Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

"An Inconvenient Truth" . . for some.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
Recently some fundy nutcase in a bordertown of Seattle has whined the district into not showing Al Gores film, "An Inconvient Truth". The reason she gives for not wanting the film shown is that she feels an opposite viewpoint should also be given and that she is a creationist. . . . um? WTF? Did I miss something here? The film I watched was about Global warming, not the creation / evolution debate. Global warming is a FACT. It is a measurable and conclusive FACT. Now the debate may be if we humans are responsible, but the climate change is a FACT. What would be the opposite viewpoint? The earth is in a global cooling?

Fortunately for the sake of the students, another parent got ahold of a copy of the film and arranged free public viewings. And oh, by the way, when asked of the fundy if she had ever seen the film? "No"

I hate fundys. I really do.

#2
Unbeliever

Unbeliever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationCalifornia
Some talking head or other on the radio said, after talking about the cold spell that much of the nation has recently endured, "Global WHAT?"

That shows the level of scientific understanding of most of the so-called "pundits".

A fundy need not see the film, all they have to do is hear Bush, et al,  tell them there's no such thing as global warming, and that's enough fo them to rail against it in the schools, or anywhere esle they think they'got some pull.

#3
Tyger Tamer

Tyger Tamer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • LocationOutside of Society
I think this is a case of "partisan fundamentalism." When she said that she was a creationist, she meant to say "Republican Fanatic" and hence would rather see pictures of Reagan in her wallet than Gore in the schools. Partisanship is a religion for many people, so I can see how she could have made that mistake.

#4
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
climate
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation


I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find where it says "temperature right here right now".  Besides, did these people somehow miss the springlike temperatures we've had for most of the winter?  Let's see what that radio pundit has to say when we go through another 100+ degree heatwave next summer, like we did last August.

In a way, denial of evolution is no different from denial of global heating.  If conservatives can't see or feel it happening at that moment, it must not be true.  Who cares what 99.9% of scientists have to say?


But by that logic, I can prove God doesn't exist with a simple test.  "Helloooooo, God?" *waits*  I win.  Take that!

#5
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
Now the school has said it was all a big misunderstanding. (Horseshit) They are going to show he movie but will also give the pposite viewpoint, that being that global warming either doesn't exist or that Satan is just heating things up or that the unicorns aren't flying enough or whatever other crap trap they can come up with. I still hate fundys.

#6
Unbeliever

Unbeliever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationCalifornia
Hey, if we tell kids that Santa will be in danger because the North Pole is melting, maybe we could enlist their aid in getting something done. Just a thought.

#7
The Force

The Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • LocationThe Final Frontier
I recently started an internship studying the effects of climate change on soil microorganisms. All I have to say is, people who think that dumping buttloads (that's a scientific term) of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere every year won't have any impact on the climate are complete idiots (or they work for the petroleum industry).

There are noticeable changes going on right under our feet which could have dire implications for future ecological systems. Microbes are so important for fixing diatomic nitrogen (fertilizer!), providing food for other ecologically valuable species, and cleaning up nature's garbage (leaf litter and animal carcasses) to make highly enriched soils. Needless to say, humankind will be up shit creek with no paddle should the climate cause these microbes' habitats to become less hospitable. We will also be collectively starving. For an example of what our midwest "breadbasket" may look like in 100 years, see the Sahara desert.

On the flip side, what's even more worrying is the recent explosive emergences of tropical pathogens in non-tropical climes. The govt. has admitted that our temperate latitudes are warming; they have an entire department devoted to studying emerging diseases due to global climate change!

And that's just microbes. I wouldn't have a job if the normal soil microbiology in Colorado wasn't being slowly replaced with organisms that prefer warmer, more basic soils....

#8
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
I know very little about global warming other than our use of fossil fuels is a major concern. What I would really like to know is how much of global warming is actually created by us, and what percentage is the natural cycle the earth goes through every few thousand years? NowI know a lot of fundys and idiots claim it is ALL a natural cycle, but I see that as a smokescreen. Is there a way that the percentages can be narrowed down? Is the natural cycle of the planet such that our attempts to stop global warming, while nobel, are futile at best? Could we stop it even if we tried? Would it be better to concentrate our scientific minds on learning to live on a warmer planet? Now,don't get me wrong. I am a conservationist and believe we should all leave a smaller footprint if we can, but I am also a realist and know for a fact that we are in a warming cycle (artificial or natural) and we are heading down a path without brakes. The US and industrialized nations could stop polluting today but the developing world doesn't give a rats ass about global warming. If some poor bastard in Bumfuck Africa can feed his family by working at some rat poison plant that pumps tons of fumes into the atmosphere, he doesn't care about some glacier melting underneath some penguin. Just the way it is. So are we capable? Or is stopping global warming just a fantasy?

#9
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
It can be known, and it is known, that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is a result of burning fossil fuels. The way we can tell has to do with deuterium and other isotopes.

The denial of responsibility for global warming by Fundamentalists is consistent with a pattern of dogmatic acceptance of preferred fantasy tales as opposed to uncomfortable or subversive facts that can be known through science.  I'm getting a mental picture of Homer Simpson covering his ears and going La La La to prevent hearing uncomfortable facts.

Any minute I expect Our Glorious Christian Leader to announce a faith-based initiative to fund the Salvation Army to do biblical research on the subject of climate change. Paul Wolfowitz and Darth Cheney could serve on the review committee to verify that the facts found by the study are the preferred facts.

#10
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
By the way, I recently had a chance to watch Al Gore's film.  While it's not really all that bad, I do have a number of comments and gripes.

First of all, I really could have done without the the boring autobiographical content, or the self-promotion on Gore's part.  Almost half of the film's content consisted of him talking about himself, almost as if he's trying to sell himself for another run for president.  It gave me the feeling that it wasn't so much a science documentary as it was a movie by Al Gore about Al Gore starring Al Gore.  While I did support him in 2000, I can't say that I appreciated his making me sit through him talking about himself all that time.

Second, I seriously wish that he would have cited his sources, instead of asking people to take his word for it during his presentation.  That way those who are interested can check out the sources and read up on the issue themselves.  Likewise, those who doubt his claims can look it up and see for themselves.  I really would have liked to see how he derived his statistics and figures.  Instead all he has is a link to HIS website at the end.  Where are the interviews with experts, or the names to his studies?  Hell, even putting a little bibliography at the bottom of each chart would have sufficed.

Third, he spent about 95% of the movie on exposure or "spreading awareness" and about 5% explaining the solutions to the problem, or what each of us can do to help.  It should have been 50-50.  I don't appreciate how he only shows very brief slides of things like alternate energy sources, without devoting the least bit of explanation to them.  I got the feeling that he was being patronizing, as if it wasn't worth his time to go into that much detail about solutions to climate change.

Fourth, it is seriously disingenuous of him to put 100% of the blame on Republicans or Republican lobbyists.  The Clinton administration, which he was a part of, had 8 years in office to start putting in place many of the changes he spoke of, like higher emissions standards, and yet it dragged its feet.  Clinton even vacillated on the Kyoto treaty, if you remember.  When Bush took office in 2001, he did little more than continue the policies and trends that Clinton/Gore had started.  Of course, all of the subsequent cuts to environmental regulations were entirely Bush's fault, mind you.


All in all it wasn't a terrible movie, but I would not use it as a reference source or an in-depth educational tool either.

#11
Unbeliever

Unbeliever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationCalifornia
As I understand it, the Earth has been in a rare interglacial "warm interlude" since the last ice age ended. While the Earth does go through warm and cold cycles without the interference of humanity, our behaviour is no doubt excacerbating the current warm period. What ultimate effect this will have on the world's future is anyone's guess.

#12
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
As I mentioned before it isn't if global warming is occuring, but rather is there anything we can actually do about it. We'd all like to believe we could be a part of the solution but in reality, could we?

#13
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

As I mentioned before it isn't if global warming is occuring, but rather is there anything we can actually do about it. We'd all like to believe we could be a part of the solution but in reality, could we?


There might be some advantage in sequestering CO2 by pulling it out of the atmosphere and pumping it into old oil wells, caves, and such.  The goal being to seal off only extracted CO2 thus reducing the atmospheric content.

Planting green things is never a bad idea either.

#14
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
There certainly is a lot people can do to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and all of them have to do with cutting back on activities that produce CO2 until it reaches an equilibrium once again.  Nature is always pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, when plants fix it to produce their food.  What we need to do is buy them more time to do this.  More plants certainly wouldn't hurt.  Renewable fuels, such as those produced from said plants, would help in a twofold manner: The only carbon being burned would be that which is already on the surface of the earth, while that which is buried underground in the form of fossil fuels could stay where it is, because we wouldn't need it.

Prof, I hope you're being facetious about pumping carbon dioxide out of the air and into old caves.  That most likely wouldn't work. :roll:

#15
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
I was serious about underground storage of CO2, but it seems caves are not actually involved.

http://www.wired.com...2,65852,00.html
http://news-info.wus...normal/334.html

#16
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
I see where Al Gore is nominated for a Nobel for his film. I'm not sure about it being that good but wouldn't it be great if he won it? Just to watch the Republican worms squirm! :snork_lach:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users