"An Inconvenient Truth" PLEASE READ

[Mugg Mann]

It becomes political because Gore is a politician. If it were all about the message, Gore could have underwritten the movie, possibly even promoted it, but he wouldn't have starred in it. By doing so, it appears that he has an agenda.

I'm all for 'environmentality' but when every promotion for the movie also has some blurb about "Former VP, 2000 Presidential Candidate and possible 2008 Candidate Al Gore", I'm immediately skeptical about any seemingly altruistic message he may have.

Al Gore declared today that he is NOT a candidate for the presidency

WASHINGTON (June 4) - Al Gore, the Democrats' nominee for the White House in 2000, says he has all but ruled out running for president in 2008, saying the best use of his time is to educate people about global warming.

"I haven't made a Sherman statement, but that's not an effort to hold the door open. It's more the internal shifting of gears," said Gore, referring to Civil War-era general William Tecumseh Sherman. "I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again. I've found other ways to serve. I'm enjoying them."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060604121909990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001

I'm glad he declared that, and the timing is undoubtedly an attempt to force people like yourself to examine the message in the movie without assuming an ulterior motive.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

That's pretty good but I think you're comparing hurricanes and tires. Actually, you are.

I do not buy into your assertion that weather analysis can be compared to manufacturing consistency. There are way too many variable in the weather than in the pieces parts that go into making tires and cereal. IOW, we have control over what goes into making tires and cereal. We do not have that with the weather.

The near future weather is predicted by seeing what's going on in the region. We've seen many times that a storm is going to hit somewhere only to veer one way or the other around the predicted locale. Or fizzle out. I don't think other than it will be sunny and warm in the summer and cold with a chance of snow in the winter the weather will ever be able to be predicted as accurately as manufacturing tires to a fairly uniform tread depth or filling boxes of cereal within a nominal weight range on a consistent basis.

The difference is that, in the case of cereal and tires, we created those systems, so of course we can control them. But my point was that there is a difference between prediction (which implies a specific event/measurement will occur at a specific time), and the analysis of trends in systems. We probably have 25 years of satellite imagery, 50 years of "modern" meteorological measurements, 150 years of direct observation, and a few hundred more of anecdotal evidence in the human record (these are all swags - I'm certainly no meteorologist). But climate scientists have thousands of years of TREND data from northern hemisphere ice, and more than half a million years of trend data from Antarctic ice.

So my point was, we do know the normal range of behavior of the system (at the largest level). And all of the scientific evidence I've seen points to a change in the behavior of that system within the timeframe of a generation.

While we don't know all of the factors, and can never completely observe every variable, we do know that CO2 emissions have a very close correlation with average temperature (once again over long periods), and that CO2 levels have been rising steadily out of historical ranges (as defined by the 650,000 year timespan of geologic data), and AVERAGE global temperatures have increased correspondingly (10 of the hottest years out of the last several thousand have occured in the last 14 years).

So my point was that climatologists have come to consensus in the scientific press that the system is moving out of equilibrium.

 

[Charade]

But climate scientists have thousands of years of TREND data from northern hemisphere ice, and more than half a million years of trend data from Antarctic ice.

So what made the ice retreat that covered all of what is now Canada and the northern half of the US 10,000 years ago? It certainly wasn't anything man did.

(10 of the hottest years out of the last several thousand have occurred in the last 14 years).

See, I don't buy this. If that were true, then we've certainly reached (or crested) the tipping point and the change curve is waaaay steeper than it was just 20 years ago.

So my point was that climatologists have come to consensus in the scientific press that the system is moving out of equilibrium.

I understand your point. But I just don't agree that modern man is a significant contributor.

 

[NewJersey]

Tim,

ITA!! My reasons for initiating this discussion (not trying to be Al Gore "inventing" the internet here... ) was partly due to my own naivety. I did not really want to go see the movie yesterday. I really didn't want to be berated for behaving badly. Ironically....the movie did no berating. That's not what it is about. It is more motivational...encouraging us to be the best we can be. And, isn't that the belief that America was founded on? That we could become something better than we were?

I have been going through life, trying to recycle where I can. We have changed all of our lightbulbs to low voltage flourescent ones (and seriously, with the exception of the lights taking a few minutes to gain full brightness, you don't notice any difference...except in your electric bill...they even produce the "decorative" ones to in your bathroom vanity lights, and chandelier lights....we're not talking here about grandma's flourescent lights).
But, up until seeing this movie, I assumed that taking advantage of the opportunities offered to me was "doing my part". Now I believe differently. I believe that CREATING new opportunities for my daughter to take advantage of in her lifetime is what is required to "do my part". I am no great scientific mind...but, for the sake of my daughter, and all future sons and daughters of this earth...I intend to make changes to my lifestyle and live "cleaner". I may not be able to make signigicant changes by myself...but, just like they say at election time, "Every vote counts". And, I can institute new habits in the way she lives....that is pretty powerful.

The reasons above are why I posted the suggestions (that, and I hoped many on this board could add ones of their own). Until I did research last night, I did not know all of the possibilities I had for making changes in my daily life. I am not here to berate anyone in the way they live, I just wanted to offer some easy suggestions for anyone who is interested in this subject to make cleaner choices in their daily life.

And, for the poster who said the Prius would not work for them...I agree. A Prius is not a good car for a large family. But, the problem is not with the Prius, it is with the fact that there are currently, in America NO good choices for a larger family who wishes to live green to choose from when purchasing a car. And, the significant fact is that there won't be any...if we don't start expressing it as a desire. The Ford Escape and the Toyota Highlander hybrid are good starts to begin addressing this "gap"....but, with some effort, I know we can create better choices. And, those who still wish to drive a larger, traditionally-fueled SUV can still choose to do so. And, when gas is hovering around $10 per gallon, if you still wish to drive that car...more power to you. It's all about creating choice.



Beca

Beca,
First, I want to thank you for starting this discussion, because as most people on this thread has done, we can all say it's started a foundation for a discussion of the facts (minus the ignorant who come in here and say "clever" one word comments). And I would hope everyone would understand you're not trying to tell people how to live their lives or asserting they are foolish for not taking steps to conserve.

Here's an article that describes Brazil's current state of renewable energy.
http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67523,00.html
...and a clip: "Brazil generates 43.8 percent of its power from renewable energy sources, including hydroelectricity, ethanol and biodiesel, according to Agencia Brasil, a government communications division."

And I read an article a few months ago in one of my economics classes (I can't find the link right now), that by the end of this year, they will be fully energy independent by relying solely on renewable energy.

Like a poster above said, it's all about evolving and finding new alternatives; look at ethanol. There's some problems with that, too. to start, the costs to transport are much higher because it cannot be transported in a pipeline like oil or gasoline, since it picks up extra moisture. so, it has to be transported by train, or truck, etc. Also, we could import cheaper corn from foreign countries, like Brazil, but we have price floors on corn grown here to protect farmers (for one). And, I'm not here to debate the need for that..just pointing out problems with ethanol. So, with time, I think we can perfect the use of ethanol (look at E85 fuel used by some GM vehicles).

but, it's important to continue this debate, continue the research, continue the thought process of developing renewable sources.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

So what made the ice retreat that covered all of what is now Canada and the northern half of the US 10,000 years ago? It certainly wasn't anything man did.

The normal cycle of glaciation and retreat - we have had 13 ice ages in the last half million years. But current levels are outside of the norms for that pattern. And strongly correlated with increased fossil fuel consumption (and corresponding emissions of CO2).

As far as your doubting the 10 of the last 14 years thing. My source for that was the film. I'll have to do some research to get independent confirmation.

I'll try to get back to the thread on this...

 

[poohandwendy]

So my point was, we do know the normal range of behavior of the system (at the largest level). And all of the scientific evidence I've seen points to a change in the behavior of that system within the timeframe of a generation.

I have no problem with changes being reported, observed, studied. Great. I have a problem with those changes being used to create alarmism when there is no way to draw long term conclusions from the changes. Or that any long term effects will be negative to the earth. No matter what we do have, we do not have the whole picture...not by a long shot. It is disingenious for anyone to suggest that we know what will happen. That is what is happening with the 'global warming crisis' movement.

I disagree that we know the 'normal range' of the system.

 

[poohandwendy]

But I just don't agree that modern man is a significant contributor.

I am not convinced of that either.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

I have no problem with changes being reported, observed, studied. Great. I have a problem with those changes being used to create alarmism when there is no way to draw long term conclusions from the changes. Or that any long term effects will be negative to the earth. No matter what we do have, we do not have the whole picture...not by a long shot. It is disingenious for anyone to suggest that we know what will happen. That is what is happening with the 'global warming crisis' movement.

I disagree that we know the 'normal range' of the system.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this point, then. I hope, however, that there is room for dialogue on constructive action to help reduce the impact of our choices on our selves, our children, and our societies, if not on our world.

