by Blueblades 34 Replies latest jw friends
I loathe this man, and his bimbo wife even more.Why is Tipper a bimbo?
The PMRC? Remember that affront to Freedom of Speech?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
Just in case you have forgootten. I haven't and I won't, even though the looney left has.
An inconvenient observation: If global warming happend in the past, before autos and factories, what caused it? It is a natural cycle of the earth.
Warlock
I've seen the movie. It's fascinating. Gore's points seem well reasoned, but I admit I haven't yet compared the criticisms side-by-side (largely because the criticisms often come after transparently stupid introductions, such as what Gregor posted above).
MYTH: The media will check it out and give you the objective truth.TRUTH: Many in the media are scientifically clueless, and will scare you to death. We don't do it on purpose. We just want to give you facts. But the people who bring us story ideas are alarmed. Then we get alarmed, and eager to rush that news to you.
We know that the scarier and more bizarre the story, the more likely it is that our bosses will give us more air time or a front-page slot. The scary story, justified or not, will get higher ratings and sell more papers. Fear sells. That's the reason for the insiders' joke about local newscasts: "If it bleeds, it leads."
Also, raising alarms makes us feel important.
If we bothered to keep digging until we found the better scientific experts, rather than the ones who send out press releases, we'd get the real story. But reporters rarely know whom to call. And if we did, many real scientists don't want to be bothered. Why get involved in a messy debate? It might upset someone in government and threaten the scientist's grant money. "I'd rather be left alone to do my work, and not have to babysit dumb reporters," one told me.
One real scientist, Dr. Bruce Ames of the University of California, Berkeley, did make the effort. He urged a skeptical reporter (me) to be more skeptical of pseudologic from pseudoscientists: "The number of storks in Europe has been going down for years, the birth rate's going down for years," Dr. Ames pointed out. "If you plot one against the other, it's a beautiful correlation. But it doesn't mean storks bring babies."
We've been swallowing the storks-bring-babies kind of logic for years. (My favorite version: I see fat people drinking diet soda; therefore diet soda must make people fat.) For instance, stories about pesticides making food carcinogenic would fill several pages of a Google search. To the scientifically illiterate, the stories are logical. After all, farmers keep using new pesticides, we consume them in the food we eat, and we keep hearing more people are getting cancer. It must be cause and effect! Get the shovel.
From John Stossel's book MYTHS, LIES AND DOWNRIGHT STUPIDITY
The funny thing is that even without the issue of global climate change, the localized effect of anthropogenic CO2 gasses is enough to drastically lower the quality of life for those living in a particular region. In other words, people who obtain their science facts from Michael Crichton thrillers agree that localized climates can be affected anthropogenicaly, but because of their ethics, refuse to support any measure to do anything about it. After all, it might raise taxes and I might have to drive a smaller car!!!
people who obtain their science facts from Michael Crichton thrillers agree that localized climates
LOL!
I get all my history lessons from Tom Clancy.
lol @ DanielP and Drew Sagan. As for me, I learned about the true nature of God from Dan Brown.
"I get all my history lessons from Tom Clancy. "
And I get all my theological lessons from Stephen king.
This is an interesting blog post from a climate scientist about the 'arguments' in Crichton's book:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Global warming may well be due to the natural swing between temperatures that the planet has experienced throughout history. But it would seem a majority of climatologists consider it probable that human causes are adding to or speeding up this warming effect:
In its 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
I find it hard to believe that there is a global conspiracy between scientists from around the world, what purpose would this serve?
Ultimately, if it could possibly relate to our activities (which seems likely), and we won't enjoy the consequences, why take the risk that the people with the most information are wrong? ...better safe than sorry would seem to be a sensible approach, given that we don't have any spare planets to live on.
I highly recommend you read Michael Crightons book, "State of Fear". Especially those of you who are 'intrigued' by Gores book or movie. The book is entertaining as a thriller with a fictional plot line, but the facts presented (and documented) are authentic and educational. Is the planet going through another warming trend? Possibly. Is it caused by man? NO Is pollution by man bad? OF COURSE Is there anything man can do to change the planets weather? NO
Ditto!
I've wondered why none of the talk shows have had Michael Crichton on their shows discussing this other viewpoint??? Curious.
