Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed! - Page 63

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Jim on October 16, 2007, 9:53 pm
 


    Uh, yeah. I was kinda under the impression that anyone who knew anything
about the subject was quite well aware of it. This is why Al Gore and the
greenies are such loons....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html



Posted by Trygve Lillefosse on October 17, 2007, 10:22 am
 


Remember to read the next page aswell...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King

Posted by Steve Firth on October 14, 2007, 10:07 pm
 

But the judge didn't refer to them as "inconclusive statements" did he?
The judge used the terms "inaccurate", "alarmist" and "exaggeration."

He also stated: "It is now common ground that it is not simply a science
film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific
research and opinion - but that it is a political film."

And he didn't jsut pass it for exhibition in schools, he only permitted
its release with the proviso that it be issued with guidance notes to
balance  Gore's "one sided views".

So it looks like Al Gore doesn't have a monopoly on untruths, you're up
there giving him a hand.

Posted by David Hansen on October 15, 2007, 12:02 pm
 On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:07:10 +0100 someone who may be
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote this:-


Those who have an open mind may wish to download the two files from
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/about/news_and_events/inconvenient_truth_court_rulin.aspx

One is the court ruling itself, which reads rather differently to
the spin much of the mass media put on it. The other file is a
commentary on the ruling, from which the following is taken.


==========================================================================

Press reports have mostly presented the High Court judgement of 10
October 2007 as a defeat for Al Gore. However, the judge stated that
(in his opinion) the film was "broadly accurate", and decided that
the film could continue to be shown in schools "in the context of...
discussions facilitated by the guidance note" provided by the
Department for Children, Schools and Families (of which an updated
version is already available). He also identifies a number of
deficiencies which he refers to as "nine scientific errors", and
which have been seized on by the media: these are discussed below In
fact the judgement systematically refers to "errors" (using inverted
commas, which the media have generally ignored), and has some wise
words to say on the distinction between presenting and promoting
partisan views, and the balanced presentation of controversial
issues (which he decides does not require equal "air-time" for views
which are held only by small minorities).  However, in his analysis
of the "errors" the judge has also expressed unwarranted confidence
on several issues which are still the subject of considerable
uncertainty among the scientific community. It would be fair to say
that Al Gore presents the more extreme (concerned) end of the range
of scientific opinion on several issues, and implies stronger
evidence than is fair on several others. However, overall the film
still achieves an exceptionally high standard of scientific
accuracy, and it is regrettable that the judge has triggered a media
storm by the injudicious use of the term "errors". Lawyers know not
to rely on ordinary commas to make their meaning clear; now judges
must learn not to rely on inverted commas either.  
 
[big snip]

In only three cases (numbers 6, 7 and 8) can it realistically be
argued that the film presents an overstated or unreasonable
argument, and in only one case (hurricanes) is that in relation to a
major issue. In no case is there a scientific "error" as such. In
three cases (1, 3 and 5) Gore presents a view which represents the
more extreme end of the range of scientific uncertainty. In the
remaining three cases the Gore presentation is essentially correct.
To refer to "nine scientific errors" is therefore itself a very
considerable misrepresentation of the facts.

==========================================================================




--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Posted by Steve Firth on October 15, 2007, 12:47 pm
 

That automatically excludes you, and it is noticeable that you fail to
quote from the judgement but instead quote from a subjective, biased
assesment of the judgement.

Within the judgement we find Justice Burton observing:

"However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the
mainstream, by Mr Gore  in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition,
do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his
political thesis."

And in his requirement to draft appropriate guidance for teachers, the
following was inserted;

"they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence
critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and
to point out where Gore 's view may be inaccurate or departs from that
of mainstream scientific opinion;  "


On the specific objections to the film:

(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying
factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with
insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication
that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading
use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and
one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils
meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an
independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the
demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences
requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in
order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

J. Burton held these comments to be useful, and the judgement makes it
clear that these objections are upheld.

Furthermore of the nine points raised, the judgement is explicit:

1. Sea level rise of 20ft ... in the near future

Judgement: "Distinctly alarmist" "not in line with the scientific
consensus"

2. ... Pacific atolls are being inundated ... (that's why the citizens
.. have all had to evacuate ...)

Judgement: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation"

3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor"

Judgement: "It is very unlikely" [i.e. it is incorrect, a lie, false]

4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in
temperature ...

Judgement: " the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore  asserts."
[i.e. it is incorrect, a lie, false]

5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. [recede because of man-made global warming]

Judgement: " it cannot be established"

6. Lake Chad [drying up]

Judgement: " far more likely to result from other factors,"

7. Hurricane Katrina

Judgement: "insufficient evidence "

8. Death of polar bears

Judgement: "it plainly does not support Mr Gore 's description."

9. Coral reefs.

Judgement: "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report,
is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,
there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality"

[i.e. Gore's assertion that this is happening *now* is incorrect.




So much better to refer to the source, rather than biased opinion, eh?

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS The Natural Phi...10-20-2007
| |     `--> Re: OT- GUNS Dave Plowman (N...10-19-2007
| | `--> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-19-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-19-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-19-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS Dave Plowman (N...10-19-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-20-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS John Stumbles10-20-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-20-2007
| | |--> Re: OT- GUNS nicksanspam10-20-2007
| | `--> Re: OT- GUNS Morris Dovey10-19-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS The Natural Phi...10-20-2007
| | |--> Re: OT- GUNS Dave Plowman (N...10-20-2007
| | `--> Re: OT- GUNS Arnold Walker10-20-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS Doctor Drivel10-23-2007
| |   `--> Re: OT- GUNS Steve O'Hara-Sm...10-20-2007
| |   `--> Re: OT- GUNS Morris Dovey10-20-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS The Natural Phi...10-20-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS Morris Dovey10-20-2007
| | `--> Re: OT- GUNS Arnold Walker10-20-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS Arnold Walker10-20-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-19-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS The Natural Phi...10-20-2007
| |--> Re: OT- GUNS Dave Plowman (N...10-19-2007
| |               |--> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-19-2007
| |               `--> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-19-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS The Natural Phi...10-20-2007
| |               |--> Re: OT- GUNS Dave Plowman (N...10-20-2007
| ---> Re: OT- GUNS Steve Firth10-20-2007
please rate this thread