|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5193 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Inconvenient Truth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The website is pretty disappointing. What would have been great would have been a downloadable version of the Powerpoint presentation that the movie is so famously about.
But see the movie already. It's hard for me to believe that it isn't out where you live, but assuming that's true, grab a bittorrent client of your choice and start downloading this torrent file. You should have the movie in somewhere between a night and a week. (Look up the Wiki entry on "bittorrent" if you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. It's a distrubuted download file protocol commonly used for enormous files, like movies.) Gore cites his sources during the film, but of course it's hard to go back and check up on them if you weren't taking notes or something. It would be better if he had provided some kind of bibliography, or better yet, a copy of the Powerpoint. I wish you'd make more of an effort to see the movie. I remain genuinely interested in your opinion of his case, not simply your sweeping generalization that "Gore is a liar so his movie is probably a lie." That's the criticism I'd expect from a right-wing talk show host, not from somebody with a stated enthusiasm for science. And it's not at all clear that you're not simply rejecting as "sober" any conclusion, no matter how well-supported, that involves serious consequences. If you feel that's an appropriate means of reasoning - that predicitions of severe consequences can be dismissed simply because the consequences are presented as severe - nobody could make a case that could convince you. I went in skeptical. I came out convinced. But hey, what do I know? Anyway, see the movie. It's sort of ridiculous for you to participate in threads about it until you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What has bothered me, is that the Clinton/Gore administration did so little during their 8 years in office. Did so little? What do you mean? Edited by AdminNosy, : Hellp Crash out with a new title for his post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Feel free to retitle my post in whatever way you would find most descriptive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It really isn't playing here (I just checked again with the main cinema chain). You should check independant cinema. Around here it never played in any of the chain cinemas, but a local arthouse theatre showed it for two weeks.
I went to the BitTorrent link you gave and all I got was a page of gibberish (code?) listed to "bikesexual.org"? I've gone to Wiki and I'll see what I can do, but it may not be fast. Also, if I do this, is it copyright infringement, or has it been released this way? This would be copyright infringement. I apologize if that's an issue for you. You need to download the linked file - not open it in a web browser - and open it using a bittorrent client. Yeah, the main file is probably hosted at a porn site. Welcome to the seedy underbelly of the internet.
Hearing that he has a great Powerpoint presentation does not help me. I don't know if it's great, but it is famous. That's what Gore's been doing all this time, I guess, going around with this PP file showing it to people. Every slide as a citation for its data but I wasn't taking notes. But I recognized the citations as being from what I understood to be the authorities in the field. I don't have the expertise to defend his conclusions. They were sufficient to convince me, but what is that worth? And you don't have the experience with the movie to attack his conclusions, either, it seems like. Not to mention that you don't really even know what his conclusions are, only how laypersons like myself have approximated them. I do hope it's something you're able to go see.
Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and he is a politician with a history of using hype to promote personal agendas... I don't know what you're referring to, here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Am I supposed to catalog all that was not done? I guess I'd like you to explain how the administration I remember as the most evironmentally-conscious one in my lifetime somehow represents the one that did "so little." What legislation did Clinton veto? What specific policies were reccommended but ignored? I mean, "so little" compared to who? Reagan? The Bushes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's where I found them disappointing. There were no bold initiatives, no strong recommendations. I remember the whole federal government shutting down because Clinton couldn't get Congress to agree on a budget without cutting a bunch of environmental funding, among other things. I don't know. Compared to who had come before, I thought Clinton did as good as could be expected on environmental issues, particularly in the face of an antagonistic Congress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I can certainly attack conclusions people state are what they get out of seeing the movie. If viewers are producing errant strawmen of his conclusions then what does that say about the movie? That the people who watch it aren't climatologists? On the other hand, here is the opinion of some real climatologists who actually saw the movie, which I think makes them considerably more qualified to comment than you are:
quote: Now, to be fair, other scientists echo Holmes' concerns:
quote: from No webpage found at provided URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,427655,00.html That's a pretty compelling point, I think. I'm not saying that Holmes is entirely wrong - obviously real scientists share his concerns - but even those scientists who took issue with the way some of the science was presented felt the movie was largely evenhanded, fair, and accurately represented the climate data.
Ah yes, my branch was actually told by a manager following his agenda "I don't care about the science, people need to be scared about this." So, you had a bad manager, therefore Gore was an idiot? Can you understand why I don't see that as a significant impeachment of Gore's credibility on this issue? Moreover - what does Gore's credibility even have to do with it? He cites all his sources; there's no place in the movie where you have to take his word for anything. The opinion of climate scientists who have chosen to review the movie is that, predominantly, they believe that while small factual errors may have crept into the movie, they don't detract from the fundamental accuracy of Gore's presentation, and that Inconvinient Truth represents an almost perfect representation of the scientific consensus on the issue, one that neither invokes "visions of the apocalypse" nor downplays the seriousness of the issue with false balance, but instead presents the likely consequences in a factual and calm manner, even though those consequences may be severe. Which was exactly my experience, and why Holmes' criticisms of a movie he hasn't seen bear absolutely no similiarity to the movie I actually saw. I mean, writing this off as "Manbearpig" is just ridiculous, and it's the act of someone absolutely committed to avoiding any indication that his ideology might be wrong.
Did he give you facts you can check for yourself? I told you that he did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I can't speak for any org outside the one I was working in, but I know where I was Gore's little helpers were only interested in science where it helped scare people, and actively hampering it when it did not fit that agenda. Environment is to Gore as terrorism is to Bush. Uh-huh. Did Gore come down to your little shop and tell you that himself? No? Maybe you just had a dumbass manager?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We've recently had news that there were people at sci orgs, undercutting scientists to push industrial as well as creo spin. Bush got full blame for the presence and actions of those people. Not "people", leaders. Multiple specific public figures directly appointed by Bush forming a pattern of scienctific conclusions ignored because they didn't jive with the conservative Christian line. In your case? One unnamed, anonymous manager of an unnamed, anonymous organization with unspecified ties to the government, who was not, I gather, directly appointed by Gore to fudge the data. Just some asshole who took it upon himself to do that. Can you understand why I don't see these two situations as symmetric? In Bush's case, there's a repeating pattern from the top of science manipulated for politics. In your case, one middle manager who did it for one issue, at the bottom.
Schmidt said that Gore was careful not to say when, but what did you come away feeling the timeframe was? You know, the funny thing was - I was pretty sure that Gore actually did give a timeframe for the projections in his movie. I don't remember what timeframe it was, though.
When the Bush "influences" on science were coming out, it was mentioned that C/G did the same thing. Mentioned by who? I'm not impressed by assertions of anonymous corraboration.
I am now asking for the information people are coming away with from the movie. Most of us saw it months ago, and didn't take notes. You're simply not going to get an accurate picture of what was presented in the movie unless you see it yourself. I'm sorry if you can't seem to figure out a way to do that. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm sorry, what were you saying? Leaders? The guys at the top, sure. The director of the FDA. Bush's chief science advisor. That snot-nosed kid they appointed as communications director of NASA. In most cases, direct Bush appointments into positions at the top. In your case? Who the hell knows?
Uh, I gave one example that involved one person. You've given nothing at all! Just anonymous assertions that Gore was as bad as Bush. Fables about some unspecified manager of unspecified appointment fudging data for unspecified reasons.
The organization is very large and very prominent. That's another reason I'm not about to start naming names. Conspiracy theories don't become you. Nonetheless, you need to understand that your desire for anonymity means your example is all but useless. You're going to have to weigh your desire not to name names against the need for specifics to determine the credibility of your assertions. It's a sticky wicket, make no mistake. I'm sure you're in quite a bind about it. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too, in this case. If you find yourself unable or unwilling to provide any of the sort of specifics that would allow us to judge the credibility of your example, then you simply cannot have any expectation that we'll find your example credible. I mean, what are we supposed to do? Take your word for it?
Can you see how this looks to me exactly like what ID people say? So what? So, if an "ID person" says "I hate cancer", we're all supposed to come out in favor of cancer? Can you see how what you're doing looks exactly like all those conservatives who demonized Michael Moore without even seeing his movie?
When pressed for data, they are not forthcoming or when they do say something and are called on some portions, refer back to the book and say its been a while and they aren't experts but the people that wrote it knew what they were talking about. You've never supported your arguments with a journal article behind a subscription wall? Gave print references for material? Used, as a reference, materials that weren't avaliable on the web? Look, sometimes the materials that support an argument aren't easily avaliable over the internet. It's a fact of life. Is it a forum rule somewhere that every single subject we talk about has to have a source easily avaliable on the web? I understand the utility of having one's sources be easily avaliable - at the least, it prevents your opponent from having an excuse to dismiss your source. But the subject of this thread is a specific film. You refuse to see it, even after having been pointed to specific means to do so. (If there's no distribution rights for the film held in your country, it probably isn't illegal for you to download it from the internet. I'm not a lawyer, of course. If there are distribution rights held, then somebody's probably distributing it, aren't they?)
Okay you didn't take notes, but as you are seeing he is not exactly forthcoming with it outside someone having to but his book or movie... which is EXACTLY what DI does with ID. Or what regular science does with its results. Pay for play is nothing new here, Holmes. Like you, I agree that it's probably anathema to the spirit of open scientific collaboration, but let's not act like the subscription fees to the legitimate scientific journals aren't far, far more than what it costs to go buy a copy of "Pandas and People" or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thanks for providing an article that completely undercuts your point and supports mine.
quote: But that's exactly my point, isn't it? That, under Bush, the distortion is the product of a top-down dictum to do exactly that. Under Clinton? Merely the inevitable result of disorganized government and people acting on their own without oversight. Honestly, Holmes, do you think we can't see what's going on? This is nothing but the disgruntled grousing of a former employee. Your boss was an idiot, got it. Therefore you're convinced that everyone above him is an idiot, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm saying the policies he backed were of the same nature and involved people dedicated to his mission of undercutting science, to advance policy. I'm asking you to substantiate the mission, not simply assert it. If you refuse to do that you need to understand that none of us are going to take that assertion very seriously.
