• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Scientists OK Gore's Movie on Global warning



Does this mean we should just ignore the list of top rated scientist that don't agree with the movie. And think that it's long on fluff and short on supportive fact.. Is that the sand your talking about sticking your head in.


Great argument though.... "This is the truth.. And if you don't believe me your wrong" That logic is impecable
 
Here's the problem with the article. They contacted 100 climate scientists. Then they go on to state that most have not seen the movie or read the book. Now were they all given a chance to see the movie and read the book and they just haven't? Did 81 decline to see the movie and comment? Are the 81 who didn't see it completely disinterested in what Gore has to say and thus didn't feel the movie was worth bothering about or what? The article doesn't say. It just says most haven't seen the film. Then it goes on to say that the 19 who did see Gore's movie say they think it's good and accurate. What does that mean? Who knows. Unless you get all 100 to sit down and watch it and then comment it doesn't mean anything. The 19 who watched it could be the 19 who like Gore or the 19 who believe humans are responsible for the Earth's warming, or the 19 who Gore paid...

Anyway you look at it 19 out of 100 isn't something worth bragging about.

I haven't seen the movie. I'm not sure if I believe humans are causing global warming or if the Earth just naturally goes through changes and that's why it's warmer currently.
 
Last edited:
If I understood correctly, it appears that the ones who didn't see the movie didn't comment, so that's a non-issue. There may be any number of reasons why they hadn't seen the movie--they may be planning to but haven't had time yet, or they may be involved in something else that takes up their time, or etc. The ones that did see it found it to be accurate.
 

Selection bias. Scientists who believe GW is an issue would be more likely to watch the movie.
 
That's a very unscientific poll.
 
RightatNYU said:
hahahahahahahahha


AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
Click to expand...

Ahhh you beat me too it RightatNYU!

"In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article.+

I can't decide if this should be in the Environment section or the Bias in Media section. Why do they think simply going around and screaming "ALL SCIENTIST AGREE WITH US" proves Global Warming scares.

"In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml?s=ic

OK that's my 19,000 to their 100, ah I mean 19, ah I mean 5.
 
WHat long list of top scientists that disagree? Or do you mean the scientific community that agrees the Movie does a good presentation?
Source
 
A ice age and CO2? Show the data stinger. btw, when are you going to stop citing newsmax as a credible source?
 
drobforever said:
Selection bias. Scientists who believe GW is an issue would be more likely to watch the movie.
Click to expand...

The article quotes 19 out of 100 and people in this thread are trying to make it seem like he is getting a hit rate of 19% on agreement. But the (unscientific) poll is actually saying 19 of 19 scientist who have seen it, agree with it. You can attack the sampling favoribility if you want, but it is 100% responses for agreement, not 19%.

The debate is over in the real world and everyone, even Bush, knows it. The conservative media bliz is trying to hold on to, and spread, that doubting of the evidence - because they want to conserve the old mentality that environmentalism is for pot smoking hippies.

Once it comes out that real national security is connected to migration away from fossil fuels, it will be a policy flip-flop that will cause serious problems. I hope they go the way of the US auto industry - cause it is their own fault for be willing to risk the security of our children, just so big oil can accumulate more wealth.

God Bless America!

Drobforever - PS) I'm still waiting for your response on that other thread. If big-bang isn't real, then what caused the CMBR? If you don't have an answer, at least admit it instead of running to another climate change thread.
 
jfuh said:
A ice age and CO2? Show the data stinger. btw, when are you going to stop citing newsmax as a credible source?
Click to expand...

Their data is available to you if you want to read it, the point is there is not agreement nor consensus. I got 19,000 to the AP's 100.
 
Selection bias. Scientists who believe GW is an issue would be more likely to watch the movie.
Click to expand...

As would, one thinks, those that believe it is merely a political stunt. So I don't get your point.
 
Their data is available to you if you want to read it, the point is there is not agreement nor consensus. I got 19,000 to the AP's 100.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the list I think you're talking about, there are 2 well-known problems:

1) Most of those who signed the petition don't work in climatology or any related field. Many of them were economists.

2) Some of them, apparently, thought they were signing a statement that said global warming is being caused by rising CO2 levels, in turn caused by human activity. In short, they were out-and-out duped by those who solicited their signatures.

But show us the list and we'll see...
 
Stinger said:
Their data is available to you if you want to read it, the point is there is not agreement nor consensus. I got 19,000 to the AP's 100.
Click to expand...
That's a flat out lie stinger and you've been shown multiple times already that there is indeed a concensus. I've even cited the washington post article for you to proove that over and over again.
Now you're just begging.
 
Anyone see the humor in the movie poster?
A poster desgined to link insustry to global warming to, specifically, Hurricane Katrina?

 

Obviously you don't even know what's selection bias in statistics that's why you made this response.

Drobforever - PS) I'm still waiting for your response on that other thread. If big-bang isn't real, then what caused the CMBR? If you don't have an answer, at least admit it instead of running to another climate change thread.
Click to expand...

Now this is pathetic. I'd go and answer your thread now for the sake of it but I hope you don't think that's because you deserve a response. Your previous reply was so bad I don't think it'll be productive to keep repeating myself to a stone, that's why I didn't respond.
 
jfuh said:
WHat long list of top scientists that disagree? Or do you mean the scientific community that agrees the Movie does a good presentation?
Source
Click to expand...

Do I actually have to get you names of each and every scientist that feels global warming is nothing more then the earths natural cycle. Or possibily occuring from some other factor not industry or "Green House Gas". Thats actually going to take a REALLLLLLYYYYY long time... :doh

Here's an article that contradicts the first part of your sourse article....http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200409%5CNAT20040915c.html
 
Last edited:
jfuh said:
WHat long list of top scientists that disagree? Or do you mean the scientific community that agrees the Movie does a good presentation?
Source
Click to expand...
Did you read that link? They barely mentioned human involvement and only quoted one scientist to back it up.
 
jfuh said:
That's a flat out lie stinger and you've been shown multiple times already that there is indeed a concensus. I've even cited the washington post article for you to proove that over and over again.
Now you're just begging.
Click to expand...
I've been reading the threads about gw, and I haven't seen anyone post evidence of a consensus. Please link me to that Post article.
 
Goobieman said:
Anyone see the humor in the movie poster?
A poster desgined to link insustry to global warming to, specifically, Hurricane Katrina?

Click to expand...


Hint:
The hurricane isnt a hurricane. Its spinning the wrong way.
 
drobforever said:
Obviously you don't even know what's selection bias in statistics that's why you made this response.
Click to expand...

Because I didn't use the term "selection bias"? So you think 19 respondents out of 100, whom all polled as favoriable, is a 19% favorability rate? That is not sound math dude; and you don't need to use the offical nomenclature to point that out.

If I am polling 100 household to find out if they like Pepsi, but only 19 are home and they all like Coke; Pepsi is not 81% favorable.


I'm doing a fair amount of repeating myself too. If you want to say big bang is not true, then you would need an explaination of CMBR to do that. If you can't provide one, then your opinion isn't based on science.

There is no need to talk about closed systems or meta physics. It is straight observation of the largest size known to man (pretty much).

Please answer the following straight forward question: What caused the CMBR, if it wasn't the big bang?

If you don't have an answer, then it is kinda hard to discount the science behind big bang theory.
 
jfuh said:
That's a flat out lie stinger and you've been shown multiple times already that there is indeed a concensus. I've even cited the washington post article for you to proove that over and over again.
Now you're just begging.
Click to expand...

That's a flat out lie jfuh, you 've shown nothing of the sort and your obstenate claiming it as such doesn't make it true. I cited just as much as you showing there is hugh disagreement by climatologist and experts in the field.
 
Stinger said:
That's a flat out lie jfuh, you 've shown nothing of the sort and your obstenate claiming it as such doesn't make it true. I cited just as much as you showing there is hugh disagreement by climatologist and experts in the field.
Click to expand...
Flat out lie? Really? So you're claiming there is no scientific concensus on the issue of global warming? Please show us there is no solid majority. BTW there are far more than simply 19000 scientisis in the world.
You cite newsmax for crying out loud. By far one of the most bias and BS souces there possibly can be.
If you're going to cite bs of my articles from nature, science, washingtonpost, please show me anywhere in those articles and citations where there's any fault.
Good luck with that.
 
jfuh said:
Flat out lie? Really? So you're claiming there is no scientific concensus on the issue of global warming? Please show us there is no solid majority.
Click to expand...

Majority: 50%+1
Consensus: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

A "solid majority" does not a consensus make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…