Rummy Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I think you have my confused, I'm not very religious at all! Something else they said was that it would take quite a temperature rise before the water levels rise significantly enough due to the ice caps melting and kill us all. Having read that news article about the scientists who've been getting death threats, I can't help but think someone is worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Librarian Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 yes it's not our fault at all... "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do"... Ronald Reagan (I wonder how much money he got from the oil companies for that one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 If a "documentary" by Durkin alone changed your views, I suggest you don't watch similar films about the CIA killing Kennedy, the moon landings being fake or Bush ordering 9/11 unless you want to be convinced into believing those as well. I'd avoid watching his other work as well, such as "Silicon breast implants - if you don't buy them, you're going to get cancer", "GM food - if you want a study to see if it's safe then you're a hitler loving Nazi" and "Environmentalists kill puppies and vegetarians eat babies" I'm not entirely sure how he still manages to get stuff commisioned, but Channel Four are in the shit again for giving him a mouthpiece for his gross distortion of facts and blatant mis-representing of the people he shows in his films (The genuine people that is, not his cronies from Living Marxism magazine he puts in as stand-in "experts") I've no problem with people having a differing opinion, but it's a bit like someone saying "I saw a film by George Galloway and now I think the Iraq war was wrong after all" or "I just read one of Ann Coulter's books, I never realised how evil liberals are, now I hate them". The film disguised the fact that solar activity hasn't increased recently, while temperatures have because that would have cast doubt on the solar activity theory it was wanting to present. I wouldn't base your opinion on a film of half truths and outright lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I read the full skinny about it all in the Guardian today. Apparently, almost all the scientists featured had had all their theorems utterly debunked years ago, except for the ocean science guy who is know claiming that he was "misled and misrepresented." Basically it was a crock of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I think you have my confused, I'm not very religious at all!Something else they said was that it would take quite a temperature rise before the water levels rise significantly enough due to the ice caps melting and kill us all. Having read that news article about the scientists who've been getting death threats, I can't help but think someone is worried. Sorry, must have you confused with someone else I read in the "Evolution vs Creationism" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Sorry, must have you confused with someone else I read in the "Evolution vs Creationism" thread. Where did that go, anyway? And by the way - what happened to the 'landing on the moon' thread? Here's the reason behind the rumour: a French cineasty wanted to prove that people would believe anything on TV - and he build a fake documentary about it - with fake images and words of presidents taken out of context. Watch it HERE: http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/dark_side_of_the_moon.htm Though I must say: it's not quite legal, so please don't watch. Don't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I read the full skinny about it all in the Guardian today. Apparently, almost all the scientists featured had had all their theorems utterly debunked years ago, except for the ocean science guy who is know claiming that he was "misled and misrepresented." Basically it was a crock of shit. That's what I have the biggest problem with really, we only seem to know what we're told. The paper told you these scientists had their theories debunked, but have you actually seen the proof that what they're saying isn't true? The proof that conclusively shows that greenhouse gases are causing this rise in temperature and not vice-versa? That's all I want to see, the proof, but I have no idea where to find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Well, you've kind of put yourself in a paradox there, the whole point of a having a viable mass news source being to relay outside information to the public, and the whole point of an independent media watchdog is to insure that that the information relayed is indeed correct. I'm sure if you want the information direct it's out there somewhere, but personally I believe the Guardian to be a perfectly trustworthy news source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 That's what I have the biggest problem with really, we only seem to know what we're told. The paper told you these scientists had their theories debunked, but have you actually seen the proof that what they're saying isn't true? The proof that conclusively shows that greenhouse gases are causing this rise in temperature and not vice-versa? That's all I want to see, the proof, but I have no idea where to find it. How do you know that planes fly by according to aerodynamics and not magic? How do phones work, why do pills cure diseases. Unless you have a degree in all of those areas, you'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zell Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 How do you know that planes fly by according to aerodynamics and not magic? How do phones work, why do pills cure diseases. Unless you have a degree in all of those areas, you'll never know. Bad analogies. There aren't any counter theories to any of those situations. Besides you don't need a degree to know how planes fly, yet it takes years of research to fully understand this global warming situation. As of now we simply don't know where all the pieces fit in the puzzle, and the only solutions are coming from these scientists. We only know what these experts tell us, and at the moment they have conflicting ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 They clearly don't have too many conflicting ideas though. As it has been noted, all of the scientists featured in this documentary (except the one claiming he was misrepresented) had their scientific theories rejected and debunked years ago by the vast majority of their peers in the scientific community. We don't have any crackpots trying to tell us birds use magic entirely because of this very same vetting system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Bad analogies. There aren't any counter theories to any of those situations. Besides you don't need a degree to know how planes fly, yet it takes years of research to fully understand this global warming situation. As of now we simply don't know where all the pieces fit in the puzzle, and the only solutions are coming from these scientists. We only know what these experts tell us, and at the moment they have conflicting ideas. Not the best I could have choose, huh? Anyway, you're right, you don't need a degree to understand that NOW, and supposedly you wouldn't need one for global warming either, if it weren't for some morons and "incentives" from oil companies raising all this doubts. And we won't know who's right until something really bad happens. It doesn't even matter, getting rid of pollution and oil dependance can only make things better, even IF its not the cause of global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 How do you know that planes fly by according to aerodynamics and not magic? How do phones work, why do pills cure diseases. Unless you have a degree in all of those areas, you'll never know. Descartes at work! As a paranoiac, I can totally fantasize that the entire world has been completely misinterpreted to me. For all I know, there's only 500 people, and they all constantly masquerade as other people to fool me into thinking the world is exactly as they've told me it is. How can you really believe in anything? Ultimately, you cannot trust anything but what you yourself has witnessed. When a train leaves from, for instance, leeds to sheffield, how do you KNOW that the train doesn't just circle back round to the other end of Sheffield? You just don't! you're taken on a journey of faith, and I think that there is a level of faith invested in trains and the reliability of what they are doing... ... Of course this is coming from an egocentrical and self-over-aware view! But you can see what I mean. What you are being told by anyone, or the media, cannot be trusted without some faith in them - for all we know, at some level, we are being lied to hugely. This is all besides the point :P The point is; I agree with shino. There's no way you can completely trust in any 'proof' when you yourself have no way to guarentee that proof. ETC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I take your points, I'm not denying that there's alot of stuff in this world which I am told and blindly believe. How do I actually know that the earth goes round the sun? I don't. However, in this circumstance I've been presented with an alternative view, and it sounds much more plausible to me. Now I'm not so sure which is right and which is wrong. Sure, loads of people are gonna tell me that the man made greenhouse explanation is correct, but how do they know? They know because someone told them that, and someone told that person that, it's all just a big chain of someone telling someone else. I just would like to go straight to the source and see for myself now that I have this doubt. In alot of other things(such as how planes fly, how the earth goes round the sun, how birds fly) I've got a pretty reasonable and plausible explanation with no alternative that I see as 'better', and it so happens in these cases that my current view is the same as the majority. It doesn't mean that me or the majority are 100% correct though either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 There are certainly people who believe the earth doesn't go round the sun and have 'science' to back up their views. How come you believe what mainstream scientific opinion tells you on that, but not on the causes of global warming? I certainly believe the Guardian more than a discredited kook film maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts