Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex What am I doing about global warming? I am doing nothing and have big plans to do more of nothing tommorrow. Nonetheless, I am 'walking the walk' because I don't believe that "Humans' are causing *global climate change. (* that is the Politically Correct phrase - that way when the earth starts to cool the 'greens' wont have to re-do all of their signs!) But, I do recycle my garbage

Amazing! - Back in grade school history I used to wonder how people could be so stupid to persecute scientists for their theories and discoveries. I also believed that this could not possibly happen today because of the advances of technology through science.

Boy was I wrong! -

Alex, do you believe that these same scientists are capable of sending spacecrafts to mars and the moon or do you think that this was just simulated on a Hollywood set?

Just wondering

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex sorry ,I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I do like advocado though, and other veggies..... :P

You need to search previous posts for that keyword... and I wouldn't profess an admiration for them in the meantime.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Shhh...dont tell him...Nords...can you change his name to "monica" before you go on vacation?

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence The movie mentioned asking the energy company if you can purchase "green" energy, how does that work? Is it a real deal, I guess I'm asking.

It depends on the energy company. I've had green energy (wind and biomass, mainly) for a few years now. It's now cheaper than "traditional" energy because the fuel charge for natural gas has gone up a lot.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Amazing! - Back in grade school history I used to wonder how people could be so stupid to persecute scientists for their theories and discoveries. I also believed that this could not possibly happen today because of the advances of technology through science.

Nobody is talking about persecuting scientists. In fact, the scientists who are on the global warming bandwagon are far from persecuted--they are the ones doing the best in the grant-gathering "bizz." That's one reason given by some opponents for doubting this hypothesis--there's money to be made by hyping the coming catastrophy. Of course, the petroleum companies are funding the other side, so that complicates the issue.

I dont think questioning the causes of global warming is quite the same as believing we didn't go to the moon. We're talking about less than 1 deg C temp increase over the course of the centurry. We're talking about a fossil record that shows that 450 million years ago, when the world was the coldest it has been in 500 million years, CO2 levels were actually at their highest (many times higher than they are today). We're talking about recognizing that 97% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, CO2 is less than 3%. So, even if present CO2 is 40-50% higher than it was earlier in the century, that's still about a 1% change in total greenhouse gasses. And then there's the interrelationships to be appreciated--will higher CO2 lead to increased plant growth=more CO2 uptake? The models are NOT clear on this. The models ARE clear on the effect of solar radiation, and that solar radiation has increased as the temps have increased (again, by less than 1 deg C)

I'm not saying that warming isn't occuring, and I'm not saying it's impossible that we'll have to do something about once it is understood. But the "10 year tipping point" and "irreversable change" talk sounds calculated to influence rather than to inform. I don't think the doubters are Capricorn 1 believing, flat earth type foil hat wearers. (At least not ALL of them ).

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords You need to search previous posts for that keyword... and I wouldn't profess an admiration for them in the meantime.

Thanks Nords - I'll check it out - in the meantime I am eating an avocado right now. ...

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Shhh...dont tell him...Nords...can you change his name to "monica" before you go on vacation?

i don't thnk you're really a cute fuzzy bunny at all.... hmmm* *

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Amazing! - Back in grade school history I used to wonder how people could be so stupid to persecute scientists for their theories and discoveries. I also believed that this could not possibly happen today because of the advances of technology through science. Boy was I wrong! - Alex, do you believe that these same scientists are capable of sending spacecrafts to mars and the moon or do you think that this was just simulated on a Hollywood set? Just wondering

* So, now I am persecuting scientists?? wow,* It is quite a leap to assume that I am some crackpot who wears a tin foil hat just because I am not buying into an unproven theory proffered by a Poltician with an agenda! * * The facts are not so clear as Al Gore would have you believe.

I, and many respected scientists,*believe that Solar activity is causing the bulk of the current warming cycle.* The linked article explains this quite well. Sure, it is possible that Greenhouse gases may play a role, but it remains to be seen and is by no means proven.* There is no consensus of opinion either way.* did you blindly believe that another ice age was coming when the enviro-moonbats predicted it in the 70's too? or did question it*
Remember, these 'greens' have an agenda. They also have a verifiable track record of being dead wrong.* http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Nobody is talking about persecuting scientists.* In fact, the scientists who are on the global warming bandwagon are far from persecuted--they are the ones doing the best in the grant-gathering "bizz."* That's one reason given by some opponents for doubting this hypothesis--there's money to be made by hyping the coming catastrophy.* Of course, the petroleum companies are funding the other side, so that complicates the issue. I dont think questioning the causes of global warming is quite the same as believing we didn't go to the moon.* We're talking about less than 1 deg C temp increase over the course of the centurry. We're talking about a fossil record that shows that 450 million years ago, when the world was the coldest it has been in 500 million years, CO2 levels were actually at their highest (many times higher than they are today).* We're talking about recognizing that 97% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, CO2 is less than 3%.* So, even if present CO2 is 40-50% higher than it was earlier in the century, that's still about a 1% change in total greenhouse gasses.* And then there's the interrelationships to be appreciated--will higher CO2 lead to increased plant growth=more CO2 uptake?* The models are NOT clear on this.* The models ARE clear on the effect of solar radiation, and that solar radiation has increased as the temps have increased (again, by less than 1 deg C)* I'm not saying that warming isn't occuring, and I'm not saying it's impossible that we'll have to do something about once it is understood.* But the "10 year tipping point"* and* "irreversable change" talk sounds calculated to influence rather than to inform.* *I don't think the doubters are Capricorn 1 believing, flat earth type* foil hat wearers.* (At least not ALL of them ).*

This sums up my feeling quite well.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex * enviro-moonbats

Alex, as I said before, this type of language does not inform, it inflames. I would hardly call the many respected scientist that conclude human activity has contributed to global warming a bunch of "enviro-moonbats."

What are your bona fides?

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem We're talking about a fossil record that shows that 450 million years ago, when the world was the coldest it has been in 500 million years, CO2 levels were actually at their highest (many times higher than they are today).

This is an oft-repeated "fact." Do you have a link? Besides the Tim Patterson quote and all the blogs and op-eds that quote from it.

I can't find anything and I'm on page 4 of google. I did find it mentioned in a speech by Priem but he didn't quote sources (and, to boot, he's funded partially by Exxon).


Edit: I did find a study by Scotese that indeed shows that CO2 levels were much higher (16x) then they are today. Of course the same graph shows that the average temperature was much higher as well (almost twice as warm).

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem We're talking about recognizing that 97% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, CO2 is less than 3%. So, even if present CO2 is 40-50% higher than it was earlier in the century, that's still about a 1% change in total greenhouse gasses.

Water vapor is about 80% of greenhouse gases by mass. It absorbs less radiation, however, than CO2.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students...tionBudget.pdf

[donheff]

Wow, what a contentious issue. Will someone please post an abortion thread to bring the heat down a bit.

I went and saw the Gore movie (thanks Lawrence). It was amazingly good - I went in skeptical that Gore could be entertaining or that what is essentially a slide show could hold my attention for 90 minutes (I am ADD) but it did.

My take is that Gore does a very good job trying to convince his viewers that global warning is real and serious. He does not give substantial time to opponents but it isn't clear to me that he should. He has reached a conclusion and is alarmed enough to try to get people fired up to take action. His conclusion is shared by the vast majority of the scientific community. Many of the best of the GW opponents are (allegedly) in the employ of industry and many others are viewed by the scientifc community as quacks.

I have been and still am skeptical about GW. It seems like opinions on soft topics like the population explosion in the 70s and the (US) population deficit in the early 90s (Workforce 2000) tend to be 180 degrees off the reality. But still, the scientific consensus on GW is truly huge - it is getting close to the level of consensus on evolution . So it does seem sensible to at least be concerned.

I was disappointed that we didn't go for a gas tax, vehicle mileage standards, or some such discincentives in the 70s. At the time, my worry was strictly national security (dependence on the middle east). Maybe now with GW joining the national security arguments we will actually do something.

[laurence]

Thanks for the post, donheff! I wanted more substance in the "what can we do?" category, too (most of that is in the credits).

My takeaway is many of the things that will help with this issue will also help our country in other ways. Economics and the environment don't have to be at odds. If we reduce the amount of energy we need from the middle east, that reduces pollution, national security concerns, and our trade deficit. These are areas where we should focus our attention, where people can agree a certain action does good, even if they can't agree in what way.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Wow, what a contentious issue.* Will someone please post an abortion thread to bring the heat down a bit. I went and saw the Gore movie (thanks Lawrence).* It was amazingly good - I went in skeptical that Gore could be entertaining or that what is essentially a slide show could hold my attention for 90 minutes (I am ADD) but it did.

Hmmm... how 'bout this... didn't Gore lie under oath about an abortion?

[cube_rat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Hmmm... how 'bout this... didn't Gore lie under oath about an abortion?

Here we go again. Incoming!

[shiny]

I saw this movie about a month ago at a film festival in Sydney. It was packed! Afterwards the talk was about how much of a bummer is was that Australia hadn't signed the Kyoto treaty.

About the population issue... From what I remember the point was that we need to get these issues addressed before the billions of people in China, India, etc. start using more oil, etc.

Also, its not just global warming. If left uncheck it would eventually affect the gulf stream and cause cooling in some places, so it really is global climate change.

Another fact that the movie pointed out was how the moisture in the atmosphere is affected - causing drought in some places and floods in others.

No, I don't appreciate being called an "enviro-wacko" but its better than being just plain wacko.

[cube_rat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiny No, I don't appreciate being called an "enviro-wacko" but its better than being just plain wacko.

Same here. I'd like to be known as an equal opportunity whacko.

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Alex, as I said before, this type of language does not inform, it inflames. I would hardly call the many respected scientist that conclude human activity has contributed to global warming a bunch of "enviro-moonbats." What are your bona fides?

Martha - go back and read what I posted. I never called today's scientists 'enviro-moonbats'. I called the folks who were calling for a new ice age in the 70's that. .... and since the ice age never appeared and since the exact opposite has occurred, I believe my characterization to be jarring but accurate.

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Martha - go back and read what I posted. I never called today's scientists 'enviro-moonbats'. I called the folks who were calling for a new ice age in the 70's that. .... and since the ice age never appeared and the exact opposite has occurred, I believe my characterization to be jarring but accurate.