An Inconvenient Truth

[Gman]

Hi all,

I was just wondering who has seen the new movie "An Inconvenient Truth" yet with AL Gore? I saw it last week and I was really impressed. Of course some of the future events of the movie could be debatable, but over all I was impressed by it.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

G -

[Canuckster1127]

Hi all,

I was just wondering who has seen the new movie "An Inconvenient Truth" yet with AL Gore? I saw it last week and I was really impressed. Of course some of the future events of the movie could be debatable, but over all I was impressed by it.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

G -

I haven't seen it yet. I'll likely rent it on DVD later on.

It seems the response is overall positive, which I'd expect given that reviewers and newspapers tend to already agree with what Gore is saying. It looks like overall, based on my examination of the reviews, that there is a consensus from the middle as well that the film is well done and has some strong points to make.

I'll post more after I've seen it.

[Jac3510]

Leftist rhetoric. I'll nt subject myself to it, just as I didn't waste my time with F 9/11.

Ok, now that the over-reaction is out of the way . . .

Seriously, they don't mention the simple fact that the Sun is getting hotter. Global warming is part of the natural cycle of the earth's history, and it doesn't have anything to do with our activities. It's just propoganda, imo.

*shrug*

[Gman]

Of course they all say that, (people that refuse to look at the facts)... I'm not sure if you are aware of this but THIS website (the one you are posting in) differs with that opinion.. Does that make it leftist?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rming.html

As it states in the conclusion:

Yes, global warming is real and most of the recent increases in temperature are directly the result of human actions. However, a number of predictions publicized in the media present unrealistic scenarios of doom and gloom.

Governments and individuals should work to seriously address the issues of CO2 emissions and carbon sequestration. The primary emphasis should be switching from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources and expansion of northern forests.

I love this website for telling us the truth... That's why I'm here.

G -

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The United Nations has become so concerned about the prospect of global warming that, in the 1990's, they began talks on a mechanism to reduce greenhouse emissions. The Kyoto protocol would aim to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 5% from 1990 levels in the commitment period of 2008-2012. The protocol was adopted at COP 3 in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997. Unfortunately, the two largest producers of greenhouse gases, the United States and China failed to sign on. Even if they had, a 5% decrease in emissions would have a negligible effect upon increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even the United Nations website admits, "When they adopted the Convention, governments knew that its commitments would not be sufficient to seriously tackle climate change."14 Symbolic support for reducing greenhouse emissions is not exactly a solution to the problem.

Gore Gore Gore...he blasted the evil US for not signing the Kyoto Protocal....how amusing that these details were left out by him.

[Jac3510]

Yes, I am aware that Rich differs on opinion in global warming. But, I differ with Rich on a several things he writes about, so it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure what his political position is. It's sad to see him take this stance on this issue, but we are all entitled to our own beliefs. I wonder what his reaction would be if he were to check the source of funding for the majority of the scientists who come up with conclusions saying that human activity directly contributes to global warming? I haven't read his research in depth. I scanned the article and read the conclusions . . . if I was a betting man (and I'm not), I'd wager most of the people he referenced were gov't funded.

Anyway, like I said, leftists rhetoric, all of it. Some good people have gotten sucked into it, sadly. Good people get sucked into a lot of leftists ideas, i.e., the "benefits" of an income tax, witholdings, social security, social programs, socialism in general, progressive taxation, etc.

Fun times all around. Anyway, I don't read the main board anymore. Just the forum discussions

edit: As a reminder, my main point is that I don't want to see the film because it's propoganda. I say it is propoganda because it is one sided. No entertainment value + no balanced research = a waste of time.

[Canuckster1127]

It is pretty convenient to form opinions before viewing things.

Saves time.

[Jac3510]

Are you referring to my not seeing the movie or not examining Rich's article? If the former, I've read reviews and know people who have seen it (I didn't watch the Da Vinci Code, either, but I can counter it point by point, if need be.). The fact that he doesn't mention the sun getting hotter is more then enough to prove that the guy is producing propaganda. I mean, that's the chief argument pushed by people who think global warming is a hoax, as it relates to human activity, anyway. If the latter, I don't have to read Rich's article before I make a conclusion on global warming. If that were the case, none of us would ever be able to draw any conclusions about anything.

Anyway, you are right in that it saves time. That's why I'm not going to see it. I have much better things to do with the few days God has given me in this life

edit: Here, I figured I'd provide you with a few snippets to back what I'm saying.

The following was written by Roger Ebert who is a self-professed liberal and who highly recommends the film:

• Gore says that although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 1990s by the energy industries to "reposition global warming as a debate." It is the same strategy used for years by the defenders of tobacco. My father was a Luckys smoker who died of lung cancer in 1960, and 20 years later it was still "debatable" that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. Now we are talking about the death of the future, starting in the lives of those now living.

Of course, us conservatives love the National Review Online, a letter to which notes:

• However, if you read past this shilling for Gore, you find that, of the 100 "top" scientists contacted for the article, most had not seen the movie or read the book its based on. Of those who had, they seemed to agree that Gore had his science right.

And, we certainly wouldn't expect Al, who pointed to the melting of the world's glaciers as one of his many proofs, well you would expect him to tell us that a new peer reviewed study out of the University of Massachusettes reveals that:

• . . . in South America's Andes Mountains the glaciers' advances and retreats have not been governed by CO2, but by small variations in the sun's intensity. (Op-ed source)

So much for the claim that scientists are in 100% agreement . . .

From the same Op-Ed, and this is the basic premise that all of us who think global warming is simply leftist propaganda push:

• The question for Al Gore is not whether our temperatures are rising; the key question is why they're rising. Antarctic ice cores tell us that temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere have tracked closely together through recent Ice Ages, but the CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by about 800 years.

So . . . like I said, I'll not waste my time with it

God bless

[Gman]

Anyway, like I said, leftists rhetoric, all of it. Some good people have gotten sucked into it, sadly.

Well I'd rather be sucked into this so-called hoax than into having those RICH oil companies sucking away our money... I don't know what oil prices are out there in GA but I went to the gas pumps today and found that a gallon of regular unleaded gas is $3.21 cents.. If you want to support those rich oil companies with their cheap science cracks then go bye a Hummer and go for it... As for me, I'll be heading in the other direction... and on a bike. Probably be healthier for it too..

The fact that he doesn't mention the sun getting hotter is more then enough to prove that the guy is producing propaganda.

Who's propaganda? Average people that can read charts or the RICH money hungry oil companies?? Do you know why the war in the middle east is going to be a long and hard process for America? Because WE are funding those oil companies there who in turn fund those Muslim extremists!! Ever hear the term "shooting oneself in one's own foot?" I don't know about you, but I love my country and wish to see it healthy and in one piece and see our soldiers safe...

As for the sun getting hotter, that's natural, but combined with global warming it could be a bigger problem..

If the former, I've read reviews and know people who have seen it.

However, if you read past this shilling for Gore, you find that, of the 100 "top" scientists contacted for the article, most had not seen the movie or read the book its based on. Of those who had, they seemed to agree that Gore had his science right.

So you are going by what other people say and not yourself? Aren't you doing the same? Anyways those scientists had the raw data, something anyone can find, even in a google search... it's not a secret or a conspiracy...

. . . in South America's Andes Mountains the glaciers' advances and retreats have not been governed by CO2, but by small variations in the sun's intensity. (Op-ed source)

Highly debatable info you got there.. Maybe those rich oil company scientists again on the loose with fuzzy logic.

The question for Al Gore is not whether our temperatures are rising; the key question is why they're rising.

I'm not an Al Gore supporter, but that is what the movie is all about...

So . . . like I said, I'll not waste my time with it

Well that appears evident...

God bless too..

[Jac3510]

Rich oil companies and gas prices?!?

What was that I was talking about leftist rhetoric earlier . . .

[Gman]

Well I'm not a leftist.. I didn't vote for Clinton or Gore in the 90's.. I'm a registered democrat though, even though I don't vote that way most of the times. I just don't want to see our country commit suicide. But we may have to wait for another hurricane to wake us all up... Kind of like a slap in the rear huh?

G -

[Canuckster1127]

Global Warming is a hot potato politically.

I have a pretty strong reaction myself to those who utilize it to promote "green" politics.

What people do with facts however, is not as important as the facts themselves.

I think Rich's article is reasonable and shows that there are environmental consequences for increased greenhouse gas emissions. It is arguable to what extent and he admits that. Further it is arguable as to what extent warming is occuring as a result of natural processes and occurances. I think Rich addresses those issues very reasonably.

What concerns me, is not so much what the US is doing or not doing, although we should be concerned about that; what concerns me more, is that a very large portion of the world's population is emerging into their industrial revolution (India, China etc.) where they are wanting the benefits that we in the west have come to take for granted such as electricity and automobiles, and their viewpoint is that America has had their revolution and therefore has no right to tell them what to do in reaching for their version of the "good life."

We have taught them well. What moral right do we have to ask anyone to avoid the mistakes we have made in the past if we aren't addressing them ourselves? Further, what right do we have as Americans sitting in our air conditioned homes, driving our automobiles have to tell people in India that they need to be careful about how they generate electricity that they will use to run water treatment plants to provide potable water for the first time in their history?

I choose, to the degree that I can to not listen to either extreme. There is a left leaning political faction that ties their ideology to this issue and seeks to catastrophize the situation and scare people. These are the people who point to hurricanes like Katrina and try to convince people that they are the direct result of you not changing the catalytic converter on your car.

There are also those who seem to prefer to point to these excesses on the left and argue that because other people misuse the data, that a problem doesn't really exist. That is a logical non-sequitor.

If I live on a river, and my neighbor upstream uses that river as his personal toilet, then when I go for a drink of water, I have an issue with the situation.

The majority of human history has been without these elements. We are dealing with some unknowns and some processes that go well beyond even what we have been aware enough to observe and understand, let alone interpret accurately. Does that mean because we have elements of obscurity that we should obfuscate those facts in favor of doing nothing? I don't think so. What we do though and at what cost, is certainly not an easy issue to address. There's the rub.

I prefer to believe that we are stewards of this world. The advent of the internal combustion engine has introduced some elements into our environment that were not understood at the time we began to do it. To the extent that that cause introduced some effects we need to be aware of and work with them now and further continue to observe, learn more and respond reasonably based upon that knowledge when it is gained.

It is not a zero-sum situation. There are processes that work within nature to counterbalance increases like this. They in turn have their own responses. We live in a world of systems with cause and effect spiraling all around us.

Exagerating or understating the problem or tying other issues artifically to it, doesn't add up to good stewardship in my mind. I frankly don't think either extreme is doing themselves or us any favors in that regard.

Both extremes that have already drawn their conclusions and interpret new information in their already formed frameworks, scare me.

[FFC]

Well I'm not a leftist.. I didn't vote for Clinton or Gore in the 90's.. I'm a registered democrat though, even though I don't vote that way most of the times. I just don't want to see our country commit suicide. But we may have to wait for another hurricane to wake us all up... Kind of like a slap in the rear huh?

G -

I'm with you, G.

[thereal]

Just as an addendum to this thread, the Discovery Channel will be airing a special entitled "Global Warming - What You Need to Know" on Sunday, July 16th at 9PM ET for those interested.

At least from what I've seen on the website, it appears they're focusing on the fact that the earth is warming and the potential hazards this implies rather than the "debate" over whether or not these changes are anthropogenic or not. Overall, it looks like this program will be focusing on the generally accepted climate science (or "leftist rhetoric" if it helps you) rather than the hotly debated aspects of the global warming phenomenon...guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Gman]

I'm with you, G.

Thanks FFC...

There is a left leaning political faction that ties their ideology to this issue and seeks to catastrophize the situation and scare people. These are the people who point to hurricanes like Katrina and try to convince people that they are the direct result of you not changing the catalytic converter on your car.

Bart, I would agree with you and most of what you said (thank you..), but how else can we get the point across? I don't necessarily call it a scare tactic, but I think we should be more aware (or concerned) about how we are addressing these CO2 levels. I agree this website... We do NOT have all the evidence in yet since our only real data goes back perhaps a few hundred years or so. To compond the issue, it's true, the earth naturally gets hotter and cooler thoughtout the thousands of years it's been around... However, this is the first time we've introduced our industrialized processses into this world. We really do not know how it effects the rest of the world as a whole. I think we can agree that what we are doing with the CO2 levels can certainly compond the issue greatly. And that is what we should be controlling.. Maybe not chasing down polluters with shotguns, but making people more aware of it. And I think the government can be a vehicle for that, or any other group that wishes to get involved so that the government doesn't have to, (like this website). Plus I think it shows you can still be a Christian, and not be dense either.

As far as Katrina, well ok, maybe there is no real evidence that global warming is a direct cause of that. However, there is some evidence that the intensity of the hurricane's strength has been pronounced since our study of CO2 levels... And if the temperature goes up by even one degree, that is enough to make it that much stronger. And if anything can be done to lessen those factors, then I think we should be for that as well.

Again, we might not be able to completely stop it, by we can perhaps control it or lessen it's punch...

G -