My daughter's science class is being required to see " An Inconvenient Truth"

self ^ | 11-27-2006 | self

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nothing wrong with seeing it if they're free to critique it.

My son's class had to read the DaVinci Code and write a paper on it. My son ripped it to shreds.

I'm so proud.

[codehead1]

>[To: goodnesswins]
>What you've constructed there is an informal fallacy known as a "Straw Man".
>I'd say that's below you but, it's probably not as you're living in the same depth
>of fantasy as enviro-wackos - you're just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

If someone tells me that space aliens will land in my backyard tomorrow and claim my house for the mother planet, I don't have to prove they are wrong. I can ask them why they think so, and if their reasoning is full of holes, I can dismiss it.

The bottom line is that the arguments for the runaway global warming scenario are incredibly flimsy, relying on cherry-picked data, theory-hunting to fit the hypotheses, and unlikely models. They can't say that it's the hottest ever, or that the temperature is increasing faster than every--they can only say that within a short span, the temperature as described by specific (and questionable) data is increasing in the same trend that co2 is increasing. Then you make a model that shows what happens if the two are indeed linked in lock-step, and make models that are worst-case guesses while ignoring other important factors.

I've done a lot of research on this, and started out in the wrong camp (I assumed by the massive amount of press that it must be true--fortunately I was a little leery of reporters saying it was true instead of them saying scientists say it's true). So I'm happy to debate you on any point you want. Greenland melting? It was warmer in the 1930's, and way warmer in the 1300's--and while it's melting around the edges, the ice mass is increasing in the body of the cap. Why does Al Gore have to point out how high the sea level would rise if half the Greenland ice cap melted, when there's no evidence that the idea is less than wild fantasy?

The answer, of course, is that the idea scares people. This is the same Al Gore who signed the Kyoto Protocol, even after the senate voted 95-0 opposing it (there's really nothing there that cuts co2 production--it just moves it somewhere else, and dings our economy for it).

[Psycho_Bunny]

Why are you writing to me as if I posted that I agree with the concept of human induced Global Warming when I didn't?

[codehead1]

>Why are you writing to me as if I posted that I agree with
>the concept of human induced Global Warming when I didn't?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. You seemed to put goodnesswins' comments in a pretty extreme place for what I read as pretty mild comments. So, my intent was to point out that the big difference between the "enviro-wackos" side and the extreme other side you put goodnesswins on don't have the same burden of proof (the warmers need to prove that global warming is happening and where it will lead, while no one has to prove global warming isn't happening or can't happen--just that the opposing argument is wrong).

Then I presented some other stuff on the subject meant mainly for the benefit of the original poster and people like cajungirl in this thread who admit not having looking into it much but seem resigned to it. It wasn't particularly directed at you, since it seems you have an open mind and are not one of the kool-aid drinkers ;-)

[Psycho_Bunny]

They're not anymore convincing that you are.  All they're saying is "Look, I found some sites on the internet that agree with how I want to think so I'm going to pretend that I understand the entire issue on it's face and know intuitively which side is correct."

Which is....nonsense.

No one knows for certain whether there is or isn't human-induced global warning.  There simply isn't enough data.

What we do know - for a fact - is that we're doing things to the planet at large which, in a small model, create catastrophic disaster.  What we don't know is if the small model is valid to the planet as a whole....or if there's a still not understood natural mechanism that is offsetting and correcting the damage we're doing.

And if that mechanism is something like, the Amazon rain forest, how much of the mechanism can be removed before it stops functioning?

I don't hate strident lefty alarmists so much that I'm going to knee-jerk disagree with everything they say:  the issue is just a tad bit too important.