Gore's 'Truth' particularly inconvenient for those lovable creationists...

[Spider AL]

I'd have to "prove it" if I'd ever said that you were a "neocon, pro-war, bush supporting moron", but I've never posted anything of the sort. Go and find a quote, go on. Sadly, you're still trying to misrepresent people with your blatant straw-men... you should be ashamed of such fallacious excuses for arguments.

 

And frankly Nancy, I'm not going to allow you to ruin this thread. So, off we go, back on topic!

 

-

 

http://theedge.bostonherald.com/tvNews/view.bg?articleid=187237

 

A nice article and brief snippets of interview with Gore, to mark Sunday's US TV premiere of "An Inconvenient Truth".

 

I particularly like the introductory paragraphs:

 

"For some, ”An Inconvenient Truth” may pose an inconvenient question: What’s more important, loving the planet or hating Al Gore?

 

Fortunately, this is a non-issue for the many earthlings who already have embraced Gore’s documentary for expressing so well what everyone needs to know: Global warming is a looming threat to a planet we are all forced to share, even when we act as if we live in different worlds."

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Nancy Allen``]

It's alright for you to ruin threads and not others? Hmm, okay.

[Spider AL]

Living in the UK, I am sometimes guilty of a slightly excessive degree of pride in my nation's common qualities of atheism, suspicion of politicians and power-centres, etcetera.

 

I was also quite pleased to note recently that the UK government had definitively recognised the scientific consensus on climate change, and had pledged to send a copy of Gore's documentary to every secondary school in the land.

 

However, my pleasure was quickly dissipated this week, as I noted that our Channel 4, (one of our most major TV channels) was screening a documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle!!!11" in which a group of the usual suspects sat around denying that humanity had any effect on climate change whatsoever.

 

It seems we have a longer way to go than I thought.

 

The mockumentary was created and directed by a hack called Martin Durkin, who has been censured in the past for making tissues of lies and calling them documentaries:

 

"when his previous series on the environment for the channel, called Against Nature , was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views"."

 

Source: The Independent

 

Now for reasons which escape everyone, Channel 4 has screened this new debacle.

 

Once again, Durkin has been misleading his interviewees:

 

"A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

 

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat."

 

Source: The Guardian, The Independent

 

And I think Robin McKie, science editor of The Observer describes the remaining "experts" that Durkin managed to drag on-screen best when he states in his excellent editorial:

 

"Examine their movement and you see a common thread: most proponents are elderly, only a few are scientists and several have pronounced pro-market views. And hereby hangs a tale."

 

Source: The Observer

 

In short, the piece was the worst kind of trash, and I hoped that I'd seen the last of such drivel on the UK's TV screens in the early nineties.

 

There's a nice point-by-point rebuttal on the "In the Green" environmental blog, But sadly, I fear that the damage to the public's logic-organ has already been done, and few people will make the effort to go in search of such rebuttals.

 

It's a dark day for the UK.

[Achilles]

4. Humans contribute only a minor part of total CO2. This is also not disputed. However, we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans have contributed to recent increases in CO2 concentrations (link, link). It appears, that by disrupting the natural balance of the carbon cycle (which involves the atmosphere, plants, animals, oceans, and geology), we are able to warm the planet.

I love this one! It makes me chuckle a little whenever I hear it.

 

"Human impact is blown way out of proportion"

 

Ok, so we won't argue that the climate is changing and we won't argue that we have some impact. So we should just shrug and do nothing while the planet heats up with us on it.

 

Now, I know the popular retort to this is, "well how do we know if we're doing the right things. Maybe by 'helping' we just make it worse." Ok, so the answer is still "do nothing"? Seems that if we know there's a problem we should be putting money into researching/fixing it rather than plugging our fingers in our ears.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I heard of the documentary, Spider. It was on Norwegian news some days back. If they actually broadcasted it - please enlighten me in this respect - the channel will shortly receive an angry e-mail from yours truly, not that it will change anything one way or another. The documentary apparently not only disregards a wide range of facts, but also manages the work of art it is to drag in the "oh, climate's always been changing, so we're not responsible" fallacy. Oh, is that so? Then surely you won't mind if I walk into a cafe with a gun and cap a few of the patrons. After all, life and death is a natural cycle that's been occurring for eons, so surely it's not suddenly my fault when people drop dead?

 

Same logical fallacy. We're not discussing past climate change. We're discussing this climate change. Whether or not humans were innocent in the past is irrelevant. You can't take every other warming period and go "see? Natural! Thus so is this present one!" more than I can go to court and point to all the deaths throughout history not caused by me and go, "your honour, surely you realize from these examples that life and death is not caused by me!".

 

Utter, complete, inexcusable, nonsense.

 

We shouldn't worry, as warming will bring "vineyards ... [a] wonderfully rich time.

No one is denying that global warming has positive effects. Everything has both good and bad effects, from traffic accidents to 9/11 to the current North Korean regime. That matters zilch when the bad effects outweigh them.

 

[Humans] can't change the atmosphere - it's so immense.

Although Al Gore mentioned this fallacy in his movie, I truly never at all anticipated someone in this day and age would be ignorant enough to believe it, not to mention putting it in a documentary to be broadcasted nationwide.

 

I see it apparently also manages to fire off a few "environmentalists want us to completely stop our industry" strawmen. Downright cute.

 

Recent research' date=' presented in this film, apparently shows that the effect of cosmic radiation, and solar activity may explain fluctuations in global temperatures more precisely than the carbon dioxide theory.[/quote']But the latest IPCC climate report, which took the Sun into consideration, debunks this claim.

 

A respected Kenyan development expert says: ‘I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network… There is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide.’

Right. We're evil KKK racists out to destroy Africa because we can't stand them niggers. If you forgive me the strawman:o.

 

The site's poll indicates that 86% of the site's visitors think humans are responsible for global warming, though.

[Spider AL]

Oh I'm afraid they did broadcast it, Eagle, and they're showing it again tonight.

 

The scientist deceived by Durkin has issued a partial statement on the matter.

 

Durkin is the king of misinformation. How and why has he been allowed to make another film for Channel 4 following the officially upheld complaints about him in the past? It's beyond me.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Currently watching this. Let's see how it goes.

[Spider AL]

Carl Wunsch, the scientist who was swindled by Durkin has published the letter he sent to Channel 4.

 

It's here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WUN20070318&articleId=5105

 

Sadly, it seems Joe public is one incredible gestalt moron. According to this article, those who phoned in to channel 4 were six to one in favour of the programme following it's airing!

 

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/a44108/channel-4-to-host-global-warming-swindle-debate.html

 

Ofcom has received over 145 complaints, with Channel 4 receiving 758 calls and emails, with viewers being six to one in favour of the show.

/me cries.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

They're not necessarily representative, you know.

 

An Inconvenient Truth's trailers and comment videos mostly get 4 to 5 stars on YouTube and Google Video. So does The Great Global Warming Swindle. Reason? They're both watched and rated, for the most part, by their supporters.

[Spider AL]

You're right of course, it's doubtful that the majority of the population is quite as foolish as the 650-odd special interest people that phoned Channel 4 in support of the Swindle. Forgive an old man his moment of cynicism.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Just out of interest: Snopes got on the case, too.

 

Their conclusion was that there are several mitigating factors involved, and that Al Gore's house has reasons to use twenty times as much energy as average home, due to climate, size, and the role of the building (it's a 'business hub' in addition to a house).

[Spider AL]

Hmm, yes, but on the whole I'm disappointed at the snopes report. Doesn't put sufficient emphasis on the background of the claims for an uninformed reader to make an educated judgement on the topic...

[CLONECOMMANDER501]

Just out of interest: Snopes got on the case, too.

 

Their conclusion was that there are several mitigating factors involved, and that Al Gore's house has reasons to use twenty times as much energy as average home, due to climate, size, and the role of the building (it's a 'business hub' in addition to a house).

 

 

Thats like supporting the war in Iraq and then joining an anti war group

[Spider AL]

If you're trying to imply that Gore's a hypocrite on the subject of conservation, Clone... The evidence strewn throughout this thread proves you wrong.

[Totenkopf]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

[Spider AL]

Aha, Tot has posted something that everyone with even a faintly neo-conservative leaning has been posting everywhere for the past couple of days: a list of... thirteen people... with "scientific credentials" who believe that global warming has nothing to do with humanity.

 

There are always going to be scientists with varying opinions on EVERY topic. For instance, you'll find that there is a minority of scientifically qualified people who actually do profess a belief in creationism. Creationism is of course ludicrously unscientific, and the fact that one can find "scientists" who believe in it makes it no less ludicrous. Add to this the fact that the people on that list appear to be spouting the same old debunked nonsense about "glaciers coming and going throughout history", "sun spot cycles" etcetera, and one must come to the conclusion that the list is hardly the world-beating death-knell for global warming that the neocons are making it out to be.

 

Ah, but wait... it gets worse. Only four of the people on Tot's list are climatologists. The rest have such varied specialities as... astrophysics, botany, geology,... mathematics?

 

I know, why don't I make the list complete by going and asking a chemical engineer for his opinions on climate change. How about an anthropologist.

 

(edit) For anyone who's interested, THIS is a fine rundown of the most common myths spouted by global warming deniers. Very succinct, very informative. (/edit)

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, as if concensus was any substitution for real science. Seems you see neo-cons everywhere when people didn't march lock-step with you on issues dear to you. There was a lot of "concensus" in the 70's when we were fed the global freezing scare and that never panned out. Why should anyone trust the politically driven agenda of the IPCC's directed conclusions?

 

But as long as you're being snarky, at least those people (so far) listed clearly have a better understanding of what's going on than you do (unless you care to disprove that by giving documented evidence about your true identity demonstrating that you're some "climatological" prodigy or genius). You can't? I figured as much. Perhaps you should go back to counting neo-cons to get yourself some much needed rest....

[Spider AL]

Seems you see neo-cons everywhere when people didn't march lock-step with you on issues dear to you.

Not really accurate, I merely refer to those who demonstrate that they hold neo-con views... as neo-cons. Not a huge leap.

 

as if concensus was any substitution for real science

As for your stock party-line regarding "consensus", the point is that consensus is NOT acting as a substitute for real science on the climate issue. There is BOTH real science, AND consensus concerning that science.

 

Why should anyone trust the politically driven agenda of the IPCC's directed conclusions?

Well first, one has to ask why you believe the IPCC's findings to be politically motivated? Is it possibly because you dislike everything associated with the UN, regardless of the facts? Judging by past conversations, this seems probable.

 

Secondly, most independent articles concerning the IPCC report's findings noted that the findings had been watered down because of political wrangling, not the other way around, as you seem to believe. In fact, many climatologists argued that the report ought to be much less conservative in its estimates of the effects of global warming.

 

But as long as you're being snarky, at least those people (so far) listed clearly have a better understanding of what's going on than you do (unless you care to disprove that by giving documented evidence about your true identity demonstrating that you're some "climatological" prodigy or genius).

Well you're absolutely right, I am not a professional climatologist. Therefore on the subject of climate change, I defer to the most learned experts in the field of climatology! Something you should consider doing, since a large number of those expert individuals were responsible for the IPCC report.

 

I certainly wouldn't seek the opinions of a (tiny) list of renegade mathematicians, economists and astrophysicists, as you seem to be doing.

[Totenkopf]

I'd say really, you do. All the more so b/c you have failed to demonstrate that you even know what a neo-con is in the first place. You throw it around as a perjorative label much as you probably reverted to nazi/fascist 20-30 years ago.

 

There was "real science" and concensus back in the 70s as well. They were wrong then and it's silly to conclude that they have to be right today. The issue isn't in fact a closed case. Your blind faith in their "credentialed expertise" is almost touching.

 

Given your ultrasensitivity to negative remarks about the UN, I could just as easily claim you're gullible enough to swallow the IPCC's conclusions for your own political reasons.

[Spider AL]

Ah, you seem to have forgotten that in past threads I have demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of both the substance and the history of Straussian neo-conservatism as a doctrine and as a political movement. A little jaunt back to the older Iraq-related threads will show you that this is indeed the case.

 

There was "real science" and concensus back in the 70s as well. They were wrong then and it's silly to conclude that they have to be right today.

Secondly, the fact that scientists have been wrong on many issues in the past does not mean that they are wrong now. It's a ludicrous fallacy that climate-change deniers throw around with gusto, usually because they have no means to challenge the science as it stands now.

