"An Inconvenient Truth"

not all process like that. morals are on a broad sense, maybe not for you, but to people that follow different teachings and beliefs dont always use morals as the determining factor for their actions.

to incorcorate every possible person in this "equation", you have to find the common x. so what the base to humanity: persistence to survive. we all share that at the least. thats going to be your most reliable connection. this movie will help the few that dont have this specific worry in their behaviors yet, but i dont believe it will do much, unfortunately.

 

here we go again.........

ok, so bush fites wars like crazy....does that make him an expert? did bush drop the bomb that killed the zarqauwi (spelling?) guy? i dont think so..... gore is saying what he is told to say....if you would have payed attention to my first post, you would see that i care, and i do think its a problem. i think yall just needed something to cling to.

and one final question, how have all the other cycles in earth climate began? you cant blaim the dinosaurs for the ice ages....... maybe were going through a another climate change that is just being masked. just a thought.

 

Building off of what ak just said: Basically, there has been an elevation on overall climate teperature before previous ice ages, but in AIT, we see that the climate temerature isn't nearly as high as it is today. In the movie we see a graph of the world's climate spaning from before the two ice ages, and the current climate temperature is leaps and bounds higher than the climate temperature before the two ice ages.

 

I want to see this movie... and i think everyone should.


You guys have had some good convo in this thread - ill keep my eye on it.

 

how did all the others start? i think it was the fluctuations of CO2 as a precursor, or a tell tale sign... or at the very least there is a correleation whether causal or not. the spike in CO2 here and now is WAY WAY WAY more than has ever been reccorded in isotopes in ice core sampes, or tree rings, or sedimentary rocks... or however it is that they measure this. WAY.

cant we blaim the dinosaurs? i'm not saying we should, but it's not something i'm going to rule out. for example... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&q=new+zealand+sheep+methane+guardian&spell=1 if sheep can do it... couldn't dinosaurs? i mean... they're pretty big. that must be alot of flatulence.



... "going through another climate change that is just being masked"??? "maybe"???

to turn this into a competitive debate would be counter productive and impractical, so i'll agree with you. it's being masked by a media campaign to protect the shareholders.


the correlation between temp changes and CO2 is but one of the alignments in the graphs that can be drawn. the gap (not so obvious from the "move on" version of the 2004 speach available in a low quality online) is a few decades. we're experiencing the knock on climactic and heat changes from the changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere (and other eco spheres) from (my guesstimate) victorian times to the mid 20th Century.

.... think about that... how much did we increase our CO2 (+ others) since then? how much are we likely to feel the oncoming brunt of the wave of climactic hecktic mental unrest and turmoil?

ebenezer... you say you care, but still, you work hard to convince yourself that it's not happening to the point of being completely resistant to even dealing with "what if".

i dunno, thats just how it seems. and it also occurs to me that we cannot waste more time discussing/arguing it. its time to DO stuff about it (including, yet besides, convincing the reluctant).


a few words on complacency
i can think of no better analogy than my TENS of THOUSANDS of hours playing the games Soul Calibur, and Soul Calibur 2. thats alot of hours of gameplay (alot of months/years of my life), and those of you who know me will know i've done alot of deap thought on this, and the lessons one can learn from what at first glance seems unrelated to life lessons. Anyone seen Krazi Hare recently? he can confirm my capacity for corelative observations and thoughts.
Soul Calibur;
In meeting a worthy opponent, the game will be close, most of the time... however sometimes a great lead in energy bars starts early on... this can evoke the most comon source of defeat in the well accomplished and competent, complacency. the psychology of this is so undeniable it can even be employed as a tactic to success by evoking it in your opponent. the risk in this tactic though is when you use their complacency against them you must of course deal them vast amounts of damage in a shorter time period nearer the end, thus risking them to snap out of complacency into survival instict, though, the best state to be in for success is "the zone" where moves flow naturally and effectively, states nearer a "survuval instict" are often riddled with more panic than the inner peace of "the zone" or "flow" which is precicely when mistakes will be made and thus the swing back, the passing of the "tipping point" so swift that reccovery to a "flow" state cannot be achieved and a desperate panic insues in the formerly complacent unto defeat through too many errors made out of fear. this aludes to the perfect state for success, a calm mind, "the middle way" where neither complacency nor panic strikes. neither expectancy nor desperation. The "flow", so close to the state refered to by workers, artists, athletes as "the zone" where, when tasks are complete it feels as if no effort were required at all, and is as (for those avid Futurama fans) when bender after his taste of godhood is sent home and the galactic consciousness says "when you do it right, people will think you did nothing at all". or something to that effect.



i suspect there is still a great deal of complacency around here and in others on Earth. Al Gore is on our side, this is why he is consciously making us aware, as gently as he can to AVOID sending us into a panic, so that we can make the right moves to not only ensure our survival but also live well, with quality of life... something that until you loose it, you take for granted the GREAT value it has (take it from me, i was a cripple with many other ailments of great discomfort).


*nods*

 

maybe we are about to experience the worst ice age in the history of the earth, along with the end of mankind.

 

The following are all quotes and scenes from the movie trailer, followed by my comments:


•IF YOU LOVE YOUR PLANET… IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN… SEE THIS FILM

If this isn't suppose to be about politics, just pure fact, why are they using scare tactics to draw people to see it? Who doesn't love their children?


•“IF YOU LOOK AT THE 10 HOTTEST YEARS MEASURED, THEY'VE ALL OCCURRED IN THE LAST 14 YEARS, AND THE HOTTEST OF ALL WAS 2005”

Actually, the hottest year of the last 14 was 1998, not 2005.


•SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT WE ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.

First, there is no scientific consensus that global warming even exists. Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 C over the past century (half of which occurred before 1940, while most of the century's manmade greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940). It is statistically impossible to obtain an annual temperature trend for a planet that has been around for 4.5 billion years with less than 100 years of data (which less than 50 years of would be classified as “good quality” data). This can easily be attributed to normal climatic variation. But several biases in the data may also be responsible for some of this increase (such as non-uniform meteorological standards, exposure and sensor lag, urban and agricultural heat islands, & varying applied data corrections). We must also not forget that the climate warmed sharply between 1900 and 1940, before cooling between 1940 and 1975 (remember when we were headed toward another ice age?), so even concluding a linear trend would be difficult because we have only 30 years of data to support those claims.

So there is no scientific consensus that global warming exists, let alone that we are causing it. How much of the greenhouse effect, which is supposedly causing this warming, is caused by human activity? About 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account. This changes to 5.53% if water vapor is neglected in the calculations, which was done by the Department of Energy, overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. This is not a wise meteorological mathematical choice. Why does water vapor make a difference? It is the most prominent green house gas in our atmosphere accounting for 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, not CO2.

Also, current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, about 350 parts per million, have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist. A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores, with high time resolution, show that since the last ice age, every time the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so the man-made global warming theory has put EFFECT before CAUSE, a scientific no-no!

While there's no dispute concerning the current CO2 level, there is plenty of room to dispute the World Meteorologial Organization's 280 ppm-estimate for pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 can be measured directly by air sampling or estimated indirectly by, for example, studying air trapped in ice cores drilled from glaciers. Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century – beginning around 1810 – ranged from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm, with an average value of 335 ppm, according to Dr. Jaworowski. But he also says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.

First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don't support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven't been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.


•BY FAR, THE MOST TERRORIZING FILM YOU WILL EVER SEE

You can say that again. The lies and hand-waving science used as proof in this movie is terrorizing.


•“TEMPERATURE INCREASES ARE TAKING PLACE ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND THAT'S CAUSING STRONGER STORMS”

To some, the temperature increases are debatable as mentioned above, but if they were to occur, yes it is possible that it could lead to warmer ocean temperatures which could also lead to more and stronger hurricanes. That is Meteorology 101. Hence the reason we have a hurricane season. The peak frequency corresponds to the period of highest sea surface temperatures during the year and the time of the maximum displacement of the convergence zone.

But the chief of the National Hurricane Center on 9/25/05 said the intensity of hurricanes slamming the Gulf Coast is not the result of global warming but rather is part of a normal cycle. "Hurricanes, and especially major hurricanes, are cyclical," said Max Mayfield, the center's director. "We'll have a few decades of really active hurricanes, and then inactive periods, followed by active periods again." A cycle of severe storms plagued the U.S. from the 1920s through the 1960s when sea surface temperatures were warmer than normal. Those temperatures cooled in the 1970s and for the next 25 years, Mr. Mayfield told CBS' "Face the Nation." When sea temperatures began rising again in 1995, the severity of storms increased. "I think that this activity that we're in can be explained without invoking global warming. And the bad news here is that we are in this active period, and the research meteorologists tell us that it may last another 10 or 20 years," Mr. Mayfield said.

The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was luck, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength. Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Of the 6 most active hurricane seasons on record, half of them were before 1940 (1887, 1933, 1936, 1969, 1995, 2005).


•VIDEOS IMPLY HURRICANE KATRINA WAS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING

Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana as a Category 3 storm (out of a possible 5). The reason this storm was so devastating to us was because of the poor condition the Gulf Coast cities were in before the Hurricane hit. Meteorologists and Atmospheric Scientists all over the globe have known for decades that if these below-sea level areas were hit by a strong enough hurricane, they would be wiped off the map. It was not global warming that caused levies to break and cities to flood: it was the poor condition of these preventative measures before the hurricane that caused this disaster. City and Government officials are to blame for Katrina's effect, not global warming.

New Orleans' levee failures were found to be primarily the result of system design flaws, combined with the lack of adequate maintenance. Those responsible for the conception, design, construction, and maintenance of the region's flood-control system apparently failed to pay sufficient attention to public safety, according to an investigation by the National Science Foundation.


•THE ARCTIC IS EXPERIENCING FASTER MELTING. IF THIS WERE TO GO, SEA LEVEL WORLD WIDE WOULD GO UP 20 FEET.

The strong temperature increase that followed the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago has melted enough ice to raise the global sea level by 120 meters (360 feet). The rate of rise was quite high at first, controlled by the rapid melting away of the ice sheets covering North America and the Eurasian land mass. These disappeared about 8000 years ago; but then, as the sea level rose, the WAIS (west Antarctic ice sheet) continued to melt, albeit at a lower rate -- and it is still melting at about this rate today.

If press reports about accelerated warming are correct, the temperature histories should curve upward, not increase in a straight line. While there is quite a bit of year-to-year variation in the average global temperature (arising from such events as the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, the large El Niños of 1982-83 and 1997-98, and the large La Niña of 1988-89), there is no indication that the shape of the overall trend is, at worst, anything but linear.

But more importantly, recent observations and new analyses of existing data suggest an opposite outcome: A climate warming should SLOW DOWN sea level rise, not accelerate it. To understand this counterintuitive result, one must first get rid of false leads. The misleading argument here is the often quoted statement that the climate warmed by ~1 F (~0.6 C) in the last 100 years AND that the sea level rose by 18 cm. Both parts of the statement are true; but the second part does not necessarily follow from the first.

The first clue that there might be something wrong with the logic is hidden in the IPCC report itself. According to its compilation of data, the contribution to the sea level rise of the past century comes mainly from three sources: first, thermal expansion of the warming ocean contributed about 4 cm; and second, the melting of continental glaciers about 3.5 cm. The third source however, polar regions, produced a net lowering of the sea level, with most of this coming from the Antarctic. The means is naturally easy to understand but difficult to calculate: A warming ocean evaporates more water, and some of it rains out in the polar regions, thus transferring water from the ocean to the polar ice caps.) The surprising result: When one simply adds up all these contributions listed in the IPCC report (neglecting the large uncertainties), they account for only about 20 percent of the observed rise of 18 cm. Therefore, the climate warming since 1900 cannot be the cause of the sea level rise; something is missing here.

The second clue comes from geological observations that the sea level has been rising for past centuries at about the same rate as in the last 100 years. In other words, the sea level was rising even during the cold Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850. This provides further support for the hypothesis that the observed global sea level rise since 1900 is reasonably independent of this century's temperature rise.


•WE HAVE TO ACT TOGETHER TO SOLVE THIS GLOBAL CRISIS

We should be working together to come to a scientific consensus on the topic and punish those that lie and twist the facts.


•OUR ABILITY TO LIVE IS WHAT IS AT STAKE

Our ability to live in a world without political driven propaganda is the only thing at stake. That and harming the economy by making energy more expensive and less available.

