|
|
Post by Johnny Yen on Dec 9, 2010 16:09:28 GMT -5
AS an aside, I've just noticed my little sign off line, God knows when I set that up, but it's bloody great.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweezely on Dec 9, 2010 16:10:54 GMT -5
Yeah, see this is where things get a bit tricky. That documentary did expose several flaws in global warming science, and specifically in "An Inconvenient Truth", but it also conveniently missed out a lot of data that disproved what the filmmaker was saying and also edited the talking head interviews to make it look like more scientists were doubting the science, when actually they weren't. Very few of the people in that documentary endorsed how they had been portrayed. Basically, the documentary maker was a hack who twisted things for his own purpose.
Now there was some stuff in there that was inciteful, like the dissenting researchers being denied funding or that CO2 follows temperature rise and not the other way around, but the way he went about making the film discredits all of that. Perhaps he was trying to make a point about how Al Gore exaggerated everything in An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore admitted such), but it backfired.
This is ultimately the problem with the whole debate. There are nasty people on both sides who manipulate things for their own end and science is caught in the middle. On the "denier" side, unfortunately, are all the nutjob conspiracy theorists who don't believe anything at all, and their hysteria tends to drag down anyone who dissents at all. On the "warmist" there are similar wackos too, who treat climate change with religious reverence and denounce anyone who doesn't agree as a heretic. Neither should be taken seriously but unfortunately they have the loudest voices.
And through all of this the actual facts tend to get overlooked. Just go on Google News and see how many of the climate stories are about actual facts or data. Almost every story is either a hyperbolic prediction of doom or a story about the politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinsound on Dec 12, 2010 20:47:53 GMT -5
Do you know a lot about it? Do you have any scientific training? Why do you have to be an expert to denounce it but not to support it? Yes I do have scientific training. Not in that particular field, but I do have some insight into the scientific process. |
|
|
|
Post by sweezely on Dec 12, 2010 20:55:30 GMT -5
Do you know a lot about it? Do you have any scientific training? Why do you have to be an expert to denounce it but not to support it? Yes I do have scientific training. Not in that particular field, but I do have some insight into the scientific process. Then you probably have some insight into how cliquey it can be, and how ruthless the search for funding is. Then when the media gets involved it turns downright ugly. Remember the MMR scare? |
|
