An Inconvenient Truth

[Zippyy]

"Hi, I'm Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States."

An Inconvenient Truth (IMDB)

After seeing this movie yesterday I began to wonder if other Lurkers had seen it and what their thoughts were.


Things I liked:

• Global warming was described in a digestible way that I think most of the population should be able to grasp.<>
  
• From my point of view, I found it refreshing to see a mixture of global perspective and experiences from Gore's life. <>
  
• The last 10% of the movie was spent briefing the viewer on steps we can take to slow down global warming. For people like my father and I, it wasn't quite enough to stave off that hopeless feeling.<>
  
• The credits were done in a creative and interesting way. A name would be shown, then a "thing" that the viewer could do to help the cause. Ride your bike, drive less, get a hybrid car if you can, recycle, etc etc. To keep people's attention, the transitions were done by moving a few letters or a word from one sentence to form the next sentence, if that makes sense.<>
  [st]
  Things I didn't like:
  • The first 90% of the film was spent, albeit effectively, convincing the viewer of the threat of global warming. I have known about this for practically my entire life and needed no further prodding. My dad has been talking about global warming for the past thirty years.<>
    
  • I fear that the film will get too much criticism for being somewhat self-indulgent. Some montages did strike me as irrelevant, but which I'm afraid will draw more attention than the actual message. I'm afraid it will be seen as "That movie where Al Gore wants attention" instead of "The movie that reminded the public that this is still an issue".<>
    
  • The South Park episode about Al Gore (and the one about Oprah) were not funny. They were stupid.<>
    [st]
    I highly recommend that everyone see it even if you feel like you already know what there is to know about global warming. I did too, and still enjoyed the movie. At the very least it is entertaining and will give more fodder against the neocons who deny global warming. Bring your friends! I would also very much like to hear what others thought of the movie.
    
    
    http://www.climatecrisis.net/ - the website for the "cause". Requires Javascript and flash.

[Taem]

I highly recommend that everyone see it even if you feel like you already know what there is to know about global warming. I did too, and still enjoyed the movie. At the very least it is entertaining and will give more fodder against the neocons who deny global warming. Bring your friends!

I do believe the globe known as our world is heating up. I don't believe it's because of co2 emissions. Instead, I think it's the natural cycle of the Earth, no matter how much spin Al Gore wants to put on it. I don't think anything we do in this world from this point on will have any further effect upon the climate of our Earth that isn’t already going to happen naturally.

Just my 2-cents.

[Alram]

I think that Al Gore is trying to carve out a niche for himself in order to make another run at the presidency. I have read a review of the movie which is highly critical.
Some quotes:

"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."

"Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest."

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

"Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

complete article here

[Rinnhart]

Damn! Beat me to it.

ALL HAIL AL GORE, EMPEROR OF THE MOON.

[the Langolier]

I'd really like to be convinced why I should be worried about global warming, because I am not. In fact, I think it's a silly and unfoundend concern. At first, I just didn't care. Then I read the latest book by my favorite author, State of Fear. It was actually more like a research paper with a plot thrown into it. Although it was about radical environmentalists being bad, the real enemy of the novel was Ted, the actor. I have determined that I can trust Michael Crichton and his opinion because he has done the research. At the end of State of Fear in his Author's Message, he gives a synopsis of the issue of global warming as he sees it after completing his book. Here's a few important ideea:

*We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year old cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age."

*Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.

*Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.

*Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess --- the only thing anyone is doing, really --- I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else's. (We can't "assess" the future, nor can we "predict" it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. And informed guess is just a guess.)

[Note: he has also brought up the issue of the reliability of the computer "modeling" in other speeches of his. The reasons should only be obvious.]

*The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.

*I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.

The point is that there is no scientific fact that concludes global warming is a problem, especially as serious as the progoganda would have us to believe. There's no facts to say what is causing global warming and whether or not we can have an impact on it.

But really - who cares that the Earth will be 0.812436° C warmer in 100 years? In one day I experience changes of 30° F, and someone is telling me I should be worried by a change of <indeterminable>° C when I won't even be alive anymore? Can we not adapt to that? The whole thing is laughable to me. I am really not worried, but if it is REALLY an issue, than I would certainly be appreciative if someone could show me why.

Here's some other interesting tidbits:

The Impossibilty of Prediction - a speech by Michael Crichton focused on global warming.



Decarbonization has been occuring for over 150 years - a trend of decreasing the amount of carbon in our fuels, a main "supposed" cause of global warming by burning carbon which produces green house gasses, has been happening naturally for years.

Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century - comprehending our ability to manage [model] complex systems and a review of our prior success in doing so with the debauchery of Yellowstone.

http://www.globalwarming.org

[Jester]

Have you taken a peek at the rest of their website?

These people are lunatics.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I care about Global Warming too. I'm going to help out by not driving to the air conditioned theatre to see the infomercial. They should have invested the film budget into building more wind mills in Nebraska or California.

[Fragbait]

I'd really like to be convinced why I should be worried about global warming, because I am not. [...]

Hi,

please read this article. Global warming is not the thesis of some lunatic, but the scientific consensus today.

The opinion of Michael Crichton is insignificant. There are four groups of critics to the thesis of global warming. Each of them is, like he said, more or less guessing. Some of them just ignore the measured data.

I care about Global Warming too. I'm going to help out by not driving to the air conditioned theatre to see the infomercial

Irony won't help on. Caring about may.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Skandranon]

I have determined that I can trust Michael Crichton and his opinion because he has done the research.

And what, exactly, do you think gives a celebrity author any more authority about the issue than a celebrity ex-presidental candidate?

The main criticism about Michael Crichton's hack-job of a book is that it misuses research, employing positional science. He takes the data from scientists, but doesn't use their analysis or conclusions, choosing instead to draw his own - often directly contradictory - conclusions. Many of the scientists he cites have come forward and protested the misrepresentation of their work.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/gl...cfm?pageID=1670
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati..._warming04.html

The global-warming-panic crowd certainly makes excessive, overblown statements about the imminence and scale of the threat. Fringe leftist environmentalists would have you believe that human activity is solely to blame for every natural calamity since the dawn of industry, and we know that's not true and to dismiss it. But statements that nothing at all is happening and that the Earth now is one-hundred-percent unaffected by human activity are equally overblown, and yet, these statements often seem somehow more reasonable to some people.

Sometimes weather is just weather. Sometimes it isn't. People like Crichton and Gore arguing ideologically - not scientifically - that it's all one or the other only get in the way of real climate scientists that are actually engaged in the search for what is going on.

[Chaerophon]

I think that Al Gore is trying to carve out a niche for himself in order to make another run at the presidency. I have read a review of the movie which is highly critical.
Some quotes:

complete article here

Alram, I'm a bit surprised at you!!! Quoted from a post made elsewhere on the same topic...

From the article: "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."

My ass.

Bob Carter
Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station
TCSDaily.com is published by Tech Central Station, a division of DCI Group, L.L.C
DCI Group is a Republican funded lobby group that “provides government affairs representation for clients before Congress and the Executive Branch in the areas of federal appropriations, taxes, trade, health care, financial services, technology, energy and natural resources, communications and homeland security.”

Moreover, he’s one of the oft-cited Exxon "scientists for hire".

Ditto Professor Tim Patterson
Ditto Dr. Wibjörn Karlén
Ditto Dr. Dick Morgan

[Jester]

Notable Skeptic Michael Shermer, from an article in Scientific American. Shermer recently organized a skeptically-oriented environmental conference, featuring Michael Crichton, among others, as major speakers.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...DB783414B7F0000

His past experience is no doubt typical of intelligent, skeptically-minded people faced with this debate. However, I continue to hope his conclusions will also be typical. Skepticism is, in the end, about favoring evidence over unsupported assumptions. After a certain accumulation of evidence, we must accept the probable conclusions, and, doubts kept under consideration, actually do something about the consequences.

The scientific case for anthropogenic global warming is easily strong enough to endorse preventative measures. We either move forward with them now, or play Russian roulette with our one and only biosphere. If these predictions turn out to be wrong, then we will be lucky. An economic slowdown is not the worst price I would pay to not take such a chance.

-Jester

[Mithrandir]

Both political sides of the global warming issue are absolute lunatics as far as I am concerned. Watch this commercial that was created specifically as a rebuttal to the Al Gore movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo...arbon%20dioxide

What are you trying to suggest? That the government is going to ban exhaling? What a joke.

Not that I am 100% on the side of the global warming promoters by any stretch of the imagination... many studies have shown a correlation between CO2 levels but none have shown casuality. Isn't it like Econ 101 that correlation != causality?

[Rinnhart]

Ban exhaling? No, of course not.

But men in black helicopters are coming to smother your children in their sleep.



The net effect: apathy!

[kandrathe]

An economic slowdown is not the worst price I would pay to not take such a chance.

-Jester

Although... Totally unneccesary. The industrial revolution has induced a myopia in that most people align prosperity with conspicuous consumption. Steps should be made toward retooling our economic system to reward savings and conservation, and tax consumption and waste. We should also encourage investment in and give tax breaks to innovators that promote productivity, reduce pollution, and reduce consumption. The only time you really see slow downs or stagnation is when drastic changes disrupt or alter the equation. I think the genius of Greenspan was that he made small course corrections, rather than the "over steering" that had been characteristic of his predecessors. Many things are still out of control, so there are times when wars, embargos, etc will mess with the balance. So, more generally, I'd say that markets hate surprises.

So... if you stand back from the world economy... No. Further back. It is a fairly silly/stupid thing. People have certain needs (food, shelter, clothing, meaningful work), and if prosperity were measured against those items much of the world would be considered wealthy. Instead they keep setting the GDP growth bar higher, and higher so that the wealthy can differentiate themselves from the less wealthy. Now it is true that there is poverty, pain, and suffering in many parts of the world, but there is a palpable difference between the desperation of urban Atlanta or Frankfurt, versus urban Kinshasa, or Mexico City.

So, to be more clear in what I'm getting at. Let's say that 40% of the worlds work force is all that is needed to grow and produce all the food, clothing, shelter, and basic services needed. The remaining 60% are doing what? Either wealthy enough not to work, or working to produce items, or services that are "nice to haves" that people consume with "disposable" income. Another way to look at that gap is that there is a 60% excess capacity in the essential labor force which keeps busy producing things people don't really need in order for them to draw a paycheck. So I would think if we changed our mindsets to measure the satisfaction of basic human needs, rather than looking at the % growth in GDP of which a vast majority is conspicuous consumption.

[eppie]

I'd really like to be convinced why I should be worried about global warming, because I am not. In fact, I think it's a silly and unfoundend concern.

Just like there is no wellfounded reason to believ Michael Crichton, there is also no reason to believe a 'Toyota professor of climate changes' or the one occupying the 'exxon chair of sustainable energy' seat.

These discussions have for sure one side that has a lot to lose. And as Kandrathe pointed out correctly, doing more against CO2 emission should not be bad for the economy...instead, it is bad for some people that own oil companies for example. The will personally lose many with every measure that is taken.

The 'facts' given by the people that say that there is no such thing as global warming, to me seem much like teh way Jehova's witnesses used to do when they would ring my bell at saturdat morning and I opened the door with a hangover. They have these 'selected experts from the field of science' that say evolution is not possible or that the earth is indeed just 10,000 years old'.......you can always find a professor that thinks that but they don't tell anybody about the 100000 other professors that say the contrary.
I think there is consensus about that we do influence global warming. It is also true that climate changes also occur naturally....but do we need to take the risks?.
Anyway, we should be carefull with our mineral fuels also because of the fact that their amount are limited.
And if we finally have other ways of fueling our cars we still need to find oil to make plastics and other stuff.....better hang on to teh stuff a bit longer I would say.

[Occhidiangela]

"Hi, I'm Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States."

Causality and correlation issues noted, but I do know that the mandate to change to Unleaded gas from leaded gas, thirty years ago, has made a difference in the air quality problem in the US. I look forward to seeing how the German Urea based exhaust systems develop for the mass market. If we can do it cleaner, we should. I drive a Saturn Sedan.

As to the film, I will be taking my children to see it because I am trying to teach them about propaganda. As soon as Al Gore jumps on the "build more nuke power plants" bandwagon, I will consider listening to him about energy, environment, and the best fit solution sets proposed for human beings to establish a sustainable system that doesn't devour itself.

Until then, he's just one more hand clapping.

My mom taught me to clean up after myself and to not make a mess. That is good advice on a macro scale.

Occhi

[Alram]

Alram, I'm a bit surprised at you!!! Quoted from a post made elsewhere on the same topic...

From the article: "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."

My ass.

Bob Carter
Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program
Contributing Writer, Tech Central Station
TCSDaily.com is published by Tech Central Station, a division of DCI Group, L.L.C
DCI Group is a Republican funded lobby group that “provides government affairs representation for clients before Congress and the Executive Branch in the areas of federal appropriations, taxes, trade, health care, financial services, technology, energy and natural resources, communications and homeland security.”

Moreover, he’s one of the oft-cited Exxon "scientists for hire".

Ditto Professor Tim Patterson
Ditto Dr. Wibjörn Karlén
Ditto Dr. Dick Morgan

Thank you for the information. It appears that the quote you cite was indeed misleading. Does that mean the scientists critical of the movie are not to be trusted since they take sides? If so, I imagine that the contributions of the scientists in Al Gore's movie are likewise suspect.

[Fragbait]

Hi,

German Mirror article

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ on climate change

FastFacts on U.S. emissions.pdf

climate change since 200 A.D.

The NOAA's view on the issue

Another interesting page on CO2

A page of the koshland-science-museum

A NASA / Goddard Institute for Space Studies page, many interesting links


Greetings, Fragbait

[Chesspiece_face]

Thank you for the information. It appears that the quote you cite was indeed misleading. Does that mean the scientists critical of the movie are not to be trusted since they take sides? If so, I imagine that the contributions of the scientists in Al Gore's movie are likewise suspect.

I'm not sure which scientists are in the movie, but generally in science where the money's coming from can have a large impact on credibility. If a scientist gets paid the same no matter what their findings end up showing than the results are more credible. On the other hand, if their paycheck and it's continuance is based solely on whether they return the "correct" results that would be pretty questionable research.

In Bob Carter's case there are multiple documented occurances of money coming, both directly and indirectly, from ExxonMobil to his paycheck.

Edit: here's just one example:

ExxonMobil Corporate Contributions

near the bottom of page 44 there is a listing for Tech Central Science Foundation with a donation of 95,000 for "Climate Change Support"

Tech Central Science Foundation is the monetary support for TechCentralStation.com which Bob Carter is a contributing writer.

[Jester]

As the Beach Boys once said, wouldn't it be nice?

-Jester

Both political sides of the global warming issue are absolute lunatics as far as I am concerned. Watch this commercial that was created specifically as a rebuttal to the Al Gore movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo...arbon%20dioxide

What are you trying to suggest? That the government is going to ban exhaling? What a joke.

Not that I am 100% on the side of the global warming promoters by any stretch of the imagination... many studies have shown a correlation between CO2 levels but none have shown casuality. Isn't it like Econ 101 that correlation != causality?

To demonstrate strict causality in a system this complex is basically impossible. If you're waiting for that before you endorse a position on this issue, you'll wait forever.

However it is nigh impossible to construct a consistent model of past climate without using greenhouse gases as one of the major forcings. You need to rely on some other theory, such as the cycles of the sun, and those are much less supported by correlation.

We need to weight the evidence, and think in terms of probability. The forcing we are currently observing requires an explanation, and greenhouse gasses are the one that best fits. It's not a guarantee, but I don't think it has to be, given how high the stakes are on this issue.

-Jester

As to the film, I will be taking my children to see it because I am trying to teach them about propaganda. As soon as Al Gore jumps on the "build more nuke power plants" bandwagon, I will consider listening to him about energy, environment, and the best fit solution sets proposed for human beings to establish a sustainable system that doesn't devour itself.

You're going to teach your kids about propaganda by showing them how to approach things with pre-existing conclusions, and not listen to anything that doesn't support them?

I agree with you that nuclear power is a necessary precondition to an environmentally sustainable civilization. But I don't think it's fair to say that anyone saying otherwise shouldn't be listened to. It is, after all, a far from ideal solution.

-Jester

Edit: What the heck? Somehow all my posts ended up condensed into one.