An Inconvenient Truth

[michaeledward]

This sounds alot like...
[sarcasm]
I'm right dang it. My friends are right. Everyone knows it, so just shut up and agree with me, you ignorant fool. Drink that cool-aid!
[/sarcasm]

Hardly. What IS being argued among some scientist is that global warming is being caused primarily by humans. The earth goes through cycles, and alot of previous posts have mentioned the possible non-human effects on global warming. Please feel free to go back and peruse and comment on some of the specifics. Xue Sheng made a good point, you ignore alot of specifics in the conversation here.

Repeating, writing in bold, or underlining won't make me believe you any more than if you did not.

You're argument is the from the point of view of religion. It is what you believe, or want to believe, rather than the evidence available.

 

[Kreth]

What IS being argued among some scientist is that global warming is being caused primarily by humans.

I thought bovine flatulence had been shown as one of the major contributing factors... :uhyeah:

 

[mrhnau]

You're argument is the from the point of view of religion. It is what you believe, or want to believe, rather than the evidence available.

Wow... at what point of my post did I mention religion? I'm not going to go back through all 10 pages of this mess, but at what point in this whole repetative discussion did I mention religion?

Please describe to me the relevance of this. Are you so bold as to tell me that someone who believes in God can not accept science?

Perhaps this deserves another thread, because this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with global warming or Al Gores movies, which is why YOU started this thread.

Ad Hominem

 

[mrhnau]

I thought bovine flatulence had been shown as one of the major contributing factors... :uhyeah:

Watch out! If you claim this, and believe in God, it must not be true!

I like the arguement though LOL Eat more hamburgers! yay!

 

[michaeledward]

Wow... at what point of my post did I mention religion? I'm not going to go back through all 10 pages of this mess, but at what point in this whole repetative discussion did I mention religion?

Please describe to me the relevance of this. Are you so bold as to tell me that someone who believes in God can not accept science?

Perhaps this deserves another thread, because this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with global warming or Al Gores movies, which is why YOU started this thread.

Ad Hominem

I did not mention God. I mentioned religion.

That you use the article 'some' scientists are debating "x", is disingenuous. The argument amongst peer-reviewed scientists is over.

You have a strong desire to have an unresolved debate on the issue. You believe there should be a debate on the issue. You feel the issue is not yet resolved. Religion is belief in the absence of evidence. Perhaps 'Faith' would have been a better word.

The underlined words in the preceeding paragraph are words that describe faith or religion.

It is known, on this board, that I am an athiest. I came to that position through some very strong and personal religious experiences. So, I can appreciate what strength and community people gain from their affiliations with religion and faith. I am careful to not criticize anyone for their belief; right up to the point where their belief interferes with evidence.

 

[mrhnau]

I did not mention God. I mentioned religion.

The underlined words in the preceeding paragraph are words that describe faith or religion.

Decouple faith and religion in the post then, and our problems are minimized. I don't have any element of religion influencing my belief or disbelief in science, though I might concede that faith would play a role. To me, those are distinct. You have faith too in science, in some manor or the other. Don't have time to write much more on this. busy day. I'll respond to the rest of your points soon.

 

[michaeledward]

You have faith too in science, in some manor or the other. Don't have time to write much more on this. busy day. I'll respond to the rest of your points soon.

I do not have faith in science. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

I can read the studies that show the Greenland glaciers are moving three times faster toward the sea than they were a decade ago. Those measurements are tangible. Faith is not required.

Deducing from those measurements, a cause, requires reason, which also does not require faith. Given a set of datum, we measure against results received from previous observations, and apply logic and experience to the facts, drawing a conclusion.

When there is evidence, only the ability to recognize it as evidence is required; Faith is not.

 

[Xue Sheng]

You seem to want it both ways .. you seem to want to rely on evidence, but you don't want to accept the evidence that is out there. While that can be seen as 'Gee this is a complex issue, and I am not certain what to make of it all' ... it can also be seen as mucking up the water..

No, I am just not agreeing completely with Al or you. Apparently you call that mucking. You seem to want it one way or another, but it is not that simple. The environment is extremely complex and made up of more than one system. I am not saying global warming is not an issue and I am not saying humans have not contributed. But once again if you had read any of my previous post you would know that. I am saying I do not trust Al’s book as being proof of anything without reading it first based on your assessment of the movie.