 

the cold war was a fucking arms race.

thats not a solution to peace.

and your quote about gore taking a page out of micheal moore's book was _________. anyone who takes a page out of the conspiracy theorists's books should be shot in the face.

these "shockumentaries" are leading us away from the solution.

yea its great for everyone and their cousin who can get a producer to write a check for a movie to point out whats wrong with the world, but how many of them are actually proposing solutions to the problems, rather then just reporting what most well read people already know?

exactly.

 

I forgot to add, that I did not write that, I was just presenting a Rant, that I came across about the movie, I think he made some valid points, I see where you are coming from also, Some research citations would be nice.

I have yet to see the movie, but when I do, I will further my ideas. I just think that, with dramazation, Movie Effects, and just the way the movie was made, they can really put things in your mind, as in making you believe strongly in what they are preaching. I do agree how ever with the rants about the scare tactics, theese "Shockumentaries" aren't doing much to help the problem, unless he donates the proceedes of this movie to a foundation dedicated to help the Global Warming problem.

 

we just don't know. this is bigger than anything our data can provide evidence for . previous times there were not all these other chemicals in the air and water, there wasnt the huge hole in the Ozone and the new abnormal formations of pockets of Ozone at lower altitudes. We just don't know. There are natural balance checks and tipping points. we're pushing more than ever. all the overdue (going by laws of averages) great evens... volcanoes, pole shifts, huge landslides, earthquakes, meteors, etc. we just don't know. and all these people saying they do (either way) isn't really helping. all we can do is present the evidence and say "look, doesn't that look conclusive? shouldn't we accept a share of responsability? don't we at least have a duty of care?"

because unfortunately, not all those who work in "advertising or marketting" have seen or took the advice of Bill Hicks to "Kill Yourself". these are the people who use scare tactics. who doesnt love their children... those who suffer from that condition... i forget the name... post birth rejection thing.. or somat like that. i know that was a retorical question, but i couldnt resist since i know it can happen. pity.

you sure? '95 was hotter than '98 ... or thats how the comon knowledge goes here. bit of a small fry to pick at though dont ya think?

case closed. jk.

we're also causing an undeniable change in the composition in the atmosphere... "global dimming". it is the combined effect of these two that reduces global warming. There are some very valuable lessons from this. mark my words.

it can be. indeed so. it depends on how you take it. i am not terrorised by it (but then i've not yet seen it, though it is supposed to contain what has been seen in his speaches anyways), but then that might be because i know what it takes to defeat terrorism...
i'd say by far more terrorising is what we see on the news all the time from the "war on..." this that and everything. truely an ugly bastard of a horseman if ever i saw one.

you agree with this, so why then do you go on to disagree with this.... oh wait... you were reading between the lines. ok.

-edit- see green text below for more poiniant message -

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha. sorry, i'm not laughing at you, its the irony of that statement, and i'm a sucker for irony. what could make energy cheaper and more available than to rid ourselves of fuel and fuelcell tech... get with the solar revolution... it's remarkably cheap (yes it is, please challenge me on that claim), can be applied anywhere (theres light), low maintenance, and the only reason we don't have it anywhere is because large companies reluctant to change, and powerful people with more influence than intelect have made damaging moves towards what we all need for what a few want for profits.

until recently what you were saying was just what most of the big companies and consortiums wanted to have said... but minds in even these organisations are changing, albeit perhaps because of shifting public opinion and fears over their public image, but it is happening. yes, its true, an anarchistic hippie leftie like me is admitting the companies are admitting it! and its marketting management thats causing it! yes... it really does leave an odd taste in my mouth.

fucking right. my point exactly. it was just a play on words. i shoulda mibies said "warm peace"

naw way.... you cannot be calling mikey moore a conspiracy theorist... naw way. the scope for branding people conspiracy theorists goes way further than mild mannered nice guy moore. that guy is way to pale, friendly and limited in political philosophy to truely deserve the slander (you meant it as slander, dinnae try to deny it). check out David Ikke, Alex Jones, Michael C Ruppert, TooSicKs, Digit, and many nameless paranoids if you want to get a grasp of the road to conspiracy theorist....... actually, scrap most of those names... why? for example, Alex Jones, he's more of a detective, he actually gets out there to uncover what ACTUALLY HAPPENS.... no theory involved... its practical conspiracy debunking... same goes for Ruppert. Moore... nah, he just aint much of a conspiracy theorist literally or slanderously.


oh... but the part about needing to be shot in the face.... yes, thats very true....... if you are a member of a "conspiracy", or are to gain from one. remember, for it to be a "Noble Lie", it must at least and firstly be NOBLE. and there's fuck all noble about "looking out for number one" at the expense of millions of people.

couldn't agree more. no... i could. but i do agree. yet to see if this is a so-called "shockumentary". sure is better than most of the drivel we get from hollywood and other film industries though.

