|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Inconvenient Truth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Did so little? What do you mean?
Am I supposed to catalog all that was not done? Clinton/Gore managed to postpone action on the most politically sensitive issues until after they were out of office.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonne Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 58 Joined: |
fallacycop wrote
What worries me is that global warming (while most likely true) may turn out to be a huge distraction from more serious environmental problems. In my opinion habitat destruction is the worst one of them. Regardless of whether global warming is a reality or not, it has certainly raised the profile of conservation and ecology, and our environmental situation. Probably more people have heard of this issue than they have heard of the biodiversity crisis. Whats more, the methods used to combat global warming (such as reforestation, reducing carbon emissions, etc) is beneficial to the many other conservation crises. For example the local councils here are getting involved in carbon offset planting, and conservation groups are carrying this out with endemic species, thereby creating habitats for the fauna also. While we're at it, we carry out pest control (the possums have to go, sorry ohnhai ), 'weed-sweep', etc. This helps to stabilise the land, boost bird, lizard and insect populations, people like the enhanced views and wildlife - everything wins. I believe global warming is a great 'flagship' conservation issue because most people can see that they have directly contributed to it, will be directly affected by it, and can directly act to do something about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It really isn't playing here (I just checked again with the main cinema chain). You should check independant cinema. Around here it never played in any of the chain cinemas, but a local arthouse theatre showed it for two weeks.
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? This would be copyright infringement. I apologize if that's an issue for you. You need to download the linked file - not open it in a web browser - and open it using a bittorrent client. Yeah, the main file is probably hosted at a porn site. Welcome to the seedy underbelly of the internet.
Hearing that he has a great Powerpoint presentation does not help me. I don't know if it's great, but it is famous. That's what Gore's been doing all this time, I guess, going around with this PP file showing it to people. Every slide as a citation for its data but I wasn't taking notes. But I recognized the citations as being from what I understood to be the authorities in the field. I don't have the expertise to defend his conclusions. They were sufficient to convince me, but what is that worth? And you don't have the experience with the movie to attack his conclusions, either, it seems like. Not to mention that you don't really even know what his conclusions are, only how laypersons like myself have approximated them. I do hope it's something you're able to go see.
Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and he is a politician with a history of using hype to promote personal agendas... I don't know what you're referring to, here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Am I supposed to catalog all that was not done? I guess I'd like you to explain how the administration I remember as the most evironmentally-conscious one in my lifetime somehow represents the one that did "so little." What legislation did Clinton veto? What specific policies were reccommended but ignored? I mean, "so little" compared to who? Reagan? The Bushes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I guess I'd like you to explain how the administration I remember as the most evironmentally-conscious one in my lifetime somehow represents the one that did "so little."
I am not denying that they were environmentally friendly. I am saying that they did little to specifically address the problem of global warming.
What legislation did Clinton veto? What specific policies were reccommended but ignored?
That's where I found them disappointing. There were no bold initiatives, no strong recommendations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
kakariki writes: (the possums have to go, sorry ohnhai ) Dont be. get rid of the nasty little buggers... they lie in wait and hiss at me every evening as I walk home from the train.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's where I found them disappointing. There were no bold initiatives, no strong recommendations. I remember the whole federal government shutting down because Clinton couldn't get Congress to agree on a budget without cutting a bunch of environmental funding, among other things. I don't know. Compared to who had come before, I thought Clinton did as good as could be expected on environmental issues, particularly in the face of an antagonistic Congress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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.
And you don't have the experience with the movie to attack his conclusions, either, it seems like. Not to mention that you don't really even know what his conclusions are, only how laypersons like myself have approximated them.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I remember the whole federal government shutting down because Clinton couldn't get Congress to agree on a budget without cutting a bunch of environmental funding, among other things.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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? That the people who watch it aren't climatologists? On the other hand, here is the opinion of some real climatologists who actually saw the movie, which I think makes them considerably more qualified to comment than you are:
quote: Now, to be fair, other scientists echo Holmes' concerns:
quote: from No webpage found at provided URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,427655,00.html That's a pretty compelling point, I think. I'm not saying that Holmes is entirely wrong - obviously real scientists share his concerns - but even those scientists who took issue with the way some of the science was presented felt the movie was largely evenhanded, fair, and accurately represented the climate data.
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." So, you had a bad manager, therefore Gore was an idiot? Can you understand why I don't see that as a significant impeachment of Gore's credibility on this issue? Moreover - what does Gore's credibility even have to do with it? He cites all his sources; there's no place in the movie where you have to take his word for anything. The opinion of climate scientists who have chosen to review the movie is that, predominantly, they believe that while small factual errors may have crept into the movie, they don't detract from the fundamental accuracy of Gore's presentation, and that Inconvinient Truth represents an almost perfect representation of the scientific consensus on the issue, one that neither invokes "visions of the apocalypse" nor downplays the seriousness of the issue with false balance, but instead presents the likely consequences in a factual and calm manner, even though those consequences may be severe. Which was exactly my experience, and why Holmes' criticisms of a movie he hasn't seen bear absolutely no similiarity to the movie I actually saw. I mean, writing this off as "Manbearpig" is just ridiculous, and it's the act of someone absolutely committed to avoiding any indication that his ideology might be wrong.
Did he give you facts you can check for yourself? I told you that he did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. Uh-huh. Did Gore come down to your little shop and tell you that himself? No? Maybe you just had a dumbass manager?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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.
largely evenhanded, fair, and accurately represented the climate data.
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?
So, you had a bad manager, therefore Gore was an idiot?
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.
it's the act of someone absolutely committed to avoiding any indication that his ideology might be wrong.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Holmes writes: I'm not really sure the point you're trying to make here. Crashfrog told you that the film is pretty much even handed and that Al Gore doesn't make any of the "we're all gonna die" claims. He presents information based on scientific data and suggests that perhaps we should do some thing about it. 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. Ok, so he doesn't come out and say that the 20 foot ocean level rise will occur over the next 100 or 1000 years. Big deal. The fact is, based on current projections, the Ocean levels will indeed rise 20 feet. You seem to have this rather bizarre notion that it's no big deal. People will simply move further back from the "new" coastline as the water rises. Well, what about the people behind them, and the people behind them? We're talking millions of people here. Do you honestly believe that those currently in the rears will simply pack up their belongings and move a few miles further inland because the people in front of them moved back, because the people in front of them were starting to be flooded out? Maybe before they move back, they’ll all get together and have a big ol’ group hug too. Wouldn’t that be nice. Come on Holmes. Your faith in Human nature is much more optimistic than mine, and I must say a bit naive. I predict that there will conflict . MAJOR conflict between those that currently have beach front property and those that will eventually have beach front property. It'll be a cluster fuck and the whole point of the movie is that we can, most likely, avoid the whole fucking mess if we actually start to act now. Or better yet, as you alluded to in prior posts, we can simply build a big-ass dyke around New York City, or San Francisco, or any one of a number of other cities in danger of becoming the next Atlantis. Yeah, like that’s gonna actually fuckin happen. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to do something now, rather than wait? Even if we’re wrong, even if Global Warming is a big crock of shit, what harm will we have done if we heed the warnings? Well, we’ll actually have a cleaner environment in which to live and everyone will say, in hind sight . “wow, that Al Gore, what an asshole, he gave us a cleaner planet to live on”. I saw the movie. I went in a bit skeptical and came out a bit skeptical. Some of the stuff I accepted and some of the stuff I thought was perhaps a bit overstated. So what. As Crashfrog said, the presentation seemed pretty fair to me. The movie is not set up for a scientific audience. That’s NOT who he’s trying to reach. Based on some previous posts you’ve made about this topic, it seems to me that your opinion of the average Joe on the street is overly generous when it comes to their understanding of science. When’s the last time you had to teach science to the mainstream public? For the most part, they just don’t get it. Scientific concepts are difficult for many people to understand. Al Gore makes a movie that basically is designed to teach the largely non-scientific public a pretty complex scientific concept, and you tell us we should not listen because there may be some errors. You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water because you think that maybe some of the claims made in the movie are not accepted by 100% of the scientific community. Get real. On a related note, I heard part of a story on NPR yesterday that said there is a new article out in a Scientific Journal that claims to now show that there is a link between more intense storms (as a result of warmer ocean waters), and CO2 increases due to human activities. I cannot remember the journal name (hey it was late, I was returning home after a 15 hour work day, and I was tired...so sue me), but it may have been The National Academy of Science(s)? Anyone else hear this story?.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024