RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 11:36:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

when i was a kid the planet was heading toward an ice age. [im serious]



This is one of the favorite myths of the Denial crowd. This notion was never put forth by more than a small handful of scientists. The popular press grabbed it and had a short salacious run with it, but it was never a widely accepted notion in the scientific community. Here are a couple good links summing it all up.

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

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94



Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 11:41:03 AM)

Owner, firstly the court verdict affects every school in the UK, not just the one. Secondly, the judge stated that the film was exagerating the facts. Maybe just maybe if more people posted the facts about global warming, and didnt use scare tactics, then people would be more inclined to believe it.

The problem is too many politicians tend to jump on the global warming bandwagon as it scores votes.



Estring -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 11:45:52 AM)

Exaggerating the facts? Actually the film makes false claims, which is not the same as exaggerating the facts.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22160



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 11:53:38 AM)

Politesub, actually even the judge in this case said that all of Gore's main hypotheses (read: the important scientific arguments in the film) were well supported by the scientific literature. Again, it's quite sad that our society(s) are so confused about what science is that we are listening to a judge with no climatology training tell us what we should think, but please note that even he figured that part out.

The other sad thing is that half these "errors" (according to the judge) were ones of semantics and/or qualitative nature, and the judge who is completely unversed in science was basically out of order on them. For instance, Gore pointed to a graph and noted the "exact fit". Well, suprise! It wasn't an "exact fit". And - another surprise - there has never been an "exact fit" of data in the entire history of science. Not when you're working with real world data. The universe is too noisy and instruments too imprecise to EVER deliver that. But, relatively speaking for a scientific study, that graph WAS as exact a fit as you ever get.

A couple of the other "errors" were that the judge felt that Gore's interpretation of a piece of data was "too alarmist". Excuse me? I have a judge telling me that Gore's subjective level of alarm over a particular situation in the world was incorrect? What exactly does that mean, Mr. Nice Black Robe? I could as easily say that Person A's reaction to the 9/11 attack was "too alarmist". Well, how are you going to determine objectively that I'm right or wrong here? But miraculously, that judge was up to the task. He was really pushing the bounds of things he should have been commenting/ruling on.

Again, in the scientific community, the opinion of a judge with a law degree, and $1.50 in change, will get you a small coffee at Starbucks if they're open. That is exactly what this opinion was worth, scientifically speaking.



Owner59 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 12:05:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Exaggerating the facts? Actually the film makes false claims, which is not the same as exaggerating the facts.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22160


And those false claims are?......

List  those false claims.Would you?

Why I`m I getting a gut feeling,that the critics here have not seen this film.




Owner59 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 12:12:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Politesub, actually even the judge in this case said that all of Gore's main hypotheses (read: the important scientific arguments in the film) were well supported by the scientific literature. Again, it's quite sad that our society(s) are so confused about what science is that we are listening to a judge with no climatology training tell us what we should think, but please note that even he figured that part out.

The other sad thing is that half these "errors" (according to the judge) were ones of semantics and/or qualitative nature, and the judge who is completely unversed in science was basically out of order on them. For instance, Gore pointed to a graph and noted the "exact fit". Well, suprise! It wasn't an "exact fit". And - another surprise - there has never been an "exact fit" of data in the entire history of science. Not when you're working with real world data. The universe is too noisy and instruments too imprecise to EVER deliver that. But, relatively speaking for a scientific study, that graph WAS as exact a fit as you ever get.

A couple of the other "errors" were that the judge felt that Gore's interpretation of a piece of data was "too alarmist". Excuse me? I have a judge telling me that Gore's subjective level of alarm over a particular situation in the world was incorrect? What exactly does that mean, Mr. Nice Black Robe? I could as easily say that Person A's reaction to the 9/11 attack was "too alarmist". Well, how are you going to determine objectively that I'm right or wrong here? But miraculously, that judge was up to the task. He was really pushing the bounds of things he should have been commenting/ruling on.

Again, in the scientific community, the opinion of a judge with a law degree, and $1.50 in change, will get you a small coffee at Starbucks if they're open. That is exactly what this opinion was worth, scientifically speaking.


I think the confusion has come from politics being injected into science.

There are some who think this is a political debate,not so.
Hell ,even in political debate,it`s rare that all agree.
So the films critics point to a few people (fakes mostly)as says "hey,there`s someone who doesn`t agree"."It must not be true".

That`s not how it works.



Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 12:24:07 PM)

Suzanne...While i agree the judge isnt a scientist, he would have had some advice on the subject. You cherry pick the points that suit you. What about Katrina, and the films claim this was caused by global warming. Scientists have said there is no link between the retreat of the glaziers on kilamanjaro and global warming, or are these somehow unqualified scientists ?  What about the claim that the rapid ice melt will cause a 20ft rise in sea levels. Scientists, again, say this will take centuries. What about the polar bears drowning, another unproven claim. What about the artic ice cap, its getting colder not warmer.

Alarmist unsubstantiated claims are probably doing more harm than good to the cause. I have no doubt global warming is taking place. If Gore is going to present facts, he needs to get them right.