Al Gore is also aware of this as seen in other interviews, and i'm sure he (and hopefully others who work on this) understand the importance of this, and are careful to employ implimentation of encouraging psychology... supposedly.

yep. aint it just. however.... educate yourself so you may educate others.

'tis part of the solution. *nods*

and yeah... i reccon you really do love lucy. hehe.

its ok... you can respond openly without fear of descent. all needs to be pointed out to peeps in that redundant argument is that creation created evolution and evolution creates. its a circular argument thus why we hear it so often.

too many peeps are concerned only with thinking outta the box. may i reccomend also thinking outta the circle. ...... and other geometric forms.

yep, you still listening, fAKdded? or reading (sorry, i'm dislexic and have to use my imagination to speak all this in my mind or it'd take forever)

i run simulations in my head.... not hugely acurate ones... because the inputs and datta is forever changing... but i know that if we keep going as we do, and without the heralded nasty anihilatory effects prior to destruction of all life on earth, there will be no other life forms on earth but humans..... and what do you think we will eat then?


ew.

i for one have seen alive and maaaaaan.... that is the LAST resort.... and no resort i ever want to visit no matter what they claim on the brochure. geddit?


time for another native american saying?

"when all the trees and all the animals are gone will man understand that he cannot eat money." .... or something to that effect.

maybe.

maybe not.

maybe something else.

I'd rather act out of reccognition, respect, responsability and most importantly LOVE for this planet and wha ti like it to be, rather than out of fear of what might be.

i can say that 'cause i've done both... and i know which is more effective.

glad you pointed that out. sorry for my reactionary spouting earlier on in this lengthy reply. he did make some validated points... but i suspect (given how alot of people take things) they may have done more harm than beneficience.





to echo aldo leopold's sentiment...

we are of the earth, so what we do to it is, ultimately, what we do to ourselves.


....ps, when we leave this place (as we are doing so in tentative steps) we will have to learn this too of the rest of the universe. we are all of the stars. *bless*

 

and if you do not heed that advice, your actions need not be any different, as to save yourself is what you need do for the future (children). the atmosphere of earth has been likened to to skin of an apple, it's that thin, but conversely to the apple which has the tough skin, earth's "skin" is gas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...hernmelt?size=16x9&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1
(says only available in uk for legal reasons.... i guess they dont want americans seeing this)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/climate-shorts.shtml

 

Well I can't find the magazine with the article in it to source it, but here's a tidbit I remember. Our largest greenhouse gas contribution is in the CO2 department yes? While being the weakest of the greenhouse gases, we actually only contribute 3%, nature picks up the rest. If I find that article, I'll give the rest of the numbers.

Here we go. This is from the 9-06 issue of Car and Driver.
"The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to 4% by volume.
Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for their warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has a low warming potency, but it's relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72% of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH aka natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2 but because of its low concentration it contributes only 7% of that warming. Nitrous oxide, mostly of nature's creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.
Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources- nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about natures outpouring. They- and Al Gore- are alarmed only by anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2% caused by humans.
They like to point fingers at the US which generated about 23% of anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact it's a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as 'the most renowned climatologist in all the world.'"
-Patrick Bedard

Yeah it's a car magazine, so what. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go buy the ferrari on page 44 with 11mpg (I wish).

 

sounds like man is now seperate from nature.
yep, i'm glad you gave the source of that.

i'll bet that alot of that increased CO2 put out by "nature" and not man , has alot to do with how much less "nature" can suck back up thanks to our widespread deforrestation. what, its only been like 50% of the worlds trees in the last 100 years, its not like it's anything major.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

buy me the ferrari too, but can you gimme a thin film solar coating instead of the paintjob? that way i'll have saved on the fuel bills in a year and made it worthwhile, not to mention the lack of polutants emited.