On Dec 30, 2007 9:06 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An inconvenient truth.
>
> I have to agree with others here - Al Gore was not pitching science to the
> media with the movie. I think you can rightly say he was pitching it to the
> public at large tho'.
> As sensationalistic as "An inconvenient Truth" is the overall claim of the
> film is well-supported, even if sometimes controversial, science.
So now you accept the science if it's overall claim is supported by
some scientists?
What happened to all your scientific integrity arguments? The movie
was played in schools as science documentary which was loaded with
outright lies to scare people into believing the overall claim. Sounds
like an ID tactic.
> The point of the article was that when bogus science fails to gain any
> foothold in legitimate scientific circles they often resort to media
> interaction as a way to generate popular buzz or provide faulty testemonials
> ("As seen on CNN!")
As is what happened. The science was never openly debated. The UN
politicians had it's
report and Gore had his mockumentary. Now if any scientist tries to
debate it from the wrong side they're career is ruined. That's what I
mean by using the media to shut out the science.
> Too address the question "if this is so great why are you having trouble
> getting the word out?" they nearly always proceed to step two:
>
> > > 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
> > suppress his or her work.
> >
> > All "Deniers" are paid for by big oil.
>
> Is this true? Do you have a source for the quote? I would agree that a
> blanket, baseless statement of that kind would be a red flag.
Larry say's it all the time. Al Gore's response to the 400 scientist
that spoke out against it was 20-30 are paid by big oil. Isn't he
tring to tarnish the entire lot with that statement?
> However it honestly doesn't make a difference. Gore is NOT a scientist but
> rather an evangelist; a popularizer.
He's a religious leader :)
> He is not defending personal research.
Well my comments were satire since he's not realy a scientist, he's an inventor.
> > > 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> > detection.
> >
> > Trust us, we can't prove it, we just know.
>
> This is just a flippant ad hominem. It isn't worth considering.
There is no proof and the theory probably can't be proven or tested.
There's a lot of faith in this theory.
> > > 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
> >
> > Disappearing ice caps, random ice core samples and Hurricane Katrina
> > should be proof enough.
>
> Regardless of whether you claim it as "proof", "indication" or "unrelated"
> none of these are anecdotal. These all occurred or are occurring - we may
> argue about the causality but no sane person is suggesting that any of them
> we delusional in nature.
>
> "Anecdote" means a "personal account" - scientifically speaking something
> essentially private and undocumented. Saying "I saw a UFO" or "his machine
> cured my headache!" is anecdotal (unless of course other evidence exists).
> Saying "the ice caps are melting" is NOT anecdotal since this claim is made
> based on general observation.
I was going with this definition:
2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or
scientific analysis.
We have hurricanes almost every year. To suddenly blame them or any
other common weather changes on GW is anecdotal or based on casual
observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific
analysis.
> > > 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
> > observation.
> >
> > That is global warming.
>
> Again this is a misunderstanding of the flag. "Global Warming" is NOT,
> remotely a description of a new law of nature. It's an effect. In fact
> it's an effect (or rather class of effects) that we can all agree on: IF the
> planet warms here's what could happen.
Yes but the question is can man change or control Mother Nature? Not
that we know of so far. For this theory to be true it has to be yes.
> In the case of Global warming there is no such violation of existing laws
> and no need to create new ones.
OK maybe that was a stretch.
> It is worth noting that just because Global Warming (or Al Gore
> specifically) don't meet the flags for bogus science that doesn't mean that
> the science is "true". Good, well researched, properly managed science is
> proven false every day - science is the one discipline where "doing it
> right" means that both success and failure means advancement.
And I only want the debate to go on. To many people think there's a
consensus and the issue is settled. Even a consensus wouldn't make it
a settled issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249469
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