If you read my posts, you will see that I do not report Mr. Gore as an expert ... but mearly a messenger. Yet, some keep bringing him up, as you did, and claim that because he is a politician (or was), you aren't going to believe anything he says.

If you read my posts, which it appears that you are not, you would see I never said I would not listen to him because he is a politician. I did however claim I would not take him at face value, without reading the book first, because he is a politician that did not do the research. Some one else did.

Is his message accurate? I think there is an inability to recognize the accuracy of the message, and there is an unwillingness to recognize the accuracy of the message.

Actually it is more of an inability to except his message without reading the book first based on my education on the subject.

You know, I will say this about Mr. Gore. He is exhibiting the definition of leadership. Leadership does not require an individual to perform each and every study. But, it does require when sufficient evidence is available, you craft a message of change, and execute on that message.

This remains to be seen, as I have said I have not read the book, it could be sensationalized to sell books. Which by the way would be a bad thing if this is the case, and I do not yet know since I have not yet read the book.

Go see the movie ... I'll buy.

And please don’t offer me this again it is insulting. I do not need you to buy me anything nor am I asking you to do so. This is also proof to the fact that you have not read my posts. I have said time and time again that I am going to read the book. So please do not offer this to me again.

And as you are apparently not reading my posts I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not seen this question, from my previous post, and are not just avoiding it. Since you threw this in one of your post that I read I thought it was only fare to ask.

I do not wish to quote myself, but maybe you will read it if I do

But this begs the questions, and please do not avoid them, do you study this data consistently and regularly? Have you done research or study on this subject beyond Al's book and movie? Has that research been in depth from trusted scientific sources?

 

[Xue Sheng]

One more thing.

I have been all over the web today looking for a review of Al Gore's book and movie and what I have found is that there is anything but a consensus by scientists that Al is right. What I find is two sides of the extreme that either says Al is completely wrong or Al is completely right.

The more I read the more I realize I am going to have to buy the book and see for myself. I suspect he is partially right and partially dramatic.

This hardly looks like a scientific consensus on Global warming.

"The National Post" "the gods are laughing"
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1

The gods are laughing
Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change

Tom Harris
National Post
Wednesday, June 07, 2006

CREDIT: Shannon Stapleton, Reuters
Al Gore lectures...

Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

While the gods must consider An Inconvenient Truth the ultimate comedy, real climate scientists are crying over Al Gore's new film. This is not just because the ex-vice-president commits numerous basic science mistakes. They are also concerned that many in the media and public will fail to realize that this film amounts to little more than science fiction.

Gore's credibility is damaged early in the film when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa (U of O) responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the United States doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern, hemisphere air, and this process takes decades. Clark explains that even far more significant events, such as the settling of dust arising from the scouring of continental shelves at the end of ice ages, are undetectable in ice cores by an untrained eye.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally Posted by xue sheng
But this begs the questions, and please do not avoid them, do you study this data consistently and regularly? Have you done research or study on this subject beyond Al's book and movie? Has that research been in depth from trusted scientific sources?


No.

I have enough of an experience in science to be able to have a measure of security in the results being posited by Mr. Gore's movie. Having a quality liberal arts education means that we can recognize evidence, and evaluate it, without actually having to take the samples.


My offer to purchase the admission ticket for this movie has been extended to all MartialTalk members. My comments encouraging people to view the movie are intended for that audience, including lurkers, if they exist. If you choose to not take me up on that offer, or to be insulted by it, so be it. I will not be responsible for your offense.

I continue to advance that offer because it seems an effective way to actually discuss something based on knowledge.



Oh, and I tend not to read articles that are infringments of copyrights. Copying and Pasting anothers work is, besides being illegal, in poor taste.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Oh, and I tend not to read articles that are infringments of copyrights. Copying and Pasting anothers work is, besides being illegal, in poor taste.

EXCUSE ME!!!

I have committed an illegal act.

And where did I do this and not credit the author.

Accusations a great ploy to move the spot light off of your lack of background and lack of reading what has been previously posted in order to force your agenda down others throats if they don’t agree they ate mucking it up or accused of illegalities. And you claim to not be discrediting me.

