Interesting read...
polycounter lvl 18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html
And if you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" starring that "charismatic super-star" Al Gore then you should - it's pretty enlightening.
Replies
You'd think they'd be more clever than that, right?
I saw the movie, and it was a lot better than i thought. A lot less manipulative than i'd expected, i guess.
i was shown this movie in class last week, and god damn.
i've had two of my teachers openly call bush a moron, and he is a moron, if he has no problem lying to his entire country (not to mention the consequences of his lies).
last week the federal government submitted a legal proposition to some national green organization protesting CO2 is not toxic.
i mean, if exxon would say that, that's a given.
but the whole government?? how corrupted can you get?
its so sad, and seeing this man al gore who could have been in bush's position
I'll be watching the film in science class this year.
What's interesting is the idea of truth. With subjects like this, it is very easy to support either side of the argument. There are facts out there that seem to prove both the "positive" and the "negative." And when it's all put into perspective, you realize that everyone that is trying to "convert" you either way is full of shit, and in most cases after some personal gain.
[/ QUOTE ]
But even still, one side is correct and the other is mistaken. Everything else is just window dressing.
[ QUOTE ]
What's interesting is the idea of truth. With subjects like this, it is very easy to support either side of the argument. There are facts out there that seem to prove both the "positive" and the "negative." And when it's all put into perspective, you realize that everyone that is trying to "convert" you either way is full of shit, and in most cases after some personal gain.
[/ QUOTE ]
But even still, one side is correct and the other is mistaken. Everything else is just window dressing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're a little off the mark, there. Both sides are generally wrong, one is just less wrong than the other.
Alternatively, they're equally wrong but one side is wrong in a more humane fashion.
2 seconds after it started, without knowing what it was about, i told my teacher he shouldn't be displaying us with propaganda movies.
if anyone has seen it here, it starts by showing people admiring some figure, (they dont show gore's face, just feet, back, etc.). its cheesy, and low, and i feel if they take off the whole ego bullshit it would be more efficacious. is this about the co2 or how awesome is gore?
What's interesting is the idea of truth. With subjects like this, it is very easy to support either side of the argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about climate change itself, or about the issue of whether or not the documentary should be shown in schools? (I haven't actually seen it yet, so I can't comment on the latter)
If you're indeed talking about climate change, then you'd be dead wrong. There is virtually NO evidence to support the argument that carbon emissions do not contribute to climate change, while there is an immense amount of evidence to support that it does.
EDIT - Keyzer beat me to the punch. We seem to be debating two entirely different issues at the moment. I thought that the question was whether or not the NSTA acted appropriately when it refused to distribute the film.
edit: Yes, perhaps we are off topic, and whereas I tried to stay nuetral, I failed. I think I have a problem of arguing for arguments sake... gotta stop that.
Either there is human caused global warming or there isn't. There is no third option. Even if there is no way to know for sure, it doesn't change the fact that one side is right and the other is wrong.
I'm sure given actual research (you know going to sources other than the popularized ones) you might find that your statement holds little water.
[/ QUOTE ]
My statement holds plenty of water. There are zero -- count them, ZERO -- peer-reviewed studies that discredit global warming. The few studies that have been published have all been funded by companies like ExxonMobil, and they have avoided the peer-review process because they would obviously fail. The idea that carbon emissions contribue to climate change has pretty much been established as scientific fact by now, but like the issue of evolution, the facts have been muddied by special interests for political purposes.
Either there is human caused global warming or there isn't. There is no third option.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's ALWAYS a third option. You deny the insightful thoughts and opinions of hillbillies and rednecks across America when they say Aliens are responsible for this dilemma? Have you seen the Arrival? Don't you know that any movie with Charlie Sheen is based on fact?! Save us from our otherworldly oppressors Will Smith!
If anything, all of these bits and pieces of information thrown at people should make them want to research more on the subject for themselves. A sound hypothesis requires lots research beforehand and since we just cannot go out and experiment for ourselves we must gather as much information as possible to make the most sound conclusion we can.
Still, there obvious shortcomings to both sides of the subject, but it really sucks to see that objectivity goes out the door to support ego stroking, as even the most selfless point of view can be used as a moniker in some selfish way down the line
Gotta love those "might's" and "maybe's." They'll always be my saving grace when I change my mind about something.
