Judge rules Gore climate film requires guidance notes

[Yellowdogtexan]

I am surprised that there was even an issue about showing this film. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7025119.stmEx-US vice president Al Gore's climate change documentary can be shown in England's secondary schools, a High Court judge has said.
An Inconvenient Truth promotes "partisan political views" but it is not unlawful to show to students, Mr Justice Burton said.

He made the comments after a hearing in which Kent parent Stewart Dimmock asked for the film to be banned.

The judge said teachers must follow updated guidance when showing the film.

The guidance, updated this week by the government at the urging of Mr Justice Burton, is designed to prevent the film being wrongly "promoted" to children.

Mr Dimmock, from Dover, argued the film was unfit for schools because it was politically partisan and contains serious scientific inaccuracies, as well as "sentimental mush".

Although the judge is to give his judgement next week after a four-day case, he indicated what his ruling would be for the benefit of schools.

four-day Guidance

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan said: "The judge's decision is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance which will be available online tomorrow [3 October].

"Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge facing the world today. Schools have a special role to play in helping pupils understand its causes and in exploring if and how we should respond."

He said the updated guidance made "it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] position on a number of scientific points raised in the film".

[AYFR]

:roll Just using the classroom as a political tool.

[Trueblue]

Since this is what most scientists believe, and there is a mountain of evidence to support it, it would not be right to deprive kids of learning about global warming.

[AYFR]

:roll

[Trueblue]

:roll

I'm sick of people politicizing science. :mad

[AYFR]

That is just what Gore is doing.

I believe in science, go no problem with it what so ever, but the debate of GW and Evolution isn't over with and there are no hard facts to prove either.

[Trueblue]

That is just what Gore is doing.

I believe in science, go no problem with it what so ever, but the debate of GW and Evolution isn't over with and there are no hard facts to prove either.

No, Gore is doing the opposite.

There are hard facts to prove both, you simply reject the hard facts.

The best way to describe what you are doing is in an article in Outside magazine. You are using defense lawyer rationale as if it is scientific fact. Defense lawyers strive to create a shadow of a doubt to convince juries. But we are not in a courtroom, we are in the natural world where the data overwhelming shows that the world is warming as a result of human activity. This is known to a level of virtual certainty.

There is no logical reason to deny students information that is known to a virtual certainty. There are only political reasons.

[AYFR]

Never said there was no GW I said we did not create it and there is no fact that we have.

Also evolution has not been proven beyond, there are just as many hard fact proving it wrong as proving right.

I am talking marco evolution, I believe in micro evolution (adaption) I do not believe that we came from monkeys.

[Trueblue]

Never said there was no GW I said we did not create it and there is no fact that we have.

Also evolution has not been proven beyond, there are just as many hard fact proving it wrong as proving right.

I am talking marco evolution, I believe in micro evolution (adaption) I do not believe that we came from monkeys.

There is fact that we have created global warming. It is known to a virtual certainty. You are doing what another poster here has done, claimed that we have to prove it 110%. That is ridiculous. We have to go with our best information, and virtual certainty is about as good as it gets for humans. By the time we get to 110%, it will be too late to make some changes that are within our grasp now.

Evolution has been proven, too. The idea that we came from monkeys is not anybody's theory. :roll

[AYFR]

Like I said I believe in micro evolution (I believe that God gave us the ability to adapt and change)
What evolution are you talking about?

As for GW still not buying it. Way to many unanswered questions.

[Trueblue]

Like I said I believe in micro evolution (I believe that God gave us the ability to adapt and change)
What evolution are you talking about?

As for GW still not buying it. Way to many unanswered questions.

There are not many unanswered questions. You are simply listening to the contrarians who have taken minor issues and tried to pretend that they are reasonable doubts. That humans are causing gw is known to a virtual certainty. The oil companies and the Bush administration even admit it now.

I mean Darwin's theory of evolution. It says that humans and the other great apes have a common ancestor, not that we "came from" apes.

[bluedog]

There is fact that we have created global warming. It is known to a virtual certainty. You are doing what another poster here has done, claimed that we have to prove it 110%. That is ridiculous. We have to go with our best information, and virtual certainty is about as good as it gets for humans. By the time we get to 110%, it will be too late to make some changes that are within our grasp now.

Evolution has been proven, too. The idea that we came from monkeys is not anybody's theory. :roll

I will take exception to your "opinion" that evolution has been "PROVEN".....far from the truth that you espouse....its just a fairy tale of "dogmatic" belief, more so than any faith based idea of creation.

I know that this slightly off topic...but, are we supposed to believe that once upon a time billions and billions of years ago, everything that ever has been came from a little ball called the "cosmic egg". And at that time it was heated to trillions of degrees. It was so hot that even no elements could exist. No one knows where it come from, or how long it just sat around. And for some strange reason it "exploded" and began to expand..and nobody knows why?

In that explosion only two things were created, hydrogen and helium. There was no carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, nickel, iron or uranium. These gases expanded equally and evenly throughout space in all directions. The "universe" was mainly hydrogen. Somehow form these molecules racing out evenly at enormous speed the stars created themselves. Then the galaxies created themselves. Our solar system created itself. Life evolved on this planet. And that "speck" of microorganistic life evolved all the way up and to include people. No God/Creator is included in explaining this universe according to this "proven fact"...because "everything can be "explained"...well lets see just how much is "explained" and "proven"...shall we?

We have 30 trillion cells in our bodies of more than 200 different kinds. Included in that number is 12 billion brain cells. Since each brain cell is connected to 10,000 other brain cells we have about 120 trillion connections in the human brain alone. Regardless of our imperfections, our brains can interpret and process the amount of information from our eyes in a 10th of a second....Where as a "Cray Supercomputer" would take about 100 years to process the same amount of information.

According to this "evolution" creation story we have gone from hydrogen gas to people. We may thus conclude that the definition of hydrogen gas is that of an odorless, tasteless, and invisible gas that if given enough time will become "human"......a "proven" fact?

Living cells are composed of many interdependent parts. Not one molecule in existence can replicate itself apart fro a living cell. Then how did the first living cell come into existence....a "proven fact"? As the story goes there was a massive buildup of organic molecules...that were never proven to exist in the first place. No one know how this happened.

If the early atmosphere had free oxygen existing as such the strength of the O2 would have destroyed the organic molecules. On the other hand if the early atmosphere had no free O2, then there would have been no "ozone" layer and the radiation would have killed the organic molecules. But as long as our "dogmatic" faith in this creation story is strong enough this "unsurpassable" difficulty should not matter.

Scientists who believe in evolution say the rocks that "allegedly" predate life are totally absent of any of the massive amounts of organic products necessary for life to begin. Some of that material would have certainly been trapped in these rocks if in fact the organic products ever existed....But "dogmatic" belief has also "proven" this fact....I suppose.

Since no cell could exist without proteins which are assembled from amino acids, and since no molecule apart form a living cell can replicate itself, we should calculate the "probability" that one such protein could create "itself" by random chance. Ribonuclease is a digestive enzyme and is also one of the smallest proteins with only 124 amino acid links....so let's give "life" a chance and start with the smallest example of such. The probability of this enzyme coming into existence by the happenstance of random chance is "one" in a number that starts with a "2" and is followed by 161 zeros. If one trillion such amino acid chains were followed by 161 zeros; zillions x zillions the alleged age of the universe itself would not be enough "random" time to produce the first life....let alone all of us. Yet I guess "dogma" proves this also...right?

Ok, we have gotten this far...lets continue with the scientific method of "facts". If one such protein formed by chance, we still need at least 2000 others to have "one" working cell. All these proteins would have to formed at the same time and at the same place and inside the safe haven of an immensely complicated membrane. No one know how this could happen...but "dogma" says that it is a fact of theory.

Evolutionary scientists tell us that they have indeed found microscopic life fossils embedded in rocks predating all other forms of macro life. Then, all of a sudden, nearly every major group of life organisms appeared. This is the famed "Cambrain" explosion. Where did these animals come from? Our evolution story says that they "evolved" from animals that existed before them. But the problem is....there are no "fossils" predating from which they could have evolved....If microlife left evidence in the rocks should not animals also have left something? If not, why not....more "dogmatic" proof?

Evolution scientists tell us 100 million years transpired between invetebrates of the "Cambrain" time and the arrival of marine life..IE fish. A 100 million year window and no one has the slightest idea of what invertebrate was ancestral to marine life. Suddenly they appeared in the fossil record with a trace of what they could have "evolved" from. But if "dogmatic" faith is strong enough I guess all this indeed is factual.

There are "numerous" such unbridgeable gaps the rest of the way through the fossil record from "amoeba" to "man"....but one should never mind for it takes more faith to believe in this than it does to believe in creation of some design rather than random happenstance. So, I might just disagree with your so called facts that are supposed to "prove" evolution. BD

[cassandra]

:(

[Yellowdogtexan]

It is interesting to note that many of the same people who are unable to understand or comprehend evolution also do not believe in global warming. I was amazed that a majority of republicans do not believe in evolution and that three candidates for the GOP nomination for president were willing to admit in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. Many of these same republicans who are not able to understand or graspe evolution also do not believe the science that supports global warming. It is sad that a fear or lack of understanding of science is evidently a part of the gop.

[patriotsblade]

Reverend have you seen the film, because if you have, (whether you believe the science or not) you couldn't honestly say that it's partisan.

[patriotsblade]

It is interesting to note that many of the same people who are unable to understand or comprehend evolution also do not believe in global warming. I was amazed that a majority of republicans do not believe in evolution and that three candidates for the GOP nomination for president were willing to admit in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. Many of these same republicans who are not able to understand or graspe evolution also do not believe the science that supports global warming. It is sad that a fear or lack of understanding of science is evidently a part of the gop.

I heard Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee refused to go deep-sea fishing because they were afraid of sailing off then end of the world.

[cassandra]

It is interesting to note that many of the same people who are unable to understand or comprehend evolution also do not believe in global warming. I was amazed that a majority of republicans do not believe in evolution and that three candidates for the GOP nomination for president were willing to admit in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. Many of these same republicans who are not able to understand or graspe evolution also do not believe the science that supports global warming. It is sad that a fear or lack of understanding of science is evidently a part of the gop.

Could be, but I think that is some sort of gross generalization much like if I were to say that all liberal democrats belive in this stuff because of their fears associated with chaos theories. Perhaps drugs that make them paranoid. :shrug Course those would be generalizations much like the ones you made YDT.

[Trueblue]

I heard Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee refused to go deep-sea fishing because they were afraid of sailing off then end of the world.

:) Love it.

There are questions about evolution. There are questions about global warming. There are also questions about the theory of gravity. I believe that there is more that we don't know about our own brains and the Earth's oceans than we do know. We are only human, there is much we don't understand.

However, that does not serve as an excuse to do nothing.

Even when there is a large and compelling body of evidence to convict someone of murder, it is the defense attorney's job to raise doubts about the guilt of his client.

Like Johnny Cochran in the OJ trial, he points out the biased cop, the missing evidence, the partial alibi.

Global warming skeptics are pointing out the unanswered questions, which is fine and good. What is not okay is to pretend that the massive evidence means nothing because there is some minor unanswered question.

I am personally thrilled because as I have said repeatedly, in many important ways, this debate is over. Action, however tardy and minimal, is being taken.

But I am sick of people turning science into politics. Our kids have the right to learn about evolution and global warming. Teach the gaps in the theory, but you can't dismiss the theory out of hand and deny our kids their education, and you can't expect the world to wait for the evidence to convince people who are determined to remain unconvinced for political or religious reasons.

Fundamentalist religion has become an exercise in believing the unbelievable. Religion is not about whether or not the Earth is exactly 5,000 years old. What kind of religion is that, that the most important facet of the religion is that people believe that the Earth is only 5,000 years old? Why bother to follow a God who puts that at the forefront of the faith, instead of reverence for God and God's creation and seeking justice?

[bluedog]

It is interesting to note that many of the same people who are unable to understand or comprehend evolution also do not believe in global warming. I was amazed that a majority of republicans do not believe in evolution and that three candidates for the GOP nomination for president were willing to admit in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. Many of these same republicans who are not able to understand or graspe evolution also do not believe the science that supports global warming. It is sad that a fear or lack of understanding of science is evidently a part of the gop.

Its amazing that when presented with things that they can not answer the social commiecrats always result to the tactic of deflection and personal attack and never really get around to answering any of the questions. As I said for someone to believe in the "dogmatic" fairy tale of evolution one must simply turn their back on the process of scientific method. BD

[Trueblue]

Its amazing that when presented with things that they can not answer the social commiecrats always result to the tactic of deflection and personal attack and never really get around to answering any of the questions. As I said for someone to believe in the "dogmatic" fairy tale of evolution one must simply turn their back on the process of scientific method. BD

Thank you, Mr. Cochran.

For you to pretend that you are representing science is to verify that you have fallen through the looking glass.

[bluedog]

Its amazing that when presented with things that they can not answer the social commiecrats always result to the tactic of deflection and personal attack and never really get around to answering any of the questions. As I said for someone to believe in the "dogmatic" fairy tale of evolution one must simply turn their back on the process of scientific method. BD

Here in fact is a list of people that just could not "comprehend" or "understand" the truth of evolution...there sure are some "ignorant" people listed here, as they actually believed the "biblical" account of creation.

Joesph Lister....antiseptic surgeon

Louis Pasteur.....bacteriology

Sir Isac Newton....dynamics, discoverer of the laws of gravity, and co-discoverer of the mathmatic process called CALCULUS

Johnathan Kepler...Celestial mechanics, physical astronomy

Robert Boyle....Chemistry

Georges Cuvier...Comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology

Charles Babbage....Computer Science

James Clark Maxwell......electrodynamics, statical thermodynamics

Michael Faraday.....Electromagnetic field theory

Ambrose Fleming.....Electronics

Lord William Kelvin........Energetic thermodynamics

Henri Fabre.....entomology

George Stokes....fluid mechanics

William Herschel......Galactic astronomy

George Mendel....Genetics

Louis Aggassiz.....Glacial geology, ichthyology

James Simpson...gynecology

Leonardo da Vinci.....Hydraulics

Blaise Pascal......hydrostatics

William Ramsay....isotopic chemistry

Matthew Maury.....Oceanography

John Woodward.....paleontology

Rudolph Virchow....thermodynamics

Sir Francis Bacon........Scientific methodology

Nicholas Steno....stratigraphy

Carlos Linnaeus...systematic biology

Humphrey Davy...thermo-kinetics

In fact John Grebe, director of basic and nuclear research for the Dow Chemical Co. offered a large "cash" reward to anyone who could produce just one "clear" proof of evolution....the "cash" remains unclaimed. Dr Grebe is the holder of more than 100 patents and developed styrofoam, synthetic rubber and Saran wrap. BD

[Trueblue]

Some of those people died before Darwin was born. They never had the option of believing the theory of evolution.

I "believe" the Biblical account to be an accurate description of the Who, not the How, of Creation.

Do you believe that both Genesis stories are literally true? How do you accomplish that?

[bluedog]

Some of those people died before Darwin was born. They never had the option of believing the theory of evolution.

I "believe" the Biblical account to be an accurate description of the Who, not the How, of Creation.

Do you believe that both Genesis stories are literally true? How do you accomplish that?

What I believe is that the "theory of evolution" is not a proven fact of scientific methodology as you have presented and as it is presented in our public school system to the "exclusion" of all other "theories"......this practice is commonly know as "indoctrination" not "education". And yes, I believe in the "biblical" definition of creation...as "intelligent design". BD

[Trueblue]

What I believe is that the "theory of evolution" is not a proven fact of scientific methodology as you have presented and as it is presented in our public school system to the "exclusion" of all other "theories"......this practice is commonly know as "indoctrination" not "education". And yes, I believe in the "biblical" definition of creation...as "intelligent design". BD

People often claim that evolution is "just" a theory. But that's a misunderstanding of the word theory. Evolution has been proven, and kids have a right to knowledge.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis. This common usage of theory leads to the common but misguided statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory."

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

You did not quite understand my question. What I'm asking you is do you believe that both the Genesis stories of creation are literally true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[bluedog]

People often claim that evolution is "just" a theory. But that's a misunderstanding of the word theory. Evolution has been proven, and kids have a right to knowledge.



You did not quite understand my question. What I'm asking you is do you believe that both the Genesis stories of creation are literally true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

It is you that do not the difference between facts of scientific method and Theory. For something to be a "scientific" fact it must have an "example" of repeatability. There is nothing in "Darwinism" that can be repeated due to the "fact" that not one "example" of the theory has been "proven" to be a scientific fact. There is no "fossil" evidence of "anything" ever having "evolved". The deflection of going off on some tangent of defining the concept of theory does not make "evolution" a fact.....in fact it is by scientific methodology not even a "valid" theory.....but merely a "hypothesis" as it "assumes" many "facts" not in evidence.....and is anything but "proven" as true. In fact I have yet to see you "answer" any of the questions presented as a retort to your "blatant" statement that claims that "Darwinism" is indeed a fact(Do you in fact think that people evolved from hydrogen gas?...Do you in fact think that life happened by randomness of chance, by springing forth form inert elements? How do you explain the 100 million year absence of macro life and the sudden appearance thereof with no fossil evidence to back your claims of evolution?)....it would be up to you to "prove" your platform, and "prove" to me that said "theory" is indeed fact....the "TRUTH".....it's position to defend, as you are the one that make the statement, I merely offered evidence to the contrary. If in fact you answer some the questions presented to you, I might consider going off on some "selected" tangent that you are offering to avoid having to deal with the facts in evidence. BD

[Trueblue]

It is you that do not the difference between facts of scientific method and Theory. For something to be a "scientific" fact it must have an "example" of repeatability. There is nothing in "Darwinism" that can be repeated due to the "fact" that not one "example" of the theory has been "proven" to be a scientific fact. There is no "fossil" evidence of "anything" ever having "evolved". The deflection of going off on some tangent of defining the concept of theory does not make "evolution" a fact.....in fact it is by scientific methodology not even a "valid" theory.....but merely a "hypothesis" as it "assumes" many "facts" not in evidence.....and is anything but "proven" as true. In fact I have yet to see you "answer" any of the questions presented as a retort to your "blatant" statement that claims that "Darwinism" is indeed a fact(Do you in fact think that people evolved from hydrogen gas?...Do you in fact think that life happened by randomness of chance, by springing forth form inert elements? How do you explain the 100 million year absence of macro life and the sudden appearance thereof with no fossil evidence to back your claims of evolution?)....it would be up to you to "prove" your platform, and "prove" to me that said "theory" is indeed fact....the "TRUTH".....it's position to defend, as you are the one that make the statement, I merely offered evidence to the contrary. If in fact you answer some the questions presented to you, I might consider going off on some "selected" tangent that you are offering to avoid having to deal with the facts in evidence. BD

Do you believe that both of the Creation stories presented in Genesis are literally true?

[bluedog]

Do you believe that both of the Creation stories presented in Genesis are literally true?

Why are you trying to deflect the nature of what "you" believe by redirecting your unwillingness to answer a few simple question toward my beliefs? In fact it was "you" that declared that "Evolution" was fact. What difference does it make what I believe....a position of which it was already answered, as I in fact believe every word of scripture, anything less would be hypocrisy....I am still waiting on you to present the facts of evolution....the dogmatic position taken by you for political correctness concerns....as it seems to be "in vogue" to believe as such. Someone can not chose the truth....the truth rests were it was constructed, and can not be moved by "theory" or "opinion"....and so far that is all I have been witness of in the attempted assassination of my faith. BD

[Trueblue]

Why are you trying to deflect the nature of what "you" believe by redirecting your unwillingness to answer a few simple question toward my beliefs? In fact it was "you" that declared that "Evolution" was fact. What difference does it make what I believe....a position of which it was already answered, as I in fact believe every word of scripture, anything less would be hypocrisy....I am still waiting on you to present the facts of evolution....the dogmatic position taken by you for political correctness concerns....as it seems to be "in vogue" to believe as such. Someone can not chose the truth....the truth rests were it was constructed, and can not be moved by "theory" or "opinion"....and so far that is all I have been witness of in the attempted assassination of my faith. BD

I'm not trying to deflect anything. I don't need to present the facts of evolution, those are available to you from many online resources.

