• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Al Gore's Documentary Convinces Leading Skeptic


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 04 June 2006 - 02:47 AM


Here is the link to the story.

Chief editor and founder of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer, says that the time has come to switch from environmental skepticism to activism.

The evidence must really getting to be overwhelming, because as most people here probably know, Shermer is never convinced of anything it seems.


Edit:
(Note: I usually don't go overboard with all the enviromentalist stuff, and I have not, until recently, even thought that the evidence was clear that humans had that much of an impact overall. I just thought this was an interesting article, showing how the evidence seems to keep building up. I think that there will still be a large contigent of people thinking that there is not much of a link between what humans are doin and what is happening with the planet, and that was not the point of posting this. Hell, a large group, possibly a majority, of people still think evolution is bunk, despite the evidence to the contrary, so I am fully aware that people will not be convinced of anything they don't want to be convinced of.)

Edited by Live Forever, 12 June 2006 - 08:25 PM.


#2 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 04 June 2006 - 03:46 AM

I hate everything about Global Warming.

I have heard incredibly, devastatingly, good arguments against the whole idea by credible people, but I have also heard some pretty decent arguments for Global Warming by credible people.

On top of that the entire system is polluted with the stink of politics (and money), and large amounts of fame and/or credibility are at issue. Though I have no evidence for this, my hypothesis is that the whole thing was invented by lawyers in order to obtain enormous amounts of money.

#3 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 04 June 2006 - 04:10 AM

I hate everything about Global Warming.

I have heard incredibly, devastatingly, good arguments against the whole idea by credible people, but I have also heard some pretty decent arguments for Global Warming by credible people.

On top of that the entire system is polluted with the stink of politics (and money), and large amounts of fame and/or credibility are at issue. Though I have no evidence for this, my hypothesis is that the whole thing was invented by lawyers in order to obtain enormous amounts of money.


Aah, yes, like I said in the posting on the other thread which would have probably been better here, I am pretty convinced that global warming is happening, just not to what extent man is affecting it. (it might be only a small contribution to a natural phenomenon that might be happening otherwise)

I just can't shake the feeling that if there is something that we can do to stop suffering then we might ought to do it, even if there is a chance it has no affect. It is kind of like cryonics, even if there is only a 5% chance of it working, it is better than no chance at all. If cutting emmissions, relying more on solar and wind power, etc. only makes a small difference, then it is still better than nothing, and if there is a chance that it could make a big difference, then it is well worth doing.

I am not one of those that goes overboard with what will happen if we don't (there is a chance it might not become that much worse for us) but if we can prevent some people's suffering (from droughts, stronger hurricanes, etc.) then I would feel guilty about doing nothing.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 mikelorrey

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grantham, NH

Posted 05 June 2006 - 05:22 AM

Global warming is not only not happening to the extent that moronic uncharismatic political opportunists like Al Gore claim, most of it isn't anthropogenic (human caused).

We have been in a consistent pattern of solar maxima for nearly the last two centuries, the longest such period in the entire recorded history of sunspot observation (going back to the middle ages), and one of the longest in the tree ring proxy record that parallels the sunspot record. CO2 levels are at least partly a side effect of sustained high solar output.

Another effect of sustained solar output is that high solar storm/solar wind levels block the Earth from cosmic rays. As cosmic rays have a direct relationship to cloud formation, and cloud formation has a direct relationship to Earth's albedo (which reflects sunlight away from Earth), it is rather clear that the solar signal is far greater than the CO2 signal (as solar astronomers know, but many climatologists won't admit).

*Direct* solar insolation has been admitted (Scarfetta) to cause at least 15% to as much as 35% of measured warming to date. This does not measure the solar wind/cosmic ray/cloud formation/albedo linkage and its degree of effect on warming, NOR does it measure feedback effects of increased insolation.

Another problem with the global warming hypothesis is that its is directly dependent on another theory being false (Peak Oil), yet one generally finds that GW believers ALSO happen to believe in Peak Oil. The problem with believing both things at the same time is that Peak Oil's predictions of the total amount of oil we'll be able to recover in the 21st century is less than 10% of the amount of oil that the UN IPCC is predicting is going to be recovered and burned in order to produce the sort of 'worst case' scenarios that Al Gore is basing his rant movie on.

Another problem with Gore's disasturbationism is that it is inherently unextropic in its expectations. It fails to recognise that the advancing rate of technological change will result in greater resource utilization efficiencies, which inherently results in lower emissions. Secondly, it fails to recognise that technological advancements will inherently result in new energy sources (like pebble bed thorium reactors, nanotech based solar power, genetically engineered hydrogen synthesis, etc) that are nonpolluting.

#5 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 05 June 2006 - 03:10 PM

Another problem with Gore's disasturbationism is that it is inherently unextropic in its expectations. It fails to recognise that the advancing rate of technological change will result in greater resource utilization efficiencies, which inherently results in lower emissions. Secondly, it fails to recognise that technological advancements will inherently result in new energy sources (like pebble bed thorium reactors, nanotech based solar power, genetically engineered hydrogen synthesis, etc) that are nonpolluting.


bingo.


^_^

#6 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 12 June 2006 - 08:24 PM

Here is a list of the "Top 10 Emerging Environmental Technologies"

http://www.livescien...chnologies.html
(note: you have to keep hitting "Next" arrow in the lower right to keep progressing one by one)

Some good technologies in there that could help out with the problems, hopefully they will be available soon. [thumb]

#7 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 12 June 2006 - 10:02 PM

it is inherently unextropic in its expectations. It fails to recognise that the advancing rate of technological change will result in greater resource utilization efficiencies -- that are nonpolluting.


Absolutely. I have extreme prejudice against "global warming" soothsayers primarily because they often go hand-in-hand with luddites and technophobes. And *that* is one of the greatest regulatory dangers to longevity.

Even if it means damaging the environment (which I'm not certainly not convinced of), we should do everything it our power to accelerate the pace of technological innovation rather than to retard it.

There is no question about which side global warming legislation falls on. As someone in the raw materials / chemical industry... I know how damaging the results of this activism can be. It increases the cost of doing almost ALL business, including high-risk longevity related start-ups. That's the true danger to our cause.

#8 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 12 June 2006 - 10:05 PM

I bought a house 60 miles inland from the ocean so I can have beachfront property in a few hundred years.

#9 U_N

  • Guest
  • 47 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Here. Now.

Posted 13 June 2006 - 10:52 AM

I bought a house 60 miles inland from the ocean so I can have beachfront property in a few hundred years.

Ha. That was good.



A very liberal/antibush friend of mine say this movie and thought it sucked, which suprised me, especially after seeing the trailer.

I will have to direct her to the article about the founder of the Skeptic Magazine.

Her review:

The movie opens with a beautiful nature scene and a narration by Al Gore. It's a little cheesy but overall a good intro. We are then introduced to Al Gore giving a lecture, which is most of the remainder of the movie. He has more charts, graphs and statistics than you can shake a stick at, but the movie comes across as a boring science film they would have shown in 8th grade. The trailer for the movie is positively chilling, but the movie is nothing like the trailer portrays it to be. In fact, I would recommend rather than seeing the movie to watch the trailer and then go to www.climatecrisis.net. If you do these two things you may as well have seen the movie. It's just chart after graph after chart after graph... nothing you could not find online. The point of making a movie is because you can do things with movies you can't do with just plain old facts. You can present information in any way you want. You can be creative. Seeing as all the information in the movie is presented exactly how it would be if you looked it up on the internet, where is the incentive to fight through a crowded theater?

I think that Al Gore should have gotten together with Michael Moore to make this movie. Michael Moore is an extremist who often distorts facts to make his point, but he is entertaining and presents his "facts" in a shocking way. If he would have directed the movie but stuck to only the facts that Al Gore wanted to use it would have been much better. Let's face it, Al Gore is a politician, not a filmmaker. Why did he not chase down and harass those who wrote a memo stating that global warming should be presented as a theory rather than a fact? Why did he not at the very least ask why and let us watch some squirming and dodging of the question?

Another thing that bothers me about the movie is that it's also kind of a documentary on Al Gore himself. There is mention of the 2000 election, several personal side notes that don't have much if anything to do with the subject at hand, and a plethora of random camera shots of Al Gore just sitting somewhere looking thoughtful. I for one think the 2000 election was one of the most fucked up events in all of history, but a documentary on global warming is not the place to bring it up. It was like Al Gore was trying to sell himself in the movie and it was completely inappropriate.

It wasn't a film. It wasn't a documentary. It was a lecture on tape. This does not make me like Al Gore any less, he just did a shitty job at making a movie. Some of the facts are interesting though, so seeing it on video might not be a bad idea. It's certainly not worth $9 for a movie ticket, but I still encourage everyone who cares about global warming to see it in the theater for one reason: Every ticket sale is a person making a statement that they care about the planet. The better the movie does the more difficult it becomes for the government to sit around with their thumbs up their asses while ice caps are melting.

I also noticed that no one clapped after the movie. After "Fahrenheit 9/11" everyone clapped. After a screening of "Outfoxed" I saw at a warehouse everyone clapped. Generally any controvercial political film is followed by applause, especially at a theater like the Mayan. Instead it was just dead silence. I didn't even hear anyone talking about the movie. My best guess would be that all those people like me who have been ranting and raving about how great it was going to be were speechless. I'm sure a lot of people dragged friends along who were not really interested but convinced them it was going to be amazing. Oh well though. What can you do?

In summary: This movie was dull, lacking and disappointing. I will not be watching it a second time.



#10 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 13 June 2006 - 11:00 AM

Yeah, it seemed like it would be like a lecture to me (perhaps with some footage mixed in of other stuff), which although informative is not usually the most entertaining thing for mass entertainment appeal. It is, however, making a ton of money per theater that it is open at. I looked at one of the box office things, and although it is not open in many theaters, it is making quite a bit more than what some of the other movies are making on a per theater basis.

I think we should do the same thing, only with Aubrey de Grey and perhaps some other people giving a lecture, adding in footage in between, and call it "The Inconvenient Truth of Aging", or perhaps "Aging: The Scariest Movie You Will Ever See", or something like that. Hey, I would pay to see it. [lol]

#11 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 15 June 2006 - 04:26 AM

Gore's full of crap. Man made global warming is crap.

http://www.canadafre...arris061206.htm

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

#12 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 15 June 2006 - 04:46 AM

I think most people nowadays agree that global warming is indeed happening, just not if man is causing it or not, that is where I feel the contention lies.

#13 mikelorrey

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grantham, NH

Posted 21 June 2006 - 10:23 PM

I think most people nowadays agree that global warming is indeed happening, just not if man is causing it or not, that is where I feel the contention lies.


The problem is that such an agreement is meaningless to the point of absurdity. Anybody who knows anything about climate knows that the only true fact of climate is that it is always changing. Stasis is unnatural. Yet all these chicken littles are running around freaking out like nutjobs.

As such, it is the contention of anthropogenic warming that is the whole issue, but the GW nutters are claiming *everything* is caused by "global warming" and asserting that all global warming is by definition anthropogenic. They are liars and con artists, and they are doing it for political purpose: to justify massive carbon taxes in the US that will NOT be used to reduce CO2 emissions, but will be used to fund European style welfare nannystatism.

#14 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 22 June 2006 - 06:20 AM

There are many ways to generate energy that DO NOT pollute the planet. It's silly to gamble even a 1 in 100 chance the possibility is even true. We don't have other planets available that we can destroy like we have done to much of this planet. The only advocates of the BS typical of politicians are greedy dudes who have invested their life savings into oil or who watch way too much Fox.

#15 mikelorrey

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grantham, NH

Posted 22 June 2006 - 06:40 PM

There are many ways to generate energy that DO NOT pollute the planet.  It's silly to gamble even a 1 in 100 chance the possibility is even true.  We don't have other planets available that we can destroy like we have done to much of this planet.  The only advocates of the BS typical of politicians are greedy dudes who have invested their life savings into oil or who watch way too much Fox.


That is one side of the argument.

I can easily say that, if CO2 pollution warms us, that this is the only way to protect earth from a new Ice Age (which could happen with a new Maunder Minimum), which would be much more devastating to human civilization than a few islands getting sunk. Given solar astronomers are the primary source of dispute with pro-GW climatologists, and are predicting an extended solar minimum for cycle 25, anyone continuing to insist on carbon taxes to "mitigate" global warming is following a socialist agenda and is ignoring science.

#16 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 22 June 2006 - 11:27 PM

http://www.nytimes.c...artner=homepage
New York Times
Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 22 — A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.


The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.


The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work."


#17 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 23 June 2006 - 05:10 AM

Just saw the movie..

It did not suck... the evidence as presented is undeniable. You would have to be willfully blind not to emerge from the theatre with a very clear picture of what is going on.

Conclusion:

The earth is warming rapidly due to increasing CO2 emissions from human activity which will cause incredible devastation, loss of life and planet wide upheaval.

Who knew?

The reason why no one claps at the end of the show is because it is that DEPRESSING to know how certain and how gargantuan a task it will be to slow and that it is not just something "I" can do, but it relies on all people working together. Cooperation usually only comes in the face of imminent disaster, and by then, it will most certainly be too late.

#18 knite

  • Guest
  • 296 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 24 June 2006 - 01:48 PM

Well, those who say that global warming has little to do with human activities, you may be right, but one of the data sets Gore pointed out in his movie(rather crappy movie btw) was that CO2 levels are extraordinarily high compared to natural levels. This is assuming it is accurate data, though I dont think he would outright lie. So we must be having some kind of non-trivial effect on the environment.

#19 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 24 June 2006 - 04:59 PM

Only 2pct of Coral Reefs Protected

Success Stories: Species on the Rebound

Last 25 years warmest on Earth since 1600

Study: Global Warming Fueled 2005 Hurricanes

Rate of African forest loss underestimated: scientist

'Warm' species invading Antarctic

Take part in the largest climate change experiment ever

#20 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 24 June 2006 - 06:26 PM

I would love to hear the side of the people who think the human-caused damage is minimal or non-existent, in reguards to CO2 levels.

#21 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 26 June 2006 - 02:48 AM

Just saw the movie..

It did not suck... the evidence as presented is undeniable.  You would have to be willfully blind not to emerge from the theatre with a very clear picture of what is going on. 

Conclusion:

The earth is warming rapidly due to increasing CO2 emissions from human activity which will cause incredible devastation, loss of life and planet wide upheaval.

Who knew?

The reason why no one claps at the end of the show is because it is that DEPRESSING to know how certain and how gargantuan a task it will be to slow and that it is not just something "I" can do, but it relies on all people working together.    Cooperation usually only comes in the face of imminent disaster, and by then, it will most certainly be too late.

[thumb]

#22 rahein

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 June 2006 - 10:54 PM

mikelorrey said:

As such, it is the contention of anthropogenic warming that is the whole issue, but the GW nutters are claiming *everything* is caused by "global warming" and asserting that all global warming is by definition anthropogenic. They are liars and con artists, and they are doing it for political purpose: to justify massive carbon taxes in the US that will NOT be used to reduce CO2 emissions, but will be used to fund European style welfare nannystatism.


That world are you guys planning on living on forever if it is ruined for humans? I am sure dumping millions of years of sequestered carbon into the carbon cycle in just a few hundred years is a bad thing. Just incase why not stop? Tell me do you take any supplements? Why? They haven't been proven to work. It is just in case, right? Why take the risk if we don't need to. We can live without burning fossil fuels, lets do it.

#23 mitkat

  • Guest
  • 1,948 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 28 June 2006 - 02:38 AM

I would love to hear the side of the people who think the human-caused damage is minimal or non-existent, in reguards to CO2 levels.


Aye. People can get somewhere in their small circles bashing global warming as environmentalism (didn't realize this was getting so trendy again), but they cannot deny the CO2 levels in correlation.

#24 rahein

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 June 2006 - 03:59 PM

I think that global warming skeptics are fueled by scientists stating that the CO2 - temp link is a causal fallacy. Scientists have very high standards for accepting evidence and the layman does not understand the level of proof required. A strong correlation does not show a cause effect relationship. It also does not mean that they are not related.

Anti global warming people see scientists say that this is just correlation and jump on it as meaning that the scientists don't think humans are causing global warming. I am sure that most scientists *think* that there is a direct relationship. How do we explain this to the average person?

#25 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 28 June 2006 - 05:04 PM

Scientists have very high standards for accepting evidence and the layman does not understand the level of proof required.


Such as funding? I'm not too far out of academia, and I know what motivates "scientists". Scientists follow the laws of economics just the same as you and I.

They follow the money.

This says nothing about global warming itself, but just something to keep in mind. Don't expect people to act differently just because they're "scientists".

The truth of the matter is, environmental alarmism has ALWAYS paid well:
- fame (best selling books)
- fortune (UN and gov't funding)
- power (political influence)

Always consider the motivations of the individuals involved.

#26 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 28 June 2006 - 06:57 PM

The AP is now reporting that scientists are now confirming that all of the science portrayed in Al Gore's movie is indeed accurate. Here is the link to the story.

#27 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:06 PM

Also, here is a link to an article on how to "geoengineer" away some of the global warming problems, and ultimately how feasible these types of projects are. Pretty interesting read.

Edit: Just noticed it is now requiring a login, here is one to use: Username: openbooks12345 Password: openbooks12345

Edited by Live Forever, 29 June 2006 - 03:08 AM.


#28 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:13 PM

I think that the AP story is just the "choir" responding to a fiery sermon. I am in the weather community, and currently there is a very hot/unsettled debate as to whether there will be more and greater hurricanes because of global warming. Al Gore claims it is a done deal. Of course, this is just one small part of the movie, but something that is not decided.

Also, remember that the AP loves dems and Algore. Their stories are heavily slanted toward the left.

I am still wondering if Algore has heard of Peak Oil. We have a very long thread with interesting evidence that world fossil fuel supplies will start declining next year and crash long before the worst-case global warming scenarios could ever develop. Algore is obviously ignoring this evidence or hasn't heard about it. When someone is on "a mission" they tend to ignore alternative ideas.

#29 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:30 PM

Mind, we have plenty of coal. Hopefully, if we do switch, it will be via coal plants that clean burn via "carbon capture and sequestration". Oh yeah, I hope china follows suit as well, otherwise our CO2 from coal will be higher than with the oil.

Which brings me back to the co2 thing.

The debate here is making me want to see the film.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:38 PM

I think that the AP story is just the "choir" responding to a fiery sermon. I am in the weather community, and currently there is a very hot/unsettled debate as to whether there will be more and greater hurricanes because of global warming. Al Gore claims it is a done deal. Of course, this is just one small part of the movie, but something that is not decided.

I can not vouch for the reliability of reporting of the AP, but in their defense, they do claim to have asked both skeptics and believers in global warming.
From the article:
"The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory."

Also, remember that the AP loves dems and Algore. Their stories are heavily slanted toward the left.

I have seen it stated that the media is "liberal biased" or "conservative biased" many times before, but I have personally seen little evidence of this. I suppose people tend to remember the stories that support the opposition and therefore tend to think the media is on the opposite side of them. I would like to see some unbiased studies done (perhaps they have already?) on whether the media generally supports (on a percentage of stories done basis) liberals or conservatives. I suspect they just do stories on things that would interest their viewers/readers (being in the business of making money and all), without much regard to the political ramifications.

I am still wondering if Algore has heard of Peak Oil. We have a very long thread with interesting evidence that world fossil fuel supplies will start declining next year and crash long before the worst-case global warming scenarios could ever develop. Algore is obviously ignoring this evidence or hasn't heard about it. When someone is on "a mission" they tend to ignore alternative ideas.

I totally agree with that, (the last sentence) although one has to remember that their personal feelings always cloud their own judgement as well. I have seen evidence that Canada alone has enough oil in their "oil sands" to support oil consumption for another 100 years. I do think that eventually humans will be able to engineer their way out of the problem, but the suffering that occurs in the mean time is mainly what I worry about.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users