Text 1269, 175 rader
Skriven 2006-06-02 11:16:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1715.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
* * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *
-----------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <ViRfg.32987$fb2.20251@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
@REPLY: <ipmn72lpsihhej25lks0u61mf02umkop6f@4ax.com>
"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
news:t2ev72170bbs9gb58qim6c93ckju5pdkfn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:57:50 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
> <jt@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul,
>>
>>You and I are both going to miss Gore's big film for the same reason: We
>>already know what he's going to say.
>
> No. I will be seeing what he has to say first hand. It's the only
> valid way to be able to express an opinion on it: Unfiltered.
Didn't you post that you were already a member of the choir and didn't need
to hear the sermon? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else...
>>The new issue of US News and World Report that came in the mail today
>>(with
>>Gore's film as the cover story) confirmed my entire analysis stream.
>
> Is it not possible that their reporting mirrors a personal bias? I am
> not saying your personal bias is wrong, merely that your choice in
> reading material will tend to mirror it. I know mine does, and I am
> aware of that, which is why I prefer to view stuff first hand.
There are only so many hours in a day. I need sources that tell me the
information I want to know, not try to convince me to whatever viewpoint
they are hawking. I limit or avoid sources intent on conversion.
I didn't need to see the third new Star Wars film to know it was going to be
bad. Lucas had a track record by then so I could assess it in genrality
from a preview paragraph or two. I judged it to be bad in advance of seeing
it and was right. I saw the film not because I had any curiosity about its
quality (or lack thereof) but so I could bitch about it with certain
knowledge.
The problem with "Inconvienent Truth" is that aside from being bad or good,
Gore looks to simply be going over known territory. CO2 emissions out of
control, greenhouse effect, ice caps melting, ecologies in danger, more and
powerful hurricanes, sea levels rising, dogs and cats living together...
There will be new and terrifying factoids brought out to be sure, but I
expect the whole package to amount to the usual song and dance, at best set
to new music. I've seen this movie already. Lucas at least did something
new.
> It's also a reason why from time to time I pick up the right-wing
> press we have here and read it. To see what the other side is saying
> from their own mouths, as it were, however uncomfortable and angry it
> makes me.
The generic POV of the Left in the US is ubiquitous. You have to put a lot
of effort into avoiding it. IMHO, this is why the leftist tal-radio network
Air america is struggling. I don't often know what any leftist thinks but
I'm quite conversant with that the Left thinks.
>>Newsweek's article contained this sentence: "Even if people everywhere
>>unplugged their appliances, left their cars home, and shuttered their
>>factories today, enough fossil fuel emissions are already in the
>>atmosphere
>>to heat up the planet and additional 1 degree fahrenheit this century,
>>experts say." What experts? How did they arrive at this conclusion? Who
>>funded their work? What are the political leanings of these experts as
>>well
>>as those funding this work?
>
> Well, had you watched last night's BBC programme, you will have seen
> Attenborough spend a lot of time interviewing the head of the UK
> Meteorological Office - the government funded weather prediction
> service for the UK.
>
> They have been predicting weather for decades, and like the US
> equivalent have some of the most powerful computing technology around.
>
> They have been using weather models established over those decades to
> attempt to predict the future effects of current temperature changes
> and concluded that average global temperatures will rise between 2 and
> 6 degrees before the end of the century.
The problem with such computer models is that no computer model really
captures the complexities of climate. They're all educated guesses at best.
Did Attenborough go into accuracy issues with current computer modelling?
Sounds like he presented them as rock-solid evidence.
The best models may conclude that a rise in temperatre is all but assurred
and they may be right. But they may not be.
> Which doesn't sound a lot, but the effect, at a minimum, of that will
> mean no ice left in Greenland.
Currently, I am told, Greenland is losing ice about the edges and adding it
in the middle.
> And the net effect of *that* will mean that average sea levels
> globally will be some seven metres higher than they currently are.
>
> And that's the minimum. In 90 years.
Maybe. See above.
> Now last time I looked, the UK Metrological Office was not high on the
> list of radical left-wing organisations. It was a staid, conservative,
> government-run organisation that is careful about its work. It has all
> the credibility it needs in these matters.
>
> But opponents of doing anything will not see it that way, of course.
One needs to examine the Metrological Office in more detail. You assme it's
non-political, but you made assumptions about the BBC as well.
>>$20 paid via Paypal says that "Inconvienent Truth" will focus on the
>>negative consquences of Global Warming (powerful hurricanes, ecosystems
>>under stress, rising sea levels, etc.) and also concentrate on the
>>pollution/CO2 output of human civilization. Gore will not undertake any
>>detailed discussion of what parts of global warming is due to humans and
>>what is due to nonhuman causes. The film will set a deadline for strong
>>human correcting action and that deadline will be at or before 2020.
>>
>>Any takers?
>
> I think he's being conservative. It's going to have to be earlier than
> that. But by the sounds of it (and I haven't seen it yet) he's being
> realistic.
Perhaps, but if his content is that predictable...
>>> That's okay. Those of us who are willing to fight on behalf of
>>> everyone - whether you want it or not - will shelter you from the
>>> effects of such inaction if we possibly can, and if we can't at least
>>> we died trying.
>>
>>Go ahead and be a good soldier. Pat yourself on the back for free
>>thinking
>>while you repeat what you're told verbatim and without question.
>>
>>I will continue to collect unbiased information as I find it.
>
> Doesn't sound like you're off to a good start, John.
Sources are few and far between, that's for sure. Everybody wants to tell
me what to think, not give me the info to make a choice.
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to
fit their views
....which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts
that
needs altering."
-The Doctor
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|