Submitted by Daryl L Taylor (not verified) on February 13, 2007 - 21:43.
Diane, I've been a follower of GLEF and Edutopia for years. This is the first time you have given me pause. As a physics guy who is trained to look at the 'big picture', I must object to your blanket generic statements that are being bandied about like 'truths'.
1st, Gore's movie is as much a documentary as Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 911'! It's shockudrama that uses innuendo, poor science, and sensationalism to get its political agenda across. Please, don't think I'm making a political statement here. Global warming is a SCIENCE topic and it should be treated as such. Gore doesn't even understand it's meaning.
2nd, to use statements like "...The world's preeminent scientists and scientific societies are in agreement..." is simply to ignore the scientific community as a whole. You have obviously bought into the media hype surrounding this topic. There is no overwhelming consensus. There is no agreement as to the model's projections. There isn't even agreement that this is an unnatural event.
Please, take your own advice; "we all have a moral obligation to learn the facts and then speak from knowledge, not from ignorance, fear, or unanswerable beliefs..."
Diane, I've been a follower
Submitted by Daryl L Taylor (not verified) on February 13, 2007 - 21:43.
Diane, I've been a follower of GLEF and Edutopia for years. This is the first time you have given me pause. As a physics guy who is trained to look at the 'big picture', I must object to your blanket generic statements that are being bandied about like 'truths'.
1st, Gore's movie is as much a documentary as Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 911'! It's shockudrama that uses innuendo, poor science, and sensationalism to get its political agenda across. Please, don't think I'm making a political statement here. Global warming is a SCIENCE topic and it should be treated as such. Gore doesn't even understand it's meaning.
2nd, to use statements like "...The world's preeminent scientists and scientific societies are in agreement..." is simply to ignore the scientific community as a whole. You have obviously bought into the media hype surrounding this topic. There is no overwhelming consensus. There is no agreement as to the model's projections. There isn't even agreement that this is an unnatural event.
Please, take your own advice; "we all have a moral obligation to learn the facts and then speak from knowledge, not from ignorance, fear, or unanswerable beliefs..."