History for Global Warmers (and reality check)

Im not a scientist. So as such scientists are going to have to explain to me why I need to make drastic changes in my life. And they need to do it in a way that is clear and understandable.

Simply making claims of this or that is not good enough. And when science says things like there is stability in chaos well then they lose my confidence. I miss trust the scientific community because it is vague in its claims, is used by New Agers to push an agenda that requires we all submit to creation rather than maintain dominion.

If I believed there was any validity to global warming I would be a loud voice for it. But saying there is stability in chaos sounds a whole lot like double talk. Therefore it loses all credibility

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

See the movie, if you dare. It is explained pretty well.

No one said, "There is stability in chaos", but the two are not absolutes - it is not either-or but degrees of both over time. I'm not explaining it well, I know, but it's late and I'm tired.

Good night.

 

Galatian says otherwise you should look back at his comments. As far as seeing the movie I suppose you are talking about Al Gores' Movie. The reviews are out on that one. Not looking to good.

 

He said, " There is an entire science of chaos, showing that there are stable, even predictable structures within chaotic systems." Stable structures within chaotic systems is a bit different than "stability in chaos"; the latter implies equation - at least, that is how I read it.

On the contrary, it has been highly praised by scientists and professional movie reviewers as presenting a concise, understandable overview. The only pans I've read have been from those with a political agenda.

 

So all crticism of this is only from those who are not honest nor can they be correct because they have a political agenda. Is that what you are saying? I do not want to put words in your mouth so correct that staement where it needs it.

However, Al Gore (a politician) has no politcial agenda therefore must be intellectually honest in his assertions in this film. Again, correct me if that is not what you intended to say.

Bottom line: You are asserting that a politician has no political aganda and can only be asserting the truth. Please correct any of that you feel I have misunderstood.

www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

www.factcheck.org/article395.html

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Jul/20060713News007.asp

 

Ok - that question or statement is a complete distortion of what I said.

"So all criticism..." I haven't read "all criticism" or most criticism. I was speaking of the reviews that I - meaning me - have read.

"...only from those who are not honest..." I said nothing of the honesty or dishonesty of the reviewers. Do you understand that people can disagree with honesty and sincerity? Do you think that one and only one can be correct and the other must therefore be lying? Since I don't know if they were honest or sincere, I did not even address that issue; that is totally your own misinterpretation.

"...nor can they be correct because they have a political agenda." I didn't say whether they were correct or not, only that the ones that I, Daisy, read that panned it were political. They were by professional political columnists, not by movie reviewers and not by climatologists - is that a difficult concept?

If I had intended to say that, then I would have said that. As it is, I said nothing of the kind. What I said and what I intended to say is that the movie explains global warming in easy to understand terms.

You said, "Im not a scientist. So as such scientists are going to have to explain to me why I need to make drastic changes in my life. And they need to do it in a way that is clear and understandable." The movie does explain that. If you really wanted to understand, I can't help thinking that you would make an actual attempt to do it rather than twist my words in a truly bizarre way at the suggestion as to how you could without too much strain.

You have misunderstood so completely I'm flabbergasted. Show where I asserted anything of the sort. What I did assert is that the movie explains what you said you wanted to understand and that most the reviews I read were good; the pans I read, not all criticisms, just the ones I read (got it?) were written by political pundits, not movie reviewers.

If you choose not to try understand the other side, fine. Judging how badly you mangled my few simple sentences, I have to wonder whether your misinterpretation is deliberate or if your capacity for understanding that which disagrees with your preconceptions is severely impaired. What is truly bewildering is the vehemence you attribute to me. *** shakes head, sadly ***


Remember, you said that you did not understand the issue. Apparently, you are determined not to.

 

The sad thing is, most partisans of both sides are really ignorant of the facts and issues regarding global warming, and don't have the tools to deal with the facts, even if they knew them.

The answer is found in science, and economics, and politics, and I don't know what the feasible solution is, in terms of the politics and economics.

But right now, there are a few knowledgable people out out there, and the rest are largely composed of two factions screaming at each other in the darkness.

 

No political agenda there:

Matt Dempskey is not as well known, but seems to be a long time Republican hack:

He seems to be best known for this smear piece and for that campaign incident:

Point by point rebuttal by Tim Lambert (linkie)

Did you even read this? Did you understand it?

Dead link.

 

Again I thank you for stating concisely a bottom line for a very entangled situation that we can neither change nor ignore. It has been politicized by multiple entities, worldwide. Those of us without the education to understand will side with those whose political agendas most match ours.

Truly sad.

 

Daisy,

we have to be careful how we say things on this board and how we take things as well. there was no "vehemence" in anything I said.

 

Closed.....