You posted clearly for a while, but you are back to being confusing. I have no idea what this means: the dogmatic position taken by you for political correctness concerns....as it seems to be "in vogue" to believe as such. It appears to be word salad.

I have told you what I believe. I am asking what you believe.

Evolution is fact. God is truth. And nobody is assassinating your faith. Please don't be so melodramatic.

Now, again: Do you believe that both of the Creation stories presented in Genesis are literally true?

[AYFR]

Do you believe that both of the Creation stories presented in Genesis are literally true?
There is only one creation story in the Bible.

[Trueblue]

There is only one creation story in the Bible.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

[Trueblue]

It is you that do not the difference between facts of scientific method and Theory. For something to be a "scientific" fact it must have an "example" of repeatability. There is nothing in "Darwinism" that can be repeated due to the "fact" that not one "example" of the theory has been "proven" to be a scientific fact. There is no "fossil" evidence of "anything" ever having "evolved". The deflection of going off on some tangent of defining the concept of theory does not make "evolution" a fact.....in fact it is by scientific methodology not even a "valid" theory.....but merely a "hypothesis" as it "assumes" many "facts" not in evidence.....and is anything but "proven" as true. In fact I have yet to see you "answer" any of the questions presented as a retort to your "blatant" statement that claims that "Darwinism" is indeed a fact(Do you in fact think that people evolved from hydrogen gas?...Do you in fact think that life happened by randomness of chance, by springing forth form inert elements? How do you explain the 100 million year absence of macro life and the sudden appearance thereof with no fossil evidence to back your claims of evolution?)....it would be up to you to "prove" your platform, and "prove" to me that said "theory" is indeed fact....the "TRUTH".....it's position to defend, as you are the one that make the statement, I merely offered evidence to the contrary. If in fact you answer some the questions presented to you, I might consider going off on some "selected" tangent that you are offering to avoid having to deal with the facts in evidence. BD

Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. You are wrong.

[bluedog]

Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. You are wrong.

Now we come to a "difference" of "opinion" and you have made a "valid" statement....in your opinion I am wrong. But the fact remains, "Darwinism" is anything but "scientific fact"....and in my "opinion" is only a hypothesis, as it can not back up what it claims except with the action of other "theories"...and this is not an action of any valid theory....but a "speculation" and "hypothesis" as there is no way to prove some of its "speculations" as even a valid theory of Science. Come on.....man evolved from Hydrogen Gas? BD

[Trueblue]

Now we come to a "difference" of "opinion" and you have made a "valid" statement....in your opinion I am wrong. But the fact remains, "Darwinism" is anything but "scientific fact"....and in my "opinion" is only a hypothesis, as it can not back up what it claims except with the action of other "theories"...and this is not an action of any valid theory....but a "speculation" and "hypothesis" as there is no way to prove some of its "speculations" as even a valid theory of Science. Come on.....man evolved from Hydrogen Gas? BD

You don't understand the terms involved. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a theory. You cannot simply redefine words to suit yourself and expect to have a discussion.

It does not change my belief in God that the Genesis story is not a literal explanation of the Creation of everything. I don't believe that Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, or that Noah loaded up every beast and floated around with them for forty days. The meaning of religion is not to believe that such stories are literally true.

[bluedog]

You don't understand the terms involved. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a theory. You cannot simply redefine words to suit yourself and expect to have a discussion.

It does not change my belief in God that the Genesis story is not a literal explanation of the Creation of everything. I don't believe that Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, or that Noah loaded up every beast and floated around with them for forty days. The meaning of religion is not to believe that such stories are literally true.

You mean as defined in the dictionary? Such as Hypothesis: A theory needing further investigation, a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation.

So you are saying that Darwin theory needs no further investigation and is complete as to make a valid conclusion? Mr. Darwin's theory starts out as being valid but when it comes to have no explanation for 100s of millions of years with no evidence of facts presented by using even some of the accepted theories of measuring and dating marco life remains...IE...radiometric carbon dating etc...which in reality is nothing but a theory as there is no actual way of calibrating any measurements as valid past the valid historical records of the civilized world....which have a shelf life of slightly over 5000 years...so any dating past this frame of time to have an actual valid and confirmed target subject to date....is only speculation due to the lack of any standard to calibrate the methodology....and thus leaves all scientific method behind....and beings to make "Hypothesis" instead of Theory. BD

[Trueblue]

You mean as defined in the dictionary? Such as Hypothesis: A theory needing further investigation, a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation.

So you are saying that Darwin theory needs no further investigation and is complete as to make a valid conclusion? Mr. Darwin's theory starts out as being valid but when it comes to have no explanation for 100s of millions of years with no evidence of facts presented by using even some of the accepted theories of measuring and dating marco life remains...IE...radiometric carbon dating etc...which in reality is nothing but a theory as there is no actual way of calibrating any measurements as valid past the valid historical records of the civilized world....which have a shelf life of slightly over 5000 years...so any dating past this frame of time to have an actual valid and confirmed target subject to date....is only speculation due to the lack of any standard to calibrate the methodology....and thus leaves all scientific method behind....and beings to make "Hypothesis" instead of Theory. BD

I mean as defined by scientists, and the scientific method. You are attempting to use it in a casual, non-scientific manner. You are misusing terms, to suit your political and religious ideas.

You know that I have agree that the theory of evolution has unanswered questions. That doesn't prove the point you're trying to make.

[bluedog]

I mean as defined by scientists, and the scientific method. You are attempting to use it in a casual, non-scientific manner. You are misusing terms, to suit your political and religious ideas.

You know that I have agree that the theory of evolution has unanswered questions. That doesn't prove the point you're trying to make.

So you are know claiming that a Dictionary is not a valid methodology to define a common word of our language? As I said, and I could not have been any clearer...in "my opinion". And my "opinion" is just as valid as yours...because you have offered nothing as proof to change my opinion. A gave you a list of some the most creative and scientific minds of history and modern time, that agrees with my position and they are in facts scientists and researchers of geology and scientific method....why does the opinion of your scientists have more value than these? As I said, its a matter of "opinion" and I said as much. Now show some scientific proof as to the validit of Darwinism as to it being an actual fact of scientific method as you claimed. And we shall go off on what ever tangent that you wish. BD

[Trueblue]

So you are know claiming that a Dictionary is not a valid methodology to define a common word of our language? As I said, and I could not have been any clearer...in "my opinion". And my "opinion" is just as valid as yours...because you have offered nothing as proof to change my opinion. A gave you a list of some the most creative and scientific minds of history and modern time, that agrees with my position and they are in facts scientists and researchers of geology and scientific method....why does the opinion of your scientists have more value than these? As I said, its a matter of "opinion" and I said as much. Now show some scientific proof as to the validit of Darwinism as to it being an actual fact of scientific method as you claimed. And we shall go off on what ever tangent that you wish. BD

I am claiming that you are misusing a scientific term, and I gave you a link to back it up. It is not a matter of you say-I say. Evolution does not meet the definition of hypothesis. It is a theory.

The list you gave, how does it apply to what we are talking about? Some of those men died before Darwin was born. It makes no sense.

The scientific proof is all over the internet, you don't really need me to give you a link, do you?

I am not on off any tangents, either. Why do you make these crazy accusations?

[bluedog]

I am claiming that you are misusing a scientific term, and I gave you a link to back it up. It is not a matter of you say-I say. Evolution does not meet the definition of hypothesis. It is a theory.

The list you gave, how does it apply to what we are talking about? Some of those men died before Darwin was born. It makes no sense.

The scientific proof is all over the internet, you don't really need me to give you a link, do you?

I am not on off any tangents, either. Why do you make these crazy accusations?

And I have shown you that it does not meet the criteria to be considered a valid theory....by the use of scientific methodology and yet you continue to go in the never ending circle of liberalism without even beginning to offer any valid proof as how anyone can consider this hypothesis as a fact of science, when I have come to the opinion that it is not even a valid theory with the evidence of known facts that is presented to validate it as such. By the very fact that you are making argument of it even being a valid theory proves that it is no where near actual fact as presented by you. The statement can not be confirmed by any links that you offered....unless you have found proof as of today the fossil remains of a creature being actually in a state of transformation....it will remain an unproven speculation. BD

[Oceanbreeze]

:twocents it's a hoax. Kudos the UK.

[Trueblue]

And I have shown you that it does not meet the criteria to be considered a valid theory....by the use of scientific methodology and yet you continue to go in the never ending circle of liberalism without even beginning to offer any valid proof as how anyone can consider this hypothesis as a fact of science, when I have come to the opinion that it is not even a valid theory with the evidence of known facts that is presented to validate it as such. By the very fact that you are making argument of it even being a valid theory proves that it is no where near actual fact as presented by you. The statement can not be confirmed by any links that you offered....unless you have found proof as of today the fossil remains of a creature being actually in a state of transformation....it will remain an unproven speculation. BD

No, you haven't shown me that it doesn't meet the criteria to be a theory. You're a nutcase. You can disagree with the theory of evolution, but you can't write your own dictionary.

:twocents it's a hoax. Kudos the UK.

Yes, it's a mass conspiracy. :lol

[bluedog]

No, you haven't shown me that it doesn't meet the criteria to be a theory. You're a nutcase. You can disagree with the theory of evolution, but you can't write your own dictionary.



Yes, it's a mass conspiracy. :lol

You call me a nut.....when you first make the claim that "evolution" is a fact. I did not say that, you did. Now you try to "twist" out of answering the questions asked of your position that "EVOLUTION IS A FACT".....when I try to pin you down as to making you present the "evidence" that "Evolution is a fact", you misdirect, with both opinion and speculation that my "opinion" is not valid, as an "OPINION".....AND YOU CALL ME A NUT....yes, that's about par for this course. You're like a little lap dog that rushes out to grab a hold of someone's trouser leg, and then realizes that they do not have enough weight to back up the "bark". You have yet to "prove" that "evolution" is a valid scientific fact of conclusion. If you can answer any of these questions, I will become a card carrying member of "club Darwin".

1. Where did the "cosmic egg" come from that contains the methodology of the "Big Bang"?

2. What caused the ignition of the "Big Bang"?

3. How did an explosion that produced primarily "Hydrogen and Helium" cool to form the elements of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, nickel, iron, or uranium....that are common to all celestial bodies other than stars?

4. How did the first organic life form come into existence from the inert material of the elements....when the scientific law of Mass/Matter conservation states that the Mass of a closed system will remain constant, and that Matter can not be created nor destroyed, only rearranged, with the only exception being that of "special relativity" (E=Mc2) or that in relation to Quantum Mechanics which deals in the sub-atomic level of the elements and exists in nature(other than being intelligently designed by man) only in the structure of a Star...which creates enough force to separate the actual atom to let "exponential" energy be released in a "cascading" accumulation event....which would certainly be a determent any organic life base?

4. And considering the fact that each and every person has at least 30 trillion cells....is in fact the "random" time that the universe has been dated in fact long enough for even "one" cell to have processed from the inert matter of the earth...considering that the odds of random happenstance is such as this as calculated by scientific method....."One" in 2 followed by 161 zeros for just the first cell to have gained life by happenstance?

5. And if you would please explain away the law of Biometric Science which states that a cell can not "replicate" itself apart from a living cell....and that each bio(life) is unique to its own kind....in other words, an apple tree produces an apple tree....a human produces a human.

6. If in fact as evolutionary scientists tell us that they have found microscopic life embedded in rocks predating the "Cambrian" explosion of life.....in fact 100 million years predated...why is there no signs of Macro Life being found and fossilized in the 100million year time frame, and how do they make any valid claim that the first life evolved from the mirco life of 100million years preceding....when there is no "evidence" of any such marco organic life in any fossils remains? The fact is there are none, just as there are no transforming fossil remains...if there were, with all the remains being found that predates man...why have none been found?

Just answer any of these question via the scientific method and I am converted. BD

[Trueblue]

I called you a nut because that's how you are acting. As if you can tell the entire scientific community that they are wrong about the definition of a theory, and you, all by yourself, are wrong.

I don't know the answers to your questions, and neither do you. I have said repeatedly that evolution leaves some questions unanswered. That does not change the fact that evolution is scientific fact. Deal with it.

[Trueblue]

I called you a nut because that's how you are acting. As if you can tell the entire scientific community that they are wrong about the definition of a theory, and you, all by yourself, are wrong.

I don't know the answers to your questions, and neither do you. I have said repeatedly that evolution leaves some questions unanswered. That does not change the fact that evolution is scientific fact. Deal with it.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to edit here.

I meant that you, all by yourself, are right. The rest of the scientific community doesn't know the meaning of theory, but you do, because you get to redefine the meaning of words.

You must think you are God. :lol

[Trueblue]

Also, reread this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[Trueblue]

You call me a nut.....when you first make the claim that "evolution" is a fact. I did not say that, you did. Now you try to "twist" out of answering the questions asked of your position that "EVOLUTION IS A FACT".....when I try to pin you down as to making you present the "evidence" that "Evolution is a fact", you misdirect, with both opinion and speculation that my "opinion" is not valid, as an "OPINION".....AND YOU CALL ME A NUT....yes, that's about par for this course. You're like a little lap dog that rushes out to grab a hold of someone's trouser leg, and then realizes that they do not have enough weight to back up the "bark". You have yet to "prove" that "evolution" is a valid scientific fact of conclusion. If you can answer any of these questions, I will become a card carrying member of "club Darwin".

I haven't twisted a thing. I haven't misdirected. I haven't bitten off more than I can chew in disagreeing with you. And I'm nobody's lap dog.

But you ARE a nut. :)

I don't have to prove that evolution is a "valid scientific fact of conclusion". That phrase doesn't even make any sense. What is your goal here, to discuss, or to try to impress?

1. Where did the "cosmic egg" come from that contains the methodology of the "Big Bang"?

2. What caused the ignition of the "Big Bang"?

3. How did an explosion that produced primarily "Hydrogen and Helium" cool to form the elements of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, nickel, iron, or uranium....that are common to all celestial bodies other than stars?

4. How did the first organic life form come into existence from the inert material of the elements....when the scientific law of Mass/Matter conservation states that the Mass of a closed system will remain constant, and that Matter can not be created nor destroyed, only rearranged, with the only exception being that of "special relativity" (E=Mc2) or that in relation to Quantum Mechanics which deals in the sub-atomic level of the elements and exists in nature(other than being intelligently designed by man) only in the structure of a Star...which creates enough force to separate the actual atom to let "exponential" energy be released in a "cascading" accumulation event....which would certainly be a determent any organic life base?

4. And considering the fact that each and every person has at least 30 trillion cells....is in fact the "random" time that the universe has been dated in fact long enough for even "one" cell to have processed from the inert matter of the earth...considering that the odds of random happenstance is such as this as calculated by scientific method....."One" in 2 followed by 161 zeros for just the first cell to have gained life by happenstance?

5. And if you would please explain away the law of Biometric Science which states that a cell can not "replicate" itself apart from a living cell....and that each bio(life) is unique to its own kind....in other words, an apple tree produces an apple tree....a human produces a human.

6. If in fact as evolutionary scientists tell us that they have found microscopic life embedded in rocks predating the "Cambrian" explosion of life.....in fact 100 million years predated...why is there no signs of Macro Life being found and fossilized in the 100million year time frame, and how do they make any valid claim that the first life evolved from the mirco life of 100million years preceding....when there is no "evidence" of any such marco organic life in any fossils remains? The fact is there are none, just as there are no transforming fossil remains...if there were, with all the remains being found that predates man...why have none been found?

Just answer any of these question via the scientific method and I am converted. BD

Why would my being able to tell you about the Big Bang convert you? You can read about it all over the internet.

What is your source for this information, btw?

You keep claiming that there are no "transforming fossils", but I'm sure you know that there is a fossil record that substantiates evolution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/text_pop/l_071_04.html

Why not just try to discuss instead of trying to impress people. It's not working.

[Oceanbreeze]

Oh good Lord I ASSumed that Bluedog and Trueblue were one and the same...I now have a colossal headache.:panic

[bluedog]

I'm sorry, I don't know how to edit here.

I meant that you, all by yourself, are right. The rest of the scientific community doesn't know the meaning of theory, but you do, because you get to redefine the meaning of words.

You must think you are God. :lol

Again the tangent? The meaning of Theory is common knowledge, and just because someone "declares" themself an expert....does not make it so. There are in fact many that make the same opinion as me. I gave you an example of valid theory....and the theory of evolution does not fit the criteria as such, and it is exactly defined as a Hypothesis with all its speculation....I have presented much of that speculation that as yet you have not attempted to answer. BD

[Saguaro]

Do you also dispute DNA ?

[bluedog]

Do you also dispute DNA ?

Now in fact DNA is a valid scientific methodology to prove that which rests in an expecting ladies womb is in fact an "individual" separate life form from that of the mother...as it carries both DNA samples of the mother and the father...thus legally establishing "individuality". But I do disagree with the dating method of using radiometric carbon dating as having in validity to present as scientific method, due to the lack of any constant standard of calibration. BD

[Trueblue]

Oh good Lord I ASSumed that Bluedog and Trueblue were one and the same...I now have a colossal headache.:panic

Why did you think that?

Again the tangent? The meaning of Theory is common knowledge, and just because someone "declares" themself an expert....does not make it so. There are in fact many that make the same opinion as me. I gave you an example of valid theory....and the theory of evolution does not fit the criteria as such, and it is exactly defined as a Hypothesis with all its speculation....I have presented much of that speculation that as yet you have not attempted to answer. BD

Why do you keep saying tangent? I'm responding to your posts. Have you redefined tangent, too?

I am not claiming to be an expert on evolution, are you?

Regardless of who claims what, you cannot redefine scientific theory and rename it hypothesis.

You are under the impression that if there are unanswered questions, it cannot be a theory. You are mistaken. As I said before, there are many unexplained aspects of gravity, and yet it is a theory.

Now in fact DNA is a valid scientific methodology to prove that which rests in an expecting ladies womb is in fact an "individual" separate life form from that of the mother...as it carries both DNA samples of the mother and the father...thus legally establishing "individuality". But I do disagree with the dating method of using radiometric carbon dating as having in validity to present as scientific method, due to the lack of any constant standard of calibration. BD

"a valid scientific methodology to prove that which rests in an expecting ladies womb"...:D

[Saguaro]

Good, then what about the DNA of chimps being the same as humans ? (meant for BD)

[bluedog]

Why did you think that?



Why do you keep saying tangent? I'm responding to your posts. Have you redefined tangent, too?

I am not claiming to be an expert on evolution, are you?

Regardless of who claims what, you cannot redefine scientific theory and rename it hypothesis.

You are under the impression that if there are unanswered questions, it cannot be a theory. You are mistaken. As I said before, there are many unexplained aspects of gravity, and yet it is a theory.



"a valid scientific methodology to prove that which rests in an expecting ladies womb"...:D

You do nothing but go in circles...proving nothing, answering nothing, just trying to redirect anything asked around the circle of cognation to any logic. The tangent is when asked anything you make a sharp turn left then a sharp turn right.....going in the same direction but on a different road trying to bypass the difficulty lying in your path...and frankly, I am getting tired, as I have an early appointment in the morning....good nite ladies, its been real, its been fun...but its been far from real fun.....just passing the time until the sandman comes. Enjoy what's left of the evening. BD

[Trueblue]

You do nothing but go in circles...proving nothing, answering nothing, just trying to redirect anything asked around the circle of cognation to any logic. The tangent is when asked anything you make a sharp turn left then a sharp turn right.....going in the same direction but on a different road trying to bypass the difficulty lying in your path...and frankly, I am getting tired, as I have an early appointment in the morning....good nite ladies, its been real, its been fun...but its been far from real fun.....just passing the time until the sandman comes. Enjoy what's left of the evening. BD

I'm going in circles only because I've tried to follow you. I've stopped trying to get you to respond to my posts and tried to respond to yours, but you simply want to bury the issue in bullshit. I don't know the answer to these complex scientific questions, and neither do you.

Evolution has been proven scientifically. You can reject it if you like, that is your right, but you cannot redefine scientific terms and then tell people that they are off on a tangent because they call you out on it.

I notice that once Sag got involved, you got tired. I can guess why that is. :lol

[AYFR]

Good, then what about the DNA of chimps being the same as humans ? (meant for BD)

It is not exactly the same and that is what counts. Also several other animals have DNA close to ours, proves nothing.

[Wabash]

Oct 10 10:08 AM US/Eastern

A judge on Wednesday ruled that Al Gore's award winning climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" should only be shown in schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

High Court judge Michael Burton's decision follows legal action brought by a father of two last month claiming the former US vice-president's film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush".

Stewart Dimmock wanted to block the government's pledge to send more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales a DVD of the documentary to demonstrate the need to fight global warming.

Judge Burton said the Oscar-winning film should be accompanied by government guidance notes and to distribute it without them would breach education laws prohibiting the promotion of unbalanced political viewpoints.

But the victory was only partial, as Dimmock failed to get the film totally banned from schools.

The lorry driver said after the case that he was "elated", but disappointed he had not secured an outright ban.

"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin," he told reporters.

Dimmock is a member of the New Party, a fringe political organisation which describes itself as "a party of economic liberalism, political reform and internationalism."

Its supporters include industrialists and small- and medium-sized businesses. The party accepts climate change is a major issue but says the argument that it is man-made is not unequivocal.

Instead, it argues for developing new technologies, building new nuclear power stations and providing "positive incentives" for developing countries to support cleaner technologies.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071010140820.maha1rmv&show_article=1

[Saguaro]

England, go figure

[Wabash]

England, go figure

Yep...if they had agreed with Al Bore's position, you would be telling us how..."Enlightened" they are! Fact is...Al's documentary is a Snow Job! And they want to give him a Nobel for it....too funny!

[Oceanbreeze]

:ringo :ringo :ringo :ringo :snicker HAPPY DANCING! :ringo :ringo :ringo

Wabash; Nice avatar :snicker. A lot of Hillary avatars are popping up on the board.

[Wabash]

:ringo :ringo :ringo :ringo :snicker HAPPY DANCING! :ringo :ringo :ringo

Wabash; Nice avatar :snicker. A lot of Hillary avatars are popping up on the board.

Thank you...I've got a better one, but can't seem to make it fit...

[Trueblue]

It's not a political viewpoint. It's science. Good lord. There should always be information given about the weaknesses of any such information, but the deniers want equal time, or to have the entire topic censored. Neither is warranted.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is old news. I have merged tihs thread with an earlier one discussing the same issue.

[Wabash]

It's not a political viewpoint. It's science. Good lord. There should always be information given about the weaknesses of any such information, but the deniers want equal time, or to have the entire topic censored. Neither is warranted.

The deniers have counter proof of the lunacy of this GW rhetoric. I have posted several of them over the last 6 months...

[Trueblue]

The deniers have counter proof of the lunacy of this GW rhetoric. I have posted several of them over the last 6 months...

It's known with virtual certainty that human activity is contributing to the rapid increase of temperatures on the planet.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The deniers have counter proof of the lunacy of this GW rhetoric. I have posted several of them over the last 6 months...Wabby, I honesty do not remember any real studies posted by you or anyone else on the old board. I responded to every real thread on that board and I do not remember anything that came close to being a valid or peer reviewed claim that I felt had any merit. There was something on the Swindle program but that show was so bogus and was torn apart by some many experts that it was sad. Oceanbreeze posted something from a Dennis bozo but that was also so bogus that it was not even funny with the Dennis bozo not even being a scientist but merely an economist and the partner of this bozo being both a paid global warming denier and a professional witness for the tobacco companies.

If I missed anything real that you posted, I apologize. I honestly do not remember anything on that old board posted by you or anyone else that came close to being real or credible. If you have such a study or any real science, post it and I will look at it.

You will find that most if not all of the alternative theories for global warmiing were looked at by the IPCC. It is always amusing to see a claim made and then go to the footnotes of the IPCC reports and see what the real scientists say about such claims. This is how I found some great stuff on the cosmic ray explanation and solar radiation alternative claims (and yes, I know that only nerds read footnotes and trace these footnotes back to their sources but that is what I learned in debate and in law school). Again, the IPCC did a through job at looking at all alternative explanations that they considered real and if you trace the footnotes fromt the IPCC reports, you will find that these theories or claims did not hold up.

If you have anything, I will be glad to look at is and see what the literature says about this claim.

[Yellowdogtexan]

It's known with virtual certainty that human activity is contributing to the rapid increase of temperatures on the planet.The IPCC report is very clear on this and this report together with supporting materials exampied all credible alternative explanations for global warming. If you check the footnotes and supporting materials, you will find that the scientific community has looked at all credible alternative explanations from galactic cosmic rays to sun spot activities and concluded that these claims did not have any merit. Reading footnotes is geeky but it is a good way to understand what was looked at by the IPCC and the large number of scientists who came behind such report.

[Trueblue]

The IPCC report is very clear on this and this report together with supporting materials exampied all credible alternative explanations for global warming. If you check the footnotes and supporting materials, you will find that the scientific community has looked at all credible alternative explanations from galactic cosmic rays to sun spot activities and concluded that these claims did not have any merit. Reading footnotes is geeky but it is a good way to understand what was looked at by the IPCC and the large number of scientists who came behind such report.

It's geeks who read footnotes who make the modern world work. Keep it up!

[Yellowdogtexan]

It's geeks who read footnotes who make the modern world work. Keep it up!The good stuff is often buried in the footnotes. This can espicially be true in legal decisions. If you ignore the footnotes, you may miss something very important. One of my favorite was a footnote in a Texas supreme court case where the Onion was quoted. If I ignored the footnotes, I would have missed this reference to the Onion.

As for scientific papers, the footnotes are great starting place to see if the article is well done.

[Oceanbreeze]

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+ climate+change+film/article.do

[Mack the Knife]

I'm sick of people politicizing science. :mad

So you are sick of Al Gore, and the Liberals who believe all his BS as if he was qualified to read more than a backyard thermometer? I think if he accepted his blame as a gouger, a hypocrite, and one who profits of Pollution and corporate greed, America might see this differently?

[Mack the Knife]

It's geeks who read footnotes who make the modern world work. Keep it up! You mean we haven't been Modern for say the last 50 years? Do you mean the new Progressive Moderns which to often carry the brand of Socialists and Radicals? Now don't assume I am Republican, just assume I do not subscribe to the very thin lined characters on the Left, claiming to have the answers, as I find them ignorant and arrogant, a dangerous combo.

[Kurtz]

:lmao

Hell, we don't have to assume shit, we know WHO you are. :wink

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is a nice response from Vice President Gore on this ruling. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/an_inconvenient_truth_team_gor_1.html number of other broader points need to be addressed from the Fact Checker's last two postings:

The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon. This was also reported in the U.S. Our experience is that when the vested interests do not like the message, they tend to use diversionary tactics to create uncertainty or to fund individuals and groups to shoot the messenger. In this instance, it appears they are trying to do both. According to these reports, Mr. Dimmock will still not fully reveal who funded the case.

The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex. Vice President Gore has studied this issue for over 30 years. He regularly seeks the advice and feedback of scientists to understand the latest research. It's not easy, even for Ph.D.'s, to explain the concept of the "non-linearity" of the climate system even after decades in their respective fields. Imagine trying to translate that complicated scientific evidence into a clear and compelling message with only a single slide and 20 seconds to make your case. It isn't simple. In many cases, particular points had to be truncated and shortened from the original research. A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws. The original science cannot speak to moviegoers. And, as is not made clear by the Fact Checker, the judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform "an analysis of the scientific questions" in his ruling.

Former Vice President Gore does not solely rely upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As many know, the IPCC operates on a consensus driven process requiring the approval of all governments involved. As a result, its findings are often believed to be conservative. In addition, new science is published every week in top journals such as Science, Nature, Eos and others. Some scientists predict more extreme consequences and some predict more conservative effects, but Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious. Although we commend the Fact Checker for looking to the IPCC, Mr. Gore relies upon other highly credible sources as well.

Since the Fact Checker has afforded us the opportunity to respond specifically to the nine points at issue, we will do so.

Ice-sheet driven sea level rise. Scientists agree that the melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels around six meters. The movie does not give a timescale for when that melting might occur. There are uncertainties in the scientific community about the timescale, but this uncertainty does not negate the need to seriously consider these scenarios when considering solutions to the climate crisis. IPCC estimates a sea level rise of 59 centimeters by 2100. However, they exclude any water contributed by the melting of Greenland or Antarctica because they don't know when either could happen. We hold our fate in our own hands. If we conclude a strong treaty--or if we pass strong legislation in the US to cut the pollution that causes global warming, it could make a real difference to our future and that of our children. Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and someone whom we trust, has said that we may see several meters of sea level rise by 2100 if we do not act.

Pacific island nations needing to evacuate. On December 6, 2005, The United Nations Environment Program announced that a small community living in the Pacific island chain of Vanuatu had to relocate due to sea level rise. In addition, in 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation and the government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders. We acknowledge that the wording of the film here is unfortunate; however, the potential effects of global warming on human displacement as a broader topic is a matter of critical importance, which we believe warrants the attention of the global community. The IPCC estimates that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption.

Ocean Conveyor in the North Atlantic. Simulations described in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation by roughly 30 percent by 2100. Again, there are uncertainties, which were a bit lengthy to describe in a feature film documentary, but the future of the ocean conveyer really depends upon how quickly we take actions now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. Multiple scientists have claimed that we cannot exclude the possibility of the disruption or shutdown of the Conveyor.

CO2 Temperature connections in the ice core record. Greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice age signals have a complicated relationship but they do "fit." That is true. There is a much longer explanation. Rather than repeat it here, I will refer you to the more complete description included in the archive of www.realclimate.org.

Kilimanjaro. Mr. Gore has, for years, relied upon the research of Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his wife Dr. Ellen Mosely Thompson. Dr. Thompson recently received the National Medal of Science and works at the Byrd Polar Research Center. It is not just Kilimanjaro. Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating. The evidence has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (2006) as well as IPCC studies. As the movie states, there are other stresses on Kilimanjaro that are contributing to the problem. And this is a very, very important point--fundamental to our understanding of climate change: Global warming exacerbates the stresses that ecosystems (and humans) are already experiencing, such as drought, erosion, rising sea levels, and shifts in extreme weather events.

Drying up of Lake Chad. This example is used to illustrate what the models are predicting which is the shift in rainfall across the Sahel region of Africa. As in the previous example, there are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad and again, human-induced climate change can and will make this situation even worse.

Hurricane Katrina and global warming. The film is careful not to ascribe any single weather event to climate change. However, in the film Mr. Gore does state, "There have been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger." He based that claim on research published in peer-reviewed journals from Dr. Kerry Emanuel, and several others, who have found a link between an increase in sea surface temperature and an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Since then, further research has strengthened the science in this area with regards to a link between human-induced climate change and hurricane intensity. Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.

Impact of sea ice retreat on polar bears. Polar bears only exist in the Arctic and hunt and live on the ice. Where there is not enough ice, they are required to swim. The US Minerals Management Service (part of the US Department of Interior) reported new research in December 2005 about increased polar bear mortality due to reduced sea ice. At the same time, a study by the US Geological Survey and the Canadian Wildlife Service was previewed showing a major polar bear population drop (22 percent) in Hudson Bay in Canada--which was also believed to be linked to sea ice decline. Since 2005, more research has emerged in this area. In addition, Arctic sea ice decline was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering an Endangered Species Listing for the polar bear in part because of the impact that human-induced climate change is having on their habitat.

Global warming and coral reefs. The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long identified increases in ocean temperatures with the bleaching of coral reefs. Corals are also under stress from other factors like water pollution (agricultural runoff), overfishing, and ocean acidification (another direct impact of the release of carbon dioxide). These stresses have a synergistic effect. As I have made clear earlier, global warming places a further strain on an already burdened ecosystem.

To conclude, it's unfortunate that news coverage of the UK decision was so sensational and, once again, directed conversation away from a broader and much-needed discussion and debate about solutions to the climate crisis.