Inconvenient truth

Posted by: yoyo52

Inconvenient truth - 07/23/06 08:38 PM

It's finally playing here in town, and we went to see it tonight . . . but couldn't get in because the screening was sold out. Talk about inconvenient!<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 12:22 AM

Try again.<br>I saw it with a few "fence-sitters" They came away duly impressed,<br>enough to recommend other friends that had yet to take a stance <br>to go see it also. It's a real eye-opener.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 08:41 AM

This topic should really be in the Soapbox forum, since the substance of the film is pure political hoakum by Gore.<br><br>Among other things, he relies heavily on the notorious "hockey stick" study purporting to show that the last decade was the warmest ever and that there was no medieval warm period. That study by Mann et al was recently blown out of the water by a recent statistical analysis by Wegman et al for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.<br><br>Here's the full analysis, all ninety-some pages of it. (And yes, I did read the entire thng.)<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 08:54 AM

That I couldn't get into a movie is a political issue? Awright! I'm a runnin' for President!<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 09:10 AM

Saw it and it's worth going...<br>However they could have spent more time at the end describing the many ways people can make a difference. They cut that short. And I don't see ANY movement or changes coming from this Admin so nothing will be done for at least 2 years so only the individual can make any difference, and I don't see many doing that (unless it becomes painful)..<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: drjohn

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 09:35 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Awright! I'm a runnin' for President!<p><hr></blockquote><p>If the two Al's are not alike, go for it! President Yoyo kind of has a ring to it. <br><br>Old farts, the hidden caulk of civilization. Jim Atkinson<br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 10:12 AM

One ring to rule them all!<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 10:12 AM

Naw, I'm just surprised that you couldn't get in. After the initial opening, the attendance dropped way of, according to the published figures.<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 11:30 AM

Here are the published figures: link<br><br>After 9 weeks, this independent film still ranks 24th of all theatrical opening weekend averages since 1982. <br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 12:34 PM

wow, i just checked my metro area (greater than 1 million people) and we have a grand total of 1 screen showing gore's flick. i'd go if it was showing closer to where i live.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 02:05 PM

"Opening Weekends" - or, shall we say, preaching to the choir.<br><br>It's still horse hockey...<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 07:05 PM

<br><br>Touche'<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 07:39 PM

It's one thing to be opposed to the content of the film, it's another to misrepresent the numbers as they are. Not interested in debating politics on this issue, I just think you need to give credit where credit is due.<br><br>The link I provided clearly shows not just a success on opening weekends, but it also ranks 27th for all weekend theatrical releases since 1982. This is 9 weeks after its release, and for a small release - this weekend 580 screens - it's drawing a steady audience, or maybe the choir is just bigger that what you believe it to be. For a documentary film this sounds like a pretty good run. <br><br>Score one for independent films. Score another for documentary filmmakers. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/24/06 08:29 PM

Score three for a keynote presentation!<br><br>(Isn't Al Gore still on the board of our favorite computer company?)<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/25/06 01:04 AM

Just more proof that Apple's progressive nature.<br><br><br>If you need more proof than that, try looking at the flip-side:<br><br>Mr. $ofty---> Bill 'the Bushyte' Gates (a.k.a. the World's Richest Man)<br>seems to have tossed in with Bush (through the WTO & The (recent)Free Trade Agreement)<br>& Monsanto (the world leader in Bio-Technology & Genetically Modified Organisms *GMOs*)<br>to lock-down the world's food supply, using cheap land & cheap labor in 3rd world countries. <br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/25/06 02:39 AM

A little premature. I believe 20,000 posts are required for prezeedentchul eleegubilitity! <br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/25/06 08:17 AM

More nembers, for what they're worth. But of course, a lot of pure Hollywood crap still turns out wildly popular anyhow.<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/25/06 09:09 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> . . . to lock-down the world's food supply, using cheap land & cheap labor in 3rd world countries.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Do you really believe that?<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]My my baby blue . . .
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 08:59 AM

"The Inconvenient Truth"<br>...for the GOPpers...<br>is that the movie's doing just fine. <br><br>Even according to [color:orange]the Critics</font co...r=green><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 09:25 AM

Guess not.<br><br><br>I really hate hysterical rhetoric.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]My my baby blue . . .
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 10:57 AM

Are "we" trying to pick (yet another) fight? <br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 11:01 AM

I don't think she is/was*. She asked a question and you didn't answer.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>. . . to lock-down the world's food supply, using cheap land & cheap labor in 3rd world countries.<br><br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br>Do you really believe that?<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><br><br><br><br>*At least it doesn't appear that she was. I may be wrong. (ask sean and poly...I was definately wrong to generalize about "liberals" and the military!)<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 11:11 AM

I didn't answer ..:because:.. <br>as evidenced in her follow-up question (w/attitude)<br>I felt that it was not an honest question,<br>but rather a(nother) opportunity to for her to launch <br>into her usual routine of personal remarks/attacks.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 11:18 AM

so, let me get this straight:<br><br>You, that on any number of occasions, suggested that members avoid confrontation<br>by simply refusing to engage in intercourse with another member that they've had <br>repeated run-ins with, which invariably end in a hair-pulling contest, that we should<br>now allow said conversation to run it's course? <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 11:50 AM

John, please repost this in the Wet Side of the Band-aid forum.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 11:51 AM

This thread belongs in the Soapbox, which incidentally could use a little soap. <br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 11:58 AM

How could I say that when I have no prior knowledge of any previous disagreements between you two?<br><br>I thought (and it appears to be) an innocent question.<br><br>And all you had to say was what you replied to me...that would have curtailed any potential attacks. But to ignore it leaves the door open to whatever.<br><br>Personally I think it's stupid to get into mud-throwing disagreements on here...I have better things to do. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 12:30 PM

I know you well enough to know<br>that your intentions were pure.<br><br>...and in case you also missed it<br>Steve's "BandAid" remark<br>was referring to my terminology<br>of calling SteveG & Leah's hyper<br>personal comments as "Shark Attacks"<br><br><br><EMBED SRC="http://idisk.mac.com/heyjac/Public/jawstheme_s.wav", WIDTH=300, HEIGHT=200 CONTROLLER=TRUE AUTOPLAY=FALSE> <br>*please do your homework*<br>before getting involved. <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 12:38 PM

Yes. It's all about you. Busted again. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 12:44 PM

You made the wet-band-aid shark attack comment<br><br>I only did as you suggested<br><br>I submitted the insurance claim. <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 12:46 PM

And it's been declined. Perhaps the clinic in Jersey City?<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/27/06 01:07 PM

IT is one of the most powerful movies I've seen in a long time. I suggest everyone go and see this movie. If you don't think we're in trouble, you're not engaged. <br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/31/06 07:35 PM

Plus ca change...<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/31/06 07:45 PM

I must say, I prefer your understated style of debate to most of what is out there (everywhere, not just MM, and not just the internet). I agree that the global warming going on could very well be just another part of the grand cycle. However, we are best off not taking any chances right? Some more responsible economic growth isn't going to hurt so much no? Though this is not such an easy argument to make with developing economies (especially China). We should still do what we can to successfully ride out these cycles and not exacerbate them if we can.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 07/31/06 07:49 PM

That was caused by "a feedback-loop"<br>precipitated by a warming trend due to increased amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere<br>from natural causes that melted a sufficient amount of ice to change the ratio of<br>salt to fresh water being dumped into the ocean, that then slowed the Atlantic Conveyor, <br>disrupting warm Trade Winds, and Jet stream, thus allowing the cold weather conditions<br>that would have ben normal at that latitude, to cause a mini-ice-age, until the enough ice <br>was again locked up in the glaciers to bring the hypersalinity state back into equilibrium.<br><br>However .................. however I'm too damned hot and sweaty to sit and type it all out<br>go do your own research <br> It's al there, read both side of the debate, before drawning any conclusions<br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/01/06 09:18 AM

