So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Right. Because that's EXACTLY what I said.

Happy Overreaction Day, though. It's a fun holiday.

Listen Mr. rolly eyes, you said that the only people that spoke out against this topic, were washed up, aging, tenure-system parasites at third rate schools. So I fail to see how I over reacted.

Originally Posted by Iowa

This is one of those areas where people feel entitled to appoint themselves armchair scientists for some reason--personally, I'm going to trust the reputable scientists over a few think-tank bozos and one or two washed up, aging, tenure-system parasites at third rate schools. Maybe that's just me.

I gave a list of what I thought were respected intelligent people who disaagree with you. I stand by my point, your post was arrogant. Why don't you call these guys and tell them you think they are washed up, aging, parasites?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

nm

[jonesy]

It's civil war time, forkbeard!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Using your logic we should give holocaust deniers equal time too. We have an obligation to show both sides of a contentious issue. Afterall, one man's history is another man's propaganda campaign.

Holocaust deniers? Thats weak Lanny...

I can't believe you equate Holocaust deniers to 'either' side of the global warming issue.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Using your logic we should give holocaust deniers equal time too. We have an obligation to show both sides of a contentious issue. Afterall, one man's history is another man's propaganda campaign.

So using your logic because I deny that global warming is actually happening I'm the equivalent of a holocaust denier (which by the way I'm not)? The difference between the holocaust and global warming is that the halacaust is actually a historical event with solid evidence. Global warming on the other hand has evidence for both sides. What I'm saying is that there is sufficient evidence to show both sides of global warming that both sides should be presented not just one.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jonesy

It's civil war time, forkbeard!

Fair enough. Truce?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

So using your logic because I deny that global warming is actually happening I'm the equivalent of a holocaust denier (which by the way I'm not)? The difference between the holocaust and global warming is that the halacaust is actually a historical event with solid evidence. Global warming on the other hand has evidence for both sides. What I'm saying is that there is sufficient evidence to show both sides of global warming that both sides should be presented not just one.

Sorry bub, that's not my logic, that is yours. I have not said that you do not have the right to question anything, or whine about the fact that you would like to see equal time given to a dissenting position of what is considered by the majority of the scientific community to be fact. There is much more evidence on the side of the ledger that says that man-made C02 emmissions are a contributor to global warming than the contrary. What is interesting is that those who hold a contrary opinion are incapable of bringing their thinking together and defining a concise argument as to what is causing environmental change. Each of these scientists have a different theory that conflicts with the next one. There is no continuity to their story except the fact that they disagree with the evidence that man made C02 is the greatest contributing factor to this change. Just because they are a dissenting voice does not mean their voice holds the same weight as the concensus reached by a couple thosand of the best and brightest researchers that science has to offer. Unless these folks can present a united theory that can counter this concensus, I see no reason why their theory should get the same air time. If you still believe that these scientists on the fringe, with their counter ideals and evidence, deserve the same time then you must also allow the holocaust deniers their place at the podium as well. Holocaust deniers have what THEY consider substantial evidence that the events did NOT take place. So we MUST provide them equal time to air their side of the story as well. YOU said so.

[ken0042]

The thing is though, I can go to Europe and see the mass graves and all the other evidence with my own eyes. I cannot do the same thing with a scientific theory.

To me, the better analogy with the Holocost Deniers is the few people that are also denying that Global Warming is happening. I think most of us here do indeed agree that the Earth is getting warmer. What is in question here is what the causes are, and how significant each cause is.

I offer the following example not because I have facts, but just a "what if" scenario.

Let's say we find out 50 years from now that Global warming is not caused by human production of CO2, but instead caused by the increased use of electronic components that we as humans use in our daily lives causing the magnetic belts to shift, allowing more thermal radiation from the sun to heat our planet. In such a scenario, where we find this out in a world where we all drive Hyrdogen and electric powered vehicles, and said vehicles are the cause of the warming. We would look back at the 20th and early 21st century theories of global warming the same way we look at the use of leeches in medicine centuries ago.

The problem as I see it is that when anybody tries to suggest that we look at all the options before leaping to conclusions, they are almost treated like we treated supposed witches 300 years ago. I can see why some scientists who have alternate theories may just keep their mouths shut to avoid embarrasment.

We laugh now at footage of 19th century inventors trying to make heavier than air flying machines. But if it wasn't for those people who tried and failed, who is to say if the Wright brothers would have created their succesfull airplane. In the same way, let's explore the options. Obviously some people will be found out to be wrong. But let's not assume that because most people believe one theory that it must be true.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Holocaust deniers have what THEY consider substantial evidence that the events did NOT take place. So we MUST provide them equal time to air their side of the story as well. YOU said so.

Please show me where I said that Holocaust deniers must be provided equal time to air their side of the story. I NEVER said such a thing (for future reference I would kindly request that you do not put words in my mouth).

Just because you have been brainwashed by the entire Global warming (caused by CO2) movement doesn't mean that everyone else should be brainwashed by it. Granted most scientists are on board but it doesn't mean that all scientists are on board with it. If it is really a science then should it really be referred to as a fact? That would seem to indicate that there is no question that it isn't happening and it can not be disproved, which really indicates that it is no longer being treated properly by the scientific community.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Just because you have been brainwashed by the entire Global warming (caused by CO2) movement doesn't mean that everyone else should be brainwashed by it. Granted most scientists are on board but it doesn't mean that all scientists are on board with it. If it is really a science then should it really be referred to as a fact? That would seem to indicate that there is no question that it isn't happening and it can not be disproved, which really indicates that it is no longer being treated properly by the scientific community.

Science doesn't declare anything as fact and then leave it be. Science is always evolving, growing and changing. I don't know where you are getting that from. And it is a science, why do you think it's not? Calling something a science doesn't make it fact. You are mixed up about that. So your argument of you "can't disprove it so it's not science" doesn't mean anything and shows your lack of understanding of the issue.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Please show me where I said that Holocaust deniers must be provided equal time to air their side of the story. I NEVER said such a thing (for future reference I would kindly request that you do not put words in my mouth).

You said...

"... also think that if you are going to show a video show both sides and I think this is the best video at the moment that would show the other side of the argument."

"The bottom line is if someone doesn't want to show the other side of the debate using another video such as this one then maybe "An Inconvenient Truth" shouldn't be required to be shown in the classroom."

"The bottom line is if videos that are biased such as "An Inconvenient Truth" are shown in a public school the opposing view should also be presented to the students so that they can make their own choice of what they believe."

And most damningly...

"So if you are going to show propaganda explaining one side of such a highly debated issue or science you should be obligated to show an opposing view."

No words put in your mouth other than you own.

Just because you have been brainwashed by the entire Global warming movement doesn't mean that everyone else should be brainwashed by it.

Just because you are too f'n stupid to understand the imperical data presented, and the weak hackneyed science that has been presented to counter it, does not mean that other people do not have a much greater grasp on the subject matter than yourself.

Granted most scientists are on board but it doesn't mean that all scientists are on board with it. If it is really a science then should it really be referred to as a fact?

WTF??? When you fell down and banged your head did the science that proved gravity to be a fact have anything to do with it? Or are you still questioning that because a few fruit loops out there question this accepted "law" of physics? The holes in your logic are astounding.

The science is continually researched and worked on, so it is continually being improved and data sets continually expanded. The theory is becoming more and more of a "fact" than many like to admit, and THAT is what should concern us the most.

That would seem to indicate that there is no question that it isn't happening and it can not be disproved, which really indicates that it is no longer being treated properly by the scientific community.

What are you talking about??? Scientists continue to study this issue using independent research techniques and they continue to come up with similar data. But in your expert opinion they are not treating it appropriately???? What else do they need to do? Abandon their research and start all over again? What are you suggesting??? What is your point???

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Science doesn't declare anything as fact and then leave it be. Science is always evolving, growing and changing. I don't know where you are getting that from. And it is a science, why do you think it's not? Calling something a science doesn't make it fact. You are mixed up about that. So your argument of you "can't disprove it so it's not science" doesn't mean anything and shows your lack of understanding of the issue.

I don't think that this is a fact. I was simply responding to Lanny's statement:

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I have not said that you do not have the right to question anything, or whine about the fact that you would like to see equal time given to a dissenting position of what is considered by the majority of the scientific community to be fact.

I think that more research should be done to disprove it instead of more research being done to continue to try to prove it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I think that more research should be done to disprove it instead of more research being done to continue to try to prove it.

But the great thing about the process of science is that both are being done at the same time. If your out to discover what is causing the earth to warm and you conduct a study and your data shows that C02 isn't causing the warming then you've arrived at a possible theory. Or if your data shows that C02 is causing the earth to warm then you've also arrived at a theory. It would be bias of a scientist to arbitrarily decide that global warming is false and try to disprove it. Rather it would be much better if that scientist either, test the data of the existing theory to see if it works or not, or test data and try to prove his own theory regarding the issue.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You said...

"... also think that if you are going to show a video show both sides and I think this is the best video at the moment that would show the other side of the argument."

"The bottom line is if someone doesn't want to show the other side of the debate using another video such as this one then maybe "An Inconvenient Truth" shouldn't be required to be shown in the classroom."

"The bottom line is if videos that are biased such as "An Inconvenient Truth" are shown in a public school the opposing view should also be presented to the students so that they can make their own choice of what they believe."

And most damningly...

"So if you are going to show propaganda explaining one side of such a highly debated issue or science you should be obligated to show an opposing view."

No words put in your mouth other than you own.

