• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 12
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Anyone else seen it yet? I'd love to hear what other people think. Here's a review from a scientific perspective:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm


Delete Topic

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Of course, as the article points out, this is conjecture. Measuring the actual increase in methane in the atmosphere doesn't tell you how much of that methane is being produced by human emissions and how much is being produced naturally. The headline could just as easily have read "natural sources of greenhouse gasses 'underestimated.'"

We have a pretty good idea of how many cars and factories they are. We have a harder time measuring natural sources, or measuring a decrease in the things that remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.


Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


Of course, as the article points out, this is conjecture. Measuring the actual increase in methane in the atmosphere doesn't tell you how much of that methane is being produced by human emissions and how much is being produced naturally. The headline could just as easily have read "natural sources of greenhouse gasses 'underestimated.'"



There comes a point of splitting hairs. Tell me, why would natural sources of CO2 and methane increase in direct proportion to the human population?

Occam's razor: they wouldn't, but human sources would.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:From the historical data (see article in first post), it seems that Methane and CO2 do not bear a relation to human population, but have increased and decreased far more dramatically in the past with no change in human activity.

Those who want to attribute any change to specific human activites bear the burden of showing why this particular change is different.

Remember, the increase in CO2 also correlates with a decrease in pirates.


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Occams razor might lead us to believe that the technology for measuring gasses in the atmosphere has improved in the past hundred years.

Am I missing something here? Does this new top down method fail to differentate between man made and naturally produced greenhouse gasses? And this is the NEW method. It would seem like our "experts"are moving backwards in their methods

Really, shouldn't they be putting MORE effort into determining just how much of these gasses are produced by human activity rather than going back to square one and telling us that "they're there".....We know already.

My tolerance for doomsday "experts" ran out at the Y2K debacle. I still have a basement bunker filled with bottled water, freeze dried food, and machine guns wink Maybe these guys who made a career out of this "issue" would like to pay me out for what their ( IMO ) professional incompetence cost me.


Delete

RayinRed
SILVER Member since Apr 2006

RayinRed

member
Location: Huntington, New York, USA

Total posts: 39
Posted:Maybe it was a good thing Gore lost the election.... Maybe not

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I wonder just how big Al Gore's ecological footprint really is. I'm tired of "getting the message" from people who's footprint is bigger than mine.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: stout

My tolerance for doomsday "experts" ran out at the Y2K debacle. I still have a basement bunker filled with bottled water, freeze dried food, and machine guns wink Maybe these guys who made a career out of this "issue" would like to pay me out for what their ( IMO ) professional incompetence cost me.


There wasn't any problems precisely because there was such a big deal about it. Everyone was so worried that all the critical system were changed in advance. Sort of a self-defeating prophesy.

And the basement will come in handy one of these days, mark my words. smile


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: stout


I wonder just how big Al Gore's ecological footprint really is. I'm tired of "getting the message" from people who's footprint is bigger than mine.



Are you tired of "getting the message" from people who dip wicks in fuel, light them on fire, and swinging them around to look pretty? wink

I ask because I was considering ordering some wicks of my own, which would seem to preclude me from criticizing the number of car trips Al has made.


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:So they fixed the Y2K thing and saved us? Oh, then what was with all the hype then? Evening news broadcasts showing people stocking up in mountaieering stores, buying water purification kits, batteries,,yada yada...

It's not just the car trips with Mr.Gore, It's ALL the travel he's done in the pursuit of his career, Plus the ( no doubt ) huge house(s) . The usual trappings of a typical Vice President. The way I see it I can burn 10 times a night, every night, for the rest of my life and not even come close to the amount of resources Mr.Gore has gobbled up in the pursuit of his tenure as an inhabitant of this planet.

And now He's telling me I have to cut back ( Our Canadian gov't had a CO2 reduction program lined up, but our new Conservative gov't quashed it) I should drive less, put on a sweater in the winter, turn out the lights. I do do those things, not for the sake of the planet, but because I have to.

I'd love to heat my mansion to a comfy 77 degrees in the winter wink

SHOW us how it's done, AL


Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kin...

Total posts: 7330
Posted:new study by the us government concludes that there is clear evidence for human-induced climate change


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol, New Zealand

Total posts: 493
Posted:haven't seen the film but the article's a joke.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:ubblol I can see why the article puts the word "clear" in quotation marks.

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol, New Zealand

Total posts: 493
Posted:as for the link to

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
br>
when people start using Benny Peiser as a credible source you know one of two things...

either they are deliberately attempting to decieve their readers

or they have no idea about the field, and as such are making fools out of themselves, and anyone who takes them seriously

As much as a cursory glance at his work shows it to be complete rubbish. That he failed to even type in the correct parameters into ISI should give you a hint...

Of his list of abstracts which he claims oppose the consensus position only one appears to do so. However this was a journal of the American Petroleum Geologists Association, which is not a peer reviewed publication, and as this was one of Oreskes's preconditions for an article to be included it was not in her search.

that the article goes on to claim

 Written by:

Gores film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming,



suggests that the author has failed to read Oreskes as well as Peiser

for the authour of that crap the truth is indeed inconvenient.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Welcome, to the Rightwingoverse...



If anyone is interested in a serious approach, Wikipedia has an excellent series of articles on the subject. Here is the Global warming controversy.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

TheWibbler
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

old hand
Location: New Zealand

Total posts: 920
Posted:patiarch, i said it before and i'll say it again. I just hope that people who actively encourage the destruction of our planet are the first to die out, at least then the rest of us will have a small chance of survival.

I watched the film last night and it pretty much follows what i was taught in school 15 years ago. I've studied in the USA also, and i realise that this kind of information is new to you all and some how 'a conspiracy', but to the developed world is pretty definite.

For example. Outside the usa we are taught about the 'carbon footprint' of each country. We are taught that whilst we are killing the planet, we aren't as bad as the US who are incredible energy whores. I found out the other day that my american friend had never heard the term 'carbon footprint' before. I was shocked since i learnt this when i was about 16.

Anyways. What's wrong with reducing polution? I mean even if the world isn't going to be uninhabitable in a short time. Wouldn't it just be better to use technology we have today to make the air cleaner?

Oh yeah, i forgot, the US economy is completely fecked without oil and war industries. So we gotta keep using oil, and people gotta keep fighting each other otherwise the mightly will fall. Oh no wait, the USA is in debt to the tune of $9,000,000,000,000.00 ~ so they already fell, haha. Just don't drag the rest of us down with ya'll wink

m


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

BansheeCat
BRONZE Member since Jul 2005

veteran
Location: lost, Canada

Total posts: 1247
Posted:I too found the movie somewhat lackluster, often stating the obvious.If anything disturbed me it was that this should be seen as radical, or news to anyone...Like Matt, learned most of it 15 years ago. Was interested in observing other peoples responses to it though, particularly the dramatic impact of the images showing the changes to ice and water levels.

I would have made the short section at the end, regarding what actions people can take to improve the situation personally , into at least 80% of the movie, and shifted it to one about empowerment.

Yes, you can always find arguements on both sides. People manipulate data , and select methodology to support their agenda. You can aggravate and/or paralyze yourself trying to sort it out, get sick over the question of our ability to influence these changes and " save the planet" , mutter on about how the computer I use to disseminate and communicate this information is a part of the problem; therefore it is all massive hypocrascy, so why do anything... go back to sleep... Or? Can we do something more useful and engaging?

We justify whatever arguement supports the behaviour we prefer for ourselves. Humans are masters at rationalization.

If the big picture of human behaviour, planetary survival and climate change appears impenetrable, you could try to break down the question to a personal one. Who do you want to be? What part do you play? Creator, destroyer, idiot, caretaker, caregiver... Do you care? We get these choices in little ways each day.

Do you want to use the things/people resources in your life carefully and respectfully, and honour your place within this beautiful intricate, interdependant community? Do you enjoy this planet, and recognize that fossil fuel use damages it? Damages your experience of it too ? If so, there are some actions you can take...Nothing too complex required. You don't need to measure the gases with the latest greatest high tech instruments. Use the instruments you have-- your brain, your senses-- to determine your response. Just look at a strip mine, camp at a clear cut, or spend some time breathing where coal is the primary fuel. Make your own conclusion. Can you reduce your footprints- not because anyone tells you to, but because you love what you walk on and with?

If so, change your Energy, people...

There are lots, and lots, of changes we can make to be more gentle on our environment. Spent the weekend at an island off the grid entirely this weekend, largely self sufficient community . Loved how everyone had solar panels, wells, water conservation was crucial, building with local materials , sharing vehicles-- amazing. Practical. Small islands teach you so much, cause there is no place to hide the consequences of anything, no way to ignore your impact.

Al Gore, for all his faults, has increased peoples awareness about the use of resources, and their relationship to the climate of our planet. Even if you dont believe we are causing the changes, it is undeniably rather sensible to notice and respond to them. He has added a sense of urgency to it, which could be useful since so many of us are slackers. If ones agenda really is to save the planet-- not just to be a better part of it personally-- then he is on the right track, cause it will take massive public involement and huge shifts of group consciousness to do such a thing. I admire his dedicated attempts!


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:yeah I saw the film last night - it was aimed at people who dont really know much about climate change. I thought it was pretty accurate and convincing. I would suggest that the people who are non-believers in human causation of climate change to go watch it - he has references to all his evidence put up on the screen as he talks about the findings. The specially interesting one for me is where he discusses a study that sampled 10% (928 articles) of all peer-reviewed journal articles on global warming released in the last 10 years, and found that 0% were arguing that humans were not contributing significantly to global warming. And yet on this thread there are several people who seem to be suggesting that global warming isnt happenning...

His presentation is pretty slick I reckon. I think the problem is a bit worse than he suggests - if you take some of the more recent studies into account (eg Global Dimming).

To suggest that Y2K and Global Warming are issues that are comparable is a bit of a long bow to draw...

And Stout, how are you ever going to 'get the message' about climate change if you will only listen to hermits who have grown up in caves (people with a proven positive environmental track record)? You wouldnt believe them anyhow because their argument wouldnt be based on science no doubt.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Did Al Gore explore the idea that, since we've been talking about this for the past 15 years, the problem should be getting better, not worse? Or did he merely suggest a few small things we could do, like simply wagging our lips about global warming in an attempt to educate "others" about the problem.

I could be less contrary, and post inspiring posts about things I'm doing to help, like turning off the lights in a room that I'm not in, moving so my commute to work is only 8 minutes, hanging my clothes to dry,,,yada yada. It would do great things for my popularity, but very little to actualy help with global warming.

See, I like driving my car, and I like my international vacations, and fire spinning, and in order to not consider myself a hypocrite, those are just a few of the things I should really give up in the name of saving the planet.

The way I see it, we could wait for a global catastrophe, and then adapt, or,,,we could create the catastrophe right now, by SEVERELY reducing our dependance on fossil fuels. I'm not willing to go the latter route, and I don't know of anyone who is either.

I'm not saying global warming isn't happening, I'm suggesting that it's overhyped, like the Y2K thing
15 years ago, it was the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all, before that it was the cold war, before that, disco. I see it as just another "threat" that I'm supposed to be all hand wringy about. Remember, we already did peak oil back in the 1970's, only it was called the "energy crisis" back then. So how come we haven't run out yet? Global warming could still be a natural phemenon , time wil tell, and soon, if you subscribe to the hype.

What ever happened to that thread that someone started on here a few months ago, the thread about "what are you willing to do to help the planet" ? It went over like a pregnant pole vaulter, mainly because most people are willing to make very little compromises in their lifestyle to help with this issue.

So, yes, I got "the message" long ago and I'm willing to come out and say that my wants and needs trump my concern for the planet rather than hiding behind a smokescreen of cowspoo words about how somebody should do something. I could even go the hip and cool route and simply blame America, Or take aim at SUV drivers, or,,horror,,,give up my car and around the world trips.


