SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Jun 22, 2006 18:59:21 GMT -5
Not saying I'm fully on board with all the global warming stuff, but I certainly don't dismiss it. I do think it's interesting to see the battle of the 'scientific' politicians vs. the 'religious' ones though. apnews.excite.com/article/20060622/D8IDI5BO0.htmlTalk amongst yourselves.
|
|
BenMech
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
The One You Warned Me Of
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by BenMech on Jun 23, 2006 6:57:30 GMT -5
The "religious" ones are flat out wrong. there IS no debate.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Jun 23, 2006 7:21:02 GMT -5
|
|
kerrick
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 430
|
Post by kerrick on Jun 23, 2006 14:24:10 GMT -5
Fox, that was very interesting. I've never heard of environmentalism as a "religion" before, but I totally agree. The "religious" ones are flat out wrong. there IS no debate. I went to a private Christian school (extremely conservative) in junior high, and we learned all about global warming. It was taught as fact, there was no debate. I know there's a bunch of Christian fanatics out there claiming there's no global warming, and I frankly don't know why they think so, but I'm pretty sure they're only a small percentage of "religious" people. They're just the really outspoken ones. -Kerrick
|
|
BenMech
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
The One You Warned Me Of
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by BenMech on Jun 24, 2006 21:18:02 GMT -5
What a smug, useless reply, Steve. Michael Crichton earned his skepticism over the years, even though he's just about a corporate shill these days. I still don't know YOUR opinion.
|
|
Shark Black
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
AKA Raiderblack
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by Shark Black on Jun 25, 2006 0:40:55 GMT -5
Just that First Paragraph is so incredibly true it's not funny....
"I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance."
People take on so much bullshit (not saying Global Warming is bullshit) as gospel it's scary. We are bombarded by so much propaganda, that the real truth is nearly impossible to discern for even the brightest of minds let alone a Brittany Spears Fan.
I found that speech very interesting and one of the closest things to the way I feel about people and their beliefs... Very interesting indeed. But it's just propaganda right? LOL
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Jun 25, 2006 13:24:11 GMT -5
What's interesting though Brett, is that while there's plenty of propaganda and misinformation that's obviously bullshit(even for a Britney fan... )...there's so much unknown out there that none of us will ever be able to decipher reality from fantasy completely. So yes, his statement is very true...it's a monumental challenge. But you can't always disregard everything and everybody because there is so much crap out there. I'm one of the most skeptical people around, but still have beliefs that I've had to reaffirm constantly throughout my life. Another interesting thing to me is, the differences between the 'religious' politicians/lawmakers and the 'scientific' ones really shouldn't be so far apart when it comes to the environment. Of course the scientific ones that don't believe humans are having much effect on the planet(the ones who totally dismiss global warming for instance), would have a different view...but the ones who believe we are destroying the planet and face these monster problems are really more in line with the religious people than they think. For instance, why would GW not believe in global warming, as well as a slew of other man-made environmental problems? Anyone who has a knowledge of the bible and believes it should easily be able to agree with the scientists on that side of the issue. It's very direct from almost any religious standpoint(including environmentalism) that man in an imperfect state would bring the planet to ruin, of course everyone has their opinion of how it can be fixed. That's where the big difference is. EDIT: Of course I forgot to mention the huge hypocritical line between politicians and supposed God fearing religous people. When they mix, their beliefs become very blurred...
|
|
Virtual Scott
Monument http://www.fateswa
At Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to do Other Stuff Good Too
Posts: 291
|
Post by Virtual Scott on Jun 26, 2006 7:54:17 GMT -5
Taking an author like Crichton's opinion (which is, of course, at odd's with the vast majority of scientists, and scientific consensus) as legitimate fact, well, I minus well use Paris Hilton as my model (damn puns!) for progressive music. C'mon, a science fiction writer? The science is there, and has been there, for quite sometime. The naysayers are just buying into the right wing neo-industrial model of economics without science. I don't know if I would consider environmentalists a group of religious fanatics any more than those who follow free-market economics as voodoo priests. It's just silly.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Jun 26, 2006 9:02:43 GMT -5
Ok I'll agree: there is no debate.
There's not enough information available.
Anyone debating or pushing the issue one way or the other is an idiot.
Academics need to publish to what politicians and universities who grant tenure want to hear, the far more interesting articles are by those who aren't out to impress anyone.
I've read some reviews of Chrictons stuff from 'pro-environment' people. They can't find fault with it.
That article was interesting at the beginning and I agree with it, he's glancing through stuff at the end, but he has stuff cited for it elsewhere.
|
|
Shark Black
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
AKA Raiderblack
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by Shark Black on Jun 26, 2006 10:46:32 GMT -5
Taking an author like Crichton's opinion (which is, of course, at odd's with the vast majority of scientists, and scientific consensus) as legitimate fact, well, I minus well use Paris Hilton as my model (damn puns!) for progressive music. C'mon, a science fiction writer? The science is there, and has been there, for quite sometime. The naysayers are just buying into the right wing neo-industrial model of economics without science. I don't know if I would consider environmentalists a group of religious fanatics any more than those who follow free-market economics as voodoo priests. It's just silly. Dude He didn't deny the existence of global warming, did he?. And the dude is a graduate of the Harvard Medical School not just some goof.... Plus you don't like it because he talkin' about you! Hehe!!! #lookout#
|
|
Virtual Scott
Monument http://www.fateswa
At Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to do Other Stuff Good Too
Posts: 291
|
Post by Virtual Scott on Jun 27, 2006 10:24:15 GMT -5
C'mon guys. Give me a break. Does the general consensus of the VAST majority of scientists not mean anything? And these scientists are a cross section of a variety of scientific disciplines. I'd sooner believe a scientist or academics over a fiction author and politicians who's corporate special interests speak far more than their "legitimate belief in using valid science as a rule". It's laughable.
I would like it better if Crichton DIDN'T know me. If anything, I think he's a victim of his own idealogical accusations. But after that dissertation on Dinosaur DNA replication called Jurassic Park, he sure nailed the exact science of fact. :-) Not sure, but it seems the folks most in danger of delusional grasp of reality have the be the politicians in the Bush adminstration. I mean, destroying, suppressing and manipulating scientific evidence and papers and research when it doesn't fit your agenda doesn't speak much for their credibility or policy changes. Not to mention is borderline illegal.
I think Carl Sagan would probably kick Crictons ass in a Texas Lights Out Taped Fist Death Match if he were alive. Luckilly a guy like Ross Gelspan can do it for him.
|
|
Shark Black
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
AKA Raiderblack
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by Shark Black on Jun 27, 2006 23:06:45 GMT -5
C'mon guys. Give me a break. Does the general consensus of the VAST majority of scientists not mean anything? I'm not denying global warming.... I think it's probably true.... But the use of fossil fuels won't abate until the price goes up, or we come up with new technology that can compete. Oh which btw this country is spending more money to research today than ever before... He has always stated that the possibility of that actually being possible is infinitesimal. What are you refering too. I thought this was a Hilary Clinton, Sandy Berger and Dan Rather kind of behavior... HAHA!! #nunchuck# #duel# #nunchuck# #cheers# Cheers Buddy!
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Jun 28, 2006 9:10:42 GMT -5
C'mon guys. Give me a break. Does the general consensus of the VAST majority of scientists not mean anything? And these scientists are a cross section of a variety of scientific disciplines. I'd sooner believe a scientist or academics over a fiction author and politicians who's corporate special interests speak far more than their "legitimate belief in using valid science as a rule". It's laughable. The irony in this paragraph is overwhelming. At one time these were also general consenuses: The earth was the center of the universe The earth was flat Gravity didn't exist. And my personal favorite: Eugenics! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EugenicsGo go moral relativism.
|
|
Virtual Scott
Monument http://www.fateswa
At Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to do Other Stuff Good Too
Posts: 291
|
Post by Virtual Scott on Jun 28, 2006 11:37:32 GMT -5
This country had the potential and wherewithal, at one point back in the 70's, to advance research into alternative energy sources, and over the last 3 decades, not much money or time and effort has been spent or funded by the government on such. It's a good example of 'too little too late' to say, wow, look, Bush is tossing in phrases like 'addicted to oil' and 'funding for clean energy research'.
Uh, I think science has progressed enough that the Global Warming phenomena is never going to be confused with the Flat Earth, Earth as the Center of the Universe or Gravity Fiction theories. So to even correlate those, is bunk. As for Eugenics, well... wishful thinking, eh? :-)
To associate the implications of Global Warming and climate change as moral relativism smacks of denial.
The debate, for some, apparently has shifted to the effect of man-made energy sources and fossil fuel usage on the climate, but likewise, the majority of scientists have indicated that indeed, burning fossil fuels in modern combustion engine as well as in energy production is unquestionably a major effect of advanced global warming.
I can't really see how this arguable at this point. Unless you are the Bush administration, who have too many votes and too much money to lose, not to mention positions at the top of the heirarchy of government, for acknowledging the science is sound, unless you do your best to suppress it, and silence the message and the messenger. (see NASA and EPA reports for plenty of examples of information suppression and blackouts.)
Chicken Little is running the government from the trough of Halliburton. I'll take science fact for 100, Alex! :-)
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Jun 29, 2006 8:11:19 GMT -5
This country had the potential and wherewithal, at one point back in the 70's, to advance research into alternative energy sources, and over the last 3 decades, not much money or time and effort has been spent or funded by the government on such. It's a good example of 'too little too late' to say, wow, look, Bush is tossing in phrases like 'addicted to oil' and 'funding for clean energy research'. I'm going to say this to be perfectly clear so you don't misunderstand me: Its not the governments fucking job to research energy. Got it? Good. Don't like it? Its a free country go get these big liberal, friends of the earth yahoos to take their money away from creating republican smear campaigns and investing it into researching said alternative energies, go start a company higher some engineers and sell your solar car on the free market, make a ton of money, save the earth, and most importantly: Shut the fuck up. Don't feel too singled out, I'll make a similiar write up for anyone who wants the government to do anything. The world needs more doers and less whiners. Scott, you're the one that equated it to moral relativism, not me. "Its popular, so it must be true". Not quite the same, but close enough. This was the article I was originally looking for: crichton-official.com/fear/
|
|