An Inconvenient Truth

[aidanjm]

To say this film is devastating would be an understatement. I went in with a skeptical yet open-minded attitude - walked out feeling like I'd been run over with a steamroller.

Al Gore actually does a great job presenting the relevant facts and figures. He isn't dull and boring - perhaps because he is so passionate about the issues. The evidence is strongly convincing - actually it seems pretty much incontrovertible.

Al Gore deals with a side issue, which is the way powerful minority interests - wealthy individuals and corporations within or allied with the fossil fuel industry, mostly - have managed to present man-made global warming to the public as a dubious, unsupported theory open to easy challenge. It seems that their propaganda campaign has been effective:

"Perhaps the most amazing statistic in An Inconvenient Truth is that of 900-plus peer-reviewed studies in recognized journals, not one has challenged the idea of global warming, whereas more than 53 percent of articles in the mainstream media have presented it as a theory or been careful to include the demurrals of a tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for scientists or politicians. In the course of Gore?s lecture tour comes the unsurprising news that Bush aide Philip Cooney routinely red-penciled the conclusions of impartial government scientists; when exposed, he resigned and took a job with ExxonMobil.

Review

What is surprising is that the negative effects of global warming are already being felt around the world with devastating consequences. The images of parts of the world (huge glaciers, ice shelves, permafrost) just melting away are sombre.

Everyone should see this film. Go see it, decide for yourself.


official web site

edit: Al Gore makes the obligatory few jokes about his lost presidential bid and the current administration, but mainly keeps it fairly non-partisan.

 

[miketheidiot]

I like your signature.


I have yet to see this, and would like to. Not sure its in the theators here though, i would have to drive or DL to see it.

 

[Enig101]

As someone who follows science on a regular basis I was already aware that "global warming is real, we are causing it, and the .... is about to hit the fan", but I am still interested to see the film. Thanks for your impressions, I'll have to find out if I can see it somewhere.

 

[syzygy]

i saw the film. found the film rather persuausive. but being a layman i didn't know where
to begin to pick apart the claims and supposed facts being presented.

afterwards, the scientific concensus claimed by gore is far from true. and, yes, there was a scientific rebuttal to many of the points made in the film.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: syzygy
afterwards, the scientific concensus claimed by gore is far from true. and, yes, there was a scientific rebuttal to many of the points made in the film.

How can you rebutt something that is here - now - before our eyes?

"Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.
Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline."

New Scientist


this is really the most pressing issue of our times. God forbid that Greenland melts away - with a 20 foot elevation in the sea level you are looking at hundreds of millions of displaced people. The global community can't even handle a refugee crisis of 100,000 people, let alone 100 million people. The disease and death will be astronomical.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
God forbid that Greenland melts away - with a 20 foot elevation in the sea level you are looking at hundreds of millions of displaced people.

The global community can't even handle a refugee crisis of 100,000 people, let alone 100 million people. The disease and death will be astronomical.

Oh come on, where's your Republican spirit of "Bring it On"?

 

[LegendKiller]

If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet? What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

Now, I am sure people are saying "Wow, what a right wing nutjob". Sorry, but that won't work. I am firmly for cutting greenhouse gasses and wasteful stuff like SUVs. Going for alt-energy and very pro-nuclear. Because I acknowledge that what we are doing *IS* bad and we shouldn't be doing it. I just disagree on the size of the impact we are having.

 

[StageLeft]

The link people fail to make is that, yes global warming is inevitably occuring and, no, we're not the only ones responsible for it. The simpletons see that it's happening and assume it's all because of influence by humanity, but that's not the case. It's all but impossible to say what impact the human race is having on it. Although most areas are getting warmer, some are cooler. In any case, is it really bad to raise the temp by a degree? For every hurricane supposedly started by it there may be a crop-killing frost that is removed. More than that, what meangingful steps can humanity truly take to reverse any influence they are having? If we're really doing this, Kyoto doesn't even begin to counter the effects of our profligacy. Mankind is along for the ride and what will happen will happen. We don't know what impact we've had and even if we did, too few of us have the will to change it. In a world where most people can't even take care of their own lives (financial problems, morbid ubiquitous obesity), it's comical to think that as a group we could get together and actually make a meaningful reparative act for the planet.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet? What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

Now, I am sure people are saying "Wow, what a right wing nutjob". Sorry, but that won't work. I am firmly for cutting greenhouse gasses and wasteful stuff like SUVs. Going for alt-energy and very pro-nuclear. Because I acknowledge that what we are doing *IS* bad and we shouldn't be doing it. I just disagree on the size of the impact we are having.

And you base your opinion on what?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet? What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

Now, I am sure people are saying "Wow, what a right wing nutjob". Sorry, but that won't work. I am firmly for cutting greenhouse gasses and wasteful stuff like SUVs. Going for alt-energy and very pro-nuclear. Because I acknowledge that what we are doing *IS* bad and we shouldn't be doing it. I just disagree on the size of the impact we are having.

And you base your opinion on what?

He's right. The only thing we can say for sure is that global warming is happening. Some deny that, but it is happening. It's easy: just look at temperature data over a lot of areas over a long period of time. Now, identifying what caused that has not been done. Far too much faith is granted to science. We have seen more money thrown into cancer research than global warming studying. Cancer is in a controlled environment and the planet is not and yet the cure for cancer continues to elude our grasp. Weather forecasters can't even tell me what the weather will be in Alabama in two weeks, or even with much confidence what it will be in two days and yet people seem to think scientists can accurately model the environment on a global scale. It's funny, if not sad.

 

[MadRat]

And in thirty years when Global Cooling is all the rage some of us will still be around to whisper "dumbass" in the background...

*not directed at any recent posts*

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Q]And you base your opinion on what?

It's pretty simple.


1. Show me evidence that ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet.

2. Show me evidence that coral beds are as old as the planet.

3. Show me evidence that the planet doesn't follow a natural cyclical pattern of high and lows

We know that you *can't* prove any of those three. Using simple logic we see that the planet *IS* on a natural cycle. However, the question comes down to, how much can humans affect that cycle? Nobody knows, we cannot draw a conclusion like that because randomness cannot be conclusively predicted.

It's like the stock market. We know it goes up and down in cycles. We know that things can affect it, like the fed raising or lowering rates. However, we cannot predict how it will act with absolute certainty. Heck, Fed rates have a less solid affect on the economy than it ever had before.

Anybody who thinks they can perfectly predict the stock market is a fool, it follows a random walk and nobody can perfectly predict it. Same as the environment, we know some things affect it, we can't predict it, nor can we assume perfect correlation.

 

[StageLeft]

Using simple logic we see that the planet *IS* on a natural cycle. However, the question comes down to, how much can humans affect that cycle? Nobody knows, we cannot draw a conclusion like that because randomness cannot be conclusively predicted.

That is exactly right. It's happening, but the degree to which humans are influencing it is not known. Some claim to know it, and estimations are often arrived and then often refuted (some have been around for a few decades). The stock market is a good analogy: almost nobody can consistently beat it and it seems a far simple beast than the environment, but many claim with great aplomb to be able to estimate exactly where we're going and quantify the impact we've had.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet?

By taking samples of ice in the antarctic and examing the bubbles of air trapped inside, scientists have been able to determine the concentration of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the past 650,000 years. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are higher than they have ever been in that 650,000 years (a period time that encompasses seven ice ages and in-between periods of warmer temperatures). Over those 650,000 years there has been a correlation between CO2 and temperature (temperature can also be determined from ice cores). Higher CO2 gives higher temperatures. CO2 is now WAY above the highest level it has ever been before in the entire period of evolution of homo sapiens. It is still rising.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

If Greenland keeps melting at its current pace, we will see a 20 foot rise in the sea level. That is going to completely re-draw coast lines everywhere. In the USA, much of Florida will be submerged, as with Manhattan. (The world trade center memorial will be submerged). Most of the Netherlands will disappear. Huge amounts of land in China and India will be submerged. Hundreds of millions of people displaced. Can you even begin to imagine the effects on human life, let alone the global economy.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

There is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 650,000 years. We know this because a record of temperature is left in the Antarctic ice. In those 650,000 years CO2 rose and fell, but never rose above a specific point. We are now way above that high point. There is no question that the CO2 in the atmosphere is so high because industry etc. is producing it. There is also no question that temperature rises with atmospheric CO2. If you map the levels of CO2 and temperature over the past 650,000 years, there is a lovely correlation - CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, CO2 goes down, temperature goes down. That relationship has held true for *650,000 years*. Not surprisingly, we are now experiencing high temperatures worldwide, and bizarre weather conditions worldwide. IT remains to be seen how hot things get.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. Show me evidence that ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet.

What is more relevant would be to look at the environmental conditions over the course of the evolution of our species. We are about 100,000 to 500,000 years old (homo sapiens). The ice in the Antarctic provides a convenient record of temperature and CO2 levels over the past 650,000 years. We know that atmospheric CO2 has, in the entire time our species has been on the planet, never been anywhere near as high as it is now.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
3. Show me evidence that the planet doesn't follow a natural cyclical pattern of high and lows

Over the past 650,000 CO2 and temperature have gone up and down. There have been 7 ice ages in that period. However CO2 has never risen about a certain level (until contemporary times). We are in completely new territory. CO2 levels are high due to man's activity on the planet.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet?

By taking samples of ice in the antarctic and examing the bubbles of air trapped inside, scientists have been able to determine the concentration of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the past 650,000 years. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are higher than they have ever been in that 650,000 years (a period time that encompasses seven ice ages and in-between periods of warmer temperatures). Over those 650,000 years there has been a correlation between CO2 and temperature (temperature can also be determined from ice cores). Higher CO2 gives higher temperatures. CO2 is now WAY above the highest level it has ever been before in the entire period of evolution of homo sapiens. It is still rising.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

If Greenland keeps melting at its current pace, we will see a 20 foot rise in the sea level. That is going to completely re-draw coast lines everywhere. In the USA, much of Florida will be submerged, as with Manhattan. (The world trade center memorial will be submerged). Most of the Netherlands will disappear. Huge amounts of land in China and India will be submerged. Hundreds of millions of people displaced. Can you even begin to imagine the effects on human life, let alone the global economy.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

There is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 650,000 years. We know this because a record of temperature is left in the Antarctic ice. In those 650,000 years CO2 rose and fell, but never rose above a specific point. We are now way above that high point. There is no question that the CO2 in the atmosphere is so high because industry etc. is producing it. There is also no question that temperature rises with atmospheric CO2. If you map the levels of CO2 and temperature over the past 650,000 years, there is a lovely correlation - CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, CO2 goes down, temperature goes down. That relationship has held true for 650,000 years. Not surprisingly, we are now experiencing high temperatures worldwide, and bizarre weather conditions worldwide. IT remains to be seen how hot things get.

So, you have proven that Co2 = hotter temps. Wow, good job. However, you haven't proven that an increase in Co2 is because of us. Wow, 650,000 years, the earth is how old? Why only 650k? Why not the whole age?

How long will it take Greenland to melt completely? Where is your proof of that?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So, you have proven that Co2 = hotter temps. Wow, good job. However, you haven't proven that an increase in Co2 is because of us.

it is not questioned that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to man's activity on the planet. this isn't controversial, everyone accepts that this is the case.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Wow, 650,000 years, the earth is how old? Why only 650k? Why not the whole age?

For comparison, homo sapiens and neanderthals evolved from a common ancestor between 100,000 and 500,000 years ago. That is a long time. Importantly, that represents the environmental conditions under which we have evolved.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
How long will it take Greenland to melt completely? Where is your proof of that?

Go and watch the film.

 

[Deptacon]

Bottom line.... its a movie...theatrical entertainment...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
Bottom line.... its a movie...theatrical entertainment...

I'd describe it as enlightening, more so than entertaining.

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet?

By taking samples of ice in the antarctic and examing the bubbles of air trapped inside, scientists have been able to determine the concentration of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the past 650,000 years. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are higher than they have ever been in that 650,000 years (a period time that encompasses seven ice ages and in-between periods of warmer temperatures). Over those 650,000 years there has been a correlation between CO2 and temperature (temperature can also be determined from ice cores). Higher CO2 gives higher temperatures. CO2 is now WAY above the highest level it has ever been before in the entire period of evolution of homo sapiens. It is still rising.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

If Greenland keeps melting at its current pace, we will see a 20 foot rise in the sea level. That is going to completely re-draw coast lines everywhere. In the USA, much of Florida will be submerged, as with Manhattan. (The world trade center memorial will be submerged). Most of the Netherlands will disappear. Huge amounts of land in China and India will be submerged. Hundreds of millions of people displaced. Can you even begin to imagine the effects on human life, let alone the global economy.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

There is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 650,000 years. We know this because a record of temperature is left in the Antarctic ice. In those 650,000 years CO2 rose and fell, but never rose above a specific point. We are now way above that high point. There is no question that the CO2 in the atmosphere is so high because industry etc. is producing it. There is also no question that temperature rises with atmospheric CO2. If you map the levels of CO2 and temperature over the past 650,000 years, there is a lovely correlation - CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, CO2 goes down, temperature goes down. That relationship has held true for 650,000 years. Not surprisingly, we are now experiencing high temperatures worldwide, and bizarre weather conditions worldwide. IT remains to be seen how hot things get.

So, you have proven that Co2 = hotter temps. Wow, good job. However, you haven't proven that an increase in Co2 is because of us. Wow, 650,000 years, the earth is how old? Why only 650k? Why not the whole age?

How long will it take Greenland to melt completely? Where is your proof of that?

Please tell me I didn't just read that. There is absolutley no debate that humans are causing the increase in CO2 levels. None, whatsoever...even among those who think global warming is a natural cycle and those who don't think global warming is a big problem.

 

[maluckey]

Please tell me I didn't just read that. There is absolutley no debate that humans are causing the increase in CO2 levels. None, whatsoever...even among those who think global warming is a natural cycle and those who don't think global warming is a big problem

No doubt CO2 is on the rise, but what does that mean??

Reference
Vinther, B.M., Andersen, K.K., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R. and Cappelen, J. 2006. Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006810.

Combining early observational records from 13 locations along the southern and western coasts of Greenland, the authors extended the overall temperature history of the region - which stretches from approximately 60 to 73°N latitude - all the way back to AD 1784, adding temperatures for 74 complete winters and 52 complete summers to what was previously available to the public.

"two distinct cold periods, following the 1809 'unidentified' volcanic eruption and the eruption of Tambora in 1815, [made] the 1810s the coldest decade on record." The warmest period, however, was not the last quarter century, when climate alarmists claim the earth experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past two millennia. Rather, as Vinther et al. report, "the warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record [was] 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s [were] the warmest decades."

Inconvenient?? You betcha!!


I guess the issue here is how much can Humans control CO2, and EXACTLY how much does it matter? My guess is minimal and minimal.

Some species of plants thrive on elevated CO2 and elevated temperatures, such as blue green algae (which incidentally produces most of the O2 in the atmosphere). Loblolly Pines are now shown to enjoy elevated CO2 and hate ice.

Studies have shown that CO2 production alone is NOT the cause, though CO2 IS on the rise. What efffect does that have???

Is man responsible for storm and climate changes???

 

[BlancoNino]

It's not global warming anymore, it's climate change. The environmentalists got it wrong, so they changed what it's called.

It's clear the evidence keeps changing, and new theories keep arising. Because of this, it is very important we stand back and keep studying. Nothing major has happened yet.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If Global Warming were caused by humans, then why were there oceans over the midwest tens of thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that the ice caps and glaciers are as old as the planet? What about the coral beds? Are they as old as the oceans they reside in? People assume that the world *HAS* to stay static and any deviation from that is evil and is caused by man.

This is the problem I have with global warming, it assumes that Earth has *never* been warm before, nor can it be warmer, naturally, than it has been before. Looking at the Vostok ice cores, you see natural cyclical patterns, some are higher, some are lower. However, drawing a direct conclusion, saying that *WE* caused the highest peak, is simple BS. There cannot be a direct correlation = causation link here, because we don't have the scientific evidence to draw that kind of inference.

Now, I am sure people are saying "Wow, what a right wing nutjob". Sorry, but that won't work. I am firmly for cutting greenhouse gasses and wasteful stuff like SUVs. Going for alt-energy and very pro-nuclear. Because I acknowledge that what we are doing *IS* bad and we shouldn't be doing it. I just disagree on the size of the impact we are having.

And you base your opinion on what?

He's right. The only thing we can say for sure is that global warming is happening. Some deny that, but it is happening. It's easy: just look at temperature data over a lot of areas over a long period of time. Now, identifying what caused that has not been done. Far too much faith is granted to science. We have seen more money thrown into cancer research than global warming studying. Cancer is in a controlled environment and the planet is not and yet the cure for cancer continues to elude our grasp. Weather forecasters can't even tell me what the weather will be in Alabama in two weeks, or even with much confidence what it will be in two days and yet people seem to think scientists can accurately model the environment on a global scale. It's funny, if not sad.

predicting the weather is not the same as predicting climate change.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
The images of parts of the world (huge glaciers, ice shelves, permafrost) just melting away are sombre.

They have been doing that for thousands of years. Perhaps you?ve heard of the cyclical weather pattern known as Ice Ages. We?re coming out of one and will continue to do so until the next one. This has never changed.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: aidanjm
The images of parts of the world (huge glaciers, ice shelves, permafrost) just melting away are sombre.

They have been doing that for thousands of years. Perhaps you?ve heard of the cyclical weather pattern known as Ice Ages. We?re coming out of one and will continue to do so until the next one. This has never changed.

Not to mention that ice in some places is actually thickening. But we wouldn't want to be optimistic, would we?