Global Warming has been cancelled. Sorry.....

[Accept2]

I know alot of people were counting on it, but here in Ottawa we decided to cancel it. Sorry for the inconvienience this will cause to those who had already planned on spending all those billions.............

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...uration%3Along

[Top Jimmy B]

Interesting video. I read a Michael Crichton novel last year that was based on these theories; its name escapes me at the moment, but it was thought provoking.

[Accept2]

I believe that novel was State of Fear..........

[Bert]

Amazing propaganda piece. Wonder what oil company funded it.

[Top Jimmy B]

Accept2, you are correct, thanks.

Bert, your Birkenstocks are showing.

[Bert]

Aha:

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-compan...nds-of-science

[Accept2]

Funds go to all sides of the debate. Maybe you should investigate whats going on with funds for the other side, because that is scary..........

[Bert]

Bert, your Birkenstocks are showing.

Never owned a pair in my life... I just happen to know a bit about science, and easily recognize many of the tricks these sorts of propaganda pieces use to come across as convincing & authoritative without actually having any reputable evidence whatsoever to support their claims. For example, they attempt to debunk pro-warming "evidence" that nobody would claim as evidence (e.g. surface temperature measurements biased by proximity to cities) while ignoring real evidence that strongly supports human-influences on global warming.

Take a look at the literature on holocaust denial, white supremacy, creationism, or any other crackpot theory, and you'll see plenty of similarities.

This piece is unusually slick, which is why I suspected there was some serious oil-company funding involved, but it's still the same bag of tricks.

[Accept2]

Please debunk it piece by piece with credible evidence and credible sourses, and then prove how the "Were all gonna die!!!!!" argument is correct with credible sourses and evidence. I just watched An Inconvienient Truth, and was appalled by how it was more of a political movie than a movie of real science. This production was not slick at all. AIT, now that was slick. It had about 1000 times the budget this one had............

[Accept2]

Here is An Inconvient Truth for those who havent seen it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...uration%3Along

[hippietim]

Please debunk it piece by piece with credible evidence and credible sourses, and then prove how the "Were all gonna die!!!!!" argument is correct with credible sourses and evidence. I just watched An Inconvienient Truth, and was appalled by how it was more of a political movie than a movie of real science. This production was not slick at all. AIT, now that was slick. It had about 1000 times the budget this one had............

How about you debunk AIT piece by piece with credible evidence and credible sources.

[Bert]

I agree, there are propaganda pieces produced by both sides. Never saw an inconvenient truth, but I have heard it contains some inaccuracies (though probably not nearly as skewed as that "friends of science" piece.)

I'm not gonna spend my Saturday afternoon personally debunking an obvious propaganda piece, especially since I'm sure if you search the web a bit you'll find others that already do that. I will say though that Scientific American has several excellent & accessible articles on the science (as opposed to politics) of global warming. Unfortunately you'll have to go to your library to find them, or pay for the online access. One good article (though a bit old by now) was a dissecting of Lomborg's "analysis" of climate change data:

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cf...A9-03E2C01909A

But you'll find many more if you do some digging.

[Accept2]

Instead of blindly attacking I am urging everyone to watch both. That is the problem with the "Were all going to Die!!!!" side. They want you to see AIT, and not question it, but will throw baseless attacks at the other side. If you take out some of the political crap in AIT, it makes some very good points. For instance, why is there even a section in the movie about him losing the election? Is it also a factor of the climate?.............

[hippietim]

the reason for discussing the election loss was pretty obvious in the film.

[Accept2]

I totally missed the relevance. I must be too stoopid. It seems to me that there are always III sides to every story, unless your a global warming activist..........