06-20-2006, 09:42 PM
Just had my ass kicked by Al Gore's new documentary about global warming "An Inconvenient Truth". Scariest movie I've ever seen. I knew things were bad, but holy shit! Everybody should go see this flick.
An Inconvenient Truth
06-21-2006, 07:57 AM
alarming isn't it...I agree, everyone should see it, or at least should want to see it
06-21-2006, 08:42 AM
If you live in the boondocks (like me) and you're pretty sure the movie won't be screened in your hometown in the near future, here's a linky for you to follow:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.climatecrisis.net/">http://www.climatecrisis.net/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.climatecrisis.net/">http://www.climatecrisis.net/</a><!-- m -->
01-07-2007, 09:41 AM
I'm bumping this thread. I was going to start my own, but then I remembered my friend the 'Search Function'.
I watched this film on Friday night and with the non-canadian winter we're having, I'd like to think that some alarms should be going off. Much like Michael Moore's documentaries, you have to take parts of it with a grain of salt. There were times when all Gore was interested in was making digs at the Bush administration. But I think the important information was well presented.
Seeing as how Ambrose (former Environmental Minister) jumped off the Kyoto ship, I wonder if our new jockey will attempt to get us back on track. Kyoto isn't perfect, but even if we don't meet the all the criteria right away, it's better to show the world we've tried. Much of the world's hope lies on the shoulders of our American friends. The general consensus is that they have more important things to worry about right now (ie: oil). It just seems as though we're running out of time folks...
Happy New Year!
I watched this film on Friday night and with the non-canadian winter we're having, I'd like to think that some alarms should be going off. Much like Michael Moore's documentaries, you have to take parts of it with a grain of salt. There were times when all Gore was interested in was making digs at the Bush administration. But I think the important information was well presented.
Seeing as how Ambrose (former Environmental Minister) jumped off the Kyoto ship, I wonder if our new jockey will attempt to get us back on track. Kyoto isn't perfect, but even if we don't meet the all the criteria right away, it's better to show the world we've tried. Much of the world's hope lies on the shoulders of our American friends. The general consensus is that they have more important things to worry about right now (ie: oil). It just seems as though we're running out of time folks...
Happy New Year!
01-08-2007, 01:33 PM
Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd throw this in as fodder for discussion.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/">http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/">http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/</a><!-- m -->
01-08-2007, 02:59 PM
Crichton's argument is manifestly false. The fact that bad science has been accepted in the past can't be used to suggest that accepted science is bad in the present. That argument insults the reader's intelligence; in fact, it insults the intelligence of the desk that supports the monitor on which the reader has the misfortune to read it. Crichton's argument is not simply false; it is stupid and dishonest.
Furthermore, in both of Crichton's examples, the bad science was accepted and promoted by the powers that be for political reasons. Lamarckian evolution was the only accepted model in the Soviet Union because it agreed with Soviet interpretation of Marxist doctrine. Eugenics was promoted by powerful elites for reasons of racism, and with the aim of preserving their power.
Theories connecting human activity with climate change, on the other hand, are proposed by the scientific community in the face of opposition from those in power. This is not "politicized science."
Counter-theories proposed by scientists in the pay of major oil companies, on the other hand, theories which are promoted by dunces such as Crichton, are politicized science. And I agree with Crichton on one thing: politicized science, and the vicious, dishonest jackasses who promote it, are dangerous.
Furthermore, in both of Crichton's examples, the bad science was accepted and promoted by the powers that be for political reasons. Lamarckian evolution was the only accepted model in the Soviet Union because it agreed with Soviet interpretation of Marxist doctrine. Eugenics was promoted by powerful elites for reasons of racism, and with the aim of preserving their power.
Theories connecting human activity with climate change, on the other hand, are proposed by the scientific community in the face of opposition from those in power. This is not "politicized science."
Counter-theories proposed by scientists in the pay of major oil companies, on the other hand, theories which are promoted by dunces such as Crichton, are politicized science. And I agree with Crichton on one thing: politicized science, and the vicious, dishonest jackasses who promote it, are dangerous.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)