 

The issue isn't in fact a closed case.

Absolutely it's not a closed case. Just as the question of whether darwinian natural selection is an accurate representation of how evolution works "isn't a closed case". No scientific issue is a "closed case", Tot. We must- if we are rational men- go with the balance of probability when it comes to scientific issues. The balance of probability is all we have on ANY issue, rationally speaking.

 

However, global warming deniers throw this "it's not a closed case" line around in the same way that creationists throw it around... they do so in an attempt to muddy the waters. The fact is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that climate change is severely impacted by mankind's industrial and recreational activities. Counter-arguments to this evidence have routinely been logically rebutted by experts in the field.

 

So of course we must run with the idea of man causing catastrophic climate change, just as we must run with the idea of evolution by natural selection. Because quite frankly, nobody's come up with a better interpretation of the facts.

 

Your blind faith in their "credentialed expertise" is almost touching

You're touched, that's fine. But the fact remains that I DO have more faith (not blind faith, mark you) in the expertise of the majority of climatologists than I do in the expertise of a tiny number of mathematicians, economists, writers and botanists...

 

And that's the rational opinion to hold, frankly.

 

Given your ultrasensitivity to negative remarks about the UN, I could just as easily claim you're gullible enough to swallow the IPCC's conclusions for your own political reasons.

Mmm. The fact that I've shown that all your past attacks on the UN have been baseless slurs does not mean that I am "sensitive" in any way regarding criticism of the UN. If you have a few hours, I could quite happily lay into many aspects of the UN as an institution... There are many valid reasons to criticise the UN, but with all due respect, up until now, you have not demonstrated that you know ANY of them.

 

And once again, I must point out that the IPCC report was given an extra dose of credibility because it was labelled as "too conservative in its estimates" by a large number of climatologists.

 

If anything, it underestimates the threat.

[tk102]

Quite a bit of ad hominem going on here from my POV.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

There was "real science" and concensus back in the 70s as well. They were wrong then and it's silly to conclude that they have to be right today. The issue isn't in fact a closed case.

Actually, it appears the global cooling people, if that's the ones you refer to, were right in the seventies. Due to aerosols in the atmosphere, the global temperature on average was decreasing. With the banning of CFG gases, aerosol levels decreased and temperatures seized to fall*.

[Nancy Allen``]

One of these is from something of a neo con site so I'm not sure if their opinion is valid, but the other is from science and technology, so I thought it was worth putting up.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/al_gores_insolent_assault_on_r.html

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The first one is off-topic; it's about an alleged leftist assault on reason and logic. As for the second article:

To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings.

There is perhaps arrogance involved in saying that 'this is the way global climate should be', but it doesn't really take much effort to realize that the current trend is not positive.

 

Second of all, we don't decide that this is the best climate for us to have right now. What we're saying is that the situation is getting worse. If you're writing a draft for an essay that'll give you an 85 when turned in, and you make changes that reduces it to D-work, that doesn't mean the original 85 draft was 'perfect' - but it does mean it was better than your revision, grade-wise.

 

I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists [sic] I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.

From a humanitarian and environmentalist position, it definitely is. From an economic point of view, it very likely is. Or to put it this way - I don't see how it can not be a problem to wrestle with.

[Thor the Bassis]

This thread just goes to prove that the two worst enemies of humanity are religion and politics. I love how the people who are as thick as manure step blindingly into faith that what they've been brainwashed into believing is the only truth and that by some magical god given gift they can debate whether published material in school books, that has come from a committee that specialises in climate change and of which the member each proberably have over five degree [just guessing but they're proberably from well established universities and colleges] blah blah blah blah qualifications galore...etc.

 

And even better - its American based religions that say climate change isn't happening. They contribute over 25% of the CO2 output.

 

EDIT

I realise some people will find this intolerant but I only refer to the total religious fanatics and extremists who wouldn't tolerate any point of view you or I put infront of them. Many of them threaten the freedom of speech we are currently exercising in the forums and would have us all forced into believing by their religion.

 

I only speak in such harsh terms because they affect other people and children's education in particular. They can live however they want but I can't allow them to affect other people's freedom to decide what they want to.