An inconvenient truth...

[Cuda1447]

Whose seen it? Today in class our Biology professor decided to show it. Surprisingly 'entertaining' movie. I've never really been a big believer, I guess you could say, of global warming. This movie seems to present some interesting things that I've never taken the time to read before. I am skeptical though. As with any topic, I like to hear both sides of the argument. Its to easy to fool me with trickery if I only hear one side of the argument.

So whose seen this movie? What are your thoughts on how truthful/accurate it is? How would you counter some of the arguments posed in this movie?

We have some 'professional' coming in on Thursday to do a discussion group in our lecture hall about the movie. I'm assuming he is a proponent of the movie, so I want to know what counter-points I can argue. I think it'd be nice if our teacher presented both sides of the argument and let us make up our mind, rather than trying to influence us only one way. But ah well, thats what I've got ATOT for !


Update

Ok, so I did as much research as I could over the last day. I go to class ready to go to battle. I'm not a big fan of college professors presenting only one side of a controversial argument and using the classroom (a BIOLOGY class) as grounds for their propaganda for global warming.

So we watch the end of the movie and the 'professional' is introduced to us. Turns out this is some 'friend' of the professor who happened to watch this movie in theaters two years ago. He decided he wanted to do something so started holding discussion groups for people about this movie. Whatever. Anyways, it turns out this guy used to work in IT, so he's hardly an authority figure on the subject. Thats good for me.


So the movie ends and the teacher/professional start their 'discussion'. In this class we have whats called CPS. Basically, its a remote controlled way for all the students to respond to questions she gives us. We get graded on our answers for this. So the first questions goes up.

Do you like Al Gore? Yes/No. Doubt you could have a wrong answer on this, but I answered Yes anyway. I actually don't dislike him, so I guess I like him.

Mr. Professional than goes on to explain the purpose for that question. He doesn't want people to be biased on the subject cause they don't like Al Gore or some other BS. Ok, whatever. He starts discussing a few points and then the next question.

Global temperatures have been on the rise since the industrial revolution. True/False?

Ok, well according to the movie it has. So I answered true (Gotta get a good grade). Immediately after that question I raised my hand. Teacher calls on me and I explain how its been shown that global temperatures actually FELL between the 1940's to 1970's. She tells me thats true, their was a brief cooling off period. But explains that the averages have been going up. She does this in a somewhat defensive manor.


Moving on. A couple more CPS questions come out, most of them totally loaded. Over the next 30 minutes I asked a couple more questions. I raised points about CO2 only making up 2% of greenhouse gases, temperatures actually rising approximately 800 years BEFORE CO2 levels and a myriad of other things you can find on anti-global warming sites.

Once I got the ball rolling the rest of the class started to join in. Every answer was basically bullshit and most of the time barely had any relation on the question/point being raised. One of the big things we pointed out was that correlation did not equal causation and thats one of the first things you learn as a scientist. Surely, our Professor should realize this, no?


One of the really loaded CPS questions I liked was something along the lines of "Studies regarding CO2 are fraudulent" Before we could even answer the question I spoke up and said that was a very loaded question. The data may not be fraudulent but it most certainly may be misleading. The teacher didn't like this very much and neither did the "Professional" who was basically saying nothing the last 20 minutes of the class.


All in all, Im very disappointed that our teacher would choose to pull this kind of bullshit on us. I have no problem with presenting these sorts of arguments, but either A. Present both sides of the controversial subjects, or B. Don't basically attempt to squelch any student who raises points countering the 'evidence' presented in the movie. At least half the class was questioning this 'evidence' by the end of the movie.

Just thought I'd update you guys on all the BS.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Al Gore for President is what I think (with Ron Paul as Vice Prez)

 

[FoBoT]

:thumbsdown:

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
:thumbsdown:

Great contribution to the thread! Thanks!

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: FoBoT
:thumbsdown:

Great contribution to the thread! Thanks!

You're lucky he even posted that much

I haven't seen it yet..

