An Inconvenient Truth....

[mmmfast]

Has anyone else seen this yet?

I do not care who you are or what your political views, you simply cannot deny the scientific evidence presented in this film. If things go on as normal we are looking at a very bleak future for ourselves as a race.

Anyone else frightened a little by this?

[u2sarajevo]

Seen what?

I don't see a link or anything....

[mmmfast]

Rotten Tomatoes

IMDB

Climate Crisis

[Murphy3]

Actually, there are plenty of scientists that don't believe in what this movie has to say at all...

[u2sarajevo]

When I saw it was the Al Gore film.... my first response was ummmm.... no...

But when I saw this tidbit:

Originally Posted by IMDB

The cartoon clip that Al Gore shows to help explain global warming is from the "Futurama" (1999) episode "Crimes of the Hot." Al Gore (whose daughter Kristin was a writer for the series) guest starred as himself in the episode, claiming to be the inventor of the environment and the author of Balance of the Earth, and the more popular Harry Potter and the Balance of the Earth. (more)

I AM IN!!!!!

Seriously though, I will add it to my list of things to watch and report back when I do.

[mmmfast]

Have you seen it, Murph?
He pulls out all scientific articles related to global warming over the past 10 years and 100% agreed on the cause of it whereas 56% of all media articles were in disagreeance.

Sounds like a hype machine to me. Keep the cows docile while we slowly destroy them.

[dude1394]

If gore and company start railing against india and china then I'll listen to them some. Until then I don't trust any of these guys enough to do the damage to the US economy that Kyoto would do..

Do they say the words kyoto in the movie, if they do I'm out, because that is pure politics.

Also does the movie take on the china/india problem or do they focus on industrialized countries having to reduce emmissions?

[mmmfast]

He says Us, China and EU are the world's worst in terms of greenhouse emissions. Each one is more than the rest of the world combined.

Some of the more frightening changes they show are huge chunks of Antartic ices heets fallig into the ocean, massive inland seas drying up and dramatic increases in earthquakes of the Greenland ice sheet due to increased runoff.

I'd recommend it even to skeptics in order to get a broader picture besides "how does it affect my business?".

While I have never been mistaken for a Democrat I can agree with some points. I am sure Gore has his own agenda but it does seem to include a global responsibility.

[dude1394]

So what are his solutions? It's one thing to rail against this but what's the solution.

I know for a fact that as countries become more prosperous they become more enviro-friendly and do more with less emissions. You can just look at the US for example wiht smog, freon, etc. We have more trees on the earth than we ever had for example.

Did they talk about emissions per gdp? Or was it typical emissions per country? Did they list the amount per country? US, EU and China have about 12,12,9 trillion I guess GDP out of a WW total of 61 trillion. So those three are about half of the worlds GDP.

My problem with all of this is they are not honest brokers. They are lobbying for power over the world economy and I'm not buying. And their solutions are worse than the problem it seems to me.

[dude1394]

Samuelson here is a pretty honest broker imo on most issues. His comments pretty much align with my own. The way to solve this is through technology not some reduction in human economic activity, that is luddite-like.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._to_globa.html

Greenhouse Guessing
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming. I say this after diligently perusing the British government's huge report released last week by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and now a high-ranking civil servant. The report is a masterpiece of misleading public relations.

It foresees dire consequences if global warming isn't curbed: a worldwide depression (with a drop in output up to 20 percent) and flooding of many coastal cities. Meanwhile, the costs of minimizing these awful outcomes are small: only 1 percent of world economic output in 2050.

No one could fail to conclude that we should conquer global warming instantly, if not sooner. Who could disagree? Well, me. Stern's headlined conclusions are intellectual fictions. They're essentially fabrications to justify an aggressive anti-global-warming agenda. The danger of that is we'd end up with the worst of both worlds: a program that harms the economy without much cutting of greenhouse gases.

Let me throw some messy realities onto Stern's tidy picture. In the global-warming debate, there's a big gap between public rhetoric (which verges on hysteria) and public behavior (which indicates indifference). People say they're worried but don't act that way. Greenhouse emissions continue to rise despite many earnest pledges to control them. Just last week, the United Nations reported that of the 41 countries it monitors (not including most developing nations), 34 had increased greenhouse emissions from 2000 to 2004. These include most countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Why is this? Here are three reasons.
First: With today's technologies, we don't know how to cut greenhouse gases in politically and economically acceptable ways. The world's 1,700 or so coal-fired power plants -- big emitters of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas -- are a cheap source of electricity. The wholesale cost is 4 to 5 cents a kilowatt hour, says the World Resources Institute. By contrast, solar power is five to six times that. Although wind is roughly competitive, it can be used only in selective spots. It now supplies less than 1 percent of global electricity. Nuclear energy is cost-competitive but is stymied by other concerns (safety, proliferation hazards, spent fuel).

