Customer Discussions > An Inconvenient Truth forum

Al is not a scientist

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 39 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 4, 2007 10:51:48 PM PST
Much of what you read about global warming is bad science. There is a tendency in science and in the media to keep at a subject even when it is BS. It almost becomes a religion. They have done it with "evolution". They did it with DDT and now with global warming. I've read studies and about scientists that had contradicting data. You know what, not too many listen to the guy. It's like he stood up in church and said (Fill in with what ever GOD you like) is dead or that Jesus was just a nice guy. There is always a knee-jerk reaction to stone the guy. Does anybody remember the predictions of what would happen on Jan. 1 2000? I live in Dallas and when ever there is the slightest chance of snow or ice you'd think we were going to be under 20' of snow the next day. Panic sells. The Government, Media, Scientist and Lawyers like to get us worried because there is money in it. Think of how many time these groups have lied to us. I'm not aware of one scientific study that proved (with out a doubt) that DDT was dangerous. When it was banned untold thousands died from Disease spread by mosquitoes an the crops damaged by insects etc... Some estimates say the number of dead sits at $30,000 others say many more. Did you read about that?
So I say show me/us all the studies not just the ones that agree with that theory. In a good scientific study you seek to find the truth and modify your belief based on the facts. You don't start out with a theory and then ignore contradicting information and then publish only the evidence that supports your claim. A good scientist does not where blinders and has an open mind. FYI I bought into some of this crap for a long time until a friend opened my eyes.
Oh one more scientific/medical/government disaster that was predicted. In the 70's. Anybody remember the Swine Flu scare. I do. They were predicting thousands would die and we all had to go to a mall and get a shot to save the world. Well guess what it didn't happen and no it was not because everybody got shots because they didn't. I don't remember hearing of even a 100 deaths. But how much money and publicity did Big business, etc... and The media get out of that.
Ok I feel much better I'll get off the soap box.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 6, 2007 7:38:42 AM PST
I agree with your comment that much of what we read about global warming is "bad science," however with a caveat. The distinction must be made between reading the newspaper and blogs versus reading scientific journals. Any person, even one with no scientific credentials, can post a blog or submit an article to a newspaper's editorial page. Journalists themselves often have no background on the scientific topics on which they write their articles. In contrast, to be published in a prestigious scientific journal, an article goes through an arduous process of peer review after peer review by other scientists to ensure their methods and claims are based on proper scientific methods. It is quite far fetched to believe that "BS" could survive this process. It is not, however, inconceivable in the slightest to see lesser articles appear in newspapers and on the internet.
Could you please explain why you inserted quotations around the word evolution? There is no longer any debate in the scientific community over the existence of evolution. However, consistent with most topics that people don't like to accept, it is still heavily debated in the public, among people basing their arguments on opinions rather than science.
January 1, 2000 is an excellent example of why efforts must be made now to reduce global warming. However the effects of global warming have a much more serious potential for devastation. Had the problem with the computers not been identified prior to January 1, there certainly would have been chaotic consequences. However, alert people recognized the problem before it became a problem, alerted industries, discussed solutions, and put a solution into place, which is exactly why nothing happened on January 1, 2000. Similar to that situation, we know how to stop global warming. We have the education, tools, and knowledge to confront the problem. The better question is if we have the convictions to do so.
We do live in a society where most media outlets and industries use fear mongering techniques to boost ratings and sales. The best defense against this is an educated public who knows how to distinguish good science versus opinion and even out-and-out lying.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 8, 2007 8:12:48 AM PST
Slim says:
Haha. You lost all credibility when you said "evolution" WITH the quotation remarks. I can actually picture you saying the word "evolution" while making bunny ears with your fingers. Good stuff.

And on a more serious note, Gore not being a scientist is not particularly relevant. He never claims to be a scientist, and he is offering no primary research on global warming. He is presenting the facts of scientists and the scientific community, and he loses no credibility for failing to hold a scientific degree himself.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 9, 2007 7:55:27 PM PST
B. Jarrett says:
Global warming is bad science? Are you that ignorant?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2007 11:41:55 AM PST
D. A. Insley says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2007 10:51:03 PM PST
Adam Karnik says:
First, I highly doubt you have seen this film, which would make your discussion on this page completely irrelevant.

Second, I do not disagree with your assertion that the media can exploit fear for profit. However, I would like to emphasize that science and the media are not married. What the media does is its business. Science is a very complicated process that has a number of checks and balances within its community. Whenever it is seen out of context, it can seem that it is wrong more often than right. Yet science never makes claims like, "A swine flu epidemic will kill thousands." They write, "A swine flu pathogen has the potential to kill thousands. Preparations should be made to prevent this possible occurance." No matter what the media says, science does not work that way.

Third, unless you doubt the accuracy of modern thermometers, it is undeniable, indeed reckless, to propose that global warming is not occuring. The temperatures are rising, and this data can not be disputed! (In regard to D.A. Insley's remarks, the term global warming refers to the temperature of the earth as a whole. Climate and weather are completely different. Weather is pertinent to location and a specific time, whereas climate refers to the general trends.) Yes, some time ago some scientific studies suggested the possibility of a cooling trend. Yet the data is far too undeniable. From the Pacific Ocean to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro, the climate is changing. This cannot be denied by a logical person who looks at the facts.

Fourth, there is doubt in the scientific community as to whether this climate change is due to human or natural influences. The earth does follow a cycle of warm and cool periods, which D.A. Insley was nice enough to point out. However, this controversy cannot be construed as a controversy regarding the existence of global warming. The data is still there, and the dangers a warmer globe pose are the same whether we caused it or nature did. Either way, our subpar environmental policies do not help the situation.

Fifth, Al Gore is not a scientist. Yet he does not claim to be. And you are not one either. However, Mr. Gore has studied the issue in depth with scientists for years. Considering that you doubt the basic tenet of evolution, you obviously have not.

Sixth, in regard to Mr. Insley's comment about automobiles, it is unfortunate that we rely so heavily on cars as our principal mode of daily transportation. Yet public transportation, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and a lower interstate speed limit are probably too liberal of ideas for Mr. Insley. Who is the hypocrite now? Also, Steven Wright is a comedian and not a very good source to use as the foundation of an argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2007 6:35:15 PM PST
C.M. says:
I don't think Gore's information is bad science. He has tremendous amounts of data supporting his information, which has been gathered and studied for many years now. Exactly what do you think about the book (or movie) is BS? I don't think there's any doubt that global warming IS occuring--the question may be why? And there is no doubt that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now unprecedented. This is not in debate. Has this caused global warming? I believe Gore has shown that it is. Are there climatic changes that occur naturally? Of course, but if you look at the temperature data over just the last several hundred years, it's pretty obvious where we are headed and why!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2007 8:20:36 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2007 8:27:54 PM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
As a scientist, I am not concerned that Al Gore, as a journalist, writes science. Indeed I appreciate it. The job of a journalist is to take information and put it into some form that can be readily understood and can appeal to readers. That isn't the goal of the scientist. Scientists apply theory. They write and review material for publication that is to be understood by their peers. If I were to write material for publication it would contain references to molecular bond angles, asymmetric stretching and bending vibrational modes, infrared spectroscopy, and black-body radiation. The result wouldn't be appealing enough to reach most people in that form.

Al Gore has been accused of being an alarmist. Ozone holes, killer bees, and mad cow disease are all examples in which few people realize that serious efforts by scientists lead to resolution. Problem resolution is rarely reported by the media. Successes become so frequent and expectations so high that our media doesn't cover them. Too often, bad journalists without investigation will later recklessly report that the situation was a hoax. I can't tell you how harmful this is.

You are right, Al Gore is no scientist, but we need more journalists reporting science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2007 5:41:41 PM PST
A. Greenberg says:
Leaving my political affiliations out of this matter, before I saw this movie, I wasn't so sure about global warming. When I came out of the theater, I was completely convinced.
Like ANY controversial (for some reason, this is controversial)scientific matter, there is evidence for and against it, but the evidence for it is overwhelming.
And don't knock Al Gore, he may not be a scientist, but he's still extremely intelligent, so we can trust that the information he presents isn't just Democrat-produced data.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2007 5:42:45 PM PST
A. Greenberg says:
and D. A. Insley sounds like Stephen Colbert.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2007 9:23:03 PM PST
C. Gagnon says:
I would be very interested to see your scientific studies with "contradicting data". Only, you can't use any data gathered and spread through the "liberal media" that originates from Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, British Petroleum, etc.

Go ahead, gather it up. I'll wait right here.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2007 6:51:31 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 17, 2007 6:58:18 AM PST
jessix says:
You are willfully ignorant! Are you so hateful towards your own warped perception of a LIBERAL AGENDA, that you deny firmly established facts, presented in black and white the world over? There are studies upon studies of DDT and its effects on generations to come, let alone on those directly exposed to it. Your anti-Liberal and anti-Progressive hatred has blinded you to any semblance of truth, to the extent that you deny the reality in front of your face in order to preserve your comfortable misconceptions.

Whatever comfort and security you get from this self-deception must be so valuable to you that you will risk your own life and future in order to keep these misconceptions tightly wrapped around you for the illusion of protection they give you. To keep yourself locked in your delusional world, you invent your own "facts" to justify your delusions, and make up your own agenda which you attribute to your enemies, the Liberal-Progressive Americans who are trying to enlighten you and save your quality of life.

Is there some sort of illness or Plague which infests anti-Progressive anti-Liberal persons, which feeds on their insecurities and replaces their self-doubt with hatred directed towards persons who mean them no harm? Are Liberal-haters so fragile and insecure that in order to face each day they must manufacture their own world of "facts" to support their own self-serving theories?

DDT is one of the most researched and tested environmental poisons. DDT is THE insecticide responsible for alerting environmentalists to the problems of using chemicals to control insects.

Al Gore has nothing to do with DDT, but the problem he has uncovered to the world is every bit as dangerous and earthshaking (if not more so) as was the first expose of the effects of DDT insecticide and other similar poisons on humans, animals, and the earth's future.

Why don't you read "SILENT SPRING", written in 1962 by Rachel Carson? If, like our President, you are proud you don't read, this book can be found on audio-cassette!

Now that I offered you a reference for your DDT facts, why not return the favor and find me ANY legitimate reference that disproves the dangers of DDT? Since you claim nobody talks about the published scientific denials of DDT dangers, why not find me just one of these denials? Is there any scientific paper or thought or thought fragment that supports your contention DDT is a safe, harmless substance that just got a bad rap from a pseudoscientific community?

This will be good practice for your next assignment - to find for me any scientific contradiction of Al Gore's theories as put forth in his "Inconvenient Truth" work. OPINIONS of oil corporation CEO's are not scientific findings, no matter how loudly they shout them or how much money they spend in their attempts to discredit the scientists who threaten their livelihoods. What would happen to these oil company executives if the world's population insisted on using solar or other alternative energy forms in order to stop man's contribution to the global warming problem by his indiscriminate use of fossil fuels?

Is it too much for anyone to ask of you to put aside your nonspecific hatred of anything not familiar to you long enough for you to expose yourself to the facts of a situation which, if ignored further, may have detrimental effects on your life and on the life of everyone living on this planet? Why not give it a try?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2007 2:27:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 19, 2007 2:29:38 PM PST
I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I heard Al Gore utter the words that he had "discovered" Love Canal (in an interview he had done - not one of those conservative soundbites so often ripped from their contexts). As one who lived in the city of Niagara Falls, New York at the time of the whole Love Canal thing, I knew he was wrong.

Is there "global warming"? I'm not particularly inclined to put much stock in scientists simply because so many of them hold onto a worldview of naturalism and that worldview automatically makes them biased. Now, if a scientist that does not approach science with ANY kind of worldview or bias provides evidence of global warming, I'm more inclined to hear what he has to say.

HOWEVER, given that I have certain biases myself, I decided to go to a source that holds the same particular bias that I hold and here's what I found:

"Practically all atmospheric scientists (the author included) agree that global warming has occurred. The raging debate is over how much of it is caused by man and whether global warming will be harmful. Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, climatologists and critics of greenhouse warming hype, write, 'In the broadest perspective, global warming is a very real thing, undeniable from surface temperature readings taken over much of the planet in the last 100 years.'"

"Climate specialists run computer simulations using the above-noted formula, in which they double the amount of CO2 and see how much the temperature rises. These simulations are based on estimations and assumptions and not exact figures. The many types of simulations predict a temperature rise of 3 to 10°F. Unfortunately, many politicians and environmentalists take such imperfect climate simulations and claim them to be fact. This is problematic. It is no wonder we have a greenhouse scare. However, if all the greenhouse gases have caused an increase by 60% CO2 in equivalency units, and man has only warmed the atmosphere about 0.6°F, then these climate simulations are much too sensitive to the effects of CO2."

"What we really need is more careful research. All positions should have a say on the issue. Unfortunately, the media and proponents of significant technology-induced global warming have demonized many qualified critics and have accused them of conspiring with the oil companies. These are critics who do not feel that a logical case has been made to prove that manmade technologies are at fault."

So, fine; there's global warming. The effects of that warming are still subject to debate and, frankly, the jury is still out on that one. I don't deny that prudence is always a good thing, let's not be so quick to believe all the hype being made by Hollywood and the media.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2007 9:16:17 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 19, 2007 9:19:29 PM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
World opinion, including corporations that used to oppose the concept of global warming theory, have joined up with scientists as well as evangelists and politicians of every persuasion. Since climate is rather complex there will always be some debate over various components and factors. However, interest in solutions rather than debate is what is happening now. Even oil corporations such as ExxonMobil, that used to fund Patrick Michaels, are now asking what they can do to curb global warming. Here is just another daily sample how corporations are warming up.

Top US firms to urge Congress to fight global warming

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some of corporate America's biggest names, including Alcoa, General Electric and DuPont, will urge the US Congress next week to act swiftly to help offset global warming, an environment partnership said.

The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), of which the three corporations are key members, said its members would issue a call to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the findings of a year-long report on Monday in Washington.

The USCAP report will be issued a day before US President George W. Bush delivers his annual State of the Union speech. Some commentators believe Bush will address climate change during his remarks.

The US president has said he does not support mandatory government emission caps on US industry and his administration withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to curb greenhouse gases, in 2001.

"After a year of collaboration and dialogue, our organizations have arrived at a set of principles and policy recommendations to address global warming," USCAP said in a statement.

The group said the cornerstone of its approach would be to recommend "a cap-and-trade program" to trim greenhouse gases "to a level that minimizes large-scale adverse impacts to humans and the natural environment."

USCAP also groups BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, FPL Group, Lehman Brothers, energy group PG and E, PNM Resources and the non-governmental Environmental Defense group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the World Resources Institute.

Large US corporations have begun showing heightened concerns about global warming in recent years, especially since Hurricane Katrina obliterated the Gulf coast city of New Orleans and wide swathes of Louisiana and Mississippi in August 2005.

US insurers State Farm and Allstate are not seeking new home insurance business along wide stretches of the US East Coast amid fears of bigger hurricanes, which some scientists have attributed to climate change.

And a week ago, the chairman of the London-based Lloyd's insurance market, Peter Levene, urged governments and businesses to not delay acting on the threat of global warming.

Levene said Lloyd's is planning for fresh disasters, but questioned whether US lawmakers were seriously heeding the dangers posed by climate change.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 20, 2007 5:33:19 PM PST
A. Watkins says:
Here's a different perspective, albeit broad-stroked and catering to the rare few who adhere to both scientific principles and a literalistic view of the Bible ("evolution" in quotes being evidence of this, from the top post):

Reading Genesis as the sort of document that (if not precisely scientific) can trump or inform science--so that, for instance, a literal six-24-hour-day creation is certainly how the Creator made the world--leaves an opening for a literalist interpretation of other Scripture passages, such as the ones that declare that the end of the world will come with lakes of sulfur and fire-rain, etc.

Sound a bit like a poetic description of global warming? I mean, shouldn't we be EXPECTING a literal day of reckoning that involves some really hot times? (Or period of reckoning, depending on where you stand on millenialism?) I don't understand how a literal interpretation of Scripture passages leads one to the conclusion that global warming is probably a hoax--especially given the prevalence of evangelical leaders warning about the end times, not to mention the constant reminder (waning, PTL) of the end times a la jenkins and lahaye. If anything, evangelicals should be swarming the streets with old timey signs that read "Repent! The end is near! Here's Al Gore, a hero, a prophet! He agrees with us!"

If gay marriage (against), abortion (against), and capital punishment (in favor) are issues for which evangelicals will swing their votes and march, protest, and pray, then why not environmental ethics? Is it that "dominion" verse, in the garden of Eden passage? Because I do not think that word means what we think it means.

Let's turn our attention to motives. It seems to me that if Al Gore is seeking attention or money, or is using global warming as a platform for publicly licking his wounds, he's doing a relatively bad job of it. He has spent years giving speeches to relatively small audiences, and then making a DVD. Compared to oil corporations and families of current administration members, he has failed in his attempt to create oodles and oodles of cash and political cache for himself.

In terms of his suggestions for reducing CO2 emissions, I'm also confused as to who he's trying to make rich: energy-efficient lightbulb manufacturers? Does he have a controlling share in one of those companies? Is he suggesting that we use more fuel-efficient vehicles just to line his own pockets with wads of cash?

There are a few other options, other than sane-but-nefarious motives for taking the American people in with meaningless, made-up facts: maybe former VP Gore is a pathological liar; maybe he wanted to get people to pay attention to him and needed a (documentary) movie as a vehicle; maybe he has good intentions but has been himself taken in by scoundrel scientists who are pathologically lying to him; maybe he is the Antichrist, leading us astray to our doom. (Recall, however, the weapons of mass destruction, and before that, the "Read my lips" speech: "an inconvenient truth"--worse, or better than that?)

But even if the whole thing is an elaborate hoax, founded on nothing but fairy dust, the consequences of changing a few lightbulbs, buying a hybrid car, walking more and polluting less, are simple: you save money. Go ahead. Try those things, act exactly as you do now, and see if your bills don't get smaller. I dare you.

Then consider the consequences of the alternative--Gore IS right, and the world we live in is heating up: countless people lose their homes, storms and weather patterns become more severe and unpredictable, our lives change permanently and for the worse.

It's simple cost-benefit analysis, and anyone can see who comes out the winner either way. It's suicide to blind ourselves to this.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2007 5:41:41 AM PST
Dean Cruise says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2007 6:14:43 AM PST
C. Oaks says:
Quit with the LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE BS. You're part of the problem!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2007 8:56:16 AM PST
Dean Cruise says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2007 5:26:00 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 21, 2007 5:34:30 PM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
But, says Al Gore is not a liberal - not even close.

And Al Gore does not say we are killing ourselves. He simply says we need to reduce CO2 emissions.

And thanks for recycling.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 12:25:38 PM PST
J. Chan says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 12:27:09 PM PST
J. Chan says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 1:57:53 PM PST
John says:
"...also the illness and plague that infects us non-liberals is called "reality" which helps us function properly in society these days. "

WMDS are in Iraq, Sadddam Hussein was behind 9/11, evolution is a myth, "trickle-down" theory, bizarred liberal conspiracies, George Bush is an excellent leader, etc.
Yep, the things you guys believe sure are "reality"-based. I bet you'll find some way to convince yourself the disaster the last 6 years have been really is Clinton's fault.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 2:04:34 PM PST
John says:
"You are willfully ignorant! Are you so hateful towards your own warped perception of a LIBERAL AGENDA, that you deny firmly established facts, presented in black and white the world over?"

Although I haven't read it yet, there's a good book called "Conservatives without conscience" that helps explain the psychology of people like that. This is the 30% of people who no matter what happens, always think Bush is a great leader, and will treat anyone who questions their ideolody with contempt and disbelief. Unfortunately in many cases it's probably a waste to time to try to convince them of anything, they'll always find some way to justify their hatred of "liberals" and their disbelief of anything Fox news tells them is a liberal hoax (like global warming and evolution).

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 2:57:51 PM PST
J. Chan says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 7:41:58 PM PST
Ryan Russon says:
J. Chan,

You have very strong opinions for someone whose wishlist contains only comic books. If science is over your head, please stop trying to dismiss it. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a rigorously fact-checked documentary; I've seen no evidence to the contrary. If you have something other than vague rants to contribute to a discussion of the film, it would be welcome.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  24
Total posts:  39
Initial post:  Jan 4, 2007
Latest post:  Mar 21, 2007

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions