The movie has its faults, but the argument is air-tight. Al Gore gives a very compelling speech, and presents the science in a way that keeps you engaged. If anyone doubts the existence of this problem, seeing this movie will almost certainly change your mind. And, ultimately, that is the point. I left the theater feeling a strong resolve to push for political action on this issue, and a sense of urgency about it. The movie also left me with a deep regret that Gore was never able to make this plea to the nation as our President. He would have been in a position to really do something about this issue, unlike the current administration, which continues to marginalize real science in favor of corporate interests. My only fear with this film is that it will end up preaching to the choir being the environment only ones who go see it. That would be a shame, because the data he presents and the argument he fashions really deserve to be heard by a wide audience. So, you should definitely go see it!
Inconvinient Truth
- Thread starter SpursDynasty
- Start date
very compelling documentary.. :clap:
politics aside, its high time somebody does something to preserve our planet for our children's children.
politics aside, its high time somebody does something to preserve our planet for our children's children.
hmm, never heard of it, and by your description, I never will see it, especially if it involves more of Al Gore's bs on the environment. There's more animals and wildlife where I live than there ever has been.
SixFive said:
Some might say that's because animal habitats have been disturbed forcing them to move closer to residential areas.
Scott-Atlanta said:
its amazing that he can make a statement like that and have any credibility. :142smilie
Time, Sept. 10, 1923: "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjecture of the possible advent of a new ice age."
NYT, Sept. 18, 1924: "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age."
NYT, March 27, 1933: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise."
Time, Jan. 2, 1939: "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right ... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."
Time, June 24, 1974: "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
NYT, May 21, 1975: "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable."
Time, April 9, 2001: "(S)cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."
NYT, Dec. 27, 2005: "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming."
NYT, Sept. 18, 1924: "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age."
NYT, March 27, 1933: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise."
Time, Jan. 2, 1939: "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right ... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."
Time, June 24, 1974: "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
NYT, May 21, 1975: "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable."
Time, April 9, 2001: "(S)cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."
NYT, Dec. 27, 2005: "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming."
dr. freeze said:
That article reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine who goes to San Diego State University. He is a member of some political club or organization, which is totally liberal.
When the immigration debate was THE topic the last few months, the official position of the club was pro illegals, and all the typical responses expected from a bunch of college students.
But what my friend privately told me is that he, and a few other members of the group secretly thought we SHOULD crack down on illegal immigration, but that nobody would/could ever express that. It shocked me hearing my super liberal friend admitting to that.
The group mentality is hard at work on both sides of the political spectrum.
yep, i like how he points out how the leftists love to throw the "democracy loves dissent" line out there in particular with any war
but when it comes to dissent in debating their own stances, they resort to name-calling, and the silence of dissent in particular and lack of reasonable discussion
i love the line of "all reputable scientists agree" but yet here is one example of the foremost climatologist in regards to hurricanes who vehemently disagrees with this panic
i think more investigation needs to go into cyclical solar activity which provides a more reasonable explanation for our own changing weather patterns as opposed to anything us meek humans could ever do
seems like we have been in panic mode for about a century for one reason or another and haven't learned anything
but when it comes to dissent in debating their own stances, they resort to name-calling, and the silence of dissent in particular and lack of reasonable discussion
i love the line of "all reputable scientists agree" but yet here is one example of the foremost climatologist in regards to hurricanes who vehemently disagrees with this panic
i think more investigation needs to go into cyclical solar activity which provides a more reasonable explanation for our own changing weather patterns as opposed to anything us meek humans could ever do
seems like we have been in panic mode for about a century for one reason or another and haven't learned anything
Last edited:
here is how the guy that is recognized as the premier climate expert sees it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/29/MNGT1CHITP1.DTL
and he worked for Reagan & both bushes
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/29/MNGT1CHITP1.DTL
and he worked for Reagan & both bushes
- Mar 2, 2006
- 4,794
- 120
- 0
dr. freeze said:
are you really saying that climate change is not happening and furthermore has nothing to do with human activities on earth? yeah, that's why 163 countries around the world have signed the kyoto protocol - but i'm sure they are all wrong... and the US department of energy is wrong too
one of my best friends is an inuit from barrow alaska, the northernmost settlement in the US. she tells me stories about how polar bears are now walking through her town looking for any kind of food because the ice has receded so far from land that they can no longer go ice-fishing... and the livelihoods of ice-fisherman are at risk as well...
tell these people global warming isn't happening
and by the way - are top experts in their field never wrong??? --
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981
Last edited:
C.G Lichtenberg: "The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distorted."
C.G Lichtenberg: "The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distorted."
"here is how the guy that is recognized as the premier climate expert sees it.
and he worked for Reagan & both bushes.."
Hansen is recognized as perhaps the premier climate modeler, certainly not "the" premier climate expert.
He is an example of what the above Denver Post article means from the quote a "few vocal individuals are quoted over and over again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions."
Hansen is a career goverment worker and thus did not by choice work specifically for the Reagan and Bush, nor did Reagan or Bush specifically choose him.
C.G Lichtenberg: "The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distorted."
"here is how the guy that is recognized as the premier climate expert sees it.
and he worked for Reagan & both bushes.."
Hansen is recognized as perhaps the premier climate modeler, certainly not "the" premier climate expert.
He is an example of what the above Denver Post article means from the quote a "few vocal individuals are quoted over and over again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions."
Hansen is a career goverment worker and thus did not by choice work specifically for the Reagan and Bush, nor did Reagan or Bush specifically choose him.
Last edited:
Chill out over global warming
Chill out over global warming
for those who didn't see this article in the political forum i thought that i would post this here....
i admit that i don't know anything about the global warming issue but i find this article to be interesting considering al gore's 'the sky's falling" spiel.....
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.
Why not give it a whirl?
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.
I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?
"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard
and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.
Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.
Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.
Chill out over global warming
for those who didn't see this article in the political forum i thought that i would post this here....
i admit that i don't know anything about the global warming issue but i find this article to be interesting considering al gore's 'the sky's falling" spiel.....
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.
Why not give it a whirl?
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.
I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?
"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard
and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.
Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.
Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.
- Mar 2, 2006
- 4,794
- 120
- 0
who cares what Harsanyi's opinion is????? he admits right at the beginning of the article that he has no expertise in science.... :shrug:
and this quote by Pielke is hilarious: "A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
There probably are "a lot of scientists" out there who are capable of presenting different views - they just might not be correct
The National Academy of Sciences includes over 1,922 members, 93 members emeritus, 341 foreign associates, and employs about 1,100 staff. The current members annually elect new members for life. Election to membership is one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. There are more than 170 members who have won a Nobel Prize.
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
I work with many scientists who are part of the NAS and they are truly the most brilliant in the field. But I'm sure the staff writer for the Denver Post knows more about it.... (and neither Gray nor Pielke are distinguished enough to be part of the NAS)...
HERE ARE KEY POINTS FROM THE STATEMENT FROM NAS:
JOINT STATEMENT ON CLIMATE
**Significant global warming is occurring.
**It has caused increases in sea levels, retreats of glaciers and changes in many biological systems.
**Most warming in recent decades can likely be attributed to human activities, largely from developed countries.
**Action taken now to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change.
**Failure to implement reductions now will make the job more difficult in the future.
Source: U.S. National Academy of Sciences
and this quote by Pielke is hilarious: "A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
There probably are "a lot of scientists" out there who are capable of presenting different views - they just might not be correct
The National Academy of Sciences includes over 1,922 members, 93 members emeritus, 341 foreign associates, and employs about 1,100 staff. The current members annually elect new members for life. Election to membership is one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. There are more than 170 members who have won a Nobel Prize.
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
I work with many scientists who are part of the NAS and they are truly the most brilliant in the field. But I'm sure the staff writer for the Denver Post knows more about it.... (and neither Gray nor Pielke are distinguished enough to be part of the NAS)...
HERE ARE KEY POINTS FROM THE STATEMENT FROM NAS:
JOINT STATEMENT ON CLIMATE
**Significant global warming is occurring.
**It has caused increases in sea levels, retreats of glaciers and changes in many biological systems.
**Most warming in recent decades can likely be attributed to human activities, largely from developed countries.
**Action taken now to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change.
**Failure to implement reductions now will make the job more difficult in the future.
Source: U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Last edited:
Here is another key statement for these alarm scientists:
If there is no alarm, they do not get paid
If there is no alarm, they do not get paid
You mention that notorious 2005 national science academies of the G8 nations statement? This from junkscience.com, July 3 entry:
The "Joint Academies Statement" engineered by Lord Robert May appears to be more "misstatement"
Then US-National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Albert (his term just expired on June 30) states in an e-mail:
"... we definitely did not approve the Royal Society press release, and I have sent a letter to Bob May expressing my dismay at his
misleading and political statements there."