Sorry Lanny I still do not see one quote there where I said that "Holocaust deniers deserve equal time to air their side of the story as well" I was talking about environmentalism and this debate in specific. But I really love how you manage to paint all issues with the same brush.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Just because you are too f'n stupid to understand the imperical data presented, and the weak hackneyed science that has been presented to counter it, does not mean that other people do not have a much greater grasp on the subject matter than yourself.

Ahhh, yet again resorting to the typical Lanny insults when someone doesn't agree with your position. You seem to like to try to insult peoples intelligence don't you? These attacks really are pointless, especially when talking about intelligence as it is nearly impossible to determine if one person is more intelligent than another on a chat board.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

WTF??? When you fell down and banged your head did the science that proved gravity to be a fact have anything to do with it? Or are you still questioning that because a few fruit loops out there question this accepted "law" of physics? The holes in your logic are astounding.

The science is continually researched and worked on, so it is continually being improved and data sets continually expanded. The theory is becoming more and more of a "fact" than many like to admit, and THAT is what should concern us the most.

What are you talking about??? Scientists continue to study this issue using independent research techniques and they continue to come up with similar data. But in your expert opinion they are not treating it appropriately???? What else do they need to do? Abandon their research and start all over again? What are you suggesting??? What is your point???

I'm not talking about gravity, and to be perfectly honest I didn't know that anyone questioned the science of gravity. That being said who am I to judge if some people want to try to spend there time questioning gravity. There is a lot of research being done on the theory. I agree with that. What does concern me is that more and more research is being done to continue to try to prove that it exists instead of trying to disprove it.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But the great thing about the process of science is that both are being done at the same time. If your out to discover what is causing the earth to warm and you conduct a study and your data shows that C02 isn't causing the warming then you've arrived at a possible theory. Or if your data shows that C02 is causing the earth to warm then you've also arrived at a theory. It would be bias of a scientist to arbitrarily decide that global warming is false and try to disprove it. Rather it would be much better if that scientist either, test the data of the existing theory to see if it works or not, or test data and try to prove his own theory regarding the issue.

I agree with this but I also think that every scientist has a bias and they can set out to try to prove that CO2 is causing global warming instead of trying to research that something else my be the cause for changes on the earth. It is just my opinion that this is what majority of scientists are doing.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I agree with this but I also think that every scientist has a bias and they can set out to try to prove that CO2 is causing global warming instead of trying to research that something else my be the cause for changes on the earth. It is just my opinion that this is what majority of scientists are doing.

Well if you want to hold the opinion that all the scientists that are proposing global warming is caused by mankind (and there are a lot of them) are in some sort of conspiracy then, fine, belief that. But you might have a hard time convincing people that is going on. I know you didn't say conspiracy, but that is basically what you are implying. If some science is shown to be bunk or incorrect then it will be published as such. According to what you are saying all these scientists are bias so they will somehow ignore that evidence and not look at other evidence.

Now what is more likely, thousands of bias scientists from multiple disciplines from around the world ignoring evidence and believing all evidence in their favour or the science actually being accurate? One seems a lot simpler and makes a lot more sense, in my opinion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But the great thing about the process of science is that both are being done at the same time. If your out to discover what is causing the earth to warm and you conduct a study and your data shows that C02 isn't causing the warming then you've arrived at a possible theory. Or if your data shows that C02 is causing the earth to warm then you've also arrived at a theory. It would be bias of a scientist to arbitrarily decide that global warming is false and try to disprove it. Rather it would be much better if that scientist either, test the data of the existing theory to see if it works or not, or test data and try to prove his own theory regarding the issue.

I don't think anyone will deny that CO2 is contributing to global warming....and if they do, well they're wrong....what some of us are skeptical about...is how MUCH it contributes to global warming.

And it seems like a lot of scientists are skeptical about the same thing.

EDIT: DOOOOOH!!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think anyone will deny that CO2 is not contributing to global warming....

Wow, a triple-negative... I think it ends up saying the opposite of your intent

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wow, a triple-negative... I think it ends up saying the opposite of your intent

Nice catch.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think anyone will deny that CO2 is not contributing to global warming....and if they do, well they're wrong....what some of us are skeptical about...is how MUCH it contributes to global warming.

And it seems like a lot of scientists are skeptical about the same thing.

I wasn't necessarily saying whether or not C02 causes global warming, I was just using it as an example. I was just trying to explain how the process of science works. Saying a scientist should try and disprove a theory has inherent flaws of bias. It is much more productive for the community if that scientists tries to prove his own theory. In doing so he may prove his theory right and in turn disprove the existing theory. Rockin' Flames post seemed like he was just wanted people to go out make up opposition on the other side just because the global warming theory isn't air tight. To disprove a theory you have to have evidence to back it up. What Rockin seems to be saying is that he believes that scientists are only looking at some of the evidence, when that is not the case.