 

[Cuda1447]

Well to give a VERY brief synopsis of the evidence presented.....


CO2 levels are approximately 3x (or more?) what they've been in the past 650,000 years, by measurements taken out of ice in the Arctic regions.

Temperature levels have shown to be directly correlated with CO2 levels. As the temperature rises, the glaciers melt (obviously). With the amount of glaciers in Greenland and the Arctic regions, if that water flows into the ocean it basically shuts down the underwater currents will results in the heat not being redistributed properly throughout the Earth. Bam, another ice age.

Ice ages have occurred (supposedly?) 6 times in the last 650k years. A cyclical trend is shown by the data. Problem is, our CO2 levels appear to be WAY higher than it ever was previous to the last Ice Age being triggered. So a couple questions. Why hasn't another Ice Age ALREADY been triggered? Also, if one is, will it be cyclical or will it be much more intense and happen much quicker due to the more extreme CO2 (and as a result temperatures) levels?



Just some thoughts/questions that were raised.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

The death of pirates is what is causing Global Warming. Bring back the pirates, its solves.

 

[Babbles]

I found it to be a way crappy movie.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I found it to be a way crappy movie.

Care to elaborate as to why?

 

[FoBoT]

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl»n concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

 

[mrrman]

I liked it...its happening all around us

 

[Kirby]

Manbearpig.


I'm serial!

 

[FoBoT]

http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/ladyleo/sheep.jpg

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/ladyleo/sheep.jpg

You're the most worthless lifer on ATOT.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl»n concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Good info, thanks. I'll do some reading. I guess the most difficult part of debates on topics like this is that you don't know whose 'studies' to believe.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/ladyleo/sheep.jpg

You're the most worthless lifer on ATOT.

didn't you see my post up there? ^^^

?
que?

this isn't P&N where all the "smart" people are, you have to deal with us "dummies" if you post in OT instead of P&N

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/ladyleo/sheep.jpg

:thumbsup:

 

[3NF]

I'm happy that I downloaded the movie and watched it, rather than paying for it.

It's interesting, but you should tell your biology professor to show both sides of the argument It might be getting out of hand. I heard on the radio one day that someone was suggesting that we (the country) eat less red meat, so that less cows would be raised and fart less (greenhouse gas) ... something like that.

 

[evident]

instead of you guys just ripping the movie, was there any facts presented in this movie that were skewed? imo, it seemed pretty honest to me. i felt it woulda been more legit and gathered more public support from both sides of the aisle if he wasn't bitching about the 2000 elections though

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Its to easy to fool me with trickery if I only hear one side of the argument.

What argument?

There are facts. A lot of facts. Facts gained from careful scientific observation. As far as I know, the facts support the theory that an increase in global temperature is happening, and is happening because the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

OK, so there are facts, and then there are interpretations of facts.

Fact: The global temperature has increased.
Fact: The polar ice caps melted more this year than in recent recorded history.
Fact: The greenhouse effect is real. Greenhouse gases trap heat.
Fact: C02 is a greenhouse gas. THe amount of C02 in our atmosphere has increased at the same time that the global temperature has increased.

Interpretation: Something funny is going on. C02 is causing it.

Possible question: Can C02 really have that much effect on the atmosphere? How do we know?

Answer: Actually, this is pretty cool. In college, my geology teacher spent his summers taking ice cores from glaciers. These were huge. And what was cool is that these ice cores had 'trapped' the atmosphere from thousands of years ago. They recorded the atmosphere kind of like the way a tree's rings record the weather. Not only that, from these ice cores they could discern the temperature, and the C02 levels of the time periods they were look at.

Guess what? C02 levels were very strongly correlated with the temperature. C02 rises, temperature rises. Makes sense if you think about the Carbon Cycle.

If you want to ask a really interesting question, as about how the effects of global warming will actually make it colder in some places.

There is an answer.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: FoBoT
http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/beta/users/ladyleo/sheep.jpg

You're the most worthless lifer on ATOT.

didn't you see my post up there? ^^^

?
que?

this isn't P&N where all the "smart" people are, you have to deal with us "dummies" if you post in OT instead of P&N

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Wow, some useful info. Thanks.

