An Inconvenient Truth
 

I've put this in general chat rather than nights out because it is supposed to provoke debate.

Tonight I have been to see the film An Inconvenient Truth showing Al Gore. Omg, omg, omg - I hate to say this but I could well be going over to the dark side (well Jambutty's side anyway)! The facts and figures are ones that have been going around for a long time but when you see it all laid out for you in one place it makes for a very compelling argument.


This is the blurb from Prospects Foundation

There is still time to see it on Wednesday 31st January the film will be shown in Willow Hall at the New Era Complex, Paradise Street, Accrington, from 7:00pm

Tickets for the event are available on the night for only £4.50 per person, with a concessionary rate of £3.50 available to students,OAP's, under 16's and members of The PROSPECTS Foundation.

The film, which stars former US Vice-President Al Gore as himself, follows him around the World as he presents his ideas on climate change, with the sole intention of saving the planet! The topic of climate change is often one which causes confusion, however the film manages to entertain whilst also informing and educating in a simple yet non-patronising way.

Although environmental films may not appeal to you, this one is more authentic than any reality tv show, more compelling than fictional blockbuster movies and really is essential viewing. The film is certificate U, so is open to all ages, why not bring along the family for what will no doubt be an eye opener!

For more information about the screenings, please Prospects Foundation on 01254 380675.

Before you argue with me and quote facts that you've read from a tabloid newspaper please go and see the film.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

It's not gloomy but it will make you sit up and take notice.

Only problem is that people who go to see it are already the people who are a little concerned and already doing something - the people who really should see it probably won't!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Is the movie not available from Blockbuster or some other video/dvd rental store ?
Why is a Govt. supported/sponsored center using taxpayers money, pushing propaganda (unproven science) made by a loser of a politician , could it be because of his left wing politics ?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Eh? :confused:

No not available from Blockbuster.
Not a government sponsored centre
Not using taxpayers money - we all paid for a ticket
Not propaganda - facts
Not loser of politician - cheated!
Not relevanat about his left wing politics - not a political film!!!!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Willow - while it does bring a lot of points home, it is not gloomy. Instead, after showing the science, it presents some ideas for things folks can do to personally lessen their own impact on the environment.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Here's a trailer.

This is a scary prospect.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Dont encourage him lol

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Unproven science steeljack? The greater majority of the boffins of the world all agree that global warming is happening. Where the dispute is, is the reason for it although more and more of these boffins are coming round to the view that humanity is increasing the speed of natural cyclical global warming that the non-believers are so fond of pointing out.

Interesting snippet of film WillowTheWhisp and I totally agree with what I saw. Sadly there still some ostriches with their heads stuck firmly in the sand. Well, when the water is lapping around their rear end they might just wake up to reality but by then it will be too late.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I haven't seen the film as yet,sounds a bit ominious,but I have come across this counter theory.It is a bit long winded but it makes a point:
Junk science is BIG business.

Remember Avian Bird Flu? Birds were getting sick and dying from a new strain of bird flu. The fear is that the flu would jump from birds to mankind, which it did in a few isolated cases, maybe. Hundreds of thousands of birds were being slaughtered, as a precaution. Scientists were telling us were were all going to die if we didn't work on a vaccine, and that funding would be needed to prevent millions of human deaths. I wonder how many grants were made to stop this "epidemic."

Think back to Y2K profiteering. A few programmer's and scientists said that some old, antiquated, rarely used computers might need to be updated for the year 2000. Likewise, old software may need to have a few minor updates and patches to be fully operational. The next thing you know, talking heads were warning that on January 1st 2000 that planes could literally fall out of the sky when their computers failed because they weren't Y2K compliant. We were told there would be anarchy in the streets when all public works systems failed because the computer systems helping them to function all shut down. Businesses were told that their computers would shut off, never to work again, and that all of their hard drive material and digital business documents would be lost forever. Businesses and government groups spent billions ensuring they would be safe when the ball dropped. And when the ball dropped, and nothing bad happened, anywhere, and all computers continued to function pretty much as before, whether they were certified Y2K compliant or not, the con artists Y2K compliance companies claimed that all their hard work had paid off. Disaster and the fall of all mankind had been averted thanks to their tireless bilking of companies and the government out of millions hard work. When all was said and done, the government and big business sighed a sigh of relief. Sure, maybe it was all a scam, but better to be out a few bucks and be assured that if the sky fell, it wouldn't fall on them.

How about AIDS? What happened to that? No offense to anyone who actually does have AIDS or whose friends, family members, etc actually do have AIDS, but I do not know a single person who has AIDS. This amazes me, because I remember being told as a child that by the year 2000, one in every 10 Americans would have aids. In middle school and high school health classes we were given flash cards and had to exchange signatures with five different classmates. A Student (A) was chosen at random, and was told that for the sake of the lesson they were HIV positive, and asked to stand up.One (A) HIV student. We were told that each signature represented sexual intercourse with the fellow student, so the first person on A's list, (B) was asked to stand up as well. 2 HIV Students (A,B). The second person on A&B's lists (B,C) were asked to stand up. 4 HIV Students (A,B,C,D). The third person on ABC&D's lists were asked to stand up. You see now how this works. Sure there was some overlapping, but by the time all 5 rounds were done, half or more of the class was standing. We were told that this is how AIDS spreads: through straight and homosexual unprotected sex, through drug use via needles, though accidental contact with blood, spit, etc of infected people. After years of this sort of instruction, it is amazing my generation ever got up the nerve to have sex at all. We were given estimates, that one in 10 of us will have HIV. In College, as freshmen, we were told that estimates were that between 5% and 10% of Americans could be HIV positive, and that the reasons that actual numbers were so far below reported cases was that most HIV positive people had no idea they were HIV positive. We were told that since as many as one in 10 Americans were HIV positive, and didn't know it, that in our small college community there were hundreds of future AIDS cases, and that unprotected sex was Russian roulette. It's now 2007. I don't know a single person with HIV. I've not known a single person, in the thousands of people I have met, that has ever admitted to being HIV positive. Billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on AIDS research. I still don't know a single person who has AIDS. I'm not saying they don't exist, AIDS exists, it is horrible, it is tragic. I do know a lot of people, but I don't know anyone with AIDS.

Why so much talk about AIDS? AIDS is a muli-billion dollar industry. In the early to mid 90's, you couldn't get grant money unless you were doing AIDS research. Bonafide research in other areas couldn't get a grant unless they found a way to connect their research to the AIDS discussion. Big hearted people have donated countless billions to AIDS research, AIDS support groups, AIDS awareness, International AIDS campaigns.

It is now 2007. You no longer need to be researching AIDS in order to get grant money, but the new HOT topic is Global Warming. Just like AIDS, just like Y2K, just like bird flu, this is big business. People's income depend on there being enough hype. Scholar's credentials depend on their research being "right." What starts off founded in science turns quickly into junk science. If it scares people, it makes headlines. If there are headlines there is grant money. It doesn't mean that there is no science behind AIDS/Bird Flu/Y2K/Global Warming, especially with AIDS, BUT we need to look at how much truth there is to all the hype, and we need to look at who has the most to gain by keeping the up the facade.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Is it hype or simply education? He is spreading the word that global warming is happening so that everyone can alter their behaviour accordingly - no good just telling a couple of people - so he has to make an impact. The problem comes when people start to argue against it but take a look at who is arguing against it and question what their motives are.

The doubt is being brought in by the government (think he was getting at the American government there, not ours) and by tabloid newspapers, probably from reports by the government.

They did a survery of 936 articles in scientific journals about global warming and every single one of them agreed that it was happening and that we should be doing something about it. They then did a survery of 600+ tabloid newspapers and in 53% of them there was a story about doubt - where did this doubt come from when all of the experts are saying categorically that it is happening. This is why the film is called The Inconvenient Truth - it is inconvenient because it affects industry, business and the dollar, all of which have a huge influence on the government!

I would suggest Lampman that you go and see the film which can answer this far better than I can. You might want to have a look at the website

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Education. Good thought, gayle!

Education is probably the main reason why we don't have 1 in 10 Americans infected with AIDS. In places in the world where AIDS education has not happened, such as certain areas in Africa, the outcome was much worse.

Education is part of the reason why the bird flu is now known to be somewhat less of a threat than originally thought. Given the way the virus works, scientists have now learned that the receptors in the human body do no mesh well with this particular virus. However, let's not forget that flu viruses are extremely mutable and can be, in some instances, quite deadly.

Y2K? Most businesses, including the one I work for, spent considerable time and money making sure that their computer systems were appropriately modified to handle a 4-digit year, rather than the 2-digit years originally utilized, for the sake of efficiency, in computer programs. Had we not done so, there would have been some severe problems. It was not, despite lampman's claims, a wasted effort. For all the media over-hype of Y2K, it also served to educate smaller businesses to be aware of the potential risks and to evaluate their own situation.

Does the media dwell too much on certain stories? Of course! In this day of 24-hour news, they have to fill up the time somehow. Also, the news outlets are going to air those stories which appeal to the greatest number of viewers, as this is how they make money. Sad to day, but we are pretty much stuck with the tabloid sensationalism in telejournalism today, because most of the audience does not care to watch in-depth analysis of major stories. So, instead of news on the AM broadcast, we get to waste time with the "news" of the outcome of last evening's "reality" TV. Heck, we even get more than our fair share of that on AccyWeb!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I have to disagree with Lampman on the AIDS thing. This is Accrington in the year 2007. I know several HIV positive local people, many of whom found out during routine testing and were previously unaware of their diagnosis. HIV is still spreading and thanks to the education that we received in the 80's many of us in the 35-50 age group are not affected. Unfortunately it is now affecting the young, with most cases in this country occurring in 15-25 year olds. This is because safe sex hasn't been rammed down their throats like it was with us. I am grateful for that education.

Lampman says that he doesn't know anyone who is HIV positive. The chances are that he does, but just doesn't know it.... After all, if you are diagnosed with HIV, who do you tell??? It's not something that you go blurting out to all and sundry. Many HIV positive people don't even tell their families.

I haven't seen this Al Gore film yet, but being an avid reader, traveller and nature fanatic, I do believe that environmental factors are responsible for the demise of many a species. I also believe that humans are very selfish when it comes to their own environment and it's a case of 'I'm alright Jack, and sod everything else.' I am one of these people who probably don't need to see the film but will anyway..:rolleyes:

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Happen they should show it for Free or ask for a voluntary contribution.

Might get more people to watch and be educated.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Well it was a charity that was showing it, Prospects Foundation, and they had to hire the room for the evening and buy the cinema licence in order to show it, so they had to charge a fee or else they wouldn't have been able to do it.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

The trouble with Al's flick is that he only shows you want he wants to. A melting glacier here.....but not the ones which are getting larger and deeper, for example. No, that would be an inconvenient truth indeed. This is such a scam, folks. Follow the money. Who is paying for the "research" claiming humans are the prime cause of global warming?

Global warming is natural. Most of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Physical evidence shows 600 warming periods in the earth's last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments and layered cave stalagmites. Earth's temperatures follow variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records and cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. Cosmic rays vary the earth's temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. Global climate models can't accurately register cloud effects.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Which glaciers are getting larger and deeper - if as you say, Al only showed the ones that are melting could you give evidence for the ones that are expanding.

Ten of the hottest years in documented history (probably about 150 years) are in the last 14 years.

The tree ring analogy was used with the ice to show how much carbon has gone into the glaciers in the last 40 years. So yes, they can measure accurately how the increase in CO2 has affected things.

In the most simple terms we're chopping down all the trees and so there aren't enough to process the increased carbon emissions. Even on the most basic level I can see that that makes sense.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Of course, there aren't exactly a large number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support your claims. Could you tell us what reasearch you have done to arrive at your conclusions?

Turnabout being fair play at all times, just who is paying for your reseach?

BTW, if you want to play follow the money, it might be very interesting indeed to look into the extremely deep pockets of the fossil fuel lobby, who have huge amounts of money and a vested interest to protect! It would be hard indeed to any similar special interest group with deeper pockets or as long and deep a track record of environmental abuse.

Given how the greed for oil has perverted US foreign policy over the past decades, I am 100% for development of technology that will dramatically lessen our dependence on oil Not only will the earth's environment be improved, but we can stop sucking up to the despotic Saudi royals and other such regimes. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the influence the perpetually fouled-up Middle East has on world affairs. Now that's a goal worth pursuing!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Billcat,not my views but a counter opinion sourced from a weather site in the USA.
It stated that most weather experts accepted the fact of global warming but couldn't agree on the cause.
As for Y2K now that was over egged panic journalism at its finest! I.T companies made a fortune out of the computer illiterate....such is life and such is business.
Lettie again these were not my words,but a sample of the other side of the argument.......serves me right for Cutting and pasting!!
Bad etiquette eh what?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Oh, of course, it always has to be the evil oil companies! Don't let's be in the least curious about other forces in play here. There are always two sides to every story. The environmental movement, it seems to me, has been hijacked for some nefarious purposes.

Gayle, if you want to check out growing glaciers, check www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm which has a partial worldwide list. I am sure there are other sites as well. I also like to check in on www.climateaudit.org from time to time. It's a site for professionals and it can get quite techno-geeky, however, I find it very interesting.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Have to disagree with you completely about Y2K. While the media certainly did have a field day with the subject, there were many, many computer systems that had to undergo major modifications for Y2K. As the business I work in is totally reliant upon one of the world's most sophisticated computing networks, I had more than a bit of exposure to the reality of Y2K. It is a credit to the firms responsible for these systems that Y2K came and went without serious disruption.

If you are sourcing something from a site, you might seriously consider providing the link.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

P.S. The Wall Street Journal had an article in last Friday's edition regarding Kyoto. You can get it online at http://www.opinionjournal.com Scroll down to Friday, January 26th, Potomac Watch by Kimberly A. Strassel - "Why Our CEO's Are Warming To Kyoto".

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

You see the daft thing about succeeding is that the people who said it wouldn't happen then get to say 'see we told you it wouldn't happen'!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

BTW, here is an interesting article on Y2K. Looks like a lot of those back-up servers installed as part of Y2K were invaluable after the destruction of the World Trade Center!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Folks, don't ever believe for an instant that a deliberately skewed set of scattered instances, such as those mentioned at the first link above, necessarily represent the truth. That would be like looking at the headlline about last week's big lottery winner and making the decision to invest all of your savings in lottery tickets. While you might win, it is far more probable that you will not.

Let's examine some information on what the scientific community is saying, because the truth is that there are virtually zero peer-reviewed articles that refute global warming. Consider this quite from a well-repected scientific site, the publishers of the journal "Science": "Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." (Emphasis added) Here is the link to the full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

"She analyzed 1,000 research papers on climate change selected randomly from those published between 1993 and 2003. The results were surprising: Not a single study explicitly rejected the idea that people are warming the planet." From http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...obewarm11.html

Question - if mankind is not one of the causes of global warming, why is there no body of peer-reviewed scientific papers that attempt to refute the prevailing view?

BTW, here is a really fun link that debunks bullseyebarb's claim that scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Want to debunk more of the usual misleading claims by the folks who wnat to keep their heads in the sand? "Global Warming Sceptic Bingo" :) Just click on the "#' symbol next to your favorite anti-golbal-warming myth! http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/ Hilarious, on target, and funny as well!

Even President Bush, at the most recent G8 meeting, agrees that man is a cause of global warming. But....not our own bullseyebarb, who seems to think that is some secret conspiracy that encompasses virtually the entire peer-reviewed scientific community. Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion!

BTW, bullseyebarb, just who are those "other forces in play" you mention? The Masons? Illuminati? The Warren Commission? Who do you think is leading the mass conspiracy that you allege? I'm really curious!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

A lot of great technology came out of the space program. Also, the government of the USA put a huge emphasis and considerable money into the education of scientists and engineers, which has been a huge benefit to the USA since the 1960s.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

That old gem is worth an award of Karma! A very pragmatic approach.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

That realy makes you think!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Buy or rent the DVd on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/An-Inconveni...?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

There's the link!

My final word on the subject use Google to fully research the pros and cons then make your own mind up don't be led by the nose by others.Wherever they may be.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

There are many ski resorts in the Alps that are green instead of white. Anyone like to explain that?

They haven’t just been reported, cameras have shown the green slopes underneath the ski lifts.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Don’t forget that massive chunk of the Arctic ice cap that broke away a few weeks ago and is heading southwards albeit very slowly. Less than 5 miles a year.

It was reported to be larger than the Isle of Man and most of it will be under water. 90% isn’t it? So that’s one heck of an ice cube.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Intersting article in the news this AM. Heard it from several sources. Looks like the Bush administration has been attempting to suppress some science.

"Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress. .....At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat."

Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/...ngress_climate

Looks like suppression of scientific opinion is the only tactic left to those senior administration officials when they find no credible research to back up their position!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Despite media reports to the contrary, there is no scientific consensus on global warming.

Two new books, "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years," by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. "The Chilling Stars", by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder is due out in March. Neither attributes human activity to global warming.

