d*d

saw this on the weekend, an excellent film which is hopefully the start of a general consensus shift to thinking that global warming (climate crisis, whatever it's called) is a very real and immenent problem. It made me wonder how many people are still in denial about it (especially Americans who are statistically the largest contributors)

highthief

He'll be along shortly, stay tuned...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Charlatan

three, two, one...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ngdawg

Uh...who are we waiting for?

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Lady Sage

Whats the name of the film? What network will it be on? When will it air? What ng said...?

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Ch'i

That is indeed a great movie. Go see it if you haven't yet.

Global Warming is a problem we are not likely to avoid. Whether it be stubborness, ignorance, apathy, or the sllllooowwwww proccess from an oil/emissions based economy to a more environment-friendly economy, it is doubtful that enough people will see a need to change.

Our mistakes are finally starting to catch up with us.


Edit: An Inconvenient Truth is the name of the movie. It was made by Al Gore, and its about Global Warming. You can still see it in a few theaters near you (the theaters with the most independent films).

MexicanOnABike

it was good but if you follow anything about the subject then you already knew all this. I did anyways.

what's dissapointing is that nothing will be done really to stop this process if it is in fact caused by us.

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

Ch'i

Yeah, but the information was well layed out. It also showed the truth to people who were not aware of the problem, which is the most important function of this movie.
They'll figure it out eventually. Nothing like 3rd degree sun burns to shock people out of their apathy!

Ustwo

The only one on TFP with a qualified opinion of course.

Really 'I saw a propaganda film and it was awesome, how could anyone deny it being so true!'.

You know how utterly easy it is to dupe people on scientific matters? We get a good number of 'the USA is poor at such and such in school' and yet people think they are not part of that group, and somehow able to understand a topic we still are pretty clueless on based on a one sided presentation.

Personally I'd hope you would get what you deserve on it, except that I'd be stuck with whatever bonehead policy the uninformed numbskulls voted on.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108927

If you feel you are up for it, go for it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

Ah, yes the Environmental/Ecologist/Biologist/Scientist and Dentist right on schedule.

Lady Sage

At this point all I can say is..... wow...

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Seaver

Considering it is one of the top people for the Senate Global Warming committee, supported by facts I'd stay with that.

I have yet to have a Global Warming supporter state how the Middle Ages warming, then mini-ice age (which only ended mid-18th Century), were natural but the current change is so clearly caused by us.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Elphaba

There were probably not as many bovine meth farts?

Ustwo

Just a sample.

Edit: In case some of you really DO want to educate yourself on what global warming is, the greenhouse effect, etc this is a pretty good primer.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

Link please.

highthief

I thought he was a doctor. Only a dentist? Pity ...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Dilbert1234567

Even though you guys disagree, Ustwo knows his shit, he is well educated, and knows how to research a topic. Instead of just writing him off, try debate, prove him wrong, with evidence.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

highthief

Just as soon as Ustwo starts researching and debating, I'm sure there will be a line up to respond. Lemme know when it starts ...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Ustwo

Just some more inconvenient debunking for you, its a LONG article, but I'll give you the intro.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...b-829b1b3542ef

Saying you understand global warming after watching 'An inconvenient truth' is like saying you understand 9/11 and global terrorism after watching 'fahrenheit 9/11'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ch'i

I agree with Ustwo that viewers of this film should not, despite the title, accept all of his points as truth. This film should not be viewed as a tool for learning about global warming. Do some research of your own.
Emissions Fact Sheet:1990-2004
Saying that human technology is not somewhat responsible for global warming is not necissarily true either, however. Vehicles, factory's, and other man-made emissions do contribute to global warming, even if they aren't the cause (which is still up for debate).

Seaver

My question is this: With increased CO2 emissions, wouldn't that in turn cause a plant growth explosion which could counter-act this? While you will point out the deforestation, I would like to point out that the ocean plankton convert vastly more CO2 to O2 than the forests of the world. Mixed with few whales/fish/etc because of environmental issues the natural predators of the sea life are diminished.

Has anyone even looked into this?

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Carno

Imminent as in five years, or imminent as in several hundreds of years?

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Baraka_Guru

[emphasis mine]


Is junkscience.com some kind of metafictional parody? It's not a very good one. For starters, it doesn't even look like an online scientific journal. And is it really published by a Fox News columnist? You'd think he'd be sensible enough to avoid overusing clichés, bold red text/italics for emphasis, and invective and patronizing language. And this is supposed to educate? It doesn't even entertain. Moreover, he does a shoddy job with his notes and references. You'd think after years of being a scholar, he'd do a better job setting up this sort of thing.

And another thing: the entire junkscience.com website is in desperate need of a line-edit cleanup.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

kutulu

Yep. Not just a fox news guy but a Phillips Morris and Exxon lobbyist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

Elphaba

Another example as to why links to sources should be expected.

Dilbert1234567

well to lend credence to Steven Milloy, second hand smoking is a bunch of BS too.

http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjour...onmental%20%22

The report, written by the WHO, says there is no link between child hood exposure to and only a slightly higher chance, 25% more likely for adults who work with a smoke or have a spouse as a smoker, however, they way the calculate it is a total farce, 1:80,000 of people exposed to second hand smoke die from lung cancer, where as 1:100,000 who are not exposed to it die from lung cancer. This is just slightly higher then statistically insignificant.

I hate smoke, it smells horrible; however, there is no scientific evidence to show a conclusive link between second hand smoking and cancer. This is the WHO, not some 2 bit crock scientist in the pocket of big business.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

d*d

Cheers Ustwo, I knew posting here would get some reference to counter what was stated in the film.

I still however strongly believe in the intention of the film and although I had doubts as to how close to disaster we actually were, It was interesting to have all the facts and half truths I have heard put into a context and showing how they relate to each other.

I do feel that it comes down to a degree of common sense, every fact Al Gore states someone can find some fact or scientist to counter it or throw doubt on it, however - as a whole I think our effect on the environment is becoming more obvious and this film helps to push a necessary awareness.

I see no reason why I should give this et al
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
more credence than the facts layed out in the film - I also believed in the sincerity of Gore (even though he is a politician) and would be interested to see any opinions on what he would gain if this were just environmental propoganda?

Ustwo

Yes those are carbon sinks, they have been looked at, but mostly ignored. In the Kyoto protocols they were going to let countries 'trade' carbon sinks. Meaning if you were not producing a lot of CO2 but had a lot of vegitation you could 'loan' your sink 'credit' to some other country who was overproducing CO2. I forget how that was suppose to work out, and of course it wouldn't take into account increased plant growth, but the Kyoto system seemed silly, but the whole plan was stupid feelgood do nothing but pretend we are all working together legislation that even the global warming moonbats admit would have not made any impact.

As for the rest I'm not going to argue global warming with you, frankly its fruitless, most of you lack the backround to start the argument, and there is plenty of info out there if you are willing to educate yourself and not take the word of a politician.

I will leave you with this thought....

While its debatable I'll take it at face value.

2006 was the hottest summer on record since 1936.

In 1936 there were dire preditions about global warming.
Then things started to cool off and until 1980 there were dire preditions about global cooling.
Now again we have dire preditions about global warming.

And its still not as warm as it was before the little ice age durring the mideval period when Greenland was warm enough to farm.

But please, don't let history get in the way of thinking the sky is falling yet again.

Not learning from history is one of those great cliches but it applies quite aptly here. Humans always have a desire to do 'something' to fix a potential problem, but so often that something does nothing or is counter productive. Global warming is no different.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

blahblah454

I dont see why people have such a problem with people trying to stop global warming, or whatever they want to call it. I see it as people trying to help the environment. In no way would reducing emmisions and trying to clean our air a bad thing, who cares the reasons for it, its a good thing. Look at how people were able to polute the great lakes and ocean shores, who says we cant polute the air so bad we can't breathe it anymore?

I am all for cleaning up the environment, and personaly I don't care why people do it. If its for "global warming" or anything else, cleaning is cleaning.

Ch'i

Is this the same Ustwo? I'd like debating with this one more often.

I do not have a degree in ecology, biology, or environmental science (though I plan on getting them), so bear with me, and point out any mistakes in my arguments.

First of all, the term "greenhouse effect" is an inaccurate, and somewhat misleading, name for those who are unfamiliar. Greenhouse gases do not reduce convection like most greenhouses do, but instead reduce the loss of radiation.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, have risen considerably due to tropical deforestation, the burning of fossil fuels, and industries such as cement production. Seaver stated that... There is truth to this, however, the Amazon Rainforest alone produces 20% of the Earth's fresh water and oxygen, and is also estimated to be gone in eight decades. This kind of deforestation causes an increase in CO2 concentrations, and thus an increase in the global temperature mean.
You'll notice, in Figure 3, that the Kyoto Protocol had little impact on the AGGI.
You will also notice that though CFC's and methane concentrations are showing signs of recession, CO2 and Nitrous Oxide trends show no such indications.


Good point Blahblah. I still find it amazing that we so willingly polute the only planet available that's capable of supporting life.

Amaras

My two cents:
1. We do not have a baseline measurements sufficient to have any level of accuracy in our predictions.
2. Our environmental sciences are far too nascent to even get close to understanding an issue this complex.
3. The level of fear with which one reacts to this type of proclamation is commensurate with how dire it sounds. Unfortunately, one's reaction is also inversely proportionate to the amount of education, self or otherwise.


Ustwo, while I happen to agree with, you DO realize telling people that they lack the background to argue with you is a great way of ensuring they won't listen to you. You get more flies with honey...

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

Ustwo

I'm well aware, but I'm not trying to make converts out of the unwashed. I've had this debate to many times and for to long and I know how it goes.

Those who have made up their mind won't be swayed, they have accepted the limited data as 'truth' and its like trying to tell someone their religion is wrong. Those who are just worried about the media stuff, but understand they don't know will read what I say and might be swayed if they start to think about the issue, they won't be insulted and get their back up to prove me wrong.

I've had the techincal debates before with a 'true believer' but those are just fruitless as most true believers don't have much more understanding beyond a website. Claims of the hottest temperatures in 20 million years (yea I did get a bit technical on that one) to some of the dire predictions of storms and the like can be refuted but they require a lot of work and research. Anyone can make a claim, but instead of proving their claim they expect you to disprove it and frankly its not worth the time. Its not like they see it and say 'oh ok, now I get it.' its ignored and they move on to the next distorted factoid for you to disprove.

So I give my take on it, let those who are unsure decide, and go on from there.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ch'i

That's not true of all people. If you proved me wrong, I would accept it. Being wrong isn't a bad thing; learning from those mistakes is what's important. You are presumably well educated in this area, so I'd like to make full use of that knowledge in gaining a better understanding myself. Its sad that some people chose to ignor anything that clashes with what they believe to be truth. I completely disagree with such boundries, and those who possess them will not get far in life. If I happen to be wrong, that's fine. At least I've grown.

Ustwo, I really would enjoy debating with you. Don't assume we're all closed minded.

Edit: If you really don't want to waste time on this, give me some links that support your side so I can read them on my own time. I need evidence.

Lady Sage

Amen!

Even "IF" the evnironment isnt in the crapper just yet, why not start to fix it now so it doesnt end up there? Gods forbid people who want to take care of their planet. We only have to live here after all.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Ustwo

So its ok to scare people with global warming to reach your real goals?

That is what a large part of this is about. I used to be 'in' the loop on this stuff, and the general feeling is that people are stupid, so they don't mind using junk science to scare you into doing what they think is right.

Who hear remembers the threat that if the rainforests were cut down we would run out of oxygen? I got to talk with those people at the 1992 earth day event. I was a young, slowly becoming disillusioned ecology major, and when I pointed out most of the O2 is made in the ocean, they flat out told me they said that because people would never understand saving biodiversity.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

KungFuGuy

QFT

If you follow the economics of the situation, most of the people (like steven milloy) are really only concerned about the effects of environmental clean up on bank roll. Better filters cost more money for all those smokestacks after all. We can't make as much money with these environmental protection areas set up against logging, now can we?

Bottom line: Until environmental preservation can be shown as profitable to businesses and corporations will anything actually start happening. They will always find a way to the cheaper method (factories in china for instance) in another country without the environmental protections set up.

edit: as far as the movie goes, it was very good and serves as a wake up call in the very least that it stimulates interest in the subject.

blahblah454

Ustwo I see where you are coming from with your being against scare tactics. I suppose that most people do get really excited about everything they see in a movie and would be frightened by it. Yes it is wrong to scare people into doing things (Like going to war for no reason...) but with todays society and mentality that seems to be the only way to get anything done.

And it is sad that money drives everything. You look at these huge corperations that are causing most of the polution and look at the amount of money that they do have. Its absolutely discusting how much money they have, and yet they always need more. I find that most people get by with there meager salaries just fine, they wouldn't mind more money but its not a HUGE deal, and yet you look at these mega-corperations and there top officials and they are just rolling in the cash and its never enough. They cut wages, move factories, do tax fraud, anything to get more money. No one cares about anything but money anymore. I think that until that changes the world is heading to shit and its not going to stop.

And as far as cutting the rain forest down being bad because of the oxygen production... who fucking cares if the rain forest makes oxygen!! How about we stop burning it to make room for cattle and industry because its the rain forest. I mean they burn the fucker down because its faster than cutting it down! Its a giant ecosystem and that alone should be reason enough to try and preserve it.

I find that today people are protesting for all the wrong reasons and that they lose sight of alot of important things by these tangents they go off on. I am not saying everyone does, but alot of people do.

d*d

I started this thread because I 'saw the movie' (It's simply the lecture that Al Gore gives put to film - it is a movie only in the broadest sense) that used what have been described as scare tactics, now after ustwo has kindly (if a little patronisingly) given me other sources of data countering what I saw - I'm still as confused as to what to beleive as before.

If I believe the sources Ustwo pointed out, we're fine - global warming predictions are fear mongering ill concieved half truths to scare us into what - recycling stuff and lowering the amount of pollutants we spill into the atmosphere? I'm not sure of the motives of creating a hoax such as global warming, who benefits financially from it?

However there seems to be a fair enough argument from the other camp but I'm not about to devote my live to understanding the science behind them (that's why we have scientists surely, i'll do my bit for the species they do theirs) so I guess I should either just wait till the Gulf stream switches off or recycle and do my bit to help the planet in whatever half assed, ill informed way I can

dc_dux

As Ustwo suggests...."In case some of you really DO want to educate yourself on what global warming is...."

I would only add that for a balanced perspective, consider other sites as well as his "junkscience.com" site.

Consider the source:

JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Milloy defines "junk science" as "bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,' environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune." He regularly attacks environmentalists and scientists who support environmentalism, claiming that dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all "scares" and "scams."

Milloy's attacks are often notable for their vicious tone, which appears calculated to lower rather than elevate scientific discourse
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...unkScience.com

or

The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment. Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

A site that I recommend on the subject of global warming is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The IPCC "assesses scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change. " Its assessments are conducted by a large cross-section of international scholars and its reports are peer-reviewed.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aberkok

I've been trying to frame this question. Clearly for politicians on both sides of the issue, there isa political motive, but there's nothing too sinister about that. They are merely taking a stand on an issue in order to gain the favour of voters. However, financially, there is a lot to gain from those things that accelerate global warming (should that be the case).

I am not convinced that the global warming naysayers are acting in the interests of "exposing fear-mongering." Why is it such a big concern anyway? They're afraid people might have to, heaven forbid, act prudently...or worse yet...reduce consumption!??

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."