An Inconvenient Lie?

[evmori]

What a horrible example to set for your scouts.

 

Yeah I''m a bad man because my opinions don''t agree with yours, RangerT.

 

Do you have proof of global warming, RangerT, or are you just a hard-line Democrat?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

When I think of the Nobel Peace Prize, I think of Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa and yes, even Jimmy Carter. Say what you will about Jimmy, but he did get Egypt and Israel settled down.

 

And now Al Gore. Al hasnt lead what I would consider a life dedicated to conservation. I havent seen a documentary on how his homes reduce, reuse or recycle anything. I am not saying they don''t, but that would tell me he lives what he preaches.

 

I dont know if there is global warming or not, and I am not sure if there is, if anything man can do to effect it either way. I do know that Inconvenient Truth would have had more impact if both sides would have been mentioned if not examined

 

The use of labels, whether as Liberal, Neo-Con, GOP Bull or Hardline Democrat stifles an exhange of ideas and ends communication

 

BTW with all the independently funded recounts of the disputed Florida 2000 presidential ballots, did Gore ever end up with a majority? My thought was he didnt, but I could be wrong.

[GernBlansten]

You know, all this bile being spewed towards Al might tarnish his Oscar and Emmy awards too!

[funscout]

Skeptic,

 

Your reasons are exactly why I started this thread. Some people are unwilling to look at the fact that there MIGHT not be a human cause to global warming. It''s scary to think that some people will only present the human-caused idea, but will not share studies for the other side. I present my own children with both sides of this argument.

 

Hopefully no one out there is pushing political ideas in scout meetings. I stopped my own son when he got into a friendly debate with a fellow scout about global warming. They were just sharing different studies they had heard about, but knowing the politicism of this issue, I told them, "No talking politics during scouts." They can and do discuss this issue outside of scouts.

 

I also hope that merit badge counselors aren''t teaching only one side to this issue. Both sides should be presented, without saying that one is right and the other wrong. Neither side has yet been proven.

[GernBlansten]

"BTW with all the independently funded recounts of the disputed Florida 2000 presidential ballots, did Gore ever end up with a majority? My thought was he didnt, but I could be wrong."

 

How many licks does it take to get the chewy center of a Tootsie Roll lollipop? The world may never know. The Supremes saw to it. Bush was selected, not elected.

[packsaddle]

...trying one more time...

Anyone who reads this thread from the start nearly HAS to accept evolution...of threads at least, heh, heh.

But the title of the thread is designed to inflame, so congratulations! Completely successful!

 

OGE, I agree completely. I would likewise note that while some of us may disagree with comments made by Ed or Brent or others, it does little service to our ideas when we attack those individuals rather than providing well-reasoned counter-arguments. If they have their eyes closed to alternative views, rubbing their noses in it will not likely open their eyes.

 

Yeah, the film is a popularization of ideas that are politically and socially sensitive - and (depending on which question is addressed) the ideas themselves are still maturing scientifically. I would not show the film to my class except as a tool for real discussion (which isn''t happening in this thread).

 

Most of the evidence given in the film are readily available in more technically rigorous forms. Those are the sources of information to which I direct students. I urge the participants in this thread to do the same. Go ahead, view the film if you must. But take the points that Al Gore makes and then continue by doing the homework. Go to the original literature. Read that and the followup literature and later studies. Don''t succumb to a ''bumper sticker'' level of argument. The ideas being debated are more worthy than that.

 

IMHO, If anyone rejects the idea that the global climate is changing, I suggest they are either engaging in a self-deception or else they are terribly uninformed (I really AM trying to be nice).

 

If anyone rejects the idea that the energy balance of the earth is changing, same suggestion. Find a time machine. You''ll be much happier in the year 800 or thereabouts, back to the days of Theodoric of York. (sorry, couldn''t resist)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K80T-6zhG9Q

 

"Perhaps I''ve been wrong to blindly follow the traditions and superstitions of the past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test those assumptions analytically. To experimentation and scientific method. Perhaps this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning. Like natural sciences, art, arcitecture, navigation, perhaps I could lead the way to a new age. An age of rebirth. A Renissance.! .....Nah!"

 

If anyone rejects the hypothesis that the changing energy balance of the earth is causing a net increase of the average energy (heat) content of the earth, I''m open to that outcome. But I ask for the evidence to the contrary. I would like to examine it. So far, the mass of evidence points to an increase.

 

If anyone rejects the hypothesis that net changes in the energy balance are influenced by human actions, again I would like to see the evidence on which that rejection is based. Again, the reasoning for human influence is sound. The evidence is still accumulating and eventually, the evidence will allow us to determine how much influence different factors have, including human influences.

 

As long as anyone merely expresses skepticism or doubt and remains open to new evidence, ready to reject ANY hypothesis on the basis of good evidence...then I agree with them.

 

But in this thread we have the following: "Those who deny the fact of global climate change are, by and large, the same as those who deny the fact of biological evolution. It''s the same mind-set."

 

and then... "Trev, Same as those who believe humans are causing GW are, by and large, part of the "blame America first" crowd, who think we are to blame for the 9/11 attacks and for all of the world''s problems."

Shana Alexander and James Kilpatrick couldn''t have done it better.

 

OK, I admit it...this stuff is fun. But Trev is wrong in painting all skeptics as creationist liars. And Brent, who capably takes the hit and then hits back, takes things up a notch, using patriotism. Guys, you are both expressing the SAME kind of prejudice. And you''re not exactly covering yourselves with glory. Why not just discuss the actual evidence?

 

"It''s interesting that some of us are willing to look at both sides of an issue, while others stick to their point no matter what evidence is shown."

Funscout, As true as this is, this is not interesting. Rather, it is sad. It is also why we (collectively) sometimes take so long to do something right and why sometimes we NEVER get it right. It is tragic.

 

The way to absolution is to actually engage in the science. We can all do this. Science isn''t shackled to religion. Everyone is free to engage in it. It does require some work, though, and blind faith isn''t welcome.

The original literature on global climate change is mostly online and available. The actual evidence, in some cases, can be downloaded from public databases. We should set aside the bumper stickers and be willing to do the really hard work of making a decision based on substance, not hype...from either ''side''.

...maybe it will go through this time....

 

[Trevorum]

 

 

"Jane, you ignorant slut!"

(sorry, couldn't resist)

 

Pack, you're absolutely right. Mea culpa.

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Trevorum)

[BrentAllen]

Gern - I think I have pinpointed your uniforming problems. Ridiculing those boys in your unit who show up in full uniform probably doesn''t send a good message to them, or to the rest of boys. BTW, I should have those "No Uniform Method" patches and socks in next month. I''ll get them to you asap.

 

OGE - some people are so blinded by their politics, they can''t see the truth when it smacks them in the face. Makes you wonder about their judgement on all other issues.

 

This from the NY Times - that ultra far-right wing publication:

 

November 12, 2001

 

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

 

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year''s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

 

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court DID NOT award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court''s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

 

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations. (emphasis added)

 

pack,

My counter-punch to Trev was not something I actually believe, but was to show how ridiculous those types of comparisons and generalizations can be.

 

And, in this entire thread, I believe I am the only one who has linked to any type of scientific report (NASA study) to support my thoughts. Yes, I read and study both sides of the issue, and I firmly believe the planet is warming, and I firmly believe it is the result of a natural cycle. The earth has been cooler than it is now, it has also been warmer than it is now - long before humans were here to claim any blame.

[GernBlansten]

There is no scientific fact that Bush got the most votes in Florida. None, because the supremes stopped the count. All subsequent recounts are irrelevant because they didn''t allow due process. Florida should have been allowed to conduct the recount as they saw fit (following the US Constitution), to completion, and then the result could have been challenged to the SCOTUS if necessary. But instead, Bush preempted the process and took the case directly there, thus short circuiting the process. No way about it, the SCOTUS, by stopping the recount, selected Bush. They should have denied reviewing the case until due process was complete. At least all the votes would have been counted by the rules Florida set for themselves. Bush will always have an asterisk next to his 2000 election results because of it.

[packsaddle]

Trev, ahem, that would have been Jane and Dan, I think.

 

Brent, I do appreciate the fact that you read those reports. And I know you and Trevorum are both conscientious in trying to get things right. So I used you both as an example for the rest of us. Thanks.

 

OGE, If you are the one who deleted that duplicate thread I just started about moms...thanks.

[BrentAllen]

"Bush will always have an asterisk next to his 2000 election results because of it."

 

Yeah, and Gore will always have an "L" next to his 2000 elections results, for LOSER.

[GernBlansten]

Perhaps the SCOTUS can step in and remove the Peace Prize from Gore and give it to Bush using the arguement that Gore only talked about global warming, Bush actually contributed to it

[firstpusk]

Ed,

 

I think you shouldn''t repeat the false statements that Gore claimed to invent the internet. He did indeed take the lead in legislating to make it possible, and did (rightly) take credit for that. Some can dispute his choice of words in the Wolf Blitzer interview that is cited as the origin of this scurulous claim. However, I think it is a much worse offense falsely accuse an honorable public servant of dishonesty.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

[firstpusk]

Gern, I guess you were right...

 

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2730

[prairie]

I have no proablem accepting global warming as real, not so sure bout AlGore.

Something I find intresting, if I heard right, the offical citing is to the UN commitie and Gore, not the other way around as the news says it.