Climate Change (fka man-made global warming)
The following two articles were on the Yahoo front page at the same time this morning:
Earth is hottest it's been in 2000 years.
Earth temp at 400 year high.
So...which is it?
Earth is hottest it's been in 2000 years.
Earth temp at 400 year high.
So...which is it?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
More <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'>TOP</span> scientists speak!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science;_ylt=Angbtg1HjXzqQVCWWVbkHNus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-
Edited By GORDON on 1151456621
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science;_ylt=Angbtg1HjXzqQVCWWVbkHNus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-
Edited By GORDON on 1151456621
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I saw that article earlier and chuckled.
19 top scientists!
(but 100 were contacted)
Most said Gore's movie was accurate.
(but most hadn't seen the movie)
Notice how they don't say the other 81 haven't seen the movie? That means some of those top scientists didn't agree.
I'm not saying Gore's film is bullshit (yet), but the article seemed to try pretty hard to make it sound legit.
19 top scientists!
(but 100 were contacted)
Most said Gore's movie was accurate.
(but most hadn't seen the movie)
Notice how they don't say the other 81 haven't seen the movie? That means some of those top scientists didn't agree.
I'm not saying Gore's film is bullshit (yet), but the article seemed to try pretty hard to make it sound legit.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree. That conclusion has no supporting evidence.I saw that article earlier and chuckled.
19 top scientists!
(but 100 were contacted)
Most said Gore's movie was accurate.
(but most hadn't seen the movie)
Notice how they don't say the other 81 haven't seen the movie? That means some of those top scientists didn't agree.
The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.
So, Gordon, what is the issue with "top" scientists? Do you think they should poll "crackpot" scientists or "home-trained" scientists or "crappy" scientists instead?
It's not me, it's someone else.
I think this goes back to your definition of WMDs in Iraq. You have a much looser standard for WMDs than, say, the White House or most of America. However, you have a much tighter definition of "changing the environment" in order to make a statement like that. The scientists who would make such a statement are not crackpots, they prolly just have a different view of it. "Changing" the environment doesn't mean "responsible for 100% of environmental changes." It means altering, affecting, modifying. Having an impact on.Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.
It's not me, it's someone else.
That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree. That conclusion has no supporting evidence.
The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.
I went to go quote why I made that conclusion, but the article was changed. Originally, the part where it discusses "most of the scientists" was in the third paragraph, not the second. Thus, it was originally saying most of the 100 agreed with Gore's accuracy, not the 19.
In their defense, I'll say that maybe the author realized the problem and fixed it.
I will point out that the author specifically mentions that among the 100 scientists contacted were "vocal skeptics of climate change theory". However, he doesn't mention if any of the 19 scientists who agreed with the film were those vocal skeptics. I wonder why he mentioned them then?
And while you mention the movie is in limited release and some people are going to refuse to answer the question, I notice you didn't bring up the possibility of scientists saying they weren't going to go see it at all. Another point not covered by the article.
I'm not arguing that there isn't global warming or that Gore's film is inaccurate, I'm just pointing out that the article Gordo linked to is rather friendly to Gore and his film.
After all, "the end of the world" sells more papers than "everything's going to be just fine."
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Are you joking? Man indeed changes the environment.Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
No, because science is the search for fact, not gut instinct. It is simply impossible for human-caused global warming to be beyond hypotheses, much less theory, much less Law. It can't be tested. It can't be reproduced. It can't really be measured, because it can't be simulated on the scales required. It is science, but it's tough to really do anything with, much less state with 100% certainty about ANYTHING.I think this goes back to your definition of WMDs in Iraq. You have a much looser standard for WMDs than, say, the White House or most of America. However, you have a much tighter definition of "changing the environment" in order to make a statement like that. The scientists who would make such a statement are not crackpots, they prolly just have a different view of it. "Changing" the environment doesn't mean "responsible for 100% of environmental changes." It means altering, affecting, modifying. Having an impact on.Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.
And I still don't know why the fact the other planets are heating up is being ignored. Seems like a big-ass I JUST FOUND A FLAW IN YOUR THEORY to me.
No scientific theory can ever be proven, only disproven. And the above paragraph puts a serious "um, excuse me..." in it.
So no, I don't have any kind of definition of global warming. From the things I've read, the earth probably is a degree warmer this century than last. Never mind we're still coming out of that mini ice age in the 1500's. Just ignore that completely.
My problem is these TOP scientists, whatever that means... is there a scientist hierarchy? Or is that phrase a construct of the propagandists? Can throw all good science out the window in order to get their headlines and their funding.
"Environmentalism" is often referred to as a religion, and I agree. The science involved is about as valid as that used to "prove" Creationism.
So I say again... any scientist that believes with 100% certainty that man is heating up the environment is a crackpot. A good scientist would never say that. He would say, "There is evidence to suggest man is a driving force behind global warming, but we really don't have the solid evidence, and frankly there are a lot of indicators that can't be explained by the presence of man." But hey... you can't scare the masses, sway the legislators, and secure the funding with that kind of level-headed statement, can you.
If the science was there, why would you have to make a propaganda movie to get people to believe it?
There's no room for sensationalism in science. I find it offensive.
I feel like I'm arguing about evolution again. jesus fuck.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
You fucking people fucking know what I mean. We're talking about global warming.Are you joking? Man indeed changes the environment.Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Turns out the US senate called the author on his "all top scientists agree" bullshit.I went to go quote why I made that conclusion, but the article was changed. Originally, the part where it discusses "most of the scientists" was in the third paragraph, not the second. Thus, it was originally saying most of the 100 agreed with Gore's accuracy, not the 19.That does not mean some of those top scientists didn't agree. That conclusion has no supporting evidence.
The movie is in limited release, and some people just aren't going to answer questions.
In their defense, I'll say that maybe the author realized the problem and fixed it.
I will point out that the author specifically mentions that among the 100 scientists contacted were "vocal skeptics of climate change theory". However, he doesn't mention if any of the 19 scientists who agreed with the film were those vocal skeptics. I wonder why he mentioned them then?
And while you mention the movie is in limited release and some people are going to refuse to answer the question, I notice you didn't bring up the possibility of scientists saying they weren't going to go see it at all. Another point not covered by the article.
I'm not arguing that there isn't global warming or that Gore's film is inaccurate, I'm just pointing out that the article Gordo linked to is rather friendly to Gore and his film.
After all, "the end of the world" sells more papers than "everything's going to be just fine."
http://newsbusters.org/node/6138
The Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a joint press release about an AP article entitled "Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy."
The press release takes issue with the scientists the AP cited, as well as scientists it ignored.
Begin quoted bit ---> 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.”
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.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I would have to agree that, without a doubt, the activities of man do impact the global environment. So do the activities of beavers, aligators, lions, bears, and butterflies that flap their wings in Brasil causing typhoons in Japan. Of course there is an effect.You fucking people fucking know what I mean. We're talking about global warming.Are you joking? Man indeed changes the environment.Any scientist, top or otherwise, who can say he is absolutely, 100% certain that man is changing the environment is a crackpot. Period.
I have seen no evidence of any sort to indicate that that effect is big enough to be expressed without having to use scientific notation to get enough decimal places in to get to the significant digits. Not a single shred. Everything has been "gut instinct" sort of crackpot theories, not scientific studies.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
No, it didn't. "The Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works " did.Turns out the US senate called the author on his "all top scientists agree" bullshit.
http://newsbusters.org/node/6138
And, shouldn't they name the "scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science" in the movie, also for fairness? Why only demand names of the other side?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Now, now, if you can claim with a straight face that "all leading scientists agree" then you have to admit that the "the Republican majority on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" is enough to be able to claim that "all leading Senators agree". Both speak just to the opinions of a key group and ignore the rest.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"