An Inconvenient Truth

245

Comments

  • evenkat
    evenkat Posts: 380
    I haven't seen the movie yet but I read the book. Every part of the world is showing signs of global warming or climate change. Gore has some great suggestions at the end of the book. I heard Gore will be lecturing Wal-Mart on this issue as they want to become more environmentally friendly...it's a start.
    "...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
  • breakmarysfall
    breakmarysfall Posts: 368
    know1 wrote:
    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.


    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!


    :)
    there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
    ...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.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    polaris wrote:
    not true - look at the carbon dioxide levels - they are not rising at a CONSTANT rate

    We were talking about temperature. Temperature levels have been rising at a CONSTANT rate.
    polaris wrote:
    no natural cycle in the past can account for the changes we are experiencing - it has all been scientifically accounted for - fact: climate change is man-made phenomom
    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.
    polaris wrote:
    it has long been predicted that we would have more severe extreme weather; that sea ice levels would drop dramatically; that invasive species would be more prominent - these are all holding true
    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?
    polaris wrote:
    anyways - like i posted earlier, you can educate yourself on the topic or you can not ... it is up to you ...
    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?
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jeffbr wrote:
    We were talking about temperature. Temperature levels have been rising at a CONSTANT rate.

    that is not true either ... all the hottest years on record have happened in the last decade or so ...
    jeffbr wrote:
    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.

    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 ...
    jeffbr wrote:
    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?

    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 ...
    jeffbr wrote:
    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?

    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 ...
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    polaris wrote:
    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 ...
    Would you say that the movie was alarmist? Exaggerated?

    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.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    1970RR wrote:
    Would you say that the movie was alarmist? Exaggerated?

    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 ...
  • AllNiteThing
    AllNiteThing Posts: 1,115
    world wrote:

    LMAO at the thought that humans can destroy or save a planet.

    LMAO at your thought that humans can't destroy or save their HABITAT.
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • AllNiteThing
    AllNiteThing Posts: 1,115
    world wrote:
    lol, sure, do you also blame cavemen for the last ice age that happened. Too many cave fires cause that climate change.

    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.


    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????
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • mdg164
    mdg164 Posts: 206
    NOCODE#1 wrote:
    you are too dumb to breed or use a keyboard if you don't believe in global warming

    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.
    NOCODE#1 wrote:
    9/11 Happened on Bush's watch. Congratulations! 4 more years!

    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?
    09/02/00 09/05/00
    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
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mdg164 wrote:
    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?

    thanks for linking these fraud lobby groups funded by the defence or oil industries ... proves yet again how easily public opinion can be manipulated ...
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    polaris wrote:
    thanks for linking these fraud lobby groups funded by the defence or oil industries ... proves yet again how easily public opinion can be manipulated ...

    Kind of like this movie is trying to do.

    I'm not saying that your mind was made up by this movie as I do think that you come from a very educated place on this issue.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    mdg164 wrote:
    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?

    This statement proves that you know as little as he does.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • AllNiteThing
    AllNiteThing Posts: 1,115
    mdg164 wrote:
    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.

    1)After the embassy bombing, Clinton ordered airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, aimed at taking out terror camps and assassinating Bin Laden. Though I disagreed with these actions, and the results were deplorable, it was hardly nothing as you said:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/155252.stm


    2)After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, Clinton's government caught and imprisoned most of the conspirators. Most in 1994, and Ramzi Yousef in 1998. Is this also nothing?:

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

    3)Regarding the Cole Bombing: Took place on October 12th, 2000, less than a month before the end of Clinton's presidency. Al Qaeda did not take responsibility for it until July of 2001. Until then, officials suspected a number of terror agencies to be responsible, but Richard Clarke suspected Bin Laden. They thought it not a good idea to launch a large attack with the incoming administration having to deal with it. Clarke drafted plans to take action, which he handed off to Rice and the Bush administration. The plan languished for months due to administration in-fighting and nothing was done. HARDLY blame on Clinton.

    4)Many blame Clinton for not taking Bin Laden when Sudan offered to turn him over. This was a false claim started by Sean Hannity. He misquoted Clinton's statements on the the subject. Read here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005


    mdg164 wrote:
    Why, because it's not popular to send troops, and all democrats care about is your vote.

    It's not popular to ANYONE. You want some quotes from Republicans about Clintons' sending troops to Kosovo?:
    "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
    --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

    "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
    --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

    "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
    --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

    I can agree with these statements to an extent, but now we see that they were just paying lip service to their base at the time. They've completely changed their tune when a Republican president is in office, eh? Funny how that goes.
    mdg164 wrote:
    It's Clinton's policies that lead to 9/11.

    That's ridiculous considering the Mid East crisis' have been going on for decades. From the overthrow of Iran's elected government by Roosevelt, Israel's creation by Truman, continued armament by successive governments, the Iranian revolution and Reagan's 'election day' hostage release sham, Iran-Contra and the arming of Iran/Iraq, Bush Sr's orchestration of the Persian Gulf war, the CIA's training of Bin Laden and the US's continued policy of starving and cutting off Iraq from the rest of the world, it's no surprise the Mideast hates us. Hardly Clinton's fault.

    Now, if you want to get technical, a LOT happened under Bush's watch where he could have prevented 9/11. Multiple threats were recieved days before the attacks, by CIA officials and other world governments. They were summarily ignored. Yet many government officials were told not to fly the morning of the attacks. Strange, eh? The CIA was following, even LIVING WITH the terrorists, including Attah!! They were going to move in on them, but were told to 'back off' by...Cheney! Yea, they're completely innocent of anything. :rolleyes: Keep blaming Clinton. O'Reilly said so. :rolleyes:
    mdg164 wrote:
    Bush is left to clean up his mess.

