What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
When Should I Book My Flight Home for Christmas? view!
bing.com - Bing predicts if your fare is likely to fall by $50 or more within 7 days. Shockingly accurate.
62 Comments
- pacdude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Al Gore's a down to earth guy. He caught a lot of slack for being a boring vice president, but he's straightforward and knows what he's talking about.
He's a streetwise pimp. With a hybrid pimpmobile. - mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20I can't believe Bush is so headstrong that he can't even watch this movie. God, what a narrow-minded idiot. I'm sure his brain can't comprehend the massive amount of scientific papers out there that prove that global warming is a man-made crisis, so I was hoping that at the very least he could watch the movie and retain _something_..... but I guess not.
- dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Indeed. It's one thing to listen and disagree with what the opposition has to say. But our president has to be an ignorant ass, plugging his ears and screaming about WMD's, gay marriage, and flag burning.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9For people who saw the movie, here is a link to the Science magazine article that Gore cites -- "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"(1). The paper analyzed abstracts from 928 papers listed with the keywords "climate change". "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." (note -- 25% dealt with methodology, not taking a position on the "debate")
1) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 - sked, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The Greeks were the first to theorize that the Earth was round. Unfortunately, learning and intellect went out of fashion in Europe between 400 and 1200 AD. The storehouses of Greek knowledge were lost to Western society with the advent of the gloomy period known as the Dark Ages. Sea monsters and Vikings ruled the seas, and ships that ventured too far from shore were sure to fall off the edge of a flat Earth. Maps made in that time were based on religious beliefs or superstitions, not on observations, calculations, or scientific inquiry.
Learning and intellect are out of fashion RIGHT NOW. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7In case it comes up, Benny Peiser, a United Kingdom social anthropologist, disputes the Science Magazine article(1). The "34 abstracts," that Peiser claims, "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the 'the observed warming over the last 50 years'" are published here(2) along with other info on the Peiser/Oreskes dispute.
I like the first response to Peiser's abstracts (scroll way down -- posted by a different Brian) -- "Is this a joke?"
1) http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
2) http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/ - Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The Church is to blame for Dark Age.
- elined, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Even if there isn't a confirmed correlation between pollution and global warming, it stretches the intellect to say that pollution doesn't have any impact on the climate and/or other systems. Even if one decides that global warming isn't caused by pollution, one still has to acknowledge that pollution is causing all sorts of problems for humans and other species alike. Asthma, modern allergies, disruption of natural food cycles, which are impacting human cities, a growing population who can't get clean water, etc..The list goes on and on.
I guess what I just don't understand is why, when we have the capacity to curtail something that is obviously not a natural part of the worlds output (i.e. our emissions and other pollutants) without a significant change in lifestyle, why we still, as a population, refuse to support it... - Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8that article "refuting" the AP story is a press release put out by the Republicans on a U.S. Senate committee (the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works).
This does not mean it's wrong, but considering the source, taking it at face value is risky. News releases from politicians tend to be more about politics than about facts.
That junkscience.com web site it cites also is troubled -- whether or not Gore's movie has sound science behind it, making fun of him instead of just showing where he is wrong suggests that the site is more interested in rhetoric than facts. - verde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Maybe on occasion, he could watch a movie or two instead of clearing brush from his ranch
- nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I would pay to see it if it was playing anywhere near me. Sadly it's not so I must resort to other means to view it.
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@TheRonald
This op-ed seems fishy to me. As far as the 100 percent consensus goes, the refutation you quoted is pretty thin, and makes me suspect that someone is deliberately misleading people (maybe themselves included). I'm going to re-quote it and then explain why.
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. "
First of all, notice the curious phrase "only 913 out of 928 had abstracts at all." OK, so 15 out of 928 did not have abstracts, as in, almost all of them had abstracts. This is irrelevant and is only included as an attempt to persuade you that the initial study was sloppy and deliberately misleading, which, I have no reason to believe, as yet. In fact, the use of this type of tactic leads makes me very suspicious of the author since, as far as I can tell this is point is marginal at best.
Next we have this curious statement "only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.” So I ask myself, why are these 13 described with 'explicitly' and why is 13 mentioned in number but, the number opposing modified by 'several'. Let me put forth one possible reading of this statement. "Only 13 studies used the phrase "consensus view" and explicitly said 'we support the consensus view.' While 3 studies disagreed with certain aspects of the "consensus view"."
So, as it stands, I have no reason to trust that this person's op-ed is not simply misrepresenting things, in fact, my skills at examining meaning and intent lead me to suspect that the author is misrepresenting the content of this review. Especially since it doesn't take much, say 10%, I'd even go for 5% to disagree, to reduce a consensus to a "strong majority" which will make intelligent and skeptical readers of the news think "OK, so, maybe global warming isn't so certain." But the author of the Op-ed says "several" (which I take to mean more than two) and is not specific about those "several." - iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"If you ignore this, then you're not interested in knowing the truth, you're interested in disagreeing with "the other side"."
A quick google shows the author Monte Hieb has other anti-global warming articles. Show me a peer-reviewed journal or a credible science website that supports "the other side" and then I'll listen.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. government is the only government spreading FUD about global warming and I assure you that you will not find any other industrialized nation deliberately misleading its people on climate change. They (U.S. government) have given a voice to scientists who disagree with the majority in order to downplay the science and the effects of climate change. The rest of the industrialized world already knows that global warming is real and have taken steps to curtail their emissions. - edverb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Maybe the US Senate committee should, ya know....accept the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences. A study by them was commissioned by Republicans, and the result was a report that completely blows that idiotic, no-fact press release out of the water as to the causes and current status of global warming.
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
Your tax dollars paid for both
A) the science that says manmade causes are the explanation for rising global temperatures
and
B) that idiotic political press release that says the exact opposite, less than a week later.
Once again, the idiots that run the government refuse to listen to their own experts, issue completely contradictory, fact-free press releases.
These political hacks are playing Russian Roulette with the entire planet. - sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Because if Michael Crichton said it, it must be true. It's widely known that all scientists worldwide take their cue from him.
- dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Seriously, Bush has taken the MOST time off in comparison to all the other presidents.
- dotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The Church is to blame for Dark Age."
You mean the last dark age. - KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6People don't want to hear the fact that we don't yet know the truth about climate change; all they want is this alarmist ***** that sells and has always sold. As founding member and former president of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, put it: "'The End is Nigh' has been there since the beginning. People love to pretend that they live in the end times."
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Al Gore is not well known for his lies.
Al Gore is well known for being called a liar by people who make up quotes and and by those who perpetuate these lies. - haxx4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you support Al Gore and/or his campaign for global warming awareness, you should see the movie in theaters, if that is a possibility for you.
- sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you're not a climatologist, then you have no business dismissing humans' role in climate change as "naive." It is unfortunate that people with little factual knowledge on the subject disingenuously attempt to influence public opinion by talking knowledgeably about something they only can support with opinion.
In case you hadn't noticed, those with the power to control public policy (the Republican party) are pushing an agenda that disagrees with scientific research that they themselves commissioned, for purely political reasons - i.e. maintaining the fossil fuel-based economy. - sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, you brave, brave warriors who dare to contradict the vast liberal media conspiracy and peer-reviewed science. Where would we be without you?
- geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@LucasOman:
The article you reference treats CO2 as somehow the only factor in global warming theory, and attempts to debunk it that way. The atmosphere is a deceptively thin and extremely complex system, and greenhouse gas levels (notably CO2 and water vapor) are interrelated in complex ways. Increasing global temperature even a little bit (via CO2, for example) can undoubtedly upset global equilibrium and have a cascading effect.
This is not a simple problem.
I mean, what's the argument for doing nothing? Do you like pollution? A lot of people think this is serious, so I'd rather err on the side of caution, especially when dealing with problems that are so complex they can barely be understood! - Kazenodeku, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@haxx4
It isn't. What sucks most about it is that I work at a theatre and could have gone for free, and they sent us the advertisement package for the movie, but didn't send the film itself.
@returnofmalv
One of those was new to me, but it was fake, just like the rest. Sure, "Install.exe" COULD have been the film, but I'm not about to risk it. - TheRonald, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. - Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2EUROPEANS DID NOT BELIEVE IN A FLAT EARTH DURING THE MIDDLE AGES!!!
This is an incredibly persistant urban myth. Please try to spread around the truth about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Agree with the rest of what you said though. =P - onwardknave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Instead of looking for a torrent, I'd suggest that this movie might actually deserve our money.
- returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4http://isohunt.com/torrents.php?ihq=an+inconvenient+truth&ts
- iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Learning and intellect are out of fashion RIGHT NOW."
Only in the U.S.
Only in the U.S. will you find any serious challenge against the science behind climate change.
Only in the U.S. will you find those still debating that evolution is just a theory. - sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, let's put it this way. Scientists who follow the guidelines of science - producing testable hypotheses and collecting data (using rigorous criteria) to back their conclusions, and then publishing these results and having them peer-reviewed and validated by other scientists - offer actual *evidence* for the conclusions they draw.
Politicians and others who make opinion-based claims have no such evidence behind their views, only their opinion. Yet in today's American culture, each is given equal weight. Everyone has an equal right to an opinion, but that most certainly does not mean all opinions are equally valid.
Saying you personally don't believe that humans are causing or accelerating global warming is fine, but you have nothing to back that up with. When you say that you don't trust scientists, you're saying that evidence that has stood up to scrutiny means nothing to you, and you'd prefer to just think what you want to think despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary. (It's also quite likely that you haven't actually looked at any of the research and are merely parroting things you've heard from supposed sources of authority that you agree with.)
It's also quite curious to hear someone who goes by 'jesusfreak' to admonish others "Just remember, never believe anyone who says they have found the answers" - isn't that what religious fundamentalism is based on, blindly following what you are told? - shazam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Anyone interested in An Inconvenient Truth should probably check out ShareTheTruth, at www.sharethetruth.us... where you can get free tickets to the movie or pay the way for others to see it. all the ticket transactions are also online tracked by the site. spread the word! the movie isn't perfect, but people should be aware !
- MrPeach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Oh, and from Michael Crichton:
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
Global warming skeptics are the new heretics, with all that historically implies. - MrPeach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In the famous words of Albert Einstein:
"It only takes one. One!"
And from Patrick Moore (Former Greenpeace leader):
"Consensus is not a science word" - mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1out of 948 randomly picked environmental scientific papers, 100% were in concurrence with the fact that global warming is being propagated by humans. Out of the same number of media stories on global warming, 53% doubt that global warming is being propagated by humans.
So everything you hear about global warming being fake or not caused by humans is a complete and utter lie that is simply promoted by the media. It's exactly what happened with the whole doubting of the "smoking causes lung cancer" phenomenon. - typo180, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Lots of people are throwing around articles and facts that clearly state opposing "truths" about global warming, what we need is to analyze these sources. It doesn't work to say "Look I found an article stating that we're not causing global warming" because, hey, I can find an article that counters you.
I've heard an interesting point made (both in the movie and outside of it) that all opponents have to do is to raise doubt about the consensus on global warming. If they put a doubt in our minds, if they make us think "Well, we don't really have this figured out yet" and then they've won. It's the same strategy tobacco companies used. - LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Ignoring science? No, Al Gore and his disciples are ignoring science.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
I particularly like this graph:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Notice that there is NO CORELATION between CO2 levels and temperature. In fact, take a look at the Ordovician age, when CO2 levels were at 4000ppm--over 10 times what they are today--and the earth was at its coolest.
