An Inconvenient Truth
pearljammin41
Posts: 465
I just got home from watching this film. Do yourself a favor and watch it. It is outstanding but also left me depressed that we didn't get Gore elected in the first place......
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Al Gore is a fool!!!!! That movie is nothing but Propaganda!!!
It has been well recieved by experts:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html
You watched one good propoganda film. Remember that. Dont be a fool, on either side of a debate.
It depends on which side of the ocean you are standing.
Here we call it: finally a movie that tells the truth!
Since many years, our media and public draws the attention to this huge problem of our generation and the ones ahead.
It started in the 80ies, went on in the 90ies and is on the news nearly every month in detail since the new millenium.
It seems it is your side of the ocean, that makes the truth hided and calling out for propaganda victims.
hey hey, could it be the OIL and you being the big OIL country???
I wonder.... but don't throw around those accusations if you just know only one side of the coin!
please.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Wow, back the train up. I fuckin hate Bush's presidency. But I dont hate him so much that I cant think clearly as know that F9/11 was a propaganda piece.
I might dislike him, but im not a blind sheep of the democrats.
And, no, I have not seen the film. I dont pay someone money to watch propaganda films. The messages, from info ive gained through the internet and media, is that The Inconvient Truth are theories, just like the theory that there was "Global Cooling" 20 years ago. That was science 20 years ago. Even before that there was science that said the Earth was flat. 100 years in the future people will look back at our "science" and laugh. Just like we look back at the time they put leachs on people to cure diseases and we laugh.
Science is great and all, we have made some awesome accomplishments using science. But, we shouldnt just blindly follow any theory just because its science. We should be a little more skeptical.
It was well done and everyone should see it. It's not like Farenheit 9-11 or anything, it just shows alot basic science about how global warming is a reality.
it does not mean propoganda.
its not like gore is running.
educate yourself
so are you going to post some facts or points? or just continue to rant.
Spot on with the Global Cooling hype/panic/hysteria from 20 years ago. NOW, it's WARMING. These scientists just keep going in circles over and over!! In addition, man gives himself too much credit for changing the cycles of the earth!
I know global warming is occurring. Disagreement comes in a number of critical areas.
How quickly is it occurring? The doom and gloom crowd would lead you to believe that we're seeing catastrophic and sudden increases in temperature. We aren't - it is occurring at a CONSTANT rate as it has done for decades.
What is the cause? Doom and gloom crowd would lead you to believe that man is solely responsible. But we know that historically the earth has gone through many drastic climate changes without any of man's influence. There are certainly natural cycles at play here.
What does it look like in the future? Doom and gloom crowd would like you to believe that everything will melt and we'll be covered in ocean or desert. The reality is, we are unsure what it will look like. Perhaps the natural cycle will suddenly reverse its course in 1,000 years (or 15 years) and we'll start cooling again. The doom and gloom crowd thought we'd be into an ice age by now, so they haven't been particularly accurate with their scare tactics thus far.
What can we do about it? I am happy when we find ways to reduce emissions and pollutants. I'm certain we can have some effect (it is the amount that is in question). The doom and gloom crowd would have you believe that we need to get on board with Kyoto to start the global process of change. Others think that Kyoto has less to do with climate change reduction, and more to do with issues of sovereignty and money.
So just because Gore says something, and the thing he says has some basis in fact, doesn't mean he is correct. And just because people question Gore's conclusions doesn't mean they're up Bush's ass (how juvenile and simpleminded). And lastly, climatology seems to involve as much voodoo as science. The doom and gloom crowd in the climatology sciences are happy to continue to provide their doom and gloom analysis so that they continue to receive their big grants to continue to do their studies.
I totally agree with the statement that the Global Warming exists. I just dont agree with Al Gore when he says we have about 10 years left before the Earth is destroyed. Quote from Al Gore at Sundance Film Fest: "humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan."
LMAO at the thought that humans can destroy or save a planet.
some fire problems over in California, huh?
here it is a head wave again. second century summer here within 3 years.
it is getting hot in here...
..so watch it. 20 years I hope for, 10 there will be,
or less,
...could it be, could it be,
that PJ predicted something ???
(eine sich selbst-erfuellende Prophezeiung?)
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
yeah...why bother...someone else can deal with it eventually....
How about this for an crazy theroy: Maybe the Earth's climate changes on its own, like its been doing for the few million years.
People need to stop being sheeple and start being a little skeptic.
do your reading from both sides and figure it out ... do you naysayers actually understand the science? ... i'm guessing not ...
i started a conversation with one naysayer and we went to pm's and he went from a non-believer to someone who accepts the science ... and it took this person having an open mind and actually educating himself on the topic ... he didn't go with articles that backed up his own belief ... he went out and read and educated himself ...
as for the movie itself - its kept really simple which i think can reach the masses ... i don't think it preaches to the converted because even people on the left need to make changes ... just because one recycles and votes for democrats doesn't mean they are doing enuf ...
Pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Just because it is occuring doesn't mean we can reverse it. By the same token, just because we can't stop it does not mean we should not pursue environmentally friendly policies.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
a response
dunno what exactly your opinion is on that subject,
but I like those lines you wrote alot.
If someone calls the believers of the movie theme here panic- makers,
he should consider that we now scream with a loud voice,
but are not giving up on a solution and a better way.
like you said: just because it is occuring does not mean we can reserve it.
We just need to start soon to slow down the process and do more to save many parts of the world (not all parts of the world are extremely affected)
and as you said: on the other way,
in case we can't stop it anymore, we still should pursue environmentally friendly policies...
...just giving it a try cause the current way makes it just worse!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
We were talking about temperature. Temperature levels have been rising at a CONSTANT rate.
There is no scientific agreement on this. Climatologists have accounted for very little. They can hardly agree on decades, let alone millenia. Fact - climate change has always occurred, even before man and the internal combustion engine.
Not sure what "long" means to you. Perhaps because I'm older, "long" to me pre-dates the '90s. In the '70s Paul Ehrlich had everyone believing that acid rain was going to kill us, and that a cooling trend was going to lead to an ice age. Are those "all holding true"?, or have you guys changed your minds?
And if we educate ourselves and arrive at different conclusions (as some here appear to have done), will you recognize that, or continue to insinuate that we aren't educated?
that is not true either ... all the hottest years on record have happened in the last decade or so ...
changes in climate in the past can be accounted for by various triggers - all those have been eliminated ... and there is in fact a scientific consensus ...
are you saying acid rain was not a problem?? ... honestly, i haven't heard about this global cooling and i hardly doubt it was the kind of consensus we have now ... look up the IPCC ...
as loathe as i am to do so - i will absolutely have to ... but, understanding the topic that i do - i find that hard to believe ...
For example, the IPCC progects sea levels to rise 0.11 to 0.77 m between now and the year 2100. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm
How does this compare to the 20 feet claimed by Gore?
I believe that global warming exists, I just disagree about the severity and the proposed methods to change it.
I would say the movie was not alarmist nor exaggerated - i cannot comment on comments he might have made in press conferences but the movie itself is pretty tame ... the amount of consequence one considers overdone really depends on where one stands on the issues ... if you believe as i do - that the major flooding in china and the heat waves and wild fires in north america and europe are the result of climate change - well then that alarm bell rang long ago ...
i believe those projections do not factor in the changes to major ice shelfs such as antarctica ... i am also assuming that the report was published prior to the deposition of Larsen B into the southern ocean - it would be interesting to see if there is an updated projection ...
the thing is - there are a lot of potential impacts - what the extent is is hard to forecast and specifically when ... we can be sure that sea levels WILL rise - to what degree is anyone's guess now ...
the severity is already amongst us ... we cannot just look at our own backyard ... look at the arctic - it has already been severely impacted ... asia, europe ... everywhere ...
and the solutions are already in front of our face ... i live a great lifestyle but yet my carbon emissions are 4 times below the average person ... consider the possibilities when taken on by the masses ...
LMAO at your thought that humans can't destroy or save their HABITAT.
nowadays hits you when you're young
Sure, it's completely NATURAL to fuck with the Earth's carbon life cycle, and pump it all out of the ground and into the air. Carbon takes millions of years to be reabsorbed back into the earth. We are spitting it into the atmosphere at exponential rates. Just common sense dictates that this will create a problem. Maybe not 20 years ago, maybe not today, but certainly at some point. It won't destroy the Earth, duh. But, chances are our fragile ecosystem could be discupted. Now, if you see scientific evidence pointing towards this theory, why not investigate it further? Why ignore even the possibility? How does it hurt to be PROactive rather than dismissive????
nowadays hits you when you're young
If you believe in global warming... are you interested in buying the brooklyn bridge from me? Accurate tempearture data has only been kept for ~30 years. The accuracy of a temperature measurement before that time could be a few degrees off. Global warming is a HOAX!
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html
And if there was such a thing as Global Warming, did you ever think it might not be a bad thing? Global warming would mean more condensation and more evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains. Not to mention longer growing seasons. BUT... thers is not such thing.
More proof you know nothing.... It may have happend during Bush's watch, but it was Clinton's fault. Clinton did nothing every time terrorist killed Americans during his reign of terror. Why, because it's not popular to send troops, and all democrats care about is your vote. It's Clinton's policies that lead to 9/11. Bush is left to clean up his mess. You probably think that because the tech boom happened on Clinton's watch, that Clinton had something to do with it?
04/25/03 05/02/03 5/3/03 6/24/03 6/28/03 7/5/03 7/6/03 7/11/03 7/12/03 7/14/03
09/28/04 09/29/04 10/01/04 10/02/04
09/28/05 09/30/05 10/03/05
5/24/06 5/25/06 5/27/06 5/28/06 5/30/06 6/01/06 6/03/06 6/23/06 6/24/06 7/22/06 7/23/06
6/20/08 6/22/08 6/24/08 6/25/08
thanks for linking these fraud lobby groups funded by the defence or oil industries ... proves yet again how easily public opinion can be manipulated ...