Al Gore, Sundance's Leading Man

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

A little bit about Dr. Balling...

The case of Dr. Robert Balling is equally intriguing. A geographer by training, much of Balling's research focused on hydrology, precipitation, water runoff and other Southwestern water and soil-related issues until he was solicited by Western Fuels. Balling has since emerged as one of the most visible and prolific of the climate-change skeptics.

Since 1991, Balling has received, either alone or with colleagues, nearly $300,000 from coal and oil interests in research funding, which he also disclosed for the first time at the Minnesota hearing. In his collaborations with Sherwood Idso, Balling has received about $50,000 from Cyprus, $80,000 from German Coal and $75,000 from British Coal Corp. Two Kuwaiti government foundations have given him a $48,000 grant and unspecified consulting fees and have published his 1992 book, "The Heated Debate," in Arabic. The book was originally published by a conservative think tank, the Pacific Research Institute, one of whose goals is the repeal of environmental regulations.

I don't see how that should invalidate any scientist's beliefs. It shouldn't really matter where scientists get their funding from. You can be funded by the Nazis but still provide legitimate scientific data. If we invalidate the scientific findings of those who were funded by private industry, why can we not invalidate the findings of those related to environmental groups, government, etc?

This is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Scientists are being demonized for their research. A climate of fear is being produced to silence scientific thought. It's very similar to pro-Creationists. Or the persecution of Galileo. Kyotoism is the new religion suppressing thought.

Michael Lindzen published an interesting article about this. Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Does this mean that we must disregard the scientific findings of alarmist scientists because their findings give them financial security and funding? Of course not. Legitimate scientists are scientists by education and research, not whether their findings support your view or who funded them.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Does this mean that we must disregard the scientific findings of alarmist scientists because their findings give them financial security and funding? Of course not. Legitimate scientists are scientists by education and research, not whether their findings support your view or who funded them.

Oh please.

The scientists who work for the tobacco industry for years released "data" on how cigarrettes are not dangerous, don't cause cancer, and aren't addictive...

The only semi-objective measure we have is whether this data has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. Anything that hasn't been published is only an opinion.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Does this mean that we must disregard the scientific findings of alarmist scientists because their findings give them financial security and funding? Of course not. Legitimate scientists are scientists by education and research, not whether their findings support your view or who funded them.

Oh please.

The scientists who work for the tobacco industry for years released "data" on how cigarrettes are not dangerous, don't cause cancer, and aren't addictive...

The only semi-objective measure we have is whether this data has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. Anything that hasn't been published is only an opinion.

Perhaps tobacco scientists were corrupt, but I never followed that debate. I don't know how established their scientists were.

So, as I said, should we disregard the findings of legitimate scientists because they are financially rewarded by creating this alarmist environment?

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Gore ran a horrible campaign that was as bitter as the current crop of democrats are. This is why he lost and why the democrats continue to lose.

Gore coming off a great economy under Clinton should have been a shoe in, but the guy sucked and I dont think he would have done any better than Bush under the circumstances.

It would have been pretty difficult to invade more countries than Bush has. Plus Brownie wouldn't have been running FEMA, so that might have gone a little better.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Does this mean that we must disregard the scientific findings of alarmist scientists because their findings give them financial security and funding? Of course not. Legitimate scientists are scientists by education and research, not whether their findings support your view or who funded them.

Oh please.

The scientists who work for the tobacco industry for years released "data" on how cigarrettes are not dangerous, don't cause cancer, and aren't addictive...

The only semi-objective measure we have is whether this data has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. Anything that hasn't been published is only an opinion.

Perhaps tobacco scientists were corrupt, but I never followed that debate. I don't know how established their scientists were.

So, as I said, should we disregard the findings of legitimate scientists because they are financially rewarded by creating this alarmist environment?

As I said before, it's not a "finding" unless it's been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

 

[eits]

gore '08

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Meuge

As I said before, it's not a "finding" unless it's been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

This is just an open letter. There are no findings in there.

 

[Cruise51]

Originally posted by: eits
gore '08

lol. I'd vote for him.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Meuge

As I said before, it's not a "finding" unless it's been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

This is just an open letter. There are no findings in there.

You're the one who used the word "finding", and now it's "just an open letter". Well, I can write an open letter about my semen being the best vitamin supplement for women ages 18-25... but without data, it's just bullshit.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


In the first place Gor won the 2001 election. That was established by a consortium of newspapers that did a complete recount and discovered that of all legal ballots cast in the entire state of Florida, Gor won. And nobody could have been a bigger disaster than Bush.

Right..and we are supposed to trust a consortium of newspapers? Hah.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Meuge

As I said before, it's not a "finding" unless it's been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

This is just an open letter. There are no findings in there.

You're the one who used the word "finding", and now it's "just an open letter". Well, I can write an open letter about my semen being the best vitamin supplement for women ages 18-25... but without data, it's just bullshit.

Someone seemed to claim that people whose research is funded by outside interests are a sham. I'm saying that they may not be. It's a completely different topic, unrelated to the letter. It's related to the one of the authors of the letter.

It really isn't that complicated. Try not to be so easily confused. Otherwise, everything you say is bullshit.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Meuge

As I said before, it's not a "finding" unless it's been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

This is just an open letter. There are no findings in there.

You're the one who used the word "finding", and now it's "just an open letter". Well, I can write an open letter about my semen being the best vitamin supplement for women ages 18-25... but without data, it's just bullshit.

Someone seemed to claim that people whose research is funded by outside interests are a sham.

Not really. What I claimed is that people whose research is funded by parties that benefit from the answer going a certain way cannot be trusted, especially in the context of the LACK of published data.

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It really isn't that complicated. Try not to be so easily confused. Otherwise, everything you say is bullshit.

Try not to be an asshole.

 

[Starbuck1975]

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

Interesting quote from Mr. Gore, in which he admits that the movie over-represents the facts on global warming to essentially gain audience attention.

If you want to name your movie "An Inconvenient Truth," shouldn't the facts stand on their own merit. Over-representation is a nice way of saying exaggerate.

Maybe he should rename it, "A Convenient Exaggeration."

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

Interesting quote from Mr. Gore, in which he admits that the movie over-represents the facts on global warming to essentially gain audience attention.

If you want to name your movie "An Inconvenient Truth," shouldn't the facts stand on their own merit. Over-representation is a nice way of saying exaggerate.

Maybe he should rename it, "A Convenient Exaggeration."

Reading is fun-da-mental.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Enig101

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Science has NEVER been wrong......


Draining blood used to be considered good medical treatment
Radiation was harmless - and actually helpful
Eugenenics
The earth IS the center of solar system
arteries carry air through the body

We need to be sure about before passing laws that hamstring us or cause disastrous side affects (DDT anyone?).

And so you're willing to bet against the status quo, just so you can maybe have a few more dollars in your pocket?

What if Global Warming is real, and we are the cause? Gonna look pretty stupid if you're wrong. Actually, you're going to look pretty drowned most likely. At least if the Global Warming people are wrong, humanity survives.

I agree, this would be my response exactly. In a phrase, "Better safe than sorry". And we would be really, really sorry.

Secondly, it's a question of do we make policy based on strong empirical evidence, or do we make policy based on greed and a gamble?

This is the same argument christians use. If they're wrong about heaven and hell, no harm done. If you're wrong, and you don't believe in God, you're going to hell.

It's a crock argument for christians to use, and it's a crock argument for tree huggers to use.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

From USA Today.

Al Gore's 40-year-long passion on the subject of global warming shines through powerfully and lights up An Inconvenient Truth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but back then didn't they think we were in a Global Cooling crisis, heading for another ice age?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Enig101

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Science has NEVER been wrong......


Draining blood used to be considered good medical treatment
Radiation was harmless - and actually helpful
Eugenenics
The earth IS the center of solar system
arteries carry air through the body

We need to be sure about before passing laws that hamstring us or cause disastrous side affects (DDT anyone?).

And so you're willing to bet against the status quo, just so you can maybe have a few more dollars in your pocket?

What if Global Warming is real, and we are the cause? Gonna look pretty stupid if you're wrong. Actually, you're going to look pretty drowned most likely. At least if the Global Warming people are wrong, humanity survives.

I agree, this would be my response exactly. In a phrase, "Better safe than sorry". And we would be really, really sorry.

Secondly, it's a question of do we make policy based on strong empirical evidence, or do we make policy based on greed and a gamble?

This is the same argument christians use. If they're wrong about heaven and hell, no harm done. If you're wrong, and you don't believe in God, you're going to hell.

It's a crock argument for christians to use, and it's a crock argument for tree huggers to use.

Not really. Christians who use that arguement ignore their own Bible. A Bet is not Faith.

Also, it is not Tree HUggers who have made this an issue, but Scientists who study such things. It is always wise to listen to people who know what they are talking about.