Not scientific:

Please go to the library and peruse issues of "Scientific American" and "Discover" magazine for starters before you make an inane comment like that. Of course, the specious argument that such publications are biased and left leaning will be the expected response.

Rick..What's with the insertion of Christain beliefs(good) vs. the social progressive movement(evil)? There is a vast difference between analyzing trends in temperature, rainfall etc and debating the existence of a prime force in the Universe. Can you really equate Creationism with observable scientific data? Just curious. I do not understand the relation.

Actually Dottore inserted the reference to Christian beliefs into a discussion about the science of Climatology. Personally I don't understand the relationship between the two subjects at this point. Christianity could reasonable come down on both sides of the subject. For example:

Pro: Good Christian stewartship is to take care of this one and only world that God gave us.

Con: Don't lie. If there is no clear scientific link between man's actions and changes in the climate -- don't say that there is.

I did??? Where did I do this???

To me, the two debates are remarkably similar. Creationism offers one way to explain something that science has thus far been unable to, that is the origin of life. We can observe evolution of species through the fossil record, but most scientists will agree that evolution cannot and does not try to explain how life began. Creationism attempts to do that, admittedly without scientific evidence.

The global warming hypothesis does the same with trying to explain climate change. We can observe that the temperature of the earth is increasing, much as we can observe evolution in animals. We cannot, however, say WHY that temperature rise is occurring. Some people attribute it to greenhouse gases. Some attribute it to a global warming/cooling cycle which has been occuring for millions of years, thus the continuing debate.

Unfortunately (as with most major questions which face our people), the debate has become politically charged and motivated by profits. That means that you will have a very hard time finding anyone who isn't biased in one way or the other regarding the evidence. Thus you have Al Gore (who says that the scientists who disagree with him are in the pocket of Big Oil) vs those very scientists (who say that Al Gore is off his rocker, has no clue what he is talking about and is using the issue for political gain). Who to believe?

That is precisely why I don't think that a film which is obviously biased towards one side of the issue should be shown in a government funded school to young children. It presents a skewed view. I think the same principle applies to creationism. I think that neither creationism nor evolution should be taught in schools as an explanation for the origins of life. Evolution as an observable occurance in species is fine, trying to extrapolate that back to the "primordial soup" theory is where I have an issue. So, I would say that school simply shouldn't touch the origins of life, unless they are prepared to present all sides of the argument and let the kids decide for themselves.

Fair enough?

P.S. I never said that Christianity was good vs. the social progressive who are evil. I simply said that many of the same posters (here on PPOT) who are against teaching creationism in school seem to be for pushing Al Gore's message on students.

John..

Excellent observation(s).

Question re: a news article this week: If we, as "good people" are supposed to provide good stewardship to the planet and its inhabitants, what is this about the religious right not willing to get involved in environmental and social issues lest they be labelled as "liberals"?

It seems to me that some here have such a visceral reaction to Gore, the man and politician, that it completely clouds their perception of the very simple message he is trying to deliver.

And bear in mind that the messsage is aimed at the layman - though nothing I have read here at this point seriously inclines me to question the underlying science.

That said - EVEN IF the underlying science is on some points inconclusive on the issues of to what extent greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming - and to what extent the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for those greenhouse gases - even if there is some dispute about the scientific methodology employed here - surely the conclusions are broadly speaking correct.

And surely any film that makes an attempt to bring these complex issues to the attention of a broad lay public should be applauded.

Surely even just initianting a debate about these issues among a broader segment of the public is a good thing.

OK. Let's financially punish Exxon. But who owns Exxon? Near as I can tell about 1/3 of Exxon is owned by pension funds -- which means people like you and me have are retirement savings partially dependent on the performance of financial performance of Exxon. The remaining 2/3's is owned by individual investers which still means people like you and me (assuming that you have money invested in the stock market). So what you're proposing is that you want to take money from your investments and have the government give it to... who?

My own experience is that companies invest in schools for very different reasons then for trying to influence people who won't be able to vote for a few years. Those reasons usually have to do with having an adequate pool of well educated technical and professional employees. This is because if they can't find those employees here in the US, they will absolutely need to hire them from overseas. Part of that educational process is the ability to make sound, logical decisions in the face of uncertainty. Being able to do this generally involves a thorough understanding of science (geology, but also physics, chemistry, biology, etc) as well as the processing of information (statistics and higher math, logical thought, etc). Why would anyone expect them to support a film that flies in the face of all of those subjects???

As far as Gore's and Newt's previous lives and ability to transform themselves into new occupations. I support it. I will continue to judge what they pronounce based on the merits of what comes out of their mouth, not by how nicely they say it, or how many people bow down to it as truth. If the emperor isn't wearing any clothes -- I'm not going to compliment his new outfit!

Of course initiating a debate in the public is a good thing.

There is a big difference between showing the film in public and having it as part of a school curriculum though, isn't there?

The arguments Gore puts forth are a helluva lot more convincing, well-documented and scientifically-backed than (un)intelligent design, which is touted by a lot of the "it ain't true / nothin' to see here / you can't make me put no stinkin' catylitic converter on my pickup" crowd with regards to global climate change.

I don't know about you guys, but erring on the side of caution and the side that will at worst make the air and water cleaner seems better than the alternative.

I guess "common sense" isn't so common when pitted against the power of human beings to rationalize doing whatever they damn well please.

Oops! I stand corrected. It was Jeff (Porsche-O-Phile)...

Sorry! SmileWavy

Where do you get this stuff from? The "religious right" (whoever that is) spends more time, money and talent helping with social issues than the non-religious people in this country (see the recent thread on this).

Religious people are not "right" just as non-religious people are not "left".

If you are talking about CONSERVATIVES, then I would say that conservatives believe that it is up to the individual, the church and charities to help the poor and that government should not be some sort of wealth re-distribution warehouse that keeps people on the dole to support it's power.

Yep, no stereotypes here...move along...progressive, all inclusive liberal coming though...

:rolleyes:

Jeff you crack me up man.

Can someone tell me where this kind of bald statement comes from?? Has someone polled "all scientists in the field"?

Everything I have read about this film in the press and on the internet suggests that the scientific community is largely behind this film - with just a few who question the methodology employed to get to certain statistics.

Is anyone aware of a definitive poll on THIS issue.

What about the FACT that Gore's scientists eliminated the medieval warm period and little ice age so that their "hockey stick' graph could show a sharp increase in temperature during the 20th century (when what we are currently experiencing is actually within the range of historical highs and lows experienced in the last 1000 years)? They "massaged" data (by conciously fabricating some data and excluding other data) to support their pre-determined conclusions. How is that "scientific"? That is the antithesis of "scientific"!!!

Just calling it like I see it. . .

That was actually damn funny. . .

Anyone else catch the hilarious irony in that statement?

True. But a real scientific response would be to dispassionately look at the facts. For example Gore's educational background (from Wikipedia)
OK, certainly a fine enough education, but I don't get much of a sense of any depth of training in hard science or math. So while it's not unheard of for people to make career changes, I really don't find Gore to be to compelling of a bet as a scientist. But then neither are most of us. So to me that says that I'll give Gore the benefit of the doubt on a deeply technical subject about as often as I'd give any one of us with no technical training. When it comes to statistical analysis, I'd venture that I've got more technical training in that area then Gore does, and that training suggests a number of gaps in Gore's analysis which I've mentioned earlier. Heck, I've got more degrees and had better GPA's then Gore does or did! Being a professional salesman, I can also recognize a "sales job" (aka: BS) when see one.

In the interest of equal time, here is Newt's noticably stronger academic background (from the same source):

Now degrees do not make a man, but you have to admit that Newt's background is quite a bit more substantial then Gore's.

Interesting little read about Gore from USA Today here.

Typical liberal hypocrisy. Do as we say, not as we do. Don't they ever get tired of this? A little closer to home (for our PPOT community at least), I asked one of our resident liberals about some questionable environmental practices of his own. Right here on this thread. He has either elected not to answer, or maybe he just missed it. Just like Al Gore. I swear, they must go to school for this.

I didn't suggest financially (or otherwise) punishing Exxon. What I said is that I don't think they should have any say in school policy or curriculum. (and in fact removing their "donation" would save them money, not cost them) Notwithstanding everything you continued to say about corporations needing a well-educated workforce, the bit I quoted from the article about the NSTA being concerned about losing funding and therefore refusing to show the movie shows Exxon dollars buying influence right there, period. That is what I have a problem with. A huge problem. Plain and simple.

FTR I don't and never would invest in corporations whose policies or actions I disagree with. That only makes sense.

I suppose there's no way of knowing this for sure either way, but I find that extremely hard to believe. Ockham's razor and all...

"sound, logical decisions in the face of adversity." require being able to see both sides of the coin, including seeing through propaganda, rhetoric, pseudo-science, etc. In this case, if what you said were true about corporations requiring people who can think that way, the NSTA would actually be in favour of showing Gore's movie, because Exxon would be in favour of it.

I think you are confusing the issue. Exxon does NOT have any say in the school's curriculum. In no way does Exxon dictate what the school does and does not teach. Exxon simply sends the school money to support the education of our youth.

Now then, the SCHOOL seems to be saying that they would be concerned that Exxon would pull their funding IF they showed the movie. That may or may not be true. However, it is the SCHOOL, not Exxon, that is setting the curriculum.

If the school wanted to show the movie they could show the movie. If they lose Exxon's funding, then they lose it. Maybe Gore could pony up the extra cash, who knows.

It's just like anything else, if you go to any University many if not most of the buildings are built with private money which was donated. Those donors are spoken of with reverence and respect, even if they have a few skeletons in their closet.

Al Gore is a freaking nut. He is also a relative of mine. Ughhh.
Global warming is something he is pushing because he feels the need to have his name in the papers. It does not matter if there is any basis of fact in what he says, there will always be someone to lap it up.
I said it before, he's a nut!

ExxonMobil does a great deal of philathropic work. So do just about all major corporations. Anyomne ever hear about a small organization called United way? the list of corporations that donate to UW is staggering.

The NTSA declined to take them up on their offer because the movie is BS and they know it.
There is nothing at all shady or underhanded about what exxonmobil is doing. It is called investing in one's own future.
XOM employs a great many engineers, from environmental to chemical to mechanical to geological.
If they can encourage young students to choose these fields of study, there will be a larger worker pool to draw from when the students graduate. Ohhhhhh, that's so evil! bah.

The students also get a small amount of benefit from it, namely an honest, productive career that will quickly grow to provide a six figure income, instead of working at walmart.
We just can't stand by and allow that to happen, can we?

Here's a link to the NTSA and details of their sponsorship by XOM.
http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=48146

It doesn't have anywhere near the senationalism that some people would like in order to invoke a knee-jerk reaction from the miss-informed and un-informed.

Congratulations. I commend your ethical investment posture.

Quote:

I suppose there's no way of knowing this for sure either way, but I find that extremely hard to believe. Ockham's razor and all... "sound, logical decisions in the face of adversity." require being able to see both sides of the coin, including seeing through propaganda, rhetoric, pseudo-science, etc. In this case, if what you said were true about corporations requiring people who can think that way, the NSTA would actually be in favour of showing Gore's movie, because Exxon would be in favour of it.

In seeing your quote of me, I noticed that I mis-typed (although I don't think that it substantially changes my point), what I meant to type was...
... Sound, logical decisions in the face of uncertainty, as in being able decide where to drill a well.

Yes, being able to do this does require looking at both sides of the coin. But I still don't undersand how all of the doubtful science in Gore's movie constitutes looking at the "other side" when the "other side" is not well reasoned or supported by facts. Well intentioned -- yes. Well reasoned -- No.

Isn't there a double standard here? You freely admit that YOU don't send your money to invest in corporations whose policies and actions you disagree with yet somehow think Exxon should not do the same? Huh?

Wow.

A real bunch of disconnects in logic all 'round!!

Seems as if emotion rules even when it comes to the environment!!

P.S. We are experiencing a very cold spell down here in the Southwest (nov 28); overnight low scheduled to hit around 28. I suppose I can conclude that global warming is an entirely mythical concept, based on my limited and regional observations!!

From the article:
Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.

I really don't think I'm confusing the issue. Exxon doesn't legally have any say in the school's curriculum, of course. But they know damn well that giving money will generally bring the school board onside, or at least present a disincentive to act in ways opposed to their policies. I mean come on, that's just common sense. That's why the lobby industry is so huge, and why so many ocmpanies offer hundreds of billions of dollars of campaign contributions. You don't really believe that the TSBA didn't feel pressure to not show the movie because Exxon might pull funding? That's influence, right there. That's Exxon having a say in the curriculum.

Have you been to a university lately? (I just finished a 7-year stint a few years ago) Granted we live in different countries, so it's possible things are much different in the US, but in Canada corporate donations to university are a highly controversial topic. These "donors" such as Nike, Pepsi, TD bank are not spoken of with reverence in any way, and many are opposed to stadiums and buildings being named after them.

Now in the case of PRIVATE donors, i.e. individual people or families, yes, then you hear gratitude, reverence and respect. I don't have a problem with private donors, as these come without an agenda - it's usually alumni that wish to give something back. (case in point at my alma mater, McGill, a wealthy donor approached the university to make a huge donation (something like 50 or 100 million) yet allowed the university to decide where the money would go - the result: the Schulich School of Music.)

No, there's no double standard at all. Of course Exxon would want to invest in something they agreed with. What I'm saying is education shouldn't be subject to the push and pull of the free market, i.e. donations shouldn't be allowed. When you allow donations, you allow the possibility of pressure to have the curriculum suit the highest bidder, and that's no way to educate children.

I don't buy the argument that Exxon is investing in their own future by giving money to schools. They're trying to buy influence, or at least advertise themselves and make a good name for themselves. If they were truly interested in investing in their future workforce, they'd open their own schools or universities, or they'd make donations anonymously.

I look at large Corporate donors as lobbyists. Right or wrong, that is how they appear to me.

Form a "pool" of donations from corporations, managed by an independent board and distributed in an equitable manner. Removes the "influence" effect (or at least reduces it)

Bob, that's an excellent idea. The cynical part of me, however, says that remove the influence and you'd see donations sink like a stone. The write off isn't worth it without the advertising or influence.

The issue there is results and accountability.

Universities don't like to be held accountable. They seek out funding from sources (government and alumni) that will not expect any specific results for their donation. Corporations, on the other hand, want measurable results for their money. This makes them evil.

And in the time I typed my response, there were a few brainstorms on how to remove expecting results from corporate donations...

Corporations wanting measurable results for their money does not make them evil, it makes them viable. The education system can't be held accountable under the same rules - you can't guage education results on a balance sheet or P&L. Likewise health care - you can't guage the success of a hospital by how many lives they save or lose, or how many operations they perform in a year.

Just because results aren't measurable in terms of investment vs. profit doesn't mean they have no value.

Roghester NY has the Eastman School of Music and the Eastman Dental School, both funded years ago by a home town lad named George Eastman. He was a generous man who gave back to his community without any notion of "influence". How much can a dental school or music school be influenced re: Corporate policies? Yes, corporations can donate for noble purposes, but in our cynical world, this is becoming a very rare commodity.

So then you would think that all private entities should be barred from donating to schools?

Isn't observational science the tracking of historical statistics, corelating potential causes, and then testing those to reproduce the results?
I believe that has been done already by numerous, unaffiliated sources.

It's true that there are natural causes to environmental influence that can, and have, easily outweigh all of mankinds actions, but the scope of the swing currently is very high and directly parralleled to the last hundred year rise in hydrocarbons and CO2.

The polar ozone layer no longer cover parts of Austrailia and they have record amounts of skin cancer. Connection? Mabye oil companies should be forced to subsidize the medical fields instead.
Also, NASA pictures of the shrinking poles from 30 years ago dramatically show to the naked eye how much ice has been lost. But on the other hand if one doesn't believe that water isn't going to end up somewhere, I've got some property in La. I'd like to sell you;)......

No, corporations. I would have thought that would be clear by now! I explicitly stated above that I have no problem with private individuals making donations.

I suppose if we want to get really specific the point of me saying it is that it's the influence that has to go, not the the money, but typically corporations use money to buy influence whereas private donors use money to make improvements or to say thanks. I'm sure you can find exceptions to these, but generally that's the case. Even then, it's more donations to school boards, teacher's associations, etc. that affect the elementary and secondary school systems that really bother me, because kids at that age are much more impressionable think far less critically than those in university.

So you are of the opinion, then that someone like George Soros has no agenda when he gives his personal money?

Come on...

I think if you want to take the position that private money should not be given to schools to prevent bias that's fine, but you would need to extend that to all private funds, IMHO. That means the schools are essentially only receiving funding from the gubmint...

And as we all know, the gubmint doesn't have an agenda, right?

Neither does Rupert Murdoch......

(sigh).........

Point of voew, guys, point of view.

Who said Murdoch DOESN'T?!?!?!?

Why do you always assume the conservative in the debate operates on a double standard?

Here's one to fry your brain, everyone who gives large sums of money (with very few exceptions) to a group HAS AN AGENDA....and that is OK!