You read one book by an author that may or may not be writing the whole truth and then use it to judge others an offer them a chance to go see it and think you are doing them a favor. If you want to learn about Earth systems I can suggest an old introductory textbook of mine. Read that and then look at the book you take as gospel.

Actually you are because you can't refute any of what I am saying.

You can be assured I will report this one, and I have not done that in a very long time.

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note:

Please review the copyright policy regarding republishing copyrighted articles even when credited.

Please also return this discussion to a polite, respectful exchange.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator

 

[michaeledward]

the book you take as gospel.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was an athiest. But, where have you seen me make any statements concerning Mr. Gore's book as 'Gospel'. In fact, where have you seen me make any statements that the evidence presented in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is correct, or incorrect or anything.

What I have been advocating is that people see the movie.

I think that I have pointed out two specific items from the movie that I said are of interest; meaning that to me, they bear special attention. Let me go back and check ...

There are two items in the movie that you might find compelling.

Item 1 - The scale balancing business and the planet earth

Item 2 - The human population chart, referencing Al Gore's lifetime

I'm pretty sure those are the only two items I have referenced specifically from the film ... (other facts presented are not knowingly drawn from Mr. Gore's movie - such as, the rate of Greenland's Glacier's was drawn from the Los Angeles Times.)

And ... as you can read, I make no assertions to the a) validity or b) effect of these two facts. So, if you are going to accuse me of standing on the book or movie as 'Gospel', you are not reading my posts.


Further, I make no assertions of my own scientific knowledge or experience. I am not justifying or defending any scientific knowledge. I am encouraging people to take two hours to see a movie ... at the request of the movie's star and producer. And you take insult from that. Good Grief.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was an athiest. But, where have you seen me make any statements concerning Mr. Gore's book as 'Gospel'. In fact, where have you seen me make any statements that the evidence presented in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is correct, or incorrect or anything.

What I have been advocating is that people see the movie.

I think that I have pointed out two specific items from the movie that I said are of interest; meaning that to me, they bear special attention. Let me go back and check ...



I'm pretty sure those are the only two items I have referenced specifically from the film ... (other facts presented are not knowingly drawn from Mr. Gore's movie - such as, the rate of Greenland's Glacier's was drawn from the Los Angeles Times.)

And ... as you can read, I make no assertions to the a) validity or b) effect of these two facts. So, if you are going to accuse me of standing on the book or movie as 'Gospel', you are not reading my posts.


Further, I make no assertions of my own scientific knowledge or experience. I am not justifying or defending any scientific knowledge. I am encouraging people to take two hours to see a movie ... at the request of the movie's star and producer. And you take insult from that. Good Grief.

Mike

You missed this one just below where you stated the scientific discussion was over just a bit contrary to your previous statement don't you think.

So apparently I have read your post and you don't remember what you posted.

Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. The discussion is over.

And apparently not taking the time to read someone’s posts before you respond to them justifies accusing him or her of plagiarism is ok with you. Interesting, since to say that you would have had to read the previous posts... which you apparently didn't.

And instead of discussing or arguing against any of the point I have made you once again go the "lets try and discredit him" route, interesting. So basically you got nothing but a movie.

And the insault was not from your offer to pay people to go it was your offer to pay for my ticket directly when you in fact had not read anything I previously posted.

Sadly prior to this little spat I was leaning towards you side of the issue. Now I see you don't have any real understanding of the issue at all do you... beyond what the movie told you.

Sorry about the Gosphel reference it was more of a metaphor, I did not mean to offend.

Out of respect for the monitors I will go no further.

 

[michaeledward]

You missed this one just below where you stated the scientific discussion was over just a bit contrary to your previous statement don't you think.

The assertion you list is not based on the work in Mr. Gore's film. Although, because there is very little actual dissent to the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Mr. Gore quite probably includes it in his film.

Now I see you don't have any real understanding of the issue at all do you... beyond what the movie told you.

You may believe that if you choose.

However, you have stated that you have not seen the film, nor yet read the book. But you seem to be able to determine, without any evidence, what a person viewing the film takes away from it. Wow.... That's some serious kung fu there.

Sorry about the Gosphel reference it was more of a metaphor, I did not mean to offend.

As an athiest, I am not the one the reference would offend.

Lastly, for approximately one minute, I had an edit in my post that included the word plagarism. That reference was deleted almost immediately, because it was an incorrect use of the term. If you managed to see that reference before the edit, I apologize. If, however, you take offense about copying and pasting anothers thoughts in your post, contrary to MartialTalk's copyright policy, be offended. Don't present an argument with anothers' thoughts as you primary case. If you choose to link to an article to support a position you hold, that is something entirely different.

But, in that case you are correct ... I am not going to read a post with someone's byline at the beginning of the post.

 

[shesulsa]

FINAL MODERATOR WARNING

Please return to a respectful, polite manner of posting immediately. Further disregard of in-thread moderator warnings will result in a locked thread and possible suspensions.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator

 

[Kensai]

You're argument is the from the point of view of religion. It is what you believe, or want to believe, rather than the evidence available.

Religion? Where'd that come into it? Evidence is like "the truth", you can make it fit the facts depending on what research you do... I prefer to go on what I can see and feel. That is to say, the pollution in various UK cities being so strong that I can taste it in my mouth, or see the power stations in our local countryside belching out smoke and fumes. That can't be doing the environment any good, nor as a result ourselves. I don't understand this view that people have that everything is perfect, that we as humans haven't affected our world in any way shape or form. That it's as pure as the day humans first walked upon it. They strike me as the kind of people that vote for Bush, and have shares in oil companies. Hmmm....

 

[michaeledward]

Religion? Where'd that come into it? Evidence is like "the truth", you can make it fit the facts depending on what research you do... I prefer to go on what I can see and feel. That is to say, the pollution in various UK cities being so strong that I can taste it in my mouth, or see the power stations in our local countryside belching out smoke and fumes. That can't be doing the environment any good, nor as a result ourselves. I don't understand this view that people have that everything is perfect, that we as humans haven't affected our world in any way shape or form. That it's as pure as the day humans first walked upon it. They strike me as the kind of people that vote for Bush, and have shares in oil companies. Hmmm....

The phrase 'religion' comes from the attitudes I perceive in others. Some arguments seem to be based on hopes and wishes rather than evidence. It seems some don't want human beings to be able to affect the atmosphere, therefore, we can't.

Certainly, being able to see and feel the effect of power generating plants is not good. But, we need to be careful not to limit the input of information to only those that we can perceive with our five senses. Natural Gas has is not detectible by human senses. The power companies add the 'odor' too the gas. They used to bring canaries into the coal mines ... to have a sensory input to dangerous gas - visual - the dead bird.

And, unfortunately, this goes far beyond those who would vote one way, or another. Perhaps all they way back to religion (or faith). Belief, in the absence of evidence, is the foundation of all religion. "It's a big world, and what can we possibly do to it."

 

[Xue Sheng]

However, you have stated that you have not seen the film, nor yet read the book. But you seem to be able to determine, without any evidence, what a person viewing the film takes away from it. Wow.... That's some serious kung fu there. .

No actually I am not saying what a person takes away from the film, I am saying that there are other sources and I, unlike you, have studies those.

I am saying I am willing to read the book to judge its validity.

Lastly, for approximately one minute, I had an edit in my post that included the word plagarism. That reference was deleted almost immediately, because it was an incorrect use of the term. If you managed to see that reference before the edit, I apologize. If, however, you take offense about copying and pasting anothers thoughts in your post, contrary to MartialTalk's copyright policy, be offended. Don't present an argument with anothers' thoughts as you primary case. If you choose to link to an article to support a position you hold, that is something entirely different.

But, in that case you are correct ... I am not going to read a post with someone's byline at the beginning of the post.

As for that one post, if you had read any of my other posts, which you obviously have not. You would see it is hardly my primary case.

I have dealt with that post with MT. I was unaware of that policy since I had given the author of the article credit I saw no issue. And I certainly did not in any way try and say that the thoughts were my own.

But you were trying to avoid the argument and discredit me after all and you saw the opportunity and went for it, congratulations.

 

[shesulsa]

MODERATOR NOTE:

THREAD LOCKED - This has turned into a two-person argument and is not what we like to see on MartialTalk from our members.

Please review the General Posting Rules, the complaint policy, familiarize yourselves with the RTM feature and it's proper use, and the ignore feature.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator