"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Lawrence, when I saw the OP I was thinking how might I reply about Gores
video blog /presidential campaign promo. However, you kinda took the wind
out of my sail. Anything I add would be long winded and boring in
comparison.

I wish I could rant a little now and then.....



Paulus

Wibble wrote:



It is the most vociferous school of thought but it is in no way a
scientifically proven fact. An important matter but often overlooked.

So far, both sides of the GW debate have a lot of measurements but not
enough to establish, once and for all and beyond all doubt that "GW" is
or is not part of a long term cycle.

An analysis of Global temperature cycles based on 700,000 years of data,
published thirty years ago, suggested that we wouldn't reach the
temperatures reached in the last peak of global warming in the 1940s until
about 2030. We passed that peak in the late 1970s and are now about 0.6
DegC above it.

We'll never reach a stage where everyone will accept AGW as fact, much as
we'll never convince everyone that the Earth is not flat.

Please note, however, that "An Inconvenient Truth" is science-based
whereas Intelligent Design (ID) is religion cloaked as science.

Global warming, by equal measure, could also be described as religion
cloaked as science (sic) but I fear that the hot air generated by the
debate will do more damage to the planet than China, India, America and
Russia combined.

AGW has over a century of scientific research behind it. The forecasts for
the global warming were made over thirty years ago. These forecasts are now
being proved.


--
Graham Davis
Bracknell
It was raining cats and dogs and I fell in a poodle. - Chic
Murray(1919-1985)

in 217338 20070115 212239 "Will Hand" wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .


ROFL, thanks Lawrence, more than a hint of truth (inconvenient or otherwise)
somewhere in there I feel.

Will.
--

Really, Will, maybe you could point it out to me?

Wibble wrote:
JPG wrote:
Wibble wrote:
Linda B wrote:
A letter has been sent home from my daughters school, suggesting that
parents might like to go in one evening to watch the film "An Inconvenient
Truth". Students will be shown the film as part of their Beliefs and Values
lesson. Quote from the teacher... "It contains graphic details of the
affects of global warming that you might wish to discuss with your child".

Has anyone here seen the film and can offer opinions on how good it is, ie.
is it terribly biased one way or the other, does it over dramatise things,
etc? I certainly don't wish to start a GW argument but would welcome
thoughts from uk.sci contributers.

Thanks,
Linda B

Yes, the film is biased towards the "global warming is real" school of thought.

Which is by far the most prevalent, supported by the overwhelming
majority of scientists.

It is the most vociferous school of thought but it is in no way a scientifically
proven fact. An important matter but often overlooked.

And so it should be "vociferous", as you rather scornfully put it. It
is one of mankind's greatest challenges

So far, both sides of the GW debate have a lot of measurements but not
enough to establish, once and for all and beyond all doubt that "GW" is
or is not part of a long term cycle.

Scientific enquiry is never "proven fact", as you should well know.
There is always the possibility that the present warming is not due to
the burning of fossil fuels. However, most observations and much data
point to this probability and the serious scientific consensus is for
anthropogenic causes.


And, yes, the film certainly is dramatic in it's presentation of the information it
seeks to convey. In a manner similar to the 'intelligent' design school of thought,
which is as good an example of an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Please note, however, that "An Inconvenient Truth" is science-based
whereas Intelligent Design (ID) is religion cloaked as science.

Global warming, by equal measure, could also be described as religion cloaked as
science (sic)

Absolute ********. Global warming is serious scientific theory backed
up by extensive observation, modelling and data. Intelligent Design
has no serious peer-reviewed research and is little more than
watered-down creationism introduced by American fundamentalists to
circumvent the teaching of Darwinian evolution in biology lessons.

but I fear that the hot air generated by the debate will do more
damage
to the planet than China, India, America and Russia combined.

If anything is more desperately needed than a global debate on AGW, I'm
not aware of it.

"paulus" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Lawrence, when I saw the OP I was thinking how might I reply about Gores
video blog /presidential campaign promo. However, you kinda took the wind
out of my sail. Anything I add would be long winded and boring in
comparison.

I wish I could rant a little now and then.....



Paulus

Attacking the person and not the issue isn't, imho, a good starting point
for debate of any sort.

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Gianna" wrote in message
...
Linda B wrote:


There is a school of thought in America that as the world is coming to an
end shortly anyway, there is no need for Americans to risk damaging their
economy in the meantime by taking action to reduce any man-made effect
upon GW.

It was hoped that the film might snap some people out of that particular
stupor.


--
Gianna

What stupour would that be Gianna

I think that it's variously called "the rapture" or the "end of days".
Sadly, there are some Americans so religiously deluded that they
believe that AGW, Islamist terrorism, a nuclear Middle East war will
bring about Armageddon so they take a "so-what" attitude.

On Jan 15, 3:47 pm, Linda B wrote:

is it terribly biased ?

Yes. The clue is in the title.

On Jan 15, 4:24 pm, "JPG"
wrote:

Which is by far the most prevalent, supported by the overwhelming
majority of scientists.

We tend to laugh at argument-from-authority/fallacy-of-numbers
type arguments on uk.phil.atheism, but they're ok on a .sci group?

"Tony Cummins" wrote in message
...

"paulus" wrote in message
...

Lawrence, when I saw the OP I was thinking how might I reply about Gores
video blog /presidential campaign promo. However, you kinda took the wind
out of my sail. Anything I add would be long winded and boring in
comparison.

I wish I could rant a little now and then.....



Paulus

Attacking the person and not the issue isn't, imho, a good starting point
for debate of any sort.


Err, sorry, who did I attack?

If your comment was directed at me then I would like to point out that "An
Inconvenient Truth" is not intended as a call for debate. According Gore the
debate is over. Global warming or not, his video is nothing more than
sensationalism and self promotion. Why else would he take a staring role?

However should anyone care to extend this thread to analyse the issues
presented by Gore in detail then I would be happy to join the debate.

Paulus

JPG wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Gianna" wrote in message
...
Linda B wrote:

There is a school of thought in America that as the world is coming to an
end shortly anyway, there is no need for Americans to risk damaging their
economy in the meantime by taking action to reduce any man-made effect
upon GW.

It was hoped that the film might snap some people out of that particular
stupor.


--
Gianna
What stupour would that be Gianna

I think that it's variously called "the rapture" or the "end of days".
Sadly, there are some Americans so religiously deluded that they
believe that AGW, Islamist terrorism, a nuclear Middle East war will
bring about Armageddon so they take a "so-what" attitude.


Thanks for that post - I do not see Looney Larry's posts but that question did
need responding to. I am particularly amused when the people in question state
that their book of revelation tells them that the apocalypse is coming (given
that the book of revelation IS the apocalypse). Anyway, back to rebuilding the
temple ...


--
Gianna