"Science" magazine has written that humans are responsible for less than 1% of the "greenhouse effect." So, even if we banned the use of all fossil fuels worldwide, it would still leave 99+% of the "problem" completely unaddressed.

An older book, (1997), "You Don't Say" by Fred Gielow, reprints and sources comments made by prominent members of the Left around the world. A fun read. However, if people like this ever got total control over our lives, I am afraid it wouldn't be much fun at all. The UN Biodiversity Assessment specifies that we assume a "peasant level of subsistence." Oh, won't that be fun?

Extreme environmentalism is akin to communism. It's all about excessive government regulation and control by elites.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

on this we agree , karma due ;)

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I agree also Barb, Karma done!

Brian

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

That is just out and out wrong. There is indeed a very strong consensus. Make all the claims you wish, bullseyebarb, but you are dead wrong in this instance - or just choosing not to accept reality.

There are certainly some folks with differing views, but consensus does not require that everyone agrees. For example, there is a very strong consensus that the USA landed men on the moon, but there is a small group that does not agree.

According to wikipedia and other sources, Fred Singer has financial ties to ExxonMobil, so he's not exactly a disinterested party. He's also pretty well-known as a hired hand for the tobacco industry. He argued that tobacco was noted bad for one's health, from what I understand, and that the ozone hole was not real. Pretty obvious that this Singer is a quasi-scientific gin for hire. Also, if he has something serious to say, why has he not written an article for peer review? The same queston should be asked of Svensmark and Calder. Could it be that, as sometimes happens, their "science" just won't pass muster?

Regarding the claim about Science Magazine, would you please provide a link to the place on their website where one can find this citation?

Lots of claims, bullseyebarb, but sadly lacking in hard evidence.

Isn't it funny how folks like that first denied that there was any scientific truth to global warming but, in light of a very real consensus said global warming was "real but man had nothing to do with it," to "man has only a small impact on global warming?" Nice quality of "science" this group employs. What next? Perhaps, "Won't it be nice to have an oceanfront homes in Arkansas and Oxford?" These guys are welcome to their opinions, but opinion is not science, and they are clearly fighting a rearguard action is a losing cause. Meanwhile, they are providing excuses for failure to address the problem. Nice, really nice mess to leave to our children and grandchildren!

Oh well, there are always some who see Rome burning and decide to tune their violins!;)

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Elites like the oil industry? :cool:

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

The pro’s and anti global warming supporters will argue until they are all blue in the face and neither will convince the other that they are right and the other is wrong.

On the other hand time will tell who has got it right.

If I may quote WillowTheWhisp

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

no , the elites I had in mind were the PC commie pinkos, the liberal lefties , folks like the ACLU (Anti Christian Lawyers Union ) the minority groups who are allways telling us and demanding we follow down their yellow brick roads to Nirvana , the bicycle coalitions that shut down downtown areas on the last Fridays of every month with their antics (where the heck are the fire trucks with their pumps when you need them). The groups who jump up and down and stamp their feet when the NYC Irish cultural council says we dont want to play with you , (Boo Hoo)
The groups who demand the removals of Christmas Nativities but say a Menorah is OK .
:D :D :D

oh yeah , forgot to mention I drive a full- size Dodge pick-up truck

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Steeljack & LYY - thanks, guys. Just ran across two items online today. One dated February 1st on www.eureferendum.blogspot.com regarding Al Gore's nomination for a a Nobel Peace Prize. Also, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._american.html where Victor Davis Hanson skewers John Kerry on Kyoto and other issues.

No, Billcat, I don't buy the hype and never will. The planet has always had warming and cooling cycles. It's utter hubris to think that we mere mortals can do anything to prevent that.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Yes, I always thought it interesting that Mikhail Gorbachev founded Green Cross International. Does he still have an office in San Francisco? Before he starts preaching to us and the rest of the West, he might ought to go back to Russia and see what he can do there. Of the top ten most polluted sites in the world most recently named, Russia has six of them. The other four can be claimed by China and India.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

The pro’s and anti global warming supporters will argue until they are all blue in the face and neither will convince the other that they are right and the other is wrong.

