Only a moron would not watch it. Disagree with it if you must, (which would make you an incredible moron), but at least listen to what it has to say.
I watched an incovenient truth last night
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
I'd add that one should look at what climatologists are saying about it. You'll notice that most agree with just about everything Mr. Gore says. Those that don't agree generally make wild sweeping accusations that make it appear as if they didn't even watch the movie, or made those accusations before the movie even came out. Of course the ones who don't agree have been climate change deniers from the beginning, are mostly funded by big oil, and are in the extreme minority.
I was gonna watch it Saturday, but it was over 70 degrees in the mountains here, and I rode all day. Maybe I will catch it sometime in July.
edit:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
I find it funny that the people the most non-believish are the ones who live in Texas and the like. All places that are already unbearably hot....and right on the ocean.... and will become completely submerged. I guess they could always build 40 foot levees.....if they extend the wall along the Mexican border, they'd be all set.
See post #4.
While I don't dismiss the fact that the climate is changing, anyone can read the research and find that it is in fact changing, I do have reservations on whether or not this is a natural progression(even though some would say no matter what it is natural, since man is part of nature).
The biggest questions in my mind are 1)How is this data different than that of the last major climate change(guessing the last ice age) 2)If it is similar to the past changes, what effect will us trying to "stop" or "slow" the progression have on the planet. As of now, I really havent found any data that compares what is happening now to any concrete evidence of the past, mostly because it's difficult to do.
The biggest questions in my mind are 1)How is this data different than that of the last major climate change(guessing the last ice age) 2)If it is similar to the past changes, what effect will us trying to "stop" or "slow" the progression have on the planet. As of now, I really havent found any data that compares what is happening now to any concrete evidence of the past, mostly because it's difficult to do.
Wait, I thought you didn't trust other people's research? So ya best get to sending out those telemetry probes to start collecting.
Besides, global warming is just anti-nazi-propoganda, right?
Uh, it's there. Along with research comparing the warming that would be occuring without industrialization. The fact that there is debate over the degree doesn't mean that there is (credible) debate over the phenomenon itself. The only reason you wouldn't find it is you're not looking for it.
There is an enormous body evidence supporting golbal warming, and indicating the the change in the enviroment is both larger and much faster (10x or more)than ever before. The only legitimate debate is the eventual speed and amount of change. Currently I believe the climate change is actually occuring faster than most of the computer models predict. Carbon dioxide levels are higher than any time we can find any natural record of.
I haven't seen the movie, so forgive me if it was covered, and please forgive the gross oversimplifications.
The Earth is an equalibrium system. To a large extent it's self correcting, if co2 goes up, plants grow better and start removing co2 and the system returns to balance. There are literaly hundreds of individual systems operating like this. Right now man is adding artifical co2 to the enviroment by burning fossil fuels. And burning down rain forests, and creating pollutants that are even worse greenhouse gases. All of which ups the tendency of the system to go out of balance high. And by destroying forests, the planets ability to absorb the co2 is reduced, which increases pressure on the system to go out of balance high. Top that off with unanticipated effects, like warming causing the perma frost melting and releasing huge amounts of methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas than plain co2, pressing the system even further out of balance.
Eventually, if we reduce the pressures on the system, and increase the counterbalances it will return to balance. If we don't the system imbalance will increase and change will accelerate.
Yup, all that, but you skipped that its a very localized equilibrium, and while some mechanisms are self-correcting, others are quite the opposite. As the polar ice cap melts, there is less an less surface area that reflects solar energy (ice) and more that absorbs it (water) which in turns leads to greater warming, thus melting more ice, leading to greater warming. Once past the tipping point it would take a phenomenon such as an ice age to break that cycle.
I largely agree, I just don't feel like doing a doctoral dissertation online. Water and ice melting and an increasing temperature may also contribute to high cloud cover which will reflect solar radation. It will contribute to plant growth, which will reduce co2 levels, and a dozen other effects that will attempt to minimize the effects. All of which is largely beside the point.
The point is that people are increasing the effects that cause warming, and reducing the effects that limit it at the same time.
Again, I'm not saying that the climate is not changing, it is. And I will say that once again to drive it home, I believe the climate is changing and the data supports that. BUT, from what I have read, the climate is changing faster not compared to the last great climate change, but since the beginning of actual recorded weather history, which frankly is a blink in geologic timescales.
Actually, all aspects of the climate change, including if it is indeed being sped up by us, are up for debate. Simply because scientists are not sure why the last climate changes occured. I've heard theories from a reversal of the magnetic poles to asteroid strikes to just plain nature. The only thing we can concretely say is yes, our climate is changing, yes it has in the past, and yes, there are similarities.
But then explain how your "equilibrium system" can get so out of whack that multiple ice ages occur, without "non-natural" means, IE man's industrial age. In your system ice ages would never occur(Ice ages are afterall, part of the global warming phenomena).
My basic stance is this; Yes, man should take every measure to minimize the impact he has upon this planet, but to think that by following a few tree-huggers tips we can stop a phenomena that has happened naturally, may in fact be now happening naturally, is absolutly football bat stupid.
You discover a crack in your handlebar.
The crack is getting larger each time you ride it and is larger then all your previous measurements.
But your unsure if the enlarging crack is due to a natural fault in the material, or your gorilla ass pounding up and down on it.
Replacing is not an option, it is the only bar that is suitable for your hand size.
Do you keep riding it as you have been, ride it a bit more carefull or stop riding it altogether?
The crack is getting larger each time you ride it and is larger then all your previous measurements.
But your unsure if the enlarging crack is due to a natural fault in the material, or your gorilla ass pounding up and down on it.
Replacing is not an option, it is the only bar that is suitable for your hand size.
Do you keep riding it as you have been, ride it a bit more carefull or stop riding it altogether?
Again, you're either not really looking or not looking in the right places. Nobody is saying "since recorded weather". Ice cores from the poles are indicative of freeze thaw cycles long before man was even an issue. This is where the disturbing information is coming from. The current warming trend is faster based on these, not your local weather man's memory. Worse than that, what they're finding is higher concentrations of combustion emissions in increasing levels inversely proportional to the length and depth of freeze cycles.
That sh1t's even on the discovery channel fer cryin out loud.
Nyah! Compounding interest!
Whatever, you conspiring Jew.
Wow...just... wow...
You actually should see the movie. It gets wrapped up in a tidy little package for you. what is going on is many orders of magnitude diiferent that the natural cycle of things. ...measured as far back as 650000 years.
You actually should see the movie. It gets wrapped up in a tidy little package for you. what is going on is many orders of magnitude diiferent that the natural cycle of things. ...measured as far back as 650000 years.
And in geologic terms, 650000 is a blink of an eye when you consider the earth is estimated to be upwards of 4.55 billion years, give or take a few hundred million years. So 650000 is 1/7000th or so of that timescale.
If I gave you a 7000 pixel photo, and said "only one pixel here is correct for sure, and it is this one. Now tell me, is the rest of the picture correct.", could you honestly tell me that you would be able to extrapolate from that 1 pixel what the rest of the picture should have looked like?
Again, I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing, or even that we aren't having an effect on it. What I am saying is we don't know for certain why, and if this has ever happened naturally before. We may know that the climate has changed, we may know about when, but we don't know why.
You are not someone I'm going to waste time arguing with.
Sufficed to say though, you seem to have an M.O. of sitting back and saying that "Well we have no proof that this data is correct....or that the holocaust REALLY happened"...or whatever. It's really just a pathetic attempt to appear smarter or more intellectual than you are.
Sufficed to say though, you seem to have an M.O. of sitting back and saying that "Well we have no proof that this data is correct....or that the holocaust REALLY happened"...or whatever. It's really just a pathetic attempt to appear smarter or more intellectual than you are.
Kihaji, skeptics are supposed to offer information that is contrary to what they're skeptical about, not just repeatedly hound people for more information because what they're offering is, in your esteemed opinion, simply not enough for you.
Would you like everyone to shrug and ignore the issue, simply because we don't have 4 billion years of data to go on?
Everyone should sit idly by and demand a complete picture of every situation before acting on it?
There is compelling scientific information to indicate an alarming warming trend, far and above what scientists have been able to estimate as "natural" - they have offered their proof, the burden is now on you to refute it, not to just whine, "more, more, more."
Would you like everyone to shrug and ignore the issue, simply because we don't have 4 billion years of data to go on?
Everyone should sit idly by and demand a complete picture of every situation before acting on it?There is compelling scientific information to indicate an alarming warming trend, far and above what scientists have been able to estimate as "natural" - they have offered their proof, the burden is now on you to refute it, not to just whine, "more, more, more."
I was just thinking the other day how funny it is that we spend trillions on national defence based on the chance that we might get attacked causing death, devastation and financial ruin. We spend pretty much zilch defending against the death, devastatian and financial ruin that chances are will occur from global warming. I guess is just isn't sexy enough to spend the money unless you get to blow **** up in the process.
I'm pretty sure that right now, as we speak, George W Bush is working hard trying to figure out a way to make it look like blowing up Arabs would fix global warming.
That isn't a very fair statement. I am sure W would equally like to blow up white, asian and african muslims if they had oil too.
Wow, how many times do I have to tell you that IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL!!??! It's simply about blowing people up.
In that case, we should spread around the blowing up a little bit, geographically speaking. I think it's starting to piss off the Arabs.
We should start blowing up Israelis then, seems to be the popular thing to do.
You might accidentally create a new jewish holiday.
since the typical holiday is:
-- They tried to kill us.
-- We survived.
-- Let's eat!
but, but, but.............
Christians aren't much different.
-They killed him
-He came back but disappeared so you just have to trust that it happened
-Let's eat!
or
-Virgin has kid
-Let's eat
Was she still considered a virgin after having the kid? I mean a penis was theoretically inside her during birth.
Kihaji, skeptics are supposed to offer information that is contrary to what they're skeptical about, not just repeatedly hound people for more information because what they're offering is, in your esteemed opinion, simply not enough for you.
Would you like everyone to shrug and ignore the issue, simply because we don't have 4 billion years of data to go on?
There is compelling scientific information to indicate an alarming warming trend, far and above what scientists have been able to estimate as "natural" - they have offered their proof, the burden is now on you to refute it, not to just whine, "more, more, more."
No, please read what I am about to write very carefully and slowly. The environment is changing, the data supports it. I am not disputing that. The environment, from all available data, is changing in a different way than any other great change that we have on record. I am not disputing that. Humans are changing the environment. I am not disupting that. What I am bringing into question, and wanting more information on is the most important part, WHY.
Consider this, the nearest big environment change, that the alarmists are warning this is, took place around 30000 years ago, (Wisconsin glaciation, but there have been other "minor" ones since then)well before the advent of the SUV. In fact, there have been several events in the last 30000 years that show periods of rapid warming and cooling, Dansgaard-Oeschger and the Holocene climatic optimum to name two that bear striking resemblance to what is happening now, climatalogically speaking. What is not understood is the exact mechanisms for those events.
The mechanisms that are in place now may be different than in the past, unless time travel becomes possible in the future and rich suburbanites take their SUVs to the past to get really good offroading done, but that does not mean the outcomes, or the natural cycles of earths climate will be drastically changed.
Now, what I am against is the alarmist point of view that somehow the climate changing is un-natural, and the nieve point of view that we somehow can stop, or even reverse it.
You complain that I don't give facts, well here is one. Climate changes, both minor and cataclysmic, have happened in the past. Many times. And they will happen many many more times in the future, until the sun goes supernova and this planet is burnt to a crisp. But with all the billions of years of data you so fearfully look to as evidence that our climate is now changing, and changing more rapid than before, how can you somehow now believe that this time, this one time, that it isn't natural, but somehow all our fault? There is someone ignoring the data and the obvious conclusion here, and it isn't me.
As I said, I'm all for reducing our impact on this planet, I do as much as I can to minimize my impact. Not out of some absurd fantasy that by not driving a SUV will somehow save humans and all the little fluffy bunnies, but because I'm secure in my manhood and don't need a 50ton vehicle to make up for my shortcomings.
