An Inconvenient Truth.. or, How to Feel Guilty About Your Carbon Footprint.

[Helium Macaroni]

Go see it!

Thats all =)




Ok, maybe not.. well I just got back from seeing it, and the news of this movie needs to be spread like the plague until everyone (in the U.S. at least) has seen it, or wants to see it.

Essentially the movie is a mixture of Al Gore's lecture on global warming interspliced with more of a personal interview and Gore's reflections. It was really fascinating, shocking, and even made me tear up a little to see how much damage is being done.

The movie and issue really transcend politics and shouldn't be avoided simply because someone may be unfond of Gore or his party.

Ways to effect change personally by reducing your individual carbon emissions are out there, and you can read up on some at www.climatecrisis.net.

[ColdKodiak]

The film looks sophmoric to me. I don't think I need to pay 8-10$ to listen to Gore for 2 hours talk about things I already know.

But if it makes people more active and calling their legislators and representatives, then that's cool with me.

[Helium Macaroni]

Well, if you happen to know that much about the subject, then thats great, however I don't understand how the movie can be viewed as somehow immature.

[MEP]

Anyone who actually looks at Gore's political record (particularly his Senatorial record) has to laugh at the notion of him being some kind of environmental advocate. I never understood why anyone would listen to him talk about anything. The man is clearly insane.

As for global warming, there is as of yet, no scientific evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming. Seriously, it's still just a theory because our understanding of atmospheric science is still so very minimal that we really don't know what the hell is going on above our heads most of the time. The inconvenient truth is that the global climate shifts all the time, sometimes colder, sometimes warmer and it always has. Every few centuries or so.

That's not to say that I don't think carbon emissions impact the environment in negative ways because they clearly do. And it has been demonstrated repeatedly that small scale local climate change (not always warming though) can be attributed to pollution as well as a host of public health problems. It's certainly possible that man made carbon gases are causing some kind of warming effect, but it's highly unlikely since the majority of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is causesd by water vapor and not other gases anyway. In order for our emissions to impact the atmosphere at the level that so many people claim, we would have to output ten times as much crap as we currently do.

Again, I still believe in cutting back. I still believe in reducing emissions, but I don't believe in using pseudoscience babbling to justify it to the plebian masses. Environmentalism has up to this point in history been traditionally built on fear mongering and movie-plot threats (just like national security) rather than on truth and reasoned debate. The case for environmental responsibility is strong enough that we shouldn't have to resort to such cheap scare tactics to get people to reduce (and historically, populations never respond well to such cheap tactics anyway, we'd be more effective if we just gave people the straight story instead of blowing smoke up their asses).

But the scare tactics are motivated by something other than just environmentalism. A true environmentalist can get the point across without all the hand waving and doomsaying of people like Gore. But most of these public figures aren't as interested in saving the environment as they are in being right, which means they'll gladly sacrifice the truth if it serves their own vain desire to appear as an environmental savior to a large group of people. Others are profit motivated. Who do you think gets the super fund contract when cleaning up environmental hazards? Why do you think the ethanol lobby is stronger in Iowa than anywhere else in the country? I'm all for corporations supporting environmental reform, but we have to always be critical of profit-motivated entities and their other agendas when assessing the viability and effectiveness of whatever they suggest. And the same clearly goes for politicians.

The inconvenient truth is that we really know jack about global warming, whether it's happening, whether it's a risk or whether it's even possible. I remember in college, I took a class with Bill Gray, considered by most to be the Einstein of atmospheric science who's hurricane predictions every year are nationally televised and frighteningly accurate. He fully believed that the global climate was warming, but he laughed (literally, out loud) at the notion of it being man-made. "I don't know a single atmospheric scientist who takes those theories seriously. Most of the studies that support the theory are conducted by biologists, chemists or physicists, all of whom know even less than we do about the atmosphere. The studies conducted by people in the actual field of atmospheric science all seem to indicate a natural climate shift or they don't indicate anything at all." There were, as you can imagine, a lot of heated debates with self-proclaimed environmentalists and our professor that semester. But every time, he had the data and facts to back his theories up and they didn't.

I wish environmentalists would stop trying to scare everybody into agreeing with them and would just start using actual facts and data to convince people in a calm and rational manner that we should all be more responsible. I honestly believe that they'd get more converts and more action with a more reasonable approach and we'd all be better off for it.

[Scubasteve]

Personally I think global warming is due to natural fluctuations in the earths temp. and has nothing to do with humans. It would stand to reason that the pollution in the area would effect us in some way though. Lung Cancer and things of that nature, so Im certainly for clean air. We've only been keeping track of global temps since the 1930s I believe so I think its a stretch for scientists to say were causing the earth to overheat. I think its politically motivated. I don't trust the man myself. Just my 2¢

On another note if Gore goes around telling us we need to sell our cars and by hybrids, carpool, turn up our thermostats and all that crap, then after his lecture gets into one of his many limos and parades down to the nearest airport where he gets into his Millioin dollar G5 and flys off to do it all again in the next city. What a freakin joke.

[jfwalls]

Everybody knows that the reason the climate is getting warmer is because of the aliens in South America pumping CO2 into the air, and that Charlie Sheen will save us all.

[_Mario]

but I don't believe in using pseudoscience babbling to justify it to the plebian masses. Environmentalism has up to this point in history been traditionally built on fear mongering and movie-plot threats (just like national security) rather than on truth and reasoned debate.

And what about the other side? I have read enough about enviromental issues of global warming, emissions, and related effects. And from my point of view that is not just some pseudoscience babbling. It looks more real than the 'oh, that's normal' point of view. Have you seen these new ads (were featured on boingboing.net some days ago if you want to take a look) for polluting the enviroment. That is pseudoscience bullshit, no real explanation, just 'we need it for our economy and comfort' and 'trees need it too so it can't be that bad'. Yeah fine, I know plants need CO2 buy not as much as we push out. The eco-system changes slowly over thousands of years. We burn way too much stuff way to fast.

It is a fact that our whole system is very fragile. For example (genereic, and old): Bring one new species somewhere where it has never been and it will either die very fast (be cause it can't adopt that fast to it's enviroment) or it will dominate the system for some time at least (because the system can't adopt to that species).

In the short time that Mankind has been on earth we have changed things way too fast. Compare how things changed before we were here and now that we are here. We are doing things wrong. We are like little kids i front of a console with lots of big red buttons and we don't know what effect these buttons really have. But we push this one try that one and don't care because once some thousands/missions years ago earth was extremely hot. But people with this argument forget that at that time other parts of the eco-sytem were different too. Yes we had times when the CO2 ratio was higher but at that time europe was a big forest (or at least not a concrete bunker like today). We are cutting tres everywhere and expect the 'few ones that are left' to manage the increasing amout of CO2. 'We need less roads andmore cars to manage traffic jams' sounds about equally right.

Enviromentalists are not saying that we have to reduce CO2 emission because it inheritedly evil but because we already pumped to much shit in our own atmosphere and need tochange that.

Air consists of ~78% N2, ~21% O2, ~1% Ar with the rest (about 0,04%) being a lot of different elements and molecules. And carbonedioxide supplys about 4/5 of this rest. Humans can't use everything to breathe, we need a specific ratio (with some room) of these elements and really big jumps are not possible. We are still increasing the CO2 ratio each day and with China's 'capitalistic revolution' CO2 emission won't go down. They have a lot of people and the energy they need is rising faster than any other countrys need.

If you take into account more than just the warmth changes all the time and look further into economics, geology, biology, chemistry then you can see that there is a real danger and not just some hippies who want to destroy capitalism.

[CaptainInsano]

Anyone who actually looks at Gore's political record (particularly his Senatorial record) has to laugh at the notion of him being some kind of environmental advocate. I never understood why anyone would listen to him talk about anything. The man is clearly insane.

As for global warming, there is as of yet, no scientific evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming. Seriously, it's still just a theory because our understanding of atmospheric science is still so very minimal that we really don't know what the hell is going on above our heads most of the time. The inconvenient truth is that the global climate shifts all the time, sometimes colder, sometimes warmer and it always has. Every few centuries or so.

That's not to say that I don't think carbon emissions impact the environment in negative ways because they clearly do. And it has been demonstrated repeatedly that small scale local climate change (not always warming though) can be attributed to pollution as well as a host of public health problems. It's certainly possible that man made carbon gases are causing some kind of warming effect, but it's highly unlikely since the majority of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is causesd by water vapor and not other gases anyway. In order for our emissions to impact the atmosphere at the level that so many people claim, we would have to output ten times as much crap as we currently do.

Again, I still believe in cutting back. I still believe in reducing emissions, but I don't believe in using pseudoscience babbling to justify it to the plebian masses. Environmentalism has up to this point in history been traditionally built on fear mongering and movie-plot threats (just like national security) rather than on truth and reasoned debate. The case for environmental responsibility is strong enough that we shouldn't have to resort to such cheap scare tactics to get people to reduce (and historically, populations never respond well to such cheap tactics anyway, we'd be more effective if we just gave people the straight story instead of blowing smoke up their asses).

But the scare tactics are motivated by something other than just environmentalism. A true environmentalist can get the point across without all the hand waving and doomsaying of people like Gore. But most of these public figures aren't as interested in saving the environment as they are in being right, which means they'll gladly sacrifice the truth if it serves their own vain desire to appear as an environmental savior to a large group of people. Others are profit motivated. Who do you think gets the super fund contract when cleaning up environmental hazards? Why do you think the ethanol lobby is stronger in Iowa than anywhere else in the country? I'm all for corporations supporting environmental reform, but we have to always be critical of profit-motivated entities and their other agendas when assessing the viability and effectiveness of whatever they suggest. And the same clearly goes for politicians.

The inconvenient truth is that we really know jack about global warming, whether it's happening, whether it's a risk or whether it's even possible. I remember in college, I took a class with Bill Gray, considered by most to be the Einstein of atmospheric science who's hurricane predictions every year are nationally televised and frighteningly accurate. He fully believed that the global climate was warming, but he laughed (literally, out loud) at the notion of it being man-made. "I don't know a single atmospheric scientist who takes those theories seriously. Most of the studies that support the theory are conducted by biologists, chemists or physicists, all of whom know even less than we do about the atmosphere. The studies conducted by people in the actual field of atmospheric science all seem to indicate a natural climate shift or they don't indicate anything at all." There were, as you can imagine, a lot of heated debates with self-proclaimed environmentalists and our professor that semester. But every time, he had the data and facts to back his theories up and they didn't.

I wish environmentalists would stop trying to scare everybody into agreeing with them and would just start using actual facts and data to convince people in a calm and rational manner that we should all be more responsible. I honestly believe that they'd get more converts and more action with a more reasonable approach and we'd all be better off for it.

Well said

In addition, Mt. Pinatubo's eruption released more CO2 in the atmosphere than all of the industrial revolution did in the past century. I agree with the theory that man-made CO2 contributes to global warming and it's disatrous effects, but how much of our contribution is as significant as people like Al Gore say? I think this is being used as a political tool to scare people to vote a certain way.

And, as Scubasteve said so eccentrically, we have only been keeping track of global temperatures for the past 100 years, and we really can't tell if this is just a natural phenomenon. The polar ice caps have been freezing and thawing for millions of years even before humans got here, and the world's temperture has been fluctuating since we've gotten tempeture readings from antartic ice cores.

It's too early to tell if human waste is at fault. Personally, I think we do damnage the environment which can cause changes in enviornment, but don't agree that what we do is nearly as much as what nature produces itself.

[CaptainInsano]

If you take into account more than just the warmth changes all the time and look further into economics, geology, biology, chemistry then you can see that there is a real danger and not just some hippies who want to destroy capitalism.

Communist countries produce the most pollutants than any other type of country. Beijing is the most polluted city in the world, and China is the most polluted country. The worst man-made enviornment disaster happened in the Soviet Union (Chernobyl meltdown).

[Helium Macaroni]

I wouldn't call China communist. They have all the perfect makings of capitalism with a harsh totalitarian government. Really, thats the ideal format for capitalism anyway.

[Helium Macaroni]

MEP, if you have any evidence to support the supposed 'insanity' of the former VP I'd love to see it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you however I'm curious as to what damning data you have to conclude that he's some sort of mad man. I have issues with his involvement in the music censorship movement in the 80's but otherwise he seems to me a typical politician up to the point of his stint as the Vice President. I also believe his sincerity on these matters and his more populist viewpoints that started to emerge at the end of the 2000 election.

I certainly disagree about your assumption that there is no evidence to support man made global warming effects. Are you blind? Even the data covering the last 600,000 years relating to core drilling shows a dramatic increase (temp in relation to CO2), double the normal, that coincides with the steady increase of C02 emissions. It’s compounded due to the warmer temperature of this particular cycle between ice ages. Yes, the earth’s cycle fluctuates between temperate and ice age levels, however there is no denying that temperature rising in the last century is linked to the rising carbon levels. I'll see if I can dig up the graph that I saw, or the information I'm referring to, but I don't have a ton of time to turn this into some sort of heated controversy utilizing extensive research on my part. I don't quite understand how this information isn't staring you in the face actually. Weather patterns for the last 10 years have hit extremes from large class hurricane production, tsunami production, heat waves, flooding, etc, all spiking in the last 10-20 years. Again, back to the core drilling, recording about half a million years of temperature change and carbon in the atmosphere, the current situation exceeds the natural cycle.

To somehow abdicate or say that 'well, we're too small to possibly make any certain impact.' That’s a crock of shit. Granted if the earth’s cycle is at a period of warming, or constant regular heat, the current trends show that we're at least compounding the problem by dumping so much carbon in the air.

It certainly is the case that natural phenomenon adds particles and carbon into the air, but those natural disasters or incidents don't continually pump increasing amounts or carbon year round as we are doing. Compound the natural heating/cooling cycle with the environmental degradation we cause by old technology power plants, automobiles, forest burning, relate that to the hot/cold conduction currents that redistribute hot air at the poles, and you get the unprecedented melting and ice cracking that we're seeing in the arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic. The big flag here is that this melting, these weather patterns, these temperatures and carbon levels are completely new, most having developed in the last 20 years.

I'm amused how many of you dismiss Gore for his politics when he isn't even involved in them any more. He sits on the boards of enough companies and private funds to give him a real stake in money making or benefiting off of reduced environmental regulations, but he chooses to invest his time and capital in corporations working for change. He chimes in now and again to denounce the current administration for its failures, but what makes him dissimilar from 60% of the population in that regard? He’s not running for office, he’s not endorsing politicians; he’s making his way around to cities and schools spreading information. I question what he has to gain from this so-called fear mongering, or what the environmental movement has to gain, other than the possibility of our children growing up in a normal stable environment. The money to be gained, the political capital that’s in command, is dwarfed by the interests on the other side of this issue, the corporations, the industries, and the cronyism politics.

And yes Parker, he is trying to make people vote a different way. He's not saying which however. He's just saying to vote for leaders who possess the will to get us away from the habits that are causing our mutual danger. Democrats have been almost as detrimental to environmental regulation as Republicans, and this exceeds partisan politics in the final analysis.

You can dismiss human-effected global warming all you want. But if you don't believe in what you see or the data that’s out there, it’s quite fine by me. Amusingly this turns into one of those interesting moral issues that people split on right down party lines, turning into something they distrust because they dislike the side that proposes its existence. Nothing I say will change anyone’s opinion, and I have work to get to.

[CaptainInsano]

I wouldn't call China communist. They have all the perfect makings of capitalism with a harsh totalitarian government. Really, thats the ideal format for capitalism anyway.

hahaha! I must disagree with you Helium

The communist government controls production and pricing, and that is the exact opposite of capitalism which the government has a "hands off" policy towards industry. The chinese government can relocate millions of people off land and nationalize it for the use of buidling whatever it is they want on top of it (the 3 Gorges Dam, the 2008 Olympic Village, among things), which contradicts capitalism where industry and land are owned by the people, not by the government. Also, because the Communist government has a stranglehold over industry and media, it can quell worker strikes and cover up environmental disasters. Thats how things like Chernobyl and Beijing's pollution go unspoken and unapologized for.

That goes against the freedom of the press and freedom of speach which is needed for a capitalist economy to thrive on individual ingenuity.

If someone like Al Gore in China attempted to criticize the Chinese government like that, he would be thrown in jail. In America, we go see his movie and talk about it on an internet forum without fear of repraisals. I'll take the american system any day!

