there were aspects of the movie that i cringed about, but the majority of it wasn't that way. because i am able to make those distinctions, i could take something from it.

i honestly haven't seen the movie since soon after it came out (which i guess is nearly a year ago now). so i couldn't tell you point for point what was good or not. but i was fairly well-informed about the topic at the time

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 5:01:59 PM

BTW, here's yet another consensus denier:

Local scientist calls global warming theory 'hooey'

Quote :

"Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey. The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it. There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the 'Little Ice Age,' he said in an interview this week. 'However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time,' Bryson said. The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. 'It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis,' he said. 'It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence.' Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. 'Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.'"

Quote :

"'There is a lot of money to be made in this,' he added. 'If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, "Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide." Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. 'I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do,' he said. But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. 'And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does.'"

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 5:12:26 PM

Quote :

"Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true.""

sounds like a reasonable guy who bases his opinions on observation alright.

6/18/2007 5:19:09 PM

Better than being a member of the general public who is scared to death of doomsday scenarios simply based off watching a movie that is falsely advertised as being scientifically factual

6/18/2007 5:20:53 PM

i'm just saying a scientist who says something is false without ever having seen it (not unlike some people in this thread) smacks of someone who decided on his opinion long ago and is just sticking with it out of habit or some other motivation. it's also nice that hooksaw left out the second half of that article which refutes most of what bryson said.

6/18/2007 5:23:20 PM

Quote :

"smacks of someone who decided on his opinion long ago and is just sticking with it out of habit or some other motivation."

kind of sounds like most GW proponents, doesn't it?

and, I wouldn't say that the second half of the article "refutes" his points. I'd say that it is more of the same regurgitation of the "3 Stage Argument" that was posted before.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 8:53 PM. Reason : ]

6/18/2007 8:49:27 PM

Quote :

"kind of sounds like most GW proponents, doesn't it?"

the dense ones maybe. is saying that other people with different views blindly follow ideologies somehow a support of doing the same thing?

6/19/2007 12:19:09 PM

so yes, in this case most = the dense ones

unless you think the majority of the general public understands the nuances of science in general, let alone something as complex as climate change

6/19/2007 1:09:34 PM

but he's justifying the stubbornness of this expert on climate change by saying that the general population doesn't really understand what they believe?

6/19/2007 1:21:38 PM

Should Big Chill Be A Bigger Worry?

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 6/26/2007

Quote :

"Climate Change: Reputable scientists now say the long-term threat to climate is severe cooling, not rising temperatures. In fact, our carbon emissions may just have prevented the next ice age. Chicken Little may have to be measured for a winter coat, if the observations of R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, are accurate. Writing in Toronto's National Post, Patterson reported on his research that involved analysis of core samples of more than 5,000 years of mud recovered from the bottom of Western Canada's fjords. In summary, his research showed 'a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called proxies).' Patterson notes that hundreds of other studies using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile show exactly the same thing. 'I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate,' Patterson says. 'This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet.' This is disappointing news for those who thought it was the Ford Expedition that had the heaviest influence on climate. The sun is not a tree ornament. Its regular cycles have a huge impact on earth and have had since before the dawn of man and SUV tailpipes. Patterson, explaining that 'CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales,' concludes: 'It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.' Solar output can vary as much as 0.1% over regular 11-year sunspot cycles known as 'Schwabe' cycles. These variations correlate well with the fossil record. Some of the earlier solar-driven changes are even more dramatic than an Al Gore movie. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was six degrees Celsius warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, as the world was coming out of a cold period, temperatures rose as much as six degrees in a decade, 100 times faster than the past century. There have been many ice ages in earth's past, followed by warming periods like the one we're in now. Dr. Robert C. Balling, on a column on tcsdaily.com, writes that increasing CO2 levels may be the Industrial Revolution's hidden gift to mankind. 'It is very possible,' he says, 'that higher levels of greenhouse gases will protect us from these fantastic swings in climate, just as higher levels of greenhouse gases may protect us from the next ice age due in a thousand years.' Looking at similar evidence, Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at M.I.T., notes that despite increasing carbon emissions, the rise in earth's temperature is less than you would expect and not consistent, interrupted by repeated cooling periods. In a column posted on MSNBC.com, Lindzen writes that 'average temperatures have risen only about 0.6 degree since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform — warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between.' Is solar activity the determining factor in earth's climate? Says Patterson, the Canadian geologist: 'Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again. If we're to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than "global warming" would have had.' Al Gore, call your office."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=267750744226033

6/27/2007 2:20:54 AM

Yay! Let's continue vomiting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to stave off a hypothetical.

6/27/2007 4:26:27 AM

yay! Lets cap off energy usage big time to stave off a hypothetical.

Look, it works for me too.

6/27/2007 1:13:50 PM

^^^Oh, those silly Canadians!

Aykroyd
Candy
Carrey
McDonald
Canadian Climatologists

...They never fail to bring the funny!


PS it's funny how I keep jumping back and forth in this thread. I guess there is just a whole lot of stupid on both sides of the argument for me to make fun of.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 1:25 PM. Reason : 2]

6/27/2007 1:24:26 PM

The main problem with the so-called global warming consensus:

Quote :

"Argumentum ad numerum ('argument or appeal to numbers'): This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right."

6/27/2007 4:58:55 PM

Looks like hooksaw found a logic site

It's not an appeal to numbers, it's an appeal to authority, which is acceptable in this case.



The most repeated fallacy in this thread (other than your ad hominem) is the fallacy of false equivalency. Your belief that a bunch of right wing op-eds and blogs somehow equal the scientific consensus is highly illogical, captain.

6/27/2007 6:06:44 PM

^ Wrong. Read it again, Gilligan:

The main problem with the so-called global warming consensus:

Quote :

"Argumentum ad numerum ('argument or appeal to numbers'): This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right."

You and the other moonbats say that global warming hysteria is correct because most "scientists" posit that it is. I mean, have you forgotten some your own trinkets from this very thread?

Quote :

"You're going to have to cite some random scientist in a canadafreepress article if you expect me to believe that all the major scientific organizations of the world are lying to us."

Quote :

"You're using speculative powers to try and tell 98% of experts in this field that they're wrong."

Quote :

"With all the evidence that's currently out there, yours is the bold claim, not theirs."

Boone-tard

Quote :

"This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right."

6/28/2007 1:14:42 AM

Quote :

"Yay! Let's continue vomiting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to stave off a hypothetical."

Quote :

"yay! Lets cap off energy usage big time to stave off a hypothetical. Look, it works for me too."

damnit, beat me to it

6/28/2007 9:26:41 PM

The earth warming is not a hypothetical.

6/28/2007 9:38:09 PM

but, its warming due to human actions could be considered a hypothetical...

6/28/2007 10:49:44 PM

^^I'm not arguing that

^bingo bango!

6/28/2007 11:26:05 PM

Then the article holds no relevance if humans aren't impacting temperature fluctuations because the ice age would happen anyways. But fear of glaciation does not give anyone a free pass to continue reckless expulsion of greenhouse gases unabated.

6/29/2007 12:08:20 AM

^ interesting viewpoint. As I read it, the article seems to suggest that CO2 acts, at best, as an environmental buffer, mitigating some of the effects of solar events. It doesn't say that CO2's effects are non-existent. Rather, it says that, compared to solar events, CO2 is a minor player in the realm of global climate.

6/29/2007 12:19:04 AM

Well hell, aerosols reflect sunlight so let's get back into the habit of dumping those into the atmosphere in large quantities too to help mitigate the effect that we are having (or not having) through anthropomorphic means.

6/29/2007 12:33:54 AM

^ ehhh? I thought aerosols were generally banned due to CFCs... I could be wrong and probably am, though...

I don't think the article's point was to say "let's pour more CO2 into the atmo." I think it was to say "CO2 is not as big of a factor as the sun, so taking drastic and economically destructive steps to reduce CO2 will have little to no effect on climate change."

6/29/2007 12:42:44 AM

While I drew a similar conclusion but the sentence that got me was this.

Quote :

"In fact, our carbon emissions may just have prevented the next ice age."

Selective readers will take that phrase and run with it as an excuse. I have never given much heed to those who fail to acknowledge the sun as the earth's primary temperature regulator.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 12:50:31 AM

^ oh, definitely. that sentence could be misused easily. I took that, though, as more of an aside than anything else. It's a slight nod the the greenhouse properties of CO2, but it is certainly far from a "pollute more, plz" statement.

6/29/2007 12:52:16 AM

Quote :

"I thought aerosols were generally banned due to CFCs... I could be wrong and probably am, though..."

You are not that wrong at all. But I am fairly confident that it was CFCs that were banned and not exclusively aerosols. I would have to brush up on if they are one in the same but you had the right idea. I said that as more of an exaggeration of "well while we're at it let's..."

6/29/2007 1:03:02 AM

Step up your game a little bit, fellas--this is common knowledge.

Quote :

"a dispenser that holds a substance under pressure and that can release it as a fine spray (usually by means of a propellant gas)"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aerosol

And I think CFCs were phased out around the mid-'90s.

At any rate, you're worried about "[s]elective readers. . .tak[ing]. . .[a] phrase and run[ning] with it as an excuse," HockeyRoman? Does this trinket worry you?

Quote :

"Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms."

--Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

6/29/2007 1:44:48 AM

That quote doesn't mean a thing to me. I was just quoted from your own half-baked article.

Oh and your definition of an aerosol is full of shit (just like you).

Quote :

"Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Some occur naturally, originating from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Aerosols/

So don't come in here "step up your game..." as if you are all badass trying to educate us little people.

6/29/2007 4:37:16 AM

^You guys are both right.

^^was talking about man-made Aerosols (10%)

^is talking about natural Aarosols

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Aerosols/

Read the whole article.

6/29/2007 11:01:46 AM

^^ First, fuck you, you whiny little bitch. Second, I listed the definition of aerosols commonly used by consumers, which was usually cited as the main problem related to CFCs. Third, I included the link to all Dictionary.com definitions of the word "aerosol"--for those that are not to lazy to point and click.

Piss off.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 1:13:21 PM

You both have valid points but hooksaw is more on topic in regard to the thread. It's obvious "natural" Aerosols are around, but that 10% man-made Aerosols are the issue here.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 1:31:20 PM

And when I mentioned aerosols I was referring to the definition that I posted. Hooknuts, on the other hand, came in with his holier than thou attitude and tried to act like he was teaching us paltry children something. And where the fuck have I been "whiny" here? You (Hooknuts) posted a retarded article and I pointed out a serious problem with it.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 7:18 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 7:18:14 PM

Critics: Live Earth Not So Green
Some Ask Whether Concerts Erode Environment Rather Than Build Awareness

Quote :

"Live Earth's goal was to raise awareness and fight global warming. But with millions of fans attending nine shows across the world and generating more than 1,000 tons of garbage, the green concert has received mixed reviews. This morning, people are wondering if a concert aimed at raising global awareness actually caused more global damage. One estimate said 100,000 trees needed to be planted to offset the carbon emissions released during the 24-hour event. Al Gore, the former vice president and primary force behind the concert, disagreed."

Quote :

"Bob Geldof, the man behind the Live 8 charity concert, questioned whether the event served a purpose. 'Why is [Gore] actually organizing them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that problem for years,' he said."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3358200&page=1&GMA=true

I don't need an excuse for concerts, and I was actually pulling for this thing to be good--even though I don't agree with some of the messages conveyed. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.

I watched all of the NBC coverage, and the only act that really did it for me was Foo Fighters. Even Metallica and Dave Matthews Band were so-so. Is it just me or did the music just not cut it?

[No partisanship here concerning the quality of the performances]

7/10/2007 1:11:01 AM

i found the Gore hologram very ironic and fitting for an event being held for a pseudo-problem. I also like the 7-point pledge, part of which basically says "I will support Al Gore's carbon credits company"

7/10/2007 9:12:35 PM

^I LOVE how people in the media are saying its great that all that support was shown for Gore's cause. Whatever, I bet 75% of the people that went to the show went for the bands. Hell, I almost went b/c here in NY they had Smashing Pumpkins and The Police, among others. I mean damn.

Anyone catch the news article this past week where it snowed in Buenos Aires, Argentina? First snowfall since 1918. Just saying

7/11/2007 1:15:24 PM

You can make whatever little comments you like about snow, but you know full well that a change in climate means colder in some places and warmer in others. It's unfortunate, VERY unfortunate, that this problem was ever called global warming.

That's not to say that any of those changes have anything to do with snow anywhere, but I'm just saying that record cold and record snowfall in some places doesn't in the least discount the fact that carbon produced by humans is causing a change in our climate.

7/11/2007 1:42:09 PM

^^i heard they were trying to get 2 billion viewers (from all the worldwide TV outlets, etc) and actually got about 19 million...thats about what, 1% of the viewers they were hoping for?

7/11/2007 1:44:00 PM

^^that statement is not a fact DG.

7/11/2007 1:53:59 PM

ok sure thing

7/11/2007 4:03:56 PM

I'm of the opinion that Global Warming is true. And that humans don't have a damn thing to do with it. It's a natural process.

I'm also of the opinion that even though Gore is a retard, a hypocrit and extremely boring, I'd rather people do the right thing because of ignorance and idiocy than not do anything at all. If the net result of all this is that we finally shift to renewable energies and realize how badly our polluting effects HUMANS, not the earth, then I'm all for it.

I pray to god someone will tackle the Recycling movement with the same fervor Gore has tackled the climate change topic. Recycling is a bunch of bullshit, and we'd be much better off promoting industrial composting, component REUSE and exposing the ridiculous amount of energy and pollution that a lot of recycling causes.

7/11/2007 7:31:21 PM

^I hear that buddy!

7/12/2007 1:46:53 PM

Live Earth: DOA
One could say worldwide concert proves global warming has jumped the shark

Quote :

"NBC's three-hour televised version got trounced by 'Cops' and 'America's Funniest Home Videos.'"

Quote :

"Some argue that environmentalism has become a secular religion. Buying carbon offsets, they say, is the modern equivalent of purchasing indulgences for your sins from the Catholic Church. Live Earth certainly fit into that vision. The concerts seemed like Baptist hoedowns of yore, except now Gore is the Billy Sunday for the baby boomer booboisie."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0712goldbergjul12,1,3548436.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

7/13/2007 12:42:08 AM

Quote :

"Some argue that environmentalism has become a secular religion"

Then they would be very short sighted if they boiled the idea of environmentalism down to purely advocation of global warming. If there is any intellectual discussion that you would like to contribute then by all means do so. But until then it would be wise to refrain from reciting inflamitory remarks about environmental protection merely to make a snide comment about an event that do not agree with.

7/13/2007 1:32:09 AM

^ Don't get pissy--it's not my fault the Live Earth ratings sucked.

Live Earth ratings on cool side

Quote :

"The estimated 2.7 million viewers were slightly less than the 3 million NBC would average on a normal Saturday night in the summer with repeats on what already is the least-popular night of television."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ia37e17bc1457412e508423123fb19536

And Britons are so concerned about raising awareness of the "global climate change crisis" that they preferred the Concert for Diana by more than three to one.

Diana ratings dwarf Live Earth
The British TV audience for the Live Earth concerts was less than a third of that for last week's Concert for Diana.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6283632.stm

BTW, it's not "inflamitory" (sic)--it should be "inflammatory." I guess they didn't teach you that in meteorology school, huh?

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 2:14:25 AM

Thanks Webster. It's good to know that your role as TA Spell Checker is being well served.

Now if only your reading comprehension skill matched your impromptu dictionary prowess then you would have garnered that no where did I defend nor advocate Live Earth but rather pointing out a mischaracterization about environmentalism.

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 2:34 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 2:33:19 AM

^ And the quotation at issue didn't contain the words "global warming," did it?

Quote :

"Some argue that environmentalism [emphasis added] has become a secular religion."

The quotation above was not phrased as you suggested:

Quote :

"Then they would be very short sighted if they boiled the idea of environmentalism down to purely advocation of global warming."

HockeyRomance

Comprehend, dick?

7/13/2007 2:47:59 AM

Quote :

"Buying carbon offsets, they say, is the modern equivalent of purchasing indulgences"

But this does pertain to global warming which equates the two sentences. Hence the author intended to couple environmentalism with global warming. Once again reading comprehension fails you.

And your pet name for me is rather unimaginative. Much like yourself, geezer.

7/13/2007 3:08:10 AM

^ But that was not the quotation you used, was it? I was just responding to your posts and your own fun with usernames--does "Hooknuts" ring a bell, dick?

Two things are certain: (1) You are a total asshole, and (2) you would not say that "geezer" shit to my face.

7/13/2007 3:25:42 AM

I just linked the two fucking sentences for you. You are a fucking nit picky little granny bitch. Jesus Christ!

Yes, I remember calling you Hooknuts on multiple and well deserved occasions. The fact remains that my newly acquired designation is unimaginative.

Two more things are certain:

Quote :

"(1) You are a total asshole"

(3) Hey Pot, I'm Kettle. You're black.

Quote :

"(2)you would not say that "geezer" shit to my face."

(4) Time and place, pal. (Or rather, geezer)

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 3:34 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 3:33:04 AM