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.