An inconvienient truth

[Dieselman]

Has anyone been to see the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, if so what did you think?

Trailer.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/trailer/

Here is the list of Uk cinemas it is being shown at.
http://www.good-energy.co.uk/inconvenient_truth/an_inconveninent_truth_introduction.html

 

[pint6x]

that's on my "must see" list - I have a feeling it ain't gonna be comfortable viewing though

 

[Ashley]

nice heads up

 

[glojo]

Has anyone been to see the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, if so what did you think?

Hi Dieselman,
Have you seen it?

I'm wondering whether I should try to get a copy?

Regards,
John

 

[Parrot of Doom]

I like how in the trailer he suggests that the melting of the Arctic ocean would increase sea levels.

Man made global warming is faith based conjecture, not science. Theres no proof, and its vain beyond measure to assume that humanity can change the weather.

 

[BonzoDog]

I like how in the trailer he suggests that the melting of the Arctic ocean would increase sea levels.

Man made global warming is faith based conjecture, not science. Theres no proof, and its vain beyond measure to assume that humanity can change the weather.

You could be right but before we get political it is probably better to be informed
1. the fact that climate change does appear to be happenning.
2. and of all sides of the argument
If that is the case it would seem reasonable that if man is doing something that causes this and if we agree that it is detrimental then anything that we can do to prevent it or minimise its effects is worth trying.
No?
Anyway we won't go out of our way to see it but I suspect it will pass by our consciousness at some time.

 

[mw_C32]

I like how in the trailer he suggests that the melting of the Arctic ocean would increase sea levels.

Put an ice cube in a cup of water then fill it up. When the ice cube melts does the water then overflow the cup?
Even more...

Mark.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

You could be right but before we get political it is probably better to be informed
1. the fact that climate change does appear to be happenning.
2. and of all sides of the argument
If that is the case it would seem reasonable that if man is doing something that causes this and if we agree that it is detrimental then anything that we can do to prevent it or minimise its effects is worth trying.
No?
Anyway we won't go out of our way to see it but I suspect it will pass by our consciousness at some time.

Climate change has been happening since the dawn of this planet. Its perfectly natural. What is debatable is man's influence on this mechanism.

Thus far, there is no conclusive proof. Co2 isn't even a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, in fact its a very minor contributor.

What they never seem to mention is that geological records demonstrate quite perfectly that temperature changes precede atmospheric Co2 changes by several hundred years.

IMO its all bull.

 

[scumbag]

I like how in the trailer he suggests that the melting of the Arctic ocean would increase sea levels.

.

yes its a good bit. I wonder exactly what he meant by melting of the artic Ocean? do you suppose he actually meant melting of the arctic ice cap that sits on the arctic ocean or was he directly refering to the ocean itself. surely he should have said boiling? and if so what about the other oceans and seas? surely the equatorial seas will boil off first? they are warmer to start with! and no doubt they will expand before boiling off thus flooding vast tracks of land!

mind you, when the cold waters from the artic and the antartic merge with them, they should cool them down a bit so i should imagine we will be a few weeks aways from boil over. It takes a kettle a good few minutes to boil its contents and the sun has had a good 15billion years and still it bloody freezing when you go for a swim in the sea!

 

[BonzoDog]

IMO its all bull.

Your opinion is one of many and many others say that there is cause for concern. The two extremes appear to be the 'nothings happenning and we are going to carry on consuming' to the'tree-huggers' on the other side.
I am not qualified to say but based on the evidence I believe that there is sufficient risk that man is contributing to this that we should start to do what we can to slow things down. You might be right but on the other hand you could be wrong.

 

[miro]

Climate change has been happening since the dawn of this planet. Its perfectly natural. What is debatable is man's influence on this mechanism.

Thus far, there is no conclusive proof. Co2 isn't even a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, in fact its a very minor contributor.

What they never seem to mention is that geological records demonstrate quite perfectly that temperature changes precede atmospheric Co2 changes by several hundred years.

IMO its all bull.

Makes no difference if it is natural or not. The scientists tell us that we can alter the climate. They say we can make it cooler.

Let's say that the whole thing is nonsense .... then they are preaching energy conservation. Less KJ wasted means less pollution. I don't see the problem with that at all.

Let's say that they are talking about something real. Then the same applies.

Then fast forward 20 years and you have 200,000,000 more cars on the road in Asia. Now would someone like to tell me how that is going to help the planet given the track record that they have on pollution control and EPA laws.

You can look at the argument both ways but you can't overstate the impact of India and China having the same levels of energy consumption we have. We have to reduce because it becomes globally impossible to feed both human beings, a PC and their cars based on the OECD average lifestyle.

These climate movies are an intellectual version of global management. Global management takes into consideration the huge demand for energy. So if it leads to less consumption .... it's a good thing. Be certain of that.

 

[BenzComander]

Makes no difference if it is natural or not. The scientists tell us that we can alter the climate. They say we can make it cooler.

The trouble with "scientists" is that they are invariably wrong in what they say, or there is another "scientist" that contradicts the firsts argument. Not so long ago, you could be executed for believing that the earth was not flat!

Human beings are incredibly resourcful, and we will no doubt find a solution to ensure we all live happily ever after!

 

[miro]

The trouble with "scientists" is that they are invariably wrong in what they say, or there is another "scientist" that contradicts the firsts argument. Not so long ago, you could be executed for believing that the earth was not flat!

Human beings are incredibly resourcful, and we will no doubt find a solution to ensure we all live happily ever after!

Yes indeed. World peace, erradication of hunger and human rights are some of our greatest achievements to date.

 

[BonzoDog]

Yes indeed. World peace, erradication of hunger and human rights are some of our greatest achievements to date.

An Ozzie pal of mine, petrol head to the core, anti tree-hugger, recently became a Greenie orientated, initially because of the dire water situation in Queensland and then reinforced after seeing the Gore film.
It is a shame though that the arguments rapidly become polarised.

 

[jeremytaylor]

Makes no difference if it is natural or not. The scientists tell us that we can alter the climate. They say we can make it cooler.

Let's say that the whole thing is nonsense .... then they are preaching energy conservation. Less KJ wasted means less pollution. I don't see the problem with that at all.

Let's say that they are talking about something real. Then the same applies.

Then fast forward 20 years and you have 200,000,000 more cars on the road in Asia. Now would someone like to tell me how that is going to help the planet given the track record that they have on pollution control and EPA laws.

You can look at the argument both ways but you can't overstate the impact of India and China having the same levels of energy consumption we have. We have to reduce because it becomes globally impossible to feed both human beings, a PC and their cars based on the OECD average lifestyle.

These climate movies are an intellectual version of global management. Global management takes into consideration the huge demand for energy. So if it leads to less consumption .... it's a good thing. Be certain of that.

Sod global warming, oil is a finite resourse and we are being far too profligate with it in all aspects of our life. Oil has far, far better uses than being wasted in gas-guzzling cars and planes and boats and trains on frivilous or unnecessary journeys (not just school-run 4x4s or cheap flights for a stag weekend in Prague, but also shipping our waste to China and India). We should be preserving it for our childrens and our children's childrens future use.

 

[drifting]

Although I admit I do not understand a lot of the global warning debate. What I do understand is that we currently have very little alternative. To me the biggest pitfall is the way our Government insist on taxing us highly when they want us to change our ways, giving us no alternative.

 

[Dieselman]

Hi Dieselman,
Have you seen it?

I'm wondering whether I should try to get a copy?

Regards,
John

Sorry for being so late coming back John I have been off line and missed the thread on my return.

When I asked this question I had been to see it and if you fancy a chilling nights viewing then get the DVD.
I took my father in law who claims that the global warming problem is a load of rubbish and even he agreed there are some very valid points in the film.

A collegue at work who is in no way a tree hugger has watched half the film on DVD and feels it should be compulsary viewing.

 

[BenzComander]

Great article in Car magazine this month, where a research group has done a survey on "dust to dust" costs of cars. Turns out a Range Rover Sport is more enviromentaly friendly than a Prius!!

Also:

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm

http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/article/030720061.html

See, there is always a counter argument!!

 

[PJH]

The sea level may not change much due to the Arctic ice melting, but there is a lot of land based ice that will also melt and it is THAT ice that may cause the oceans to rise.

We can do lots about pollution but little about Global Warming.

 

[grober]

Taking things at face value

Instead of just taking these sources at " face value" I would urge forum members to dig a little deeper. For example David Bellamy's article sites the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as a source of information. Sounds very authoritative doesn't it? Take a look at this http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
and have a look at the "institutes" web site.http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p15.htm
They have a "staff" of 6 academics and appear to be "survivalists" still obsessed with surviving nuclear war in the main.
I pointed out in another thread http://mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=31077&page=3 that another website author (Monte Hieb) who debunks global warming in fact works/ed for a Virginia coal mining authority. Hardly an impartial observer.

Here's a brief profile of the author of the second article:- Brian Durrant
A Cambridge economics graduate with nearly 25 years experience in the City, Brian Durrant is investment director of The Fleet Street Letter, (founded 1938). He has worked in stockbroking, the foreign exchange markets and headed the research department at one of London's leading futures and options brokers.
And his declaration in another article:-
- When I expressed my sceptical stance about climate
change alarmists in June it was not founded on any
personal expert knowledge about climatology. My
viewpoint was that of an independent thinker who sees
dissenters of environmentalist lobby denounced as
heretics and who recognises that the majority viewpoint
does not necessarily embody the truth.

He feels he is an independent thinker? This from a man who makes his living as a stockmarket analyst, in other words an acolyte of the system which has brought us all to this position. A thinker yes, unbiased observer I don't think so.

The purpose of this post? I am just suggesting that instead of just looking at the data presented,look a little further at who is presenting it. Its a bit like buying a second hand car really. You often find out more about a car for sale by looking at the guy selling it rather than the car itself.