What is Digg?72 Comments
- raymondmarble, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38I have not read any criticism of the movie's science that was actually based in sound science. I've read tons of criticism of the movie by people attacking Gore himself.
But when scientists evaluate the scientific arguments of the movie, the movie holds up.
Example:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/ - Hoovooloo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Can you provide us with a link which has climate experts (not movie critics) supporting your claim that the science is significantly faulty? We already have two links in the article and discussion supporting Gore.
- nebunezzar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I don't care much for Gore either, but when it comes to the environment he does know his stuff. At least he's not a radical who sets farmed halibut free to die.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- Norweed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24You know. I'm going to go with MIT over your silly digg response any day thank you very much.
- Takteek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24"I've read tons of criticism of the movie by people attacking Gore himself."
And that's not even a valid argument. =D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem - john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24at least he's working towards solving the problem...
what, may I ask, are you doing to help as _you_ drive your SUV down the road? - Hoovooloo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19change != global warming. It just means they are studying trends in Earth's history, and watching modern changes. Change could be global cooling, or global warming, or anything. There is no implied pro-global warming bias in the name.
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@Yorn-
>Guess what comes out of the exhausts of cars? Ozone.
Hydrocarbon emissions are fuel molecules that only partially burned. Hydrocarbons react in the presence of nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. Ozone irritates the eyes, damages the lungs, and aggravates respiratory problems. It is our most widespread and intractable urban air pollution problem. A number of exhaust hydrocarbons are also toxic, with the potential to cause cancer.
Ground level ozone is bad and does not fix or help the atmosphere ozone issue.
Fuel efficient cars can reduce the amount hydrocarbon emissions. The idea is to burn less and more efficiently. The ultimate goal is to remove the need for fossil fuels altogether with a cleaner alternative. Until then, fuel efficiency is important to our health and the environment. - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Ever hear of the Ice Age? Science already points out that our climate has went through changes throughout history. The study of these changes, and what may cause them, is an important science. Ignoring global warming, or in Bush's case trying to hide it ( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/wireStory?id=2496467 ), will not make it go away.
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Attacking the person doesn't invalidate the argument. Ad hominem is not a valid argument. Although there is money in protecting the environment, there is more money made in NOT protecting the environment. For example: a fuel efficient car costs more than a non-fuel efficient car. A business has to spend money to put measures in place to protect the environment, but doesn't have to spend a penny not to.
- Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It seems that the Ad Hominem attack is so ingrained into neocon arguments (such as they are) they don't understand that it is a logical fallacy.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@Jagdhund:
"In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, 'satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century.' However, in reality, the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe )
A former real estate agent...
...or MIT climatologists.
A former real estate agent...
...or MIT climatologists.
*groans* This one's tough... - zanestone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Did anyone actually RTA? MIT does not confirm his results.
"Gore did a fine job framing the problem." - This acknowledges there is a problem but does not posit that the details of Al's framing are accurate or inaccurate.
"Gore made a "powerful case: we currently have the knowledge and technology to turn back the trend and reduce carbon emissions to the pre-'70s level."" - This statement again says yes there is a problem and WOW we have the technology to do something about it.
The kicker is here:
"Gore is "basically right," Stone said." - Basically saying the fundamentals are there but don't believe everything you see here.
To say that MIT scientists fully supports this movie is a bit of a stretch.
To say that MIT scientists agree with the premise of the film would be more accurate. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11It seems that CEI(competitive enterprise institute) who authored the gore rebuttal, has a history of misrepresenting scientists:
http://munews.missouri.edu/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=9842
Then there's the fact that CEI is funded by big oil. I guess this is the best you could do with all that money - slap some excerpts here and there to make your case, FUD, and it's all traced back to big oil. The lesson here is when you're not telling the truth, holes appear despite the billions invested to promote your agenda. Over time the truth always prevails. - toadfairy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21From colleagues, friends, and family I've heard nothing but good responses to this movie...the issue is so incredibly important, you can't help but respect Mr. Gore for his earnest portrayal of the issue.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Let's humor ourselves and take a look at the i-hate-gore nationalreview.com's rebuttal. First point:
"Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed."
Disputed, that's a classic. Scientists may disagree with the exact details so yes it is "disputed" but they overwhelming agree with Gore here. At least, the fancy pants at MIT agree. The national review offers no citations. Just how disputed is it? They don't tell you.
This is better known as "FUD"
Then there's the quote by "Carl Wunsch", which the national review completely misunderstands. Nowhere does that dispute Al Gore's claim, it just talks about a part of the global converyor belt - the gulf stream. I do see that someone (hmm who could that be?) has reposted the same quote by Carl Wunsch's on over 100 or so blogs/forums.
I'll take the MIT route vs the astroturfing national review route, thank you. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Scientists don't agree with someone if there are major holes in their argument. If there were such holes you would hear about them. but all you hear is silly rhetoric from so called sceptics that is easily ripped to pieces when shown to actual climate scientists.
"Basically right" in scientist circles does not mean they disagree mostly. It means there's nothing of importance to complain about. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Uh oh, time for Trey and Matt to do a humorless hatchet job on MIT.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Why is it so hard to look at the actual science - not the journalists sensationalizing, the actual science?
How do previous cycles of natural climate change preclude humanity from having an effect? - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@Yorn-
Ad hominem means to attack the person and not the person's argument. If you discuss Al Gore, and not his argument about global warming, you are engaged in ad hominem.
P.S. National Review is a pro-conservative site. Its politically charged with lots of spin, similar to a pro-liberal site like Raw Story. The wierd thing is that conservatives used to be the environmentally friendly group. - venir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Jagdhund
You seem to be missing that fact that although your claim that Gore's movie is bordering "alarmism" it is a problem that can't be fixed overnight. If we are truly scewing up our planet by pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, we won't have the time to fix it once we have true conclusive evidence that is what is happening. By the time we have proved it without a doubt, it will be too late. This is why it is so important to act now. We might still be able to do something about this problem that *most* climate scientists agree HUMANS are contributing to if not causing. - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Which is also the case of this dig entry as it's an appeal to authority."
It is an appeal to intelligent people. Intelligent people are sometimes referred to since it is impossible for anyone to know everything. And you call this "an appeal to authority"?
Do you have something better? How about an appeal to stupidity, would that suit you?
But what the heck, this is just MIT, what do they know? - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you believe or not on global warming.
The point is:
- do you believe it's worthy to recycle as much as possible?
- do you believe it's worthy to try and develop cleaner energy sources?
- do you believe it's worthy to rethink our waste levels?
- do you believe it's worthy keep an eye on the deforestation?
If you do, and you do something about it yourself, who cares if GW is true or not, at least you're being ethical and that's all that matters.
I also think it's very important to remember that these kinds of acts are not to "save the planet", the planet will be fine, thanks, in the next millions of years, since it makes no difference for Earth whether it's populated by humans or fungii; the point is to try to keep the planet at least decently usable for the next generations. - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Why is it so hard to believe this is just a normal phase of the earth's climate "
Here are better questions.
Are you prepared to take a chance with the existence of the human spieces if...god forbid... your laymans views are in error? Are you going to say sorry after we are all dead because we did nothing? Who are we going to trust here? Rush Limbaugh? Ayn Rand? Or scientists that study the issue?
Hmmm....let me think.
Of course the real reason people argue again GW is politics. The rightwing have become lame philosophical fruitcakes that are polarized against environmentalism because it might require government intervention and blows their extremist self-righteous politcal theories out of the water. Rightwingers today are basically like communists You either agree with them...or you eventually get put in their "killfile". - StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"How is an SUV hurting the environment?"
Are you serious? As someone above said, a Cadillac Escalade gets 13mpg. That is truly dreadful. My Lexus IS200 gets about 29, and that's pretty bad. Most cars get about 34ish, and some up to 60. That means for every mile travelled, the Caddy pumps out 4 times the amount of greenhouse gasses than a Toyota Prius.
"Is Ozone good or bad?"
Depends. Ozone up in the top level of the atmosphere is good - it bounces UV off back into space and keeps us from getting sunburnt. At the earth's surface ozone is very bad and can have nasty effects on your lungs.
And part of the trouble with running out of oil is that it's an extemely important element in making many medicines. Yes, it can be synthesized, but I understand that's not as effective. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Trouble is, if you take a look in the historical records, it's more like something like this:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down-up-up-up-up-up
Actually this and many other skeptic arguments are discussed in the movie, I really recommend you to see it. - tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Have those professors published anything on those opinions? I ask only because we hear a lot about the consensus amongst published and peer-reviewed articles, and it would seem odd that nobody has flaunted papers by MIT climatologists that break consensus.
- jddigger272, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5limeaid
In regard to your link on MIT scientist Richard S. Lindzen who disagrees with global warming. He charges a $2,500 a day for his consulting services to coal and oil companies. If I got paid that much I would say my balls are frozen because it is way to cold at the equator - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6 Wadda ya mean MIT thinks global warming due to CO2 emissions is happening? So what if NASA scientists say the same thing? Who cares if virtually every scientist on the planet that studies the issues agrees. Clearly these are terrrible sources for our science.
In fact we should trust the Weekly Standard, Fox, Beck, and Rush for our science data.... since we all know they are qualified to provide it. Everyone knows GW is actually part of a massive liberal propaganda campaign to take all our billyuns and billyuns.
Truth be told all these "rocket scientists" are just trying to manipulate hateful weakminded bigots into voting a particular way,,, because they are power crazied. - juststeve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6>Why is it so hard to believe this is just a normal phase of the earth's climate -<
Perhaps because it's hard to believe there've been significant, _sustained_ carbon (or particulate) emissions prior to the industrial age.- - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You don't need alarmism to promote change, you need logic.
LOL, we are fighting big oil money and you say we can fight it with logic, look at the industry loving asshats in the comment section.
There is now a path allt he wway to the north pole. Most scienctists agree al gore got the movie right. The most recent Climate study of the climate scienctists ipcc, out of thousands of scienctists only 2 said it wasnt a desperate problem. I bet you cant guess the biggest commoodity is from their country. We are near the point of no return, their is a path to the np. Disease carrig insects are moving north, plant harvests have changed, the timing of spring is off and aanimals are suffereing, storms getting worse, weather in general more extreme.
The house is on fire and you want us to sit down and make a plan of escape... sorry while you draw up a plan to leave, i will be getting my butt out of their.
I personally want beach front property but i would rather move to the beach and not have it move to me. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@edzieba
"even if we stopped emitting all CO2, right this very second, it would probably cause little change in the overall climate trend."
I'd sort of like a credible peer reviewed source for that opinion, considering that you are contradicting a global consensus amongst scientists that have been studying this for decades. such as these MIT scientists.
Until you do that, I'm sure you understand that I'll take the opinion of MIT scientists, and the consensus of the scientific community, over your opinion. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The holes in the article by the CEI I brought up are more relevant than CEI's bias of course hence why I brought up the holes first before talking about the bias. But the combination of bias + lies is very relevant. This tells you that the people who oppose Gore are very wrong. Gore doesn't need to twist facts, rresearchers aren't upset at him for misrepresenting their own work. Over time, despite the billions Exxon will throw down, the truth will prevail - we just witnessed it prevailing as we saw the national review article ripped to shreds. It's like the catholic church fighting the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, eventually Gore's opponents will be left with nothing.
I just pointed out how CEI is wrong here, I also linked to another instance. This isn't an isolated event anymore. - wacki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@axxiom
"If CEI's reporting is wrong, than it ought to be corrected."
um...... read the post above yours.
"However, if one report is wrong it doesn't mean that everything they report is wrong."
While this is true, CEI has a very long history of fraudulent behavior. This article is no exception. Here is a rebuttal of 2 of their points:
CEI's #5. The Hottest Year.
