An inconvenient truth

kinggovernor · 02-06-2007, 03:05 PM

Finally got a chance to watch it last night, I agree with about 90% of it. It was good to actually see Al Gore in a good light. The only thing he didn't mention was the use of nuclear power as a way of eliminating carbon emissions and I think this is the only true way to curb it.

It also made me think of another thought stream. Maybe we should vote for more than the President

I would vote for an Al Gore type as an environmental minister but not president. Maybe we should vote for cabinet positions, I don't know feasible it would be

Thorgrim · 02-06-2007, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Finally got a chance to watch it last night, I agree with about 90% of it. It was good to actually see Al Gore in a good light. The only thing he didn't mention was the use of nuclear power as a way of eliminating carbon emissions and I think this is the only true way to curb it.

It also made me think of another thought stream. Maybe we should vote for more than the President I would vote for an Al Gore type as an environmental minister but not president. Maybe we should vote for cabinet positions, I don't know feasible it would be

Woe to the libertarian who likes and agrees with an Al Gore movie

However, you soul may yet be saved and there may still be hope for you

7960 · 02-06-2007, 03:21 PM

you agree with 90% of it, but how much of what he said is actually right?

(less than 90%, that's for sure)

DosEquis · 02-06-2007, 03:28 PM

I can see the projection for potential CO2 being exaggerated. I can see the pictures of mountains and their snow covering being a bit sensationalist.

However, the data he had was correct and presented well. I would say 90% of his data was correct and would only question the data in regards to future projections.

Thorgrim · 02-06-2007, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I can see the projection for potential CO2 being exaggerated. I can see the pictures of mountains and their snow covering being a bit sensationalist.

However, the data he had was correct and presented well. I would say 90% of his data was correct and would only question the data in regards to future projections.

It's a documentary, not a study, you need pictures to give people a better sense

In Greenland during the summer you can see ice melting in streams from glaciers that they have no record of ever melting, you are watching global warming, they had that on the discovery channel special...powerful stuff, I wish they combined the two, or he updated his movie for 2007 to include that kind of stuff

Projections are needed because people have to know their are consequences, projections can never be 100% accurate, and everyone should automatically have a light go off in their head when they hear "projection"

That being said, his one argument about the west glacier is very real, and there is no competing model for another outcome were that to happen...the 100 million refugees is the only scientifically determined outcome

Winter · 02-06-2007, 03:39 PM

I find people's reactions to global warming and the issues causing it to be terrifyingly comical.

It all reminds me of "Baghdad Bob." We are in the country, overthrowing the government and the Iraqi information minister is on the tube claiming their victory and in fact denying our presence there.

Ridiculous.

RMNIXON · 02-06-2007, 03:39 PM

Persuasion does not = Truth. Documentaries, including the non-politcal variety you find on Discovery and history channel, are poor forums of debate. They tend to be produced by people with a message in mind and an audience for that message. I have not seen the film, but I don't doubt there is good evidence in it. But you also get a touch of visual drama and emotional string pulling.

Here are some examples by a writer who does think humans cause Global Warming:

Reason Magazine - An Inconvenient Truth

You do not serve "truth" by playing with exageration games and fear tactics. You don't convert the skeptics by preaching to the choir of the already converted. All of them ready to hear the worst without question. There was a lesson in the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf! And yes the final lesson was a real wolf.....

RMNIXON · 02-06-2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's a documentary, not a study, you need pictures to give people a better sense

I like to believe people can be pursuaded by facts, evidence, and open debate. Perhaps I am naive in that assuption? I might also add that I have been concerned with climate change since the 70's. I simply have yet to buy into the argument that we are the principle cause of it, or in the computer model projections, or that we can do much about it? I am skeptical of our ability to understand and predict. Since we are so busy messing up the place what suddenly made us so smart?

Winter · 02-06-2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Persuasion does not = Truth. Documentaries, including the non-politcal variety you find on Discovery and history channel, are poor forums of debate. They tend to be produced by people with a message in mind and an audience for that message. I have not seen the film, but I don't doubt there is good evidence in it. But you also get a touch of visual drama and emotional string pulling.

Here are some examples by a writer who does think humans cause Global Warming:

Reason Magazine - An Inconvenient Truth

You do not serve "truth" by playing with exageration games and fear tactics. You don't convert the skeptics by preaching to the choir of the already converted. All of them ready to hear the worst without question. There was a lesson in the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf! And yes the final lesson was a real wolf.....

So...the weather phenomenon and drastic changes are part of a "cyclical process" and global warming and it's consequences are a democractic figment of imagination...right?

Nothing to worry about, correct? We're just gearing up for the next regularly scheduled ice-age...

Please feel free to contact me for a price quote on the Brooklyn Bridge.

Diamond Cross · 02-06-2007, 03:51 PM

Actually when the Tsunami hits there really will be ocen front property in Arizona.

motivez · 02-06-2007, 04:11 PM

The latest study out should essentially lay to rest the majority of the skepticism over global climate change (also known as global warming).

It's obviously happening, the debate is whether or not humans are causing it, and there is a general scientific consensus that we are playing a large part in it. The very few scientists I've seen who disagree with this assessment have ties to energy corporations, making me suspect their research conclusions.

Of course, I'd like to see more independent studies with the best and the brightest to confirm the results of this latest one, but that'll happen in time.

7960 · 02-06-2007, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The latest study out should essentially lay to rest the majority of the skepticism over global climate change (also known as global warming).

Nope, it won't. Not even close.

motivez · 02-06-2007, 04:27 PM

Of course it wont, but people can only ignore science for so long. If new studies confirm and expand on these results, then it'll become like evolution and widely accepted.

DosEquis · 02-06-2007, 04:43 PM

6SpeedTA95 · 02-06-2007, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The latest study out should essentially lay to rest the majority of the skepticism over global climate change (also known as global warming).

It's obviously happening, the debate is whether or not humans are causing it, and there is a general scientific consensus that we are playing a large part in it. The very few scientists I've seen who disagree with this assessment have ties to energy corporations, making me suspect their research conclusions.

Of course, I'd like to see more independent studies with the best and the brightest to confirm the results of this latest one, but that'll happen in time.

Why is that? Because its the IPCC?

How about the fact that in this same study the IPCC has revised prior estimates downward? None of the articles mention the fact that opposing voices are not given seats on the IPCC...IPCC is a pretty biased study when you look at how its compiled, furthemore their own predictions are constantly being revised downward and no one is talking about that either.

7960 · 02-06-2007, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Winter

And how is ingnoring the environmental conditions any more logical?

Because changes in something as complex as the climate can't be witnessed from week to week, or even year to year. Otherwise last May, the rainiest in history, would have indicated "GLOBAL RAININESS!!!

"

Diamond Cross · 02-06-2007, 05:04 PM

But it is not done on that timescale, it is being compared to the entire written history of weather statistics.

motivez · 02-06-2007, 05:14 PM

Predictions are just that, predictions. I would expect them to change based on new data being available.

Maybe you can provide more information about the bias you're talking about?

Winter · 02-06-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

But it is not done on that timescale, it is being compared to the entire written history of weather statistics.

EXACTLY!!! Couldn't have said it better myself, DC.

Trying to argue logic with some people is just a waste of energy.

kinggovernor · 02-06-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Woe to the libertarian who likes and agrees with an Al Gore movie

However, you soul may yet be saved and there may still be hope for you

global warming is a great example of market failure, and that is one of the only reasons why government should get involved.