There's no doubt that the earth is warming, but stop ignoring the science that shows that it has nothing to do with CO2. It's obvious. If you ignore this, then you're not interested in knowing the truth, you're interested in disagreeing with "the other side". - typo180, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What are you basing that on? The point scientists are making is that something very out of the ordinary is hapening when compared to historical accounts.
- mlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Sure, but did the right sceintist agree with him?
Al Gore is well known for his lies, the most recent of which are neatly comprised into a new science-fiction tale called "An Inconvenient Truth." The MSM, as is its wont, is shilling for the liberal Democrat, but a few Senators are pointing out the real inconvenient truth.
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
And where but in the MSM does a 19% hit rate equal success?
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article.
AP also, naturally, left out the skeptics' reviews.
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
The Senate rarely does anything good; this is one of those ocassions. - wetworx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You go girl!
- Beltoni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi, I live and work outside in New Zealand planting native trees. I can personally vouch for the changing climate as I am subjected to it daily. Every year the sun feels hotter. I spent 4 summers in the northern hemisphere and believe me I Lived outside mostly naked for most of that time and never burnt ( and never wore sunscreen) Conversely here in New Zealand we have this great gapping hole in the ozone layer right over us ( Which incidentally was caused by human activities, mostly in the northern hemisphere ) Which means that those harmful rays from the sun UV & UVB radiation etc gets through the troposphere & is cooking us down under. While you northerners happily go on polluting oblivious to our plight down under. This proves how vulnerable our atmosphere is just like Al's example of how a coat of varnish on a globe is almost to scale with earths real atmosphere at actual real earth scale . Now ask yourself this question. How could our activities of the past 156 years not have an impact?
- Kazenodeku, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I've been looking for a torrent for ages as well.
With this movie though you'd think they'd want to get the word out as much as possible. That's the point, right? - Jayshun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hold the phone. Do some of you people actually think global warming doesn't exist? Is it it that there is no way all the coal and oil we burn has no impact at all on the environment? Either of those are retarded.
- Xipher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I must say this is -the- hardest movie to find a working torrent for.
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6all indi movies are hard to pirate. perhaps thats a good thing.
- TexanRudeBoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0If Gore is sooooooo concerned, why does he continue to fly around on a private jet, or have homes he doesn't live in that use as much energy as neighborhood streets? Typical politician. All for the cause, not for the cure.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Lemme ask you, how many of you really trust scientists at all? I personally dont believe global warming is caused by our CO2 emissions or anything like that (since our CO2 emissions account for less than .01% of all CO2 emissions). I also however cant discount that we may be doing something, but I certainly dont think there are any scientists that have a clue about any of it. Just remember, never believe anyone who says they have found the answers, only those who are looking for the answers.
- KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The tricky part about the greenhouse effect on Earth scenario is that it's not demonstrably provable. Which is not to say whether or not I believe in Global Warming, just that it's one of the most difficult questions for science to answer, and I don't think we yet have a big enough picture to make as definite claims as people like Al Gore like to for a political end.
- postmaster3000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Do you think the President of the United States has time to sit around and watch movies? Maybe one a year, that's about it.
- iAmAgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree with yrufat. Earth is very resilient (although some species are not). If one were to look at the earth's 4 billion year old history, it has gone through countless cycles of temperature changes (*shudders at the thought of having to memorize the names of the major ice ages in class*) and mass extinction before modern humans occupied the earth. I remember an episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy where he said if all of Earth's history were condensed into 24 hours, humans would only come in at the very last second. So the rise in temperature is partly natural and partly fueled by humans. If anything, many of us (and probably the human race) will be long gone before any major change in climate were to occur.
- chatwithaninja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Of course the article refuting it is going to come from the republicans first! Do you expect the liberal media to come out with the facts? Time will tell what the truth is, and the media will, as always, ignore the truth after the sensationalism is over.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 