Slashdot Mirror
Politics and 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Frogbeater writes "The producer of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is accusing the National Science Teachers Association of being in the pocket of Big Oil because she can't get preferential treatment for her film. The entire situation is turning into a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' yelling match. Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical? Has it ever been?" The Washington Post makes things out to be less than above board: "In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school ... NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called 'Running on Oil' and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called 'You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel,' a shameless pitch for oil dependence."
I give you props for persistence, but you're wrong about both of these points. If you are holding out for universal acceptance, that ain't gonna happen on any topic. Expert consensus is not universal acceptance, it is acceptance by the vast majority of experts in a field. In this case, the consensus has been reached and it is that human fossil fuel use has profoundly affected the environment. And, as recent studies show, the problem of carbon dioxide pollution is accelerating (while interestingly methane levels have been contained, at least temporarily).
It always astonishes me to hear conservatives complain about the restrictions of the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc.- given that those laws and associated agencies are part of the proud heritage of the Republican Party! It also astonishes me to hear the helplessness and despair of the conservatives, that "nothing can be done to stop it so we shouldn't even try." Wah wah wah! It's too bad that the conservatives fell for Ronald Reagan's soundbite that "government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem." That's an attitude that guarantees incompetence in government and which has given us the past six years of vast governmental stupidity.
is it even possible that *slashdot* can remain apolitical? This site has turned in to one big bash on the right, and how is that news for nerds?
I think it is fair to say, however, that a significant number of influential christians are very anti-science
It is also the case that a significant number of influencial "environmentalists" are also very anti-science. Anyone familiar with the history of Greenpeace, for example, will be aware that they started out as a scientific organization and when the science did not justify the political program of some of the founders they becamse essentially a political organization. Research results from Greenpeace always supports the political program of the organization, and there is no way that would happen if they were a scientific organization with a science-driven political agenda. Instead, they are that most obscene entity: a politics-driven pseudo-science organization, just like the lying bastards who claim that "Intelligent Design" is in any way scientific.
Thankfully, science-driven environmentalism seems to be on the rise today, in part because fission power is such a compelling option in the face of global warming. Anyone who calls themself and environmentalist (I do) and opposes fission power (I'm on the fence, as I think there are renewable and conservation options that may be both more cost-efficient and safer) has a lot of hard questions to answer.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
He was quite clear, the environmental movement is more intolerant than most religions. If you look it it has become a religion to some folk. If you disagree your branded a heretic and should be run out of whatever job you do.
...
Really, whats different than what some people claim religious groups do wrong that isn't being done by many factions in the environmental movement?
Sorry but not every scientist agrees with the claim regardless of who is funding them. That is a simply a standard phrase used by any group to dismiss anyone who opposes them. It is the cliche method... in other words if you use it you are indicating you do not care to debate as you have already decided.
I know there is little debate that anthropogenic global warming occurs, the real debate which you gloss over is that no one agrees on just how much is being contributed by man. Yet why should there be any debate when the only people you see are those pushing that agenda? With comments and believes like you "everyone who doesn't agree is a corporate shill" type crap whats the point of debating?
Sorry, you attempted to portray his post in the wrong by leading off with an argument that had NO BEARING on his post and then you throw out the time tried bogus claims "of everyone"
no dice.
If your argument has merit them argue the point, attacking those who offer the opposing opinion and not the opinion itself shows you have no desire to debate the issue as your hard locked mentally in your belief.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.