An Inconvenient Truth

[itcheroni]

The movie's obviously going to be pretty biased as well...

Especially in recent months, I've read a lot on why global warming isn't really happening. There are lots of reasons why this could be happening other than "global warming" and it's mostly just normal fluctuation in global temperature.

Remember that Ice Age we had a few thousand years ago? Did a whole bunch of SUVs and CFCs release emissions that broke down the ozone layer and started global warming back then too?

Not to turn this into a debate on the realities of global warming, but a real (non political propaganda) documentary should present both sides of the argument.


reality

There is a three part New Yorker story that eloquently explains the current process of climate change. It explains your ice age argument and everything. And it's a good read too. It's not boring or full of science jargon.

This is part one.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050425fa_fact3

I implore everyone to read it.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, the debate isn't whether climate change is occuring due to carbon emissions, it is whether it will cause irreversable damage to life on the planet.

And again, at the risk of sounding partonizing, I want everyone who thinks global warming is "debatable" to ask themselves why anyone would want to believe it is happening if all the evidence didn't support (I would use a stronger word than support if I could think of it) it. It is not a matter of religion, where I'm arguing something intangible. I gain nothing from it. Not monetarily. Not even spiritually or philosophically.

Please read the article. All three parts total about 80 pages. It is very thoroughly researched and covers every base, simply because most people do believe "global warming might not be happening."

Here is a quote from the article:

"Global warming is routinely described as a matter of scientific debate—a theory whose validity has yet to be demonstrated. This characterization, or at least a variant of it, is offered most significantly by the Bush Administration, which maintains that there is still insufficient scientific understanding to justify mandatory action. The symposium’s opening session lasted for more than nine hours. During that time, many speakers stressed the uncertainties that remain about global warming and its effects—on the thermohaline circulation, on the distribution of vegetation, on the survival of cold-loving species, on the frequency of forest fires. But this sort of questioning, which is so basic to scientific discourse, never extended to the relationship between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. The study’s executive summary stated, unequivocally, that human beings had become the “dominant factor” influencing the climate. During an afternoon coffee break, I caught up with Corell. “Let’s say that there’s three hundred people in this room,” he told me. “I don’t think you’ll find five who would say that global warming is just a natural process.”"

Again, that's just a quote. Don't read it and just be turned off by thinking it is biased. Listen to the facts and logic of the article and try to refute them. I guarantee you it will be impossible. Her coverage is so thorough that, after you read all three articles, I guarantee it will leave you without a doubt that this is a serious problem.

Don't just take my word for it. I won't be able to do it justice.

 

[itcheroni]

The trailer seems sensationalized.

What do you consider sensationalized? Are you implying that climate change not a large enough a problem to warrant such stressing? 50 years from now, we will definitely, irrefutably see the effects of global warming. And by then, it will definitely be too late. I'll quickly summarize a few points from the article I mentioned above.

Climate change takes about 20-30 years to take effect. (I may get a few things wrong because I read the article a year ago) So whatever changes we feel now are from the early 80s, meaning, we won't know the damage being done now for another 20 or so years.

Ice and snow are the best reflecters of heat and sunlight. Water is one of the best absorbers. Take a look at Iceland. They have families that measure the icebergs. One specific one in the article, one of the largest icebergs in the world, is melting. It has stayed the same size for about 1,000,000 years. At the rate it has been melting, it will be gone in 200 years.

Just a few factors out of many. Think of it as a huge rock on top of a hill. Some don't think it's moving. Some do. You can stop it right now with a certain amount of effort. But then you do see it's moving, but it's going to take a lot more effort now that it's noticeable. And it just gets harder and harder to do anything about it. It's just like that, except there's no doubt amongst anyone who knows how to measure it that it's moving.

Climate change has happened before. Yes, it could happen without human intervention, although this time without a doubt IS due to human intervention. And what happened those other times? Mass extinction.

If anything, the trailor is made an understatement.

 

[Counterfit]

"The scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming"

For a few thousand years, the scientific consensus was that the Sun, moon, stars, and the entire universe revolved around the Earth.

 

[itcheroni]

"The scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming"

For a few thousand years, the scientific consensus was that the Sun, moon, stars, and the entire universe revolved around the Earth.

So if the scientific community from a thousand years ago erred, any argument now by today's geologists is automatically negated? Not even worth hearing? Ignorance really is bliss.

We can see why a geocentric model was wrong. Can you explain how they're wrong in regards to climate change?

 

[obeygiant]

The future will be a really interesting place. Invest in Air Conditioning.

 

[itcheroni]

"The scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming"

For a few thousand years, the scientific consensus was that the Sun, moon, stars, and the entire universe revolved around the Earth.

Instead of bringing up a completely unrelated topic, why not point out something I may be unaware of regarding climate change. Because we do not yet feel it, it must not be happeneing? We live in a very temperate place. The places climate change will be most noticeable first is in the most extreme climates.

Okay, and what if the scientists are completely wrong and we took action. We'll simply have a cleaner planet. But what if they're right and we take no action. A large part of the planet where people live, and it just happens to be the poorest on the planet that live in the hottest and coldest areas, will become uninhabitable. And the thing is, like I said before, it's the momentum we have to be worried about. There are a lot of unreleased carbons in permafrost....you know what, f*** it.

The same people who say "who cares?" because they don't want to work their brains into learning all the facets of something that, in all seriousness, could change the planet immensely will be the same people who cries out, "why didn't somebody do something about it?" when the effects truly become apparent.

 

[Abstract]

The trailer seems sensationalized.

They all are, or nobody would see the movie. It's not a sign of a bad movie. This is marketing.

The movie's obviously going to be pretty biased as well...

Especially in recent months, I've read a lot on why global warming isn't really happening. There are lots of reasons why this could be happening other than "global warming" and it's mostly just normal fluctuation in global temperature.

Remember that Ice Age we had a few thousand years ago? Did a whole bunch of SUVs and CFCs release emissions that broke down the ozone layer and started global warming back then too?

So if CFCs and man-made pollution from burning god knows what doesn't contribute to global warming, are you saying it's not beneficial to decrease our level of pollution anyway? I mean, pollution can't be GOOD for the Earth or for us. There are more reasons than just global warming to decrease our pollution output.

Here is a quote from the article:

"(snip).....This characterization, or at least a variant of it, is offered most significantly by the Bush Administration, which maintains that there is still insufficient scientific understanding to justify mandatory action....
......During that time, many speakers stressed the uncertainties that remain about global warming and its effects—on the thermohaline circulation, on the distribution of vegetation, on the survival of cold-loving species, on the frequency of forest fires......"

And this is the type of thinking I don't like. I say we should use our heads and our gut on this one........creating large amounts of pollution can't possibly be good for us, so whether it directly causes global warming, or only contributes to it a little (or even a lot), we should still try and be more "green." There's no harm, and whether there's proof or not, less pollution can only be good for us and the Earth. All that pollution in our water and air, and all that chopping down of trees certainly can't be GOOD for humans or any other living things. I have no scientific proof that pollution is a global environmental threat, but again, use your common sense.

 

[jadekitty24]

The only thing I have to say is living in CT, when I was a child we had some snowy winters. It was always cold and it snowed a lot. Every year that goes by the winters seem to be getting warmer and warmer, and we see less snow storms than we did 10-20 years ago. Just my own observation on the "global warming" issue.

 

[MIDI_EVIL]

This should be online, televised, distributed for free!

I hope they''ve not used our global state to make a blockbuster.

Please tell me that's not true!

Rich.

 

[FocusAndEarnIt]

This should be online, televised, distributed for free!

I hope they''ve not used our global state to make a blockbuster.

Please tell me that's not true!

Rich.

Your right - but think of all the money that went into the making of this video? It's gotta be taken from somewhere...

 

[njmac]

...So if CFCs and man-made pollution from burning god knows what doesn't contribute to global warming, are you saying it's not beneficial to decrease our level of pollution anyway? I mean, pollution can't be GOOD for the Earth or for us. There are more reasons than just global warming to decrease our pollution output.
...

it's not GOOD for the Earth but it is GOOD for big business.

If big businesses had to operate in an environmentally friendly way, they would collectively lose billions. That is why the Republicans don't want to force the issue on their political, big business allies.

 

[eva01]

The only thing I have to say is living in CT, when I was a child we had some snowy winters. It was always cold and it snowed a lot. Every year that goes by the winters seem to be getting warmer and warmer, and we see less snow storms than we did 10-20 years ago. Just my own observation on the "global warming" issue.

I see more snow these days than before. Hell it was snowing in April first time that has happened since 1997. Like last years wonderful two blizzards in a row of 2-3 feet of snow that was wonderful.

I also see less Hurricanes hitting my area than before and not nearly as many thunderstorms.

 

[Abstract]

Nah, I'm with jadekitty on this one. I remember getting a LOT more snow in the 1980s than we do now. You'd be lucky to be able to build a snowman now, let alone an entire fort with a room, small seats, and a few windows (yeah, I did that ). I feel sorry for the kids who live in a cold place like Toronto and don't get much snow. How much further north do you have to go to get decent snow nowadays?

 

[Counterfit]

So if the scientific community from a thousand years ago erred, any argument now by today's geologists is automatically negated? Not even worth hearing? Ignorance really is bliss.

First of all, I'm insulted that you called me ignorant. Second, I merely tried to make the point that scientific consensus means jack ****. And third, why did your reply to my post twice?

And this is the type of thinking I don't like. I say we should use our heads and our gut on this one........creating large amounts of pollution can't possibly be good for us, so whether it directly causes global warming, or only contributes to it a little (or even a lot), we should still try and be more "green." There's no harm, and whether there's proof or not, less pollution can only be good for us and the Earth. All that pollution in our water and air, and all that chopping down of trees certainly can't be GOOD for humans or any other living things. I have no scientific proof that pollution is a global environmental threat, but again, use your common sense.

I'm with you on this one. We should cut down whatever emissions we can when possible. There's stuff being pumped out now that will affect us next week, next month, next year. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are causing acidic rain, snow, and fog, and are killing wildlife, and eroding statues and buildings. There are particulates being released daily that contribute to smog and respiratory conditions. Carbon dioxide is not the only pollutant being released, but we should take steps to reduce it all.

 

[itcheroni]

First of all, I'm insulted that you called me ignorant.

I apologize for name calling. I lost my cool. This subject triggers a nerve with me. Even if you don't think much of scientific consensus, you should at least look at their reasoning and evidence. It drives me crazy when peope say "there's no proof" and such because I've never heard that argument from anyone other than politicians.

Let me ask you a question, in all seriousness, let's say everything from the trailor is definitely going to happen. What sort of evidence would it take to convince people?

 

[fitinferno]

This should be online, televised, distributed for free!

I hope they''ve not used our global state to make a blockbuster.

Please tell me that's not true!

Rich.

It'd be great if it were free, but since they did pay money to make it, I suppose that can't be so. Still, they should give a discount or something to someone who sees something that has relative importance like this versus something inane. Sensationalising it is a method to sell it, I suppose.

It's nice that it makes my future Master's degree and job look super cool

And, ooh, I really like the soundtrack. I would buy that!

 

[pdpfilms]

My god, some people here have outrageous views. I'm not pointing fingers... just... wow.

And I won't fuel the fire by stating my stand.... To me, the movie looks interesting. If only to see if it's just going to be Gore's big bang to get into office.

 

[Counterfit]

Let me ask you a question, in all seriousness, let's say everything from the trailor is definitely going to happen. What sort of evidence would it take to convince people?

To convince me or the hard-core skeptics? If it was shown to me that a reduction in our CO2 emissions resulted in a lowered average worldwide temperature in the appropriate timeframe, I would certainly believe that. Of course, there's more to it than just factories, power plants, and cars. Also, I doubt it would be possible to make a significant-enough reduction in CO2 emissions. That said, we should be trying to reduce all pollution, thermal included (which is probably the hardest.)

 

[itcheroni]

To convince me or the hard-core skeptics? If it was shown to me that a reduction in our CO2 emissions resulted in a lowered average worldwide temperature in the appropriate timeframe, I would certainly believe that. Of course, there's more to it than just factories, power plants, and cars. Also, I doubt it would be possible to make a significant-enough reduction in CO2 emissions. That said, we should be trying to reduce all pollution, thermal included (which is probably the hardest.)

That's one of the problems. If somehow we did the impossible and reduced our carbon emissions to zero, it still takes about 20 years before the damage we are doing now is fully realized in terms of temperature. There are also many other things being set in motion, like ice turning to water (one of the best reflectors of the sun's heat and one of the best absorbers), that would be difficult to stop. And the amount of time it would take to "dissipate" would be 100,000 or 1,000,000 years (I forget the figure).

 

[Abstract]

To convince me or the hard-core skeptics? If it was shown to me that a reduction in our CO2 emissions resulted in a lowered average worldwide temperature in the appropriate timeframe, I would certainly believe that.

I don't know why you said you agreed with me and then posted something like this.

My point was that even without scientific evidence or proof, one can safely come to the conclusion that dumping dangerous chemicals into our water, cutting down the rainforest so that there won't be any remaining in 20-40 years, creating more air pollution, and dumping our trash all over the Earth faster than it can decay is NOT good for you, or any living thing. That's impossible. It's impossible that all of this will not negatively affect every living thing on Earth, proof be damned.

Why do so many people think, "Well I'll wait until I see some scientific evidence before drawing a conclusion." Use your head --- polluting can't be good for you. Studies concerning the environment takes decades upon decades, and if you're seeing the negative effects, it means you're already too late and that the negative impact has already started 20-30 years earlier. Anyone who wants to wait until it's too late is an idiot, plain and simple.

PS: I'm a scientist, and even I am saying "Don't wait for the evidence." Whether there's enough evidence to prove that what we do is causing global warming is irrelevent. It's better to assume it does, and it's better to draw the conclusion now rather than waiting for the evidence that'll take 50 years to collect.

 

[blackfox]

I saw an interesting episode of NOVA today, discussing what has been called "Global Dimming".

Briefly stated, it is caused by visible, non-greenhouse gas emissions, such as soot and sulphur. These particles accumulate in the atmosphere and create clouds that reflect much more sunlight back to space. This cools the earth.

This has been suggested to alter the monsoon cycle, by not allowing certain Ocean waters to warm sufficiently to move the Rain belt in normal ways.

More importantly, it has been masking the true extent of global warming. Global Dimming has subtracted half of the temperature rise we have seen, meaning we have actually warmed almost 2ºC.

More troubling is that since most Advanced nations that produce these pollutants are cutting down on their production, while not curbing greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in more pronounced warming without any cooling effect.

It is projected that we will heat up much more quickly than many climatic reports suggest, and that by 2100, the world temperature could rise by as much as 25ºF.

This would be acheived by a chain reaction of warming temperatures, warming oceans which would release massive stores of frozen methane on the Ocean floors, which are much more plentiful and potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Sea level would rise 25M (80ft). Trees and most vegetation would die, unable to withstand such a rapid climatic change. Arable land would turn to desert. A large % of the Eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast would be underwater, not to mention the rest of the world.

Scary stuff.

I also don't really consider NOVA to be particularily sensationalistic either.

 

[MarkCollette]

God.

He really is going to run for president again.

Can you name a better Democrat candidate?

 

[MarkCollette]

I saw an interesting episode of NOVA today, discussing what has been called "Global Dimming".

Briefly stated, it is caused by visible, non-greenhouse gas emissions, such as soot and sulphur. These particles accumulate in the atmosphere and create clouds that reflect much more sunlight back to space. This cools the earth.

Luckily, after Peak Oil, we'll all be driving sooty coal burning cars, so things will all work out in the end. Except for us all getting cancer. But at least it won't be skin cancer.

 

[parrothead]

PS: I'm a scientist, and even I am saying "Don't wait for the evidence." Whether there's enough evidence to prove that what we do is causing global warming is irrelevent. It's better to assume it does, and it's better to draw the conclusion now rather than waiting for the evidence that'll take 50 years to collect.

Here here! I am a marine biologist and I have a good example of this. For years fisheries biologists kept saying that the New England Cod were being overfished. Proponents of fishing kept saying show us definitive proof and we will slow down. Well no proof was found and now the cod are almost extinct. The fishery is totally shut down and all those fishermen are now flipping burgers.

Large scale problems are like this. It is almost impossible to find definitive proof. But if it is known that pollution kills, or CO2 adds to the greenhouse effect shouldn't that be enough? Let's say global warming isn't happening because of human activity. If we keep dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, it WILL start happening eventually, so why not do something now? However, how does one who doesn't believe in global warming explain the melting of Artic ice, shrinking of glaciers, mass bleaching of coral reefs (because of high water temps), and 100 degree (40+c) in mid April in Texas?

 

[fitinferno]

Large scale problems are like this. It is almost impossible to find definitive proof. But if it is known that pollution kills, or CO2 adds to the greenhouse effect shouldn't that be enough? Let's say global warming isn't happening because of human activity. If we keep dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, it WILL start happening eventually, so why not do something now? However, how does one who doesn't believe in global warming explain the melting of Artic ice, shrinking of glaciers, mass bleaching of coral reefs (because of high water temps), and 100 degree (40+c) in mid April in Texas?

I saw an article that claims the disbelievers explain all of what you mentioned by natural cycles of solar activity: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

True/not true? Either way, I agree, pollution is no good so evidence isn't necesssary for action against it.