    The mess was a small, loosely knit organization of terro around the world, angry at US military presence in the Mideast. PERHAPS with Gore, we could have worked to diffuse it. With Bush, we got 9/11, and 2 HUGE MESSES in Afghanistan and Iraq that will never clean up under our watch. N E V E R. Phony wars, poor results and we are less safe. Nice job with the cleanup Dubya. :rolleyes:
    mdg164 wrote:
    You probably think that because the tech boom happened on Clinton's watch, that Clinton had something to do with it?

    Clinton's watched showed a balanced budget and a surplus. In the 80's, Al Gore was instrumental in commercializing the internet. Clinton's presidency gave us an optimism and internal growth that fostered the environment possible for a tech boom. Was he responsible? No. Would we have been better off and as wealthy under a republican? Doubtful.

    Your hatred for the left and progressives, and willingness to accept bs from talking heads has left you with a skewed view of reality. It's sad, because I know it will never change, and will continue to divide this country. It's politics and vote counts and profits over reality and truth and progression. :( God bless America. :rolleyes:
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    zstillings wrote:
    Kind of like this movie is trying to do.

    I'm not saying that your mind was made up by this movie as I do think that you come from a very educated place on this issue.

    if anyone wants to discuss the facts presented in this movie or by the international scientific community - feel free to do so ...

    but that group is as blatant as it gets ...
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    polaris wrote:
    if anyone wants to discuss the facts presented in this movie or by the international scientific community - feel free to do so ...

    but that group is as blatant as it gets ...

    I know we are all free to discuss this movie just as everyone is free to discuss what is presented by that group. I may actually watch this movie when it comes out on DVD. I don't pay money to see movies in the theater that I want to see very often. This one would rank well towards the bottom of that list for the money they charge to go to the movies now. My whole point was that this movie is presenting one side of an issue that is backed up by scientific facts (at least the marketing of the movie has been as I am hesitant to judge the whole movie). There is nothing wrong with this but those who are selling this film are just as guilty as the other side is of spreading one side of this debate.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    zstillings wrote:
    I know we are all free to discuss this movie just as everyone is free to discuss what is presented by that group. I may actually watch this movie when it comes out on DVD. I don't pay money to see movies in the theater that I want to see very often. This one would rank well towards the bottom of that list for the money they charge to go to the movies now. My whole point was that this movie is presenting one side of an issue that is backed up by scientific facts (at least the marketing of the movie has been as I am hesitant to judge the whole movie). There is nothing wrong with this but those who are selling this film are just as guilty as the other side is of spreading one side of this debate.

    i really don't understand this kind of thinking ... in one breath you want to be objective about the movie but in the next you criticize its agenda saying it is equal to the agenda put forth by bogus lobby groups ...

    they are not one in the same to me ...
  • AllNiteThing
    AllNiteThing Posts: 1,115
    zstillings wrote:
    I know we are all free to discuss this movie just as everyone is free to discuss what is presented by that group. I may actually watch this movie when it comes out on DVD. I don't pay money to see movies in the theater that I want to see very often. This one would rank well towards the bottom of that list for the money they charge to go to the movies now. My whole point was that this movie is presenting one side of an issue that is backed up by scientific facts (at least the marketing of the movie has been as I am hesitant to judge the whole movie). There is nothing wrong with this but those who are selling this film are just as guilty as the other side is of spreading one side of this debate.

    Are you positively sure they aren't showing the other side and then bringing someone to contend it? Would that make it more legitimate in your eyes?

    If there were a documentary on the Holocaust, would you need to have both sides shown to believe it? Do you need to have those who show proof of the Holocaust, as well as those who believe it's a fabrication in order to believe it's a legitimate documentary? Does the absence of an opposing view invalidate anothers' viewpoint? Especially one that is backed with evidence and logical deduction?

    I don't understand how you can dismiss something without having seen/read it, gathered your own facts, and then come to your own conclusion on whether or not they reached a conclusion with which you are comfortable with. It just smacks of close mindedness to me. I've read multiple sources on both sides, and I think it's obvious that human involvement has effected the ecosystem. You may disagree with the content of the movie, but at least detail it rather than dismiss the movie's content altogether without even seeing it!!
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    polaris wrote:
    i really don't understand this kind of thinking ... in one breath you want to be objective about the movie but in the next you criticize its agenda saying it is equal to the agenda put forth by bogus lobby groups ...

    they are not one in the same to me ...
    Of course they arent. Anyone disagreeing with Al Gores vision is obviously a shill for Big Oil.
  • AllNiteThing
    AllNiteThing Posts: 1,115
    1970RR wrote:
    Of course they arent. Anyone disagreeing with Al Gores vision is obviously a shill for Big Oil.

    Who in the Bush Admin. isn't? lol If it doesn't benefit big oil or defense contractors, it's 'liberal propaganda', right? :rolleyes:
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    polaris wrote:
    i really don't understand this kind of thinking ... in one breath you want to be objective about the movie but in the next you criticize its agenda saying it is equal to the agenda put forth by bogus lobby groups ...

    they are not one in the same to me ...

    I was separating the movie and the marketing of the movie. The marketing has been doomsday and one sided making it equal to the other side. The movie and the marketing are two completely different things in my opinion.

Categories