An Inconvenient Truth - Moved From The Motion Picture Forum

[Hemingway Jones]

OK. This is an excellent discussion though it has moved beyond an actual discussion of the film, so I am going to move it over to The Observation Bar where an enthusiastic debate of a political nature can be waged without raising an eyebrow.

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

I thought most people stopped believing Al Gore when he stated that he invented the internet.

 

[Lincsong]

Joey B;
There's a lot of people who consider Al Gore the most intelligent politician in America.lol

 

[pablocham]

I thought most people stopped believing Al Gore when he stated that he invented the internet.

Speaking as a registered Republican who did not vote for Gore, you are completely wrong and misinformed. He never said that:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I really hate it when people repeat lies so often that they are taken by the gullible and the ignorant for truth.

 

[Terry Lennox]

Here's an interesting website about Patrick J. Michaels

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

Scientists can speak authoritatively only when backed by quantitative logic. In the case of ice balance for Antartica, one thig is clear: Every modern climate model predicts that Antarctica will gain ice in the 21st Century, resulting in a slight lowering of sea levels (which will, nonetheless, be largely compensated for as slightly warmer surface temperatures cause ocean waters to expand).
The oft cited finding that Antarctica is losing ice is based on 34 quasi-monthly setellite observations beginning in mid-2002. But, as shown in the record for East Antarctica, which is the larget ice cap on the planet, mid-2002 represents the high point of snow accumulation for at least the last decade. While we cannot be absolutely certain that this accumulation outweighed ice loss in West Antarctica, we have reason to believe that it did. In any case, we should be cautious in drawing conclusions from a three year sample beginning at a relative peak.
Increased snow accumulaton in Antarctica is a logical consequence of the fact that the surrounding ocean has warmed slightly-an average of 0.3 degrees Celisius-in the last 40 years. That results in more moisture in the atmosphere, which, when uplifted over Antartica, causes greater snowfall. It is widely accepted in scientific circles that this is taking place. This phenomenon may also explain the well-known fact that, averaged over the entire continent, Antarctica has been cooling for decades. The clouds that produce snow reflect more radiation than they trap, resulting in net cooling.
Patrick J. Michaels
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
National Review, 04/03/06 page 2

 

[Lincsong]

Here's an interesting website about Patrick J. Michaels

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

Does the source of the funding matter? Or is it the scientific facts that should prevail? If some scientist is being funded by Al Gore does that discredit his findings? As was mentioned earlier; there is debate in the science community over this subject. We need to look at all the facts and not just stop reading once we agree with the statement.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

Does the source of the funding matter? Or is it the scientific facts that should prevail? If some scientist is being funded by Al Gore does that discredit his findings? As was mentioned earlier; there is debate in the science community over this subject. We need to look at all the facts and not just stop reading once we agree with the statement.

I have trouble believing any scientist (such as your buddy quoted below) who claims that EVERY MODERN MODEL SHOWS anything. I would like him to please present to me every modern model. If he starts to pick and choose, I'd like to know why. Could it be that possibly Al Gore isn't the only one with an agenda?

Every modern model. No scientist worth his salt says things like that. ::splutter::

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

Speaking as a registered Republican who did not vote for Gore, you are completely wrong and misinformed. He never said that:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I really hate it when people repeat lies so often that they are taken by the gullible and the ignorant for truth.

Look Pablo,....can I call you Pablo? Snopes is not as reliable as you think it is.

But, even so, the Snopes version states this...


Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" is justified is a subject of debate. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977.

It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).

In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf.


Clearly Snopes is kissing Gore's butt. Invent or create, whatever he said, he sure is taking alot of credit himself.

 

[Zemke Fan]

Two items to read...

Anyone interested in the Climate Change issue needs to read two short articles for perspective:

1. MIT's Technology Review: "The Messenger"
2. Robert Samuelson (Wash. Post): "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"

The first article explains what Jim Hansen (NASA) and his colleagues have concluded -- based not on models but on 450,000 years of ice-core samples from Antarctica.