I wish there was a way to ban people from my threads.
We made you moderator for a day last week but you didn't notice.
Really? Damn.... (How would I have known?)
Sealing the Fate of Antarctica
By Patrick J. Michaels
The American Spectator 12/20/2006
The scare du jour on global warming is a massive inundation of our coast caused by rapid loss of ice from Antarctica. It's a core point in Al Gore's science fiction movie, and it continues to be thumped by doomsayers around the world, in the echo chamber of the alarmist media. It's also a bunch of hooey.
If you could take the boredom, you could have read hundreds of news stories on this since An Inconvenient Truth debuted on May 25. But you'll find very little mention of a paper that appeared a mere six weeks later, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which should have stopped the whole show cold. The work is by Brenda Hall from the University of Maine and several co-authors.
First, Gore's science fiction. Due to the warming of the surrounding ocean, big ice-shelves begin to crack off and float away. Because that ice is floating, it doesn't raise sea level a bit. But then the ice cracks all the way back to where it is grounded on the ocean floor. That stuff isn't floating and the ocean rises dramatically, some twenty feet in a hundred years. Much of Manhattan, the movie suggests, is under water, along with just about every other coastal city.
Now, the truth. The notion that this is going to happen soon has just been fatally harpooned by giant Elephant Seals (Mirounga leonine). They generally hang out a long distance form Antarctica. Most of their breeding rookeries are a good 2,000 miles away on islands in the open ocean, where they feed. Most of the Antarctic coast is hemmed by huge ice shelves that prevent them from finding food.
But that wasn't always the case. According to Hall's paper, a large area of the Antarctic coast was ice-free between 1,100 and 2,300 years ago. Elephant seals established multiple rookeries on the continent. Temperatures had to be much warmer than they are today, for at least 1,200 years, and yet there was no disintegration of the large ice shelves. Hall et al. then noted another similar period, almost twice as long, from 4,000 to 6,000 years ago.
The warm millennium ended as the world's temperature descended from what scientists call the "Medieval Warm Period" into the "Little Ice Age." Antarctica has yet to fully recover from this last period, as temperatures averaged across the continent actually showed a net cooling in the last three decades.
Hall studied ancient Antarctic beaches, which could only contain relics of large numbers of elephant seals if there were open water. Others have examined extinct penguin rookeries and found that those happily footed birds tended to be absent when the seals were present. That's because penguins feed along the edges of sea-ice, so if there isn't any, there aren't any birds.
Of course this also means, even as temperatures warm to degrees seen for more than half of the last six millennia, that penguins will be displaced from their current rookeries. The horror of natural climate variability! Cute little penguins driven from their homes by cruel Mother Nature!!
Hall et al. give a quantitative perspective on today's climate. Current thinking is that the Antarctic ice shelves become susceptible to rapid breakup when the January (Summer) temperature averages about -1.5 degrees Celsius But the seals only thrive, according to the paper, "when the mean January temperature exceeds 0 [degrees] C, usually by considerable margins."
So Hall and her colleagues conclude that "January temperatures...surpassed the -1.5 [degrees] C threshold during two long periods at ~1,000-2,300 and 4,000-6,000 years b.p. [before present]."
George Denton, one of Hall's University of Maine colleagues and coauthors, summed it up in the school's U Maine Today Magazine: "Through her discovery of elephant seal remains over a widespread area where they do not exist today, she [Hall] shows evidence not only that a warming occurred, but that the Ross Ice Shelf survived that event. It's important because it speaks to the staying capacity of the ice shelf in the face of global warming."
Stories about an imminent collapse of Antarctic ice shelves can go back to the science fiction shelves, where they belonged all along.
For that matter, so can this whole apocalyptic myth. If Antarctic ice remained stable for thousands of years with temperatures considerably warmer than they are today, how in the world are we going to provoke a catastrophe? Among other things, we will still have to be powering our society on fossil fuels in the year 4,100.
If it's good enough for Carl, it's good enough for me.