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."
The "Big Oil" companies depend on science to do business. Without geologists, they could never find the pockets of oil and gas. Without engineers to design the drills, and tell them when a hole will or will not collapse, they could never get to the oil and gas. Without engineers, there would be no pumps, no pipelines, and no refineries.
How in the hell can anyone be stupid enough to think that there is a political motive behind "Big Oil" giving to science education? I don't think Welsely Mouch from Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged would be that moronic.
Andy Out!
Or just about the left's inability to cope with itself.
... nuclear power. Obviously.
Carbon exhaust is causing climate change. Okay.
1) there is no scientific consensus on this
2) I seriously doubt that consensus will be forthcoming withing less than 10 or 20 years
That's real inconvenient, for a truth.
Also the only viable solution to fossil power is
That's also real inconvenient.
The only "renewable" energy source, hydroelectric, has cost at least 6000% more human lives than nuclear power ever did.
Another inconvenient truth.
Truth :
1) we need energy. Lots of it.
2) 2 economically viable options for energy : a) fossil b) nuclear
This is real inconvenient for left-wing environmentalist nuts (all of them live in cities, obviously, which are the least environmental of surroundings imaginable, but hey, let's just disregard that).
So they cry. They cry for attention. They present problems, but no solutions. So they cry some more.
Truth :
No amount of politics will solve the energy crisis. Yet all they do is politics.
So they cry for attention.
Energy Company Propaganda reminds me of that commerical with the little girl wanting to tell us more about clean coal technology. I've never wanted to punch a girl in my life before I watched that commerical. We have green alternatives to fosil fuels but the truth is were all selfish, lazy, bastards who want everything cheap and easy. And while we probably won't pay the price, our great grandchildren will curse our names for ruining their world for them.
they are still trying to make more money than anyone of us normal folk can imagine
Yeah, because we know that there are few things more evil than "making money". Oh wait, YOU make more money than "normal folk" in third world countries can imagine. I guess you must be evil.
and to do that it takes some immoral actions.
No, it does not. The vast majority of eeeeeevil big business does not engage in immoral actions (including oil companies) -- unless you think making money is immoral, which you apparently do.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Natural variability allowed excessive dust from Africa and the el niño effect to kill the ability of hurricanes to grow this year. Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming. What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.
Here is the link btw:
Accuweather
Natural variability allowed excessive dust from Africa and the el niño effect to kill the ability of hurricanes to grow this year. Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming.
If they could not predict the dust and el niño effects over a period of less than a year, why should I respect their predictions 10 years out?
What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.
Oh was it? You mean that global warming snuck up on us all last year? Why wasn't 2004 worse than 2003 which was worse than 2002 and so on? So I guess next year, if we don't have el niño and African dust, is it going to be another bumper year for hurricanes, increasing every year until we have hurricanes in Idaho? If we are talking about "Global Warming" here, why was 2005 an average year for hurricane's globally? (yes, it was a bad year in N. America, but average world-wide).
You telling me you know what caused last year's hurricane season is about as ridiculous as some preacher saying that it was caused because God was mad at the US policy toward homosexuals.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Global warming does exist... on Mars
So let me see if I understand your logic.
Claim: A causes B.
Observation: B is occuring in the absence of A.
Conclusion: A does not cause B.
How does the conclusion relate to the observation? As near as I can tell they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Here's a concrete example, for the logically-impaired:
Drunk driving causes car crashes.
Car crashes occur when no one is drunk driving.
Ergo, drunk driving does not cause car crashes.
Does this mean that MADD is "morally and intellectually bankrupt"?
Your post is a fine example of why politics are involved in this aspect of science: because the world is full of logically impaired people who are going to believe whatever they want, regardless of facts. There is no doubt that these people are rife within the environmental movement: there is a well known division between scientific environmentalists and political environmentalists, and most scientific environmentalists consider the political environmentalists to be a major impediment to sane environmental policy.
And regardless of what is happening on Mars, there is no doubt whatsoever that anthropogenic CO2 and other anthropogentic greenhouse gasses have increased the insolation at the top of the troposphere by just under 2 W/m**2 over the past century or so. Nothing that happens on Mars can change that fact, and nothing you want to believe will make it true that the Earth's climate will not respond somehow to that increase. The scientific debate is over what will happen and how big the effects will be. For example, as the heat content of the atmosphere increases the temperature may drop in some areas, for obvious reasons. As someone with a strong opinion on this issue you will of course be familiar with why that could be so.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it