An Inconvenient Truth

[#juan]

I just watched Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". It is likely the best explanation of global warming out there. Gore spends the one hour and forty minutes going over all the causes and evidence for human responsibility for global warming.

I was a firm believer in global warming before I saw this movie but I think everyone should see it. Gore sets forth a calm, reasonable, logical, description of what global warming is and why it is happening.

One question....How did stupid Bush beat Al Gore for president?

 

[jimmoyer]

No doubt the human presence pollutes.

But is the cycles of the Sun more responsible ?

Is the cycle of the molten core of earth more responsible ?

I don't care if guys like Gore can't really remove those above possibilities. Guys like Gore exhibit
the tyrannical pressure on any questions on the source of global warming, similar to the Church
squelching questions on what is the center of the universe.


All I care is that we somehow marry business with conservation in an intelligent alliance.

 

[feronia]

One question....How did stupid Bush beat Al Gore for president?

He didn't. Jeb can't count.

 

[#juan]

No doubt the human presence pollutes.

But is the cycles of the Sun more responsible ?

Is the cycle of the molten core of earth more responsible ?

I don't care if guys like Gore can't really remove those above possibilities. Guys like Gore exhibit
the tyrannical pressure on any questions on the source of global warming, similar to the Church
squelching questions on what is the center of the universe.


All I care is that we somehow marry business with conservation in an intelligent alliance.

Jim, there is so much evidence for human caused global warming that to think otherwise is tantamount to stuffing one's head in a deep hole in the sand. My evidence doesn't come from that movie but as an engineer, I can recognise that there is evidence, sound evidence. Gore is far from tyranical. The information is presented calmly aqnd logically.

Your term, "guys like Gore", indicates that you have already made up your mind without the evidence and consider the whole topic to be political. Global warming does not respect any political boundaries. It is happening. We can either do something about it, or sit and watch the consequences.

 

[jimmoyer]

Ruled Out Everything Else

Jim, there is so much evidence for human caused global warming that to think otherwise is tantamount to stuffing one's head in a deep hole in the sand. My evidence doesn't come from that movie but as an engineer, I can recognise that there is evidence, sound evidence. Gore is far from tyranical. The information is presented calmly aqnd logically.

Your term, "guys like Gore", indicates that you have already made up your mind without the evidence and consider the whole topic to be political. Global warming does not respect any political boundaries. It is happening. We can either do something about it, or sit and watch the consequences.
------------------------------------------------#juan-------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt global warming is occurring.

And I do think we should have a technological alliance between business investors and environmentalists
to forge green products, a green future. It would be smart.

And contrary to the capitalists, sometimes companies are slower than the people to "get it"

But omigod the heretics even in the science community who wonder if we
have yet developed the metrics to rule out the cycles of the sun and cycles of the earth molten core ??

 

[#juan]

But omigod the heretics even in the science community who wonder if we
have yet developed the metrics to rule out the cycles of the sun and cycles of the earth molten core ??

There are ways to discover the carbon dioxide content in the air and even what the mean temperatures were over the last 60,000 years or so. Over the last fifty years the carbon dioxide levels and the temperatures have gone up to far exceed anything we've seen during that time. The Earth's molten core has been there for far longer than fity years. There is no reason to think that the increased carbon dioxide levels and the increased temperatures are in any way related to the Earth's core. The cycles of the sun occur over about twenty four thousand years. We have seen, over the time period of our evidence, at least two cycles of the sun, without seeing the temperature rise that we are seeing right now.

 

[CDNBear]

I couldn't dissagree more, with your review of the movie. It like Gore, lacked substance. Most of all, it, as is the Kyoto accord, based on flawed computer analysis, and project scales. More scientists are leaning away from, what is now being called the "Junk Science", that helped develop the accord in the first place. And that is where Gore got his stats.

Don't get me wrong, I am more then well aware of the impact of humans on the environment. I just fail to see the value in doomsday theories and flawed computer programs, to justify crippling western economy, while allowing some of the worlds worst polluters to keep on spewing, because they are "Developing" Nations.

I think this movie was more politically motivated, then environmently.

 

[gc]

My only criticism of this movie is that Al Gore should have spent more time talking about global warming and less time talking about Al Gore. It was almost a biography of the guy, which makes me think there was some political motivation...but I could be wrong. If he doesn't run in 2008 then maybe there isn't much motivation there...

while allowing some of the worlds worst polluters to keep on spewing, because they are "Developing" Nations.

In terms of CO2, I think those developing nations are contributing a lot less CO2 than developed nations, so I don't understand your argument.

 

[CDNBear]

My only criticism of this movie is that Al Gore should have spent more time talking about global warming and less time talking about Al Gore. It was almost a biography of the guy, which makes me think there was some political motivation...but I could be wrong. If he doesn't run in 2008 then maybe there isn't much motivation there...



In terms of CO2, I think those developing nations are contributing a lot less CO2 than developed nations, so I don't understand your argument.

I just went looking for the numbers, but I couldn't find the news paper I was readingt the other day, that had listed the %'s of each nations CO2 out put. But I concuer, they do emmit lower numbers. The US is the largest, I believe Canada was somewhere in the 5 to 10% range, and the "Developing" Nations were around the same as that.

My argument is, whether or not a Nation is a "Developing" Nation or not, should be irrelevent. If protecting the econmomy, superceeds the environment for a "Developing" Nation, then not only is that exactly why we should and have opted out of the Kyoto Accord, but it leaves these Nations open to exploitation by huge multinational companies. Even worse is, they can sell the credits they have to large Nations. The whole accord was and is a sham in my opinion. A piece of feel good doctrine, for the political elite to look good, while smiling as they signed it infront of the cameras.

 

[#juan]

I couldn't dissagree more, with your review of the movie. It like Gore, lacked substance. Most of all, it, as is the Kyoto accord, based on flawed computer analysis, and project scales. More scientists are leaning away from, what is now being called the "Junk Science", that helped develop the accord in the first place. And that is where Gore got his stats.

Don't get me wrong, I am more then well aware of the impact of humans on the environment. I just fail to see the value in doomsday theories and flawed computer programs, to justify crippling western economy, while allowing some of the worlds worst polluters to keep on spewing, because they are "Developing" Nations.

I think this movie was more politically motivated, then environmently.

If you were as abreast of this topic as you portray yourself to be, you would know what global warming is and what is causing it. "Junk science"? "Junk science", is what is used by laymen to critisize real scientists--------as in the latest whitehouse hand out on the subject. Oilmen don't like to even talk about global warming-----with good reason.

Only two developed countries didn't sign on to Kyoto, the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gasses, (USA) and Australia. Oh, and now Canada, under Harper? American big business don't want to have their hands tied on environmental issues when they have an ignorant, crooked, government to shield them.

Are all the 180 or so countries that did sign onto Kyoto, and ten thousand scientists wrong? I don't think so.

At some point we have to suffer the consequences of our actions and that day will come. This is not "doomsday" thinking because global warming can be controlled.....if we don't wait too long. It's only our children, and their children who will really suffer isn't it? So why worry?

This is like the radio report that a car was racing down the freeway against the traffic. Bush, while driving, heard the report and said, "A car? There are hundreds...

 

[MikeyDB]

#juan

My first interest in the global warming phenomenon started back in the sixties. I've reviewed a great many peer reviewed reports prognostications and commentary. Like any great lie the damage has to be so severe and so large that no amount of embedded reporting from Exxon and the EPA can stand against it.

Similar to not finding the justifiable reason for killing and destroying certain nations....

 

[gc]

My argument is, whether or not a Nation is a "Developing" Nation or not, should be irrelevent. If protecting the econmomy, superceeds the environment for a "Developing" Nation, then not only is that exactly why we should and have opted out of the Kyoto Accord, but it leaves these Nations open to exploitation by huge multinational companies. Even worse is, they can sell the credits they have to large Nations. The whole accord was and is a sham in my opinion. A piece of feel good doctrine, for the political elite to look good, while smiling as they signed it infront of the cameras.

The Kyoto Accord may not be perfect, but...

I believe the goal of the Kyoto accord is for countries to reduce their emissions below 1990 levels. Now, back in 1990, we have "first world" countries emitting a certain amount of carbon dioxide per capita, while "developing" nations were emitting much less carbon dioxide per capita. So if we cap emissions at those levels, we are saying that first world countries are still allowed to emit a relatively high amount of carbon dioxide per capita, while developing nations are only allowed to emit a smaller amount of carbon dioxide per capita. Are people in first world countries somehow entitled to pollute more than people living in developing countires?

True, a country doesn't necessarily have to reduce emissions because it can purchase credits, but this still provides some motivation for a government to reduce emissions. If you have to pay money to emit more carbon dioxide that is probably going to motivate the government (& the people) to reduce emissions so they don't have to pay as much money. Meanwhile, countries below targets will try to reduce emissions as much as possible so that they can sell more credits. So, overall, there is going to be a decrease in emissions since money is a pretty powerful motivator.

 

[Johnny Utah]

An Inconevnient Truth was only about two things and only two things which wasn't Global Warming. It was about the 2000 Election and Bush bashing..
Al Gore is such a great man isn't he? Afterall he created the Internet..

Global Warming is real , but it's more of a natural cycle the Earth goes through rather than what the Enviro Freaks like Al Gore say because like every other serious issue in the World Global Warming was Hijacked by the Left's Enviro Freaks for their own agenda such as the Left's Hollywood stars who bitch and moan about Global Warming giving the impression driving a Hybrid like a Lefty Hollywood halfwit can save the Earth too while the reality is the Lefty Hollywood Halfwits only drive the Hybrids for show like the rest of the Smug Lefty Enviro Freaks..

Than there's the Terrorism groups who also claim their fighting for the Enviroment like ELF(Earth Liberation Front) who use Terrorist tactics for their agendas..

 

[Curiosity]

LOL - it amazes me how many people fall for AlGore.... the uber LOSER.

It explains why we as consumers, fall for every line delivered by guys with no conscience... answering all the unanswered questions in a slick and sleazy way.... telling us what we want to hear......until we get to the truth on our own... that there are no answers.

This particular creep is a door-to-door salesman of self-promotion - nothing more....a herder of people.

The Inconvenient Truth about AlGore: He is a fabricator.

 

[Curiosity]

Oh - another Scientific Theorum

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061023_rays_warming.html

Keep on trying fellas - you'll get those humans and their garbage linked soon.... Think of the adoration of the leaders of our world when we can finally, ultimately blame man.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Cosmic Rays Linked to Global Warming
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]posted: 23 October 2006
06:26 am ET[/FONT]


Earth's recent warming trend might in part be due to a lack of starlight reaching our planet, a new study suggests. But other scientists are not so sure.


According to a theory proposed a decade ago, when a star explodes far away in the Milky Way, cosmic rays—high-speed atomic particles—go through the Earth’s atmosphere and produce ions and free electrons.

The released electrons act as catalysts and accelerate the formation of small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules, the building blocks of clouds. Therefore, cosmic rays would increase cloud cover on Earth, reflecting sunlight and keeping the planet relatively cool.


However, because the Sun’s magnetic field—which shields the Earth from these rays—doubled in intensity during the last century, there has been a reduction in cloudiness, a possible contributor to Earth’s warming.

Scientists at the Danish National Space Center mimicked chemistry of the lower atmosphere in a large reaction chamber. They created a mixture that contained gasses at realistic concentrations and used an ultraviolet lamp to act as the Sun.


Microscopic droplets, precursor to clouds, started floating in the air of the reaction chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” said team leader Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. “This is a completely new result within climate science.”


The results however, may not transfer to natural conditions outside the controlled laboratory environment.

“Studies that have evaluated the claims that global cloud cover is related to changes in cosmic rays find that if you re-examine this matter outside of the brief period which they used, the relationship falls apart,” said Raymond Bradley director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts. Bradley was not involved with the study.


The researchers agree that further study is needed to estimate the contribution of this mechanism to the recent warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.


This work does not mean that there is no human influence on climate, Svensmark told LiveScience. “But it might be necessary to revaluate the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.”


The study was detailed online this month in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

 

[#juan]

Curiosity

You are typing fairy tales. Cosmic rays? Not pixie dust?

 

[CDNBear]

Curiosity

You are typing fairy tales. Cosmic rays? Not pixie dust?

Juan, I thought if anybody would be a sceptic of the "Global warming" craze, it would be you.

Several of the scientists that developed the software used in th eprojection models, have since seen the errors and said so. It is the "doomsday'ers" that cling to it, for their 15 minutes of fame.

So many legitamate scientists have bailed on the protocol, because of it flawed arguement. It is essentially a losing battle.

I agree that global warming is an issue, and it needs to be addressed seriously and now. But to follow the ramblings of a program, that has been proven wrong is assinine. To exempt some countries is wrong, to allow some countries to seel credits is wrong. To cripple or put industry in serious jeapordy is wrong.

Hey I want industry to clean itself up, I want car makers to make cars that run on water(Hey tinhatters, we have a thread to address that in, stay away from here, lol). But lets get real, you drive, you eat, you buy, you are a part of the problem and an enabler like us all. Something should be done, but the Kyoto Protocol, ain't it.

 

[Curiosity]

Well I am a protector of the environment as much as I can be on my own. How many of you can say you fill up your gas tank once a month. I can - I do - and often it is five weeks or more before I give the car a refill.

I recycle, I reuse, I do everything possible not to take from mother earth that I cannot replace if it is humanly possible. I rarely use all of the gizmo electrical appliances all our kitchens are outfitted with because I am a solo inhabitant and can do much without them. Californians are battered constantly about environmental matters - mostly because of their contribution to the horrible commuting they do. So
in submission - we work at what we can in other ways to prevent turning this planet into a garbage dump.

But.... I will wait until some valid authenticated studies are delivered with which mankind can agree upon and do something about..... other than feeling guilty and blaming "big biz"....finger pointing never cleaned up anything. Being accused by the occasional personality who surfaces on the crest of another best seller or movie to promote doesn't do it either. And I don't hafta like Al Bore!

 

[#juan]

Juan, I thought if anybody would be a sceptic of the "Global warming" craze, it would be you.

Several of the scientists that developed the software used in th eprojection models, have since seen the errors and said so. It is the "doomsday'ers" that cling to it, for their 15 minutes of fame.

So many legitamate scientists have bailed on the protocol, because of it flawed arguement. It is essentially a losing battle.

I agree that global warming is an issue, and it needs to be addressed seriously and now. But to follow the ramblings of a program, that has been proven wrong is assinine. To exempt some countries is wrong, to allow some countries to seel credits is wrong. To cripple or put industry in serious jeapordy is wrong.

Hey I want industry to clean itself up, I want car makers to make cars that run on water(Hey tinhatters, we have a thread to address that in, stay away from here, lol). But lets get real, you drive, you eat, you buy, you are a part of the problem and an enabler like us all. Something should be done, but the Kyoto Protocol, ain't it.

Global warming is probably one of the most serious issues we face today. I didn't get my information from Gore's movie but the information that Gore presented is sound.

We know about the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We know that the levels of carbon dioxide and mean temperatures on this planet have been rising since the industrial revolution. The increased temperatures have become more dramatic over the last fifty years. We know that every year for more than the last dozen years has been the warmest on record. We can see the recession of the glaciers on every continent. We can see that polar bears have to swim many miles to get to the ice pack where their food is, and that these bears are dying. We can easily prove that global warming is happening.

A huge majority of the meteorologists in the world are very concerned about global warming. Kyoto is not perfect by any stretch but a hundred and eighty countries signed on to it. At the very least, it is a place to start.

I don't care about Al Gore, but I can't argue with his facts. This issue should not be passed off as a political fad. Global warming poses a serious threat to our children, and our children's children, and their children.

 

[jimmoyer]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the measurable fact of global warming.

Nor is anyone arguing against the case of human pollution.

Nor is anyone against promoting green technology, a perfect marriage between business and environment.

But the grand millenium of time and geological epochs do indicate global warming in the past
without a human presence, and it may just be that we ants are that insignificant in the face
of these huge cycles.

I think those who are tyrannical on this subject fear that if the cause is not from humans none of us
will care enough about this subject ?