Environmental Collapse: when and how bad?
- Thread starter zhao
- Start date
mad
N
nomadologist
Guest
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/s...f9d6efa5a16ed6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
A lot of scientists are getting put out by Gore's exaggerations and shoddy science--which ends up amounting to alarmism. See above.
A lot of scientists are getting put out by Gore's exaggerations and shoddy science--which ends up amounting to alarmism. See above.
Guybrush
Dittohead
First of all, I presume you actually have seen the film by now. That makes discussing it more fruitful.
Calling the half dozen or so scientists interviewed for that article ‘a lot’ is to stretch things a tad, especially as two of them (the Danish guy’s an illuminati, for shizzle) are well-known opponents of the consensus. More important than their lonely baying is how little gnarling you here from the scientific community at large. Is it not telling that, despite the subject’s hugeness and Gore’s far-flung predictions, the criticism from the various scientific branches concerned has been so remarkably mild? ‘In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.’ Is this cordial treatment by thousands of geophysicists, described in the article, not endlessly more illuminating than the words of a few nitpickers?
I am not saying that every, alleged, fact presented in the film is agreed upon by every scientist everywhere—and neither, one may add, does Gore—but what is the film’s strength is the overwhelming tendency unveiled when all these jig-saw pieces are put together. To deny man’s complicity in global warming after having seen this film requires a self-deception of extraterrestrial proportions—that is Gore’s ultimate message.
(As an interesting side note. I was listening to the Guardian’s most recent science podcast an hour ago. It featured an interview with an Antarctic explorer, who mentioned in passing that all the scientists he spoke to down there were disquieted by global warming. There also was an interview with some polar-station bigwig who was even more candid about his concerns over the—I think he used the term ‘rapid’—climatic changes he had witnessed in just a few years’ time.)
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
It's not a few scientists at all Guybrush. It never was. Did I deny anyone's complicity? Did anyone? The scientists are taking issue directly with some of the "science" Gore cites and a lot of his selective omission of facts and natural processes.
Why does Al Gore take his private jet to screenings during his promo tour, if he's so worried about global warming? Maybe he should start there before he starts stirring up alarmism so he can start yet another political lobby based on sensationalism.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Why does Al Gore take his private jet to screenings during his promo tour, if he's so worried about global warming? Maybe he should start there before he starts stirring up alarmism so he can start yet another political lobby based on sensationalism.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Last edited:
Guybrush
Dittohead
This is an age-old rhetorical tactic, ‘why isn’t he living as he preach’, and it is pure twaddle. We are discussing the film here, not Gore’s alleged fallibility.
A few fusspots are not going to change that the burden of proof has now, blessedly, been reversed. Gore has made a film which his science advisers, and the overwhelming majority of the world’s experts on the subject, have deemed fair in presenting the problems facing humanity—dovetailing with the recent U.N. report, I may add. It is now up to the contrarians to present a more persuasive case. You write that they are not an inconsiderable contingent, but I find that vague estimation less interesting that how the actual proportions between the two camps look: is it 1:2, 1:10, 1:50, etc.? Everything I have read so far indicates that the doubters get far too much media exposure relative to their meagre size. Do you have any statistics? (Have you seen the film, by the way?)
bruno
est malade
unfortunately gore comes across as a slimy opportunist, he ruins a worthy cause. the decent thing would have been to put clint eastwood or someone less politically charged in his place. he is a megalomaniac and his wife tipper is responsible for those idiotic parental advisory labels! i will see the film, though.
N
nomadologist
Guest
What on earth is wrong with holding people up to their own standards? If Gore himself isn't willing to help try to halt this imminent threat by any means possible, how imminent must he really think it is?
It's political lobbyism at its worst, ruining the discourse surrounding a very important cause a la Michael Moore, and what's more, not even proposing workable solutions that he himself can follow well enough to keep up the charade.
It's political lobbyism at its worst, ruining the discourse surrounding a very important cause a la Michael Moore, and what's more, not even proposing workable solutions that he himself can follow well enough to keep up the charade.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Guybrush, have you ever talked to a scientist, in person? Do you work at a research institution? What are your sources? What has indicated to you that you could possibly make a determination of numbers of Gore climate "science" supporters versus those who are challenging some of his science on the level of ratios?
Gore's "science advisors"? Did you read the article?? Even a lot of scientists who admire Gore's politics admit that his science is not 100% accurate or complete.
Guybrush
Dittohead
Yes, I did read the article, and I also have read other articles like it. It is utterly irrelevant how many scientists I know, or, indeed, if I know anything at all about the subject. What is relevant is that every scientist I have heard commenting on the film has concurred with its general message. Some have had slight objections, but even they have stressed that what is important is the film’s general message getting out.
Of course Gore had science advisers while making the film, what did you expect? Some are even presented by name and title.
Have a peek at the film’s website
Of course Gore had science advisers while making the film, what did you expect? Some are even presented by name and title.
Have a peek at the film’s website
N
nomadologist
Guest
Which scientists are these?
Obviously, Gore took what his advisor's told him and ran with it, presented processes that no one can say with scientific certainty or accuracy are *going* to happen rapidly and within the next few years as if they were FACTUALLY going to occur. Of course, he didn't give any specific projections. Just sensationalistic video displays of the earth turning to a cauldron over some nebulous period of "near future"
Guybrush
Dittohead
Scientists interviewed on different media—here, in Britain (e.g. the Guardian link I posted yesterday), and in the U.S. But also scientists speaking at various conventions, readings, etc., most of which where broadcasted. Naturally, I don’t remember their names. Funnily enough, it is only the Americans who claim that there is anything even resembling two legitimate views on this issue. Over here, the sceptics are viewed as akin to the doctors supporting the tobacco lobby. Once again, the IPCC seems to agree.
N
nomadologist
Guest
With what?
See, I can think of several scientists by name who think it is actually dangerous to exaggerate science for the sake of a political lobby, but I'm not going to bother, because I'm sure you have no idea who they are.
I tried to watch AIT, but it was so damn boring I fell asleep. I've been hearing this same thing for 20 years in the U.S. It's been Gore's lobby for a long time.
I guess I have to give this to Gore: he finally took a cue from the republicans w/r/t getting elected and realized you have to pick a lobby that uses fear to get people to the voting booths. Lately, it's been pretty easy to get everyone in a panic over global climate change. See also: "gay marriage" around last election year.
I've never said global climate change isn't a problem, nor did I say we shouldn't try to stop it. But I'm never going to sit and believe what a politician has to say about it, take it at face value, when there are clear political motivations for that politician to exaggerate, and, of course, most obviously because politicians' very jobs in the U.S. system is to sensationalize things in a bid to get votes so they can build the platform their entire party will jump on in order to get in office.
So many problems, so little time spent looking for actual solutions!
When Gore makes a movie that is a 10 point plan outlining the best possible way to stop C0^2 emissions through our own policy and actions, I'll be very interested.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Not true. One of the scientists cited in the Times article is Danish, as a matter of fact. Several of them weren't American.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Guybrush
Dittohead
True. That should read ‘American media’, or perhaps, the ‘American discourse’. However, the nationality of those surveyed does not matter: how the newspapers frame the subject does.
In early February, the IPCC changed its assessment of the likelihood of human complicity in global warming:
N
nomadologist
Guest
Did the IPCC ever come out and endorse everything Gore proposes in his film? Nope.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I never claimed nationality mattered: you did.
Guybrush
Dittohead
Hence why I wrote, ‘seems to agree’.
This is a silly digression, but ok. No, I did not say nationality matters; I commented on how the problem is framed in the American media.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Digression from what? I think discussing the relative merits of Gore's claims is as on-topic as it gets.
You actually claimed that no one but Americans made claims contra Gore's. You were wrong.
You actually claimed that no one but Americans made claims contra Gore's. You were wrong.