Second: In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened'' (read: "unrealistic'') ways. They have to accept "pain'' now for benefits that won't materialize for decades, probably after they're dead. For example, we could adopt a steep gasoline tax and much tougher fuel-economy standards for vehicles. In time, that might limit emissions (personally, I favor this on national-security grounds). Absent some crisis, politicians usually won't impose -- and the public won't accept -- burdens without corresponding benefits.

Third: Even if rich countries cut emissions, it won't make much difference unless poor countries do likewise -- and so far, they've refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts. Poorer countries are the fastest growing source of greenhouse-gas emissions, because rapid economic growth requires energy, and present forms of energy produce gases. In 2003, China's carbon-dioxide emissions were 78 percent of the U.S. level. Developing countries, in total, accounted for 37 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2003. By 2050, their share could be 55 percent, projects the International Energy Agency.

The notion that there's only a modest tension between suppressing greenhouse gases and sustaining economic growth is highly dubious. Stern arrives at his trivial costs -- that mere 1 percent of world GDP in 2050 -- by essentially assuming them. His estimates presume that, with proper policies, technological improvements will automatically reconcile declining emissions with adequate economic growth. This is a heroic leap. To check warming, Stern wants annual emissions 25 percent below current levels by 2050. The IEA projects that economic growth by 2050 would more than double emissions. At present, we can't bridge that gap.

The other great distortion in Stern's report involves global warming's effects. No one knows what these might be, because we don't know how much warming might occur, when, where, or how easily people might adapt. Stern's horrific specter distills many of the most terrifying guesses, including some imagined for the 22nd century, and implies they're imminent. The idea is to scare people while reassuring them that policies to avert calamity, if started now, would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

We need more candor. Unless we develop cost-effective technologies that break the link between carbon-dioxide emissions and energy use, we can't do much. Anyone serious about global warming must focus on technology -- and not just assume it. Otherwise, our practical choices are all bad: costly mandates and controls that harm the economy; or costly mandates and controls that barely affect greenhouse gases. Or, possibly, both.

[mmmfast]

Does Samuelson work for big oil?

Seriously though, the 'solutions' detailed in the film are not as extreme as mentioned in the article above.

Here are a few mentioned in the film -

Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. If every family in the U.S. made the switch, we’d reduce carbon dioxide by more than 90 billion pounds! You can purchase CFLs online from the Energy Federation.

Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has more tips for saving energy on heating and cooling.

Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
Cleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

Install a programmable thermostatProgrammable thermostats will automatically lower the heat or air conditioning at night and raise them again in the morning. They can save you $100 a year on your energy bill.

Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
Look for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most efficient models. If each household in the U.S. replaced its existing appliances with the most efficient models available, we’d eliminate 175 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year!

Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

Use less hot water
It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.

Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
You can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.

Turn off electronic devices you’re not usingSimply turning off your television, DVD player, stereo, and computer when you’re not using them will save you thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
Even when turned off, things like hairdryers, cell phone chargers and televisions use energy. In fact, the energy used to keep display clocks lit and memory chips working accounts for 5 percent of total domestic energy consumption and spews 18 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year!

Only run your dishwasher when there’s a full load and use the energy-saving setting
You can save 100 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

Insulate and weatherize your homeProperly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. The Consumer Federation of America has more information on how to better insulate your home.

Be sure you’re recycling at home
You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates. Earth 911 can help you find recycling resources in your area.

Buy recycled paper products
It takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.

Plant a treeA single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.

Get a home energy audit Many utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist.

[dude1394]

Sound like great ideas, I would imagine that most americans are doing some of that. And no samuelson doesn't work for the oil company but he's a realist, not an idealist like algore.

Although I'm pretty damn sure that AlGore isn't handing his laundry out, nor Babs Streisand either.

So how much will this stuff cut down? What percentage of emissions would this reduce? Does it meet the kyoto treaty numbers? Just curious.

You do know that almost every one of these things are being subsidized by the US government don't you?

[mmmfast]

THe stuff I listed is more of an individual mental movement by the average american. As such, not precisely measurable but projections put us well within if 50% of the US were to do even some of this.

Of course it is being subsidized by the government, It needs to be done.