But check it out, I have now supplied evidence that there was such going on. No, you haven't. See that reply.
Yes, you must take my word that that is my experience and so why I don't trust the guy. Well, I don't take your word for it. You don't have any word, as far as I'm concerned. I don't view you as an honest person.
I see me as a person having come from a paleoclimate background being told by laypeople how much Gore's movie is filled with data, and then proceeding to make claims which aren't in the data. Ah, right. Your vaunted "paleoclimate background." You haven't said, as I recall, specifically what that background is, or what you did, exactly, besides watching your manager order people to fudge data and turn out the lights when they all left. I guess we can conclude that you were the janitor, then?
If people are telling you they have read a book and it says X, and you doubt X is true and their best response is "read the book", isn't that troubling? Why would it be? I mean I guess it's troubling if, like you, one is a person who couldn't possibly countenance the possibility that they might actually not know everything. Me? I've actually handed out enough reading assignments of my own, to people who didn't even know enough about the subject to effectively communicate their questions or understand the replies, so I can understand the tactic employed in my direction. I can hardly answer the challenges of a book I haven't read.
But that is for original material. Are you telling me that Gore has some original study data or something? No, I'm telling you that the topic of this thread is Al Gore's movie, which you might have noticed considering that the title of the thread is the title of the movie, and so his movie is the source material.
It ISN'T HERE, and IT'S ILLEGAL to get a pirate copy. Well, sometime after the 12 of October, when it officially opens in the Netherlands, we'll expect your review.
If they are so important to the future of mankind why is he only making it available if you give him money Who? What? What money? A lot of places I've seen the movie are showing it for free, or at cost. And it's not like his presentation doesn't draw from public sources. But that's a very interesting question. You might ask that of Nature, or of Climate Dynamics, or anybody else. If science is so important, how dare they charge to be able to read it?
And I do believe it is okay to ask what data people got from the movie. This is the data I remember getting from it, in part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
! There were others who found that the style of interference was similar between administrations. Where is that quotein your reply? I didn't see those quotes. "For the past five years" in an article written in 2005 would still refer only to the Bush administration. The assertion that it had actually begun before even that was nothing but your own assertion. And this?
quote: This is just a polite way of saying "under Clinton, the people who complained about interference were just cranks; under Bush, the people who are complaining are actual professional scientists." Again I don't see how that substantiates a massive campaign from Al Gore to suborn science to a political agenda. And this?
quote: Nothing more than journalistic fake balance. "Oh, it's impossible to say who is the worse offender, because it's too hard to judge what counts, so we'll say that they're equal offenders." Fox News-style reporting, in other words. "Clinton did something like it, once, so Bush isn't any worse." Suprised to see you fall for that, I guess. Honestly it's amazing how you can read an article about scientists who think that the Bush Administration has the worst record in regard to honesty in science issues, and try to tease out the most tenuous hints that maybe, once, Clinton and Gore did something bad once, what, we cannot say, but they did, believe me... It's ridiculous. There's nothing in this article that supports your position.
Would you stick around an agency that you knew to be handing out base propaganda to support administration initiatives? I don't know, Holmes. Not all of us have the financial freedom to take that kind of a stand.
You want to not believe what I say, fine. But don't try and tell me what went on in my life. Holmes, I apologize. It was arrogant of me to pretend like I know what happened in your life. No matter what I guess, I'd almost certainly be wrong; and I certainly won't believe you when you tell me what did happen. I'll attempt to content myself from this point on with the simple recognition that your reported life experiences, absent all corroborating detail, are all but irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass or are you reading what I wrote? He's distorting you, probably on purpose. Like he does everybody else. He doesn't have any other way to argue, usually. Does that make it any clearer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
People complaining about interference under Gore are cranks, under Bush actual scientists. That's what they're saying. Can't you read? What do you think "the professional status of the complainants has risen markedly" means? It doesn't take the Amazing Carnak to puzzle out the meaning, there. The people who complained under the Clinton administration weren't professionals protesting interference in legitimate research or investigation; they were largely unqualified people who were abusing the complaint procedure. It's right there, Holmes. For someone who complained so much about "how words can say something that isn't explicit" in another thread, you're being remarkably dense in this one.
Its amazing, but not honest, how you read my posts which wholly admit that Bush is a worse offender and then pretend as if that's not what I said, as well as just dismissing clear statements in an article that things did happen under Clinton/Gore. What things? Complaints? Yes, complaints were made. By people the article comes right out and says had a lot less professional qualification to complain than the people who tend to be complaining, now. Cranks, in other words. Trolls. Whatever term you choose for people who complain not because they have a complaint but because they're maliciously abusing the system. How much clearer does the article have to be, Holmes?
Didn't Lundtz say that? Who? There's nobody named "Lundtz" in the article.
I told you what happened under his administration and so why I don't trust him. Sure. It's a perfect example of how unreasonable you tend to be.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024