An Inconvenient Truth

We recently had a thread on this movie. I have yet to see it because it isn't available where I am, though I suppose I will when it comes around. However, given Gore's past history with social causes and blowing things out of proportion I have little faith that the movie actually contains solid scientific evidence, analyzed carefully, to draw sober conclusions.The other thread did not help build my faith as people proceeded to trot out misleading graphs of paleoclimatic data, and mischaracterized the nature of that data. I come from a paleoclimatology background and am stunned at how often people casually misrepresent the level of our knowledge as well as fall for "convenient" graph making. Its like the oldest shyster gag there is.In any case I went to the website you linked to. Chocked full of nifty fraphics and claims of how undeniable everything is... GET THE BOOK, GET THE SOUNDTRACK, SIGN THE PLEDGE! I'm convinced!!!Oh, but I wanted to see the data and clicked on the "science" section.Where's the science? Yeah, many (and I would say most, including me) agree that recently we have seen the gloval average temp rising. The evidence is suggestive that a significant factor is CO2 accumulation, and a significant factor in its accumulation is human activity. That's about it.There is definitely a "natural" component to the temps we are seeing. Its not like without human activity temperatures "naturally" stay at some even temp. The history of our atmosphere is change. We have seen higher temps lasting for longer periods in the past, without human industry to blame. That doesn't mean the current spike is not related to human activity, but it sure does let the "hot air" out of the hysteria bag of whether we should be worried because these temps aren't "natural" as well as its potential effects on life.Here is the rest of that page's "science"... The first two are NOT accepted in the scientific community as being as result of human induced climate change. That's nice how he slid that in after a statement that a majority of scientists agree. The first one in particular is thought to be part of a natural cycle we are in, with CC unlikely to have effected it.Those last two may very well be the result of CC. Now I like glaciers so its sort of sad to see them go, but otherwise... so what? In a geologic sense these two phenomena are what happen all the time in history. We just came off a massive warming period, with a temperature increase magnitudes over what we see now. That's why people (and plants) are able to live where they do right now in the northern hemisphere.Personally I would have liked to have seen the data behind the above claims. But there are none. I guess I have to buy the book (and so contribute to deforesting and energy pollution) to get the footnotes?Here's the next bit in "science"... 1) Where are the models from which they derive such conclusions and the data to support such models?
2) That 20 ft rise in sea level is expected when exactly? Hint: its not in the 25 years they placed in the point above.
3) While it states these points will lead to catastrophe, how many are based on an "overnight" change, that is with no sense that humans already have the technology to deal with the effects in the timeframes they would actually take and would implement them?
4) Given that world temps fluctuate naturally higher than we see today and also much much much lower (with glaciers miles deep over much of where humans reside in the northern hemisphere) why is this such a concern that the emphasis is on immediate action as if this is objectively catastrophic because human activity is the cause? When natural forces do start making massive temp switches are we NOT supposed to worry about that? Or is it all temperature change that we must view as catastrophic and must stop, despite the entire history of our climate as one of change, sometimes dramatic? Why? What would Kyoto have done? What science does he (or you) have that the Kyoto treaty would have resulted in the changes we'd need to impact any of the above?From what I know of Kyoto, it was well meaning. Certainly Bush was a lame ass for walking out on the whole process, rather than working with nations to create a sensible policy. But signing Kyoto would have only been a political gesture devoid of effect beyond creating bureacracy in order to say "we did something."Gore is trying to manufacture political power from this issue. This is not a man who has been in love with science or rational approaches to issues. He has seen an opportunity and he is milking it, using claims that are unfounded and hyperbolic. This is just like Bush's scare tactics using "terrorists". Everyone be afraid of X, such that you should listen to whatever I say we must do... regardless of the hard evidence, and the hard fact that in many cases the evidence is not complete. Don't think, act now! You don't know how to act, so I will tell you!If people on the left didn't care about the environment, and were more concerned about language in media, he'd be pushing another campaign to censor what we watch and hear.I'm not saying people shouldn't go see his movie. Just remember to liberally salt your popcorn with skepticism. Demand actual evidence, data. Look into where that data comes from and what context it is being shown.I'm also not saying people should not be concerned with human activity which effects the environment. Indeed I'd encourage people to cut down on driving, and esp driving gas guzzling machines. Recycle. That's great. But that is different from promoting hysterical pseudoscience which empowers an "environmental crisis" industry.I suppose we can reopen outstanding issues from the last "inconvenient truth" thread here, if you want to go over the evidence. Meanwhile I'll keep looking over all those cool graphic wallpapers and listening to the hip soundtrack, to see if I kind find some references.Edited by holmes, : recycling, reusing

