serious way disputing the notion that association with a "Flat Earth" society is a pejorative....an intentional insult, or slight?

You may be that dumb; I'm not.


But he was using a metaphor. He wasn't saying that people who believe in global warming also think the world is flat. He was saying that there are those who deny global warming, but there are also those who deny the earth is round.
He associated the two ideas together because they are in the extreme minority and stand against all scientific evidence.

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:21 AM
But he was using a metaphor. He wasn't saying that people who believe in global warming also think the world is flat. He was saying that there are those who deny global warming, but there are also those who deny the earth is round.
He associated the two ideas together because they are in the extreme minority and stand against all scientific evidence.
No. He was saying people who don't believe in global warming (that is caused by man, and can be affected by man), are like people who still believe the world is flat.....

If that is not ad hominem, if that is not appealing to emotions over reason....I don't know how I can help you understand.

It's clearly a pejorative.

Rausch
06-10-2006, 02:26 AM
But he was using a metaphor. He wasn't saying that people who believe in global warming also think the world is flat. He was saying that there are those who deny global warming, but there are also those who deny the earth is round.

There are also those that think that we never landed on the moon and those that think LHO didn't shoot Kennedy.

Does one argument lend any ligitimacy to the other?...

noa
06-10-2006, 02:29 AM
No. He was saying people who don't believe in global warming (that is caused by man, and can be affected by man), are like people who still believe the world is flat.....

If that is not ad hominem, if that is not appealing to emotions over reason....I don't know how I can help you understand.

It's clearly a pejorative.


I don't need you to help me understand. I know what an ad hominem attack is. Based on what you cited in previous posts, you don't. Much like the definitions you posted, you're thinking is way too broad. Yes, it is an attack on people who don't believe in global warming. Of course! I'm not saying I agree with him, but here is his line of thought: Not believing that humans contribute to global warming is ignoring all scientific evidence and published thought, which is similar to believing that the earth is flat!
However crude this statement is, it still involves an intellectual process of metaphor. An ad hominem attack would have explicitly connected the dots and removed that intellectual aspect of the argument to simply be "People who don't believe in global warming are stupid."

Lurch
06-10-2006, 02:47 AM
... Yes, it is an attack on people who don't believe in global warming...
Your own words, expose your own sophistry.

SLAG
06-10-2006, 03:07 AM
I have not read this thread but i do not believe in global warming.. its a THEORY in my opinion but i have not seen hard enough evidence.. I have seen Isolated incidents and Skewed results but nothing that pushes me to think that global warming is real.

IMHO-

"Global warming" = "WMD"

Ari Chi3fs
06-10-2006, 08:50 AM
i want to watch this movie, but it is playing in NONE of the KC theatres... its a conspiracy.

JohnnyV13
06-10-2006, 09:07 AM
Ok,

Here's the deal. Lets say I point a radiation source at my children, because it makes them behave in a more civilized fashion. But, after a number of years, one of my children dies of cancer. I begin to wonder if the radiation source i pointed at them might have caused the death. Now, I don't know, because there are many things that can possibly cause cancer that have nothing to do with external radiation sources.

Now, is it rational to keep pointing that radiation source at your children?


To apply reason to this argument, you have to look at the probability that the radiation is the cause. Another major factor you have to consider is what would the social/political cost be of changing our current habits. What are the social benefits of the act? And, then what is the cost of NOT changing our habits.

Of course there are many things to bias the debate. First of all, changing our current habits would incur a cost that would have to be paid right away. By not changing our habits, we pay a cost a long ways in the future. Then there are vested interests on both sides of any debate, people who would lose or gain depending on the decision that you make.

However, it is true that the immediate cost projections are going to be more certain than the future benefits or future cost analysis.

The analogy i give above is weighted to say "yes, we need to stop pointing the radiation source at our children" because first i use the emotional "chldren" then I propose a spurious benefit and a risk that we all damn well know causes cancer.

You can choose analogies that weights the answer the other way by increasing the short term cost, making the risk seem more doubtful to be true and then choosing a victim that no one likes.(I mean who would care if its GoChiefs that pays the costs?)

