It always amuses me when a particular commercial plays on TV and it goes like…
“Daddy daddy, why are the leaves so green?” daughter asks,
“Because of the sun…blah blah blah” Edmund Chen replies…
It’s no wonder Singapore school teachers have problem with kids brought up by such parents. It is the chlorophyll moron, not the sun. Kids, please refrain from rebutting your science teacher on why plants are green. Doing so will just add to the turn-over statistics of our educational system.
Which reminds me, take it with a pinch of salt when politicians talk about science, especially one who didn’t made it to the White House.
If any of you still believes that carbon dioxide is horrible greenhouse gas. I suggest you either stop breathing or go find out the truth: http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle
I must say, Mr Al Gore is such a showman that I was “smoked” by his award winning “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda. But as any good science student, I did some research to double check.
Apparently, a man who preaches green but owns a house that could power your HDB flat for months or year (depending on your consumption of course). So much for walking the talk.
Please do not be mistaken, I am not into US politics or am I anti ex-vice-presidents. The point is, just as the silly advert anecdote is a trivial display of bad science just for the sake of promoting a fridge (that can grow plants according to the little girl),
the same mis-presented science that claims a resultant gas as the cause of global warming, could well be some hidden political agenda that attempts to hinder development of certain less developed countries that has cheap fuel buried in their lands.
(yes I am a fan of conspiracy theories)
This carbon dioxide emission crap is just as stupid as saying the plants are green because of the sun (although we do need light to see green pigment). In the case of global warming, yes indeed it is the sun.
Note:
I will not go into details how minute (or insignificant) our contribution is as compared to decomposition of plants (yes the green ones) or for that matter, the mood of our dear sun when it comes to dishing out heat. You can watch the documentary yourself.
But in an event that you are still not convinced, you can help with the green movement by ceasing respiratory altogether and stop farting as it is some form of methane which, to certain extent is a greenhouse gas that has direct impact to your fellow humans within certain radius depending on your diet and volume.
Entries (RSS)
June 13th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
hihi,
i’m not into US politics either, but perhaps you should wait a while (for more information to surface), check out other sources of information other than those two you provided before coming to a conclusion? afterall, science is seldom objective. it’s very easy to misinterpret data (intentionally or not) and only present information that is supportive of your claims. i’m sure the producers of the documentary will agree on that as well since that’s part of their case against the traditional point of view.
neither are journalists always objective. it’s just as easy to present quotes and information to bias the article, while ommitting those that are contradictory. i’ve been taking modules in journalism, and whilst i won’t say i’m an expert at it, it doesn’t read like a very well-written piece. it gives too little information for reporting such a controversial claim and uses emotive words (’unimpressed’) which is not very acceptable in hard news writing. also, there’s this other article that reports the washington post omitted the anti-environmental background of the tennessee center for policy research. http://mediamatters.org/items/200703020001?offset=20&show=1
i’m not saying that the source i provided is unbiased itself. i suppose for every article/piece of work that argues a case, there will at least another that argues the opposite side. sometimes people want/need to ‘prove’ something because they’re invested in it. we shoulnd’t always believe every single thing we read…
June 14th, 2007 at 12:41 am
First thing first, this is my blog entry, it is not your typical essay that is going to be submitted for marking or is it any news worthy. I am not seeking anyone’s approval or bonus points for including a list of references. My claim that there might be a conspiracy needs no prove or evidence since that entry is categorized as OPINIONS, my personal opinion.
I beg to differ that science is not objective. The appropriate statement should be science influenced by politics is not objective. Likewise, religion + politics is equally problematic. And from the recent local gay issue, we see how Christians are trying to use politics to impose their belief system and preference over this issue. That’s another topic altogether.
My conclusions are not simply based on that so-call report of Al Gore’s failure to walk his talk, in fact, that is the least of my consideration. If we base on what you’d said “we shouldn’t always believe every single thing we read…”, does it follow that we shouldn’t believe some parts of textbooks, the bible or newspapers? And on what criteria should be assess the validity and correctness of those materials and which stuff to believe?
Believing and understanding are quite different things. It is easy to believe in things without evidence. It is unlikely to understand something without learning or taking a closer look. The issue here is not so much of believing who said what, but rather what is being said.
It doesn’t make sense to say I believe that the Earth is revolving around the Sun. It is a fact and it is proven with science. I singled out Al Gore for the fact that his gross mis-representation of time relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide level is absurd. If someone else didn’t point out the lag and order between the two variables, many would have taken it cause. In fact, many are already taken into this CO2 nonsense.
If your other source is simply dog-eat-dog type of journalistic mentions that are more concern with the people than science, then sorry, perhaps you have to try harder to share with me concrete scientific materials that help me see otherwise.
I am not a journalist, I am an engineer by training and I prefer to reason based on knowledge and common sense instead of merely believing. It doesn’t really bothers me if you want to believe CO2 is causing the world to melt down. But I am inclined to agree with the idea that the Sun is the major contributor to climatic changes that many have grossly overlooked.
These days, many things are driven by economics and politics. Given that science can be twisted by scientists who thirst funding, I do agree that science can lose its objectivity because politics have given the motivation. But if the scientists who presented information that contradicts the trend and tread themselves into predicament of lose funding or jobs. It would be hard to conceive any reasons for doing so apart from being objective in presenting knowledge and information in spite of risks.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:20 am
you’re right in saying that you’re entitled to your opinions, of course. i have my own opinions too, and mine are that one should investigate a matter thoroughly using different sources before coming to conclusions.
why do you talk about religion and the Bible in the same paragraph? The Bible has nothing to do with religion. yes, there are a lot of politics in religion. it sucks. i don’t subscribe to religion at all. and yes, we should question everything we read, including certain textbooks and even the Bible.
people may have other motivations other than money and career. like fame, or trying to outsmart others. they’re not the only ones who have proposed something contrary to the popular trend, and neither will they be the last. i’m not saying they’re wrong; they may very well be right, but until there is more evidence to support their claims i would rather not take their word for it. actually, i don’t really care either. the only reason i left a reply was because of what i mentioned in the first paragraph here.
anyway, this is my opinion and you have yours, so i suppose there’s no need for any further discussion…