Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Weather Channel founder wants to sue Al Gore

<< < (2/33) > >>

jhocking:

--- Quote from: Chesire Cat on 10 Aug 2008, 09:40 ---frankly  I dont think its fair to try to burn the Weather Channel for their use of Scientist.

--- End quote ---

I wasn't so much trying to burn them as pointing out how their claim isn't as impressive as one might first think. As they use the term, saying "30,000 scientists" is really no different from just saying "30,000 people."

Put that way, it's hardly surprising that they have a petition with 30,000 signatures on it.


ADDITION: hm that maybe still doesn't make my point clear. I'm not saying that their use of the term "scientist" is incorrect, just that it's misleading.

As you point out, a soap-maker could accurately call themself a scientist, but that's not particularly relevant to the global warming thing, now is it? By bringing it up in that context, the guy is implying that these scientists are all specialists in climate change research, but that's not actually what his use of the term means.

Vendetagainst:
Well I'm all for grilling Gore, but mostly because he's a douche


--- Quote from: RedLion on 10 Aug 2008, 09:53 ---I love how he says "We've been trying to get a debate going."

There's already been a debate. You've been proven wrong, and consequently lost.

--- End quote ---

The fact is that nobody's been proven wrong, really, and only time will tell who was right. I don't think the existence of global warming is the real issue though, I think that what we do in regards to the environment is equally important with or without it.

RallyMonkey:
What I think is ridiculous, is how willing people are willing to listen to the topics brought up in An Inconvenient Truth, without doing any thinking or research on their own. Most likely this does not apply to this forum, but how many of the average part time environmental activists do you think have seen any research from other sources? The average high schooler who spends their time touting about global warming has seen nothing but an Inconvenient Truth to back them up, and yet they will defend global warming without a second thought.

I'm not saying one way or the other on the issue, and I'm not saying there's not a lot more evidence out there supporting An Inconvenient Truth, I'm just saying that it is dangerous thinking, or lack there of, to just accept these claims outright without a thought. Yet, if someone is to say otherwise, they are instantly berated by these very people.

Chesire Cat:
Well what *I* am saying is that, clearly the environment is changing, and life exists in a very delicate balance.  Whether or not its cause by CO2 emissions is not exactly relevent, wouldnt you rather be proven wrong by being more eco conscious and not affecting change, than proven right by not giving a shit about man-made environmental changes (bottom line is if CO2 isnt causing global warming, well its still not something that would occur naturally in such high doses, and if the world has been chugging along with life for hundreds of million years, maybe if it aint broke dont fix it)?

RallyMonkey:
The biggest problem with that philosophy, is that if it isn't the CO2 that is causing the rise in climates, that we don't know what is helping it, and what can be done to stop it. If the problem is truly something that we don't know at this point, then the cause could very well be something that we are doing in an attempt to be more ecologically friendly. We never know, we could always be doing more harm than help. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something, I just don't want people to give up because they have decided they found the cause, and not do any more research. And I also don't want someone who could be doing very positive research to be laughed away because he disagrees with An Inconvenient Truth. Remember that during the early 20th century, cigarettes were recommended by doctors to reduce stress, at the time, they didn't know any better.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page