But, I don't see a lot of people using reasoned debate here. What I see is a lot of politically biased folk that are emotionally invested in seeing their side "win", so that they are the "cool kids in school".

nychief
06-10-2006, 09:12 AM
Gosh now it's gotta be true because a politician who wants to get elected to office again and a movie critic say so. I mean, what the hell do all those scientists who say global warming is a natural occurance that has to do with Earth's natural cycle including but not limited to rotational wobble, volcanic activity, ocean currents and even the sun. I mean what do they know they're obviously in the oil companies pocket. We should de-industrialize right now and live in harmony with nature.


this sort of sketicism is moronic. Al Gore has never indicated that he is running for office again. I really wish that someone other than Gore had made this film, then perhaps more people would see it.

Ari Chi3fs
06-10-2006, 09:44 AM
Bush Lied. Gore cried.

alnorth
06-10-2006, 09:59 AM
No. He was saying people who don't believe in global warming (that is caused by man, and can be affected by man), are like people who still believe the world is flat.....

If that is not ad hominem, if that is not appealing to emotions over reason....I don't know how I can help you understand.

It's clearly a pejorative.

I agree with jAZ at a rate approximately close to never, but I have to back him up on this. According to the everyday commonly-accepted definition of ad hominem attack, you have not provided an example of one.

FringeNC
06-10-2006, 10:05 AM
Do you even know what the term "ad hominem attack" means? It would seem that you have no idea... none of that is even remotely an "ad hominem attack".

It is however, exactly what I said it was... a "critical review by salon and scientists about what they think Gore either got wrong or might have left a false impression of the facts".

Thanks for that.

I know what an ad hominem attack is, and Salon.com stooped to that level. Instead of attacking the merit of the CEI study, they attacked to authors for for the fact that CEI is partially funded by Exxon and attempted to taint them with that. It's really pathetic that a webzine like Salon.com engages in such behavior.

alnorth
06-10-2006, 10:18 AM
I know what an ad hominem attack is, and Salon.com stooped to that level. Instead of attacking the merit of the CEI study, they attacked to authors for for the fact that CEI is partially funded by Exxon and attempted to taint them with that. It's really pathetic that a webzine like Salon.com engages in such behavior.

Now we are getting closer. After reading the Salon article, the odd thing is the article had several ad hominem attacks in it (which causes the article to sink, looking petty and unintelligent), but Lurch didnt use any of the perfectly good examples of ad hominem attacks that Salon tossed at Gore's opponents.

ChiefaRoo
06-10-2006, 10:54 AM
Do you even know what the term "ad hominem attack" means? It would seem that you have no idea... none of that is even remotely an "ad hominem attack".

It is however, exactly what I said it was... a "critical review by salon and scientists about what they think Gore either got wrong or might have left a false impression of the facts".

Thanks for that.


Hominem!?! .............. HOMINEM!?!!............. the godd*mn Homos got nuthin' to do with it!

ChiefaRoo
06-10-2006, 10:57 AM
There are also those that think that we never landed on the moon and those that think LHO didn't shoot Kennedy.

Does one argument lend any ligitimacy to the other?...

Winnie the Pooh shot Kennedy :)

Lurch
06-18-2006, 08:45 PM
Sarcasm: the lost art....

Ebert can't push himself away from the dinner table--here's a true role model for self-control; why should we take his advice?

Because our future may depend on it?

Lurch
06-18-2006, 08:46 PM
I just saw the replay of Gore's appearence on Larry King....unless the Republican's pull a rabbit out of the hat, he has a chance in 2008---unless the Dems are bent on self-destruction, and opt for Hillary.

tk13
06-18-2006, 08:53 PM
I was going to create a new thread about this tonight or tomorrow. But since this thread is already up... I wanted to bring up a discussion point.

Has anyone read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? I read it this past week, I always like Crichton books so I gave it a whirl. It's fiction, but it addresses this very topic with actual research and I found it interesting. I wondered if anybody on the board read it and what their thoughts on it were...