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I just want to be clear, the evidence is highly suggestive that the degree of swing is a result of human activity. And it isn't just CO2 emissions, but removing natural CO2 traps as well (deforestation).I think it makes sense that humans should try to minimize effects, as it indicates waste, and stability is more useful than instability (which change is). I agree there are many useful environmentally mindful things people, businesses, and gov'ts can be doing toward that end. I definitely agree with this and wish this was the force behind the changes we are seeking. It is only this last part that I am disagreeing with. While you state (and perhaps rightly) that America tends to be reactionary and needs catalysts to get moving, I disagree that feeding that habit is worthwhile, no matter the end.We are currently at a low in the sense of understanding science, and engaging in sober debate on issues to find appropriate solutions... or even to figure out what problems we are facing.If I agree with the above, why should I not find FoxNews suitable as the catalyst America needs to deal with the problems of terrorism? Or rather let me use that as an example of where we have used that logic and where it has ended up. We championed hype, and the result is NOT making the right choices because we lost scope of the problems and what we needed to do to address them. I don't see this as any different.In the end (to me) it is about promoting power to a political agenda, rather than understanding. I guess I hope it results in what you have suggested, but I simply have little faith given the history of what hype delivers. Even where people start getting some solutions right they don't actually change lifestyles and "burn out" eventually. There's only so long people can live in an "emergency" mode, and then they look for a new thrill.Sorry to be a buzzkill, but that is my opinion.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Oh I think I might not have been clear enough. That specific comment you quoted was about storms, and I was trying to say that scientific consensus is that the increase it mentioned is NOT due to CC. See they started with something that has consensus and then began trotting out things that do not, and in fact are opposite of such. I ABSOLUTELY agree with this. Not only does it distract from other issues, but sometimes CC enthusiasts claim another problem as part of CC, and worse still pretend that we should be focusing on stopping CC to solve it rather than using available tech to protect ourselves from those other environmental issues.Edited by holmes, : Hopefully more clear.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

It really isn't playing here (I just checked again with the main cinema chain). If you like movies don't move to the Netherlands, esp Amsterdam. Though it is getting better, some movies take months to years to get here. I often find pirated copies in rental stores before they hit the theaters.Unfortunately I am not very computer savvy and my system is not always compatible with software. I went to the BitTorrent link you gave and all I got was a page of gibberish (code?) listed to "bikesexual.org"? I've gone to Wiki and I'll see what I can do, but it may not be fast. Also, if I do this, is it copyright infringement, or has it been released this way?You are absolutely correct that I cannot comment on his movie until I have seen it. However I certainly can comment on the opinions of people coming away from the movie as well as claims made at the site.I can also state my opinion on what I might expect from the movie. This is like anyone suggesting though they have not seen a particular O'Reilly segment they are unlikely to have missed many facts. Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and he is a politician with a history of using hype to promote personal agendas... just the same as O'Reilly.Hearing that he has a great Powerpoint presentation does not help me. I have seen enough "convincing" PPPs that were complete snakeoil, that I treat them with quite a bit of skepticism. PP is a great tool, but unfortunately can make just about anything look good.Its absence at the site, along with any other data, and the presence of completely incorrect (or misleading) claims, only strengthens my suspicions. If the evidence is so important and convincing, then why is the only thing there merchandising? It is actually WORSE than the Discovery Institute's website and that is saying something.As long as people are discussing how much they liked the movie, it is ridiculous for me to comment on its enjoyability. As long as people are making claims about how important it is, or how convincing the claims are regarding CC within it, or suggest that certain policies make sense, I can legitimately raise questions and demand answers about those issues.If the best a person who has seen the movie can tell me is I should see the movie, I am left nonplussed. What more do people get out of it than that?Despite my suspicions, I will put his movie on my MUST do list. And I guess I'll take a notepad. If you can find his data or his PP online, that'd be very helpful.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I have found info on the movie as well as his PP presentation. I'll be taking a look at it over the next couple of days.