British court case punches holes in Al Gore's fantasy climate movie

[Michael Tee]

<<I will point out this: "only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it."

<<Not exactly a consensus view if only about 1.4% endorse it explicitly is it?

<<The point being (in this case) - Gore claimed that every article agreed with him, while the truth is that several disagree with him and only a small percentage explicitly agree with him.>>

More nitpicking combined with a highly selective imprecision.  Brilliant technique, Ami.  Starting with the lawyerly "explicitly endorsed."  Whatever the hell THAT means, and leaving aside how many "inexplicitly endorsed."  "Several" actually opposed the consensus view.  Precise as you were on the "13" who "explicitly endorsed" and the "913" who "remained," you suddenly run out of precision on the number who "actually opposed."  Smart.  Convenient.

Your whole post is built on that technique.  I don't have the time to go through it line-by-line, I've shown the way and anyone who wants to further beat this dead horse can amuse himself or herself by so doing.  Bottom line, despite all your "severals" and "explicits," is that the consensus is what it is and your anti-manmade-global-warming "scientists" are just a motley collection of genuine mavericks and total sell-outs.  The odds of their being correct and everyone else being wrong are comparable to the odds on me being elected President of the United States of America.  Real-life decisions have to be made on the basis of the prevailing best scientific opinion available, not on the one-in-a-million possibility that a bunch of nuts just might be right after all.

[Amianthus]

All I gotta say, it only takes one person to disagree with the "consensus" opinion to make Gore a liar.

And that was only on one point. There were a number of other lies in Gore's movie.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Global warming or not, I don't doubt that the human race will survive. But that is not the point.

Gore's point is that unless we do something, Global warming will be more destructive and changes must take place now because the process does not have brakes, and action must be taken NOW.

It is fine to say that there is no reason to be alarmist, but that is wrong. Human beings do not move unless they are seriously alarmed. It took major panic to get DDT, tetraethyl of lead and asbestos out of the environment, and Gore's film was exactly what was needed.

Intelligent design has no chance of winning any Nobel Prize. No one pays any attention to the Intelligent design clowns outside the US, nor should they.

[Michael Tee]

<<All I gotta say, it only takes one person to disagree with the "consensus" opinion to make Gore a liar.

<<And that was only on one point. There were a number of other lies in Gore's movie.>>

Yeah.  A number.  WHAT number? 

I gotta laugh at the childish response, Ami.  If there were a thousand truths and three lies in the movie; and if each of the truths were ten thousand times more important to the future of humanity than all of the lies; then Ami would zero in on the three petty lies and completely ignore every single truth in the film.  Which is just hilarious.  Fortunately, the rest of the film's audience doesn't seem to be that dumb.  The difference between you and they would be that they have something you don't and never will:  a sense of proportion.

[Amianthus]

Yeah.  A number.  WHAT number? 

The judge found, what, 13? Maybe more?

Besides, the basis of the movie is that "scientists have reached a consensus" that humans are the main cause of global warming - and virtually all scientists that study global change themselves say that statement is not true.

[Universe Prince]

Gore's point is that unless we do something, Global warming will be more destructive and changes must take place now because the process does not have brakes, and action must be taken NOW.

The best science I can find on this subject suggests the planet is not headed for cataclysmic change, and whatever we might to do slow the process will have a minuscule effect at best. So there is no reason whatever to be alarmist about it.

It is fine to say that there is no reason to be alarmist, but that is wrong. Human beings do not move unless they are seriously alarmed. It took major panic to get DDT, tetraethyl of lead and asbestos out of the environment, and Gore's film was exactly what was needed.

Um, no. We need to make decision based on a rational assessment of the fact, not lies and fearmongering. So no, Gore's film is not what was needed. And I shouldn't have to point out that the alarmist warnings about D.D.T. resulted in a ban so complete that millions of people die every year from malaria that could be prevented by use of D.D.T. Not exactly the sort of footsteps I want to follow.

[Michael Tee]

<<Besides, the basis of the movie is that "scientists have reached a consensus" that humans are the main cause of global warming - and virtually all scientists that study global change themselves say that statement is not true.>>

I don't really follow the science of it all that closely, but it sure sounds like someone is playing word games here.  Whether the cause is mankind or not, it should be pretty obvious that if it's a problem, then mankind should bestir itself and find the solution.  How smart do you have to be to know that dumping billions of tons of toxins and particulate matter into the environment, which may or may not cause global warming but probably does, has got to stop now.  The focus on global warming is just a part of it.  Toxic pollution is the other part.

I'm also not impressed with the waffling around "reached a consensus" and the "virtually all" that say it's not true.  Once they fall short of unanimity, a "consensus" is, semantically, up for grabs.  What if it's a solid majority but not a consensus?  What if someone denies consensus when there's only one hold-out in a thousand?  If there's a reasonably broad majority of informed scientific opinion backing the idea, then as far as I'm concerned, the idea is well enough established for action to be taken on it.  (BTW, as I'm sure you already know, "informed" scientific opinion means opinion that agrees with me.)

[Amianthus]

(BTW, as I'm sure you already know, "informed" scientific opinion means opinion that agrees with me.)

Yes, I know. If there are 5 scientists that agree with you, and 5,000 that don't, then only those 5 are "informed."

I figured that out quite some time ago. It's the basis of all your arguments.

[Michael Tee]

Usually it's the other way around, but you have the general idea.

[Amianthus]

Usually it's the other way around, but you have the general idea.

When it comes to your claims regarding science, it's usually the way I described it.