My Take on Truth

I just saw An Inconvenient Truth, a movie based on Al Gore’s slide show presentation. Trust me. It’s not as boring as it sounds. Not even close. It’s actually a very interesting and engaging. I highly recommend it.

If you’re planning on seeing the movie and don’t want to read any spoilers, then stop reading right here.

All clear? Okay, on with the spoilers!

Global climate change is real. Global warming is real, and we are causing it. This is not something debated by the scientific community. The facts are in. Carbon dioxide levels have skyrocketed in the last 100 or so years. Yes, there are fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature, but nothing like what we are seeing these days — not in the short term (decades), or in the long term (hundreds of millions of years). If these changes continue and are not reversed, the forecast is bad. Very bad. Thankfully, there is something that we can do about it — after all, if we are creating the problem, then we can create the solution.

Of course, there’s the political stigma of Gore and the environment that can’t be ignored. You may think that only environmentalist nut jobs that care more about mice than people would be interested in this movie. You may think that only loyal Democrats and Gore voters would be interested in this movie. You’d be wrong on both counts. While the movie is every “environmentalist”, it has a strong “Save the Humans” thread too. Face it, it doesn’t matter how rich fossil fuels make us if we don’t have anywhere to live. The movie does touch on Gore’s personal life, but there’s nothing particularly Democratic about it. You have no excuse not to see this movie.

7 Responses to “My Take on Truth”

  1. Ray Moran Says:

    I saw Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth and am convinced more than ever that we are causing global warming. I am concerned however, that the vast majority of people who have gone or will go to see this movie are not the ones who are brainwashed by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh who obviously is getting indirectly paid by big business or the GOP to say that there is no global warming. These brainswashed conservatives will never go to see it, and that’s unfortunate. Can anyone think of a way other than kidnapping to get them to go and see it?

    The only stigma I can see about Gore and the environment is the ridicule of bought and paid for conservatives. After viewing the film, I am convinced for sure that Gore is not a so called ‘environental nut job’.

    Gore pointed out something that I had also thought of; industry is denying that we’re causing global warming just like the tobacco companies denied that cigarettes cause cancer. And why? Big amounts of money rolling in would stop if cigarettes were banned and if oil comsumption were banned.

    I hope we can get some Congress people elected this year who will move on the global warming issue. But does your vote really count? Probably not if you’re using a Diabold electronic voting machine. Something needs to be done there. And also, don’t let anybody register you to vote that comes to your door. I read an article on the net that said that these people were keeping the Republican registation forms and throwing away the Democratic forms. Bastards!


  2. aaron Says:

    Thanks for the comment. I agree that people that are “brainwashed” to not believe in global warming will probably not see this movie. What really makes me sad is that vast majority of people (I’d guess at least 80%) that just don’t know about the problem or don’t care. I bet we all have friends and family members that fall in this category, and they’re who we should be targeting.

    I hope I didn’t imply that Gore was a nut job. Especially after seeing this movie, I can see that he’s quite rational and is trying to move society forward with new, cleaner, technologies. The nut jobs are the people that want us all to give up all of our tech and move back to farms and communes.

    I also noticed the tactic of turning established facts into debates, but thought of a different example: evolution. Virtually everyone that studies the subject comes to the same conclusion. It’s just the intelligent design folks that want to make it look like a debate.

    I agree that there are serious problems with our voting system. Hopefully people will start informing themselves and turning out to vote, but I doubt it’ll happen any time soon.

  3. Ray Moran Says:

    You just had to go and mention evolution. Let me give you my take on evolution. You have the religious loonies who refuse to accept the fact that evolution occured and you have the athiest evolutionists who refuse to even acknowledge the possiblility that the supernatural even exists. I read one web page about evolution where the proffessor discussed the supernatural. He said the supernatural does not exist and therefore will not be discussed in his writings. Pompus bastard, I say! The scientific method dictates that you don’t make assumptions and come to conclusions without proper research and experiementation. Even if such experimentation alludes us at the moment due to our utter ignorance of how to collect data on the supernatural, I would suggest we humbly say that we don’t know but should investigate as far as is practical and look for new methods of investigation into the supernatural untill we find one that produces results.

    Let me make this clear. There was no white haired and bearded old man called God who made man with his two hands, but neither was there evolution solely driven by blind chance and natural selection. I have thrity years experience in the electronics field and I am here to tell you that it requires intensive math (algebra, trigonometry, etc.) to design an electronic circuit. You wouldn’t even believe the complex equations that describe how to playback vinyl phonograph records!

    And electronics not only requires math but also requires conceptual thinking. They hailed Edison as a genius for inventing the lightbulb. But what about something biological like an eye? That requires math and conceptual thinking. You’d never believe the complex math that eye doctors have to learn to understand eyeglasses and the optics of the eye. And an eye! What a concept? A genius named Philo Farnsworth invented television. Do you know how complex a television is?! I’ve fixed them. I know how complex they are. Yet TV’s and TV cameras pale in complexity when compared to biological visual systems. Only in the modern computer age have we invented analog to digital converters. Yet the eyes and ears convert analog information into digital data and send them to the brain, a very complex digital computer. And a two dimensional image that focuses on the retina is seen in three dimensions and full color thanks to the eye and brain digital processing. What a complex system. Blind chance? Natural selection? Hell no! Concept, math, material selection, orderly assembly and checking that everything works is the name of the game.

    Some evolutionary mechanism for monitoring the result and checking for success or failure is needed. Blind chance and natural selection can’t explain all of this away.

    So what’s the answer? I personally believe that matter either has built into it or communicates with an intellignet learning program that decides what to make and how to make it given the environmental circumstances. It learns from it’s mistakes and continually refines its prduct. Take a look at early television sets on the web and see how advancements were made and how crude the early ones were. Move from the 1940’s on up till the present and you’ll see it was a long path of development, or EVOLUTION! Where the program that influences matter comes from can only be answered by looking to the supernatural as far as I am concerned. Some scientists are in agreement with me, but they are taking heat big time from their strict Darwinian collegues. These scientists have uncovered digital codes in DNA and where there’s a code, they say there has to be a code maker.

    Change in scientific circles comes slow and sometimes takes casualties with it. There was a Austrian physician name Simelvise (most likely mispelled)who was accused of impuning his collegues reputations by insisting that they wash there hands before delivering babies. He was stripped of his license, sent to prision and in despair committed suicide. So stop and think about what we’re teaching today in our high schools and universities. There sure as hell needs to be more debate and research into evolution vs creation. Even Darwin admitted that if he was wrong and that things didn’t get simpler as they got smaller, then his theory was not sound. And the smaller we go, the more complex things get. You sure can do some heavy duty reading of microbiology textbooks. Not me no thank you, too complex and boring. I’m already getting freaked out about how complex electronics is gettng. Just look at a schematic diagram for a computer and you’ll see what I mean.

    Hope I made you think in new and different ways. Remember, it’s the disidents who change the world and make life better and more interesting for everybody.

    Your sincere disident,


  4. aaron Says:

    I see that your opinion is well thought out, and I respect that — I just happen to disagree. 🙂 My goal is not to convince you that evolution is correct (there are other web sites that could do it much better than I could).

    My point was that the scientific consensus, like with global warming, is nearly universally in agreement with evolution. It’s the general population that is split into a spectrum of opinions.

    From my point of view, it’s the evolutionist that is the dissident and is changing the world.

  5. Ray Moran Says:

    I never did say that evolution hasn’t occured, but that chalking it up to blind chance and natural selection is bogus in my mind in in the minds of disident scientists.

    I saw a show about Alber Eistein years ago where they did some illustration/demonstrations of his theories. His theories on time are fascinating and most if not all have been proven correct. It seems that time in our universe is not a constant. And gravity is the same thing as acceleration. So if you travel close to the speed of light or get into orbit around a black hole, you will travel into the future. He also said that our universe is a closed system where matter causes space to fold on itself. They illustrated that with a balloon painted with galaxies. Apparently our universe is round like the Earth. My question is, does time as we know it even exist outside that globe? I don’t think so. And I’m sure our universe’s physics don’t apply either. So, something supernatural and intelligent may exist there and brought our universe into being and started the evolutionary program everywhere life is environmentally possible in our universe. I know religion is not a science and is often scientifically innacurate, but Catholics teach something that relates to what I’m thinking here, that God has no beginning and no end and always was and always shall be. Intereseting words, since outside of our universe the absence of time as we know it in our universe might allow for an intelligent first cause to exist in this manner. That said I’m the first to say that religion doesn’t belong in scientific discussions, but I just couldn’t resist just this once.

    And don’t forget, math and conceptual thinking are responsible for the creation of complex systems. Stict no-supernatural Evolutionists obviously think that blind chance and natural selection are great mathmaticians and genius conceptual thinkers.


  6. aaron Says:

    In my mind, evolution means “natural evolution”. The evolution that you’re talking about — the one that requires an intelligent supernatural force — sounds more like “intelligent design” to me.

    Science has two main parts: theory making, and theory testing. When you’re making theories, you’re allowed to work without empirical evidence, but good theories correlate with any past evidence and are testable. The key is that eventually the theory needs to be tested in the natural world.

    If one includes any supernatural force (something that’s not part of the natural world) in a theory, then by definition, it’s untestable and not in the domain of science. That’s not to say it’s wrong. If there is a supernatural force, then it could be right.

    I see no evidence of the supernatural, so I have no reason to include it in any understanding of the universe. That doesn’t mean that I don’t see mysteries — there will always be things we don’t understand. I just don’t see any reason to expect that those mysteries are supernatural.

    Other people see no evidence of the supernatural and choose to believe anyway, simply as an act of faith. Others see the mysteries themselves as evidence of the supernatural. Of course, people are not easily categorized, so this isn’t a good description of anyone in particular.

    Regarding the illustration of the balloon universe. It’s very tempting to think about what’s outside (or inside) the balloon. The thing to keep in mind is that the illustration is showing a 2D slice of the universe expanding in three dimensions. That third dimension isn’t part of the universe. Not only does time exist outside of the balloon, neither does space, location, or anything. There is no “place” (because that would require space-time) outside of the universe. There is no interaction between the universe and something outside of the universe (that would require the outside to be part of the universe by definition).

    Here are a few books about the universe that I recommend: (all link to wikipedia)
    A Brief History of Time
    The Fabric of the Cosmos

    If your interested in a book about (natural) evolution, I’ve heard The Ancestor’s Tale is good.

  7. Ray Moran Says:

    Thanks for the links. Try doing a search for Michael Behe. He’s a microbiologist who doesn’t buy the strict no-supernatural bias of the mainstream evolutionists. There are others though. One was on PBS last summer. Unfortunately, I can’t remember his name. I disagree with some of what Behe says but I would need to talk to him to tell him what I think and see what his replies would be in order to see if he can overcome my objections. Overall, though, I think he does a very, very good job demonstrating well thought out technical internal workings of cells. He wrote a book called “Darwin’s Black Box” which I highly recommend. He has his detractors on the internet. It’s instructive to see what they have to say too.


Leave a Reply