ROX, you should really see this flick. I know you believe in being prepared for the unexpected, which is wise. When you watch this film you will see enough to make you check your stock of goods. I'm not kidding. This is backed by science... that there can be an abrupt climate change. The Gulf Stream could turn itself off in the North Atlantic, if the salinity gets too low. It's happened before, and could happen over the course of about 3 years (if it were to happen). The consequences are spectacularly BAD. Look up the Younger Dryas on google. That was our last ice age, a "short one," which "only" lasted 900-1000 years. It was caused by the abrupt cessation of the Gulf Stream. Keep D&D Civil.
I find this an unusual stance since you praise Lieberman on his message regarding the invasion of Iraq and Lieberman is a Democratic partisan who ran on a presidential ticket against the current Admin. and whose voting record, along with most of his rhetoric has been against the Bush Admin.. So in one case you overlook the partisanship of the messenger while not in another.
The issue of an inconvenient truth is purported to be a bipartisan threat/problem that we've all had a hand in creating and we all need to help fix... If this is so it is a noble and honorable deed,... yet I had suspicions of a political ulterior motive which taints the noble and honorable deed of the message. When a poster voiced there was evidence of this, I responded... I still affirm that the message deserves a non-partisanship messenger to realize full potential since it is a bipartisan threat/problem... There is a distinct differance when the arena is based on definite partisianship and issues as it related to Lieberman's beliefs...That is my explanation to you...
I was mistaken. Senate passed a resolution against the Kyoto Accords. That was the 95-0 decision against it. Also, Clinton didn't sign the treaty himself, but did have the initial backing of the Admin.
To be fair to ROXRAN, I am the one who pointed out that An Incovenient Truth has some blatant partisan moments. The main one that sticks out in my mind is the part where they review the 2000 election. The way this was edited made it (in my opinion) nothing more than a means to get all the liberals (myself included) in the audience fired up. All Gore (and the filmmakers) needed to do to demonstrate that Gore's priorities had changed (from getting elected to working as advocate) was have Gore narrate something to that effect. It would have saved a few minutes of film which could have been used for more science (especially some interviews with those scientists - whether they're corporate-bought or not - who disagree with some or all of the science he presented). I agree with most of you - 90% of the film is science and that's why I recommended it. The Gore love just got a little gratuitous - I would have been more impressed if Gore had spent more time chastising himself for being such a wuss on his pet issue during the elections.
It still strikes me as you agree with the message on one hand so give more credence to the messenger while not in the other case. If An Inconvenient Truth had starred a prominent Republican instead of Al Gore would you have given it more credence?
In fairness to RoxRan, I had the same concerns regarding the messenger. Al Gore is partisan whether he likes it or not. If he's going to include any politics in this (which he should given the subject matter) he almost has to ensure he is at least as critical of his own party -- and that shouldn't be too hard here.
There is no dispute I definitely lean towards Republican ideology, but I don't agree for the sake of agreeing on all Republican stances and issues ... To get to your question, the answer would be "NO"...when I said: a non-partisanship messenger would be best to realize full potential since it is a bipartisan threat/problem... That is exactly how I feel... However, given that I now realize he wrote the book which based the documentary...The reasoning of him being the speaker is obvious...However, to shake any attachment of partisanship what bnb posted would have been the second best scenario in my mind:...
Just a thought: One of my co-workers investigated this a couple of years ago and he concluded that Global Warming does not exist. These facts may have changed, but I doubt it. Here's how: Statistically, to prove that an event has occurred, what you actually do is disprove that it hasn't occurred (the Null Hypothesis). To disprove the Null Hypothesis, you must show that the mean has increased by a statistically significant amount, more than 2 or 3 times the standard deviation depending on the certainty that you want. When he ran the statistics (for lots of areas on lots of days) he couldn't find any day where the mean had shifted more than half the standard deviation. And the standard deviation has actually increased recently. (In addition to having some of the hottest extremes, the world has also had some of the coldest extremes in recent years.) More days have increased their mean than decreased, but none by a statistically significant amount. In other words, you can not say with more than a 30% certainty that the temperature of the earth is actually increasing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis I don't know how quickly you learn this in most statistics, but it's one of the first things you learn in Engineering statistics.
In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. The use of the null hypothesis is controversial. It is only one way to skin a cat. Thus, specious.