Sam Hall
06-18-2006, 08:56 PM
The issue of global warming drives me crazy. If it's 50 degrees in December, I think we should be happy. I don't know what the big deal is. I think it used to be warmer than it is now.

Adept Havelock
06-18-2006, 09:00 PM
PR 101:

When the facts aren't on your side, be passionate and appeal to the prejudices of your audience.

Well, if anyone knows how to handle PR, it's you. ;)

Still trying to figure out how you managed to take a political dissidence against the Roman occupation, while being a claimant to the throne of Israel (descended from Solomon and all that), and parlay that into becoming god incarnate on the earth.

Best PR effort...ever. :p

Bowser
06-18-2006, 09:03 PM
Well, if anyone knows how to handle PR, it's you. ;)

Still trying to figure out how you managed to take a political dissidence against the Roman occupation, while being a claimant to the throne of Israel (descended from Solomon and all that), and parlay that into becoming god incarnate on the earth.

Best PR effort...ever. :pHeh.

Adept Havelock
06-18-2006, 09:04 PM
I liked State of Fear, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. Just like you wouldn't believe everything in Al Gore's movie as the one and only truth, the same applies for Chriton's book.


True, that. Even Benford (whose Science is quoted numerous times by Crichton) said it was pretty clear Mike didn't have a clue of what Benford was really talking about.

Of course, Crichton hasn't had a decent novel since Congo, or Eaters of the Dead, IMO. Prey was promising, right up until it became obvious he got bored and decided to just end it any old way.

A very healthy skepticism is a must when dealing with Global Warming, and should be equally applied to those that promote and those that deny it. Both have very strong agendas driven almost solely by money.

Jesus
06-18-2006, 09:05 PM
Well, if anyone knows how to handle PR, it's you. ;)

Still trying to figure out how you managed to take a political dissidence against the Roman occupation, while being a claimant to the throne of Israel (descended from Solomon and all that), and parlay that into becoming god incarnate on the earth.

Best PR effort...ever. :p

PR is important, even when you speak the truth.

patteeu
06-18-2006, 09:06 PM
I was going to create a new thread about this tonight or tomorrow. But since this thread is already up... I wanted to bring up a discussion point.

Has anyone read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? I read it this past week, I always like Crichton books so I gave it a whirl. It's fiction, but it addresses this very topic with actual research and I found it interesting. I wondered if anybody on the board read it and what their thoughts on it were...

Logical said he was pretty impressed by it. I've read it and agree that it presents pretty interesting arguments.

Bowser
06-18-2006, 09:07 PM
Yeah, Prey was the last Crichton book I read. The first two thirds was entertaining, and the finish was just as Havelock said. Kind of soured me on Chrichton, and have been into the Dean Koontz as of late.

I'll give State of Fear a whirl, after I'm done with Koontz's Strange Highways.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 09:08 PM
PR is important, even when you speak the truth.

Boy is that true!
Sometimes the truth is so unbelievable, it can't be seen when it's sitting right in front of you.

patteeu
06-18-2006, 09:09 PM
For those who believe in global warming and the catastrophic effects that Al Gore says might be in store for us, how much of a reduction in our economy's growth rate would you be willing to tolerate in order to freeze CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions at current levels? Would you be willing to sacrifice that growth rate and freeze emissions if you knew other countries were going to continue to expand their emissions in order to achieve economic advancement?

Adept Havelock
06-18-2006, 09:11 PM
PR is important, even when you speak the truth.

Speaking of (inconvienient) truth, which is your true genealogy?

Matthew has it as:

* David
* Solomon
* Rehoboam
* Abijah
* Asa
* Jehoshaphat
* Joram
* Uzziah
* Jotham
* Ahaz
* Hezekiah
* Manasseh
* Amon
* Josiah
* Jeconiah
* Shealtiel
* Zerubbabel
* Abiud
* Eliakim
* Azor
* Zadok
* Achim
* Eliud
* Eleazar
* Matthan
* Jacob
* Joseph
* Jesus

Luke has it as:

* David
* Nathan
* Mattatha
* Menna
* Melea
* Eliakim
* Jonam
* Joseph
* Judah
* Simeon
* Levi
* Matthat
* Jorim
* Eliezer
* Joshua
* Er
* Elmadam
* Cosam
* Addi
* Melki
* Neri
* Shealtiel
* Zerubbabel
* Rhesa
* Joanan
* Joda
* Josech
* Semein
* Mattathias
* Maath
* Naggae
* Esli
* Nahum
* Amos
* Mattathias
* Joseph
* Jannai
* Melchi
* Levi
* Matthat
* Heli
* Joseph
* Jesus

Besides, with the whole "Virgin" thing..what's that Joseph guy above your name have to do with anything in the first place?

ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 09:13 PM
I was going to create a new thread about this tonight or tomorrow. But since this thread is already up... I wanted to bring up a discussion point.

Has anyone read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? I read it this past week, I always like Crichton books so I gave it a whirl. It's fiction, but it addresses this very topic with actual research and I found it interesting. I wondered if anybody on the board read it and what their thoughts on it were...


Crichton was on 20/20 with John Stossel discussing his conversion from a believer in alarmist-style global warming and how he came to change his mind. He spend years researching the claims and changed his mind. He was prescient on cloning ( Jurassic Park) when few talked about it and now we hear of it often.

Jesus
06-18-2006, 09:14 PM
For those who believe in global warming and the catastrophic effects that Al Gore says might be in store for us, how much of a reduction in our economy's growth rate would you be willing to tolerate in order to freeze CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions at current levels?

About 2%, which is all it would really take...blaspheming charlatan.

Jesus
06-18-2006, 09:15 PM
Speaking of (inconvienient) truth, which is your true genealogy?

Matthew has it as:

* David
* Solomon
* Rehoboam
* Abijah
* Asa
* Jehoshaphat
* Joram
* Uzziah
* Jotham
* Ahaz
* Hezekiah
* Manasseh
* Amon
* Josiah
* Jeconiah
* Shealtiel
* Zerubbabel
* Abiud
* Eliakim
* Azor
* Zadok
* Achim
* Eliud
* Eleazar
* Matthan
* Jacob
* Joseph
* Jesus

Luke has it as:

* David
* Nathan
* Mattatha
* Menna
* Melea
* Eliakim
* Jonam
* Joseph
* Judah
* Simeon
* Levi
* Matthat
* Jorim
* Eliezer
* Joshua
* Er
* Elmadam
* Cosam
* Addi
* Melki
* Neri
* Shealtiel
* Zerubbabel
* Rhesa
* Joanan
* Joda
* Josech
* Semein
* Mattathias
* Maath
* Naggae
* Esli
* Nahum
* Amos
* Mattathias
* Joseph
* Jannai
* Melchi
* Levi
* Matthat
* Heli
* Joseph
* Jesus

Besides, with the whole "Virgin" thing..what's that Joseph guy above your name have to do with anything in the first place?

ROFL

Adept.....there is still hope for you. But this whole skeptic agonostic atheist act needs to run its course. Either believe, or simply S.T.F.U.---you know?

redbrian
06-18-2006, 09:15 PM
I was going to create a new thread about this tonight or tomorrow. But since this thread is already up... I wanted to bring up a discussion point.

Has anyone read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? I read it this past week, I always like Crichton books so I gave it a whirl. It's fiction, but it addresses this very topic with actual research and I found it interesting. I wondered if anybody on the board read it and what their thoughts on it were...

I listened to it on cd when it first came out, he makes a lot of good points about the false hood of the whole man caused global warming issue.

As well as other issues so dear and near to the tree hugging movement.

Bowser
06-18-2006, 09:17 PM
Adept.....there is still hope for you. But this whole skeptic agonostic atheist act needs to run its course. Either believe, or simply S.T.F.U.---you know?

That's just damned rude. Keep it up, and we'll have to tell your dad you're being a dick.

Donger
06-18-2006, 09:17 PM
A quick question: how involved was Al Gore involved in this film? And, how exactly is Al Gore qualified to opine with any credence about 'global warming?'