[/ QUOTE ]
What "might's" and "maybe's"? I've used neither word in this entire thread (except for this post and in quoting you, of course).
If anything, all of these bits and pieces of information thrown at people should make them want to research more on the subject for themselves. A sound hypothesis requires lots research beforehand and since we just cannot go out and experiment for ourselves we must gather as much information as possible to make the most sound conclusion we can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo! I couldn't agree more.
I think he was referring to his own posts, Keyzer.
My statement holds plenty of water. There are zero -- count them, ZERO -- peer-reviewed studies that discredit global warming. The few studies that have been published have all been funded by companies like ExxonMobil, and they have avoided the peer-review process because they would obviously fail. The idea that carbon emissions contribue to climate change has pretty much been established as scientific fact by now, but like the issue of evolution, the facts have been muddied by special interests for political purposes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure that you used your internets to figure out that global warming is 100% fact. Well, I just did a research paper over how people like you are influenced by the media on global warming. If you'd like to read it I can send you a copy with the annotated bibliography. The truth is, the earth is warming, and we think it might be due to CO2 emissions, but we're not sure at all.
people who disagree with that are just greedy and ignorant.
Hahaha.
I'm sure that you used your internets to figure out that global warming is 100% fact. Well, I just did a research paper over how people like you are influenced by the media on global warming. If you'd like to read it I can send you a copy with the annotated bibliography. The truth is, the earth is warming, and we think it might be due to CO2 emissions, but we're not sure at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, top marks for patronising tone, but mostly, you just do not see the vicious irony in your post do you? So you wrote a paper on 'people like keyser' being influenced by the media on global warming, but its of course not remotely possible to write one on people influenced by the other camp is it? You live in Texas, there's probably a very strong chance that local influence has helped you to reach the conclusion that global warming might not be man made.
What totally baffles me about the 'yes global warming is happening but we dont know for sure its man made so lets not act' argument, is what's at stake If you're wrong.
Lol, top marks for patronising tone, but mostly, you just do not see the vicious irony in your post do you? So you wrote a paper on 'people like keyser' being influenced by the media on global warming, but its of course not remotely possible to write one on people influenced by the other camp is it? You live in Texas, there's probably a very strong chance that local influence has helped you to reach the conclusion that global warming might not be man made.
What totally baffles me about the 'yes global warming is happening but we dont know for sure its man made so lets not act' argument, is what's at stake If you're wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you're looking for vicious irony I'd be happy to serve. I never claimed that global warming was not man made. I never claimed it didn't exist. I'm not conservative, republican, and I don't wear a cowboy hat. I recycle and conserve energy. I don't watch Fox News. What exactly is influencing me to, as you put it, "reach the conclusion that global warming might not be man made"?
Yes, my post was a bit patronising, but from reading forums and websites around the internet it seems like everyone capable of searching Google feels they have the capacity to make very strong claims.
I'm sure that you used your internets to figure out that global warming is 100% fact. Well, I just did a research paper over how people like you are influenced by the media on global warming. If you'd like to read it I can send you a copy with the annotated bibliography. The truth is, the earth is warming, and we think it might be due to CO2 emissions, but we're not sure at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd love to read the essay you wrote for Mrs. Kimberly's 5th period English class, but I think I'll just stick to peer-reviewed articles that are written by the world's top climatologists and published in legitimate science journals. Thanks anyway.
The argument isn't as simple as: "are carbon emissions responsible for climate change? Yes or no?" There isn't one single cause for climate change -- there are several contributing factors. What we do know is that one major contributuor to climate change (one we actually have control over) is carbon emissions. It's been well established. You'll find about as many climatologists who disagree with that as you'll find biologists who don't believe in evolution (i.e. virtually none). The scientific community is unanimous on this one, and their opinions aren't "influenced by the media."
I'd love to read the essay you wrote for Mrs. Kimberly's 5th period English class, but I think I'll just stick to peer-reviewed articles that are written by the world's top climatologists and published in legitimate science journals. Thanks anyway.
