|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,822 Year: 4,079/9,624 Month: 950/974 Week: 277/286 Day: 38/46 Hour: 3/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5189 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Inconvenient Truth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5189 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
An Inconvenient Truth.
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS FILM (Doco) THEN DO SO .
Rotten Tommatoes reviews page If you have then what did you think? Now I have never been a naysayer of global warming, but neither have I been evangelical about it either. But this film underlines a few ”inconvenient truths’ that I only dimly understood previously. The data presented in this film, at face value, is undeniable. And even on closer inspection I’m sure would hold water. I was shocked to learn that Australia (my temporary country of residence) is the the only other major nation not to have currently ratified the Kyoto treaty.. (shame on Howard and the Aussies in general.) But like I said GO SEE THIS FILM. Think on it and then do something . Go here : No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Edited by ohnhai, : finished typing in the thread title........ DOH!!!! Edited by ohnhai, : No reason given. TeamEvC. join up at Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Is this the al gore movie?
yeah, us here in the US haven't ratified kyoto either. shame on us to. A new TeamEvC. join up at Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5189 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
Yup it is the Al Gore movie..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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?
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
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 number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
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.Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level. The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade. At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles. 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"...
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
1) Where are the models from which they derive such conclusions and the data to support such models?Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year. Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050. More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050. 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? the the only other major nation not to have currently ratified the Kyoto treaty..
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5189 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
I too was disappointed with the web site, the lack of hard data or links to it (and lack of contact information to request it: I did look). And I do realize that there is an inevitable slice of political placement on the part of Gore (or those he wished to promote). Either way America on the whole tends to be reactionary and needs the occasional catalyst to get that reaction happening.
Carbon emissions are known to have an effect on retaining solar heat and thus adding to the natural warming. We know that the developed worlds are producing far more carbon emissions than the natural back ground level. And we know that we CAN easily reduce those emission levels with ease. Even if this is a natural up swing, then all the doom-saying aside, a higher than necessary human contribution is not gonna help any. Even if the film overstates the problem (with out the hard data its dificult to say) reducing carbon emissions IS a good thing. It forces the energy producers and car manufacturers, to name but two, to clean their act up. Getting the majority of the world re-cycling and re-using resources rather than this ”use-discard’ mentality we seem to have developed since consumerism hit, also can only be good. Forcing people to look at their own energy consumption habits can only be good (if everyone reduces their peak and general energy requirements by even a small percentage then the national and global savings in cost, waste and emissions would be huge. Like I said that an only be good. If America needs a Katrina sized slap upside the head to become aware of this then I welcome the film for being so ”The end is nigh!’ but even if the end is not ”nigh’ then all the lessons and ideas for reducing Carbon emissions and reducing energy consumption, reducing waste and increasing re-use can only help. After all the oil is going to run out soon and the less we depend on that now, the less painful it will be when it is utterly depleted. You never know a push to become cleaner and more efficient to avoid unsettling the environment any more than we need to, could well lead to the very technologies we need to break our dependence on oil/coal and other limited recourses. The film may not be the best, but let it serve as a catalyst for thought and action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Even if this is a natural up swing, then all the doom-saying aside, a higher than necessary human contribution is not gonna help any.
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.
You never know a push to become cleaner and more efficient to avoid unsettling the environment any more than we need to, could well lead to the very technologies we need to break our dependence on oil/coal and other limited recourses.
I definitely agree with this and wish this was the force behind the changes we are seeking.
If America needs a Katrina sized slap upside the head to become aware of this then I welcome the film for being so ”The end is nigh!’... let it serve as a catalyst for thought and action.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5189 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
Holms writes: I definitely agree with this and wish this was the force behind the changes we are seeking. Yes yes. If America had the political will to snap out of the energy status-quo and focus it’s attention on developing viable clean, replenish able energy systems then the power that the middle east oil producing states currently have would be America’s (or whoever develops this tech . . get your skates on, it could be the Chinese !) If doing the right thing in regard to the environment is not enough to motivate political will, then how about letting another ”alternate ideology’ have that much power when it could be yours?