See what I mean!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

true, and if I remember they were exempt from the Kyoto protocols

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Yes, they were. And the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to oppose Kyoto during the Clinton administration.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

interesting article from the "liberal"press about global pollution
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...461828,00.html

dont think anyone could ever acuse Der Spiegal of having a right wing bias , this is in English

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I'm sure I heard on the radio news, that All Gores film was to be shown in all British Schools?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Child abuse.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

:D :D :hitting8: :hitting8: :surprise: :do-one: :D :D

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

And why in the world would these groups be intersted in global warming? You can name them, but the argument is nonsensical.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Front page of the Guardian today

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...005116,00.html

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I don't presume to speak for Steeljack....however, I think what he may be trying to point out to you is that many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists. The environmental movement is a tailor-made venue for them.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Gayle, I really hate to see you sucked in by this. Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant paradigm - and those who disagree are always fewer in number. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, (a term Billcat is very fond of). But this ensures that only papers in support of the paradigm appear in the literature and by public funding that gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom." It is worth noting that rebels who challenge prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right.

I remain a skeptic on the subject of man-made global warming because I see a fair amount of fraud and misinformation being bandied about.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Barb , Yep , you got it in one ,
I forgot to include in my list the paint throwing idiots from PETA , the folks who have made it nearly impossible for a child to see a traditional Circus .
:D :D :D

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Are you a supporter of animals circus acts steeljack? :(

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I remain a skeptic on the subject of man-made global warming because I see a fair amount of fraud and misinformation being bandied about.--- barb i couldn,t agree more.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Here are a few facts to mull over.
1. It has been reported by scientists that there is upwards of 200 billion tons of CO2 produced annually. 4% of which is by burning fossil fuels. The CO2 respired out annually by human beings and their livestock is far in excess of that ammount. The poulation has increased by over 3 billion since 1850. The question is where has it all this CO2 gone to?
2. Scientists will also tell you that the CO2 content of our atmosphere is something like 380 ppm. I can't envisage what that ammount is so I convert it to a fraction of a % which means 0.038%. Not much is it. It has been absorbed by the green plant life of this planet(99.99) to the point that there is almost nothing left. Since 1850 the increase annually has been less that 1ppm
3. We have been having climate change for thousands of years.
4. We have aways had a greenhouse effect. Its main component(98.0%) is water vapour. Not CO2
5. Don't worry too much about big icebergs or any sea ice. The water they displace is exactly the same as is contained in the berg. Water swells by 10% whe it's frozen. When it melts there is no difference in water level. According to the maritime institute of Adelaide, there has been no measurable rise in the sea levels for the last 80 years.
6 Whether or not the climate is changing because of human activity has not been proven other than by junk scientists. to keep the research funds going.
7. There are far too many other factors involved on this big dynamic planet of ours that may be responsible for present climes
8. You all learned at school about our atmosphere. 21% oxygen. 78% nitrogen. 1% other gasses. including CO2. They all have one thing in common. They are all invisible.
9. What could affect our weather is the airborne particulate matter that accompanies burning coal and oil. Also volanic erruptions, and massive bush fires. If we can learn to burn these fuels without the muck, you'd have nothing to complain about then. Would you?:D

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Indeed true Willow. In 1850 the % of CO2 was 250ppm(so the scientists say)= 0.025% and has increased by 130ppm to 380ppm or 0.038% over the last 156 years. That's a cumalitive increase of just less than 0.001 per year. Green plant life grows better and bigger the more CO2 there is. But we don't notice it at the moment because the increase is too small to observe. Its true we are stupidly demolishing our few rainforests but whats left of it still uses 99.99% co2 in the atmosphere. However I am not actually debating anything here Willow :D Just having a bit of a contribution to this subject and adding a few things that add to the overall big picture(and probably causing more debate than it should:D )

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Utter nonsense, terry! There is an extremely broad consensus among reputable scientists. You are either not paying attention, or deliberately dissembling.

Fact - there have been zero articles on the anti-global-warming side that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, while there have been hundreds that indicate global warming is real and with mankind as a substantial cause.

Most junk science never gets submitted for peer review.

Deos the media over-hype the issue? Sure, that's how they get an incurious public to listen. It should be pointed out that over-hype does not necessarily indicate that we should not pay attention and go on our merry way.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Quote:

The planet has always had warming and cooling cycles.

Exactly right bullseyebarb.

Quote:

It's utter hubris to think that we mere mortals can do anything to prevent that.

However no one is suggesting that we try to prevent the natural course of events. What we are suggesting is that earthly activities can and is exacerbating the situation by accelerating the warming part.