As for your concern, I would post in P&N if this was politics or news. Its not though.


As for your sheep post. I understand the point you're making. Why do you think I posted here and wanted the other side of the argument though. Like I said, its easy to fool me with trickery when you only present one side of the argument. Luckily I know my weakness, so I can combat it.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Its to easy to fool me with trickery if I only hear one side of the argument.

What argument?

There are facts. A lot of facts. Facts gained from careful scientific observation. As far as I know, the facts support the theory that an increase in global temperature is happening, and is happening because the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

OK, so there are facts, and then there are interpretations of facts.

Fact: The global temperature has increased.
Fact: The polar ice caps melted more this year than in recent recorded history.
Fact: The greenhouse effect is real. Greenhouse gases trap heat.
Fact: C02 is a greenhouse gas. THe amount of C02 in our atmosphere has increased at the same time that the global temperature has increased.

Interpretation: Something funny is going on. C02 is causing it.

Possible question: Can C02 really have that much effect on the atmosphere? How do we know?

Answer: Actually, this is pretty cool. In college, my geology teacher spent his summers taking ice cores from glaciers. These were huge. And what was cool is that these ice cores had 'trapped' the atmosphere from thousands of years ago. They recorded the atmosphere kind of like the way a tree's rings record the weather. Not only that, from these ice cores they could discern the temperature, and the C02 levels of the time periods they were look at.

Guess what? C02 levels were very strongly correlated with the temperature. C02 rises, temperature rises. Makes sense if you think about the Carbon Cycle.

If you want to ask a really interesting question, as about how the effects of global warming will actually make it colder in some places.

There is an answer.

I've already watched the movie. Why are you nearly directly quoting Al Gore with your "Answer". It wasn't your teacher, it was Al Gore's teacher, Liar!

 

[spidey07]

Here's a brief synopsis...

Liberal indoctrination by a professor using a "movie" to further the indoctrination. What next? He's shows a Micheal Moore "movie?"

Did this professor present any facts or just use the hyperbole of this "movie"? It was an interesting movie. Factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest, but a fun popcorn flick and fun to laugh at.

Counterpoints?
Ask him how much a volcano spews into the atmosphere in a single event vs. CO2 contributions by man.

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I've already watched the movie. Why are you nearly directly quoting Al Gore with your "Answer". It wasn't your teacher, it was Al Gore's teacher, Liar!

1. Al Gore's teacher did something with measuring the current C02 levels. Not the C02 levels from thousands of year ago. Isn't it interesting that both scientists reached a very similar conclusion with their research?

2. If you want to 'argue' about global warming in a legitimate way, then you need to deal with the facts. That is what science is about: Facts. Deal with them.

3. Whether or not you want to believe Al Gore is beside the point. The facts he presented are not 'his facts.' If you want to dispute them, then I suggest reading the scientific papers that present them and looking for flaws in the methodology used to record those facts.

4. I personally believe everyone should look at the facts and decide for themselves what to make of them.

 

[FoBoT]

o Claude Allegre, a converted alarmist and prominent French geophysicist, believes that the cause of climate change has not yet been found, and that ?the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people.?

o 60 prominent scientists reported last year to the Canadian Prime Minister, ?If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.?

o A panel of broadcast Meteorologists, in February, claimed that 95% of weathermen are skeptical of the global warming crisis. Meteorologist Mark Johnson stated, ?You tell me you?re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that?s 6 billion years old??

o Henrik Svensmark, a climate scientist who conducted research with the Danish National Space Centre, reported that the earth is actually undergoing a period of naturally-low cloud cover because of fewer cosmic rays. ?We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years,? he stated.

o Renowned Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv of Israel has changed his belief of man-made emissions driving the climate change. ?Solar activity can explain a large part of 20th-century global warming,? he now states.

http://www.campusreportonline....n/articles.php?id=1806