Holms writes:
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. I agree, It’s sad that this seems to be the case but that’s what happens when a culture gets comfy and complacent. Just look at 9/11. America got complacent and comfy, thinking that such an attack was ”inconceivable’, and yet . . The people of all nations should be more aware and pro-active in many things, but that means risks, that means breaking the status-quo of “I’m doing OK”. America (talking on average) is ”doing OK’ and there is precious little anyone else can do to sway its policies. So it chooses to not force things like Kyoto onto its companies and people because it’s more convenient to let the status-quo ride. You have to preserve the good ol’ American way of life, don’t you? And what good is it to be American if you can’t drive your large, horrifically inefficient gas-guzzelers any time you god-damn please? Sorry, that was a tad unfair . I apologize. No, what good is it to be an American corporation if your government forces you to make a cleaner more efficient product at the expense of your share dividends? Go fig. I agree that this habit of contented apathy should not be fed but as long as the US feels comfy it will need prodding into action .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
The first one in particular is thought to be part of a natural cycle we are in, with CC unlikely to have effected it.
You complain about people jumping the gun and declaring it to be due to human activity without a carefull analysis, but then go ahead and jump the gun declaring it to be a part of a natural cicle. I agree with most of what you said though. What worries me is that global warming (while most likely true) may turn out to be a huge distraction from more serious enviromental problems. In my opinion habitat destruction is the worst one of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The website is pretty disappointing. What would have been great would have been a downloadable version of the Powerpoint presentation that the movie is so famously about.
But see the movie already. It's hard for me to believe that it isn't out where you live, but assuming that's true, grab a bittorrent client of your choice and start downloading this torrent file. You should have the movie in somewhere between a night and a week. (Look up the Wiki entry on "bittorrent" if you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. It's a distrubuted download file protocol commonly used for enormous files, like movies.) Gore cites his sources during the film, but of course it's hard to go back and check up on them if you weren't taking notes or something. It would be better if he had provided some kind of bibliography, or better yet, a copy of the Powerpoint. I wish you'd make more of an effort to see the movie. I remain genuinely interested in your opinion of his case, not simply your sweeping generalization that "Gore is a liar so his movie is probably a lie." That's the criticism I'd expect from a right-wing talk show host, not from somebody with a stated enthusiasm for science. And it's not at all clear that you're not simply rejecting as "sober" any conclusion, no matter how well-supported, that involves serious consequences. If you feel that's an appropriate means of reasoning - that predicitions of severe consequences can be dismissed simply because the consequences are presented as severe - nobody could make a case that could convince you. I went in skeptical. I came out convinced. But hey, what do I know? Anyway, see the movie. It's sort of ridiculous for you to participate in threads about it until you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I agree with both you and Holmes on this issue.
On the Holmes side: Gore has played the hyper-environmental game at least one too many times. His book, Earth in the Balance (Penguin PLUME 1993, NY), for instance, was an extremely obnoxious and blatantly political screed that did nothing (IMO) to advance the science of conservation or the public's awareness of the issues. Contrasting his work with the likes of Ehrlich or Wilson, for instance, shows how shallow and ultimately self-serving he can be. I feel his book did more to lower people's interest and understanding of the issues than advance it. From your side: I completely agree that climate change hype - whether good science or bad - is a distraction from much more insidious and potentially more disastrous anthropogenic environmental effects. Whether or not climate change has a human component (and I think this is pretty unequivocal), habitat destruction, bioinvasion, and the threat of spreading epizootic/panzootic emerging infectious diseases through human activity/globalization represent orders of magnitude greater threats not only to humans but to the rest of the ecosphere. Edited to add: I wil probably see the movie anyway, just as I bought the book. I doubt I'll find the movie any more overwhelmingly convincing than I did the book - or most other recent "pseudodocumentaries", for that matter. Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Gore has played the hyper-environmental game at least one too many times.
What has bothered me, is that the Clinton/Gore administration did so little during their 8 years in office. Now that Gore is no longer running for political office, apparently he can now come out and say what he should have said long ago. In short, Gore has demonstrated the kind of integrity we have come to expect from politicians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You complain about people jumping the gun and declaring it to be due to human activity without a carefull analysis, but then go ahead and jump the gun declaring it to be a part of a natural cicle.
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.
What worries me is that global warming (while most likely true) may turn out to be a huge distraction from more serious enviromental problems. In my opinion habitat destruction is the worst one of them.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What has bothered me, is that the Clinton/Gore administration did so little during their 8 years in office. Did so little? What do you mean? Edited by AdminNosy, : Hellp Crash out with a new title for his post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I think, Crash, that we've worn the "what, again?" title out now. How about a nice shiney, fresh one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Feel free to retitle my post in whatever way you would find most descriptive.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024