Estring -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 12:31:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Exaggerating the facts? Actually the film makes false claims, which is not the same as exaggerating the facts.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22160


And those false claims are?......

List  those false claims.Would you?

Why I`m I getting a gut feeling,that the critics here have not seen this film.





Perhaps you might read the article. The false claims are listed there. I can't do all of your thinking for you.



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 12:41:40 PM)

greyarcher, all I can say is, please spend some time at the public library. You can't get all the peer-reviewed journals there - your local university library will have those if you really want to go deeper - but you can generally keep up with Science and Nature (as well as Scientific American, which is not peer reviewed but I've never seen it depart significantly from the scientific mainstream on any subject). Anthropogenic global warming is very very well accepted and has been for many years now.

Also, take a moment and hit that wikipedia concensus link I posted two posts above. If you *don't* recognize those scientific bodies as the foremost organizations of mainstream climatology and/or general science (such as with AAAS and so forth), then please ask someone who works in science "whom I should trust". Ideally, if you know a geologist or even someone with a BS in environmental science, as them what the two most respected organizations (and annual academic meetings) in earth science are. They will tell you the GSA and AGU. Even the old farts who've grown up on oil money are not arguing anymore. The science is so solid.

The situation we have here is very much the equivalent of the American Medical Association coming out with a statement on cancer and smoking, and having millions of people who've been reading non-scientific websites (many funded directly or indirectly by the tobacco industry) assuring you that it it's really all a myth.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 12:53:32 PM)

Just as  my ill informed opinion tells me that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer, tho' is probably a contributory factor so my ill informed opinion tells me likewise about Global warming and human activity.

I really dont know but believe that there is insufficient knowledge available to predict climatic conditions over say 20 years.
Computer programmes do not think for themselves but return data based on the assumptions fed into them ..



greyarcher315 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 1:01:20 PM)

Ok , people, an importent note about science. It deals in facts, reproducable facts. If something is not reproducable with the same methoods by others, it is not concidered proven. It is a yes or no answer. Global warming  advocates have  not done that.  Until they do, global warming is nothing more than an unprovable idea.

  Here are some links that are against global warming.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292810,00.html

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

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming072007.htm

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/IPCC_2007.html

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275267,00.html



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 1:15:23 PM)


"What about Katrina, and the films claim this was caused by global warming."

The evidence for a connection between global warming and hurricane intensity is growing, but it's not quite there yet. So if Gore said plainly "Katrina was caused by warming", that would be technically an exaggeration. If I recall though he said that there is growing evidence for this connection, and that Katrina probably was made more intense by GW, versus flat out saying that A->B. The worst I have seen in the professional denial press is that Gore "suggested" a connection. Not exactly an "error" in my book.

"Scientists have said there is no link between the retreat of the glaziers on kilamanjaro and global warming, or are these somehow unqualified scientists ?"

No link? No, I doubt that is true. Please link to some mainstream-media report of a peer-reviewed study definitively determining NO link. Most commonly, things in nature are not caused A->B in a black and white manner. Very few things are like that - even genetically caused diseases need other factors present. It is usually said that A "contributed X percent of the variance (driving force) to" B. It would be extremely surprising to learn that climate change was not contributing some major part of the driving force toward these melts. At the same time, there would be no way to pin the melt 100% on climate change, because things in science NEVER work that way. So it is a safe play for the litigant to throw that one in there, get the judge to agree, and leave people like you with the notion that cimate change didn't play any role. Very misleading on their parts.

"What about the claim that the rapid ice melt will cause a 20ft rise in sea levels."

I've yet to see anyone quote a transcript of the film quoting Gore as saying this. I only saw it once, but I recall him noting that if all the Greenland ice melted, we would see this kind of rise. While most scientists think this degree of catastrophe is unlikely in our lifetimes, it's also not entirely impossible. We're already seeing that it's melting four times as fast as it was previously projected (still not enough for the extreme case, but read on). One should note that when the Larson ice shelves collapsing in the late 90s, most scientists were stunned that that could happen so fast. You can't extrapolate from that shock to the possibility of a total melt, but we are learning more and more about the non-linearities in these systems. There are great "snowballing" (no pun intended) potentials here that are hard to put limits on (and reality is breaking nearly every limit we put down on possiblities). When you melt polar ice, you get decreased albedo (reflectance) due to ocean water being darker than ice (and thus absorbing more solar radiation), which in turn causes faster melt. Linear things are relatively easy to model; non-linear things not so much.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf

"What about the polar bears drowning, another unproven claim. "

Here you go -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

"What about the artic ice cap, its getting colder not warmer. "

That's doubtful - where did you get that from? GW is actually being led by polar warming.




greyarcher315 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 1:27:17 PM)

 Here's a link to some easy money for someone. Of course, you have to prove global warming is caused by humans scientificly.

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/



greyarcher315 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 1:46:39 PM)

 Here's an article, with links to the studies, that disputes the melting on mount kilimanjaro being caused by global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16905

  And please, before some else goes off on how science does not determine things 100%,  learn how science works. It is is not a case of, "well the data is close enough". If the data does not match the hypothesies, than you have proven nothing.  You must prove it, and have others be able to reproduce it exactly, or Your idea is wrong, and you need to try again. Also, computer models are not research, they just rely on data and formulas, and those can be "adjusted", just like polls.



Politesub53 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 1:56:04 PM)

Suzanne....here is one link to the story on the ice cap getting colder. Somewhere in it it tells you the scientific team that produced the results.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html

The link you posted about the polar bears drowning goes on to say they probably drowned in a rough storm.. I will accept this neither proves they did or they didnt. I am not being contrary, just posting facts i am finding on the net.

Anyhow thanks for the other links. i am off out now but will read them when i get a chance.




seeksfemslave -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 1:56:16 PM)

Greyarcher: quite funny to learn in your links that the average global temperature is not accurately known and that future temperature increase predictions,based on computor models are more accurate than estimates based on measurement of the actual global average.

So if man made global warming enthusiasts used the top of the current limit and compared that with the bottom of the predicted limit then one possibilty is a fall in temperature.

Thanks for that he he he he he he



Alumbrado -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 3:30:29 PM)

quote:

Katrina probably was made more intense by GW


More likely that he blamed GWB...[;)]



Owner59 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 6:07:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Exaggerating the facts? Actually the film makes false claims, which is not the same as exaggerating the facts.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22160


And those false claims are?......

List  those false claims.Would you?

Why I`m I getting a gut feeling,that the critics here have not seen this film.





Perhaps you might read the article. The false claims are listed there. I can't do all of your thinking for you.


What you posted wasn`t an article.It was a right wing narrative,posted by a DC-based,right-wing think tank,called the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Obviously, you haven`t seen the film.Talk about letting some do their thinking for them?!

You haven`t even seen the film.You`re just repeating someone elses bull-shit.

That website is as biased as Ann Coulter.

Like the oil industry whore/truck driver who brought this case in England,that website is a mouth peace for the oil industry.They have no interest in a debate about climate change.

And, we`ve already learned,thanks to the heavy lifting of Suzanne,that the energy interests in the UK sponsored this fake complaint.We know now ,that case is phony,the facts presented were phony,as is the assertion that single ruling,by a single court case in England,is enough to claim the film makes falsehoods.

Frankly honey,ya`ll gotta do better then echo Oil Inc.`s BS,and post links to their front group websites,like the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


PT Barnum was right.Do you really think that posting a link to the Competitive Enterprise Institute`s own website ,is a substitute  for thinking or a debate?Please,treat us as if we`re a little smarter than that.


Could you post something with some credibility?

Like a scholarly article,or a paper from a research institution,etc.?Or even known scientist that`s not on the dole from Exxon , Shell Oil,or a trade assosiation group,like the Competitive Enterprise Institute.



Owner59 -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 7:00:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: greyarcher315

Actually, there is debate left. Global warming is not proven by any stretch, but the enviromental fanatics like to shout down anything that does not agree with them. There needs to be serious, unbiased research done. For all the people that claim it is the oil companies studies that are disputing global warming, keep in mind that a lot of the studies done supporting it are done by groups that don't like oil companies, and in fact rely on donations from people scared about an unproven theory.
I'd like to know this, if there is no natural cycles(or they are only minumaly impacting the tempeture) how do you explain the ice age, both begining and end? that was not done by humans.



 Global warming is not proven by any stretch,
 
And we don`t know what causes the common cold,but we know it exists.
 
One would think that we`re not talking about our children`s future.But we are.


but the enviromental fanatics like to shout down anything that does not agree with them

What fanatics are those?Could you name some?Is Gore a fanatic?Is the right ,re-defining what the word fanatic is?hmm.

There needs to be serious, unbiased research done.

Well,.. there has been.Glad you brought that up.The UN group who put the science together,also won a Nobel prize,along w/ Gore.

There is a world wide scientific consensus on climate change.World,as in the whole thing,everywhere.You can`t get a bigger consensus than that.


 For all the people that claim it is the oil companies studies that are disputing global warming, keep in mind that a lot of the studies done supporting it are done by groups that don't like oil companies,

Name one.Name fucking one group,like that.



EvilGenie -> RE: Anti-Gore court case funded by fuel and mining industries (10/15/2007 7:16:55 PM)

Hell calm down a bit!  Yes Gore is a fanatic espousing dodgy science at best. The UN should be shut down Nobel prize or not. When it comes to effectively carrying out the job it was assigned to do, it has been a dismal failure. There may be a consensus among a large number of worldwide scientists regarding global warming but it seems everyone fails to mention the consensus against it by just a large a group. The overall global temperature dropped in 2006. I am a scientist who happens to fall into the consensus group that the earth goes through normal climactic changes and cycles and throughout history this has been seen before and well before man began using fossil fuels and chloroflorocarbons to propel hair spray.

I don't tend to give a flying rat's testicle who agrees or disagrees with me though I will not get into a shouting match, pissing contest or tossing effen about at me. At the end of the day these are theories; as in theoretical. They are hypothesis in nature and therefore just as Darwin can be talked to death with no real, here it is in your face, scientific proof..........yet.

Be Well,

EG



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625