Scientists praise the science in Gore's movie... or do they?

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
Campsalot
Senior Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Jul 20th, 2003 at 7:17 pm

Scientists praise the science in Gore's movie... or do they?

Postby Campsalot » Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:02 am

Read more here.

Camps

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 29th, 2006 at 11:54 am

wow
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jun 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pm

Yay! Let's talk about global warming.

Up until recently I've refused to acknowledge that it's a problem. But if Steven Hawking says it is then it must be. Also, I think we should build bases on other planets like he said cuz that would rock. *aghem* on a more serious note, global warming is probably an issue, but I don't know that humans are the cause. We're not that powerful. It might just be the natural course of events for the earth to grow warmer. But what do I know. I've only been here for 24 years and the winters are still cool, the summers are still hot.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
WidowMaker
Benefactor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 7:49 pm

Postby WidowMaker » Jun 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pm

Not that I have done extensive research on the subject, but most of the info I have seen/heard from non-partisan sources, is that while global warming is real, the human contribution to global warming is mroe or less negligible compared to the natural causes of global warming.


-Wid
- The AWP god formerly known as 'WidowMaker' [Retired]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Game Designer
-Retro Studios - www.retrostudios.com
-If the next Metroid sucks, you will know who to blame.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pm

I just want our air cleaner. Not that concerned with global warming as I am pollutants that harm humans now rather than in the future.

Help! I'm being boiled alive in a vat of poison! Someone give me the antidote!
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Jun 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Fuck you for linking to a .gov. :x
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
JayPhat
Elite Member
Posts: 2701
Joined: Feb 24th, 2005 at 7:35 pm

Postby JayPhat » Jun 29th, 2006 at 8:16 pm

WidowMaker wrote:Not that I have done extensive research on the subject, but most of the info I have seen/heard from non-partisan sources, is that while global warming is real, the human contribution to global warming is mroe or less negligible compared to the natural causes of global warming.


-Wid


Most films, such as Fores, relate global warming to mankinds fault, yet their data only goes back at best 1000 years. Almost every report I hear now adays is "Earth warmest in last 400 years" or somehtint equally similar.

OK, how about the 4,499,999,000 years before that? How we doing in comparison to that?
Image

User avatar
Keyser Soze
The Devil
Posts: 1403
Joined: Jan 9th, 2005 at 12:37 am

Postby Keyser Soze » Jun 29th, 2006 at 8:26 pm

JayPhat wrote:
WidowMaker wrote:Not that I have done extensive research on the subject, but most of the info I have seen/heard from non-partisan sources, is that while global warming is real, the human contribution to global warming is mroe or less negligible compared to the natural causes of global warming.


-Wid


Most films, such as Fores, relate global warming to mankinds fault, yet their data only goes back at best 1000 years. Almost every report I hear now adays is "Earth warmest in last 400 years" or somehtint equally similar.

OK, how about the 4,499,999,000 years before that? How we doing in comparison to that?


THANK YOU! NOW CAN WE PLEASE HAVE OUR FUCKING MTBE BACK IN OUR GAS?!?
Image
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 29th, 2006 at 9:16 pm

Derfel wrote:
JayPhat wrote:OK, how about the 4,499,999,000 years before that? How we doing in comparison to that?


I'm sorry, but your current administration doesn't believe the Earth existed that far back, can you perhaps reform your question in a more election-year friendly way?


lol good stuff.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Kahuna Mas
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Feb 11th, 2004 at 9:57 am

Postby Kahuna Mas » Jun 29th, 2006 at 9:49 pm

Derfel wrote:
JayPhat wrote:OK, how about the 4,499,999,000 years before that? How we doing in comparison to that?


I'm sorry, but your current administration doesn't believe the Earth existed that far back, can you perhaps reform your question in a more election-year friendly way?


LMAO nice one Derf.

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jun 30th, 2006 at 8:00 am

Derfel wrote:
JayPhat wrote:OK, how about the 4,499,999,000 years before that? How we doing in comparison to that?


I'm sorry, but your current administration doesn't believe the Earth existed that far back, can you perhaps reform your question in a more election-year friendly way?


Clever but un-true.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Campsalot
Senior Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Jul 20th, 2003 at 7:17 pm

Postby Campsalot » Jun 30th, 2006 at 10:50 am

Derfel wrote:
Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
By
Union of Concerned Scientists
February 2004

(Most of the following statements are direct quotes from the RSI report - the report that has been endorsed by 48 Nobel Prize Laureates.)

The Findings of the Investigation fall into 4 categories.

1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

2. There is strong documentation of a wide ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.


Geee.. that's settles it then.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 30th, 2006 at 11:50 am

Info about USC and thoughts from a major opponent of the USC that was listed in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia

Opponents have charged the UCS is an "unlabeled left-wing activist" group.[9] UCS received a Ideological Spectrum Rating of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center. [10] Activistcash.com states that the UCS "embraces an environmental agenda" and "politicizes science" itself. [11]

Opponents of the Capital Research Center and Activistcash.com claim that these two groups have their own bias because they are run by conservatives [12] and note that the Activistcash.com cite does not cite references in its article on the UCS.


http://www.activistcash.com/organizatio ... fm/oid/145

[quote]The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT -- the original “unionâ€
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Derfel wrote:
Burzum wrote:Clever but un-true.


Oh no?

Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
By
Union of Concerned Scientists
February 2004

(Most of the following statements are direct quotes from the RSI report - the report that has been endorsed by 48 Nobel Prize Laureates.)

The Findings of the Investigation fall into 4 categories.

1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

2. There is strong documentation of a wide ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.


While that is an impressive amount of words it doesn't really say anything about how old the Bush Administration thinks the world is.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pm

I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration believes in ID which I think dates the world at about the same time as accepted by most of the scientific community. I dunno for sure tho.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Keyser,

Health Effects of MTBE
Scientists have found MTBE to cause cancer in laboratory animals in doses identical to benzene, a
known human carcinogen. The EPA has classified MTBE as a "possible" human carcinogen.
MTBE-contaminated water tastes and smells like turpentine. Few studies have been conducted
regarding human ingestion of MTBE in drinking water. However, the confirmed major human
metabolites of MTBE are tertiary butyl-alcohol (TBA) and formaldehyde - "probable" human
carcinogens, and confirmed immune system suppressants. TBA is listed as "harmful or fatal if
swallowed" by the EPA.
In 1999, University of California, Davis warned that to protect all drinking water consumers from
cancer risk, MTBE concentrations should not exceed 5 ppb. As of October 1998, the California
Department of Health's proposed secondary health standard for MTBE in drinking water was 5 parts per
billion (ppb). No technology is currently available to prevent such low levels of MTBE contamination.
Stricter control of underground storage tanks and two-stroke engines cannot prevent this level of
contamination.
Even inhalation of MTBE can be a problem. Reported side effects from inhalation include headaches,
dizziness, irritated eyes, burning of the nose and throat, coughing, disorientation, and nausea. In the air,
MTBE reacts with hydroxyl (an airborne compound of hydrogen and oxygen) to form tertiary Butyl-
Formate (TBF), an extremely destructive compound to tissues of mucous membranes and the upper
respiratory tract.
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests