An inconvenient truth
 

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)

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

three, two, one...

Uh...who are we waiting for?

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

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).

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

There were probably not as many bovine meth farts?

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/

Link please.

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

:lol:

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.

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 ...

;)

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'.

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).

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?

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

[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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!?? :eek:

Ok...I'm old enough to remember the "Ice Age is coming" predictions, of the 1970's.
I wasn't around in the middle ages to witness the warm period then, so I'll just concede all of the rest. Including 2006 being the hottest summer since 1936, because I do know that my A/C got one hell of a workout.

Still...even if global warming/cooling is part of the natural cycle (which to a large extent...it is) you have to see the common sense that the continuation of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, in ever increasing quantities...coupled with the continued deforestation of the rainforests, has to have an adverse effect. While the sky may not be falling, there has to be some stress fractures.

Bill what does the rainforest have to do with global warming? Its one of those things some people have tried to link but its part of the scare tactics, since they feel you won't save the rainforest just for its own sake so they want a bigger tie in. Over all the rainforest could become a giant golf course and while it would be devastating to the local ecology, it would not change the planet. Of course a google gives you things like this Why Gaia Needs Rainforests

I never claimed that the environment was perfect, or that humans were not having adverse local effects. The rainforest has poor quality soil which is why the slash and burn is so devastating there, it can't recover once the soil is depleted.

Now this will vary WILDLY depending on where you look, which is also part of the frustration. Due to the agendas in the global warming craze its past beyond science into politics and its like looking up 'George Bush' on google and expecting dispassionate unbiased results. Needless to say this is quite disturbing in what should be a scientific matter but it is what it is. Anyways human produced gases make up about 1% of the atmosphere. What sort of effect it has we really do not know. There are so many variables that all predictions are meaningless. We have carbon sinks in vegetation, some claim all it will do is increase plant life, we have the oceans which deposit calcium carbonate and some think that takes care of the excess, we have people claiming that the particulate matter in pollution is cooling the earth and thats masking global warming, well anyways it goes on and on, and thats just the good science. There is even more junk science out there thats more wild and gets more press like those idiots who said the earth was at its warmest in 1 million years just this week. (sob)

But Bill can you advocate expensive action, which even the proponents of human caused global warming say will make NO difference just so some people can feel good and THINK they are helping the environment? Action with no hope of results is just assinine.

Sorry, I know we're not supposed to post twice the same article. But this holds much relevance in the argument.

More info and science on the sun-based warming cycles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm

The Univ of California released a study earlier this year of the economic impact of the global warming bill signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger earlier this week:

A new UC Berkeley report finds that returning California global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as envisioned by pending global warming legislation, can boost the annual Gross State Product (GSP) by $60 billion and create 17,000 new jobs by 2020.

The report, "Economic Growth and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in California," offers an independent assessment of the economic benefits of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), The Global Warming Solutions Act, sponsored by Assemblyman Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills).

The study finds that the gains could be even larger—$74 billion in annual GSP and 89,000 new jobs by 2020—if climate policies are designed to create direct incentives for California companies to invest in new technology.

"Our study demonstrates that meeting the 2020 limits under debate in Sacramento can stimulate the state economy," said David Roland-Holst, UC Berkeley adjunct professor of agricultural and resource economics and author of the report. "Climate action can be profitable."

http://www.climatechoices.org/site/s...erkeley_Report

I have not read the full report and I doubt that I would have the expertise to to critiique it after reading it.

I am sure many will "debunk" it; I would only hope they do so with credible and verifiable arguments of their own.

Well ironically the 'anti-global warming' crowd outspent the oil industry almost 3-1 in political spending. Don't think that there isn't a lot of money on both sides in this, and I've been seeing some 527 funded adds that are just disgusting on cable TV about global warming lately.

The problem with scaring people is that once they figure out they were duped its going to be that much harder to get them to do the right thing. All the eggs are in the global warming basket right now, what happens if the temperatures start to go down with the end of the current solar cycle like it did after the last global warming scare in the 30's?

Really I think we were making pretty good progress at educating the general public over environmental issues but that has been totally overshadowed by global warming and the WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF YOU DON'T ACT NOW AND VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE! mentality they are trying to push on us. I can't recall the last mass media story about the environment that didn't tie in global warming.

People may be poorly educated, but despite what most environmentalist groups think, they are not stupid. Its going to be that much harder to keep people focused on the environment in the long run if global warming goes away on its own.

Just because global climate change has been given a connotation of hyperbole by politicians and media trying to front their agenda does not mean that global warming is a myth.

You'll notice this argument can be applied to you as well.

well this is just interestingly telling...

at least give it away to the diplomats...

:lol:

Even Gore can't be THAT stupid.

isn't his family invested in tobacco farms? incredible irony...

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

At this point I don't really care if there is Global Warming or not. All I care about is that we make some (real) attempt to slow or halt pollution.

I don't need to frame that debate in Global Warming terms. I'd rather look at the increased rate of resperatory illness. If reducing harmful particulates from the air leads to a reduction of "greenhouse gases" I see that as just an added bonus.

Add to this, that increased efficencies in our current systems (better heating and cooling systems, better insulated houses, more efficient means of production) while expensive in the initial stage will bring dividends in the long run -- the biggest of which is a reduction in the amount of power required to run said systems (read: less reliance in foreign oil, etc.).

As for how to pay for it all? I would set up a system of government sponsored Interest Free loans to be paid back with the savings in Energy consumption. Additionally, you would be creating a big whack of jobs for people who will have to impliment these systems as well as in R&D into creating these efficiencies.

This discussion need not be couched in Global Warming... Global Warming is just a "convenient" fear factor, regardless of the veracity of global warming one way or the other.

The cleanest internal combustion engine makes H2O and CO2, so then what?

We don't have to be confined by internal combustion engines. Thinking outside the box is what will bring us our cleanest systems.

Great point Charlatan, couldn't agree more.

There are way more efficiencies to be had than *just* the internal combustion engine.

But to answer that... If we look at the internal combustion engine of Henry Ford's time compared to today we have squeezed much more energy out of our engines that was previously available. Of course, instead of making our cars more efficient we have just made them bigger and faster. In and of itself this is not a problem so long as the overall effect is greater efficiency and less pollution over all.

As a suggested above, it isn't just about cars. It also about how we build our houses (or live with the legacy of what we already have built), how we run our industry, how we use our energy and what we do with our waste.

Many would like to see there be no regulations. Fuck efficiency. I want to do it the cheapest way possible to maximize profits.

This is extremely short sighted and ignores negative externalities such as resperatory illness and death (the cost of which is rarely calculated by industry or economists). And one need not just look at that example of a negative externality, a greater number of heavier vehicles on our roads (i.e. more SUVs) has also increased the wear and tear on our roads and highways. Who pays for these roads? It is not the auto industry, you can be sure of that.

But my point in the post of above was not to get into that side of things... it was simply to state that with proper investment in R&D and stronger regulations greater efficiencies and reduction of pollution can be achieved. This does not require the spectre of Global Warming.

Implimenting it just takes good leadership with an eye towards the long term rather than just sort term gain.

Or lying to the public, creating fear where no fear is warrented, all for political gain under the guise of environmentalism. I don't have a problem with anything you say, I do have a problem with those creating a false hysteria.

Then we agree on something.

Fear is a shitty tool to use as a motivator. Better to state your real agenda and make it happen.

I suppose that is what irks me so much. We were making gains with the public mindset with acid rain, the rain forest, endangered species, etc, and now you are lucky if you hear a peep about that sort of thing unless its directly tied into global warming.

Interesting. I would suggest that in your rebuttals to the Global Warming discussion you make this emphasis. Until now, this concern for the environment is mostly lacking from your position. You end up coming off as someone who is just dismissing it all rather than suggesting that your motivation for change is fueled but other things.

It is perhaps, why so many are quick to call you a shill for the current admin's position (well at least one reason ;) ).

Hey the RNC's check didn't clear this week so I'm back to my old self.

Good old Gore!


A little history:

At the 1996 Democratic National Convention, Gore recounted how his cigarette-smoking sister died from lung cancer.

"I knelt by her bed and held her hand," he grieved. "And in a very short time her breathing became labored. And she breathed her last breath. And that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking."

He neglected to mention was that he had happily accepted campaign contributions from tobacco industry political action committees for six years after his beloved sister passed away.

Oh, and in a speech he gave in North Carolina, four years after his sister "breathed her last breath," he said, "Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."

What a piece of shit he is.

Please Marv, don't open that can of worms. All it leads to is a tit for tat process. You think HE's bad, well your leader did THIS!

I don't care what Gore did in the past, or if he's a "piece of shit."

Let's keep the focus on the message itself. There is plenty of interest to debate there.

If you wish to get into any politican's character, please start another thread.

This goes for everyone.

Ustwo....I'm curious on your take on Bush"s "Clear Sky Initiative" to amend the Clean Air Act.

As I understand it, it sets new targets for emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from U.S. power plants and allows for "pollution trading" that would effectively weaken (or delay) the emission targets that would be in place if the Bush administration simply implemented and enforced the existing law.

I've read what the White House and EPA say as well as what the environmental groups say. It seems to me that "we were making gains" with existing law, without an adverse impact on the utility industry.

Can't say I'm surprised at that, but in your haste to make yet another "tu quoque" accusation, you abandoned logic, since I'm talking about the hypocrisy of the SAME person.

If Duke Cunningham went on the lecture tour promoting integrity in government, I doubt that I'd buy any book he wrote. If that analogy is also lost on you, perhaps another reader will consider it relevant. If he or she gets a chance to read it.

I don't know why I thought things might have changed around here.

Marv... don't be uneccessarily obtuse.

The path you were trodding is one we have been down before. It leads to a flame war... one that has already been had.

If you want to start a flame war... do it elsewhere.

I'll have to look into it again. I don't recall being really concerned when it came out but I don't remember any details or reasoning either.

I wonder if they will propose to suspend all indoor smoking bans in order to save the planet from the ravages of global warming caused by cigarettes. It is getting harder and harder to take this guy seriously.

Fear is an excellent and efficient motivator. It is the single fastest thing that can engage a response from people en masse. (probably the leading reason as to why people act only when it's too late.)

It is sad that fear works so well as a motivator for people.

And junkscience.com / Steven Milloy is basically our era's version of the people who fought so hard against evolution in Darwin's and the heliocentric solar system in Galileo's respective eras.

The logic of this argument is that a message must be judged by the person who presents it. Its valid for personal messages - I wouldn't ask my grandma what heroin feels like. For messages that are in no way personal, like Al Gore really re-wrapping and presenting what other people have been saying for a while now, there is no real basis for this argument except as to draw attention to bias that may be injected into the message.

I saw this movie recently and I must admit some of the graphs looked pretty scary and to see all that ice disappearing is concerning. There has been talk that the Australian ski fields will be gone in a matter of years because of global warming, if this is true then I think that is quite concerning. This year I ski'd new zealand and the season was one of the better ones on record.

Its certainly very hot here in Sydney and its only mid autumn. I'm not a scientist and so I have no real way of judging these claims but from what I've read I'm convinced that something real is occuring. I think Kyoto sounded like a fairly good idea to me, and I know the nations who pariticipated in it did reduce their emissions. I think economic measures are the best way to enforce compliance but really governments have to step up to the plate and stop this ridiculous free market globalization turn a blind eye attitude. We have to start being a little bit more responsible, rational and careful because at the moments its a very crowded party and there aren't a whole lot of beers left doesn't mean we should all go in and grab a six pack and hide it in a bunker somewhere. We're human beings and we should act more like a global community.

I think anytime anyone says either the "sky is falling" or "all those scientists who tell you the sky is falling are lying" to you they are probably pushing an agenda even if that agenda is just getting you to read their newspaper. The world is in many ways a fucked up place and I think we need to maintain constant dialogue on ways to deal with the complex challenges we face.

Fear mongering relies on idiots who will be scared easily and frankly there is no shortage of such people. If they weren't afraid of global warming they would be afraid of terrorism or the economy or communism - you can't try and protect people by attacking fear mongerers. We need to all rise up and become practical rather than reactionary.

I know why the hockey stick diagram showed 1998 to be the hottest year ever, it has nothing to do with CO2 or anything like that.. The reason is simply numbers. The year 1998 had 3(!) Friday the 13th (bad luck baaaad luck) and if you divide 1998 by 3 you start to understand why it was the hottest year ever. :eek: :rolleyes:

Seriously though, here are some links about said hockey stick diagram:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

Some other links of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ate_Change.png

As it is now I'm not convinced either way, on one hand I see the ones claiming that humans are responsible are pretty arrogant in assuming that we can affect that much and on the other hand, it is getting hotter where I live and less snow in the winters.

But as it is now blahblah454 said it best. Why bother why we want to clean up the air, it's a good thing no matter what reason.

Because of how it would define pollution. CO2 being 'pollution' causes a lot of issues if you want to clean up the air. Based on global warming, we would be BETTER off having engines that produced more particulate matter and less CO2, in other words, better off having engines that burn uncleanly.

Ah yes, that is a good point.
By cleaning up the air I mean away with the industries etc. that produces "smog" that mixture of pretty much everything that makes it so disgusting to even breathe in some cities. But that may very well be the very thing that is slowing down global warming so.. Guess we just don't know for sure untill we are there.

Some recent data on Greenland's ice mass.

Interesting article on the global warming cycle.