The green house gasses are not just CO2 but methane as well, not forgetting pfc’s that destroy the ozone layer. And as we all now the ozone layer plays a major part in keeping harmful UV rays out. Without the ozone layer the surface temperature of this planet would not allow any form of life to survive. It would be too HOT. Science has established that the ozone layer is not as thick as it was decades ago and at the poles there are large holes in the layer, thus more UV rays get through to the surface, making it warmer.

60 years ago there was no such thing as suncream yet apart from a few individuals no one got badly burned from being out in the bright sunshine. Today anyone can get burned unless they have sunblock on. And the factor value has increased during the last 10 years or so to compensate for the severity of sunlight.

I have no doubt that some of the information about global warming is spun to favour a particular view point on the issue. But that applies to both sides. The oil companies have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that global warming is not happening. So do the countries that rely on fossil fuels to provide their energy needs. Governments see the global warming issue as an excuse to raise taxes. The ‘greens’ also see the global warming issue as a means of promoting their view.

It is an established fact that more than half the rain forest has been hacked down to provide timber and to provide land for either grazing or farming. The bottom line here is that half the vegetation that absorbed CO2 is no longer able to because it is not there. A plant will only absorb a certain amount of CO2 in its lifetime and will not absorb more just because it is available. In any case many plants give up some of the absorbed CO2 at night.

Our depleted flora doesn’t absorb as much CO2 than in years gone by and man and volcanoes constantly pour more muck into the atmosphere. Now how many volcanoes became active during 2006 or indeed these last ten years? So the bulk of the pollution is down to man’s activities with fossil fuels and animals belching and farting.

The earth’s atmosphere is a vast but finite resource and even a vast resource will get choked up with polluting gasses in time. Try putting some water in a glass and then adding a few drops each day. Some of the water in the glass will evaporate but if you just put in one drop more than evaporates, then sooner or later the glass will overflow.

Any half competent schoolboy/girl will know that when you put an ice cube into a tumbler of water it raises the water level but when it melts the level does not increase further. The problem with polar ice is that it is mainly fresh water and this melt will disturb the seas eco system. Of course the snow and ice on mountain ranges is also melting and that water has to go somewhere – the sea and it is this water that will raise sea levels over time and not the polar sea ice. Just a reminder - the south pole ice and snow is mainly on land so that too will add to the sea levels when it melts.

But it’s not just the increase of sea levels that is the problem. Higher average tides will also affect the land and when it comes to spring and summer extra high tides the devastation would be catastrophic.

Just another small thought – the warmer the atmosphere the greater the water absorption into the atmosphere. The greater the absorption the more rain there is to fall. The more rain the more flooding rivers.

You anti-global warming brigade can believe what you like but time will tell. Fortunately me and people of my age group will not be around to feel the full effects but our offspring will and it is they who will bear the brunt of our folly.

I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

yep , why not , they are animals put on earth to serve us , I bet your one of these hand wringing types who think that Boxing should be banned as well ............:D :D :D

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

a phrase from the Koran comes to mind ....." La Illah Illalah "

:D :D :D

sure you know what it means , you know everything else ;) ;) ;)

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I haven’t a clue what it means steeljack – not a clue and quite frankly I don’t care.

If you want to communicate with someone it is always a good idea to use words that they understand.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Billcat;379498]Utter nonsense, terry! There is an extremely broad consensus among reputable scientists. You are either not paying attention, or deliberately dissembling.

Fact - there have been zero articles on the anti-global-warming side that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, while there have been hundreds that indicate global warming is real and with mankind as a substantial cause. (quote]

Obviously you missed my earlier post on peer review.

Why are man-made global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Are they afraid of additional information?

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1,000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1,000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why? Could it be that they were influenced by Michael Mann, (he of the famous "hockey stick" curve?") He had been quoted as saying, "we must get rid of the Medieval period." Well, it did muck up his nice little graph, so I can understand why he'd want to eliminate it.

It wasn't all that long ago that scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age. In July, 1974 Time Magazine published an article about this entitled "Another Ice Age?"

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. The great majority of these are growing not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ice mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. The interior of Greeland is gaining ice mass.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. Any human activity up there? I think not.

I could go on - but most of the U.S. is in the grips of bitter winter at the moment. Chicago is reporting the coldest weather in 11 years. Even Hawaii is having an unusual cold snap. A little warming would not be a bad thing right now.