Global Warming...the Movie

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 19:58
VIEWED: 9891
PAGE 7 of 12

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What was the lie, exactly ? Was it in saying that there's sea ice, then land ice, then mountains ? Seems like factual geography to me. Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ? Is that the big lie you're claiming ? Well, I guess we can just eliminate any program that uses any kind of illustration as being lies, then.

You really need to get a life, dude.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not ] a fact, it's just not. "

You're just pissed that Gore lied and you can't do a gorram thing about it, or even deny it. Whether I need a life or not won't change the fact that Gore lied.

Get over yourself.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The oceans ability to absorb CO2 goes up with the "partial pressure" of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the ocean has remained a net absorber of CO2 throughout the industrial era. The ocean cannot therefore be out-gassing CO2 into the atmosphere as a feedback mechanism. If this was true then the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere would always continue until the oceans were saturated with CO2.

As I noted, I said the oceans were currently a net absorber, because one factor was dominant over the other. I also said that the evidence indicates that this trend is slowing and reversing, indicating that temperature could be becoming the dominate factor. It hasn't been suggested that positive CO2 feedback is happening yet, but that it explains why CO2 appears to lag behind the temperature record in the past. Which would also indicate that it could occur again in the future.

Quote:
It might make a lot more sense to spend the money Gore wants to spend on CO2 mitigation on preparations for the coming climate change should it happen. When the science is "decided", then we need to talk about what makes the most economic sense considering our very limited ability to effect atmospheric change over the short term.

I haven't seen much evidence that measures to curb greenhouse gas emmission would harm an economy, it's certainly what 'industry leaders' say, but they tend to say that about anything that means spending money on something other than their bonuses...

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science.

Yes, ID is religion. Yes religion and science exist in different domains. But ID doesn't stop there. ID is a religious philosophy that it's proponents dress up as science, and try to push into the scientific domain, with the very purpose of undermining evolution in a non scientific way. It's the very definition of an anti-science attack.

Quote:
So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Not really no. But thanks for the strawman.

Quote:
Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

Where did I say it was? This is nothing but a further strawman. I have always maintained that Science is only for understanding the How of the universe, and the Why can be left to religion. Having said that Science is not only the best tool we have for how, but pretty much the only tool that gets results in that regard. In other words Science is the only method for obtaining knowledge about how the universe works, but makes no claims on other questions, from the Human condition (philosophy) to why the universe works (religion). It is religion that is trying to extend beyond it's domain, not science, and yes, that is an attack.

Quote:
I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

Very emotive, very sophistic, very made of straw, very pointlessly baiting. I think certain people on this board need to learn that the definition of free thinking isn't automatically thinking the opposite to what the establishment says. An automatic contrarian knee jerk in order to 'prove' one is a free thinker in facts puts an individual more at the whim of the establishment, and makes them even more of an 'unthinking drone' than those they tend to paint as such.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This is a religious belief not based in science.

We agree on this.

Quote:
In fact, this "theory" was developed specifically to undermine the teaching of Evolution in US science classrooms. A bunch of religious nuts got together and thought up this scheme as a way of sneaking creationism into the science classroom were it doesn't belong.

ID is a religious concept that says nothing about science. So in and of itself, the concept is not and cannot be "anti-science."

Proponents of ID are often anti-science. Proponents of ID like to teach religion in science classrooms. I agree. This is what happens when people exploit and abuse an intellectual inquiry (be it religious or scientific) for political gain.

And to segue back to global warming, we always have to be careful to leave science and politics separate. Mixing the two is what is truly anti-science.

And returning full circle to my point about Antimason's intelligent design and politics, he is as "anti-science" as people who use climate science to justify political policy.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
ID is a religious concept that says nothing about science. So in and of itself, the concept is not and cannot be "anti-science."

Proponents of ID are often anti-science. Proponents of ID like to teach religion in science classrooms. I agree. This is what happens when people exploit and abuse an intellectual inquiry (be it religious or scientific) for political gain.

No, ID is a religious concept that was dressed up from the very outset to look like science, and was made, from the very beginning to be used to attack science. It was designed as a weapon against science, saying it wasn't is just dishonest.

By your logic a mugger mugging an investment banker isn't attacking the banker, because mugging has nothing to do with banking.

Quote:
And to segue back to global warming, we always have to be careful to leave science and politics separate. Mixing the two is what is truly anti-science.

In so much as we shouldn't politicise science, yes. Politicians, like George Bush, shouldn't be standing up saying "global warming isn't happening", and politicians like Al Gore shouldn't be making films saying "Global Warming definitely is happening".

But then to go on to say that:

Quote:
And returning full circle to my point about Antimason's intelligent design and politics, he is as "anti-science" as people who use climate science to justify political policy.

ID is anti-science because it seeks to undermine and replace a scientific theory with a religion. Making political policy based on scientific understanding where appropriate is exactly what we should be doing. How on Earth can you possibly justify otherwise? How twisted can the logic be that says that is anti-science? So you think moving to ban CFCs was anti-science because it was based on the scientific assertion that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFCs do you?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:49 PM

"You're just pissed that Gore lied"

You keep saying that. What exactly was the lie ? Did he claim something that wasn't true ? Did he exaggerate ? Or did he realistically illustrate a known fact ?

Until you can answer this question with something other than your silly little parrotted mantra, you just look - like a silly little parrot.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
No, ID is a religious concept that was dressed up from the very outset to look like science, and was made, from the very beginning to be used to attack science. It was designed as a weapon against science, saying it wasn't is just dishonest.

Or saying it wasn't could simply be a different understanding of ID.

I think this discussion of whether ID is anti-science or a direct attack on science belongs on a different thread. Let's just say for now I disagree with you about not distinguishing between the history of ID advocacy with the concept of ID itself; I don't think you can lump the two as synonymous. I reiterate that while many of ID's most vocal proponents have given ID a really bad name, not ALL ID advocates are anti-science assholes. It is possible to support ID and the scientific method at the same time. The ID hypothesis itself is not anti-science. It is anti-natural selection, but the theory of natural selection is not science itself.

Science and politics don't mix well. When the theory of evolution got mixed in with tax-payer money (politics) in public education, you have got to expect that some tax-payers are going to try to counter those politics.

That is one reason I think it would be better for government and taxes to get out of education altogether.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Or saying it wasn't could simply be a different understanding of ID.

I find your logic quite weird. It was developed to be used to undermine science, the concept was set-up in such away as to facilitate that, other people believing ID, and respecting science is neither here nor there, since they're the ones misusing ID. It was never created to be believed, it was created to be used to undermine science, that's it's purpose and its concept.

Either way, we agree that ID is religion, not science. Trying to replace a scientific theory with a religion isn't just an attack on the theory, its an attack on the scientific method, which is an attack on science no matter how you cut it. No matter your thoughts on ID, if your using it to shoehorn it in too science, you're anti-science.

Which brings us back to: Anti-mason, who tries to shoehorn ID in as a replacement to evolution at every opportunity, and in lieu of an opportunity does it any way like a true rabid propagandist. Just like someone rabidly Anti-science would be expected to do...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Intelligent Design at it's very core is an attack on science,
Intelligent design is a religious philosophy that is outside the purview of science. So saying ID is "anti-science" is like saying beauty or art is "anti-science."

Science is one of many methods of obtaining knowledge. It is not the all and end-all of Truth. You can appreciate religion and art and science without being "anti" one or the other.

I think people on this board need to stop worshipping Science as some sort of omniscient authority of Truth.

--------------------------
Just sayin'.

And worship WHAT, exactly? Science *IS* "some sort of onmiscient authority of Truth" - it is, in fact, THE SEARCH FOR THAT TRUTH.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What was the lie, exactly ? Was it in saying that there's sea ice, then land ice, then mountains ? Seems like factual geography to me. Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ? Is that the big lie you're claiming ? Well, I guess we can just eliminate any program that uses any kind of illustration as being lies, then.

You really need to get a life, dude.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not ] a fact, it's just not. "

You're just pissed that Gore lied and you can't do a gorram thing about it, or even deny it. Whether I need a life or not won't change the fact that Gore lied.

Get over yourself.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Kind of like when George W. Bush lied - er, I mean "illustrated" - about Saddam having WMD, even down to inventing and doctoring photos to "prove" his point. Oh - I mean "illustrate" his point, as in, "this is what it would look like IF Saddam had WMD."

So, even if I concede the point, and say that I agree that Gore's movie made claims and used footage it didn't specifically say were for illustrative purposes only... if I concede all that, how is it worse than Bush lying us into 4000-plus American soldiers dead for no good reason?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE