Today I accidentally got into a heated discussion about the environment with my friend Gibson. I was asked to babysit some contractors working in our building this morning, which translates to sitting around for two hours in a chair reading. Gibson, thankfully came down at my halfway mark to see if I needed to use the bathroom, as last time I was asked to perform this mundane task, I was all but forgotten had to frantically call everyone I knew until I reached someone that could relieve me so I could pee. I made sure to ask him ahead of time if he would mind coming down and checking on me this time.
I took the opportunity to bring a stack of magazines with me for my escort duty this morning, one them being a recent issue of Newsweek which featured Al Gore on the front cover. Upon coming to relieve me, Gibson took note of the cover. Later on when I returned to my office, I had an email from Gib with a link to this page.
Ok, I am pretty liberal. I grew up with liberal parents and went to a liberal New England boarding school. To me, the Democrat outlook on things just makes a lot of sense. However, I don't like talking politics with a lot of my friends, especially the far right ones. I generally avoid these discussions. But alas, Gib had already sent me the evil link and I felt compelled to defend Al Gore. Especially since Gibson royally pisses me off on a daily basis for critiquing things he doesn't even have direct knowledge of, he just forms his opinions based on the opinions of others. Like the time he went on and on about how much Twilight sucks when he HASN'T EVEN READ THE BOOKS! HELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOO???? Same goes for this. Gibson HASN'T EVEN SEEN AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and he's dumping on it. I have seen it. It was a while ago, but what I took away from it was this: The planet is not an infinite vat of resources. We as people can't all just go around doing whatever the hell we want to it forever. We will ruin the planet if we don't take care of it. Individually, it helps if we all treat the Earth well and do what we can to take care of it. Why is that bad of Al Gore to bring that to everyone's attention? Why does some douchebag have to go through the damn movie with a fine-tooth comb and go "NO NO NO, this isn't accurate!" That is not THE POINT of the movie to me. I think Al Gore is just trying to show that we can hurt the earth by being careless and that our actions will make a difference in keeping the earth in good shape. Furthermore, my opinion is that statistics and research findings can always be skewed to support a point of view. Gore's might not be completely correct, but who's to say this other bonehead's research is perfectly accurate either? I bet hundreds of people could do this research and all the results would be different. The point of the movie is to say that we need to take care of the planet. I don't see what is wrong with this making this point.
I realize that Gore's movie and Michael Moore's movies are leftist. But I think the thing to take away from them is that we all need to wake up. Walking around like everything is fine because we are in our little neat bubbles makes us oblivious to what is wrong and that the current system could be flawed. I think it's good to make people think about these things. It's a point of view to think about. Even a discussion about how much you disagree with them at least gets the issue brought up as opposed to not being dealt with at all.
Anyway, I got really pissed at Gibson and it took me a while to calm down. This was also after he claimed Fox News was the most unbiased news source. Yeah. Ok. I'm done having these conversations with him. He seems like a reasonable person. BUT HE'S NOT!
1 comments:
I know I wasn't there and that I don't know this Gibson fella, but I'm irritated with him after reading your blog. It has been awhile since I've seen the documentary (coincidentally, I had just signed up for Netflix last week and it was one of the first documentaries I had added to my queue). In my last semester of college, I took a global change biology course. In it, we evaluated data from both sides of the global warming issue. There is an abundance of data supporting the change of the environment after the introduction of industrialization and the increased use/burning of fossil fuels from a wide variety of sources, using a wide variety of indicators. As you have stated already experiments can be designed with a slant and data analysis/conclusions can be skewed. Like I said, we looked at data/studies from both sides of the issue. It is interesting to note that all of the studies that refuted any stance related to global warming were corporately funded whereas those studies which showed data supporting the progression of global warming tended to be executed by independent, academic, grant-funded researchers.
The link that he sent you is for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). The SPPI's executive director is Robert Ferguson. Prior to founding SPPI, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (another group trying to edumacate the public on key issues using "fact and science"). The Frontiers of Freedom was heavily funded and supported by Exxon. Hmmm, just wondering who might have a bias and motive here: Gore, or the boys at SPPI?
Is this the same guy who was harassing you about running and setting goals?
OK, enough of my ranting. Don’t even get me started on Fox News!
Post a Comment