An inconvenient truth

[BigToque]

The one part of the entire film that I thought was interesting was when he showed the relationship between the CO2 and temperature for the last 650,000 years from the ice.

Was this graph accurate? Or was it distorted to help make a point?

I was a firm believer that while we did contribute to a warming in temperature, I figured it was more of a case of a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

Does this data from 650,000 years (which does show many rises and falls in temperature, with an exponential increase of C02 in the last 50 years) debunk the idea that the rise in C02 and temperature is simply cyclical?

Obviously the movie has accomplished what it set out to do, since I'm asking some questions.

 

[thecrecarc]

read micheal cricton's "state of fear"

ull know all u need to

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
read micheal cricton's "state of fear"

ull know all u need to

Isn't that fiction?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
read micheal cricton's "state of fear"

ull know all u need to

those graphs in the book aren't scientific truths and it isn't known if they are accurate or completely BS'd.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: BigToque
The one part of the entire film that I thought was interesting was when he showed the relationship between the CO2 and temperature for the last 650,000 years from the ice.

Was this graph accurate? Or was it distorted to help make a point?

I was a firm believer that while we did contribute to a warming in temperature, I figured it was more of a case of a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

Does this data from 650,000 years (which does show many rises and falls in temperature, with an exponential increase of C02 in the last 50 years) debunk the idea that the rise in C02 and temperature is simply cyclical?

Obviously the movie has accomplished what it set out to do, since I'm asking some questions.

you can watch the weather channels special on July 16th for more answers.
the current trend is believed to be both man-made and a natural cycle, as its still the natural cycle but its being pushed. thats what I THINK i have gotten out of all the recent data. they go back and forth on the scientific data its hard to keep up.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Did the movie mention how the sun is actually burning hotter than it was, and is also having an effect on global warming?

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Did the movie mention how the sun is actually burning hotter than it was, and is also having an effect on global warming?

It didn't mention that and I have not heard that before. That sounds interesting though. Have any links?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Did the movie mention how the sun is actually burning hotter than it was, and is also having an effect on global warming?

It didn't mention that and I have not heard that before. That sounds interesting though. Have any links?

Brief link
Google "sun burning hotter" for more.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Did the movie mention how the sun is actually burning hotter than it was, and is also having an effect on global warming?

That is an inconvenient truth the liberals don't want to acknowledge. You get to pick and choose your facts concerning issues like this.....did you not receive the memo? It is amazing how much science has turned into agenda based science these days. It is frightening. People only want the truth if it supports their position and ignore facts that don't. A lot of science is no longer science.

 

[everman]

There's a lot of interesting information in the debate, little of which I'd consider outright "truth". Some good info and some bad, oversights, overemphasis, underemphasis, correlation without causation, etc...

 

[Acanthus]

If you wanna hear a really crazy theory, theres a book out there that says there is a natural cycle in the earth that works like this:

Ice builds up at both poles, an estimated amount equalling the volume of lake erie every year.

This weight builds up at each pole, until eventually the entire earth tilts, and the poles face the sun, melt, and the earth floods. (as well as incredibly catastriphic weather and tectonics that no life could survive)

Evidence:

-We know that places on (near)the equator once had enormous glaciers on them (mediterannean sea etc.. the book names dozens of places)

-We know that the magnetic poles of the earth have changed at least 7 times

-There is a "wobble" in the earths axis now, and its getting larger

Ill have to look up the book as i cant explain it nearly as well as the book can.

How ironic would it be if the people at greenpeace accomplished their goal and it DESTROYED mankind? 😱

Edit: Its called the hab theory, its a fiction book from the 70's (based on real science),