The argument isn't as simple as: "are carbon emissions responsible for climate change? Yes or no?" There isn't one single cause for climate change -- there are several contributing factors. What we do know is that one major contributuor to climate change (one we actually have control over) is carbon emissions. It's been well established. You'll find about as many climatologists who disagree with that as you'll find biologists who don't believe in evolution (i.e. virtually none). The scientific community is unanimous on this one, and their opinions aren't "influenced by the media."
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it was a research paper written for my university. What's your email so I can send you a copy? Since you obviously have done zero research on the topic yourself, I think you'd be interested to see the sources I used for my paper.
In fact, here is an interview to get you started.
[ QUOTE ]
Few people are better suited to assess the current situation than Dr. Malcolm Ross. Dr. Ross is a recently retired research mineralogist with the U.S. Geological Survey. He holds a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. Dr. Ross is past president of the Mineralogical Society of America and has published 84 papers and 63 abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. He is currently affiliated with the Science and Environment Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia and is a research associate with the Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York.
Cohen: The Clinton administration is actively pursuing policies aimed at curbing global warming Is this an example of junk science?
Ross: Yes it is. The idea that humans have significantly enhanced global warming is by far the most massive abuse of science that I ever have seen. The prediction of disastrous global warming is used to justify a policy of centralized control of the world's energy resources. Radical environ- mentalists believe that if the industrial nations do not reverse their economic growth they will destroy the Earth. Scientists who point out that recent measurements of actual temperatures do not indicate anything out of the ordinaryand plenty of scientists have found this are accused of being in the employ of greedy commercial interests. In fact, they are merely telling the truth. Those pushing the global warmingnow called "climate change"agenda do not want to hear it.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's more to the interview, but I'll save that for later.
Unfortunately, since a lot of my sources came from publications, you would have to go to an actual academic library (most likely one of your local universities) and find the book yourself.
By the way, since I like to dabble in these kinds of things, could you please return the favor and include either a link or a reference to any of the peer reviewed journals that are composed by the world's greatest climatologists?
Run a Google search for "global warming theory" and this is one of the top hits. This looks all very official. "NCPA" is an official sounding acronym. Their logo is pretty cool too - very official looking, but the "National Center for Policy Analysis" is not a government agency, it's a private company. "NCPA is a non-profit public policy research institute seeking innovative private sector solutions to public policy problems."
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html
Reading the article, the author seems very reasonable with arguments that the "global warming theory" is made up by alarmists with something to gain, except the stats are way different and he doesn't make any note of his sources.
So I Google the author, "Sterling Burnett" and he's sure on someone's shit list:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/
...claims that the NCPA gets substantial donations from ExxonMobil which certainly puts into question their "non-profit" status.
Personally I think if it's true that we're heading for a global disaster unless we change then it's too late already because people don't change overnight, they change over time. But if we have to start building Water World rafts then Sterling's getting stabbed in the nuts!
The only reason I can think of that anyone is arguing about it at all is business. If we all suddenly changed our consumption habits, recycled 100% of our waste, stopped clear-cutting trees and planted two for every one we took down, reversed the acceleration of the already massive spewing of carcinogenic gases and particulates into our breathing air, all in the name of global warming, even if it werent true this would be a bad thing? Call it whatever you want. Call it dwindling oil supplies and that its going to take whatever reserves we can muster to (try to) develop the next source of energy before were all rudely thrust back into the stone age.
Business tells us to do this, buy that, think this is cool, consume more. Despite the seemingly genuine smiles and warm, fuzzy stories they do not have our best interests close to their hearts.
A lot of people hang on to the 'what change can I alone make?' mentality, which roughly translates to 'if i do this, what difference will it make?' which is about the worst way to look at it.
Sonic, despite me believing you having put a lot of work and research into that article, wouldn't you agree that, regardless of how much of it is a direct result of our lifestyle, a change of habits really wouldn't hurt? When i learned how close Europe's getting to America's consumer-levels, that was a sure eye-opener for me. It's easy to say "but them 'mericans are still way ahead! hurhurhur", it's really rather immature.
Today the show continued with this interview dealing with ancient atmosphere and dinosaurs. The interviewee, Peter Ward (just today)mentioned this site, which I bothered to read a bit of.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Here's a critique of Michael Crichton's State of Fear ;
And here's one of Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkzCi5mHvkc
strangely educational for a postrocky videoclip