The second really does put it all in prospective: "Global warming is an engineering problem, not a moral crusade. Until we solve the problem, it's hypocrisy to pretend we can stop global warming."

 

[pablocham]

Look Pablo,....can I call you Pablo? Snopes is not as reliable as you think it is.

Are you saying that this part of Snopes is unreliable? Can you show evidence for that? Because if not, you are just blowing smoke. Find a quote where he said it, or stop repeating the lie. It is as simple as that. Snopes is just a convenient resource because I know that it generally has well sourced facts, and most people who cared to check knew that this canard about Al Gore and the internet was horsesh*t when it first plopped into public consciousness during the 2000 election campaign.

Personally, I am sick of the partisan hypocrites on both sides who will say anything to score points or "win" an argument. In this case, the truth is that the pompous and bloated Gore, for all his faults, never claimed to have invented the internet. Now that you know that, if you insist on repeating it then you are just repeating dishonest election year propaganda.

So Joe, what do you have to gain by repeating and then defending this lie?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Does the source of the funding matter? Or is it the scientific facts that should prevail? If some scientist is being funded by Al Gore does that discredit his findings?

Yes; To all three. For the last one, only if Gore has anything to gain by a specific outcome of the research he funds.

Therefore, the vast majority of drug research - funded and carried out by the company that made the drug - is unreliable. When the funding agency has anything to gain from the outcome of an experiment or thought process, bias and selective reporting of results becomes a problem. Thalidomide is the classic example. Another example: when a tobacco company funds research about the addictiveness of its own product, we are correct to be skeptical.

For this reason, most scientists when publishing their data have to declare any conflicts of interest. This will form a part of the review process of their work. If that conflict has tainted their work they will not get published by a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

I agree that, from what i've read, the jury is still officially out re. climate change and its implications. But weighing the facts, and listening to those in the know (climate scientists, by the way, are not known to be a particularly reactionary group), brings one to the conclusion that the jury is about to come in with its verdict and it will not be pretty. We are going to have to do something about the rate at which the globe is warming. Has anyone seen the images comparing the ARCTIC icepack in 1979 and 2003? Verrrry disturbing reduction.

I haven't seen this movie but will make sure to do so.

bk

(p.s. The university i attend has a large-ish, and very actively publishing, Earth and Atmospheric sciences department. I have listened to seminars by the leading researchers in this field - straight from the horse's mouth; their latest findings. What they say to the media is very toned down and incredibly simplified, leading to the media misconstruing what they say. They are verrrry worried about this issue.)

 

[Katt in Hat]

Please take no offence...

bk, No sweet reason before Noon or Midnight;(depends on whether the clock has been synched with the sun).
fftopic: Not really...

 

[JDCrockett]

Another Alternative view

I must admit that I have not seen this movie and probably won't, however I am aware of it and have heard discussion of it in various forums. I have just finished reading a great book by Michael Crichton (of "Jurassic Park" fame) called "State Of Fear" it is a good fiction novel which explores some facets of the "global warming" issue. It has the most footnotes, and largest bibliography I've ever seen in a novel and is very well researched. References to scientific articles, government and independent websites with weather data, and texts on human pschology and environmental issues make it easy to do your own research if desired. His conclusions are that the data doesn't necessarily support the hysteria generated in the media and that much of the hype is overblown for other reasons on both sides of the issue. Just because "everybody" knows or believes something doesn't make it a fact.
I would recommend the book strongly, it's available in paperback now for about the same price as a movie ticket and I actually found the hardback at a book discounter (Atlantic Books) for $5.98.
If anyone is interested in learning more about his veiws try these links for a taste.
Several of his speeches here are very enlighteneing, stick with them and you'll see the connection.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

This page also is a frightening reminder of how wrong "everybody" has been in the past:

http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html

I have opinions on Al Gore and his politics, timing, and sincerity but I don't want to argue, I just ask that people get infromation on alternatives to some of the ideas presented in his movie.
Crichton has written material for several blockbusters in the movies and on tv,
somehow I doubt that today's Hollywood will option and faithfully produce this story!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

"Until we solve the problem, it's hypocrisy to pretend we can stop global warming."

