Inconvenient Truth

[intcvlcphlga]

Everyone should go see An Inconvenient Truth. It's not a political issue. It's not Democrats v. Republicans, Gore v. Bush or Rush Limbaugh v. NPR. It's about stewardship of the environment and the planet so that we leave the world a better place than we found it for future generations. It's reality and everyone should educate themselves so that we, Americans who are the most responsible for climate change, can start to change our lifestyles in ways that positively affect our planet.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[PghUSA]

Most profitable Powerpoint presentation ever! Congrats to Gore .

[ironchapman]

Most profitable Powerpoint presentation ever! Congrats to Gore .

Even some acclaimed scientists are skeptical of some of the claims. Also, we should be aware of Gore's penchant for hyperbole.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

[Recchia]

I haven't seen the movie, but on the topic of human-induced global climate change, it's too early to tell. People blaming greenhouse gases for all the hurricanes we had last year, and for the fact that the past decade has been the warmest decade or whatever is somewhat ludicrous. Human induced global warming will take a much longer time to take effect. You can't even really blame the recent melting of ice caps on human induced global warming. As we have all heard, the earth goes through warming and cooling phases, and the sun goes through phases of varying solar outputs (Mars is warming too). These issues are most likely the causes of all the recent warming we have experienced.

On the other hand, the greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere are not helping our situation at all. They will only lead to a broader, longer trend of warming through the next couple centuries. So, as you can see, I am agreeing with the argument that we are warming the earth through our actions, however I am disagreeing that evidence like a bunch of hurricanes one year is valid in validating global warming. IMO, people screaming that increased greenhouse gases caused Hurricane Katrina only makes the whole argument to prevent global warming weaker because it is so ludicrous. Certain "environmentalists" are using the wrong argument.

[Snowguy716]

Your argument, Ironchapman, does not add anything important here. The fact is this:

The planet is warming at an unprecidented rate, it shows no sign of cooling down, and these changes in climate, manmade or not, are starting to wreak havoc around the world.

I've noticed changes in climate already even where I live. Since 1980, these are the following winters that have been above average compared to the record average (1890-2006)

1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006.

These are the winters that have been below average:

1982, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001... the list is pretty daunting.

That's just one facet. Tree species more common of southern Minnesota are thriving now in northern Minnesota while disease kills off cold-loving species.

Our economy is already suffering quite a bit due to this warmup. Winter time business has dropped off significantly.. and people are travelling further to seek out winter activities, thus raising emissions even more.

It's a plain stupid lie when our government says that Kyoto would damage our economy.. when the environment is already doing so at a pretty fast clip.

You can't just expect the changes not to happen just because you don't agree with Al Gore and you hand picked a scientist that happens to disagree with him.

Climate change is not a political thing. It's a scientific thing, and something that will affect everyone of us. We can't just ignore it so that the oil companies and their supportive industries can have their field day a couple years longer. The execs down at Exxon will be in the grave before they have to deal with the disasters that they are largely responsible for.. and today's children will be left dealing with the aftermath.

[runawayjim]

Your argument, Ironchapman, does not add anything important here. The fact is this:

The planet is warming at an unprecidented rate, it shows no sign of cooling down, and these changes in climate, manmade or not, are starting to wreak havoc around the world.

I've noticed changes in climate already even where I live. Since 1980, these are the following winters that have been above average compared to the record average (1890-2006)

1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006.

These are the winters that have been below average:

1982, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001... the list is pretty daunting.

That's just one facet. Tree species more common of southern Minnesota are thriving now in northern Minnesota while disease kills off cold-loving species.

Our economy is already suffering quite a bit due to this warmup. Winter time business has dropped off significantly.. and people are travelling further to seek out winter activities, thus raising emissions even more.

It's a plain stupid lie when our government says that Kyoto would damage our economy.. when the environment is already doing so at a pretty fast clip.

You can't just expect the changes not to happen just because you don't agree with Al Gore and you hand picked a scientist that happens to disagree with him.

Climate change is not a political thing. It's a scientific thing, and something that will affect everyone of us. We can't just ignore it so that the oil companies and their supportive industries can have their field day a couple years longer. The execs down at Exxon will be in the grave before they have to deal with the disasters that they are largely responsible for.. and today's children will be left dealing with the aftermath.

did you read the article he posted? i just saw it for the first time. it states that local climate changes are not indicative of global climate change. that those scientists who actually do student global changes do not have any conclusive evidence that global warming is occurring or even what the cause is.

i suggest you read that article.

[damus]

Is Gore going to be running for President? They had some gimmick "ask Gore" thing on yahoo, and my questions were never answered. I'm sure they were flooded with emails, though.

I asked several questions, including how he would curb the destruction of the rain forests, mostly in Africa and South America. When you look at a map that shows carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, it's at the highest above the Amazon, and above the rain forests of the west coast of central Africa. The map I saw showed huge swaths of red over the rain forests, and the worst areas of the USA (from memory: Texas through Appalachia) weren't nearly as bad as those. I'm not saying greenhouse gases emitted from cars, industrial plants and airplanes aren't a big problem; but there are more, certainly bigger, forces working against the environment than them. The destruction of the rain forests is what I think to be the biggest threat.

I also asked what we could do to deal with emerging economies, like China and India, that are using an increasingly massive amount of CO2 producing fuels.

It would be nice if the issues I just pointed out were brought to the forefront. The rainforest problem was big when I was in elementary school, and we even bought land in Puerto Rican rain forests to be protected as a class. Why does it seem like the only big things working against the environment today, from what the media reports, are Americans and their cars (pun unintended, but notable)?

on edit: the map I mentioned was a CO map, not a CO2 map. Nonetheless, the burning of the rain forests is a huge problem that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves in the media.

[intcvlcphlga]

Even some acclaimed scientists are skeptical of some of the claims. Also, we should be aware of Gore's penchant for hyperbole.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

Keep in mind that the Canada Free Press bills itself as the conservative media alternative to Toronto's big dailies the Star and the Sun. It's along the lines of the New York Post, the New York Sun, the Washington Times, etc. But, again, this IS NOT a political issue. The environment is about responsible stewardship for every inhabitant.

Contrary to Canada Free Press's "acclaimed" scientist, there are a multitude that say that global warming is happening and that human's are at least partially responsible for it. Go to the EPA, National Academy of Sciences, the United Nations, etc. Here's a link to another "acclaimed" scientist's web presentation: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/nas_24april2006.pdf Perhaps, he should be discounted since he's at Columbia, one of those northeastern bastions of elitist intellectuals of which conservatives are so disdainful.

The US and Australia are the only countries that were party to the Kyoto who have not signed it. Does that mean that the rest of the world is wrong and we are right? Last time I checked, Americans scored near the bottom on science aptitude tests. Even China, which is worse than the US on some environmental issues, is ahead of us on automobile CO2 emissions because they demand higher fuel efficiency than the US does.

[runawayjim]

Keep in mind that the Canada Free Press bills itself as the conservative media alternative to Toronto's big dailies the Star and the Sun. It's along the lines of the New York Post, the New York Sun, the Washington Times, etc. But, again, this IS NOT a political issue. The environment is about responsible stewardship for every inhabitant.

Contrary to Canada Free Press's "acclaimed" scientist, there are a multitude that say that global warming is happening and that human's are at least partially responsible for it. Go to the EPA, National Academy of Sciences, the United Nations, etc. Here's a link to another "acclaimed" scientist's web presentation: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/nas_24april2006.pdf Perhaps, he should be discounted since he's at Columbia, one of those northeastern bastions of elitist intellectuals of which conservatives are so disdainful.

The US and Australia are the only countries that were party to the Kyoto who have not signed it. Does that mean that the rest of the world is wrong and we are right? Last time I checked, Americans scored near the bottom on science aptitude tests. Even China, which is worse than the US on some environmental issues, is ahead of us on automobile CO2 emissions because they demand higher fuel efficiency than the US does.

i am hardly a conservative, but i am very skeptical of the theory of global warming. did you read this article in full? these are hardly unacclaimed scientists.

[intcvlcphlga]

i am hardly a conservative, but i am very skeptical of the theory of global warming. did you read this article in full? these are hardly unacclaimed scientists.

I did read the article. From everything I've read, there are exponential number of scientists that believe that global warming is valid as opposed to scientists who are skeptical of it. Here are additional articles and sites you can check out (in addition to the Columbia University one I posted before):

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....tent/index.html

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Clima...teFrameset.html

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

[scman473]

Global warming is real. CO2 emissions mostly, not rainforest destruction is causing it. If we don't do something soon, the sea levels across the entire world will rise 20 feet within 100 years. How do I know this; my uncle works at NASA. If your going to contradict the people at NASA, than so be it, but as far as i'm concerned we need to be very worried.

[runawayjim]

Global warming is real. CO2 emissions mostly, not rainforest destruction is causing it. If we don't do something soon, the sea levels across the entire world will rise 20 feet within 100 years. How do I know this; my uncle works at NASA. If your going to contradict the people at NASA, than so be it, but as far as i'm concerned we need to be very worried.

what does nasa have to do with climatic research? i'm really curious to hear this one...

[scman473]

What government agency do you think releases information every year for the hottest temperatures on record and takes satellite images seeing how much ice has melted over the past couple of decades? Duh. How many times do I have to show this to change your opinion: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/0...bal.warming.ap/ If you want to contradict some of the greatest and top scientists in the world, than so be it.

[Sundodger]

Everyone should go see An Inconvenient Truth. It's not a political issue.

Yes it is a politcal issue.

It's reality and everyone should educate themselves so that we, Americans who are the most responsible for climate change, can start to change our lifestyles in ways that positively affect our planet.

it isn't reality, and people need to educate themslves to the truth about global warming.

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." - Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

[Sundodger]

Global warming is real. CO2 emissions mostly, not rainforest destruction is causing it. I

Wrong, it is the sun.

If we don't do something soon, the sea levels across the entire world will rise 20 feet within 100 years.

#1- we can't do anything about it. There are far greater causes of global warming than humans, like the sun for instance.

#2 - Even the biggest alarmists don't come anywhere near predicting the sea level will rise 20 feet.

[Sundodger]

What government agency do you think releases information every year for the hottest temperatures on record and takes satellite images seeing how much ice has melted over the past couple of decades? Duh.

Check out the pics from Mars. They too are seeing their polar ice caps shrink; must be from all of that CO2 that our battery power robots are releasing

[scman473]

Wrong, it is the sun.

#1- we can't do anything about it. There are far greater causes of global warming than humans, like the sun for instance.

#2 - Even the biggest alarmists don't come anywhere near predicting the sea level will rise 20 feet.

Yes, we can do something about it. Stop burning fossil fuels. The reason it is the sun is because our ozone layer is shrinking due to us releasing more and more CO2 into the air.

[scman473]

Are you gonna call the LA times a liar too: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...la-news-comment or maybe The Discovery Channel: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/22/c...=20060622153030 or maybe just CNN and Time Magazine.

[scman473]

Here is a very good point Al Gore made in An Inconvenient Truth. He said which is more important the economy or our planet. Well, if there is no planet there obviously is no economy.

[damus]

Here is a very good point Al Gore made in An Inconvenient Truth. He said which is more important the economy or our planet. Well, if there is no planet there obviously is no economy.

No one has argued about that. What about this: Our economy takes a hit while the developing world takes on even more pollution than we save. That's Kyoto.

[runawayjim]

Here is a very good point Al Gore made in An Inconvenient Truth. He said which is more important the economy or our planet. Well, if there is no planet there obviously is no economy.

what do we stand to gain by having our planet or species last longer than it naturally would?

[Jerseyman4]

CO2's indeed are doing a lot of damage, especially the alarming increased rates of skin cancer & melonomia.

The study of climateology has not been around very long, 50-75 years? The planet is warming up but given what we know, i believe the Earth goes through ice and heat age cycles. Human activity such as cutting down rainforests & burning fossil fuels are responsible for accelerating and altering the Earths cycles.

The logical solution is to study and understand as much as we know about the Earth and continue to do research. One in particular that has been done was to go to the polar caps of the Earth to check out the glacier areas where snow does not melt but rather keeps piling up. Researchers would drill down several feet, if not hundreds and then come up with some data of the weather history of the Poles.

[Recchia]

Global warming is real. CO2 emissions mostly, not rainforest destruction is causing it. If we don't do something soon, the sea levels across the entire world will rise 20 feet within 100 years. How do I know this; my uncle works at NASA. If your going to contradict the people at NASA, than so be it, but as far as i'm concerned we need to be very worried.

20 feet in 100 years? You may want to call your uncle and check on that one... Ridiculous claims like this one only weaken good arguments for the human-induced cause of global warming.

[Sundodger]

Michael Crichton's 2003 speech vs. the rhetoric of the religious zealots of today, especially Al Gore:

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Google news search: "Al Gore" consensus

What Crichton said in 2003:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

What Al Gore said in 2006:

"The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

Yes, we can do something about it. Stop burning fossil fuels. The reason it is the sun is because our ozone layer is shrinking due to us releasing more and more CO2 into the air.

Then why are the polar ice caps on Mars shrinking too? It isn't CO2, sorry, try again.

[GRDadof3]

Michael Crichton's 2003 speech vs. the rhetoric of the religious zealots of today, especially Al Gore:

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Google news search: "Al Gore" consensus

What Crichton said in 2003:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

What Al Gore said in 2006:

"The debate