AN INCOVIENIENT TRUTH

Except for mentioning that I dislike Gore most of my comments have been directed at the substantive issues rather than the messenger. You have dodged my questions regarding exactly what data Gore has brought forth that is so convincing. I don't think you are deliberately dodging these questions but perhaps you aren't able to answer because you were swayed by effective salemanship rather than data?
Both he and his former confederate Clinton have the ability to be very persuasive on a certain level. Like snake oil salesmen they can sway opinions to their side and leave people wondering exactly what happened when it's all over.
Yes I am now critiquing the messenger rather than the message. That is because without throwing away 90 minutes of my short life I cannot discern what message he is putting forth that is something I don't already know; climate change is occurring.
No offense but you have seen his mesaage and you don't seem to be able to point to any data that supports his agenda which is basically that human activity must be altered if mankind is to survive.
Is that not his agenda? Does he provide convincing scientific data to support that view?

You say that the links say:

.

That pretty much represents the state of scientific knowledge on the matter at this point in time.

On what basis? Does he provide footnotes and references to scientific data or does the film sway viewers opinions by showing Polar bears stranded on ice floes?

 

Grieg is right.There is no scientific proof between global warming and chemicals. All we have is a strong theory.Still dosent make it fact.

 

It's weird

A strong theory somehow isn't quite right and yet evolution,while a theory,is seen as fact.

 

yeah, u know its very likely true, but there isnt definitive proof, unless theres a time machine , lol. docotr who hasnt made a visit here, so I guess we're left to follow the road which has the most proof.

 

well ,science is for the most part open ended...much of what was taught as scientific fact to me as a schoolboy fourty years ago has been changed or ammended in the face of new evidence ...not to say there is no politics or entrenchment among scientists .they are after all merely descendents of an upright toolmakeing meat eating simian with vocal chords..(winks at kaiser ) what has not changed ,of course is the religious dogma taught to me in sunday school ,,its pretty much the same as it was taught to my great ,grt grt grandfather albeit with much less conviction and chauvanism in the face of the endless bombardment of rationalism , pc and logic . evolution is taught as more or less factual because so much evidence points us down that path...and since there isnt any OTHER theory that bears up to any real world scrutiny , evolution is the default explaination...greig ,i know your time is valueable ,like me ,im sure you only spend two or three minutes each day reading and responding to the .faceless entitys on this website...lol....if you dont want to hear al gores message ,i dont blame you...i wish i had never heard it ,frankly......im not convinced that if we magically stopped all co2 emissions world wide at once , that it will change the events which al gores little charts and graphs seem to indicate are probable..after all ,just because the rain forrests ,coral reefs and ice caps are vanishing before our eyes and the humbolt and gulf stream currents will prolly go a little smidgen off course dosent mean that there will be any real effect on our every day lives, in theory....

 

Yes, we call that climate change.
Nothing to see here, folks.
Break it up.
Go back to your homes.


:smok:

 

would you rather have Global Warming or cooling? or maybe manbearpig.

 

lol, when i was a young novice pilot , i once asked my instructors what to do if i had an engine failure at night when going cross country...they told me to tighten seat belts ,make a radio call (mom ,i love you...) unlatch and push cabin door ajar ,then as you descend thru inky blackness ,observe your altimeter when it shows 100 feet agl ,,,,with the wind whistleing at your door crack ,switch on your landing headlamp...if you see tree tops , craggy cliffs or breaking waves ...well ..just turn OFF the damn thing ... i guess there is not much point in telling everyone the sky is falling ,after all there isnt really a dang thing anyone can do about it , i just want them to worry and fret about it ,like i do...

 

manbearpig is very real and very much a threat to all mankind ....sigh..... why wont anyone listen to me..

 

I remember that episode of south park, lol Excelsiour !

 

It is still called a theory even though evidence for it is abundant. This is mostly because too many people want it to be untrue, and scientists are cautious because they want to be sure before they claim things - that is, after all, their profession. The relation between global warming and human activity is much harder to prove simply because the process itself, which clearly extends far beyond human influence, cannot be neatly subdivided according to cause.

Oh, and manbearpig is real. I'm super serial.

 

lol. serial roel , i think you hit it right on the head ..im going to join with grieg and those guys now , move along ,keep moveing , nothing to see here folks...i said MOVE IT !...i hate rubber neckers

 

Isnt it still a theory cause it hasnt been proved definite ? Isnt almost everything in science a theory ? Even gravity ?Its not a law

 

Everything in science is called theories, regardless of the amount of evidence supporting it. Therefore, using the fact that it's called a theory to disprove the validity is flawed.

 

how so. i still do high school science, ur going to have to explain that to me.

 

Science is based om empirical evidence, i.e. what can be objectively measured and re-created. For example, you can measure and re-create an object falling, which is empirical evidence in support of gravity. Measuring the acceleration of the falling object, and air it's falling through and other factors, and comparing it with results with different variables (e.g. the weight of the object), one can gather additional empirical evidence to further expand on gravity.

Thus, the more empirical evidence (data) available, the better the knowledge will become.

Science can't rule out, however, that they, some day in the future, will get conflicting results. Therefore, science refers to everything as theories. A theory can be more or less substantiated - the more empirical evidence, the better the theory. Something which is also important is that there can be no conflicting empirical evidence - if empirical evidence is conflicting, the theory has to be revised.

Gravity, for example, is very well documented, and thus the theory of gravity is well-founded. There are still unknown factors about gravity, though. The most fundamental concept of gravity - what actually causes it - is still largely a mystery. Einstein has proposed a theory for this, which also expands to include black holes (which are also problematic because it is difficult to measure black holes' gravity, since they are by definition (i.e. Einstein's definition) impossible to measure directly, only indirectly), and although a lot indicates that this theory is correct, there is a lack of solid empirical evidence.

On the other hand, no serious scientist would actually speak out against the existance of gravity - regardless of the designation of it as a theory.

Likewise, there are masses of empirical evidence which supports evolution, and just as important, no empirical evidence which speaks out against evolution.

 

Last time I checked, there was no Law of Evolution like there was a Law of Universal Gravitation.

It is still seen as theory in scientific terms.

Edit: I just read Christians posts, and must agree with him. We're saying the same things I think, he's just doing it better.

 

I'll say just this: First, I remember back in 1974 when a lot of the people who are nowadays screaming about "global warming" were screaming about the onset of the New Ice Age, which they said was imminent. And there seems to be a lot of scientists who do not agree with the theory of "global Warming"; about ten years or so back, some 3600 of them signed a petition asking the media to quite reoporting global warming as an estasblished fact (the petition was ignored, of course).

Second, I wouldn't take Al Gore's word for it that day was light and night was dark.

 

I think he's overdoing it with environmentalism. i think hes doing a lot of this for attention.

 

He's not saying that he's saying it's seen as fact. and in highschools it's being taught as if it were fact. (just did world history wich touched on the paleolithic and neolithic areas of civalisation)