Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is must see

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth?

Yes!
5
25%
No, but I plan to
11
55%
No, and I don't plan to
4
20%
 
Total votes: 20

Daisy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:51 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Daisy » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:51 am

Chuck_Schick wrote:
Daisy wrote:It's a really good Powerpoint presentation.

Horseshit.

There's no such thing.
Very true.

I meant to say "Keynote presentation."

Andy Olsen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: East side Madison
Contact:

Postby Andy Olsen » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:29 pm

white_rabbit wrote:
Even if it were known what amount we contribute (which it isn't) we don't know whether the earth is resilient enough to compensate, if it will continue to warm, or turn around and cool.



The earth is resilient and will survive. The big question mark, are humans?

Yeah, there will nearly always be a big rock revolving arond the sun here.

Whether or not there will be many or any hairless apes on it is another question. But, hey, long as the rock's fine!

Andy Olsen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: East side Madison
Contact:

Postby Andy Olsen » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:31 pm

jjoyce wrote:Let's just not think, as many do, that seeing this movie has anything to do with environmental activism. If you care about global warming, then donate to a cause that addresses it. Or lobby. Or plant a tree. But the image of all these liberals sitting around Barriques drinking a Chilean red talking about how great Al Gore makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

When an American corporation comes forward and says it has dramatically changed its operation due to seeing the light in Al Gore's movie or by being personally influenced by the guy, then slap him on the back. But until then, forgive me if I fail to see the leadership in making a preaching-to-the-choir movie like this one.

First, preaching to the choir is a useful activity. Gets them to know the words better and sing in tune and in harmony.

Secondly, a movie is a social change agent. It won't single-handedly change the world, but nothing does. It affects the debate and that's a good thing.

Thirdly, it was PJ Whitney's, not Barriques. And beer, not wine.

So there.

white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:52 pm

Andy Olsen wrote:
white_rabbit wrote:
Even if it were known what amount we contribute (which it isn't) we don't know whether the earth is resilient enough to compensate, if it will continue to warm, or turn around and cool.



The earth is resilient and will survive. The big question mark, are humans?

Yeah, there will nearly always be a big rock revolving arond the sun here.

Whether or not there will be many or any hairless apes on it is another question. But, hey, long as the rock's fine!


The earth has had many species that have gone extinct, but life has survived for probably billions of years. If most mammals die off from global warming, hey there will still be the cockroaches and maybe some primordial sludge that may evolve once again into intelligent life force. It's puzzling how conservatives dismiss potential human annihilation in favor of driving their Hummers.

Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7016
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Humm this, Ned

Postby Marvell » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:56 am

white_rabbit wrote:It's puzzling how conservatives dismiss potential human annihilation in favor of driving their Hummers.


Not puzzling at all.

The jesus freaks are champing at the bit for the rapture, and the social darwinist libertarian wing are all status-crazed solipsists. They don't give a fuck about anything besides how many 'toys' they have.

Now watch one of the trolls call me 'jealous' for not having the same pathetic adolescent need to base my self-image on the conspicuous consumption of faddish consumer goods.

Shpiker
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 11:42 am
Contact:

Postby Shpiker » Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:47 pm

OMIGOD- there are other scientists that are suggesting people not take the movie as undeniable also...

Richard S. Lindzen wrote:ââ?¬Å?A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.ââ?¬?


article wrote:Gore�s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there�s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.


etc, etc...

SIZZAW
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:24 pm
Location: Aqui
Contact:

Postby SIZZAW » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:18 pm

Shpiker wrote:
article wrote:Gore�s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there�s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

etc, etc...


You just etc, etc.'d a human effect on the Earth's environment!

Let's assume Al's way off about global warming causing this minute amount of snowfall around Kilimanjaro. How does that make deforestation or human effects on the environment any less of an issue? Don't you think that global warming might partly be a result of the planet's increasing lack of trees? Taking away the Earth's "lungs" at exponential rates is a stupid idea.

While you may have a point about the movie you're still in the dark about the whole issue. Keep your heads in the sand, Republitards! There will be plenty of it down the line ........

Andy Olsen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: East side Madison
Contact:

Postby Andy Olsen » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:21 pm

Actually, Gore doesn't do that in his movie at all ("assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic;"). He says that there have been changes in the past, he shows big long charts showing those changes and then he shows how these changes are so unusual.

As far as Kilimanjaro, the debate over that one mountain has been going for awhile. I don't know what The Truth is, but find it odd that hundreds of other glaciers would melt around the world from global warming, but not this one!
Here's another view:

