An Inconvenient Truth: A Movie Review

[rollerboy]

Increasing numbers of experts assert that the world has hit, or will soon hit, "Peak Oil" and that oil reserves will begin to decline as less new oil is discovered to replace what is consumed. Oil demand since the late 90's has jumped 40%, driven by powerful industrial modernization in China and India.

Even if conservation and efficiency dramatically improved, the world will consume all remaining accessible oil and gas deposits. Maybe we can extend the supplies from 60 years to just past the end of the century, but the bottom line is that it gets exhausted.

Our focus should be on what sources we tap in the post-petroleum age.

 

[OTBn]

There rests the fundamental lies of the modern environmentalist. No matter what we humans do to the earth we are merely an annoyance for this great planet.
.
.
.
I guarantee that in 40 years from now the environmental moment will have a very different focus then today and the current attitude of global warming and evils of greenhouse gasses will be remembered as bunk.

Merely an annoyance - no matter what we do? The earth is self healing, above all. LOL - you offer a guarantee, no less.

Oh ya, don't take away my god given right to drive my gas guzzling behemoth.

So - your view seems to be that all "environmentalists" are liars and sheep. That you would state, "We have a responsibility to be a prudent steward and balance the reality of global development with the impact on the environment", suggests you are also an environmentalist... at least in sentiment. Would that then also mean...

 

[Ilovethemall]

nice shirt

First off, the only way I am buying the shapeshifter's shirt is if it is made by slave laborers (preferably children) from some 3rd world shithole.

Gravitas, of course the climate will fluctuate - in fact - I wonder if any of us realize just how perfect little things like our orbit around the sun have to be in order to keep the planet habitable for our fickle and temporary little species? However, I think we all need to be better at keeping up our end of the bargain as far as stewardship goes. Just because I want to do a little better with respect to recycling etc. does not make me some David Suzuki hugging homo enviro weenie.

As far as mom nature correcting herself, probably correct, however, if the planet is warming, do we really want to be pushing it along?

 

[therealrex]

There is no unanimity on global warming. This is good. That shows that science is still working. If everyone believed the same thing, and figured no more investigation is required, then you no longer have science, you have dogma, that is, religion.

Remember, only the media continue to argue the facts of global warming, among scientists the consensus is almost universal.

Contradict yourself much?

 

[aznboi9]

There is a consensus that Global Warming is occurring. The problem is that Gore doesn't accurately present that consensus in his speeches. He overstates the short term effects on the Earth's sea levels by an order of magnitude!

There is no consensus of what the impact of the warming trend will be. Will the Gulfstream shutdown, causing temperatures in the North Atlantic to actually drop? Will the Antarctic ice sheet thicken or shrink? Will mega-tsunami's and class 5 hurricanes devastate our coastal cities?

You may be right, I really don’t know. One thing that I had heard during an interview with a nominee for the Green Party leadership was that the more conservative estimates on climate change impact was based on older information and that new data and studies were in the process of being folded into the existing data base for the Kyoto protocol. Her claim was that once this new data had been incorporated, the future predictions would be more in line with those presented by Gore and others. I don’t know if what she was claiming was true, but she did strike me as being pretty reasonable and levelheaded.

And there's certainly no census on what to do about it. The UK government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, expresses the view that nuclear power is necessarily part of the solution.

I’m fine with that. They’ve at least they’ve gone beyond the “Should we do anything, or shouldn’t we?” debate. My understanding is that the Kyoto Protocol allows a large degree of flexibility in terms of how countries reach their targets, just as long as they reach them. So each country will obviously have their own individual solutions as to how they will reach their targets. From what I’ve heard, Germany, Britain and one of the Scandinavian countries have reached their targets while all using different strategies of achieving them. In fact, Britain has apparently gone even further and set even more stringent reduction targets for themselves.

I should clarify that my comments re. suzuki had less to do with Gore, his opinions or his movie but more to oldfart and his "sky is falling" attitude and that earth won't be able to support human life in 20 or 30 years.

LOL. Well, truth be told, Gore does paint a pretty bleak picture. And honestly, I don’t think that a very compelling movie could be made where the worse case scenario was only “Things will be a tad warmer than usual”. There was a point in the movie where I was wondering if he was losing some consistency in his argument or if I was over thinking things; but, for the most part, he seemed to be pretty reasonable and seemed to try his best at being as logical as feasible.

As for reducing our dependancy on fossil fuels.... As I stated earlier we have a responsibility to be good stewards of planet earth and that sort of thing starts at home with being as responsible as reasonably possible. I conserve where possible, use energy efficient lighting/appliances, recycle, etc......but I'm not going to feel guilty for driving an SUV or living what the hard core environmentalists would view as a wasteful or irresponsible lifestyle.

Sure, I don’t think that Gore’s goal is turn us all into little Suzuki’s or Hunter’s. From the interviews that I’ve seen, I think that Gore’s experiences with failure in the White House (from an environmentalists perspective) have led him to believe that real political action or policy will not occur unless there is desire in the voting public for change. So I think that what he’s trying to do is create more of a populist movement to put pressure on politicians so that there is a greater political incentive in making more environmentally friendly policies. I’m glad to hear that you’ll consider seeing it, though.

Guess what - this is the coldest the earth has been

Those are some interesting sites. A lot of that information is actually included in the movie as part of his arguments for global warming. You should see it.

Hope to hear from the rest of you as well as to you’re thoughts on the movie.

 

[bedtime4bonzo]

Get your hip waders out of the closet...

I saw this article by Michael Shermer who does the skeptic column in scientific american. If this guy thinks there's a problem we've got a problem...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000

From the article:
"According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants."

 

[sdw]

We used to have science.

Now we have the Politically Correct interpertation.

Want to investigate why some people are as dumb as posts?
Make sure that you don't measure the genetic effect of racial heritage.

Want to ensure that schools don't fail people with an IQ near 85?
Don't teach English or English Spelling and Grammer. Don't have complex sentences or thoughts in what is required to pass.
Don't require learning complex things like multiplaction tables, algebra or the ability to solve a problem without a calculator.
Don't require Physical Education, Band or Science classes for a pass to graduation.

Want to know why the climate is changing?
Don't investigate the effect of alienating farmland with tracts of housing. The paving of farmland and the fuel used driving an hour to work everyday can't possibly be responsible. No, the solution must be the Koyoto accords because we must all be able to have bits of green in front of and in back of the house. We can't possibly be required to live in townhouses, apartments and duplexes on non-arable land. We can't possibly be expected to live in easy walking distance of our work or have a public transportation system that is affordable because it serves a compact area.

 

[therealrex]

I saw this article by Michael Shermer who does the skeptic column in scientific american. If this guy thinks there's a problem we've got a problem...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000

From the article:
"According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants."

Since there is almost zero chance of reducing our CO2 emissions by even 30-40% by that time it sounds like we're screwed regardless of what we do. Might as well spend our money on pumps and 10 metre high dikes around all the coastal areas rather than some pointless exercise in reducing emissions when its already too late according to these learned experts.

 

[luckydog71]

From the article:
"According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants."

If the model used to make that predictaion is correct, what conclusion would you draw from the prediction.

The obvious one is emissions are not causing global warming. I wonder if the model was used and the input was emissions would be reduced to zero.

 

[aznboi9]

If the model used to make that predictaion is correct, what conclusion would you draw from the prediction.

The obvious one is emissions are not causing global warming.

How are you coming to that conclusion?

 

[georgebushmoron]

There are only 3 viable solutions, but all are very very expensive:

1. Stop the production of petrol based vehicles and outlaw their usage immediately.

2. Start building entire cities underground. Let nature take over completely above ground.

3. Move to another planet and destroy it instead.

The last one was proposed by Alex Feinman except the cynical part about destroying it, which was of course provided by yours truly ME.

 

[rollerboy]

3. Move to another planet and destroy it instead.

The last one was proposed by Alex Feinman except the cynical part about destroying it, which was of course provided by yours truly ME.

I don't think we have enough fuel left to power spaceships for moving 7 billion people. How 'bout we just blow up the new planet with a missile?

 

[therealrex]

There are only 3 viable solutions, but all are very very expensive:

1. Stop the production of petrol based vehicles and outlaw their usage immediately.

That sounds good and all but it doesn't solve the impending doom the experts are predicting. auto emissions only account for 20-25% of our CO2 emissions and since we already have been shown hard scientific proof that we would have to cut CO2 by 70% just to keep the temps from only rising 9 deg.

 

[luckydog71]

......since we already have been shown hard scientific proof that we would have to cut CO2 by 70% just to keep the temps from only rising 9 deg.

Would this be the same scientists that in the 70s had proof the earth was cooling and if we did not do something we would go into another ice age?

BTW – do you notice that none of the “sky is falling” advocates ever propose any solution. Gore was in office for 8 years, how much did he reduce emissions during his term in office?

So here is my solution to the problem. Let's excavate the US heartland and Saskatchewan and Manitoba to a depth of 50 feet. We could use the earth to build a dam around the perimeter of North America. If the dam did not hold the excess water produced by the melting ice cap could be directed into the 50 foot hole.

We could stock this new body of water with fish and edible marine plants to replace the food production we lost from the farms.

We would finance the whole venture by expropriating land in Alberta, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona prior to the flooding. This would all become water front property and very valuable land that could be sold to foreign investors.

 

[georgebushmoron]

Here are my solutions to all the world problems:

1. Move Israel to either the island of Tasmania or Queen Charlottes. They get to choose.
2. Send all short Asians and any other short people to a lighter gravity environment to live for a few years so they come back taller.
3. Send the whole world, including short Asians and other short people to a heavy gravity environment like ... Jupiter ... so we all come back smaller and thus we can build smaller cars that use less fuel.
4. Create a new species of animal by cross breeding cows with tofu. I don't know what that will solve but its got to solve something because it involves tofu.
5. Rename Indians to Caucasians and Caucasians to Japanese and Japanese to Negros and Negros to Germans and Germans to Eskimos.... to give old cultures a chance to renew themselves and cause mass confusion and rioting.
6. Make Canada part of the United States ... oops, done already.
7. Turn Australia into the world's compost and dumping ground for all refuse and garbage and nuclear waste. Relocate Australians to Canada, specifically Banff and Whistler. They love it there and most have already relocated.
8. Make Australia a penal colony again (as well as a junk yard) and send all the world's serial killers and murderers and other such types there.
9. Make the beaver the national symbol of Canada. I like beavers, especially shaved ones.
10. Give Japan two free nukes on anyone they wish. It's their turn.

 

[aznboi9]

BTW – do you notice that none of the “sky is falling” advocates ever propose any solution.

Total nonsense. The whole point for the “sky is falling” advocates is about utilizing existing technology as solutions to a perceived problem. If anything, it’s critics that don’t offer any solutions. They either state “We still unsure about climate change, so we don’t need to do anything” or “If climate change is so bad, why bother?” or, even better:

The question is can we do anything about it? Do we want to do anything about it?

That’s like walking into someone’s living room, planting a three-coiler and wondering if you want to pay for the cleaning bill. Why wouldn’t you?

Gore was in office for 8 years, how much did he reduce emissions during his term in office?

Zero. Apparently, he couldn’t get any support in the Senate for Kyoto; hence, his supposed motivation for the movie.

There are only 3 viable solutions, but all are very very expensive:

3. Move to another planet and destroy it instead.

Or we could do like they did in Red Dwarf and populate the rest of the solar system and use Earth as an interplanetary garbage dump. ‘Ewe was ‘Ere.

 

[future canadian]

2. Start building entire cities underground. Let nature take over completely above ground.

as long as I get an orgy at age 30 ... looking at red crystal on my palm

 

[souljacker]

I don't think we have enough fuel left to power spaceships for moving 7 billion people. How 'bout we just blow up the new planet with a missile?

Best post ever!

 

[luckydog71]

...
Zero. Apparently, he (Gore) couldn’t get any support in the Senate for Kyoto; hence, his supposed motivation for the movie.

The Senate was controlled by the Dems for most of the first term. If he could not convince his own party members, then just maybe he (Gore) is full of shit.

 

[aznboi9]

The Senate was controlled by the Dems for most of the first term. If he could not convince his own party members, then just maybe he (Gore) is full of shit.

It's very possible that he is full of shit.

It's also possible that he couldn't garner support because no one wanted to take a stand on a controversial issue that would potentially lead to a loss in their base of power, political or otherwise. 'Cause that never happens in politics.