The situation now appears that we have a joint academies statement, including the US and Russian Academies of Sciences
that does not, in fact, include either the US or Russian Academies. At this time, immediately prior to the G8 Summit, the only definitely
known endorser of Lord May's statement is, well, Lord Robert May.
The international scientific community was plunged into disarray as news emerged yesterday how Britain's Royal Society has been orchestrating
a political campaign behind the back of the Russian Academy of Science. In a calculated attempt to overthrow the well-known sceptical position of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) on climate change, the Royal Society appears to have pressured its president, Yuri Osipov, into signing a politically motivated document against the expressed stance of its own organisation.
The RAS had never seen or discussed the text of the Academies' statement. After having done so, the RAS climate scientists have come to the
conclusion that the statement of the Academies is "lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions."
The shenanigans of Lord May and his cronies appears to have backfired: Instead of providing evidence of an international "scientific consensus" on climate change, the public retraction by the Russian Academy of Science from the Royal Society's unduly political G8 statement has
exposed the whole exercise as a complete farce. As a result, the reputation and integrity of the world's leading scientific academies have been severely damaged
...........
You want more dissenting opinions from NAS scientists?
Here's a strong one by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor, member of the National Academy of Sciences, served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences to write a report on climate change and it contains this advice for policymakers:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,
but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."
The bits below from a recent paper by Lindzen:
"First, I would emphasize that the basic agreement
frequently described as representing scientific unanimity concerning global warming is
entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all..... what is known points to the
conclusion that a doubling of CO2 would lead to about 0.5C warming or less, and aquadrupling (should it ever occur) to no more than about 1C. Neither would constitute aparticular societal challenge. Nor would such (or even greater) warming likely be associated with discernibly more storminess, a greater range of extremes, etc.
Second, a significant part of the scientific community appears committed to the
maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the
maintenance of funding. {oops! he's channeling Dr. Freeze!} The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct(they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. Alas, it is impossible to prove something is impossible...."
Here is his opinion piece "Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence"
The "Joint Academies Statement" engineered by Lord Robert May appears to be more "misstatement"
Then US-National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Albert (his term just expired on June 30) states in an e-mail:
"... we definitely did not approve the Royal Society press release, and I have sent a letter to Bob May expressing my dismay at his
misleading and political statements there."
The situation now appears that we have a joint academies statement, including the US and Russian Academies of Sciences
that does not, in fact, include either the US or Russian Academies. At this time, immediately prior to the G8 Summit, the only definitely
known endorser of Lord May's statement is, well, Lord Robert May.
The international scientific community was plunged into disarray as news emerged yesterday how Britain's Royal Society has been orchestrating
a political campaign behind the back of the Russian Academy of Science. In a calculated attempt to overthrow the well-known sceptical position of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) on climate change, the Royal Society appears to have pressured its president, Yuri Osipov, into signing a politically motivated document against the expressed stance of its own organisation.
The RAS had never seen or discussed the text of the Academies' statement. After having done so, the RAS climate scientists have come to the
conclusion that the statement of the Academies is "lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions."
The shenanigans of Lord May and his cronies appears to have backfired: Instead of providing evidence of an international "scientific consensus" on climate change, the public retraction by the Russian Academy of Science from the Royal Society's unduly political G8 statement has
exposed the whole exercise as a complete farce. As a result, the reputation and integrity of the world's leading scientific academies have been severely damaged
...........
You want more dissenting opinions from NAS scientists?
Here's a strong one by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor, member of the National Academy of Sciences, served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences to write a report on climate change and it contains this advice for policymakers:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,
but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."
The bits below from a recent paper by Lindzen:
"First, I would emphasize that the basic agreement
frequently described as representing scientific unanimity concerning global warming is
entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all..... what is known points to the
conclusion that a doubling of CO2 would lead to about 0.5C warming or less, and aquadrupling (should it ever occur) to no more than about 1C. Neither would constitute aparticular societal challenge. Nor would such (or even greater) warming likely be associated with discernibly more storminess, a greater range of extremes, etc.
Second, a significant part of the scientific community appears committed to the
maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the
maintenance of funding. {oops! he's channeling Dr. Freeze!} The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct(they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. Alas, it is impossible to prove something is impossible...."
Here is his opinion piece "Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence"
