I found this so laughable I had to post it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/ts_nm/nobel_peace_gore_ipcc_dc_3

This is absolutely excellent news. Climate change is one of the biggest risks facing the future of our planet. You might want to stop laughing for a while and check out the facts, Nate. Much as it may displease Mr Bush, one cannot pretend that global warming will just go away if you ignore it.

The climate never STOPS changing. It's been continuously changing for the past 4.5 billion years, and will continue for the next 5 billion years, until the sun swells up and engulfs the earth. We as a species will be dead and gone LONG before climate change ever threatens the earth.

But it won't take much of a change to put our presence on the planet in big trouble. Sorry if that's an "anthropocentric" view point, but I actually feel quite strongly that it's important.

This is absolutely excellent news. Climate change is one of the biggest risks facing the future of our planet. You might want to stop laughing for a while and check out the facts, Nate. Much as it may displease Mr Bush, one cannot pretend that global warming will just go away if you ignore it.

He won it for making "An Inconvenient Truth", which is a collection of lies mis-statements, and anecdotes. It was not a documentary.

Also, I am laughing at him, not climate change. I have nothing but contempt for him. This has nothing to do with my feelings on "climate change".

Harry, please. Let's not discuss "climate change". I disagree with you, but I don't want to start an argument. It will not change anyone's mind and has a good chance to end badly.

Nate, please show me where Gore lied in An Inconvenient Truth please. I saw it and it didn't seem like likes to me. I could be wrong, but if I am, I want proof.

I am not here to debate global warming, but here is the :) truth :) behind an inconvenient truth.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Anyways, the film does have issues.

Nate, please show me where Gore lied in An Inconvenient Truth please. I saw it and it didn't seem like likes to me. I could be wrong, but if I am, I want proof.

the british court just made a ruling that the movie cannot be shown in schools without pointing out the factual inaccuracies.

Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is a biased and inaccurate political work that can’t be shown in British schools without special guidance, a British judge ruled yesterday.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/europe/view.bg?articleid=1037311

Global warming is too important an issue to let oneself be distracted by a personal or political dislike of any "figurehead" representing the issue. The UN Climate Change Commission is a group of scientists of global reknown. The fact that THEIR work has been recognised as being significant for the future of mankind cannot, and should not, be laughed off.

It's the new 'Belief" system for the 21st century. Let's choose sides.

But it won't take much of a change to put our presence on the planet in big trouble. Sorry if that's an "anthropocentric" view point, but I actually feel quite strongly that it's important.

I'm not yet convinced that that's necessarily a bad thing. :)

:shrug: As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on the global warming thing. Those "pushing" it (many of whom were saying thirty years ago that we were headed for an ice age) have been at it for quite some time. While the research that doesn't support it is just beginning to emerge, not having had as long to work on it.

I figure it'll be a while before we can say with any certainty which side is bunk, and I'd rather not do anything that will cripple our civilization (also a shamelessly anthropocentric perspective, I know) until we're sure which way we should jump.

At the same time I don't see any reason we shouldn't do the things that are less burdensome — it's just good stewardship of the planet. I've got a garage full of cardboard (moving boxes) that I'm having to cut up and parcel so that I can fit it into my car to get it to the recycling place (which doesn't want to pick it up and only operates about 5 hours a day). It'd be easier to just trash it, but the stuff is 100% recyclable, and I'd rather spend the sweat than waste it. :shrug:

It's the new 'Belief" system for the 21st century. Let's choose sides.

Thankfully science is about FACTS, rather than beliefs. It's only misguided politicians who believe that if you claim that the science is somehow faked by your political opponents then it'll all go away.

I saw it and it didn't seem like likes to me. I could be wrong, but if I am, I want proof.Exactly the reaction Gore was hoping for. If he's making the claim, it's up to him to provide the proof.

I am far from an environmentalist, but I do lean towards the global warming camp. Nonetheless, there is little dispute that Gore's movie was more of a propaganda piece than a true documentary.

I'm not yet convinced that that's necessarily a bad thing. :)

thank god for global warming. with out it more than half of north america would be covered with glaciers, and id be fighting wolly mammoths and saber tooth cats instead of going to school, going to the beach, and taking pictures of flowers. i wonder what kind of suvs the cave men were driving to mess that up?

Yes Harry, I agree with you. "My" scientists are pure and only deal with vituous facts. The others are dubious if not corrupt.

Actually I have to apologise. I just realized I'm in the wrong thread. I thought we were talking about the Kindle.

"Oh well . . ."

Harry: Surely you remember from your early school days when they said we were coming out of a mini ice age? Remember the stories about roasting oxen on the river near the London Bridge? It has flowed free for many years before global warming alarms were sounded.

They speak of it now as if it was a new religion where any facts that do not support the orthodoxy are deemed trumped up and dismissed out of hand. One woman has even called for the dis-accrediation of all weather forecasters that do not subscribe to the one true religion.

The point is that we don't have all the facts yet, may of the "facts" we do have are under scientific contention, and it takes time to sort all the wheat from the chaff, and grow more wheat. I'm willing to entertain the idea that we may be affecting our environment, and to take modest steps against that possibility, but at this stage I tend to stop listening when I hear claims of absolute knowledge on the matter — there's too much we're still finding out for me to give those much credence. And I'm certainly not prepared to dismantle our civilization (as many of the more rabid Pro-GW sorts would like) based on what we know presently — that seems like a pretty ... ill-considered move to me at this juncture. :shrug:

Let's not discuss "climate change".


Hey, you posted it!

Hey, you posted it!

I honestly regret having done so. It was stupid of me.

Well, you put it in the Lounge, which is the proper spot for it. :grin:

It's the new 'Belief" system for the 21st century. Let's choose sides.

In the '60's it was the hippie/social rebellion crisis.
In the '70's it was the global cooling crisis.
In the '80's it was the stock market/junk bond crisis.
In the '90's it was the S&L crisis or was it the hole in the ozone?

Sigh . . .

Let's not forget Gore ducking debates:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1169131766.shtml

Actually, in the 70s it was the global pollution crisis, most alarmingly represented by Soylent Green.

maybe i am just too intelligent for this planet, but the reason why i like gore's film is because it makes one think a bit about our planet and what man has done to it.

sure, the movie uses effects, does mislead, does exaggerate, but it is supposed to be both entertaining and provocative at the same time.

so even if you take everything with a grain of salt, if you are intellectually superior, like i am, you will try to do your bit to not kill our planet.

;)

"an inconvenient truth" inspired me more than "bowling for columbine" or "supersize me" or "fahrenheit 911".

I'm pretty amazed at some of the comments in here... :blink:

I find it baffling when otherwise rational people suddenly decide that they have more expertise on the issue of climate change than the world's top climate experts.
Maybe it's understandable when you look closely at the amount of misinformation and FUD spread on the topic, particularly in the American media.

Yes, the climate has always been changing on Earth. But the rate of change since industrialisation is completely anomolous in comparison to previous fluctuations. A *massive* majority of *credible* climate scientists (i.e. those publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals) believe that this change is due to human activity.

Gore's film was found by the British judge to have some factual innacuracies, but the judge found the film to be "broadly accurate", and said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]." link (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2188653,00.html)

The action against the film was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2190996,00.html).

Personally I've heard enough of the "we don't have all the facts" arguments - from what we know now, the risk is so serious that we have to take out an insurance policy on what might happen. The "wait till we have more evidence" approach just happens to suit those who make their money from fossil fuels, or have lifestyles completely dependent upon them.

If you don't want to adjust your lifestyle for the sake of my and your children's quality of life, be honest about it. Don't ramble on pretending to be an expert on climate change, or quote some press release from an Exxon Mobil funded interest group.

/rant. :angry: :knife:

And now, I'll take a deep breath, and go back to my book :book2::)

Well said, emkay.

That says it for me emkay.

Gosh. We're still at it? A perspective:

The Peace Prize is a political prize, not a scientific prize. This prize committee made a political selection from their collective political opinion. That is what they are supposed to do. And did. Good!