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I have still not found the movie. It should really not be surprising if it isn't playing here as the dutch are behind the times in movies as is, esp Amsterdam, and from what I have learned the movie was given a limited release. And I will not bother trying to get a pirated copy.However, as I mentioned later, I did get hold of a copy of him giving his presentation. I have now watched it. If this is any indication of what the movie is like, I simply stand amazed at the inability of people to spot base propaganda. Given that it is the basis of the movie I'm assuming its the same data in the film. I can certainly attack conclusions people state are what they get out of seeing the movie. If viewers are producing errant strawmen of his conclusions then what does that say about the movie?But like I said, I saw him give his presentation. Again I ask you, where is the science? In the 1+ hour presentation he appeared to spend about 10-15 min looking at data. And not presenting data, simply showing it and saying how obvious conclusions are by looking at his graphs.Unfortunately the refs were too blurry so I do not know exactly which studies he might be referring to, but I am aware of the types of graphs he is looking at and we were already discussing them in the other thread. They are conveniently scaled graphs which misrepresent the nature of the data as well as conclusions able to be drawn from it.And his models predicting what effects we might see were even more sketchy. I am NOT familiar with them and the fact that I did not come away with any clue where to look is not helping me believe him.What's worse is that he spent most of his time on ad hominem and guilt by association arguments which had NOTHING to do with global warming. Hey, I hate Bush and agree that he's for shit on the environment, that does not make whatever Gore says right.Now I am going to give this to you straight. I have a science background, with some portion specifically devoted to paleoclimatology. I worked for a major US sci org, IN HIS ADMINISTRATION. In fact I was one of the last people hanging around where I worked to "turn out the lights" when the gov't shut down. Your opinion of this man, his administration's actions, and what he is saying as far as CC goes are based on some credibility that simply is not real, and you would not grant to Bush and Co though it all comes from the same place.I was shocked and outraged at several points. One that really got me was when he stated how the Bush admin doesn't care about real science. Right then I started remembering what HIS people were doing at my org, their distortions and elimination of science. Then he actually began using the subject his nonscientists were doctoring at my org in his speech!Ah yes, my branch was actually told by a manager following his agenda "I don't care about the science, people need to be scared about this." That is why I HATE propaganda and do not believe scaring the american people is the best way to motivate them. Or that should even be a purpose. And it is such actitivities done by Gore and his followers at real science orgs which make me ask WHERE IS THE DATA???Oh yeah, and of course he spins that anyone who might disagree must be on the Bush or Industry payroll. The only thing he presented as rebuttal to deal with was a policy hack for Bush. Nice.This guy is a scare tactic politician, every bit the same as Bush. If the data is really out there then I should not need his movie alone to understand it. That is the same BS the Discovery Institute pulls.I mean really. Imagine you are a scientist working in a specific field. Then a politician releases a movie about aspects of your field and you have no idea what he's talking about and the fragments you see totally twist the data you have experience dealing with. And laypeople following his movement start telling YOU what people in YOUR field believe, and what YOUR data says, and that YOU must be wrong because you don't believe what the politician says.Does that make any sense?Okay, so let me challenge all of you. You just saw a movie on CC. It was produced by people who were "wowed" by a politician's PP presentation, after attending the premiere of a fictional horror movie about environmental disaster with NO relation to reality. You are a lay person, so you can't say for sure what he said is true. Did he give you facts you can check for yourself? If no, doesn't that say something? If yes, then what were they?I am a guy with a background in this science and I am asking for what you got out of this movie? What information have you been given? If you cannot give me anything, why am I to treat this any differently than a movie produced by Bush?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't see why your memory trumps nwr's. Frankly the above doesn't mean anything about their commitment to science or the environment.That's like saying Bush is commited to actually protecting our nation if he allowed the gov't to be shut down because they wouldn't appropriate more money to military and intelligent agencies. The question is of policies they ran in those orgs.I can't speak for any org outside the one I was working in, but I know where I was Gore's little helpers were only interested in science where it helped scare people, and actively hampering it when it did not fit that agenda. Environment is to Gore as terrorism is to Bush.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

First of all, I want to repeat that my comments were about the PP presentation that Gore gave. That's all I have to go on and that's supposedly what the movie is based on. It certainly is possible that in making the movie they cleaned things up.Maybe you can go to Wiki and download the PP presentation in their links and watch it, then tell me if the evidence is handled better in the movie.The fact is that he may have had accurate data, and some of the most up to date data, it is all about the presentation. What are lay people supposed to come away with as far as an understanding of science on this topic? Your suggestion that laypeople are coming away from the movie with strawmen because they are not climatologists only makes my point for me, and undercuts what some of those "positive scientists" were saying.The author of this thread is backing Kyoto... why? In past threads you have suggested outcomes which are not realistic... why? I don't understand why this movie is so important if basic inaccuracies are the result.If people ARE coming away making inaccurate statements about SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS, then I have every right to say that I don't see the movie as providing much of a service. It does not matter that Gore is "largely" anything. It is what mistakes he makes, and how those impact public knowledge as well as opinion and so policy.I'm very glad that you put up scientists who are disagreeing with how certain things were presented. I'm not sure if you noticed but one of the people who was in the first section "complimenting" Gore, was also in the last section openly stating issues are not necessarily as catastrophic as some forecasts sound. What did he put the 20ft sea rise at? 1000 years?Schmidt said that Gore was careful not to say when, but what did you come away feeling the timeframe was? And isn't there a huge difference knowing such things may take 100s-1000s of years? We've recently had news that there were people at sci orgs, undercutting scientists to push industrial as well as creo spin. Bush got full blame for the presence and actions of those people. Didn't you agree? Heck in Gore PP presentation he went to great lengths about Lundtz who wasn't even at a sci org.Now I tell you that while working in the Clinton/Gore administration we had people undercutting scientists to push an alarmist environmental plank and you act like he's not responsible? That it's just bad managers?I'm NOT the only one pointing that out. When the Bush "influences" on science were coming out, it was mentioned that C/G did the same thing. Administrations tamper with data. I'm telling you what the tampering was under his administration. And the rationale was just what the author of this thread said... science is LESS important than getting people concerned, and Americans need to be scared into action. That WAS the policy directive, and it was moved on. That was one of the largest motivating factors for me to stop working for the gov't in science.I might add that I did not say Gore was an idiot. I said he was a politician, doing exactly what most politicians do. And its the same thing he did when he was in office before. He pushes "scare" environmentalism, rather than rational environmentalism. Did you walk away from the movie with a feeling or information? If it is information then please provide it. I shouldn't have to go see the movie if the facts are in the evidence, and he gave you the evidence.What's more I am willing to grant that he has evidence which highly suggestive that global average temps are rising, that it is largely related to CO2 accumulation, and that such accumulation is due to human activity. That is of course not really in contention... at least not from me.What you saw, is that there is contention about conclusions which can be drawn from the data as he presents it (the nature of the relation of CO2 to temps), as well as implications of effects we will see from rising temps.I wholly admit that I have not seen the movie. I saw the PP presentation. I am now asking for the information people are coming away with from the movie. If it is not accurate and the evidence cannot be addressed beyond "you should go see it"... isn't there a problem?Why should that be any different than when ID theorists made their caims, and when asked said people "need to read the books" or "movies" put out by the Discovery Institute? And they certainly did have scientists "backing them up", including many who while disagreeing with them on many conclusions agreed that much of the data they had was factually presented.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Wow, what a... I'm not sure which to deal with first, the strawmen of my position(s), or the rather bizarre notion that people would, much less should say... Let's review. I did not say people should not go see his movie. I said I did not have faith it was going to contain any more science than I have seen coming out of his camp before. This is backed up by:1) having worked in a sci org under his administration and seen what policies he wanted as far as science data went.
2) having seen him use hysteria in other matters.
3) having seen misrepresented (or miseading) data from paleoclimatology as well as speculative modelling from people that support GC in general and have seen his movie.
4) having seen people support his proposed policies which do not have any basis in science for solving the problems he is claiming.And since the beginning of this second thread on his movie...
5) having seen the website with ABSOLUTELY NO DATA, but plenty of hip merchandising and totally inaccurate statements which are not in consensus (which makes me wonder if they are in the movie or not?).
6) having seen Gore give his PP presentation on which the movie is said to be based. As I said maybe crash (and now maybe you) can go to Wiki and download his presentation and tell me if that is like the movie.Given all the above I feel confident in saying I don't have much faith his movie is going to provide accurate understanding of data, much less what should be done about issues we face. All I recommended to people was to liberally salt their popcorn with skepticism. That doesn't mean disbelieve everything he said, it means check up on the data so you can understand it better yourself. Just quoting Gore and saying "see his movie" is NOT adequate.Claiming that Gore is actually helping give you a cleaner planet is so insulting to my intelligence that I just can't believe you said that. This is just as fanatic as people claiming Bush is helping keep America free. Who needs Gore? There was an environmental movement before him, and there will be one after him. He IS SIMPLY USING THE MOVEMENT.You know whose helping give you a cleaner planet? The hard working people who actually go into science and make changes in industry and technology and policy. The ones who take the time to puzzle through data and deliver understanding such that we can identify real problems and figure out how to address them realistically. Mmmmmm, it's been 10-12 years since I taught physical science. It seems to me that what I am getting in this thread is a bunch of people telling me how stupid they feel the average American is. Man if all you guys are right, then why on earth should I care about what Bush and Co do or say? It seems to me that when the right takes this same attitude they get slammed, now the left is getting a huge pass on the same thing.Heck, if people are this stupid, why on earth should I care if natural disasters wipe people out? This is EXACTLY the kind of BS hysteria I'm talking about. What good is this level of misunderstanding, and low expectations?Let me ask you something, if we cannot solve our problems through technology what on earth are you proposing we do? Let's pretend for a moment that we stop all CO2 accumulation and other artificial impacts on the environment. THE CLIMATE WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE!As long as humans are still alive (don't wipe ourselves out in war), we are going to see the same temps and higher, as well as massive dips in temp. We are going to see the very same rises and dips in the sea level as you are discussing here. THEY ALREADY HAPPENED!So if your little tantrum is true, what are we going to do anyway? 100 to 1000 years has itself resulted in massive changes in geography while humans have been living with LESS technology. Why can't we deal with the same in the future... especially sea level changes?The end is not nigh and climate change does not in itself spell doom. It represents CHALLENGES that we are GOING TO FACE ANYWAY. Yes, get real. Which is the baby and which is the bath water. I'm really confused by your analogy to my argument here. I suggested not just believing all you hear and see and instead try to understand the data better.My GUESS is that it will be like a Michael Moore movie. Enjoyable. Viscerally convincing, yet not 100% accurate. In fact potentially misleading in many areas. Have fun and enjoy what you see, let it get you thinking, but then remember its just a movie and you have to actually PUT IN SOME WORK to understand the issue.Yeah, I'm really a wild-eyed crazy man suggesting that people think about what they are watching, noting that there certainly are some misleading statements he makes, and that people try to deal with the real data and science, rather than relying on statements like "see his movie".

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm sorry, what were you saying? Leaders? You mean managers. And in some cases not even managers. Uh, I gave one example that involved one person. I did not say only one person. Yes they will remain anonymous as I am not about to start some huge political thing at EvC. The organization is very large and very prominent. That's another reason I'm not about to start naming names.You can take it or leave it. What it won't change is the fact that it happened, that more than just me are aware of it, that it was being mentioned when the issues with Bush's tampering with science came up, and that it gives ME a very valid reason not to trust much of what Gore says. He didn't give one in the PP presentation. IIRC he said it probably WOULDN'T be less than 100 years, but then said something which seemed to imply it could be more or less. Can you see how this looks to me exactly like what ID people say?They say they know something is true because they were convinced by reading book X by DI. The info is there. When pressed for data, they are not forthcoming or when they do say something and are called on some portions, refer back to the book and say its been a while and they aren't experts but the people that wrote it knew what they were talking about.If you have been enlightened with evidence, can you speak to it or no? If not, what use is it? Okay you didn't take notes, but as you are seeing he is not exactly forthcoming with it outside someone having to but his book or movie... which is EXACTLY what DI does with ID.Gore did not invent the wheel here. He didn't even come up with the concept of CC. Other people more dedicated than him work in this field on the data, and are going to have to come up with realistic solutions. If he's got something to share, maybe he should take his millions of dollars and get the information out there for free.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

