 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Interesting...it's a 2001 production, originally aired on Britain's Channel 4 (it's the one that's not BBC and a very liberal channel...some good programming on there, but definately left of center...)
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Incidentally, living in America you probably don't know this, but the National Post is Canada's most right-wing newspaper; most Canadians consider it to be nothing more than a shill for the Conservative party. It's not a very good source for objective facts about things like global warming.
|
/sigh
OK...so who IS objective? The New York Times and Washington Post are notoriously left-wing. Why is that conservative commentators or publications are pointed out as "Conservative" or "right-wing", but no one else is? That suggests that the other media outlets are either centrist or liberal. They would generally like to suggest that they are centrist, but their word choice, subject matter coverage, and choice of talking heads generally indicates that they are liberally biased...
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
/sigh
OK...so who IS objective? The New York Times and Washington Post are notoriously left-wing. Why is that conservative commentators or publications are pointed out as "Conservative" or "right-wing", but no one else is? That suggests that the other media outlets are either centrist or liberal. They would generally like to suggest that they are centrist, but their word choice, subject matter coverage, and choice of talking heads generally indicates that they are liberally biased... |
I fully agree that virtually all media is biased. Furthermore, it's almost totally uninformative. That's the one thing that left-biased and right-biased media have in common: they're both pretty brainless and they both show a complete inability to do any real analysis.
Who is objective, you ask? Science is objective. If you want objective, then read scientific papers and not newspaper articles. That's where I get my information from. I have a bunch of original scientific papers about global warming in their original journal formatting and everything, and would be more than happy to share them with you. NOBODY can argue with the facts contained in them because they contain objective truth.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
Interesting...it's a 2001 production, originally aired on Britain's Channel 4 (it's the one that's not BBC and a very liberal channel...some good programming on there, but definately left of center...) |
Did you watch it?
What I like about these documentaries is that they almost always go straight to the scientists doing the research and let them give their arguments. That's the way to do it.
Also, has anyone here actually looked at the IPCC 2007 report that was just released (you know, the one all over the news)?
Here it is:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Instead of reading what CNN or Fox News have to say about it, why not look at it yourself?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
P#s, haven't downloaded it yet...I'm not as savvy with torrent stuff but I'm working on it...
As for the documentary, agree, though there can be selection bias in documentaries too...the filmmaker may or may not have a preconcieved opinion before they start filming....we're all biased to some degree and it takes deliberate, conscious effort to present "balanced" material....
Thanks for the post on the report....already interesting. Especially since I've already read a fair bit of the media reporting.
You know how you got fired up about the way the WMD/Terrorism connection was made in ref to Iraq? That's how I feel about Global Warming.
Here's an example. The media headlines is along the lines of "IPCC panel determing global warming gases are 'very likely' due to human (anthropologic) activities. Environmental scientist tell us that petroleum consumption is a significant driver of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. They warn that if we don't change, the results could be catostrophic and we'll all die."
Now...what the report says is "it is very likely (>90%) that the observed increase in methane is due to anthropogenic activities, predominately agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined.
(in other words, "we think it's X, but we don't reaaaaaly know yet")
Methane? I thought it was CO2 that was the problem. I thought it was the CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Where's the story about methane from agriculture? What, we're supposed to farm less to save the planet? oh veh!
Watch this space for more skepticism! 
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
Methane? I thought it was CO2 that was the problem. I thought it was the CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Where's the story about methane from agriculture? What, we're supposed to farm less to save the planet? oh veh!
Watch this space for more skepticism! |
Methane has been known to be a major contributor to global warming for decades. This is not new.
I agree that if you just read what the media tells you, then methane seems like some kind of revelation.
But if you look at the actual scientific literature, it's not new.
This is why I suggest that everyone get their information from first-hand sources (ie. scientific publications), and not the dumbed-down version which has passed through the mass media filter.
I have a lot of original journal articles in .pdf format. I would be happy to send them to you.
One of the problems is that these things are VERY hard to get. The only reason I can get them is because I'm at a major research university, which gives me free access to all of the journals. Most people have no choice but to look to the newspapers and tv news for their science. This is a damned shame, because these are a TERRIBLE way to get scientific information.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just don't understand their chart SPM-0 (page 5 of 21) results showed a net expansion of the oceans as 0.07 +/- 0.07 for the first part and 0.03 +/- 0.10 on the second part to me that shows a possible range of 0.0-0.14 and a range of -0.07 to +0.13 so if I do understand the math part there either might be no expansion or an actual reduction.
In chart spm-2 they use the very unscientific terms 'likely', 'very likely', and 'more likely than not' the later meaning they really don't know at all(look at the subscripts to verify this statement). I thought that science was a precise tool and not given to making guesses.
Where's the excitement here? It amounts to nothing! or even less than nothing ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dim12trav wrote: |
In chart spm-2 they use the very unscientific terms 'likely', 'very likely', and 'more likely than not' the later meaning they really don't know at all(look at the subscripts to verify this statement). I thought that science was a precise tool and not given to making guesses.
Where's the excitement here? It amounts to nothing! or even less than nothing ! |
This is the summary, and not the actual report (which has not been released yet), so of course it doesn't contain all of the arguments and scientific details.
If you want details, I have plenty of papers. Do you want to read them?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2 quickies:
First, I have no idea if the source (Canada Free Press) is right-wing, left-wing or chicken-wing...but, it's an interesting op-ed from a PhD regardless...I bring it up, obviously, because it reasserts points I've made here 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Second, I too am troubled by some of the charts and assertions in the summary, particularly the predictive statements, where the observed data goes from "likely" or "very likely", to a predictive statement of "almost certainly"....
I really do feel that McCain's "The debate is over" statement is becoming more and more true. Once a conclusion is reached, and science then works to find evidence that that evidence is "true", then science has lost it's credibility...that's what my gut tells me is going on here....
Its an old logical fallicy that I've stated here before and will now do again:
p: When it rains, the sidewalks get wet.
p: The sidewalk is wet.
C: It rained.
That's not logically valid because it doesn't account for all the conditions in which the sidewalks could get wet...
If we compare that to:
p: The Earth's temp is rising.
p: atmospheric CO2/Methan/Sulfites particles have increased.
C: Human activity is causing the Earth's temp to rise.
Seems to me to be the same logical fallicy.
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Funny thing (as an aside....)
This logical fallacy is what I have asserted regarding TOE in another thread (more concisely worded of course - thanks Pondering)
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's TOE...besides being one of the things on the end of my FOOT?
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | What's TOE...besides being one of the things on the end of my FOOT? |
Theory of Evolution
Darwinian philosophy... prattle... drivel... lies... outright lies... a falsehood. 
Seriously, ToE = Theory of Evilution
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Funny thing (as an aside....)
This logical fallacy is what I have asserted regarding TOE in another thread (more concisely worded of course - thanks Pondering) |
This is an apt comparison, but not for the reasons you might think...
In my mind, global-warming denial, evolution denial, holocaust denial, and second-hand-smoke-causing-cancer denial are all very similar:
People with very weak scientific training or arguments going up against a huge number of well-trained scientists in fields where there is scientific consensus. (Not to mention the common-sense factor.)
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8336
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
First, I have no idea if the source (Canada Free Press) is right-wing, left-wing or chicken-wing...but, it's an interesting op-ed from a PhD regardless...I bring it up, obviously, because it reasserts points I've made here
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
|
Did you notice how he didn't give a single scientific argument? All he gave were wishy-washy arguments from the gut. Arguments like this:
| Quote: | | It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. |
Incidentally, this is a false statement. We have been taking precise atmospheric CO2 readings since LONG before anyone even thought about the words 'global warming'.
I would REALLY like to get away from arguments like this, and actually get to the science. I've been trying to make scientific arguments, and I'd like to forget about all of the politics of climate change and actually get to the facts.
| Pondering wrote: |
Second, I too am troubled by some of the charts and assertions in the summary, particularly the predictive statements, where the observed data goes from "likely" or "very likely", to a predictive statement of "almost certainly"....
|
Pondering, you have a good b.s. detector, and it does you credit. I happen to agree that the IPCC is a very politicized organization. They put a lot of rhetoric into their reports, and I personally think it hurts the cause because it makes people like you suspicious. But just because there is political rhetoric in SOME of the global warming reports does NOT mean that they are wrong.
So far, your arguments against climate change have been along the lines of "it doesn't smell right". You're right. It is a politicized issue. So let's get the heck away from the politics, and JUST talk science.
| Pondering wrote: |
Its an old logical fallicy that I've stated here before and will now do again:
p: When it rains, the sidewalks get wet.
p: The sidewalk is wet.
C: It rained.
That's not logically valid because it doesn't account for all the conditions in which the sidewalks could get wet...
If we compare that to:
p: The Earth's temp is rising.
p: atmospheric CO2/Methan/Sulfites particles have increased.
C: Human activity is causing the Earth's temp to rise.
Seems to me to be the same logical fallicy. |
You are playing a dangerous game with this. When we teach university logic classes, we often point out to the students how you can pretty much find logical fallacies anywhere you want. For example, you can come up with an argument showing that Newton's Law of Gravitation is a fallacy. And in fact, it IS a fallacy. All science without exception is not logically sound, strictly speaking. In the real scientific world, ALL arguments are fallacious.
Apart from that, I would say that you've mischaracterized the global warming argument. It is much more complicated than that. You'd need more like 6 or 7 premises to sum it up. In fact, I think I've already done this in some thread around here...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
agree with the politics, which is why I say the science is tainted...
Here's Dr. Bell's wiki stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_ball
He's as credible as anyone else I've seen presented...
I think my basic point is...I'm very concerned about overreaction to what may be a natural cycle. I do think that human activity is A part of what's going on...a small, but potentially important part, but it calls for a reasoned response and not the "Sky is falling" approach that I feel is going on...
Maybe the motivation is that the public is hyped by everything, so to get any attention, things have to be over-the-top.
Things like the Kyoto accords aren't a bad idea in principle..but in the implementation, they hold the West to a higher standard (basically asking us to take an economic loss) while the Second World (China, India, East Europe) get a buy and allowed to "catch-up" in Industrial capacity...then get them to transition to more efficient/cleaner systems...
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
