Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth

[cube_rat]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Martha]

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 beleive my characterization to be jarring but accurate.

It's the "jarring but accurate" part. Right after describing envio-moonbats you say the greens have an agenda concerning global warming. The clear impression you created is that anyone who believes the vast majority of scientists who maintain humans have effected climate change is nuts or has some sort of hidden agenda. OK, so the scientists are not the enviro-moonbats but those who tend to respect their conclusions are?

Why are you inclined to take the risk and advise we not change behavior when if you are wrong the results are devastating?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Because that would require admitting that a point brought up by someone called "a liberal" could be plausible.

Yellow dogs. Barking at the moooooon...

 

[Alex]

It's the "jarring but accurate" part. Right after describing envio-moonbats you say the greens have an agenda concerning global warming. The clear impression you created is that anyone who believes the vast majority of scientists who maintain humans have effected climate change is nuts or has some sort of hidden agenda. OK, so the scientists are not the enviro-moonbats but those who tend to respect their conclusions are?

Why are you inclined to take the risk and advise we not change behavior when if you are wrong the results are devastating?

Martha, I am sorry to correct you again, but with all due respect, I never advised anyone not to take any action! In fact, I suggested quite the opposite. I said that if someone truly believes that human activities are causing GW, that they should focus on what they can do as individuals. I encouraged them to 'walk the walk'. Yes, I did say that they should 'leave me alone', but that is just my personal preference. When it comes to environmentalists, Multilevel Marketing orgs, and religious groups, I take the attitue of "Don't call me, I'll call you".

Also, do you not agree that, generally speaking, 'greens' have a political agenda? I find that, almost without exception, these 'greens' border on the "hyperpolitical!" Look at groups like PETA, GREENPEACE, NRDC, etc...If these groups didn't have political agendas why do they all have lobbying arms and political action committees?

 

[Alex]

Because that would require admitting that a point brought up by someone called "a liberal" could be plausible.

Yellow dogs. Barking at the moooooon...

that's really, um, funny yeah thats the word, funny. Funny, in a 'fat people smell' kinda way even more so, since I am liberal....

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

So what you're saying is that you dont like yourself, and you enjoy giving avocados?

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Also, do you not agree that, generally speaking, 'greens' have a political agenda? I find that, almost without exception, these 'greens' border on the "hyperpolitical!" Look at groups like PETA, GREENPEACE, NRDC, etc...If these groups didn't have political agendas why do they all have lobbying arms and political action committees?

Alex, I take Martha's post to mean that it may be dangerous to presumptively label sincere scientists who are trying to warn us about GW as belonging to a specific political group with all kinds of seconary agendas. In doing that, we may miss the message entirely.

I believe you are right about the fringe elements out there who self-describe as "green." But I also believe there are tons of credible, nonpolitical scientists and others who are smart, sincere, and have no unspoken agendas. I want to hear them loud and clear, and the mounting suggestive evidence tells me we had better be careful . A political or policy solution, within reason, may be the only way to effect sufficient change - having a few people "walk the walk" may not be enough.

It doesn't sound like you are sticking your head in the sand about this, but there are some who do so based on their perception of the politics of the messengers. Human nature, I guess, but it may not be the best solution in this matter. This may be big in a few decades; very big.

 

[Cool Dood]

Jeez, who would've guessed a discussion about global warming would turn ugly?! The world must be ending...

 

[Alex]

So what you're saying is that you dont like yourself, and you enjoy giving avocados?

... based on your snappy retort alone, you are clearly superior to me in every way imaginable. :

 

[Alex]

Alex, I take Martha's post to mean that it may be dangerous to presumptively label sincere scientists who are trying to warn us about GW as belonging to a specific political group with all kinds of seconary agendas. In doing that, we may miss the message entirely.

I believe you are right about the fringe elements out there who self-describe as "green." But I also believe there are tons of credible, nonpolitical scientists and others who are smart, sincere, and have no unspoken agendas. I want to hear them loud and clear, and the mounting suggestive evidence tells me we had better be careful . A political or policy solution, within reason, may be the only way to effect sufficient change - having a few people "walk the walk" may not be enough.

It doesn't sound like you are sticking your head in the sand about this, but there are some who do so based on their perception of the politics of the messengers. Human nature, I guess, but it may not be the best solution in this matter. This may be big in a few decades; very big.

Your points are well taken and clearly well thought out. I appreciate your thoughfulness and candor. This subject is very , well, heated!

But let me remind you that we are talking about Al Gore and his movie! Mr Gore is many things, but he is not a credible, nonpolitical scientist, not by a stretch. He is first and foremost a politician (and, I say this with caution) with a politcal (gasp!) agenda. His movie is a polemic, designed to create and nurture a shrill, alarmist, response to a threat that may or may not even exist. That being said, I and many other "cooler heads" favor alternative fuels, electric cars, recylcing programs and all sorts of earth friendly initiatives and alternatives. I personally prefer market driven solutions (i.e coal tar sands, wind and solar etc..) over government programs, but still believe we can always accept a nudge or two from government in the form of tax credits. Just so long as it is done incrementally and efficiently, two qualities I find the goverment woefully lacking in.

 

[free4now]

The wsj article

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

is worthy of a read...

There is consensus that temperatures are rising and that human behavior is causing temperatures to rise.

People who say "there's no consensus" mean there is no consensus on how much change is occurring or how fast it will cause significant harm.

So "there is consensus" and "there's no consensus" are both true.  But not about the same thing!

I'll admit as a lefty, hybrid diving, Sierra Club member that I wanted to believe the movie when I saw it.  It did it's job of confirming for me that temperatures are rising and humans are to blame.  I'm a born skeptic so I actively searched for rebuttals after seeing the movie, and spent several hours of surfing trying to find anyone who could rebut this.  Nobody can.

The pictures of glaciers melting, simulations of cities flooding, and hurricane-tie-ins, however are very rebuttable.  Even as I was seeing the movie it was clear to me that he was reaching by including that stuff.  And after researching it, it's clear that nobody really has any certainty at all about whether that stuff is going to be a problem in the near future, and I would even go so far as to say that I'm sure the near future won't be as bad as he projected.   As much as I would like the flooding projections to be true because they would bring the water to within a few hundred yards of my hillside condo, giving me beachfront property.

For me, all I need to know is that humans are taking the planet in the wrong direction.    That's enough for me to say we've got to turn it around.   

 

[lets-retire]

I've tried to stay out of this for a while, but I have a couple comments, but probably won't rebut any responses.

I think the climate is changing. The main question is can we do anything about it.

Most of the articles I've read say that humans are affecting the climate. That is a very obvious statement. If you don't think so. Go to an exercise class, but don't participate. Go in before the class take a temperature then go in toward the end and take another temperature. The last reading will be higher than the first. Even if we were completely green we would cause change. Our bodies are 98.6 degrees most places I've been are not. So we are either heating the area up or cooling it down just be being there.

We breath out CO2, eventually just the sheer number of people will cause an increase of CO2. Does that mean we should stop breathing so the planet can live?

We cook our food. The heat from the cooking has to dissipate somewhere. It also causes the temperature to rise. Walk into a kitchen when someone is cooking. Again the more people there are the more this affects the climate.

I read several articles about the ice sheets. Many say they are getting smaller square mileage wise, BUT they are getting thicker.

We might be able to slow down our effects on the climate, but we will not be able to stop any changes. Is it worth it to spend trillions of dollars to stop an issue we have no hopes of controlling?

 

[ladelfina]

v. good balanced points, free4now.

The thing that perplexes me is how critics of "Al Gore and his movie" say "he's just a politician" with a "political agenda".

Somehow this does not deter global warming skeptics from accepting either Bush's own statements on the issue or the current admin's energy and defense policies. These positions also have a political basis, and they have personal economic repercussions for Bush and the whole crew of oil men that surrounds him, as well.

How can only one side of a scientific argument be painted so consistently (and, apparently, so successfully) as "political"?

Doing nothing is still a choice.
It's still a political position.
Is that position defensible?
If so, let's hear the arguments, rather than attacking 99% of the scientific community because Al Gore is the only one taking their analyses seriously, and you don't happen to like Al Gore!

Some of the "eco-" fears in the '70s were exaggerated.. but air and water pollution were tackled to a certain extent, and we today reap the benefits of improvements which, to hear from the voices of industry at the time, were "impossible" and "overly/unnecessarily restrictive". Or are you still mad the gov't. won't let you blast your backyard with DDT?


President Bush on Global Warming!
http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147

---
'Market solutions' is something of a canard since energy markets and resources are influenced far more by government regulations (not just in the US, but around the world) as well as by a whole host of other geopolitical decisions, whether related or apparently unrelated, than by anything resembling a 'free' market.

What exactly is the "market" for energy (currently mostly fossil fuels)? Is "the market" the price of gasoline in the US or is it the price of gasoline in Europe? Or, is it in the "price" of virtually everything we eat, grow, manufacture, wear, because it takes non-renewable energy from someone, somewhere, to produce? Will spending untold billions of USD to 'stabilize' Iraq be offset by cheaper and more available oil from the region? Or not? Whatever the result, will it be good, bad, or indifferent overall in the short term? In the long term? I don't think we really know.

Anyway, in the end it's not the consumer who gets to make these choices... When you drive down the "free" (US gov't.-paid-for) highway, you're being encouraged to burn gas. When you take the train, you find Amtrak tickets are very expensive, because "the gov't. can't be in the business of subsidizing trains!! Amtrak has to make a profit.."  Why? The government has made a political decision that driving should be cheaper than train travel. In Europe it is the opposite. It's not any individual American's 'fault' that this is so; we can only make our consumer decisions based on the economic picture presented to us. Or we can reach into our pockets and buy the train ticket or pay more for the hybrid car, spend time and bother recycling, etc.

Here, the 'tragedy of the commons' comes into the picture, apart from worries about environmental damage. We can all mostly agree that in a mild and general sense 'conservation' is good / waste is bad, but the "green" recyclers and hybrid car drivers will always be the butt of jokes to some.. they'll have helped make certain of the earth's resources last longer, but they'll be on foot just the same as the Hummer driver if/when the oil ever "runs out" and we are forced to find more costly alternatives.

---
From what I recall, the ice sheets are getting thicker in some places because of more snow (more water evaporation/higher temps rather than ice sublimation/lower temps). There's not just one kind of ice, either, in terms of temperature, density, volume or even structure. There are many types.

 

[Eagle43]

I think we're all gonna die!  :

 

[Cut-Throat]

We might be able to slow down our effects on the climate, but we will not be able to stop any changes. Is it worth it to spend trillions of dollars to stop an issue we have no hopes of controlling?

I remember all of the lame arguments in the 1960's and 1970's against cleaning up the environment. Very similiar to the ones here. 'Impossible' to do, 'will cost trillions', 'not worth it', 'the air will always be polluted', 'the water's not that dirty'. 'it will hurt business'

Aren't you glad we didn't listen to the naysayers back then? You have cleaner water to drink, cleaner air to breath.

The Bald Eagle thanks us for banning DDT. Yup, just a bunch of 'Envir-Wackos' saving your ass in spite of yourselves.

 

[lets-retire]

I remember all of the lame arguments in the 1960's and 1970's against cleaning up the environment. Very similiar to the ones here. 'Impossible' to do, 'will cost trillions', 'not worth it', 'the air will always be polluted', 'the water's not that dirty'. 'it will hurt business'

Aren't you glad we didn't listen to the naysayers back then? You have cleaner water to drink, cleaner air to breath.

The Bald Eagle thanks us for banning DDT. Yup, just a bunch of 'Envir-Wackos' saving your ass in spite of yourselves.

Yes, but we are not talking about dirty water/air/land. In those circumstances it is obvious where the dirt came from. We are talking about a complex system that has had repreated warming and cooling cycles without the intervention of humans for billions of years. The tempurature has gone a drgee or two over the past century. So exactly how much of this rise can be directly attributed to the use of fossel fuels? NOBODY knows and that is the point.

It would be similar to coming home to your nice apartment after it's rained and finding it flooded. Until you know why it's flooded, anything you do is a shot in the dark and probably won't fix anything. Until we know how much of a hughly complex thing such as the climate getting warmer is caused by the use of fossel fuels, pretty much anything we do is going to have little if any effect at the cost of huge amounts of money. It would be a feel good theory if we went ahead and spent trillions on lowering the use of fossel fuels, only to find out the reason it is getting hotter is because there are so many people on the earth passing gas, working out, and generally just keeping the air around them at 98.6.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

... based on your snappy retort alone, you are clearly superior to me in every way imaginable. :

Nah, you're a bigger butthead than I am. I concede the point.

 

[Nords]

Nah, you're a bigger butthead than I am.  I concede the point.

Whoa.

Those statements are such a huge step forward in so many ways!!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Werent you going on vacation?

I'll need the break to widen the post count gap. You're getting positively Galtish lately

 

[donheff]

There is an interesting discussion on GW going on at Scientific American: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?cat=19

I forgot how to format the url tags to link from a keyword -- can anyone remind me.

 

[Nords]

Werent you going on vacation?

I'm still packing and watching the dryer spin.

I'm also wondering if there's any problem with having four West Point cadets housesitting here (my nephew the Army Ranger is accompanied by his squadmates), coming & going at all hours of the day & night, while three 13-year-old boy-crazy girls are taking care of the bunny and the plants.  (I only drink Corona so there's no risk of being accused of providing intoxicating beverages to minors.)  Eh, he's a responsible 24-year-old combat veteran.  What could possibly go wrong?

I've been informed by our USNA hostess that we'll be attending the Plebe Exercise Program with the Class of 2010 (yikes) and a few of their supervisors-- Saturday 6:10 AM EDT at Farragut Field, no doubt on the same slick wet astroturf that I hated sitting in so much during 1978.  (Those of you in the area are welcome to join us, I'll probably be the only 40-something male with a ponytail in several square miles of Annapolitan territory.)  But the lack of dry, heated towels will be leavened by watching spouse & kid participate in the workout too!

I'll need the break to widen the post count gap.  You're getting positively Galtish lately

I wouldn't worry about it:  
- TH post count 11,419 11,420 damn it 11,421 11,422 and rising at the rate of 12.267 per day.
- Nords post count 6615 and rising at 7.5 per day.  No competition.  

Now if we're talking post quality that's a whole 'nother ballgame, but again there's no competition.

Besides while we're sitting around here on our thumbs bickering over post count, SG is taking the inside track...