 

[Puffy2]

30-35 years ago, experts were convinced that another ice age was coming.

You might get an update your republican leaders, Charade, they have also now acknowledged that Global Warming is "real" ...they just pretend to "not know what to do about it" since in their view, all proposed solutions are simply "speculation".

 

[Beca]

The normal cycle of glaciation and retreat - we have had 13 ice ages in the last half million years. But current levels are outside of the norms for that pattern. And strongly correlated with increased fossil fuel consumption (and corresponding emissions of CO2).

...

Good point. One of the points mentioned in the film is that scientists have pulled ice cores dating as far back as 650,000 years from the poles. The ice cores show "rings" similar to tree rings. These rings are highly visible striations...one for each year of season's "freeze and melt" cycle.

The film stated two interesting facts from this.

1) Without counting the layers, scientists can go right to the year the "Clean Air Act" was passed in the US. That year, the ring layer was the darkest visible layer in recent geologic history. There has been a significant lightening of the color of the ice every year since.

2) Every year when the ice froze, tiny air bubbles were caught in the ice. From these air bubbles, scientists can measure the ppm's (parts per million) of CO2 in the air. In the 650,000 years of data, never has CO2 gone above 300ppm's. No volcanic activity (or any other natural activity) has caused a spike that high. In the last decade, CO2 levels have reached 400ppm's....for the first time in 650,000 years. And temperatures on the earth have responded directly to this increase in CO2. Unless we change our burning of fossil fuels, CO2 levels will increase exponentially over the next 50 years. The truth is, we don't know if the Earth will be a place where human life can be sustained in 50 years if we do not initiate some significant changes in our behavior.

I'm sorry if this seems Chicken-littleish to some of you. But, the inaction of those with children does not make sense to me. We vaccinate our children at birth for diseases they can only get through sexual contact (Hep B), diseases they have very little chance of getting, and diseases that have very little chance of killing them if they were to acquire them. Why? Because we want to protect them. Do we have definite proof that OUR child would be one of the unlucky ones that would come down with Hep B once they began having sex? No. But, we take action against the unknown.

I don't know what will happen to our Earth when CO2 levels reach 600ppm....and, I hope that I never have to find out. It is not a risk I look forward to taking.



Beca

 

[Charade]

The normal cycle of glaciation and retreat - we have had 13 ice ages in the last half million years. But current levels are outside of the norms for that pattern. And strongly correlated with increased fossil fuel consumption (and corresponding emissions of CO2).

Ok, so if man and the industrial age had not influenced the ice age that was predicted 30 plus years ago and it actually happened, I think it would have as just as severe impact on humans across the globe as global warming is predicted to have.

 

[Charade]

You might get an update your republican leaders, Charade, they have also now acknowledged that Global Warming is "real" ...they just pretend to "not know what to do about it" since in their view, all proposed solutions are simply "speculation".

I didn't make this political, why did you?

 

[Charade]

Al Gore declared today that he is NOT a candidate for the presidency

WASHINGTON (June 4) - Al Gore, the Democrats' nominee for the White House in 2000, says he has all but ruled out running for president in 2008, saying the best use of his time is to educate people about global warming.

"I haven't made a Sherman statement, but that's not an effort to hold the door open. It's more the internal shifting of gears," said Gore, referring to Civil War-era general William Tecumseh Sherman. "I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again. I've found other ways to serve. I'm enjoying them."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060604121909990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001

I'm glad he declared that, and the timing is undoubtedly an attempt to force people like yourself to examine the message in the movie without assuming an ulterior motive.

"all but"??? But he could change his mind.

 

[poohandwendy]

We will just have to agree to disagree on this point, then. I hope, however, that there is room for dialogue on constructive action to help reduce the impact of our choices on our selves, our children, and our societies, if not on our world.

That's ok, I disagree with many people. I do agree that we are consuming in excess and should be changing our ways, especially regarding fuel. So, in the end we do have a similar outlook on the idea of examining our habits and changing them.

 

[poohandwendy]

I'm sorry if this seems Chicken-littleish to some of you. But, the inaction of those with children does not make sense to me.

Not sure hopw I can make this more clear, I disagree with the conclusions being drawn.

We vaccinate our children at birth for diseases they can only get through sexual contact (Hep B), diseases they have very little chance of getting, and diseases that have very little chance of killing them if they were to acquire them. Why? Because we want to protect them. Do we have definite proof that OUR child would be one of the unlucky ones that would come down with Hep B once they began having sex? No. But, we take action against the unknown.

The difference is that we know how our kids could contract those diseases. Those diseases have killed people. Let me know if you would vaccinate against a disease that is not even in existence yet. One that was a theory/possibility.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

Ok, so if man and the industrial age had not influenced the ice age that was predicted 30 plus years ago and it actually happened, I think it would have as just as severe impact on humans across the globe as global warming is predicted to have.

True, but not necessarily relevant. Glaciation is a normal cycle. Just like the planet has seasons that shift over 12 months, glaciation and retreat shifts over 50,000 years. We are somewhere near the 50,000 year cycle point for a shift to glaciation "winter." Sometimes those shifts are significant. One of the last ice ages "kicked in" over a 10 year period. Absent human activity would it have occured in 1996, 2015, 3027, or sometime past our conception of recorded history? Who knows.

But what the scientific literature states is that the cycle has been disrupted. As Beca posted, we are seeing CO2 concentrations that are unprecedented in recorded geologic history. And our own EPA is currently measuring America's greenhouse emissions using a Terragram scale (1TG = 1 million metric tons = 2,204,600,000 pounds).


I have no desire to be alarmist, but I see the other extreme of that spectrum as denial. Once again, I think our best hope is in the middle.

 

[Beca]

Not sure hopw I can make this more clear, I disagree with the conclusions being drawn. The difference is that we know how our kids could contract those diseases. Those diseases have killed people. Let me know if you would vaccinate against a disease that is not even in existence yet. One that was a theory/possibility.

But, isn't that what science is doing? Pressure is on to come up with a vaccine for a person-to-person transmittable Bird Flu virus that doesn't yet exist. Why? Because it MIGHT be a problem we have to face. And, to those scientists, I give a big, hearty, "Thank you"!!! Thanks to them, we may have a solution ready if we need it.

All I am saying is that we live our lives DAILY in a "what-if" arena. I buckle my seatbelt, and put my dd in her carseat (in the back seat) every day, with no one being able to predict for me that "On this day, at this time....you will be involved in a car accident". Why? Because there is no harm in taking such protective measures. If putting on my seatbelt did irreperable harm to me or my dd....maybe I would weigh the consequences before taking such action. It seems the nay-sayers to Global Warming want absolute proof (to a varying degree) before they are interested in taking any action. I do not understand why? Why belittle the message of this film, when only good can come from taking action.

We had no proof that weapons of mass-destruction existed in Iraq, and yet, based on the possibility that powerful weapons could be in the hands of a maniacal lunatic....we invaded. Three years later, we have found NO weapons, thousands of American families have lost loved ones, and tens of thousands of Iraqi families have experienced the same. However, freedoms have been attained for a group of people who did not have the ability to institute change for themselves. Here is an example where taking action without having absolute proof came with both positive and negative consequences....and yet, we felt compelled to act (or, at least our government did).

But, I am discussing a case where no negative outcomes exist for taking action, and people are mocking the action, even though benefits for instituting change can be easily recognized. I do not understand the hostility.

And, BTW....I was not directing any of my comments toward you, personally. I absolutely respect your approach. You may not believe in global warming, but you see no problem with instituting change for the greater good. It will not take a world of "tree huggers" to save this planet...it will just take moderates such as yourself who are not averse to change. I meant to direct my comments more towards those who have stated that they see no reason to change daily habits. I apologize if something I said made you think I was attacking you....actually, I don't mean to attack anyone. I am simply looking to understand opposing views.



Beca

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

"all but"??? But he could change his mind.

Exactly. Honestly, I don't care if he decides to run for President, Vice President or Dogcatcher, but I find his timing rather convenient.

Also, since 'people like me' aren't likely to shell out the money to see his movie, just who is he making this announcement for?

 

[ktulu]

ktulu...have you seen the movie??



Beca

Nah, I don't plan to. This country needs to change their habits, it won't happen until the oil companies profits take a hit, and you won't find enough politicians to put into congress to make that happen. I am looking at purchasing a more efficient air conditioner for my home, putting in solar screens to reduce the use of the a/c, in other words, conserving electricity.

I'm not advocating waste, but I'm not going to drastically change my habits either. I recycle, I used to car pool (guy moved), and if there was an alternative to driving that was more cost effective, I'd do that, but those things don't exist here.

Here are some views from the other side of the global warming debate.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32802

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/19/90805.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/31/173242.shtml

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12594

 

[Planogirl]

His timing? He has been into this for many, many years. How is his timing convenient?

Keep in mind that the man almost won the Presidency. I doubt that everyone detests him like a few of the posters in this thread obviously do.