[CaptainInsano]

btw.. Helium

I agree that the US could be better, a lot better. I'm just saying I don't agree with your comment that the Chinese style ecomony is Capitalism at it's most ideal. To me, it's exactly the opposite from ideal.

That is all.

[Helium Macaroni]

The communist government there also allows for a vast amount of free enterprise to dictate policy and drive that redistriburion you talk of. You don't consider the current controversy over immenent domain in this country at all similar even if it's on a limited scale? There we have corporations dictating policy which the government adapts to.

This is not to mention the HUGE amount of private interest currently invested in China from energy production, to labor, to software developement. All those firms are private, owned by foriegn firms, but private none the less, and have a huge stake in China being able to control thier populace, lower thier regulations, and crush dissent at the snap of a finger.

Throughout history in this country we've crushed workers, cut environmental regulations, shut the press up, and other unspeakable crimes against the precious free market that apparently thrives on a happy workforce and free press. Inovation may be lacking there, but there is no question that thier state control or nationalization efforts akin to the soviet system are changing in the face of overwhelming demand for low regulation, a workforce thats cheap, and a corrupt state thats willing to bend over backwards to get in bed with private interests, and let private interests influence thier policy.. gee.. sounds similar to whats going on in this country.

Oh.. and why is my bank called Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Company? Thats very communist of them.

I still maintain that the current version of capitalism is right at home with the Chinese 'communists'. I unfortunately see trends in this country developing similarly.

[Helium Macaroni]

clarification:

It may not be the free markets ideal, but it is capitalisms ideal, or at least what our corporations have made out of it.

[CaptainInsano]

1. There we have corporations dictating policy which the government adapts to.

2. All those firms are private, owned by foriegn firms, but private none the less, and have a huge stake in China being able to control thier populace, lower thier regulations, and crush dissent at the snap of a finger.

3. Inovation may be lacking there, but there is no question that thier state control or nationalization efforts akin to the soviet system are changing in the face of overwhelming demand for low regulation, a workforce thats cheap, and a corrupt state thats willing to bend over backwards to get in bed with private interests, and let private interests influence thier policy..

The reason why there is so much corruption is because the government has it's hands in business in the first place. Which is against capitalist philosophy.

If the Communists had could not dictate policy, then private industries can't use the government to change it. That is the reason why Communist economies get corrupted, because it's meddling in economy when it shouldn't be in there to begin with. It's like only jailing the drug addict but not the drug dealer.

The answer here is not to limit capitalism, but to allow more of it in! When the Communist government controls who can, and who can't... do what, build what, and pay what, then industries cease to improve their working conditions and pay better wages. Because they don't have to pay more and improve their conditions!

But when the govenments stops intervening with that, and more companies are competing to hire the best employees, they start paying more and improving the conditions, and create new products and technologies to safeguard the environment. They need more free enterprise, not less of it.

anyway, the topic is getting off track... back to global warming shall we?

[Helium Macaroni]

It's all good, I can clarify what I mean by the whole capitalism thing later. I know what you're saying, but with that logic does that mean our corrupt system needs less capitalism because the private sector is dictating policy? Please say yes!

Here its the other way around, business has its hands in government, an overwhelming amount.

Anyways, I have to run out and finish some crap, we can start a thread on this later.. =P

[CaptainInsano]

yeah, me too. there went my lunch break.

[Scubasteve]

I agree with you HM about the immenent domain thing. In fact, I would say America is slowly shifting towards socialism in many respects. I don't know enough about China to comment on it, but it would stand to reason that the more familer their people become with capitalism, the more they would want to become one. As flawed as it is Capitism is the one system that works. And who wouldn't want more freedom.

While I certianly disagree with AlGore's politics, I wouldn't dismiss him off hand just for that reason. I have held this position on it for a while now. Long before I knew where he stood on it. I was just trying to point out his hypocrisy on it. I would like to see the data your referring to though, I've heard that agruement before but havent seen any real data.

[ColdKodiak]

however I don't understand how the movie can be viewed as somehow immature.

I meant more in the vien of being dumbed down, a lesser study of a larger context.(eg. shallow)
I suppose sophomoric wasn't exactly the right word...

anyways, I didn't see it, so I don't know exactly how well endowed in science it is, or how deep it goes.