Interesting theory, but not proven...<br><br>And I do read both sides of the debate, and have actually read the report of Wegman et al to the aforementioned House Committee (several times, actually - some of it is pretty arcane for a mere high school graduate). I would venture to bet that I'm one of the few around here that has done so.<br><br>My original post was to point out the the Gore film relied on the so-called "hockey stick" temperature graph published by Mann et al. That and subsequent reports by Mann were based on faulty statistical techniques, and as the Wegman report shows, most of the "peer review" of Mann's stuff was done by people with whom he had previously co-authored papers. (A sort of intellectual circle jerk, if you will.)<br><br>Wegman does not dispute the evidence that we are indeed in a warning phase. I can walk a few blocks from my house and see grooves in the billion year old basalt on the shore of Lake Superior that were gouged out by the last glaciers an instant ago (geologically speaking). When I was a boy I could collect marine fossils a few blocks from my home in St. Paul. <br><br>Change happens. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes these changes is, in my view, a theory that is "neat, concise, and wrong".<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/02/06 01:12 PM

It's interesting that all three of the Wegman report writers are statisticians, not climatologist. So the very learned report concerning the inaccuracies of tree ring data, for instance, is, on their part, at best a second-order conclusion based on the work of climatologists. The material on the problems of statistical studies--all the stuff on "noise," for instance, strikes me as being more a very critical conclusion about the nature of statistics, the subject in which Wegman et al. are experts. Indeed, the first 23 pages or so of the review are more about statistics than about climatology. Much of the controversy among studies that Wegman et al. report in fact underscores the imprecision of statistical studies, including what data is and is not relevant, what data is and is not reliable, etc. On the basis of what they say, perhaps we should throw out all statistical studies. I for one would not mind, by the way.<br><br>It's interesting that another way of putting the assertion that climatological studies are read by an in-bred community is that the number of climatologists in the world is fairly limited, so the experts who do peer review are not very numerous, and of course know each other, have read each others' work, have collaborated from time to time, etc. The same thing applies in all advanced sciences, I imagine. There are only about 10,000 astrophysicists in the whole world, I believe, so all of them know each other, collaborate with each other, etc. I suppose therefore that Wegman and all could write exactly the same report, changing "climatologists" into "astrophysicists." All of the material from p. 17 to p. 23 and then later in even more gory detail is really about social networks, of researchers for instance. What gets said there strikes me as undermining all of science, natural as well as social, and in fact all peer--i. e. expert--reviewed work in any field.<br><br>The substantive assertions about the historical study of climatology are all, as I said, second-order: the authors of the study are not experts in the field. I'm not an expert in the field either, so there's no much that I can add to the subject. On the other hand, I do recognize that, given the nature of the Wegman report and what I presume is your equally non-expert knowledge of the field of paleoclimatology, any assertion such as your conclusion, "neat, concise, and wrong," is political. And so is my conclusion, which parallels Mr. Cheyney's approach to terrorists: if there's even a one percent chance that we're working to destroy the ecological balance of the planet, we ought to do something serious about it. In this case, if we end up being wrong, and there is no equivalent of WMD, then all that we will have done is clean up the atmosphere and encouraged innovative ways of producing energy. Not too shabby a result for a wrong conclusion, I'd say.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/02/06 08:09 PM

Of course Wegman, Scott, and Said are statisticians. Their charge from the House Committee was to evaluate the publications of Mann et al that generated the "hockey stick" graph which relied heavily on statistical analysis, trying to demonstrate that the '90s were the hottest on record and there was neither a medieval warm period nor a "Little Ice Age". It was the House Committee that requested a statistical analysis. Among the report is the statement from Wegman et al "We note in passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."<br><br>As far as "peer review", articles submitted to scientific journals are reviewed by peers chosen by the editors. Ideally said "peers" have no connection with the author and are truly independant - certainly not previous co-authors. Again from the Wegman report:"Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."<br><br>And finally, my "neat, concise, and wrong" statement is not political at all. It is a reasoned conclusion following extensive reading in the debate. I just think that puny little Homo sapiens can influence the unpredictable trillions of tons of atmosphere around us is hubris in the extreme. I'm all for reducing atmospheric pollutants as much as possible. In my perfect world we should have rejected the hysteria of the fringe eco-nuts years ago and should now be generating 80% or more of our energy in nuclear reactors.<br><br>(But that's for another interesting exchange in the forum.)<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/02/06 08:50 PM

This small exchange between you and yoyo has been the most sensible discussion I've heard on this subject, and I'm absolutely not talking just here in the forum (although the discussion here has been, as usual, lively). While I will never be as well read on the subject nor as formally educated in general, I am open to the pros and cons, pretty savvy about the hysterical rhetoric and completely cynical about the political hay to be made by both left and right.<br><br>That is all. Carry on. Please.<br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]My my baby blue . . .
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/02/06 08:52 PM

Well clearly something is wrong! I'll have to start calling names. Hey Walrus, you're a . . . .<br><br><br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/02/06 09:09 PM

Smacks self on forehead . . .<br><br>Of course. I knew something was missing. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]My my baby blue . . .
Posted by: sean

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/02/06 09:54 PM

<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/">the missing piece at the wegman hearing</a><br><br>fwiw, the scientists at real climate (my link) have both compliments and criticisms with regard to al gore's movie. they are able to point out the details that are not fully supported by science and those that are. in the end though, they clearly recognize that gore's points are way, way more right than not. <br><br>also, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">this op-ed NY Times</a> piece is from a scientist who was listed as a skeptic of global warming. he explains how his science was twisted to be included as evidence against global warming. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 08:17 AM

"Hey Walrus, you're a . . . ."<br><br>Oh, yeah? Well so is your.....<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 08:33 AM

<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 09:28 AM

Interesting, Sean.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 09:29 AM

Why thank you, sir!<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: sean

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 10:21 AM

and, on the other side of the country we have another scientist also pointing out how the research has been twisted -- specifically, how her research was twisted.<br><br>snippet:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>AN OP-ED article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.<br><br>I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!) <br><br>My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause. <br><br>Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 11:53 AM

I've read about her study previously, and its flaws.<br><br>From the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Majority Staff<br>July 24, 2006<br><br>Failed Defense: Defense of Science Magazine Global Warming Study Fails to Address Critiques<br><br>Naomi Oreskes, History of Science professor at the University of California at San Diego, in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, "Global Warming -- Signed, Sealed and Delivered," set out to defend the validity of her study titled "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Science Magazine, December 3, 2004). The study purportedly shows a 100% consensus on human caused global warming. In today's op-ed, however, Oreskes failed to acknowledge several key criticisms to her analysis of peer reviewed literature allegedly showing there is 100% scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for warming the planet in the last 50 years.<br><br>FACT: Oreskes's study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today's commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers - "more than 90% of the papers - " dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the "consensus view" on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years. <br><br>Oreskes originally claimed she analyzed the peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 under the keywords "climate change" and found just 928 articles. It turns out she was not accurate, according to British social scientist Benny Peiser a professor at Liverpool John Moores University.<br><br>A search using the terms "climate change" actually turned up almost 12,000 papers that were published during the time frame Oreskes claimed to have researched. In other words, her supposedly comprehensive research excluded about 11,000 papers. Only after Peiser's analysis pointed out this error in her study did Oreskes reportedly admit that her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on the far more restrictive phrase "global climate change."<br><br>Peiser noted: "These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change."<br><br>Oreskes's 100% "consensus" would potentially be accurate only by excluding well over 90% of the available papers in the time frame she was researching, according to Peiser. Eliminating about 11,000 papers (even if a small portion would not be considered - peer reviewed') in favor of just 928, hardly proves a "consensus." <br><br>In addition, Peiser found that less than 2% of the studies Oreskes examined supported her "consensus view" and some of the studies actually disagreed with that humans were the chief cause of the past 50 years of climate change. <br><br>Peisner also found,<br><br>"...While the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts." (http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm)<br><br>"Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'"<br><br>"In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover - and despite attempts to deny this fact - a few abstracts actually doubt the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years." (http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm)<br><br>No "Scientific Consensus"<br><br>Furthermore, sixty scientists recently wrote an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Harper calling for a complete review of the science behind climate alarmism. Additionally, recent scientific analyzes dispute the claims of those promoting human-caused catastrophic global warming. The United Nations media hyped "Hockey Stick" was broken in June by a National Academy of Sciences report reaffirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Finally, just last week, three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University, further debunked the "Hockey Stick." <br><br>End of Senate release.<br><br>Copyright 2006 New West Network, All Rights Reserved.<br><br>Naomi is professor of science history at UCSD and has written much about how continental drift was at first rejected by most geologists. And I say Phooey to you, Naomi!<br><br><br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: sean

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 01:42 PM

i think if you read her editorial, she says, "My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause."<br><br>where is the significant disagreement? Richard Lindzen? she addressed this as well:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.<p><hr></blockquote><p>but, what about Doran's research being misused and misquoted, which i linked above? even if you dismiss oreskas because of an op-ed piece here or a senate staffer's piece there, there's still Doran being ignored. but, the bigger picture is that the folks like oreskas are being attacked, but the conclusions she reached has little scientific dissent and that's not in dispute; and, op-ed pieces aren't science -- they're wishful thinking. even if the number she claimed is not 100% . . . what if it's 95%? 90%? that's still significant by a very large margin. <br><br>further, the senator who you are relying on is Sen. Inhofe. he was part of a group of lawmakers who also called novelist Michael Crichton as an expert witness on climate change because he wrote a FICTIONAL book about climate. seriously, that's outrageous.<br><br>here's an interesting Salon article talking about some republican's war on science. this article gets at how they use op-eds and the like to create a "debate" -- the same strategy used previously by the tobacco industry to claim smoking wasn't harmful. shameful really. <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/09/14/mooney/index_np.html">link here</a>.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 02:18 PM

Since you brought up Michael Crichton...<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 02:35 PM

Hate to refer to my earlier point, but the links you and Walrus deploy seem to me to support the idea that the issue is completely politicized.<br><br>edit: mine too--don't want to suggest I'm unbiased. Kinda figured you knew that, though <br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 08/03/06 05:36 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 02:52 PM

You are, of course, absolutely right. Sadly, today a lot of science, and scientists, are politicized.<br><br>And this constant linking back and forth is really getting tedious.<br><br>My position is thus:<br><br>1- Global warming is ocurring<br>2- It has done so in the past, repeatedly.<br>3- Computer simulations of projected CO2 increases in the atmosphere are all highly flawed.<br>4- Climate warming may actually be beneficial in many ways.<br><br>I guess actually I should have posted my original comments in the Soapbox forum, since I never go there anymore anyway. Too political.<br><br>And as for Bush being anti-science - why do we keep spending millions of dollars on all those weather satelites when we already have the Weather Channel?<br><br>(And please disregard anything else I post here tonight - I'm off my local pub...)<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: sean

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 04:37 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>why do we keep spending millions of dollars on all those weather satelites when we already have the Weather Channel?<p><hr></blockquote><p>channel? sheesh, tv is so passe these days. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 04:46 PM

<center><br><br><br><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CKJ2fu_Gluo"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CKJ2fu_Gluo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br><br><br></center><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 05:37 PM

Every single link in this thread is about the "controversy" and not about the science. The closest to science is the medline search papers of words like "global climate change" and the critique is that she should have used "climate change". Then there is statisticians arguing about statistics.<br><br>It's all political nonsense. On such a hot topic (don't you love my puns) it is inevitable. So what is a person to do?<br><br>1) Take 7 years off and get a PhD in climatology.<br>2) Take the word of the world class set of scientists who have been selected to advise the Congress and the President on scientific issues. That would be the National Academy of Science.<br><br>What does NAS say? They say it is likely that the rise in temperature come from man made causes.<br><br>We are in precisely the same spot that we were in when the tobacco industry heads stood in front of Congress and said their studies found no connection between smoking and lung cancer. There are still scientists who believe that. You can always find some whackos who will do anything for money.<br><br>But the consensus from well respected climatologists is that we are causing global climate change. As Yoyo said, even if it was a 1% chance we should do something. It looks like the percent is much higher than that.<br><br>I do agree with you that we should have gone nuclear power and be in the same position as the French with 80% electricity coming from nuclear power. Yucca Mountain should be opened.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 05:44 PM

<br>The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was drawn up <br>by 1,300 researchers from 95 nations over four years. <br><br>Study Highlights Global Decline<br><br>The Millennium Assessment<br><br>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.Org<br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 05:46 PM

The other misconception I hear is about scientific peer review. Peer review is done on papers and grants by an anonymous set of scientists who are experts in the field or a related field. They may be buddies of the person under review but that has nothing to do with the critique. People in your field are your buds but they will cut your throat in the reviews if you are wrong. Why? Because they may be buds but they are also fierce competitors for the same funding dollar. If you destroy someone else because they are full of it there is more funding to go around for you.<br><br>That is why stupid and wrong theory does not last long. It very rarely gets in Science, Nature or other leading journals. <br><br>(There is a big Difference between "papers," reports, comments, News and Views and letters to the Editor. All can be published in Science but the papers and the reports are the science. The commentary is critical thinking but taken with a grain of salt.)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 05:50 PM

Sorry, I disagree:<br>My personal opinion is that Nuclear Power<br>in any form, has no place on the face of the earth<br>until we know how to contain it and dispose of it safely.<br>There are too many safer alternatives that have been intentionally<br>suppressed, to go whole hog on a quick-fix that could prove disastrous.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 06:00 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>People in your field are your buds but they will cut your throat in the reviews if you are wrong. Why? Because they may be buds but they are also fierce competitors for the same funding dollar.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>That was sort of rattling around in the back of my head. Scientists . . . the mafiosi of academe <br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: sean

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 06:31 PM

many of the scientists are politicized on this issue; however, if we remove every single on of those scientists then we are only left with hundreds+ who find that global warming is occurring and that humans are largely responsible. none of the scientists who are just doing science and not getting into the politix are on bush's side of the aisle, fwiw.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 08:21 PM

They ain't done yet:<br><br>Administration Again Pushing Anti-Environmental Court Nominee<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 08:38 PM

Why people "politicize" issues, and become concerned over this administration<br>stuffing the decision-making committee with right-leaning "scientists":<br><br>The Bush Environmental Record<br><br>From the beginning of President George W. Bush's first term through 2005, NRDC compiled a comprehensive account of his administration's actions on environmental matters. Though we are no longer updating the Bush Record, it remains available here as a unique resource. See above to search the Record's hundreds of stories or browse by topic; you can also [color:red]view by date</font color=red>.<br><br>As for the Bush administration, it has shown again and again that it will cater to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk; there is little doubt that more attempts to undermine environmental enforcement and weaken key programs will be made. NRDC will continue to vigilantly defend the environment.<br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/03/06 08:47 PM

<br>College Republicans Call for Beach Parties to Mock Global Warming<br><br>Some choose to call it "hysterical"<br>...I choose to call it "passionate".<br>This kind of news makes me really sick. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Inconvenient truth - 08/05/06 05:46 AM

Aw crap.<br><br>Howze this for reality then? <br><br>I just woke up to an e-mail from my friend in Sweden<br>informing me of his concern that "the Baltic Sea is dying"<br>and that "most of the Cod species are already going extinct<br>due to over fertilization run-off and dairy farming there."<br><br>The alarming bit is that he ISN'T an environmental activist.<br>He never even pays attention to such things.... I guess until<br>the accumulating evidence is right under his nose.<br><br>ICKIE! ROTTING COD! Now THAT'S Reality. <br><br>