3. KILIMANJARO: ICON OR RED HERRING?
...snip, snip... See link for more...
The first major piece of evidence put forth in support of the precipitation hypothesis is that the retreat of the Kilimanjaro glaciers began in the late 19th century -- before the beginning of significant anthropogenic warming -- and coincided with a shift to drier conditions, as evidenced by a reduction in the level of Lake Victoria. This is indeed a convincing argument in favor of the early phase of the retreat (up to around 1900) being precipitation-driven. It would be a fallacy, however, to conclude that the late 19th century precipitation drop is the cause of the continued retreat, and ultimate demise, over the subsequent century or so. After all, precipitation went down in the late 19th century, and Lake Victoria found an equilibrium at a new, lower level without drying up and disappearing. Why should it be any different for the Kilimanjaro glacier, which is also a matter of finding an equilibrium where rate of mass in equals rate of mass out? The association of the initial retreat with precipitation changes has no bearing on this question.
...snip...
Employing much the same palette of facts and observations as invoked by [Kaser et al], one could paint this rather different picture of what is going on: The Kilimanjaro glacier has waxed and waned since the time of its inception about 11,000 years ago. An unusually wet decade around 1880 put the glacier into strongly positive mass balance, bulking up its mass. Early 20th century explorers found the glacier recovering towards equilibrium from this anomalous state. However, rather than finding a new equilibrium in the 20th century, the glacier has continued to retreat, and is now on the brink of disappearing. Though air temperature has so far remained below freezing, melting has begun to occur, and the glacier is suffering net ablation over its entire surface. Air temperature increases similar to those observed aloft since 1960, amplified by associated increases in humidity, account for a significant portion of the enhanced ablation leading to this strongly negative mass balance, but the exact proportion is highly uncertain because of the short span of energy and mass balance observations. However, changes in the distribution of snowfall through the year, conceivably linked to increases in sea surface temperature, may have reduced the reflectivity of the glacier and played an even bigger role in forcing the retreat than changes in air temperature alone.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-retreat/


Here's an article on a close-up look at Lindzen. He does not strike me as one of the industry-financed skeptics. But he seems to make many assumptions on dealing with global warming, such as claiming it would hurt the economy. Read the post for some trenchant observations.
http://www.env-econ.net/2006/05/richard_lindzen.html
Last edited by Andy Olsen on Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Andy Olsen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: East side Madison
Contact:

Postby Andy Olsen » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:26 pm

Don't miss this news:
Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/breakin ... 913616.htm

jhain
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby jhain » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:28 pm

Shpiker wrote:OMIGOD- there are other scientists that are suggesting people not take the movie as undeniable also...

Richard S. Lindzen wrote:ââ?¬Å?A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.ââ?¬?


I saw the movie. He doesn't ignore the fact that the earth's climate is dynamic. In fact he spends a fair amount of time making sure that is understood.

Shpiker wrote:
article wrote:Gore�s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there�s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.


He also spends time making sure that people understand that deforestation is helping to accelerate the climate change. And that part of what is changing are rainfall patterns.

Perhaps you should see the movie. There are valid critiques that can be made about it but it sounds like your sources didn't bother to watch it before commenting.

Billy Shears
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2145
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:23 pm

Postby Billy Shears » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:32 pm

There's a few interesting things about that article. First they say the AP should release all the names of those scientists because they don't think there are actually 19 who think Al got it right, because the AP only quotes five.

Then the article goes on to quote four other scientists who say Al got it wrong.

I think they're accusing the AP of lying 'bout dem udder scientists.

What I wonder is, if there's so many scientists out there who think Al's not exactly correct, how come they could only quote four? And they say that the National Academy of Sciences, last week, discredited one of Al's sources for that "hockey stick" thing. Of course, we also have this from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... f_Sciences
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus.

Now let me get this straight. The article quoted by schpiker says Al's arguments that global warming is upon us are weak, pathetic, and groundless. And one of its sources, a source they use to say Al is wrong about global warming, is an entity that has stated global warming is real and prompt action is justified.

That's frickin amazing.

How come the US govmint couldn't round up more than four scientists to call Al a loonybird? Can't they call up the ââ?¬Å?more than 100 top climate researchersââ?¬? just like the AP? Do they need to get their phone numbers from the AP or something? I thought those guys were a little more public than that.

MakeBushKing
Forum Addict
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:42 am

Postby MakeBushKing » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:10 pm

Here, I'll quote another one and even provide a link to the article:

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Wall Street Journal

"........So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT."

Here's the link for the entire article:

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

Read 'em and weep, EnviroNuts!

SIZZAW
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:24 pm
Location: Aqui
Contact:

Postby SIZZAW » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:28 pm

MakeBushKing wrote:Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.


Boy, isn't that technique familiar with the current Government and its followers.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9581
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:32 pm

Anyone who thinks that Gore and his fellow alarmists aren't being, well ... alarmist ... is just kinda silly. Of course, they are exaggerating.

But anyone who thinks because the alarmists exaggerate we shouldn't stop polluting the fucking planet is either a moron or, more likely, just an asshole.

The reality assuredly lies somewhere between the two extremes, folks - but on the one hand we can take action to preserve the planet and the environment and on the other hand we can continue along the path of inaction and possibly not die ... or maybe we will. Why is anyone even questioning this choice? Isn't doing the smart thing (curbing pollution) better than doing nothing, regardless of whether we're really all doomed or not?

SombreroFallout
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:15 pm
Contact:

Postby SombreroFallout » Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:51 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Anyone who thinks that Gore and his fellow alarmists aren't being, well ... alarmist ... is just kinda silly. Of course, they are exaggerating.

But anyone who thinks because the alarmists exaggerate we shouldn't stop polluting the fucking planet is either a moron or, more likely, just an asshole.

The reality assuredly lies somewhere between the two extremes, folks - but on the one hand we can take action to preserve the planet and the environment and on the other hand we can continue along the path of inaction and possibly not die ... or maybe we will. Why is anyone even questioning this choice? Isn't doing the smart thing (curbing pollution) better than doing nothing, regardless of whether we're really all doomed or not?


"Can't we all just get along?"

Anyone, alarmists, kinda silly, anyone, moron, asshole; counseling of moderation.

Been boning up on the global warming literature, have ya? Cuz I got lost in all those technical terms.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests