Say what you will regarding the issue of global warming .... but what's the worst thing that happens should we follow the recommendations to improve things ? oh, we live in a better/cleaner environment and drive cars that get better gas mileage ... OMG ! HOW HORRIBLE !
Anyways, I found this review of Al Gore's 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH' { http://www.climatecrisis.net/index.html } that was done up by a Conservative Republican that disliked Gore ... I thought it might help get some of you to maybe go see the movie, da Ice Princess and Myself went to see it recently and I can recommend it fully. { 2-thumbs-up )
Massawyrm's Incredibly Incendiary INCONVENIENT TRUTH Review ! ! !
====================================================
c/o = http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23459
Hola all. Massawyrm here.
Here's something I just had a hard time wrapping my mind around. An Al Gore movie. Seriously, an hour and a half lecture by, and a documentary about, ex-Vice President and Presidential Candidate Al Gore and his views on global warming. How can a guy known as wooden at best, and positively robotic at worst, make a film that doesn’t make Lars Von Trier movies look like action packed, tightly paced, thrill rides?
Well, because the Gore-bot 2000 is dead. A relic. A thing of the past. Al Gore is far from what he used to be. An Inconvenient Truth not only proves to make a compelling call to action about global warming, but also makes Al Gore seem like something he hasn't before to many people. Human.
Now, I typically try to keep my religion and politics out of my reviews, knowing just how incendiary such subjects can be. Especially on the Internet. And frankly, film is incendiary enough stuff that I don’t feel I need to throw gas on the fire. But here, with An Inconvenient Truth, I feel it is almost inescapable. For me, at least.
Those of you who know me well or read my blog know that I am an incredibly politically minded guy, and even more importantly, a Republican. A lifelong, old school, traditionally conservative (which doesn't mean what many of you think it means), Republican. And I have SERIOUS ISSUES with Al Gore. Have for nearly two decades now. Granted, most of my fervor stems from his support of his wife Tipper, who founded the PMRC (the guys who put labels on records and CDs) and crusaded to ban offensive albums, films and television shows.
And for a traditionally conservative Republican pop culture junkie - the idea of censoring ANYTHING is a cardinal sin - especially at the federal level. Throw onto that his views on using the military as a peacekeeping force in other countries and his part in the Clinton Administration and you start to paint a picture of exactly the kind of politician I have problems with. So as you can probably guess, I voted against him in 2000 (you know, back when Bush still talked like a Republican) and hoped that would be the last I heard of him.
Needless to say, the idea of waking up early on a Friday morning to listen to Al Gore talk for 100 minutes was not exactly my idea of fun. But like I said, I just couldn't wrap my mind around it. I mean, this sort of thing just isn't done. This isn't a Documentary about a politician who was followed around by a docu-crew. Gore plays a large part in the making of and the structure of this film - both as a subject and creatively. And Ex-Politicians, especially Ex-Vice Presidents, are supposed to fade into obscurity. They take cush jobs at large firms that do world wide business, or sit on the board of large corporations. They don't continue the crusades they failed at when in power. Not unless they're Jimmy Carter. But Carter’s a whole different kind of cat - the only President in modern history to be a better man after his presidency than he was during it. Vice-Presidents don't make films. Not like this. It was something so insane I HAD to watch. I couldn't pass it up. It was like one of those links your buddies post that reads: Click here to see something so vile it will scrape out your soul. You can't help yourself. And neither could I.
Now, understandably, this film has stirred up a lot of controversy. Unfortunately, the controversy is far less scientific than it is political. You see, somewhere along the line my party stopped being the party that quoted the founding fathers. Somewhere along the line we stopped being the party of a sound, cohesive philosophy that virtually every republican held, despite our personal, issue-based beliefs. Somewhere along the line *Ditto Rush* stopped meaning, "Wow, Rush said exactly what I've been saying for years" and became "Well, if that's what Rush said, that's what I think too."
-- Continued --
{see 2nd post in thread}
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 1:14:41 PM
- Continued -
And already the smear campaign has started, encouraging Republicans to boycott this movie. Because apparently, we aren't allowed to make up our minds for ourselves anymore. The party line is what we're told to believe, not what we actually believe. And the party line on Global Warming is "We don't have enough evidence to support a position either way, so why risk hurting industry for something that's just a theory?"
Well, with An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore sets out to challenge that way of thinking and manages to turn what could easily be a 100 minute episode-of-Nova snoozefest into a riveting conversation and argument on the need to reduce our CO2 emissions. This is effectively a filmed version of the lecture he’s been giving over the last six years, inter-cut with a series of personal anecdotes shot at locations pivotal in Gore's life. Using stories of his past as metaphors, Gore manages to introduce us to himself in a whole new light, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for arguments made later in the film. And those arguments are incredibly simple - elegantly simple in fact.
While not entirely unassailable (as arguments go), what seemed like a 'Save the Spotted Owl' plea for environmental consciousness rapidly became a wrecking ball of rhetoric that tore down common myths and hit every point in the argument, from personal cost, industry and the technology needed. This isn't some crazy, left wing, bleeding heart, tree hugger plea - this is an honest to god, very well thought out evaluation of facts, figures and concepts. And its an argument, valid or not, that is so good, it should be heard by members of all political slants and bents.
This film, this lecture, comes across as very personal; a passionate argument in the old school sense of the word. This isn’t the stodgy, stiff shirt Al Gore we all remember - this is an Al Gore who jokes openly, is warm and entertaining and speaks with pain about his loss in 2000. You can easily tell that he’s a changed man, someone who while on the track to the White House gave us what he thought we wanted, and now, with nothing to lose, can let it all hang out and just be himself.
And the man before us in the film, well, he's one I quite like now. He's been moved from the category of people I never hope to meet into the realm of "Man, I'd really love to pick this guys brain over a cup of coffee." And believe me, that's a BIG deal. This is a guy I believed stood against most everything I believe, and while he still may, I no longer think it's because of anything but that we want different things and have different priorities.
And man, can I understand why he’s getting the BIG QUESTION in every interview he does. Because if there was ever a way to make a HUGE comeback, this movie would be it. If Gore was able to take a dyed in wool conservative who practically spit when he said the guys name and not only earned his respect, but endeared him to him, I can only imagine what this film would do to the independents in this country - let alone the liberal base that feels let down by him.
If enough people saw this film, and he kept up this kind of attitude, he could probably win the nomination in a walk. But personally, I hope he stays true to his word and chooses not to run. This crusade seems to be a much better fit, and it strikes me that he can accomplish more good outside the system than he ever did within it.
The film is simply great. It changed my opinion on a great number of things, educated me with an argument that properly debunks a lot of misconceptions, and turns some really dry material into something that never for one second bored me. Gore really seems to know his stuff, but more importantly, really knows how to explain it. That doesn't mean Gore's argument is by any means unassailable.
There's plenty to be said to counter both the science and the rhetoric. But it's a good argument, and its one worth hearing. (Please note that as I am in no way, shape or form a scientist of any kind, I make no claims to the validity or truth of global warming. But, as a film critic, I am afforded the ability to say that Global Warming lends itself to pretty good filmmaking. Except for Waterworld - and the more ridiculous parts of The Day After Tomorrow. And anything by Paul W.S. Anderson, whether he's done a global warming film yet or not.)
Now, if I have one complaint about this film, it's one of my usual gripes. The marketing. Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but this really has to be addressed. If you look at the poster for the film, or it's unbelievably dramatic trailer - well, it's certainly jarring. It has this immediacy to it. It uses the work 'Shock' about a billion and six times. The tagline is "By far, the most terrifying movie you will ever see." And yet, it's not. The marketing is scary, and probably will do more to scare people away than anything else.
In truth, this movie isn't very shocking (except in regards to the aforementioned personality graft Gore received post election.) Instead, rather than sending you out of the film thinking "Oh, God we're so fucked" it manages to end on a very positive note that leaves you thinking, "Man, I really need to change my light bulbs and get my car tuned up." It makes you want to write your congressman, because, it can be done. Gore ultimately reminds us that it is a number of small changes - not big ones - that can really have a lasting effect, if performed by enough people. I kinda wish they'd go back to the 'penguins in the desert' poster, as much as I thought it was silly, because it is much closer in theme to what this movie is trying to say.
This isn't a scare piece; it's a motivational piece and a rational argument. I just wish they'd start treating it like one (because nothing says rational like penguins. In a desert.)
I highly recommend this film to anyone old enough to understand it. It is probably one of the sanest, most coherent, and from the heart pieces of rhetoric you're bound to hear or see in an election year. Is it propaganda? Of course it is. It's a persuasive argument made with images and style. But that by no means makes it something worth ignoring.
If anyone sees this, I think it most important for those of my own party, if for any reason other than hearing this argument from this point of view, that we begin to once again - as a party - think for ourselves and argue from our own knowledge of the opposing opinion rather than what we're told it is. If we continue to let Coulter, O'Reilly and Savage do our thinking and speaking for us, then it will be left to the Al Gore's of the world to make the only sane, informed arguments - and we'll be left with few who can actually argue against them.
And I'd like to take this time to personally thank Al Gore for inventing the internet, without which I would be unemployed {wink}
Until next time friends, smoke 'em if ya got 'em. I know I will. - Massawyrm
--------------------------------------
SEE THE TRAILER = http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth&pl=true
FIND LOCATIONS = http://www.climatecrisis.net/findatheater/
SMALL THINGS YOU CAN DO TO HELP = http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 1:15:24 PM
I saw this today.
As the media of ideology continues to drive me fu#king nuts, I am at least as sensitive to the facts and analysis as I am to the message. Da Vinci Code and Michael Moore irritate me at least as much as Rush and the boys because I am on their (the former's) side and I hate seeing the facts cast aside to mislead because it backfires.
I read a Michael Creighton book a while ago where environmentalist NGO's were the bad guys, and he spent a lot of time in the appendix (non-fiction part of the book) arguing that much of the environmental movement was misguided hand-wringing. He also purported to report good science. I forget the specific arguments but I was surprised.
I don't have the background to evaluate the validity of Inconvenient Truth, but the tone and texture of it gave the impression of good science covering a truly serious problem. I HATE it that this kind of information can be spun - there was one quote in the film about someone (a lobbyist?) spinning it so that the issue was about the "theory" of global warming, not the facts. Gore's presenation, unless he's just a bald-face liar, seemed to be fact-based and he attempted to take the "this is just a theory" and the "climates vary regardless" arguments head on. I'd love to hear Gore and Creighton talk this through.
Assuming this film is not ideology but a fair and honest presentation (which I am inclined to believe it is), Gore represents the kind of leadership I wish would emerge in this country.
This kind of communication is a very potent way to cut through all the crap. And we absolutely need to cut through all the crap.
Bottom line: a very powerful call to action. If you think the guy's shooting straight, then you can't just ignore this.
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 5:20:29 PM
"Bottom line: a very powerful call to action. If you think the guy's shooting straight, then you can't just ignore this." - wmblake
But that's actually why, I posted THIS review, for those that may think Gore isn't shooting straight .... I think any that already respect Gore to be telling the truth will maybe consider seeing the movie, this was for those that maybe have doubts ... like the reviewer, yet if you can put aside your politics and just go see the movie, maybe you'll come away with a different outlook not only on global warming, but of Gore as well ......
I don't think ANYONE should just ignore this !
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 6:28:53 PM
Read "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" to better understand the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Al Gore, with his high school science background, is singularly unqualified to be lecturing anyone on anything science-related. This is campaign propaganda, just like his shallow book Earth in the Balance was in the 80's.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We shouldn't get fooled again!
Of course the movie is going to be convincing. It is totally one sided and there isn't anyone in the film to refute it. If Gore really believed this stuff why does he own stock in oil corprations? Why does he fly around in private jets and have himself and his entourage shuttled around in limos? If Earth was really in the balance wouldn't his actions be a little more responsible? The guy's dad was a career politician and so is he. He can't stand the thought of not being the center of attention. So the environment is his "schtick". Just like tobacco used to be. He holds stock in that as well.
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 9:53:14 PM
the 50 cent per gallon carbon tax that was proposed as a solution to this "problem" back in the 90's. Funny how the solution to every problem seems to be more of our money going to Washington.
Politicians are milking this scam to gain more control over our lives. Next thing you know -- no condoms or lube!
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 10:03:10 PM
Al Gore did not take a single hard science course in 4 years at Harvard and is unqualified to be lecturing anyone on anything involving science. He has shown to be easy prey for "pop" science.
The world is coming out of the "Little Ice Age" which began in the 13th century and ended in the 1800's. With or without CO2 emissions the world is getting warmer.
There is no evidence that sea levels are rising.
While glaciers in some areas are receding, in other areas the ice has never been thicker.
There is no evidence of global warming. Some areas are warming and others are not, despite the fact that greenhouse gases are spread evenly throughout the world. Warming is local not global.
30 years ago Time magazine published an article asserting that we are going into a new ice age and urged that the government take measures to prevent it.
The cooling that occured during the Little Ice Age wiped out Viking colonies in Greenland and a substantial portion of the European population, from plague and from formerly arable lands becoming non-arable. It is reasonable to assume that reversing this trend would make these lands arable again -- a good thing.
Do you believe mankind now possesses the knowledge and ability to control the climate and prevent future ice ages by intentionally releasing huge amounts of CO2? If we can control warming, it stands to reason we should also be able to control cooling by releasing greenhouse gases. Had the gullible pop scientists of 1976 had their way the US would have embarked on a massive greenhouse gas emmission program to stop the coming ice age.
Are you willing to sacrifice your standard of living based on a theory that may or may not be true? Would you have supported massive coal burning in the 70's when "experts" agreed we were heading into the next ice age?
Bottom Line - Don't rely on a politician who hasn't had a lick of science education since high school to tell you anything more complicated than which way the wind is blowing.
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 9:10:47 PM
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 9:21:25 PM
Am I right?
Forget who is saying it for a moment -- Gore is giving you information that the vast majority of scientist in the world are saying -- why don't you open your closed mind and listen to what is in the film? We don't have the luxury of turning this into a political issue -- it's a SURVIVAL issue. C'mon, man! Grow up!
Would you care to rebut any of the facts I raised in my post?
Al Gore is as qualified to lecture me on science as I am to lecture him on making Tennessee moonshine. Please provide a citation for the "vast majority" of scientists saying global warming is man-made and that we have the ability to control it. And please exclude scientists that are sucking from the tit of government grants. It is a survival issue, and we are just as likely heading into an ice age as into warming if you believe pop scientists. If you are so gullible as to get your facts from a movie, it is you that need to grow up, my friend.
-- Modified on 5/30/2006 9:32:18 PM
He addresses the two challenges you raise: that this "theory" is contested and that climate variation is a natural event. I'll take on your third one, that he's a slimy pol lying to get attention.
The film cites a random study of 10% of the peer reviewed studies - that's a huge sample where the distribution of funding is also random. Not one study disagrees with the fundamentals: greenhouse emmissions are raising global temperatures with perilous implications. Not one.
Now maybe this citation skews the reality somehow, but he's making this point all over the place and if it's funny science, he's gonna get busted. So far, this isn't being effectively challenged that I am aware of.
He also takes on the second challenge, that climate variation is a natural event. He sites two studies that evaluate climate change for time periods as vast as 650K years. Our co2 levels are much higher than ever before and accelerating rapidly, and co2 levels are closely related to profound climate change. Again, in the peer reviewed articles, no one is challenging this. No one.
Finally, is he a slimy pol lying to get in the public eye without the background to speak on the subject.
I am tempted to write, "Damn. You win." and let everyone make their own judgments about your reasoning. But this is not the time for petty sarcasm.
I hope the guy runs for President again. This is a lifelong mission and concern that he documents in the film. This matters to him because it matters to him. He screwed up in the 2000 election not focusing on it more clearly. That was the politican in him looking at demographics, afraid to lead.
Finally, it's really hard to treat your "unqualified to lecture me" with much respect. The guy spent much of his time as a senator focused on this issue. The scientists work for him, so to speak. He has access to information you and I don't even know how to look for. All of it. With leading experts on his speed dial. Whose call he returns. His education on the environment puts yours and mine and damn near everyone else's in the shitter.
Have you ever given a public presentation to experts and leaders? You better know what the hell you're talking about or you'll get eaten alive. There's a scene where he's presenting in China, talking about their coal use and the problems this implies.
Yep, this is just a slimy politician who has a bunch of crap science trying to get his name in the paper.
He won't be called to task because, if there is anyone less qualified than Al Gore to lecture us on science, it is the media. Reporters don't have to take science in college either.
Scientists are challenging the studies you cite, but neither Al Gore nor the media choose to report them because they don't make good headlines. I suggest you buy Crichton's book State of Fear, which is fiction, but very heavily footnoted. Track down the articles in those footnotes, they are not made up. It will open your eyes that there are two sides to this debate.
Just that I've spent the last 28 years working on environmental issues. I minored in environmental engineering in college, majored in chemcial engineering. I can find, read and understand the scientific journal articles I recommended to you in my previous post. I've got to admit reading scientific journals is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Fortunately I was getting paid to do it for the EPA greeenhouse emissions working group I was serving on. And now your qualifications are?
I once met with Senator Al Gore's staff on this issue. His staffer made it very clear he could care less about any facts that didn't support his preconceived position. I assume his attitude reflects the attitude of his boss. That one meeting formed my opinion of Al Gore. But I've got to admit that very few staffers I dealt with really seemed to care about anything but what would make a good sound bite for their boss.
Convenient how you can simply post that you have all of these qualifications without anybody being able to verify them.
And, you have repeatedly attacked Al Gore's "qualifications" to collect information and present it. That is why your qualifications are relevant -- mine are not. I never claimed to know.
But, just so you know, I am a Nobel Prize nominee in the field of detecting shameful assholes, liars and dishonest freaks who don't want to know the truth and would rather make the environment a political issue.
-- Modified on 5/31/2006 2:56:40 PM
I guess I just assumed that you were taking issues with the Inconvenient Truthes I listed in my original post. Now that look at you're posts, you are correct, you haven't claimed that any of them aren't true. And I forgot that in California the environment is a religious, not political, issue. I guess that makes me a heretic!
If the study he sites - a ramdom review of all peer reviewed articles on environment - is valid and there are no disagreements AND your assertion that other scientists disagree... well, that's a puzzle. Either he's completely disengenuous (sp?), the studies you report are not published in peer reviewed journals or ... And I read Crichton's book (I mangled the spelling when I mentioned it somewhere in a previous post above) and the studies he sited. See my comments below re this.
One thing: I appreciate the tone of this. A well presented set of facts and analysis is important to me and I respect it.
And if you exclude Scientists who are funded by the oil & gas industry you have NO scientists to support your claim.
BTW, here is the Wikipedia look-up on "Global Warming" -- I know it might be hard for you, but try to read it without your Republican reading glasses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
Typical response from someone who can't defend his position -- pound the table and insult the opposition.
So the support for your position comes from watching a movie, reading Wikipedia and reading/watching the news? Have you read even the abstract from any one of these research papers you claim support your position? Are they published in peer reviewed journals? Has the research been replicated?
And BTW, the oil and gas industries have taken opposite sides in this debate. The natural gas industry sees mandatory CO2 reductions as a marketing bonus as natural gas emits less CO2 for the same energy output as coal or oil.
-- Modified on 5/31/2006 11:53:31 AM
They both want more combustions for cash. One just wants more to come its way.
with media, ideology and advanced science. I can't comment intelligently on your challenges or on Gore's movie without taking the time to do a lot of homework. And I make this assumption: you and I lend or withhold credibility to this based not on analysis but on predisposition. The awful truth is we trust the message we want to trust.
Your arguments are essentially Crieghton's. That's why I'd like to hear these two discuss the issue together.
But your assertion that "politician who hasn't had a lick of science education since high school" disqualifies him is, well, nonsense.
So just consider this: your "theory that may or may not be true" may also be a perspective you have been "marketed" into holding.
I know I don't know the truth to this issue. Do you? It's too important just to take an emotional stance for or against just because it fits with our predisposition.
But the outcome of this movie will be that all the arguments, pro and con, will surface. Those scientists will be given greater access to the public debate and we'll get a better first-hand account of the data and analysis. Of course, this will be filtered via the media, who also hold no great science expertise and who also have competing agendas in their reporting other than a dispassionate analysis and judgment.
My concern is the media will not have the courage to report a reasoned judgment of this debate because regardless of what this might be, it will have audience who have almost religous fever for a certain outcome.
And if NO ONE changes their minds as a result (the reds stay red, the blues stay blue), then I am really, really concerned.
So you, Splunge, you're a test case. I look forward to hearing you wrestle with this idea but wonder if you'll just dig your heels in and dismiss the whole discussion.
You raised the key question, "Are you willing to sacrifice your standard of living based on a theory that may or may not be true?"
Everything has it's own version of "expected value" - what something could be worth (or cost) and the odds of it happening. You HAVE to take into account the devistating impact Inconvenient Trust describes. Where's the threshold in terms of odds for action?
The other side of the equation is the cost of this action. Clearly, the US is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases. Let's assume for the moment this can't be good. Gore makes the point other countries are reducing some areas of greenhouse (mainly from cars) while growing - and also points out that China has a huge economic incentive to use its cheap, accessible coal to everyone's detrement. Is this the "way of life" we are fighting for - the right to be selfish and the hell with the rest of you? And if the Chinese say the hell with you, do we have reason to say, "screw it"?
The economy is based on trust that things are going to go well. If we put people to work on changing the trend of greenhouse gases so that things go well, I just don't see how that does anything more disruptive other than reallocate resourses from one pot to another.
So, my answer is, well if what the cost for me is I buy a lighter, less powerful car, use more efficient appliances, and put investment dollars into clean, renewable energy in order to reduce the odds of global devistation, the answer is yes.
Is yours categorically "no"?
-- Modified on 5/31/2006 7:46:43 AM
I actually agree with most of what you say, other than defending that self-righteous, opportunistic, buffoon, Al Gore.
Reducing energy consumption makes economic as well as environmental sense. $3/gallon gasoline may do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US than would any government mandate, but the trouble is those emissions will be offset by emissions in China and India. Rather than ignore the issue there are steps we can take now that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that make economic sense. For example it used to be common to use the pressure of natural gas that came up with crude oil to turn pumps at wellheads where there was no electricity. The gas was then vented to the atmosphere. Now, with the installation of a few feet of pipe, that gas is burned as fuel in the dehydration units commonly also found at those wells.
However I remember in 1976 that the same arguments were being made that we have to do something right now to stave off the looming ice age. Different scientists but with the same motive -- get government research grants. I used to think scientists were above ambulance chasing. Since moving here to DC and watching and endless stream of scientists testify that [insert cause here] could be an impending apocolypse and we'll know for sure if you just give us more government money to study it.
This does more than reallocate resources from one pot to another. You can't eat or drive or wear those research reports. Taking resources from a productive person and giving it to a non-productive person hurts us all.
And as far as "clean, renewable energy" I am not aware of any that exist. Wind -- listen to the Kennedy's howl about a wind farm in their back yard. Solar -- it produces pollution to mine and process the metals used to produce the photovoltaic cells. Hydro-electric -- blocks salmon spawning grounds, fills scenic valleys with mud and is unavailable in Kansas. Nuclear -- what to do with the radioactive waste. Hydrogen -- not an energy source, there are no known hydrogen reserves so it must be created from water or natural gas.
Edited to fix an engineer's speling. LOL
-- Modified on 5/31/2006 10:51:07 AM
-- Modified on 5/31/2006 10:57:38 AM
I read Crighton's book - in fact, I posted about it and the appendix here (saying much of what you say here) when I read it, and have on my to-do list to revisit it again. Your point about chasing dollars was the point of that book, and his appendix was there to support his story.
Both Gore and Crighton are pals with and fans of my favorite writer/philosopher Ken Wilber, which gives them both credibility in my book. I'd like to hear them square off on the issue. My guess is that they are both telling the truth and it is the synthesis of their competing perspectives that makes the most sense.
IF the Gore message is valid, and my sense is that it is, in the main - then putting significant global investment into new, clean renewable sources of energy is an imperative. I have no idea where and how, and I am sure more than a little will be "non-productive" - but the stakes are too high not to focus on it. It just doesn't make sense that we can spit out accelerating levels of co2 and have it have no impact on the climate.
I'll make a deal with you: I won't check my spelling (I sometimes copy it onto Word and then back) and you don't have to either!
The earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles of much greater magnitude than global warming will ever cause. We seem to adapt, as does the earth. Some people believe that our climate is like a ball balanced on an inverted soup bowl -- one little nudge in any direction and the ball spins off out of control. I think its more like the same ball in a right side up bowl -- forces may push the ball off center but other forces will bring it back. If the balance of our ecosystem were so sensitive that it can't react to a little CO2, I suspect life never would have evolved here, or at least not lasted long.
The effevcts of warming are not necessarily bad. Regardless of what we do it's going to get warmer for the next century or so because we're coming out of a 600 year "Little Ice Age," that ended in the 1800's. Greenland may become habitable again, as it was prior to the Little Ice Age. Growing seasons will be longer. Higher CO2 levels will accelerate plant growth. Increased rainfall may reduce the frequency of droughts. Our winter heating requirements will decrease (but our heating bill will go up). It doesn't have to be disastrous, except if your trying to sell a newspaper or movie ticket. Or get elected president.
I don't think we're talking about a "little" CO2. The graph of CO2 concentration is dramatically higher than any time in history, and with China & India, this growth rate is going to continue to accelerate. This is historically linked to climate change. If Greenland's ice melts, it means higher sea levels. Ok, we get Greenland but lose Florida - is that what you're saying is no big deal?
And maybe it isn't as disasterous as the worst predictions. But at 6+ billion people and rising, and with 2-3 of them getting ready to buy cars any day now, I think you're kidding yourself. And in a dangerous way.
We need to find the new technologies to produce clean energy, we need to figure out how to manage the energy needs of the global population, and we need to start now in getting that whole idea in focus.
"We need to find the new technologies to produce clean energy, we need to figure out how to manage the energy needs of the global population, and we need to start now in getting that whole idea in focus."
I agree with that. $3/gallon gas will will get a lot of people looking for alternatives. My beef is with the folks who think we ought to impose Kyoto-like restrictions on CO2 emissions right now.
-- Modified on 5/31/2006 3:04:32 PM
-- Modified on 6/1/2006 10:51:49 AM
I hate to point this out, but there's nothing in the hypothesis that would lead one to believe it will stop. More plant growth might be stimulated-- to a degree. For one, it depends on the space given for this plant growth. I remind you, we're cutting down the Amazon and other jungles and using the land for other things. Solar power is great, except it competes in the same niche as plants-- for sunlight.
For another thing, despite what you think, CO2 doesn't stimulate plant growth, sunlight does. CO2 then has to be available, but without more sunlight, the process stops. Global warming means more humidity, more cloud cover.
In absence of more sunlight to stimulate it, and more space to grow, plant growth isn't going to do anything to fix CO2 released from millions of tons of oil every year for a century. It's already "stimulated" and it's falling behind.
Immediately, it might be beneficial to many countries, but no, global warming doesn't have to stop at all. Look over at our nearest neighbor Venus, which is a CO2 hothouse run amok.
well, you shure don't know yur facts. The cycle of ice ages every 120,000 years or so is because of globull warming. This time it is becuz we are puttin out two much Greenhouse gas. 120,000 years ago, it wuz because them neanderthals were playin with too many camp fires and the wooly mamoths were eatin too much high CO2 grass and they were fartin and makin puttin the balance way off. That caused the ice caps and glaciers to melt and mess up the flow of the gulf stream because it diluted the salt water and the conveyor broke down. That caused the ice age. They polled 200 experts at the sierra club and 9 out of 10 agree that we are the problem in nature. I think we should tax the hell out of them Geico cave dudes to make them pay their fair share for the last time! And how dare you insult that fine feller Algore?! He is brilliunt and is a real leader.
National Lampoon's Encyclopedia of Humor. It came out back in the 70's and had alphabetic entries, some of which were pages long, but the one I remember best was simply titled "Buffalo Farts" It read "The air is much cleaner nowadays than in the 1800's because of the absence of buffalo farts." LOL
But the most famous entry was a fake ad showing a Volkswagon Beetle floating on water, and the caption read "If Teddy Kennedy had driven a Volkswagon he'd be President now." They got sued over that one and pulled the magazine. I lost mine -- damn, it'd be a collectors item by now.
-- Modified on 5/31/2006 7:28:11 PM
What would be wrong with just considering Gore's lack of formal education and considering the facts he presents, and confirming the accuracy of the scientists involved. Free speech is a farce if no one is qualified to speak.
Insurance companies, whose money is on the line, certainly believe sea levels are rising. They are raising homeowners' rates up to 70 percent on the coast and lowering them 10-20 percent in the midwest. They are putting their money on it in other ways as well.
There may be economic consequences to reducing greenhouse emissions, but there are certainly economic consequences to not responding if global warming is real. The consequences of lowering CO2 emissions must be weighed against the consequences of no response in the warming scenario. The fact is, global warming and climate change isn't a fatal issue, unless global warming never stops. When our planet looks like Venus, it's going to be too late to say we fucked up.
Do I believe humankind has the power to change climate? Please ask yourself: by what principle is this even improbable? It's a little like the old question, long answered in medical science, of whether tiny things as bacteria could cause fatal disease. Bacteria certainly affect *their* "climate," which in relative size, is probably a lot larger than and at least as complex as earth is compared to us.
It's a separate issue than having the knowledge and ability to control climate-- no, and isn't that the problem? Altering the climate and controlling it are two different things. As for releasing or leeching out greenhouse gases to control it-- if global warming is correct, it took growing a population of 6 billion people to make the changes. Steering the climate takes a scale of organization our cultures have never reached. Declaring that the pop scientist would have released greenhouse gases way back in 1976 is like saying a kid with a hobby rocket could have reached the moon in the 1950s. It's a non-argument.
It may make some lands arable and other lands useless. There will be winners and losers in the change. I've always said, it's a great time to invest in Canadian glacier land.
And yes, some glaciers are gaining ice because of the immediate shifts in climate patterns, but as a whole, the balance is that they are melting. If warming continues beyond a certain point, they would all melt. The poles are definitely melting.
Global warming isn't pop science. In peer reviewed scientific journals, not in pop science best sellers, **all** indications are that global warming is very real, "South Park" aside. It's easily go beyond thawing that "little ice age," and it will continue far beyond. It has now been tied securely to greenhouse gas emissions. The "pop science" at this point is actually the remaining skepticism based on politics and economic interests, and the resulting generation of propaganda.
"Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century"
Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, Washington, D.C.
November 6, 2005
"Environmentalism as Religion"
Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003
"Aliens Cause Global Warming"
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2003
actually read some of the reports referenced in Crichton's book, but I guess that would be inconvenient. Better to rely on a movie, Wikipedia and the mainstream media to tell us what to think. Another noted Californian, Richard Nixon, once stated that television is to journalism as bumper stickers are to philosophy.
-- Modified on 6/1/2006 8:10:12 PM
The man is as anti-science as one could be without being openly creationist. Compared to Gore, he doesn't have a lot of qualifications either. He's a medical doctor who never practiced, a novelist, and an former Hollywood director.
Now, I'm not putting down his real accomplishments, but don't be awed by the fact that this guy writes for a living. Look at the basis of his arguments. With all the information he cites, it comes down to human beings aren't capable of affecting planetary climate. Conjecture: He seems to think only God can, and humankind should be humble. That's not scientific.
If you want to, look at the theme of novels too. He's been consistent since even before global warming, since the "Andromeda Strain" in the 60s. In every one of his novels, science fucks up, and it isn't corrected by science. He writes in a genre all his own, the anti-Science Fiction novel.
-- Modified on 6/1/2006 10:19:46 PM
-- Modified on 6/2/2006 9:51:53 AM
I am shure he is a good read too. But that honest feller Algore never addresses anything that contrdicts his warped little view on this. Maybe we just need a wurld government to solve this problem. If we tax the hell out of companies in the US, we could pay for a solution to reverse this. "Wurkers of the world Unite!"
And the guys you read are biased? When you talk about what "side" one is on, it doesn't take into account "boundary drift" as one side moves out of reality.
I don't know if one has to consider every psychotic denial of the other side.
The flaw in applying this to global warming: some problems are real. Past errors in judgment based on fears do not predict whether current judgments on global warming are real or not. Unfortunate, but true.
I'll give my own counter-example to prove this point: the "cycle" of fear and hope was similar in Berlin in 1945 as the Red Army approached. Information was surpressed. Despite the times that Berliners hoped that it wasn't the case, ultimately the worst disaster befell them: the Red Army did arrive.
Human beings may have moods, and may go through cycles of fear and hope, but sometimes the adverse scenario is correct, even if "systems are complex." Moreover, sometimes predictions that are immediately wrong turn out to be eventually right. One example is about Ehrlich's books: they were immediately wrong. Whether he really believed his predictions or made them for motivational purposes, eventually he will be right. Thinking that this planet could sustain the growth of human population because it always has is similar to thinking that the laws of gravity are incorrect because you could fly in a plane. The fact is, gravity will eventually win out and the plane has to eventually come back to the ground, whether it lands or whether it crashes.
With New Orleans, I'll admit I thought 10 thousand people had died. That didn't happen, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a huge calamity.
BTW, in his example on Yellowstone and not knowing how to manage it, people must recognize that a human-managed system, no matter how long handed its management, is not going to look like a natural system.
I don't know whether his advocation of the "complexity theory" is supposed to invoke fear itself, BTW, just as Ehrlich's books did on population. If you try to manage, you'll mis-manage, so don't manage. That in itself could be pretty discouaraging.
I lived in the age of "global cooling." The rhetoric might sound similiar, but you compare numbers of studies done and how extremely they support global warming. There is **no comparison** between the two in the empirical evidence. By comparison, global cooling was a notion; global warming is a fact.
Also, in terms of "smoke," you have to look much harder to find global cooling as a pop topic. Mainly because a new study didn't come out every week confirming it.
The denial of this is untenable.
I can't quite agree that environmentalism is a religion, but I can't be hostile to the idea either. It would be more accurate to my thinking to say that it is sometimes a part of a wider, modernistic, new age religions. However, many environmentalists have a separate, and quite accepted religion that they subscribe to.
What I don't agree with is that he uses the label to attack environmentalism. Since he's going that direction, he might as well say that he's declaring it a heresy against the more correct religions. If so, he's something worse, an inquisitor.
He does omit one important difference: unlike the Christianity, environmentalism is not a religion where your salvation is based primarily on your correct belief. So his analysis does not explain the inflexibility that he reproaches.
I hate to say, the first speech gives a better explanation for it: that people simplify things. I'll add that once people are gathered into a group entity for any cause, like banning DDT, there is a certain loss of flexibity for changing decisions.
Given this, his indictment that environmentalism is a religion is a gratuitous insult.
An afterthought: if nothing is going to stop green house emissions, and I think he is perhaps right, maybe we could take it in a different direction and try to refix the excess CO2 we are releasing. Just because we don't have an immediate solution doesn't mean the problem isn't real.
-- Modified on 6/3/2006 12:43:26 PM
I can't put it more politely than that Harpo. Despite Crichton's "praise of science" to begin his speech, he shows he is most ignorant and contemptuous of the scientific method. Yes, I read his speech before, and it is where I based my statement that he is anti-science. What I said about his previous anti-science novels is simply ad hoc support for my statement.
Why is it so bad? The scientific method starts with making an initial observation of a phenomenon, and then a hypothesis.
The Drake equation is called a hypothesis. That Drake did it with a mathematical formula is made to guide scientists in the next stage: which would involve controlled experiments, or field observations. The latter is known to scientists as the comparitive method, which is generally far harder than experiments because it involves literally tons of observations and notes to cancel out unrelated variables. Relating smoking to cancer and relating seat belts to accident survival was demonstrated using the comparitive method.
The fact that Drake's initial observation didn't pan out should have been an example that science was self-correcting. Does he praise it then? There were enough observations to take one to the next stage anyway.
SETI is in the third stage, it's field observation according to the comparitive method. It's not religion. It's field study. For him to say it was a religion; I ask how? Yes, you go to church and gather observations and notes about a God that you can't detect, and **disprove your hypothesis.** Yeah, worshippers do that all the time. Right.
SETI is science. It's good science. The hype around it by non-scientists might be based on religion, but this is not what Crichton says.
Any jump he makes from this contemptibly ignorant basis to global warming is useless in the debate. It's that simple.
The fact that we haven't observed any sign of intelligent life, BTW, despite the hypothesis, is important scientific information. It implies an answer to the question: how common is intelligent life? It gives cause for other study, because it raises other questions. Why isn't it common? Or: is the space between us and other intelligent life that daunting? Yes, it's great science. It leads to other inquiries.
Science is self-correcting. Scientists, however, are human, given to all the flaws that the rest of humankind has. Sometimes the corrections are exasperating in their pace. Such as with the example of puerperal fever he gives. There, he also obscures the difference between medical practice and science, which, despite all hopes and expectations, are two different things. Medical practitioners aren't scientists. It's why we have a term like "medical science."
Don't think it's a waste of time to have read Crichton, though. Just follow the process to its next stage and think about what you read.
-- Modified on 6/4/2006 11:46:30 AM
Although I've been told I made up all these credentials. I hope my employer doesn't find out. LOL
There's always going to be somebody more qualified in a political debate on scientific issues. What happens when a Ph.D. in environmental sciences tells you your not qualified to speak?
Having not seen the movie, if it were only Gore's "expert" opinion being displayed, I could see where you have a point. However, if he's playing an emcee to scientists, sort of an impressario in a film making a scientific/political case, and he gets out of the way and lets them speak, it has much more credibility.
Your last reponse to me above is that your bottom line is you don't want US to adopt Kyoto-level CO2 emission goals too quickly.
Why?
Economics? Changing these standards would disrupt some areas - God knows GM could use a little shakeup. Just look at it's market cap. But it opens opportunites for new innovation and new value creation.
Because it's, well, inconvenient? It means we have to start looking systematically at how we in the US use energy? Because India and China are somehow exempt (how the hell did THAT happen?!) Because it is an attempt to transfer wealth to 3rd world countries? Because the whole goddam world except US and Australia are morons who collectively can't evaluate the science correctly?
I don't think one can seriously argue we don't face a real and credible threat. Maybe there is a range of odds about the threat, but there is a legitimate disasterous scenario that is serious, supported by good science - all the contrary data notwithstanding.
We simply have to stop dicking around and take this seriously. The US is THE major contributor. China and India will catch up soon. We've got to find a way to help them come on board economicaly without accelerating the problem.
This is NOT the time to play a short-sighted game of "screw you." This is the time for the US to take a leadership position.
I just don't know how a rational, intelligent, objective person can conclude otherwise.
I've read the actual studies, not Al Gore's or the press' spin on the studies. This ranks right behind limiting the size of goalie's pads in the relative importance of issues, unless of course the US government decides to ignore the best interests of its citizens and ratify that silly treaty or something like it. Fortunately the posters on this thread can only influence tha California Congressional delegation. It ain't gonna happen (Congress ratifying Kyoto or the catastrophic consequences global warming chicken littles are projecting).
-- Modified on 6/1/2006 4:35:26 PM
"Al Gore did not take a single hard science course in 4 years at Harvard and is unqualified to be lecturing anyone on anything involving science. He has shown to be easy prey for "pop" science."
There's always somebody more qualified than you, someone better credentialed. I think I'm as qualified to argue that 2+2=4 with a math Ph.D. Anybody could go funny in the head, get corrupted, or have a stroke an lose some of their knowledge no matter how experienced. Sad but true.
"With or without CO2 emissions the world is getting warmer."
So, is the warming accelerating more with more CO2 emissions? Have you asked this question? If so, what's the answer? Is there any work on this?
"There is no evidence that sea levels are rising."
I seem to remember that island nations are noticing a rise in sea level. There seems to be some gigantic ice breakups at the poles and greenland. I will admit, however, that evidence about this might be inconclusive.
"Some areas are warming and others are not, despite the fact that greenhouse gases are spread evenly throughout the world. Warming is local not global."
You know, this seems to me like saying there are no jet streams or low or high systems because air is evenly distributed throughout the world. In human experience, it's easy to think that weather patterns will shift, with some local areas growing cooler, but with the aggregate of all areas growing warmer. You haven't addressed this. I'm surprised with an engineering and/or environmental background you haven't. Why?
"30 years ago Time magazine published an article asserting that we are going into a new ice age and urged that the government take measures to prevent it."
First, past errors of Time magazine have no logical bearing on the accuracy of claims now. That having been said, I lived through the "global cooling scare" myself. It wasn't much of a scare. I think you'd have to look much harder to find archives in the press about global cooling. Why? Perhaps because a new study confirming its predictions didn't come out every week.
But I wrote that already.
"Relying" on Al Gore is a different thing than listening to the scientists whom he brings together. However, you simplified that the same way you simplified most of your other points. If I hadn't talked to engineering professors before, I would accuse of faking your qualifications.
The Chtistian Science Monitor is a very mainstrean publication and in no way a propaganda outlet for either the left or the right.
Today's article will make interesting reading in light of former VPOTUS Gore's documentary on global climate change.