An Inconvenient Truth

[Kire]

Yes, the Al Gore movie. I really urge everyone to see this film, no matter what your politics are.

I have to admit it was much better than I expected. It answered almost every question I had by saying that global warming is real, here is the proof, here is why the skeptics are wrong, and here's what we can do about it to reverse the process.

Even if you already believe global warming is real, see this movie. It might give you the information to get the message out so we can steadily reverse this whole process, just like we did with the ozone layer.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...myths.html#cc1

[OmegaD3k]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

EXCELSIOR!!

Seems like another "one of those" types of conspiracy movies..
(which, in the end, no one will remember or take serious anymore after the first few weeks)
I'll try to rent it perhaps.
I'm super serial.

[Kire]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

It's pretty hard to decry this as conspiracy theory stuff with the piles of evidence that's presented, both of stuff that's in the past and stuff we're seeing today (like the ice shelves that are breaking up that have never come close to doing so before).

I found that episode funny too, but now I find it pretty off the mark with the issue it was addressing.

[Nixon]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

All I could think of when I saw news about this was: "With a name like "ULTIMATE FORCE," you know it's gonna be a movie about a tough guy on wheels!"

I wasn't going to see it until I read this article. Looks like he did his research.
YOU... ARE... HEARING... ME... TALK...

[Alex]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore kicks some ass. I want to see this movie...

[Kire]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

I posted a link that debunks the top ten myths about global warming. These are also reflected in the movie.

[The Toecutter]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

I'm waiting to see Chris Paine's documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" myself.

40% of America's oil consumption is for fuel for its passenger cars. An electric car today can eliminate that entirely.

With the issue of global warming, there is a tradeoff between profits for industry and CO2 output. The more resources we consume, the more revenue is generated, the more profits are made. But so too is more CO2 and other greenhouse gases produced.

But the world has limited natural resources. we cannot keep consuming like this forever. The environmental consequences of such consumption are apparent. But the top shareholders in industry refuse to give up their profit margins, and our government wishes to keep expanding in size and scope, as opposed to shrinking. Keeping a surveillance and war-oriented society running takes lots of resources, consumption and production of which creates lots of greenhouse gasses.

Alternatives that result in less cost to the consumer, better quality, lower profits, and lower greenhouse gas emissions like electric cars, wind /solar energy, and hemp biofuels have thus been fought by industry. We could have our first world living standard and keep our environment intact, but the only way to do so is to cut resource consumption and spending. Industry does not want that, and has played a role in stifling alternatives.

[Alex]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

It was a good movie.

Al Gore might be a hero to me now.

[Roneatek]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Eh, I am not interested in seeing the movie because I do not think that a scientific topic like global warming needs to be politicized. Gore claims that his crusade isn’t political, and yet since the figurehead of the crusade is himself a politician, it is unavoidable. In addition, I believe that many who either believe in global warming or dismiss it do so for solely political reasons, which is a shame.

Another thing that bothers me is that this movie is, in and of itself, pure propaganda. Now granted, I have not seen the movie. Therefore I cannot comment about the claims of the movie with any degree of certainty, just like I cannot comment about the claims of Fahrenheit 9/11, having not seen it. But like Fahrenheit 9/11, An Inconvenient Truth is a propaganda film. During World War II the US came out with all sorts of propaganda films that were pro-war. Looking back, many people find this disgusting and it deeply disturbs them. What I find interesting, however, is that in this war we have had no mainstream movies that have come out that are pro-war, pro-Bush, or pro-republican. But what we have seen are propaganda movies from the other spectrum, such as Syriana, Fahrenheit 9/11, Jarhead and Munich. Likewise, I find such propaganda films deeply disturbing.

As far as global warming goes, I do not know what to think about it. Because the damage has been done and it has been politicized, there is now no real way for the public in general to ever know the truth. Scientists are human too, each with their own partisan beliefs, and they will present whatever evidence that supports their party line. This is why we have such conflicting evidence about global warming. The problem with An Inconvenient Truth, from what I have read, is simply that Al Gore only presents one side of the story. He misrepresents information and completely omits some other relevant issues that might shed doubt on his theory (examples of his selective research and surprising omissions can be seen discussed here and here. There is a great article about this written in Right Turn, but I am not at home at the moment and will have to quote from it when I get there.

But again, I haven’t seen the movie and do not know what it says; everything I do know is all second hand. If global warming is a real danger that has been caused by human habits and can be amended by human habits, then it is something we should work on. However, I am not convinced that this is the case and do not know if I ever will be, and I find any call for the restriction of human freedoms in the name of a global danger that might just be a phantom deeply disturbing.

[Valkysas]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

dont comment on things you havent seen. it makes you look retarded. seriously.

The problem with An Inconvenient Truth, from what I have read, is simply that Al Gore only presents one side of the story. He misrepresents information and completely omits some other relevant issues that might shed doubt on his theory (examples of his selective research and surprising omissions can be seen discussed here and here. There is a great article about this written in Right Turn, but I am not at home at the moment and will have to quote from it when I get there.

You're going to let other people form your opinions about this for you then? way to go.

[Kire]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

I just want to point out those articles are REALLY terrible. It kinda hurts your credibility.

a.) The movie DOES aknowledge the medieval warming period and the ice age, and those pale in comparison to how things are now. They are both represented factually in the "hockey stick" graph. Yes, we can accurately measure this from the bubbles excevated in glaciers that tell us what the temperature was in that age...that's how we know this.

b.) The sea level hasn't risen yet because the overflooding scenario is what would happen if a large chunk of the ice from Greenland and Antarctica were to continue to break up and break off, thus melting in the increasingly heating up water. This change would be rather sudden over a course of 10 or so years, and not a gradual thing.

c.) The U.S. STILL is the world leader in co2 emmissions, so yes, it would make a significant dent and could also change world trends. Believe it or not, China is better than us in this area and are also working w/ Al Gore to lower their co2 emmissions.

d.) While I'll concede that there's a debate whether why there are more hurricanes in the past 10 years is a natural cycle or is because of global warming, it has been scientifically proven that they're getting more powerful because of the warmer waters.

in other words...

flying Phoenix Wright motion lines

YOUR ARTICLES ARE FAULTY!!!

...and unless you consider the AP a bias news source, there really is no debate within the scientific community...the debate has mostly been featured on popular publications as opposed to published scientific journals...but hey, what do they know?

[Roneatek]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Hey Valk, yeah, I already admitted that I hadn’t seen the movie and could not comment with first hand experience on whether the claims the movie makes are factual or not. But simply watching the movie does not make me an expert on global warming either, and anyone who believes otherwise is fooling himself. This does not make me retarded. Reading comprehension for the win.

As I also previously mentioned, everything I know about the film is second hand, and I therefore cannot make conclusions based upon its content. I also never said that I believed the content in the websites that I linked. I merely linked them as an example of criticism about the movie. This doesn’t hurt my credibility in any way, shape or form, because I have made no conclusion about global warming and am hesitant to do so because, as I have previously said, there is so much conflicting evidence out there, and I am certainly not going to become one of the global warming "converted" due to a propaganda film narrated by Al Gore, of all people.

There is significant debate within the scientific community, for I know some scientists (professors at my school) who dismiss the whole global warming thing as nonsense. They are scientists and belong to the scientific community; thus there is debate. Again, I am not a scientist (and neither is Al Gore); I hold no degree on the environmental impact of vehicle emissions (neither does Al Gore for that matter); and I certainly am not an expert on the topic (as Al Gore most certainly isn’t). Global warming is a political issue and An Inconvenient Truth is a propaganda film, and while I am not opposed to watching it, I am certainly not going to believe what the movie says because Al Gore says so, because it has flashy special effects, a sympathetic musical score and the Hollywood elite lauds it. A film is the last thing on earth that would ever sway my opinion because there is no accountability.

So then, I again withhold judgment on the matter, noting, however, that there is debate, there are uncertainties and people should be hesitant from adopting a lemming mentality. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Or rather, "The earth is warming! The earth is warming!" Maybe so, maybe not so. But Al Gore isn’t going to convince me with his film.

[Roneatek]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Oh, one more thing;

basing your opinions off those of others without ever seeing the film yourself. idiotic.

Basing your opinions off of a movie and refusing to admit any legitimate counter argument. Idiotic.

[goldgecko4]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Rone Said:

But Al Gore isn’t going to convince me with his film.

So not only have you not seen it, you're telling us that there's no point in seeing it because he won't convince you. Even though you know nothing about the movie. You say that you "aren't a scientist", but still doubt the existance or global warming, admittably not knowing all the facts. Okay, well, using your logic I could say "I'm not a heart surgeon, so I don't believe in the benefits of heart surgery", even though heart surgery is an established medical procedure, saving thousands of lives every year. Sometimes it doesn't take an expert diagnosis, just common sense.

And I'll bet my sweet bippy that Al Gore knows a HELL of a lot more of the science behind Global Warming than you, I, or anyone on this board does.

[Roneatek]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth

Of course I doubt the existence of global warming. What is the alternative? Be convinced that it exists first? That, my friend, is called outright bias; being absolutely sure of something and then seeking for evidence to prove your opinion. While I will not say that I am free of bias, I prefer to address the issue of global warming not as a political issue but as a scientific issue; thus, since the entire philosophy of science is to form a theory based on the evidence and not to select evidence that fits a theory, I will remain in doubt as to whether global warming as presented by Al Gore is fact until there is enough substantial convincing evidence to persuade me. Should it be any other way?

I say that Al Gore is not going to convince me--ever--because Al Gore is a politician who has clung to the global warming issue (which has existed as an issue long before anyone had even heard of Al Gore) for purely political reasons, and is therefore biased along partisan lines. Likewise, I will never--ever--be convinced by a republican politician for the same reasons. I will only ever be convinced that global warming is a serious man made problem that can be solved by human intervention if I am presented with evidence written by credible scientists in that field of study which has been peer reviewed and lauded by like minds within the scientific community. But the presence of evidence that puts forth a logical argument against the issue of global warming is distressing to my potential acceptance of global warming as a real threat, and must therefore be discredited--not by Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Jeb Bush, Colin Powel or anyone that blatantly dismisses all claims that run contrary to the party line without giving them due discussion and scientific scrutiny--before I can accept any evidence that makes contrary claims.

Thus, An Inconvenient Truth serves only one purpose, and it is the same purpose that Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Day After Tomorrow served--entertainment.