That does not raise it above debate. Debate is good for this matter. Skepticism is booth good and important.

Now for another perspective:

Hows about them Kindles?

This debate is rather sad.
Since environmental concerns have been made issues on political platforms, they are being made targets to all the same smut campains, released greed instincts and corruption syphons that politics thrive on.
Yes there are basic and major errors in the predictions made by this movie but still they are based on straight observations which can't be denied. It is a source of information, an attention grabber for those not yet sensitized, a debate provoker. Today's Earth dweller is bombarded with worthless media induced trash to a point of desensitization. Wouldn't you agree that percussive extrapolations grabs the attention necessary to bring new faith to the subject?
This political carousel must be stopped. I agree that politics are the most powerful ways of moving things but also the slowest. Not necessarily what is needed at this point. A social example is much faster, if something's 'in' the populace is much more likely to act on.

This whole green movement is a conscience about facts that must remain personal at first, that must spur gestures suggested by a larger goal. It is to be imitated and then evolved. We are moving and recycling and asking to get the 'green' services if they are not available. That's laudable. The trick is to not stop and then find something else to contribute. That's what doing good is all about.

By now everybody knows what's good and what's not for this environment. It is a personnal choice to act on. The Earth life support layer will maintain itself only when the balance which has been disturbed has been reestablished, we all know that. But still there are those who find any reason not to act and blame anything but themselves. We all live, and can, with a high degree of tolerance toward guilt. Shame is, there are those who have none, no guilt whatsoever, thus no purpose but to themselves in their short presence here on to this world.

Sad debate between those who want their kids and further offspring to survive and those who couldn't care less. Its always been... will it change?:unafraid:

There is this guy here who's written a book about people saying they are green at heart and who've never done a thing about it. Does anybody recognize themselves? I do! Myself and others around! I still have that big delivery truck, although I don't use it for anything but cargo hauling. I'd love to have a better solution and there could be. As one who wants good my task now is to ask loudly for changes, for solutions, to ask others to ask with me, and not stop. It's the only way for a tiny individual to set motion to a big wheel. Mr Gore has done just that and used what mediatic power leftover from his hasbeen political life to help things. That's why he's been thanked.
It shouldn't stop there...

Just my small, corny sounding voice. I want to use something else than oil!

I'm pretty amazed at some of the comments in here... :blink:

I find it baffling when otherwise rational people suddenly decide that they have more expertise on the issue of climate change than the world's top climate experts.I heartily agree -- the world today has ridiculous numbers of people speaking with authority on matters they know less than nothing about! Just because some triple-D bottle blonde gets paid a gazillion dollars for making some movie, doesn't mean I should listen to her opinions on the latest perceived social issue. She may well be an expert in the area, but unless she demonstrates that expertise, in my book she's just another celeb mouthing off about stuff of which she knows not.

So, speaking as the guy who weighed in above with the position that we don't yet know enough to be speaking authoritatively, let me ask -- and I really do mean this as a sincere request, not a dig or cheap shot -- let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion? I like to know that sort of thing when I'm considering folks comments, you see, and since this is an area where I admit a fairly complete ignorance, I have no personal expertise within which to consider your comments. :shrug:

The fundamental problem I have with Al Gore is that he does not practice what he preaches. His monthly electric bill is something like $1,200. He counters that he buys carbon offsets. This is meaningless to me. That's just a way for the rich to feel good without changing their lifestyle at all. In other words, let the poor suffer. I want my air conditioning.

While I believe in global warming, I do have a problem insomuch as global warming proponents have turned the debate into a moral crusade. This does not make for good science. There ought to be room for criticism and discussion without wielding th hammer of morality. It may be a moral issue, but the science should be separate from this.

While I believe in global warming, I do have a problem insomuch as global warming proponents have turned the debate into a moral crusade. This does not make for good science. There ought to be room for criticism and discussion without wielding th hammer of morality. It may be a moral issue, but the science should be separate from this.Here, here! Well said indeed.

let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion? :shrug:

OK, I don't take it badly, I think you make a point.

I have no expertise regards climate change at all. I think that I am still entitled to an opinion since I live here. My concern is this. If I saw a canister of sludge glowing gently to its self (as it were) I would treat it with caution and assume a health risk until convinced otherwise by some pretty solid evidence. The consequences of climate change are so potentially devastating that I tend to be conservative about it. I think it is needlessly risky to just carry on as usual until it can be proven beyond all doubt. I will not, to put it another way, run naked through the Kruger National Park because I have not seen the lions teeth with my own eyes. I don't require global warming to be proven beyond all doubt, I require its absence to be proven beyond all doubt.

I shoot a lot of landscape images and often return to areas many times. I see changes. You do not have to be an expert to notice that the planet is starting to look like it has been taken care of by a pack of angry trolls.

Hi Nat,

One of my friends is an expert in atmospheric physics, and he tells me that all the big computer models which have been developed to do long term modelling of the behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere show long-term warming trends. The only way in which the different models differ is how much warming there will be over the next century. Even a rise of a few degrees C could lead to radical spreads of desert areas, migration of huge numbers of people, war, etc.

It's absolutely a political issue and needs to be addressed by politicians - based on the best possible information from scientists, of course.

I have no expertise regards climate change at all. I think that I am still entitled to an opinion since I live here

You do not have to be an expert to notice that the planet is starting to look like it has been taken care of by a pack of angry trolls.You make an excellent point too, HappyMartin, and I agree that being conservative about natural resources is just good stewardship (I was a Boy Scout after all :nice:). It just seems to me that the scientific evidence is still coming in, and we should let it do so before we do things that might totally cripple our civilization -- particularly when there's an excellent chance that we might do things that make whatever the situation really is worse! (as has happened before with other things)

I also think I was probably not as clear as I might have been about what I was getting at. I'm not trying to discount the opinions of everyone but experts, not at all. I just like to have an idea of how informed and considered a given opinion is as I consider it, that's all.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however they form it. However I'm not obligated to listen to every person's opinion, nor to give a crack-head's opinion the weight I would an expert in whatever matter. I like to give informed, considered opinions a bit more weight than that of, say ... some Hollywood celebrity that can't seem to stay sober long enough to check out of rehab (increasingly I feel only pity for the entire Hollywood establishment), or even that of the "average guy" who is just going by what they've read in the headlines, or (shudder) the New York Times. http://www.mobileread.com/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif

Your own "non-expert" opinion, for instance, sounds relatively informed by your direct observations, and your presentation of it suggests that it's fairly considered too. I do realize that it's necessarily fairly limited in scope because you can't go around carefully observing the whole world because you have to find a way to feed yourself. :grin:


I also don't mean to suggest we should wait for scientific certainty -- there's not likely to be any such thing on this matter for a long, long time.

I just see that the "majority" of scientific opinion that has weighed in already contains the same folks that were saying thirty years ago that we were headed for an ice age -- I can't help it, that makes me a bit skeptical.

The "minority" scientific opinion (a growing minority, nearly as I can tell) on the other side of the issue hasn't been studying the matter for that long, and it takes time to gather genuine scientific grade evidence. I'd just like to see what they come up with before we make any civilization crippling moves, that's all. :shrug:

I liked agent Smith's comment in 'The Matrix' when he had ...(the name eludes me right now) tied to a chair and willlessly listening.
"Humanity is a virus!"

That brings me to an image of global warming being Earth's fever eradicating a virus. :grin:

One of my friends is an expert in atmospheric physics, and he tells me that all the big computer models which have been developed to do long term modelling of the behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere show long-term warming trends. The only way in which the different models differ is how much warming there will be over the next century. Even a rise of a few degrees C could lead to radical spreads of desert areas, migration of huge numbers of people, war, etc.My reservations about the present models is that the information is necessarily not complete, owing to the lack of complete historical records before a certain point. Plus the ones I've heard about (no direct knowledge here) seem to start their trends from the end of the last mini ice-age that was induced by (I think) Krakatoa's eruption, which seems to me might just skew things a bit, and I've yet to hear anyone claiming to have compensated for that -- but again, it's not my area at all. :shrug:

I suppose if things get too warm, we could just get a really big volcanic eruption to settle them down. :grin:

I liked agent Smith's comment in 'The Matrix' when he had ...(the name eludes me right now) tied to a chair and willlessly listening.
"Humanity is a virus!"

That brings me to an image of global warming being Earth's fever eradicating a virus. :grin:Morpheus, if I recall correctly. That was a good scene. :nice:

Anyone read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crighton?

That's the denial side of the medal. There is a huge appendix in the book with interesting references.

Good read whatever one thinks.

I'd just like to see what they come up with before we make any civilization crippling moves, that's all. :shrug:

But you don't have to cripple anyone to do it, Nat.

The UK has more than met its Kyoto treaty obligations of lowering CO2 emissions to below their 1990 levels, and we've done it without crippling our economy. In fact, the UK is the only one of the "G8" nations which has not suffered an economic recession in the last decade.

All it takes is the political will, and a government which doesn't have its economic policy swayed unduly by industry "lobby groups".

You need to get tough, though. We pay the equivalent of about US$8 per US gallon for petrol (gas), even though the UK is a major oil producer. That's a deliberate government policy to "encourage" people to buy "greener" cars which use less fuel and emit less CO2, and is something backed by all political parties here. People who drive what you call "SUV"s are treated virtually like "lepers" in the UK these days for their lack of "environmental awareness".

But you don't have to cripple anyone to do it, Nat.Oh, I agree with you there, HarryT. No question. But there are elements in the debate who believe that you do, and they tend to be vocal in ways that get politicians' attention. :sad:

So, speaking as the guy who weighed in above with the position that we don't yet know enough to be speaking authoritatively, let me ask -- and I really do mean this as a sincere request, not a dig or cheap shot -- let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion? I like to know that sort of thing when I'm considering folks comments, you see, and since this is an area where I admit a fairly complete ignorance, I have no personal expertise within which to consider your comments. :shrug:

Well, I'm not a climate scientist, and have made no claims to be one. The point I make is that I defer to the (overwhelming) scientific consensus on the issue. If you take an interest in the subject and look at *disinterested* scientific findings on climate change, the picture is very clear.

A couple of examples:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) (And that's 3 years old)
UK Govt's summary of the IPCC 2007 report (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/climate-0202.htm)

My own expertise is limited to having followed the issue for a number of years, reading books, attending conferences, and so on. It's something I feel strongly about, so I take an active interest. The Robert Henson book, Rough Guide to Climate Change, gives a really good explanation of the science.
Unfortunately there has been a lot of misinformation systematically spread over recent years by interested parties who wish to preserve the status quo.
This site (http://www.realclimate.org) is good at debunking some of these. See also George Monbiot's book, Heat.

Well, I'm not a climate scientist, and have made no claims to be one.

My own expertise is limited to having followed the issue for a number of years, reading books, attending conferences, and so on. It's something I feel strongly about, so I take an active interest.Thanks, that gives me a good idea where you're speaking from.

As someone who has evidently followed the topic closely for some time, I wonder if it seems to you that the minority opposing opinion seems to be growing in scientific circles or not? The impression I have is that it is, though that growth is not getting much attention. But having followed the matter, I expect you'd have a better feel for that question than I have myself. :nice:

As someone who has evidently followed the topic closely for some time, I wonder if it seems to you that the minority opposing opinion seems to be growing in scientific circles or not?

Speaking as a scientist (although not an atmospheric physicist) and someone who has kept up with the debate, my view is definitely not. What has happened is that a number of popular pseudo-scientists (eg Michael Crichton) have been very vocal in spreading their misinformation through the popular media.

Keep up with "real" science through publications like New Scientist or Scientific American and you'll get the real information, which is now overwhelmingly that Global Warming is a real effect which is being heavily influenced (although perhaps not caused) by the greenhouse gas emissions of modern society.

We have a lot more data on historical climate change than you may perhaps be aware of. Dendrochronology (the study of tree rings) gives us a continuous record of climate (at least in western Europe) for around 7,000 years, and the study of ice cores from places like the Greenland ice caps can give us rainfall information, and let us analyze the composition of the atmosphere, going back at least 100,000 years.

Here's another way to look at the situation:

It may be uncertain how much Global Warming has been caused by Man's activities (and this, of course, is the major argument people bring against Gore's statements). What is not in doubt, however, is the demonstrable results, which have already begun to eradicate farmable land, decimate foodstock from the land and seas, raise sea levels with the eventual result that billions of people will lose their homes, and damage the atmosphere to the point of losing needed UV protection.

We should continue to debate what caused it, or who's at fault... that knowledge will help us to slow or halt the process... but that's not what we need to be concentrating on right now. We need to be dedicating ourselves to reversing the process, using the tools we've developed by studying the problem, before this world cannot sustain the 6.5 billion people on it.

Or, we can do nothing, and let the planet deal with our overpopulation problem in its own way. As George Carlin once pointed out: "The planet is fine. It's the people that are f***ed!"

Thanks for the information, guys. And I agree, incidentally, that Michael Crichton's opinion may be ... less than expert. :grin:

Well it may not be banter but at least it has so far been friendy:).

I'm referring to the description of this thread.

That's one of the best things about this community, HappyMartin -- we don't agree on everything (we're all over the board, actually), but we're mostly polite and respectful about it. If that weren't the case, I'd have shoved off long ago. :yes:

When one is driving a car, barelling down the highway and the little temperature gauge lights up, what should one do? Stop and have a specialist look it up or continue full tilt while pondering the reasons for that light being there?

Might be a stupid analogy but my point is that when one has a feeling that an action might cause an ill effect, it should be stopped and be verified. Not continue on as if nothing happened!

Or just step on the gas like we're doing now ...

This is a moral issue and it is helpful.

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species."

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."

Lowell Ponte - The Cooling : Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (published 1976 - isbn13 - 9780131723122)

oh how the times change

There is an illusion, one which alot of people fallen for, that scientists all believed global cooling was going to happen. It was never an accepted fact by the large majority of scientists working in that field.

It also doesn't really matter. At one time there were scientists duped into thinking Piltdown Man was real, it being revealed as a hoax has no reflection on the theory of evolution, nor on the credibly of the current concensus.

It also doesn't really matter. At one time there were scientists duped into thinking Piltdown Man was real, it being revealed as a hoax has no reflection on the theory of evolution, nor on the credibly of the current concensus.

But I believe that a large proportion of Americans, influenced by religious beliefs, do not accept the theory of evolution as being valid, despite the weight of a staggering amount of hard science supporting it. Global warming is the same - many people refuse to accept what's staring them in the face if it goes against their view of how they want the world to be.

I wonder if it seems to you that the minority opposing opinion seems to be growing in scientific circles or not?

No, the opposite. But it only takes one fruitcake to claim that the world's glaciers are actually growing rather than receding, and it's quoted all over the world's media. So the public picture of the issue is often very skewed. As Harry says, people tend to believe what they would like to be true.

The polar ice caps are melting at a much faster rate than scientists predicted. This summer there was even a shipping passage through the arctic. How do we react? By fighting over rights to exploit the place for oil and gas. :knife: :mad:

I feel we need not worry, such small problems always tend to solve themselves. Trying to keep everyone alive, that's the Utopian ideal, and we don't do those anymore. Those who can afford 24/7 A/C for the next 200 years regardless of the status of the world economy, will certainly perpetuate the human race.

Please, let's not spread half-articulated insinuations here.

First, I'll say something amazing before I jump into the fray: I have not actually seen the movie! But a movie CAN be a documentary and still express a political opinion. Criticizing a movie on that basis is just ridiculous because it assumes that there is only one objective interpretation about reality. I can count numerous examples of good documentaries that present only one perspective and succeed beautifully. To expect that a documentary should account for all objective reality is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of documentary filmmaking; this criticism is especially unrealistic and unfair when the film's subject is about a complex problem like global warming. Whether you like Michael Moore or not (I do), his filmmaking/documentary skills are unsurpassed, and the political criticisms of his films (even if you accept them) don't diminish the power of his storytelling and his ability to present a single perspective.

From the sources I've seen most of the science as presented in the film was basically right. One controversy about the computer animation sequence was whether it was right to present the 20 feet increase in water level, but that was just one scenario.

Fortunately, several people have discussed the accuracy of the film

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
(if you read only one thing, you should read this piece, which is very long. This post contains numerous comments is by professional climatologists with no ideological axe to grind) The scientist concludes:
For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue — indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue — but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow's recent work to show that the technology is there.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605260014
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/10/truths/print.html

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_dilling_l/001240al_gore_and_the_nobe.html
(this is actually an article critical of Gore's Nobel prize, but I found this a reasoned criticism).

The problem is that naysayers usually end up citing Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Lindzen)

or Fred Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer) or Bjorn Lomborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg)

All three of them have their own agendas to push, so to speak and have received a lot of criticism themselves.

With regard to the British court ruling, Media Matters (a media watchdog site) comments (http://mediamatters.org/items/200710170001?f=i_latest), "numerous media outlets reported that the judge found nine errors in the film but ignored the judge's finding that An Inconvenient Truth is "broadly accurate" and "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."

If you have read this far searching for a reason to justify having done so, here's a quote from Al Gore which you will agree is one of the stupidest and silliest statement ever made by a politician:

“A zebra does not change its spots.” - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

Wow, that Realclimate.org blog is something.

Here's a piece that says that the 9 so-called factual errors pointed out by the British judge were not errors at all.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

They conclude:
Overall, our verdict is that the 9 points are not "errors" at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point). But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings and we can only applaud the prospect that more classroom discussions of these subjects may occur because of this court case.

You wrote: So, speaking as the guy who weighed in above with the position that we don't yet know enough to be speaking authoritatively, let me ask -- and I really do mean this as a sincere request, not a dig or cheap shot -- let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion? I like to know that sort of thing when I'm considering folks comments, you see, and since this is an area where I admit a fairly complete ignorance, I have no personal expertise within which to consider your comments.

When debating these kinds of issues, of course professional scientists are going to have more nuanced opinions (even when their position is contrary to accepted wisdom).

We have to understand the role that scientists should play in a political debate. Yes, their opinions weigh more, but we should not cede too much authority to their pronouncements simply because they have a Phd (my debate coach said that it's easy to find a fool with a PhD who was willing say any damn thing you please).

Politics, by definition, is the art of discussing/debating specialized issues by nonspecialists. On the other hand, an educated nonscientist can read both sides of the argument with a reasonable understanding of which kinds of evidence are credible and which kinds are not. For more on the proper/improper use of science in political debate, read Chris Mooney's book The Republican War of Science

http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

...
The polar ice caps are melting at a much faster rate than scientists predicted. This summer there was even a shipping passage through the arctic. How do we react? By fighting over rights to exploit the place for oil and gas...

Even worse. James bay is usually frozen quite late in the season. This year it almost didn't freeze. Usually seals use the ice as a birthing ground and this year, not a single pup was born. Polar bears that feed on the pups were seen swimming aimlessly 150 kilometers out to drown.

At the south pole a chunk of ice hundreds of square kilometers, still for eons, was seen detatching and cracking up to melting somewhere else. Quite disturbing!

This is factual observation. Causes can be up for debate but it happened and is part of a trend. To me this is the little warning light that tells me to take the foot of the gas, stop and seek an other way of moving about.

How can so many people sleep through this? Is the virtuality in our lives that strong?

I'm not so sure about the whole "Global Warming" thing and what causes it and how much we influence it. I think it is a natural thing that would have happened anyway, but that we are probably not helping by polluting our nice littel planet.

I do however support the whole campaign to make our civilization more "green". Oil lobbyists and their government cronies had and have far too much power and a lot of the "alternative" concepts were slowed or halted to make sure the Oil kept flowing and the cash kept rolling in.
Even now there is very little progress in the field of alternative energies. Hybrid concepts for cars and the move to Diesel instead of "normal" Petrol are not exactly solutions. They are just little "moves in the right direction" to match the new requirements the governments set. Hyrdogen power is pretty cool as a concept, but since it needs to be produced somewhere it just moves the problem around a bit. Nuclear energy is actually quite nice, but it has very different and unfortunately not very "green" side effects as well.
We really need to see a breakthrough soon, I have no idea how it could work, but I'm sure there are ways to do more than just reduce CO2 emmisions by a certain percentage...and I'm sure those ways won't lead us back to living on trees...

Nuclear power is the only large-scale power production technology which does not produce greenhouse gases. Properly handled, the safety hazards are acceptable - many European countries produce a significant proportion of their electricity from nuclear plants (eg about 60% in France, 25% in the UK). The UK is currently planning a new generation of nuclear power plants as a major step towards reducing CO2 emissions.

There are a number of advanced designs of nuclear reactor which are more efficient, less complex, and inherently much safer than current generation plants, most notably the Pebble Bed Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor) design.

But I believe that a large proportion of Americans, influenced by religious beliefs, do not accept the theory of evolution as being valid, despite the weight of a staggering amount of hard science supporting it.

wow what liberal media outlet told you that? bbc? lol

The existance of such abominations as the Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) unfortunately make it all too plain to the entire world that this is the case.

That, plus evidence such as these Gullup Poll Results (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847).

The BBC is not a supporter of the Liberal Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party). It is entirely apolitical, under the terms of the Royal Charter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/) under which it operates. It has an independent board, one of whose duties is to guarantee this independence.

I think we've got enough to kick around here without digging up the Origin of Man debate too! At least start a different thread. :grin:


We have to understand the role that scientists should play in a political debate. Yes, their opinions weigh more, but we should not cede too much authority to their pronouncements simply because they have a Phd (my debate coach said that it's easy to find a fool with a PhD who was willing say any damn thing you please).Ha! I've known way too many PhDs to fall into that particular trap -- ideally it's better to actually know them so that you can tell which ones are overeducated nut-jobs who think their degrees are justification to stop thinking, so that you can salt their opinions appropriately. :nice:

There are a number of advanced designs of nuclear reactor which are more efficient, less complex, and inherently much safer than current generation plants, most notably the Pebble Bed Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor) design.I've been interested in PBRs for some time. But I'll remind everyone that while nuclear power has its advantages, it has some weaknesses too -- I seem to recall a large number of French Citizens dying a couple-few years ago because there wasn't enough power for AC, because the nuclear power-plants had to be shut down, because they couldn't cool them properly without literally boiling rivers. :(

That's a lot of becauses.

I also want to say that I think I'm learning a few things from this discussion and appreciate the info provided by several. I also appreciate the way the discussion is staying so civil -- but I always appreciate that! :D

-- I seem to recall a large number of French Citizens dying a couple-few years ago because there wasn't enough power for AC, because the nuclear power-plants had to be shut down, because they couldn't cool them properly without literally boiling rivers. :(



Where did it happen ? (excuse me for the question but I didn't know that :) )

Other than France, I'm not real sure ... I believe it was in the more rural areas.

There's a reference to it here (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-05.htm), but it's not really a report on it -- I'm inferring that it was summer of '03.

Economists prefer Oil, Gas and Charcoal, and scientists prefer Nuclear and future Fusion. I, as all plant life :grin2:, prefer the Sun and its derivatives; Wind, Wave and Hydro.
Geothermal seems clean but some offsets bother me.

If you consume from a mixed bag, there are less drawbacks, less dramatic consequences.
Oh brother! I could go on for hours!:tipsy:

Good though solar and wind power are, it's not always sunny nor windy, so they're no good for your "base load" power generation. Wave and geothermal are reliable, but there are relatively few places in the world suitable for them. That realistically leaves nuclear as pretty much the only "non Greenhouse gas" source for your base load generation capability.

The existance of such abominations as the Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) unfortunately make it all too plain to the entire world that this is the case.

That, plus evidence such as these Gullup Poll Results (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847).

The BBC is not a supporter of the Liberal Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party). It is entirely apolitical, under the terms of the Royal Charter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/) under which it operates. It has an independent board, one of whose duties is to guarantee this independence.

i could care less about ONE museum in a country of thousands and the poll you quoted is decieving

"It is important to note that this question included a specific reference to "thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth . . ." that oriented the respondents toward an explicit consideration of the implication of evolution for man's origin."

your opinion on americans is grossly bigoted. i guess because youre from the uk you have bad teeth?

There's a reference to it here (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-05.htm), but it's not really a report on it -- I'm inferring that it was summer of '03.

Oh well, I remember this summer : very hot indeed (it was just during my final exams : Great ).:knife:
In fact, people died during this summer because of the unexpectedness of the heat, and not really due to the lack of AC: in Spain or Italy, where the heat was worse, there wasn't this problem.... And AC isn't very popular in these countries!

I think with the global warming we must all learn to live with it (and avoid AC which increases the energy requirements).:rolleyes:

Oh well, I remember this summer : very hot indeed (it was just during my final exams : Great ).:knife:
In fact, people died during this summer because of the unexpectedness of the heat, and not really due to the lack of AC: in Spain or Italy, where the heat was worse, there wasn't this problem.... And AC isn't very popular in these countries!

I think with the global warming we must all learn to live with it (and avoid AC which increases the energy requirements).:rolleyes:

and 2 global warming counsels were canceled in dc this past winter because of blizzards

This is absolutely excellent news. Climate change is one of the biggest risks facing the future of our planet. You might want to stop laughing for a while and check out the facts, Nate. Much as it may displease Mr Bush, one cannot pretend that global warming will just go away if you ignore it.

The truth is, no one is quite sure what is going on. Climate is constantly changing; some climatologists believe that we are on the verge of a global ice age, not global warming. The facts are, no one is sure what the facts are. Was a "normal" climate what existed 12,000 years ago, when the earth was in a much cooler phase? When it warmed up, worldwide sea levels rose up to 100 meters. This is definitely much worse a "climactic disaster" than the global warming people are warning us about....

and 2 global warming counsels were canceled in dc this past winter because of blizzards

Well, maybe it's this:
http://img30.picoodle.com/img/img30/6/10/17/f_dayaftertomm_505380a.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/6/10/17/f_dayaftertomm_505380a.jpg&srv=img30)

:D
but no kidding, global warming was detected on several years I think, not during one season. but can't discuss more about it because I'm really not an expert of that ! :)

maybe i am just too intelligent for this planet, but the reason why i like gore's film is because it makes one think a bit about our planet and what man has done to it.

sure, the movie uses effects, does mislead, does exaggerate, but it is supposed to be both entertaining and provocative at the same time.



So, a man has been awarded the Nobel Prize for what is essentially a pure propaganda piece. Yes, I have nothing but awe and respect for the Nobel Prize now.......

Yes, the climate has always been changing on Earth. But the rate of change since industrialisation is completely anomolous in comparison to previous fluctuations. A *massive* majority of *credible* climate scientists (i.e. those publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals) believe that this change is due to human activity.



That's simply not the case. Between 12,000 and 10,000 BC, the earth went through a major "thaw." Sea levels worldwide increased up to 100 meters. Now, this change was much greater than anything that we have seen since industrialization. The eruption of the volcano Krakatoa accounted for short-term changes greater than anything seen caused by industrialization. The factors that account for climate are many and have never been accurately modeled. The climatologists can't even accurately model short-term weather; their best models are accurate out to three days or so.

Nuclear power is the only large-scale power production technology which does not produce greenhouse gases. Properly handled, the safety hazards are acceptable - many European countries produce a significant proportion of their electricity from nuclear plants (eg about 60% in France, 25% in the UK). The UK is currently planning a new generation of nuclear power plants as a major step towards reducing CO2 emissions.

There are a number of advanced designs of nuclear reactor which are more efficient, less complex, and inherently much safer than current generation plants, most notably the Pebble Bed Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor) design.

Too bad nuclear reactors produce waste that is very difficult to dispose of. How about solar power generation- orbit large solar arrays and beam the power down to earth via microwave? Studies of this technology have been positive, and you have the additional advantage of having the capability to focus that microwave beam on people around the world who are misbehaving. Instead of invading Iraq, a country could have focused the beam on Saddam's motorcade, disposing of the problem cheaply and cleanly. None of the nasty depleted uranium pollution an invasion causes......

There are ways of recycling spent nuclear fuel but they are expensive and our beloved economies won't go for them. They prefer to lock it up under the care of geologic formations for eons. Right. If we think their way, man has only got a century left so what's the use?

That's simply not the case. Between 12,000 and 10,000 BC, the earth went through a major "thaw." Sea levels worldwide increased up to 100 meters. Now, this change was much greater than anything that we have seen since industrialization. The eruption of the volcano Krakatoa accounted for short-term changes greater than anything seen caused by industrialization. The factors that account for climate are many and have never been accurately modeled. The climatologists can't even accurately model short-term weather; their best models are accurate out to three days or so.

There are natural warming cycles, this current time period is not part of one, and there is no scientific concensus that says it is.

There are natural warming cycles, this current time period is not part of one, and there is no scientific concensus that says it is.
I'd rather err on the side of caution and whilr that may be correct, it may also be wrong. I'd rather go for it's wrong and do something now.

I'd rather err on the side of caution and whilr that may be correct, it may also be wrong. I'd rather go for it's wrong and do something now.

The current global warming trend(which is not being a subject of denial, except by the extreme nut balls), is not part of the natural time cycle. So the issue is what has caused it to go out of the cycle?

i could care less about ONE museum in a country of thousands

And the poll you quoted is decieving

"It is important to note that this question included a specific reference to "thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth . . ." that oriented the respondents toward an explicit consideration of the implication of evolution for man's origin."


Please read my previous post again. I simply said:

I believe that a large proportion of Americans, influenced by religious beliefs, do not accept the theory of evolution as being valid

The Gallup article completely confirms this:

The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend.

Why do you refer to the BBC as a "liberal media outlet"? What do you mean by "liberal" in this context?

i guess because youre from the uk you have bad teeth?

Sorry, you've completely lost me. What is the connection between being from the UK and the state of one's teeth?

Sorry, you've completely lost me. What is the connection between being from the UK and the state of one's teeth?

Perhaps from this BBC article:

Problems with getting an NHS dentist are leading some people to pull their own teeth out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7045263.stm

I hadn't read that story - good point :).

youre making a gross generalization about over 400 million people based on your stereotype of religious zealots, which apparently constitutes a "large proportion of Americans."

When asked:

now, thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

48% of those surveyed by Gallup responded "no". I do consider that to be a large proportion, yes. Don't you?

Could you answer the question about what "liberal" means, please?

When asked:



48% of those surveyed by Gallup responded "no". I do consider that to be a large proportion, yes. Don't you?
The best thing someone said to solve the evolution vs. creation issue....

God created the heavens and Earth and life. Life then evolved from God's creation.

That's basically a statement of Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism), Jon.

That's basically a statement of Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism), Jon.
Well we do have PROOF that man was not the first lifeform on Earth. So we know 100% that the story of creation as told in the Bible is a fairy tale.

But the problem is, Jon, that advocates of Creationism do not believe the proof. They (as I understand the position, anyway) claim that the Earth was created approximately 10,000 years ago complete with all the fossil remains, etc, already there in the rocks, just to make it look like it's 4.6 billion years old. Why their "God" would be so perverse as to wish to do this is a question I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer to :).

Well, if you believe in God and that God created Earth, then I would go with evolution stemming from God's creation. That makes the most sense to me.

Could you answer the question about what "liberal" means, please?

in america the term liberalism has been perverted. it used to mean "an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market" but the term has been taken over by people that are essentially socialists and marxists, ie. hillary clinton

ps. heres and article about the bais in gallop polls - http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/2004/10/gallup_poll_raciallybiased.html

I'm afraid that I find the whole idea that out of something like 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe, each of which contains an average of about 300,000,000,000stars, the majority of which we now know have planetary systems, to claim that one out of billions of species (us) on an insignificant planet circling an insignicant star in a completely unremarkable galaxy are somehow "central" to the whole scheme of things is an example of the most breathtaking arrogance.

just say youre and atheist and that you think anyone that believes in a higher power is stupid and be done with it

Good grief people! Do we really have to do this here?:deadhorse:

in america the term liberalism has been perverted. it used to mean "an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market" but the term has been taken over by people that are essentially socialists and marxists, ie. hillary clinton

Thank you - it's interesting how words are used differently in different countries. In the UK, the word "Liberal" is only used to describe our "middle of the road" political party, the Liberal party. May I ask why you consider the BBC to be "liberal"? As I said in my original post, the BBC is apolitical - it has to be, by the terms of the charter under which it operates, and there's a completely independent governing body whose job it is to ensure that it really is. Heads roll when they get things wrong.

ps. heres and article about the bais in gallop polls - http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/2004/10/gallup_poll_raciallybiased.html

That's interesting, but do you think that a slight bias towards selecting white people to poll is going to account for a poll showing that 48% of people don't believe in evolution as an explanation for the origin of homo sapiens? Why would the colour of someone's skin affect their view of such matters?

just say you're and atheist and that you think anyone that believes in a higher power is stupid and be done with it
What I would dearly love to find out is how the world would be today if we never had religion. We've had more harm done in the name of religion then any other cause. And that's a serious issue. I'm Jewish (very reformed). And I believe it's between me and God what happens. I don't try to force my believes on anyone. But when your believes cause you to do things that not only harm another person or effect me in some way that I don't agree with, then I'm sorry, it's you getting in my way and ruining things for me.

just say youre and atheist and that you think anyone that believes in a higher power is stupid and be done with it

I certainly don't consider you to be stupid - it's obvious from your posts that you are an intelligent, educated man. If you're willing to discuss it, I'd be very interested indeed to hear what evidence exists to make a rational man such as yourself believe in the existance of God (if that is what you believe, of course).

As I said before, given the existance of at least:

60,000,000,000,000,000

stars out there (I think I've got the number of zeros right!), why do you think that we are "special"?

Good grief people! Do we really have to do this here?:deadhorse:

This is the "Lounge" forum section, Yvan, which exists to discuss off-topic subjects. Where better to discuss it?

That's interesting, but do you think that a slight bias towards selecting white people to poll is going to account for a poll showing that 48% of people don't believe in evolution as an explanation for the origin of homo sapiens? Why would the colour of someone's skin affect their view of such matters?

its really easy to skiew any poll to get it to show whatever you would like. i dont think the skin color matters, but its clear that gallop polls should be taken with a grain of salt. as i quoted earlier, the question was skewed to make it show that anyone that believes in "god" agrees with the creationism theory at its is literally explained. thats is patently unfair as im sure a good percentage of those people wouldnt agree if you asked them in a more FAIR manner.

I certainly don't consider you to be stupid - it's obvious from your posts that you are an intelligent, educated man. If you're willing to discuss it, I'd be very interested indeed to hear what evidence exists to make a rational man such as yourself believe in the existance of God (if that is what you believe, of course).

well considering natures natural state is disorder i find it fantastically improbable that the minute complexities of life (just think about how complex dna is) could happen by chance or on accident.

well considering natures natural state is disorder i find it fantastically improbable that the minute complexities of life (just think about how complex dna is) could happen by chance or on accident.
Oh, I don't know about that... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

well considering natures natural state is disorder i find it fantastically improbable that the minute complexities of life (just think about how complex dna is) could happen by chance or on accident.

OK, let me offer you a alternate example:

Suppose you take 100 fair dice, and throw them. You will get a given set of results. What are the chances of getting that set of results? They are, approximately, 1 in 653,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000 (1 in 6 to the power 100)

Wow - talk about improbable! You could throw those 100 dice once every nanosecond for the lifetime of the universe, and you're still vanishingly unlikely to throw that same set of numbers!

So why did you get that specific set of numbers from the dice. Random chance, obviously.

I agree with you entirely that the formation of a molecule as complex as DNA through random chance is monstrously unlikely, but that point is that we live in the universe in which it happened, just as we live in the universe in which you threw that specific set of (probably) even more unlikely results on the dice.

We can't, therefore, turn around and say "what's the chance of that happening?" any more than most people would turn around and say that a divine being must have caused the set of numbers we threw on the dice. We already know that the outcome did happen. It's irrevelent how unlikely it is.

That, anyway, is my view of the universe. Random organic chemistry.

If you haven't read it, I'd strongly recommend to you the book "The Blind Watchmaker", by Richard Dawkins. He explains this stuff enormously better than I can.

im not sure i really follow your argument, but i dont disagree with anything youve said. of course we live in the universe in which it happened. if it happened somewhere else thats where we would be. i certainly dont think we are the only life in the universe. the odds are greatly against that, but i dont think it happens on accident. its just far too complex, precise, and fantastic.

This is the "Lounge" forum section, Yvan, which exists to discuss off-topic subjects. Where better to discuss it?

Agreed to when its a discussion. The tone of the post preceeding mine was getting sour and borderline.
With years going by, there are explosive subject discussions I tend to refrain from joining in: Patriotism, religion and politics

but those are the best to discuss because opinions vary so widely and people are so passionate about them

im not sure i really follow your argument, but i dont disagree with anything youve said. of course we live in the universe in which it happened. if it happened somewhere else thats where we would be. i certainly dont think we are the only life in the universe. the odds are greatly against that, but i dont think it happens on accident. its just far too complex, precise, and fantastic.

The point of my argument is that if DNA hadn't spontaneously come about by chance on the Earth, then we wouldn't be here talking about it. It doesn't matter, therefore, if it stood only a 1 in a billion chance of happening by chance - we just happen to be in the situation in which it did happen; therefore no matter how unlikely it is to happen by chance, we are the outcome of that vanishingly unlikely event actually happening.

I actually don't believe it's all that unlikely. I don't know if you've read about the experiments people have done, seeing what could have happened through "random chemistry" on the primitive Earth? Basically people have put water, methane, and ammonia (that's what we believe the main constituents of the atmosphere of the very early Earth were) into a pressure vessel, and just let it "cook" for several weeks, passing jolts of electricity through it to simulate lightning. At the end of several weeks, they've analysed the "soup" that's formed to see what's in it. They've found that surprisingly complex organic molecules form, up to the level of amino acids.

If that can happen in a few weeks, imagine doing that, on a planet wide scale, for hundreds of millions of years. Sooner or later, by chance, those amino acids are going to join together to form proteins, and perhaps - who knows? - a random group of proteins will, by chance, come together to form DNA, a molecule with the interesting chemical property of being able to replicate itself, ie "life"? It only has to happen once amongst all the other virtually incalculable number of chemical reactions that don't do anything "useful".

Is life so unlikely given those circumstances? Some people would say not.

ive heard of these experiments, but with different results. the ones ive heard of yielded no results after months and/or years. sounds fascinating though

but those are the best to discuss because opinions vary so widely and people are so passionate about them

Those are the subjects likely to have someone draw a gun to your face, the fuel of wars...:disappoin

Those are the subjects likely to have someone draw a gun to your face, the fuel of wars...:disappoin

maybe i like to flirt with danger then =)

maybe i like to flirt with danger then =)

:laugh4: No kids eh!

hahah no not yet. not till im done with school

I live in the middle of the Brazilian Cerrado(tropical savanna), where global warming isn't means to political power(except that Brazil stands to gain alot from a greener economy :) ), nevertheless, I'm yet to meet someone who isn't complaining about the heat, who eventually muses about the good old day with 3 good months(almost non existent now) of rain and hot days that were actually tolerable.

I remember listening to a The Teaching Company(or something like it) lecture on Global warming, which opened my mind to the complexity of Climate, things like how polar caps and desert reflect heat back to space, how plants grow faster with increased level of CO2, how a atmosphere with twice more oxygen gave rise to super plant and super animals(dinosaurs), how different gases affect the greenhouse effect, how hydroelectric plants contributes to the greenhouse effect as much as a thermoelectric plant of the same size would(by indirectly producing methane, putrefying matter, with are 20 times more harmful than the CO2 of the thermoelectric plant), how earth would be too cold for life as we know without the Greenhouse Effect, , how water(rivers, lakes, ocean) absorb Co2 from the water, and releases Co2 when there's less Co2 in the atmosphere. So suppose a certain area in the world is at this moment suffering from desertification(as many are), that would actually decrease the world's net heat by reflecting the sun light over that area back to space. The difference between a desert and a tropical rain forest are mere circumstances with give rise to self sustainable rain forest or a self sustainable desert for that matter. Suppose the polar caps sufficiently increased in size, an ice age would be eminent, the ever increasing polar cap would reflect ever more sun light back to space, decreasing the world's temperature.

Well, eventually people will turn to logic, when their AC's break down for example, that's always a comfort to my battered ideological heart.

well considering natures natural state is disorder i find it fantastically improbable that the minute complexities of life (just think about how complex dna is) could happen by chance or on accident.

But do you think that the existence of God is more "probable"? :blink:
I've seen no real proofs of this (that everybody could see easily I mean, no miracles 2000 years ago), and His simple existence induces more questions than it can answer
(for example: who created God ? Why and what are his objectives by creating humans ? Do we have the same God than the extraterrestrials (if they exist !)? Why did He create the dinosaurs ? Why does He tolerate violence and atrocities on earth although He has all the powers (and do not answer: "because He wants the humans to be free": so His existence becomes useless. )

I don't think that Science has all the solutions and In my humble opinion, if there are questions, whose I can't find proper answers, I prefer to leave them unanswered... for now.:rolleyes:

Your god, is he anything like Gaia? or Tao? a principle like gravity that makes life possible? a universe that wishes to understand itself? or Plato's "The Good"? or just that Jewish god of war that at some point or another proclaimed himself "the god"? How is he better than Zeus or Athena or Ares for that matter? Please don't tell me the Jewish gods were "the chosen gods" too. Did he just come with the best manual? choose his Lieutenants right? were petty enough so common people could relate? condescend to bestow on humans his image?

Of what interest could we as individuals, as a group, as a nation, as humanity could be to a god? Entertainment, the immense opera written by the devil, in honor and staged for god, where each of us at one time or another sings an aria and then return to the chorus?

I knew this would turn out badly. I wish y'all had listened to me.

I also wish I had asked a moderator to lock the post.

I am a moderator, and I have no wish to lock it - it's an interesting discussion which, by and large, is remaining reasonably polite. The nice thing about MR is that people are civilized enough to be able to discuss interesting subjects without resorting to personal insults as happens so frequently elsewhere.

Nobody who does not wish to is required to participate.

Seems to be at least 3 interesting themes in this. Religious beliefs in the USA, the validity of religious beliefs and global warming. An interesting sub plot to do with bad teeth and the NHS made a brief and to me confusing appearance so I will ignore that.

There are many polls and yes polls can be and are massaged but I have never seen one that indicated that the USA population is not largely religious. After 9/11, sales of Bibles went up 27%. That is not a poll but sales figures and it seems to indicate something even if just religious coping.

As long as religion encourages people to be moral, ethical and good to each other I see no harm in it. Because people do bad things in the name of religion does not make the religion bad, it makes the acts bad. By the way I do not believe in God but do regard myself as religious.

It still seems that the judicious approach to global warming would be to be cautious and conservative. Lets take care of our home and all that live here, not only people

Seems to be at least 3 interesting themes in this. Religious beliefs in the USA, the validity of religious beliefs and global warming. An interesting sub plot to do with bad teeth and the NHS made a brief and to me confusing appearance so I will ignore that.

There are many polls and yes polls can be and are massaged but I have never seen one that indicated that the USA population is not largely religious. After 9/11, sales of Bibles went up 27%. That is not a poll but sales figures and it seems to indicate something even if just religious coping.

As long as religion encourages people to be moral, ethical and good to each other I see no harm in it. Because people do bad things in the name of religion does not make the religion bad, it makes the acts bad. By the way I do not believe in God but do regard myself as religious.

It still seems that the judicious approach to global warming would be to be cautious and conservative. Lets take care of our home and all that live here, not only people
The major problem with religion is the Bible. Some people take what is written there literally and think it is ok to do as it says. The Bible is not means to be taken literally. It's mean to convay ideas. But even then, some of the idea you can get from it are not ones we want people acting on. There is plenty of evidence that the Bible causes a lot of people to do things in God's name that a kind and loving God would not want done. Also, a lot of close minded people use the Bible to justify this way of thinking. One good example is gay marriage. Because the bible says homosexuality is wrong, a lot of people int he uSA are against it. It has nothing to do with a person's right to their basic freedom. It has to do with what the Bible says. I look at what's done in the name of religion to our freedoms and think we'd be better off without it. Even our president runs his life based on his religion. We are supposed to have a separation of church and state but we really do not. The Pope thinks it is OK to get involved when he doesn't like something. Politicians use their religious beliefs to ruin the country. The president won the last election because he use his religious belief that gay marriage is bad and got the close minded southerners to go for that bunch of BS. I know 9/11 was caused by extreme religious beliefs. if you look back in history, a lot of wars were caused by religion. And I do think a lot of politicians are a bunch of no good hypocrites. Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill"? If you going to run your political career using your religious beliefs to help you make decisions, then you better damned will listen to the 10 commandments and stop all the hate and violence.

I was rather amused, Jon, to see the other day someone on this site mention a book written by someone who had apparently lived his life according to what it says in the Bible. My immediate thought was to wonder if he really had followed literally all the laws in the book of Leviticus. Would he stone his children to death if they were disrepectful to him? Would he happily sell his sister into slavery (as long as it was to a foreigner)? Would he kill someone who wore mixed-fabric garments? The Bible says that he should.

That's the problem, isn't it? The Biblical laws are based on the culture of the time. The "kosher" food laws are basic common sense for food hygiene if you live in a hot climate with no refrigeration, but they make no sense at all today. Some people today pick out the fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but those same people (probably) don't kill disrespectful children, nor do they sell their relatives into slavery (the first of which the Bible says that you must do, and the second is condoned). The first part of the book of Joshua is a detailed set of instructions for genocide (all approved by God, of course), against people unfortunate enough to be living in a country "reserved for God's chosen people". Does that mean that God sanctions genocide, as long as it's against the right people?

You can't take the Bible (IMHO) as anything more than a set of guidelines written by - and for - the people of their time. To try to apply them in a completely different society 2000+ years later just doesn't work. I don't mean the basic "moral" stuff - that's still perfectly valid, of course - but the nitpicking detailed stuff that some people love to pick out to justify whatever their own agenda happens to be.

I don't want my life run by an outdated set of guidelines that have nothing to do with the way life it today. And yes, you are correct that a lot of people pick out the bits in the Bible that best fits with what their agenda is. It is very hypocritical to say "You cannot marry your partner" yet my I will not kill my disrespectful son. Part of this problem is that religious leaders need to update things for today and not live by outmoded Biblical laws that they pick and choose.

I'm Jewish and not kosher because kosher laws were created for dietary safeness back then. Today, the laws don't apply any longer. So I really don't see the need to live by outmoded laws that no longer have a relevance to society today.

Your god, is he anything like Gaia? or Tao? a principle like gravity that makes life possible? a universe that wishes to understand itself? or Plato's "The Good"? or just that Jewish god of war that at some point or another proclaimed himself "the god"? How is he better than Zeus or Athena or Ares for that matter? Please don't tell me the Jewish gods were "the chosen gods" too. Did he just come with the best manual? choose his Lieutenants right? were petty enough so common people could relate? condescend to bestow on humans his image?

Of what interest could we as individuals, as a group, as a nation, as humanity could be to a god? Entertainment, the immense opera written by the devil, in honor and staged for god, where each of us at one time or another sings an aria and then return to the chorus?

I wasn't going to respond in this thread, but these are interesting questions, so what the heck. As a reference point, I'm a Quaker Universalist. So with regards to whether my god is like Gaea, the Tao, gravity, Plato's "The Good," I would answer yes, all of these. (And also like some aspects ascribed to Zeus, Athena, and I suppose even Ares.) I go with the metaphor of the blind people and the elephant - we've each got a perspective on a small part of the divine, and it's tempting to try to draw conclusions about the whole, but I think the whole is too vast for any of us to perceive in its entirety. (That's where the "universalist" part of my belief comes from.)

As for what interest humans (or other sentient beings) might hold for a deity, I don't know, of course, but my working theory is that we're "gods in training" in some way -- meant to grow and mature as souls until we're able to do god-like things ourselves. Meanwhile, we should be taking care of our planet, each other, and ourselves, in approximately that order. I actually don't think god cares if we believe in god, or "worship" god. I wouldn't try to defend this theory to anyone who didn't believe it, I'm just offering it as a suggestion.

The times when I find god helpful are when I need to be better than I know how to be-- more patient, for example, or more forgiving, or more brave. I pray, I get help. Call it a psychological trick, if you like that metaphor better. To me, it feels like I'm getting extra help when I need it, and that's what counts, I think. (I don't ask god to make it rain or not rain, or to make me win the lottery, or whatever. I don't know if god ever intervened in human affairs to that extent, but even if so, I think we're supposed to be growing past that point.)

Ok, that's my 2 jiao.

Interesting, neko!

I was waiting for your response to this thread, you totally surprised me, I thought you would have contributed to the 'ecology' part. :)

I know next to nothing of Quakers out of some historical facts. Some of the things you say join my beliefs of the unfathomable dimensions, the unimaginable of God's essence. Oh yes, he exists! He's got nothing to do with any image, concept or phenomenon any man can imagine or grasp. No science can describe him; what toys we are. Made to his image... A metaphor to describe conciousness? All we can grasp are brief snippets of lucidity drowned in feelings of awe; so few, that we can remember them throughout our lives but not long enough to leave a lasting answer, just that there is one. Blessed we are that some can at times, because some have done. Religions are all good that they bring us conciousness of a whole.
One is born in a region of earth, given a culture and exposed to a religion. Born in an other region, he'd have an other culture and an other religion. Fight for them? Why?
We can not name God because we can not grasp what he is. The guides we have, the words and the wisdoms are there to bring us a focus to conciousness...None here can claim to know God. Would we have a right to?


Now back to this planet. Who are we to change the rules of nature or its order? We have science to seek its understanding but do we have the necessary wisdom to apply its use? We can mimic nature's processes but never really live by its rules other than what evolution has meant us to be. I do not suggest we go back to living the middle ages ways, deforestation almost destroyed Europe at the time. Nature has ways of control and used it then with plagues. It's showing us again with the fever of global warming. Why do we keep challenging? Is our ego so out of control or are we so stupid?

Simple laws should guide all we do that were not specified by the local wisdoms, because they knew not of the limits of the planet. The land they lived on was vast and unknown. Now that we know, what's the next step? Pursue our destruction to space and then to other planets. What a waste! I believe that going to space is an error and that it should not be attempted before we have stabilized our relationship with Earth first. Overpopulation, poverty, pollution, energy waste and its wrongful use, anihilation of other forms of life that were here before we were and I skip, all of which problems have to be dealt with before we ever think leaving this place, period. This Earth is Paradise! Why seek elsewhere? We should enjoy every moment we are here on it, not on what we make of it. Mankind has always fought nature for survival and has kept the ways. We are in an era where we must change to readapt. What do we do? We celebrate victory of science and technology over the elements, and plunder things we know next to nothing of.
What victory? We're destroying our own house! Our short lives are the standards which we aim by. We have no right as a whole, to meddle in things that live longer than us.

Mes deux cennes noires...

Interesting, neko!

I was waiting for your response to this thread, you totally surprised me, I thought you would have contributed to the 'ecology' part. :)
It didn't feel like I had anything new to contribute to the ecology part of the thread. HarryT and others pretty much had my position covered already. I suppose I could post links to any number of pages which explain the most common global warming myths, but those who are most vehemently on the other "side" of this debate probably wouldn't read or believe them anyway. The only thing I'll point out is that many of the US "captains of industry" would actually like the US government to implement the Kyoto protocols and take other steps on global warming, because there's actually a potential for "new technology" projects like this to kick-start the US economy. (Example: http://www.utdallas.edu/news/archive/2006/dumas-warming-opps.html)

Regarding the religion side of the discussion, I am reminded of a scene in David Brin's Earth in which a Jesuit (I think) points out that God's first actual command to humanity was to "name the animals." The Jesuit interprets this to represent a call to humanity to engage in science: to study the world around us, naming things and learning their natures. I think we are called to do more than that. We have the ability and power to destroy the ecosystem of our planet, or to help it. We ignore this power at the peril of ourselves and our world. If we take our power lightly, we are likely to take thoughtless actions with terrible consequences.

At this point, there are far too many of us to return to an agrarian lifestyle. We need to use our brains to get us out of this mess, or a series of catastrophies and plagues is very likely to come along and reduce the population for us.

Always comes down to economy does it? And what if economy was our plague?

There is no single solution, as much as variety is the spice of life. What we need most is cooperation but noooo! That's communist stuff. "You take care of your stuff, I'll take care of mine" Well I beg to differ, it's not your stuff and it's not my stuff, everything and we included belong to the planet. Sorry 'bout that! I always get carried away! :)

I have that Brin book in paperback somewhere, I'll have to dig it up someday and put it through the approximative 875 books I have yet to read.

I like the "wedge" approach, in which we don't look for a single solution, but look for a collection of strategies that each help to address a portion of the problem.

Earth is highly recommended. For me, at least, it had just the right mix of big ideas, empathetic characters, and action.

I feel in the environmental question we're quite doomed, unless some breakthrough in nanotechnology is achieved. As I mentioned before, I'm Brazilian, most of our electricity is produced by hydroelectric plants, almost all of our oil is produced through deep-sea exploration which if I'm not mistaken, the barrel of oil needs to be at least 38 American dollars in order for it to be profitable, also Brazil is the worlds biggest producer or Sugar Cane, sugar and ethanol, with at least 30% of the automotive fleet running on ethanol,(blended gasoline and pure ethanol) with nearly all passenger cars being produced nationally capable or running on gasoline, any blend, or pure ethanol. I don't know if many of you actually ever though of this, but regardless of market price, oil tends to have a never changing contractual "in soil" price, and the cost of extraction, American oil companies would never even consider extracting oil at nearly 38 dollars of operational cost. Of course this same principle applies to ethanol, which is only profitable when the barrel is above a certain price, which is something like 42 dollars(I could mistaken), which can never be comparable with good middle eastern oil, with could cost as little as 10 dollars a barrel.

I am not religious I will not subscribe to any of the following notions:

1.) That man has special privledge
2.) That catasrophes can't be man made
3.) That a likely extinction of the human race means we do nothing

Now with all that out of the way, I fail to see how religious dogma will solve this problem and it is a massive side track from the original premise here. That man has accelerated global warming.

I fail to see how man cannot be responsible for this current warming trend. At one time there was thick enough vegetation in the world that it too was responsible for a high amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is highly likely(that is we have to remove the impossible idea) that man can easily be responsible for the CO2 problem today.

It doesn't, that's what makes us the godless indignant(me, I don't know about you). True Republicans(modern stoics) except from a industry uncrippled by environmental laws, major breakthroughs within the next few decades(which is very likely), which of course gives them time to diversify their portfolio, but of course that has nothing to do with it :). Meanwhile the Democrats, with their tree hugging members, and young idealists(engineers, biologists, geneticists) stand to lead part of the World well into the next century. Of course both points are very valid, but obviously, the public can't stomach neither of them, which makes the smear campaign oscillate from as high as moral duty, to as low as god, god's will, god's wrath, which makes it interesting how savagely the Republicans always hold to the shorter end of the stick, but that's beside the point.