Rebuttal: Bob Carter off the mark: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html
CEI's #24. The “Scientific Consensus.”
Rebuttal:
Benny Peiser is a fraud: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html
The real consensus: http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"Is CEI funded by "big oil"? Probably."
um......... Probably is an understatement. It's heavily funded by big tobacco, big oil, and big coal. - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"consensus is not science."
True....but neither is listening to rightwing fanatics for our science perspective either. If they argued "well we are not sure" that would be one thing... and reasonable. However for the longest time they were "positive" the earth wasn't even warming even though qualified scientists everywhere were giving us other information.
Now their angle is "it's not caused by humans"... as if scientists haven't considered their lame two second argument that the earth doesn't naturally warm and cool in their theories. Tomorrow no doubt they will say they knew it all along and liberals and government were actually to blame. (they blame their entire miserable existence on some scapegoat)
The best we can do as layman is listen to those qualified to make these assessments....those that study the issue... SCIENTISTS. As far as I know NASA and MIT are a pretty good sources... as is the majority of scientific community that is telling us this a problem for more than a decade now. Of course you can pull out some exception to the rule but who are we supposed to trust? Holier-than-thou ideologically driven radio jockeys with an agenda against environmentalism..... or reputable scientists with raw data?
Philosophy is OK for rules of thumb but when empiricism disputes it... it's time to evolve or get the hell out the way of people that deal with the reality of situations. - culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Marked as inaccurate by conservative zealots desperately trying to cling to hope for the 2006 election in 3...2...1...
- dacyac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3science is a human cultural endeavor. as such it always has been and always will be about consensus. (that is the point of the meme paradigm shift.) the scientific methods stands in a long line of epistemological methods starting with common sense, moving on in cultural development to recieved knowledge, then rational argument , logic and finally back to systematic common sense of the scientific method, which is to say, results matter.
indeed when it comes to science, one should say replicable results matter.
hence the implicit need for consensus within science. - juststeve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not seeing it said anywhere that MIT folk 'fully support'. But 'to side with' indicates a substantive agreement with.
Your comment is indicative of looking for a loophole big enough to justify inaction. Otherwise known as plausible deniability. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you didnt get the point, did you? :)
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One other funny thing about Lindzen. He does not have enough strength in his convictions to put his money where his mouth is - not even when *he offers* the bet.
The same man who stated that he received $2,500/day for his consulting
services to oil & coal interests announced the he was accepting bets
that global average temperatures would be cooler in 20 years. When
taken up on the offer, he would only accept 50-1 odds.
i.e.
He would receive $10,000 if the temperatures went down, but only pay
$200 in the event of a rise.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/betting.html
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=341&tstamp=200604 - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2True. Consensus is *not* science.
Consensus of opinion does not refute scientific fact either. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1geekee wrote: "consensus is not science."
True, but then again... the consensus didn't make the science. It was the other way around.
-digg for an exceedingly lame attempt at spin and confusion. - clarencedick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Here is an interesting opposing view:
http://digg.com/environment/An_inconvenient_truth_SOS_from_Al_Gore - amonroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My floor mate at MIT is working on his PhD in environmental sciences, he mentioned to me that there are some professors in his department who do not agree with the theory that global warming is caused by humans. On the other hand I watched Al Gore's movie and I found it convincing for the most part.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"In regard to your link on MIT scientist Richard S. Lindzen who disagrees with global warming. He charges a $2,500 a day for his consulting services to coal and oil companies. If I got paid that much I would say my balls are frozen because it is way to cold at the equator"
Logical fallacy
circumstantial ad hominen attack
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html - libeater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah! Let's all fight Al Gore's manbearpig and his eeeeevil capitalist overlords.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What I mean is: even if we stopped emitting all CO2, right this very second, it would probably cause little change in the overall climate trend.
if i stop pouring gas on a fire, the fire probably wont go out either, but it will have less fuel and will go away quicker. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There are times when it is prudent to be suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests.
- rwj88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Al Gore may not have invented the internet...but
Al Gore invented global warming. -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is