Isn't this just saying, "Until we solve the problem, it's hypocrisy to pretend we can solve the problem"? That's a nonsensical statement if I've ever heard one.

.

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

Therefore, the vast majority of drug research - funded and carried out by the company that made the drug - is unreliable.

Though I concur in principle, and tend to be between sceptical and cynical in this respect, still I think there are differences between companies. (Not going to name names here.) Some drug companies, even among the very large ones, are trustworthy by and large.

Other issues:

- No drug companies -> no research. So, unless you're a Christian Scientist and believe that prayer is the only way of healing, while doctors and drugs imply blasphemy, you should consider this. Certainly they don't do that selflessly, and certainly, most companies won't go into serious research unless they can expect a financial revenue, but still you'd better not count on governments and universities that don't have third-party funds.

- A study some months ago claimed about half of university research studies in medicine have faked or doctored data. Seems, often the MD supervisor has an idea that the student feels (s)he must prove. Another factor is they do it because they can. Nobody cares about what an unkown resident claims in his or her thesis. By contrast, big, evil drug company studies are disassembled and scrutinised by outsiders until the cows come home.

- In capitalism, the mediocre scientists stay at the universities, and the over-average ones go where the money is. So, you'll find the best brains with big, evil drug companies, not in academia. This is only a bit different in the US, where you have a handful of very well-funded private universities. Still they pay less, and I don't know if I trust a scientist more if he goes after the money (big company employee) or after prestige (Harvard professor).

The only alternative seems to be communism. Only it doesn't work, because people are people.

 

["Doc" Devereux]

Isn't this just saying, "Until we solve the problem, it's hypocrisy to pretend we can solve the problem"? That's a nonsensical statement if I've ever heard one.

.

I parsed it as "Since it's an engineering problem, we need to solve the maths before we look at practical fixes."

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

Not: "Until we fixed it, we won't know if fixing is possible at all, so if we claim it's possible, we're lying."?

 

[jake431]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux]I parsed it as "Since it's an engineering problem, we need to solve the maths before we look at practical fixes."[/QUOTE]

There are certain things we can do that we know will have a beneficial effect on our environment (lower the speed limit, encourage flexfuels and hybrid/alternative energy cehicles, work to create a more cohesive, comprehensive public transportation system, etc). To say that until we know exactly how bad it is, and exactly what specifically we have to do to completely fix the problem, we shouldn't do anything is like saying until we know exactly how bad blowing cigarette smoke in the faces of our children is for them and what we can do to fix the heath effects of doing that, we should keep on doing it. I think that's ridiculous.

-Jake

 

[Baron Kurtz]

- In capitalism, the mediocre scientists stay at the universities, and the over-average ones go where the money is. So, you'll find the best brains with big, evil drug companies, not in academia.

I disagree, and would probably tend towards a stance where there is very little difference between the quality of scientists in industry and in academia. And would love to see some back-up for the statement that the good 'uns go to industry. Most of the stunningly intelligent and prolific scientists i know have chosen academia over industry (admittedly i don't know many in industry) because of the freedom that academia provides. There is basically no boss leaning over you, demanding what's best for the company etc. The choice between industry and academia is a little (in fact a lot) more nuanced than simply go where the money is.

The fact, as i see it, is that most scientists are rather run of the mill, good at what they do, and nothing particularly stunning (myself included). There are very few over-average ones. The Einstein/Hawking/Crick/Pauling type of brilliance is incredibly rare. In fact, i've only ever met one who would probably fall into this category.

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Not: "Until we fixed it, we won't know if fixing is possible at all, so if we claim it's possible, we're lying"?

I love verbal gymnastics! lol

.