An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[andresont]

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned...nG=Search+News



An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth
By Brandon Keim October 11, 2007 | 12:17:08 PMCategories: Climate, Government
A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth can't be shown in schools unless accompanied by materials explaining the film's inaccuracies.



.

[ponokareefer]

As I watched this film, I noted some of these inaccuracies. Too me, the film felt a little too much like watching a Michael Moore movie. When you combine some truth with inaccuracies, you lose all credibility in my eyes. It is sad, because I like the cause he is fighting for.

[cooper]

I thought it was a great film....

[Quagmire]

I used to agree totally with his agenda.But since then I've looked deeper into the subject and now I'm on the fence.Some very good arguments for both sides of the issue.No one is saying global warming doesn't exist,but how much of an impact we have is something even the scientists can't agree on.But then again global warming aside,breathing in all that crap (pollution) isn't doing us any good.

[pinhead]

As a science teacher I get very frustrated when I hear people arriving at conclusions based on incorrect information. Newspaper columnists, editorialists, TV shows, bloggers and politicians are not the most reliable sources for information. Yes they have opinions but their conclusions may be faulty and they shouldn't be looked at as experts when looking at scientific topics.

These people and especially courts look at problems deductively - you look at information to support your argument and do not put forward information that does not support it. We all know defense attorneys would not bring up evidence in court that would help convict their client.

Science works through inductive reasoning. Gather the evidence and arrive at a conclusion. Science is continually changing and conclusions are based on the evidence at that particular time.

Just because someone is a scientist does not he or she should be considered an expert. I would not go to my dentist to look at a broken leg.

Many of these global warming naysayers are picking pieces of evidence to support their argument from out of date information or from people who are not experts in the field.

Here is who I listen to.

Climate scientists doing current science: http://www.realclimate.org/

Or the Royal Academy of Science whos members have included Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Hawking.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

These are the experts not some judge who doesn't understand how science even works.

The experts are unanimous. Humans are affecting the climate.

[trilinearmipmap]

To me the evidence is not definite that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. There is evidence that greenhouse gases possibly or even probably cause global warming, but not that they are definitely responsible.

Unfortunately there has been an Orwellian type of approach by the global warming crowd. Like Al Gore claiming that "the debate is over" and anyone who opposes the global warming theory is either a right-wing conspirator or some kind of a nutcase. Instead of using science and reasoning to back up their position, the global warming people are trying to intimidate people into agreeing with them.

By the way I read that Al Gore's mega-mansion consumes 10 to 20 times as much energy as the average American home. That is really talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Even many of the scientists whose names are listed on publications supporting the global warming theory have disagreed with it. They have asked their names to be removed from global warming consensus statements and their requests have been refused.

For science to work properly there has to be a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. Without freedom of expression and freedom of thought, science is dead. Kind of like the church putting Galileo on the rack for claiming the earth goes around the sun. That is what Al Gore and his global warming crowd are doing. The real tragedy would be if the global warming theory is true, and Gore and his crowd through their intimidation and propaganda tactics discredit the very theory they are trying to promote.

[pinhead]

This is the sort of stuff that drives me crazy. Where do you get your information? Show me the peer reviewed scientific journals that say the evidence is not definite that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warning. Don't repeat stuff that you have heard on websites, radio, newspapers and magazines.

The scientific method is the process by which we develop knowledge about the world around us. Since its development our knowledge of science and the application of that scientific knowledge in the form of new technology has changed our lives in ways earlier people could not even dream about.

It is a very organized process that starts with a hypotheses, testing of that hypothesis through experiments and collection of data and arrival at a conclusion. That conclusion is sent for publication in a journal and accepted and published if there are no flaws in the methodology. The knowledge is shared - even negative results.

This process is understood by scientists but not by many members of the public.

It is not based on opinion. It is not based on the public perception at the time. It is not a debate.

Read the two links I posted above - especially the second one talking about some public fallacies. Better yet, read some of the scientific journals.

Don't accept what Gore has to say or what the naysayers say.

Do some research yourself.

BTW. The oft repeated information about Al Gore's energy consumption in order to discredit him is from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research which claims to be "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research institute" but in fact has a president who is linked to National Taxpayers Union and the American Enterprise Institute which are in fact funded by Philip Morris Tobacco and by "big business and the promotion of free enterprise" respectively. (sourcewatch.com)

Gore's home does use 12 times more energy than the average Nashville home but is 4 times larger and houses his business offices as well. Electricity is purchased through the "Green Power Switch program which generates power through solar, wind and methane gas" (snopes.com)

Do some research for yourself. Don't accept what others are repeating.

Look at what the climate scientists are saying.

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

To me the evidence is not definite that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. There is evidence that greenhouse gases possibly or even probably cause global warming, but not that they are definitely responsible.

Unfortunately there has been an Orwellian type of approach by the global warming crowd. Like Al Gore claiming that "the debate is over" and anyone who opposes the global warming theory is either a right-wing conspirator or some kind of a nutcase. Instead of using science and reasoning to back up their position, the global warming people are trying to intimidate people into agreeing with them.

By the way I read that Al Gore's mega-mansion consumes 10 to 20 times as much energy as the average American home. That is really talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Even many of the scientists whose names are listed on publications supporting the global warming theory have disagreed with it. They have asked their names to be removed from global warming consensus statements and their requests have been refused.

For science to work properly there has to be a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. Without freedom of expression and freedom of thought, science is dead. Kind of like the church putting Galileo on the rack for claiming the earth goes around the sun. That is what Al Gore and his global warming crowd are doing. The real tragedy would be if the global warming theory is true, and Gore and his crowd through their intimidation and propaganda tactics discredit the very theory they are trying to promote.

[Quagmire]

Peer reviewed scientific paper and petition.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

From this site

http://www.oism.org/

This and other papers are why I'm on the fence,until these guys figure this out.

[pinhead]

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life"

Not an accredited university. Not a scientific journal. Looks like they work out of a barn.

Of the "faculty" members.
Martin Kamen died in 2002
Bruce Merrifield died in 2006
Fred Westall is a biochemist and the others are chemists, physicians and a veterinarian.

Its president Arthur Robinson " an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
He publishes a`: "pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise monthly newsletter packed with information and comment on science, technology and energy and on those who would restrict your access to it."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

These are the people you are getting your information about the climate on.

Look at http://realclimate.com for the comments of scientists who actually work in the field including climate

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Peer reviewed scientific paper and petition.

[

From this site

http://www.oism.org/

This and other papers are why I'm on the fence.

- Show me other papers you base your conclusions on.

[trilinearmipmap]

One of the problems with peer-reviewed scientific research is the scientists are dependent on grant money. Those honest scientists with the balls to debunk the global warming groupthink quickly find their research funding has dried up.

I do understand science better than most, I also understand the limitations of science and the pressure researchers face to come up with the "right" findings. What I object to is politics interfering with science.