Adept Havelock
06-18-2006, 09:18 PM
Crichton was on 20/20 with John Stossel discussing his conversion from a believer in alarmist-style global warming and how he came to change his mind. He spend years researching the claims and changed his mind. He was prescient on cloning ( Jurassic Park) when few talked about it and now we hear of it often.

Crichton is also a bit of a hack when it comes to his science. Like anyone who's been through a conversion, he feels the need to spread the word.

Benford and at least one other scientist (sorry, their name escapes me, but I'll see if I can find it) that Crichton cited are on the record as stating it was pretty obvious he didn't have much of a real understanding as to the science involved. Neither is a pro-global warming science type, either, IIRC.

Jurassic Park was a bit "prescient", as was "Andromeda Strain" and "Terminal Man". That said, there's a few reasons he's in "fiction" and not the Hard-Sci-Fi category, and his treatment of science is the main one.

Jesus
06-18-2006, 09:20 PM
That's just damned rude. Keep it up, and we'll have to tell your dad you're being a dick.

I gave Dad the whole Sodom and Gamorrah idea. And the whole drown the ungrateful bastards in the flood thing. Kickin' the ass of Rabbis in the temple? Me too: and I held back. Dad's a softy. I'm the dark side. But he likes me some times, you know?

Donger
06-18-2006, 09:22 PM
Ah. Found it.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard

- and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

Adept Havelock
06-18-2006, 09:24 PM
Adept.....there is still hope for you. But this whole skeptic agonostic atheist act needs to run its course. Either believe, or simply S.T.F.U.---you know?

Of course there's "hope for me". I can hope for a favorable outcome of probabilities, just like the next sentient being.

Though I couldn't help notice you pointedly avoided answering a simple question as to which of the two conflicting genealogies were true, and immediately reverted to childish invective. That acronym must belong to a Christian sentiment I've not previously encountered in my studies. :p

After all, the conflicting "inerrant" histories are just another "inconvienient truth"
That's just damned rude. Keep it up, and we'll have to tell your dad you're being a dick.

ROFL ROFL ROFL
If his "dad" is who he claims he is, then he already knows that, and it would explain that whole "send the brat to be tortured to death" thing pretty well, at least to me. ;)

I have no desire to hijack this discussion, so I'll return you to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.

Jesus
06-18-2006, 09:32 PM
Of course there's "hope for me". I can hope for a favorable outcome of probabilities, just like the next sentient being.

Though I couldn't help notice you pointedly avoided answering a simple question as to which of the two conflicting genealogies were true, and immediately reverted to childish invective. That acronym must belong to a Christian sentiment I've not previously encountered in my studies. :p

After all, the conflicting "inerrant" histories are just another "inconvienient truth"... Luke was the physician; attention to detail was never a strength of Matthew. fwiw, I learned that acronymn here at the Planet as a Chiefs fan....pretty appropriate some times. lol.

Man's recording of history and Father's teachings? What can I say....they are human. Good intentions, and inspiration, yes; but human, regardless.

tk13
06-18-2006, 09:40 PM
Crichton is also a bit of a hack when it comes to his science. Like anyone who's been through a conversion, he feels the need to spread the word.

Benford and at least one other scientist (sorry, their name escapes me, but I'll see if I can find it) that Crichton cited are on the record as stating it was pretty obvious he didn't have much of a real understanding as to the science involved. Neither is a pro-global warming science type, either, IIRC.

Jurassic Park was a bit "prescient", as was "Andromeda Strain" and "Terminal Man". That said, there's a few reasons he's in "fiction" and not the Hard-Sci-Fi category, and his treatment of science is the main one.
Yeah, but that just goes to show how crazy this science is, nobody can agree on it.

And from what I've read, Benford does believe in global warming. He apparently has proposed building a 10 billion dollar lens in outer space to deflect sunlight away from the earth and reduce global warming. I looked up what he said about the book, and he says if we listen to Crichton, we would be in danger of throwing off the equilibrium of the earth and creating a global catastrophe.

Ebolapox
06-18-2006, 09:45 PM
it's funny--'natural causes' like volcanoes pump WAY more sulfer/carbon dioxide into the atmosphere IN ONE ERUPTION (granted, a Kilamanjaro type eruption or mt. st. helens type of eruption) than all of what mankind has IN THE LAST 150,000 YEARS

interestingly enough, from 'core' samples of arctic ice and other dating type of techniques, evidence shows that global warming was in full effect before man began industrializing--10,000 years ago--I highly doubt we had hair spray and gas guzzling cars back then

Hydrae
06-18-2006, 10:06 PM
Yeah, Prey was the last Crichton book I read. The first two thirds was entertaining, and the finish was just as Havelock said. Kind of soured me on Chrichton, and have been into the Dean Koontz as of late.

I'll give State of Fear a whirl, after I'm done with Koontz's Strange Highways.

I haven't read any Crichton in a while but you must be reading Koontz's newer stuff. His older stuff always was good but then in the last chapter he would just kind of cut the story off and end it. Always bothered me and I have been happy he finally learned how to finish a story.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-18-2006, 11:20 PM
Hey shallow Al, let's not let the facts get in the way of some good ole fashioned swindling.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

you could choose to believe scientists who are not employed by any governments or you could just put your head in the sand and make shallow Al some money baby! Al believes in Capitalism afterall.

ChiefaRoo
06-18-2006, 11:40 PM
Gore is a Joke as a politician. Although he does rate higher than John "I voted for it, before I voted against it" Kerry.

Gore is delusional if he thinks he is ever going to get back into high political office. He'd make a good park ranger though.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2006, 05:31 AM
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

One of the best lines in the whole article.

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard

ROFL

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

What dissent? But it's science!!

BucEyedPea
06-19-2006, 05:33 AM
it's funny--'natural causes' like volcanoes pump WAY more sulfer/carbon dioxide into the atmosphere IN ONE ERUPTION (granted, a Kilamanjaro type eruption or mt. st. helens type of eruption) than all of what mankind has IN THE LAST 150,000 YEARS

I agree. These are very toxic and very polluting.

Inspector
06-19-2006, 05:40 AM
I haven't read this thread yet, so it may have already been posted, but if this subject is interesting to you, read Micheal Crighton's "State of Fear" (I believe that was the name of it).

He (Crighton) touches on this subject. Kind of an interesting read.

chagrin
06-19-2006, 06:00 AM
God, Jenson is working for "them" now...someone do something so Jaz will take his iraq war crap to DC please.

Inspector
06-19-2006, 06:12 AM
I was going to create a new thread about this tonight or tomorrow. But since this thread is already up... I wanted to bring up a discussion point.

Has anyone read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? I read it this past week, I always like Crichton books so I gave it a whirl. It's fiction, but it addresses this very topic with actual research and I found it interesting. I wondered if anybody on the board read it and what their thoughts on it were...
:banghead:

I knew I should have read this thread before responding....

patteeu
06-19-2006, 06:17 AM
About 2%, which is all it would really take...blaspheming charlatan.

2% would be a pretty strong hit to our economy. A 2% hit off of our current 4% growth rate might not be so bad (although it would have a significant impact on employment and the deficit among other things), but what's it going to be like when we shave 2% off of our already lean years like the recession we experienced back in 2000?

Here is a chart showing real economic growth from the year 1987 to 2002:

http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2002/nov-dec02/images/recession_fig1.gif

If you take 2% off of those growth numbers, we'd have been in a recession for the entire 15 year span. Sounds like a recipe for global depression to me.


.

Bob Dole
06-28-2006, 09:01 AM
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Link (http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909)

tk13
06-28-2006, 09:11 AM
That's the exact kinda stuff they talk about in State of Fear there. Especially with politically-affilated scientists giving the politicians the information they want. Because, well, if you don't come back with the results the politician wants, you're going to be out of a job.

I noticed that last week when they came out with the report that the earth was the warmest it's been in the last 400 years. It was right on the front page of Yahoo in the news section. Said the earth was the warmest it's been the last 400 years. Said they had records beyond that but they didn't trust them for accuracy. But by the end of the day, the article on the front page of yahoo said it's the warmest it's been in the last 2000 years. Nothing about 400 years or the inaccuracy of those records. Go figure that one out.