MIT Professor refutes Al Gore's movie

And how many years did it take general relativity to be accepted, though the evidence was blatently obvious? You're always going to have people clinging to beliefs instead of embracing emergent truth.

A bunch of scientists recently got together and said that the earth is the warmest it's been in 400 years. Well, I guess James I must have been sweating his ass off 401 years ago.

Toolie wrote:clinging to beliefs

Which of the facts listed in the article did you feel was a belief being clung to?

Maybe you should consider whether or not your "belief" in antrogenic global warming is in fact being clung to by people with a political agenda.

mikeron wrote:A bunch of scientists recently got together and said that the earth is the warmest it's been in 400 years. Well, I guess James I must have been sweating his ass off 401 years ago.

Hottest it's been in 400 years, eh? *cracks open a beer* Well, at least that's MY solution to global warming. Sorry, I'd be more serious about the issue, but it's just too damn hot outside.

Global warming is still being researched and new things are still being discovered, Toolie. It's not just scientists being reluctant to accept the emergent truth. Global cooling, for instance, is something that was little known before 9/11, and was in fact only a theory. Now it's massive effect on global temperatures (and thus, global warming) is becoming widely known. Just a few weeks ago, I stayed up late and watched a documentary on my local PBS station.

Global warming exists, that's impossible to completely refute, based on the sheer scientific fact that greenhouse gasses trap heat. But to concretely say how much of an effect it has on our atmosphere, for now or in the future, and to say exactly what to do about it or what precisely is the worst cause is something that nobody agrees on whatsoever.

But you have to give Gore a little credit. At least he was smart enough not to claim that he invented Global warming.

Global Cooling a new theory? Wasn't everyone back in the 70s scared of a new Ice Age coming or something like that? *shrug*

*sigh*

A man tries to better the world and he gets nothing but assholes who try to come up with reasons why we don't need to.

And what sort of consideration for the enviornment are you going to expect on the slanted talking-points sewer that is the heavily conservative OpinionJournal?

Wake up, this isn't an opinion issue. Just because a few outliers in the scientific community suggest something does not mean there is debate. Look at the movie "What the *bleep* do we know" for a great example of "scientists" who have absolutely no credibility for a similar example. I haven't seen Gore's movie, because I already know what there is to know about human impact on our enviornment to influence my political opinion and personal actions.

These people have no merit, no acceptance in the scientific community, and no real convincing evidence. Looking at all sides of research, it's pretty obvious. How could you even defend the destructiveness of the massive amounts of pollution each of us are responsible for every day? Are you that lazy or unaccountable?

Obviously, you're either very passionate about this, or just in the mood to chew people out, Toolie. I'll respond under the impression that it's the first option.

As I see it, there are just a few points being made here in this thread.

1) Al Gore exaggerates the facts, like any politician, for political gain.

2) While Global warming is recognized by virtually every scientific body in existence, there is no consensus on exactly how severe the threat is, how it will affect our planet on a long term basis, and or what consequences there will be to stopping the process we've started.

3) We've only been recording weather for a few hundred years, and accurately recording on a global basis for even less. In the grand scheme of things, despite the obvious fact that global warming exists, we don't know if it's something that will eventually doom our planet, or just something that will sell a few more air conditioners for the next hundred years.

Nothing good ever comes from a political film, Toolie. Political films serve no purpose other than furthering political aspirations. Period. Gore might be masking this film as an tool for awareness, but that doesn't make it so. Don't make him out to be a saint just because you can't remove that "Gore 2000" bumper sticker from your car without damaging the paint.

MacWeirdo, the global cooling that I'm referring to is the cooling effect caused by con trails from jet planes. If you make a determined google search, I'm sure you'll dig up plenty of info on it.

Toolie wrote:A man tries to better the world and he gets nothing but assholes who try to come up with reasons why we don't need to.

Research scientists at MIT are not necessarily ass holes. Presenting scientific evidence that conflicts with your political opinions does not make one an ass hole.

Toolie wrote:
And what sort of consideration for the enviornment are you going to expect on the slanted talking-points sewer that is the heavily conservative OpinionJournal?

The OpinionJournal, as the editorial branch of the Wall Street Journal, cannot be accused of being biased in any one direction since the pieces are by their very nature opinion piece. We have here a piece written by a respected research scientist at one of our nation's premier universities. You have not refuted the arguments of the article, merely lashed out at a percieved bias that seems more a result of your emotions over the subject than any real intellectual substance.

Toolie wrote:
Wake up, this isn't an opinion issue.

Why? Because you think you are right? Therefore everyone else is insane? This is a logically untenable position.

Toolie wrote: Just because a few outliers in the scientific community suggest something does not mean there is debate.

Here is an open letter written to the United States senate by 11 respected PhD researches in climatology, atmospheric sciences, and geology (amongst other things) presenting evidence contradicting many of the claims in Al Gore's film. These men can hardly be considered "a few outliers". There is clearly a reasoned, scientific debate going on in the community of researchers who are well versed in this subject. The only place where there is a consesus on global warming is among scientists who don't specialize in atmospheric sciences, and among non-scientists such as yourself. I really don't think your broad sweeping proclamations about the scientific community are based in much fact and certainly very little reason. You also didn't respond to my question in my previous post.

Toolie wrote:These people have no merit, no acceptance in the scientific community, and no real convincing evidence.

I would argue that this statement applies to you more than it does to these 11 people:

R. Tim Patterson, PhD
Professor of Geology
Carleton University

Tim Ball, PhD
Retired---Professor of Climatology
University of Winnipeg

Anthony Lupo, PhD
Professor of Atmospheric Science
University of Missouri---Columbia

David Legates, PhD
Associate Professor in Climatology
University of Delaware

Pat Michaels, PhD
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
Virginia State Climatologist

George Taylor, M.S. Meteorology
Oregon State Climatologist

Gary D. Sharp, PhD
Scientific Director
Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study

Roy W. Spencer, PhD
Principal Research Scientists
The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Jon Reisman
Associate Professor of Economics and Public Policy
University of Maine at Machias/ Maine Public Policy Institute Scholar

Willie Soon, PhD
Science Director, Tech Central Station

Sallie Baliunas, PhD
Enviro-Science Editor Tech Central Station

I agree that CO2 is a poison and that we are ruining our environment. However, that is not a reason to staple one's mind closed and go on a jihad for mother earth just because a wealthy white man who made his money in the tobacco industry makes a sensationalist film about it.

{DSG}DarkRaven wrote:Obviously, you're either very passionate about this, or just in the mood to chew people out, Toolie. I'll respond under the impression that it's the first option.

As I see it, there are just a few points being made here in this thread.

1) Al Gore exaggerates the facts, like any politician, for political gain.

2) While Global warming is recognized by virtually every scientific body in existence, there is no consensus on exactly how severe the threat is, how it will affect our planet on a long term basis, and or what consequences there will be to stopping the process we've started.

3) We've only been recording weather for a few hundred years, and accurately recording on a global basis for even less. In the grand scheme of things, despite the obvious fact that global warming exists, we don't know if it's something that will eventually doom our planet, or just something that will sell a few more air conditioners for the next hundred years.

Nothing good ever comes from a political film, Toolie. Political films serve no purpose other than furthering political aspirations. Period. Gore might be masking this film as an tool for awareness, but that doesn't make it so. Don't make him out to be a saint just because you can't remove that "Gore 2000" bumper sticker from your car without damaging the paint.

MacWeirdo, the global cooling that I'm referring to is the cooling effect caused by con trails from jet planes. If you make a determined google search, I'm sure you'll dig up plenty of info on it.

I'm not saying that I'm in favor of our continued dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or that global warming is not something to be concerned about. Rather, I'm suggesting that we REALLY need to study it much more closely, not that I think we're ever going to fully understand all of what's going on with the climate.

Al Gore's an idiot. His movie isn't even worth argueing over.

Obviously I'm outnumbered on a board of de facto conservatives via media infusion. You have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, while the majority of you sit on your asses on a computer because you're ineptitude bars you from living a normal life and functioning socially within even the most generous of margins.

I'd ask you to take your heads out of your asses, and think for yourself, but living online it's much easier to adopt someone's invented propogandized viewpoint as your own. Asking otherwise might be too much to ask from you idiots though - just look at how opinion manifests itself in this place.

So you mindless goblins, take care living a frightening new digital-age spawned life of social decay and emotional collapse. And in twenty years, when you're paying fifteen dollars a gallon, making the same minimum wage there is today, watching global American conflict escalate, and are married to obscenely large ugly women and are contemplating what exactly happened to your life before the Zoloft kicks in, you can think of me saying "I told you so". Good luck.

Wow, Toolie. I'm no psychologist, but do you think you might have a superiority complex or something going on here? Maybe? Just a little? Is this the point that you get angry and leave AGN, or do you plan to post a separate thread when that happens?

Rule #1 of the internet: Don't say anything unless you want to hear from people to disagree with you.

Rule #1 of persuasive arguments: Don't call people idiots if you're trying to make them see things your way. Especially on the internet.

Rule #1 of debating anything: If you're not willing to discuss something, don't talk about it. If you only want to hear people say how right you are, have a conversation with yourself.

And finally...

Rule #1 of insulting people: Don't do it on the internet. Nobody cares. Good day.

Nah, Toolie's just pretending to PMS in an attempt to get himself banned. I'm sure he no doubt is full of the same social hangups that he accuses us of being plagued with.

I would like to point out that there are hundreds if not thousands of PhD and MD holders who insist that there's no reliable evidence that smoking causes cancer. True, most of them probably don't even believe it themselves these days. But still, they're out there, because the truth happens to be disadvantageous for a few people.

Despite how it may sound, I'm not taking sides here. I don't consider myself to be knowledegable enough on the subject of global climate change to reasonably have any strong opinions about it. All I'm saying is, even really smart people can have their own agendas. And being well educated just makes it easier for them to get away with manipulating facts or lying outright.

I'm not trying to promote anti-intellectualism here, of course. Only skepticism, and perhaps cynicism.

Cloral wrote:You mean 2000 years. It's the hottest it's been since the times of Jesus.