I was really only curious if anyone had seen the film also and wanted to discuss. Apparently no one has seen it and no one cares. Business as usual.

[sike]

you need a breath mint...now that is a invoncenient truth

[Drbio]

Much of the Gore "facts" are debateable. More importantly...they are not his. He only hyped up what has been hotly debated for years in science circles. The things that you posted above are good practice points. When pressed earlier this year by a reporter to show how many things like this Mr. Gore does at home, he was unable to to pick even one. In fact, he expended more CO2 in his trips to hype the movie than all of us combined will generate at home this year.

It's all politics....with some debatable science.

[mmmfast]

Originally Posted by sike

you need a breath mint...now that is a invoncenient truth

How can you smell my breath from there?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mmmfast

THe stuff I listed is more of an individual mental movement by the average american. As such, not precisely measurable but projections put us well within if 50% of the US were to do even some of this.

Of course it is being subsidized by the government, It needs to be done.

I was really only curious if anyone had seen the film also and wanted to discuss. Apparently no one has seen it and no one cares. Business as usual.

Well to be honest I'm not crazy about it being subsidized by the guvment because I basically think global warming is hooey, I also am not sure that global warming would be that big of a deal as it would probably make more land liveable, just different (and over thousands of years).

The biggest things that politicians could do to stop global warming would be to tax the hell out of fossil fuel, but then lots more than just politicians would be out of work.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by mmmfast

Have you seen it, Murph?
He pulls out all scientific articles related to global warming over the past 10 years and 100% agreed on the cause of it whereas 56% of all media articles were in disagreeance.

Sounds like a hype machine to me. Keep the cows docile while we slowly destroy them.

He's full of shit on the scientific part. There's no way in hell that there's 100% 'agreeance' on the cause of global warming.

Yeah. I watched the movie. Shortly after, I went outside and cut down a tree and then clubbed a baby seal over the head with a baseball bat. And then I left my SUV iddling until it ran out of gas.

[dude1394]

I turned on my outdoor grill powered by natural gas and have been using it as an eternal flame.

[Murphy3]

I killed an innocent baby and burned it using it as an alternative to fossil fuels. Oh wait, I'm not a liberal.

[capitalcity]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away
Posted by Noel Sheppard on November 26, 2006 - 18:18.

This is pretty hysterical, folks, and certainly requires all drinking vessels to be placed at a safe distance from nearby electronic equipment. Laurie David, the global warming alarmist and spouse of comedian Larry David (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”), wrote an op-ed published in Sunday’s Washington Post. In it, she stated that the company which produced Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” wanted to donate 50,000 DVD copies of the schlockumentary to the National Science Teachers Association so that educators around the country could brainwash America’s youth with Gore’s junk science. Thankfully, the NSTA said, “No Thanks”: “In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other ‘special interests’ might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer ‘political’ endorsement of the film; and they saw ‘little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members’ in accepting the free DVDs.” Can I get a group “Hallelujah?”

Now, most folks would think that’s a reasonable explanation. However, if you are the type that buys into the global warming myth, reason is not your strong suit. As such, David sees mischief afoot. And, who’s to blame? Well, if you guessed “oil companies,” come on down and accept the keys to your brand new Cadillac:

Still, maybe the NSTA [sic] just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.

I bet many of you saw that coming from a mile away. Amazingly, she continued with this conspiracy theory:

That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.

It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, ExxonMobil’s going after our kids. Of course, you’ve got to wonder who you’d rather have influence your children: ExxonMobil, or Al Gore, Laurie David, and their ilk. While you ponder, here’s more of David’s rant:

In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.

And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.

Horrors. ExxonMobil has given $42 million to schools by filling shortfalls in public education funding. The nerve of these people! But that’s not all. Read what other awful things ExxonMobil is doing:

The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.

How despicable. Wait a minute. I thought these folks support genetic engineering. Somehow, I think that sentence got by David and her editors. Regardless, David concluded with the following paranoid caution to her readers:

While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.

Amazing. I don’t know about you, but I’d quite prefer it if anything this woman has to offer is kept as far away from my kids’ schools as possible. In fact, this woman should be affixed with a LoJack so that police departments around the country can make sure that she’s always at a safe distance from schools, ice cream parlors, video arcades, libraries, playgrounds, candy stores, toy stores, bicycle shops, pediatricians' offices, etc., etc., etc.

Link

[dude1394]

I just went out and filled my car with exxon. I also topped the tank off big time.

And I didn't push the nozzle all the way in to get that good seal. I held the nozzle outside of the tank and let it drip in.

Oh I also ran with scissors a minute ago.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Yeah. I watched the movie. Shortly after, I went outside and cut down a tree and then clubbed a baby seal over the head with a baseball bat. And then I left my SUV iddling until it ran out of gas.

I don't get the chance to laugh out loud often enough.

Thanks, Murph.

[MavsX]

were all gonna die.

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Oh I also ran with scissors a minute ago.

NO! not the scissors! don't do that! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[capitalcity]

Hurricane Predictions Off Track As Tranquil Season Wafts Away

By NEIL JOHNSON The Tampa Tribune
Published: Nov 27, 2006

It was not the hurricane season we expected, thank you.

With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade.

Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.

Still, Florida was hit by two tropical storms, Alberto and Ernesto. But after the pummeling of the previous two years, the storms barely registered on the public's radar.

So what happened? Lots.

Storms were starved for fuel after ingesting masses of dry Saharan dust and air over the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists say the storm-snuffing dust was more abundant than usual this year.

In the season's peak, storms were curving right like errant field goals. High pressure that normally hunkers near Bermuda shifted far eastward, and five storms rode the clockwise winds away from Florida.

Finally, a rapidly growing El Nino, a warming of water over the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifted winds high in the atmosphere southward. The winds left developing storms disheveled and unable to become organized.

As they say about the stock market: Past results are no indication of future performance.

This year's uneventful season provides no assurance that next year will be as calm:

•The Atlantic remains in a 20- to 30-year cycle of high hurricane activity that started in 1995. Water temperatures are above normal.

•El Nino probably won't be around to decapitate storms.

•There's no promise that the Saharan dust will be as abundant.
BY THE NUMBERS

9: The number of named storms this year

17: The number of named storms predicted May 31 by a team at Colorado State University led by Professor William Gray

45 mph: The wind speed when Tropical Storm Alberto hit the Florida Panhandle near Adams Beach on June 13, the strongest winds over Florida all season

56 percent: The average homeowner rate increase Citizens Property Insurance Corp. requested even after no hurricanes struck Florida

27 percent: The Citizens rate increase approved to start Jan. 1

$100 million: Estimated damage in the United States from Tropical Storm Ernesto

0: The number of storms that formed in October, the first time since 2002 that no storms formed that month. Also, no Category 4 or 5 storms formed this year for the first time since 1997.

[Drbio]

God is not an Al Gore fan.

[dude1394]

When 2 weeks is too short of a timeframe for our collective culture, we don't have a chance to understand something that works on a millenium timescale. Forget about it.

[u2sarajevo]

Man I'm lucky (insert blue moon).

My brother's wife is a flaming liberal. My brother is a conservative, which in the 2 going on 3 years that he has been married to her he has slowly started to publicly espouse the views she espouses (although when I get him alone, just he and I, he admits he doesn't believe the crap and it just makes home life easier on him).

Something interesting happened about 6 months ago. She has her husband being robotic and latching on to her liberal agenda so it's time to go after his ultra-conservative brother(me). Well, I am happy to report, she has been very unsuccessful in these attempts. I do have to give her credit for being persistent though.

Now, she has abandoned those attempts it appears and moved to the next best thing. MY FRICKIN' WIFE! I guess she figures that if she can get her to think like she does perhaps I will become the liberal licking robot my Brother has supposedly become.

Why am I telling you all this? Because I got an e-mail from my wife this morning which actually was a forwarded message from my brother's wife telling her about this movie and how it moved her and how she HAD to see it.

I replied that I already wanted to check it out, but gave her links to some reviews/opinions on the movie.

This move of hers will FAIL.

[dude1394]

Eeek!!! Only 25% in error. Just think how accurate they will be in another 10,000 years!! Pretty rich that aerosol sprays are "cooling" the planet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
…
The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

[Drbio]

And the data being used is still very much in question. You alluded to geologic time which is very insightful. Many of my academic collegues argue that we are seeing atmospheric conditions that are normal for a long period wave-like fluctuation. As hard as they try they simply cannot make this factual. There are studies which infer cause and effect but none...zero...that can show cause and effect, especially in such a small window of time as a hundred years which is not even a blip on the geologic time scale.

[dude1394]

I should have known it. AlGore is certainly full of it.

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2062484.ece

Meet the world’s top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world’s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

[Drbio]

It has been known for years and years that the cow is the number one producer of methane.

Nothing like a good old cow toot.

[kg_veteran]

Yeah, but you can spin this against our evil culture, too. If only we were vegetarians, we wouldn't need all of those cows for meat...