There is no question that the Bush administration is bad for science. I have been astounded at the amount of control his office has achieved and how he has used that power.If you want me to say that C/Gs administration was less intrusive into science than Bush, I would be more than willing to agree. But that does not mean that it did not happen. Both directly and indirectly. We rightly hold Bush/Cheney accountable for things that occur under their watch, and it is a double standard to say Clinton/Gore were not responsible for what went on under their watch. Here is an article on science manipulation under Bush. It is in a sense a defense of the Bush administration by Marburger. I don't really agree with that guy's philosophy and I'm not interested in addressing the entire article. What is important is a short excerpt about science manipulation in general... Now this is from a person who is antiBush and clearly trying to draw a line between what went on during C/G versus B/C. Yeah, I can totally buy that the amount and nature of interference is much worse with B/C. But that does not make what was noted above disappear or mean something less. To do so is like saying the czar was okay, because you know Stalin was so much worse. It doesn't work like that.I have already told you, and you can see in the quote above, that PEER was recording complaints under C/G. And I can tell you it sucks, whether there is a little or a lot of it going on.Another interesting quote... Yeah, I agree with that analysis. As I said, this was one of the largest reasons I left gov't science. It is devastating. But it was going on before B/C. I came into a section where people were leaving, and continued to leave for such reasons. It was a focal point for "policy" attention due to its priorities. Believe me or no, morale has been plummeting at certain orgs much longer than the last 5 years. I will note that BOTH administrations seem to be behind the idea that scaring the American public to push agendas, is the best policy. To me its bad for science and its bad for Americans.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I didn't say he meets the same degree of intrusion. I'm saying the policies he backed were of the same nature and involved people dedicated to his mission of undercutting science, to advance policy.I realize you are responding to a post before I gave you some evidence. But check it out, I have now supplied evidence that there was such going on. Yes, you must take my word that that is my experience and so why I don't trust the guy. What's funny is that isn't what I said everyone else has to use as the measure of the data in the movie. In fact I keep recommending people look at the data more closely. No actually I don't. I see me as a person having come from a paleoclimate background being told by laypeople how much Gore's movie is filled with data, and then proceeding to make claims which aren't in the data. This makes me skeptical of the movie and the level of knowledge people are getting from the movie.I didn't tell anyone not to go see it or invent any false accusations of what is in the movie. I have said to be careful while watching it and to make sure to look into the facts afterward. Whoa! I also asked people to show me some of the data.But back to my analogy, I didn't say if ID people said something you should do the reverse. I was asking about use of data and knowledge of a field. If people are telling you they have read a book and it says X, and you doubt X is true and their best response is "read the book", isn't that troubling? I totally grant you that a person can refer to things that are offline. Sure. But that is for original material. Are you telling me that Gore has some original study data or something? Heck I'd accept someone giving the study refs and they are offline.And by the way you can stop with trying to make me look like I am dodging the movie. It ISN'T HERE, and IT'S ILLEGAL to get a pirate copy. I'm not about to apologize for that as it is not my problem. I have done more than meet you halfway. I went looking for his data anywhere else and found and watched his PP presentation on which the movie is based. I want to get this straight... you are comparing a book, movie, and soundtrack merchandising website, to a science journal? He said the facts are there and they are undeniable. If they are so important to the future of mankind why is he only making it available if you give him money, especially when the data involved is actually from other people?The irony of this whole thing kills me. Rampant wasted energy use and deforestation are hurting the planet, make sure you know the facts by buying a book, seeing a movie, or buying a soundtrack! Razzberries.But I am not blaming you for that, and I recognize you recognize the cheesiness of this.You said that this thread is about the movie. The movie is about facts and policy endorsement from those facts. I have not seen the movie but I can very well question its validity if I see its promoters (including statements at that website) misrepresenting facts and suggesting questionable policies. And I do believe it is okay to ask what data people got from the movie.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This is hilarious. First of all the article did not undercut my position. I agree that the level of control is more pervasive and widespread with Bush and Co. It is much more disturbing. But that doesn't effect what I said.The person commenting did not say there was NO control. He was drawing a difference between the two and suggesting that in general it was more undirected, chaotic then the Bush administration. But let's for sake of argument say that is exactly what HE said. There was more than just that quote! There were others who found that the style of interference was similar between administrations. Where is that quotein your reply?And that ignores the basic evidence that people were complaining of it under their administration. I suppose they must have all been "disgruntled employees" with bad managers.Here's the corker. I didn't say the person was MY manager. None of the people involved were MY managers, at least not in any sort of direct sense. I left because of what I saw happening in the agency, just as others had been and continued to do whether they or their data were directly effected or not. Would you stick around an agency that you knew to be handing out base propaganda to support administration initiatives?Disgruntled employee. I wasn't fired and I wasn't cheated. Boy I sure love seeing how much you can talk about me and my life, and dismiss what I have to say, while giving pass to some other guy you also have no knowledge about other than that he's rich and made a movie.And once more I never said any of them were idiots, I said they were intentionally dismissing scientific data and processes in order to promote policy. They didn't say "I don't understand", the comment was that they understood what they were being told and did not want it around or disseminated because it would stop certain campaigns Clinton/Gore had ordered the agency to promote.I am willing to drop this anytime you want. You want to not believe what I say, fine. But don't try and tell me what went on in my life. I'm telling you why I have a reason to be skeptical. There are plenty of other reasons for people to be skeptical taking scientific conclusions from a movie.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

He is somewhat of an environmentalist by: not providing the data, and instead running a merchandising website where he sells books, and soundtracks?Color me less than impressed. By forcing people to buy books to get refs and also selling soundtracks? Perhaps he missed the "reduce" part of environmentalism. He doesn't quote the same hardworking people that raise questions about his statements. They are shunted into the pro Industry section. You discussed the possibility of rising sea levels, by painting hyberbolic portraits of cities becoming like Atlantis, and then questioned what the people were going to do, and shot down the possibility of coastal engineering. You want me to post your quote back to you?By the way I didn't say we should wait on anything. We should see what needs to be done and do it. As it is, what is wrong with a dyke? You will now demonstrate how lowering CO2 will help us deal with the result of NATURAL climate changes. This ought to be fun... No, clearly I never said such a thing. I am on record as saying quite the opposite. What I said is that without human contributions (and sometimes based on OTHER factors than CO2) the planet has seen many temp swings, including much higher and vastly lower temps. Hence whether humans effect their environment or not we will still be faced with the same challenges at some point. No, we can prevent manmade contributions to that change. Given the history of the earth's climate we could just as easily end our contribution and have temps hike enough to see the same effects. We simply don't know what is going to happen once humans remove their own contributing factors.I agree it makes sense to start cutting back on manmade factors. I've also said that here and in other threads. I am FOR reducing CO2 emissions as well as activities such as deforestation which aid its accumulation. I just don't need to make false claims about the nature of data and science to argue that same position. Uh... I didn't say we're fucked. I said we are going to face the same challenges anyway. You said that claim was pathetic? You will now demonstrate how ending human factors will alter the change the nature of our climate so that it does not fluctuate as it has in the past. Or is it that natural fluctuations have no effects, only manmade ones do because we are bad? No, just so that they can support their position better than "go see the movie".

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'll deal with both your last two posts in this one reply.That you choose to deny my educational and work experience does not effect me. Why would it? It just makes you that much lower and ignorant by wishing away facts.If you don't want to believe what I say, that's fine. It has very little bearing on what I have been saying so far anyway, except for telling you the reason I don't trust Gore. The above does NOT mean... But your pretending it does reveals the nature of your bias. People complaining about interference under Gore are cranks, under Bush actual scientists. Yeah, that's beautiful. Its amazing, but not honest, how you read my posts which wholly admit that Bush is a worse offender and then pretend as if that's not what I said, as well as just dismissing clear statements in an article that things did happen under Clinton/Gore.YES, Bush is worse. That does not make C/G completely sqeaky clean. And I'm not even trying to argue that because C/G did something that it lets B/C off the hook.But I guess this is the length one must go to see the emperor's new clothes huh? Didn't Lundtz say that? Well I'll CERTAINLY agree to that! Even with corroborating detail, they would be practically irrelevant for ANYONE else. I told you what happened under his administration and so why I don't trust him.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)