Delete

BansheeCat
BRONZE Member since Jul 2005

veteran
Location: lost, Canada

Total posts: 1247
Posted:Severely reducing our dependance on fossil fuels is in no way creation of a catastrophe! It can be a huge benefit to the economy too, and overall quality of life. That was the bit I thought would have made a more interesting movie, really, showing how people are doing that, what has been successful, new ideas, etc etc... I am always fascinated to see what is already in place in other areas of the world where they are not taking things so for granted. For example, Sweden has a lot of very environmentally sound options available for heating etc, that are part of peoples every day choices. They could be here, too.

Laws about things like fuel efficiency are one of the simple things that can be done, now,( and are in some places) to improve the situation on so many different levels- for pollution alone, never mind climate change. That is why I grudgingly admire Al Gore, he put himself in line to get the one position in the world that could actually have a big impact on some of the decision making processes that could change the negative prognosis on pollution and climate change. President of the USA.

The laws being enforced in California are an example of how legislation can have a profound effect on these sort of problems- get business and manufacturers in line, dont put all the onus on end consumers.The effect has been of great benefit to the people who live there- they can breathe better. Sort of a basic thing I dont want to give up!!


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol, New Zealand

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

The specially interesting one for me is where he discusses a study that sampled 10% (928 articles) of all peer-reviewed journal articles on global warming released in the last 10 years, and found that 0% were arguing that humans were not contributing significantly to global warming.



Please. before writing about an article... read it. then you can convey what it says accurately.

If a film gets you interested in something - thats great - but trying to accurately remember an argument posited in something you saw at the cinema is quite hard and often means you end up misrepresenting someone's work.

Oreskes's article covered the abstracts of ALL of the peer reviewed articles which appeared on an ISI search with the keywords 'global climate change'. If it were a 10% sample it would have been a fairly meaningless excersise as the articles selected may not have been representative of the complete set, or they may have been specifically selected to present an argument.

what Oreskes actually says is...

 Written by: Oreskes - Beyond the Ivory Tower

Of all the papers, 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.



While the papers which dealt with paleoclimate and methods may have authors who debate the consensus position, this was not implicit in the papers abstract. This leads Oreskes to conclude that

 Written by: Oreskes

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.



He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:I was talking about the movie, Im not talking about the actual research, I'm not aware of it.



I dunno if Al Gore misrepresented the research or what - but I distinctly remember the 10% random sample part.



How does using a 10% randomised sample (= something like 928 articles) render the research meaningless? Its still a large sample size.



Josh

EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1159239384)


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

BansheeCat
BRONZE Member since Jul 2005

veteran
Location: lost, Canada

Total posts: 1247
Posted:http://scalarparty.livejournal.com/
br>
an interesting link to all sorts of ideas, and maybe a better movie too!


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

ultrahigh


newbie


Total posts: 7
Posted:to all those who are on the fence and or disagree that climate change is happening.

look outside, their are millions of cars relentlessly driving around day and night in every single city (and town) in the world, this releases some 20 million tons carbon dioxide into the atmosphere everyday, thus changing the composition of our atmosphere, thus changing its dynamics (i.e. more extreme weather patterns, the melting of the ice caps, and the general warming of the earths atmosphere).

the result of the unlocking of this carbon which has been locked up in a different form (and remained inert) in the earths crust for millions of years is going to be catastrophic on our way of life if we dont do something now to revert the damage and change our lifestyles for the better.

the film an inconvienient truth although a bit cheesy puts this in perspective quite nicely i thought, the figures are accurate and this is a crisis that we all should sort out now and stop beeting around the bush waiting.

i know this has been every environmentalists retoric but its true, we have a moral responsibility for our children and our children's children (and so on) to inheret a world that is free from pollution, is healthy and rich with natural diversity.


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted: Written by: Stout



The way I see it I can burn 10 times a night, every night, for the rest of my life and not even come close to the amount of resources Mr.Gore has gobbled up in the pursuit of his tenure as an inhabitant of this planet.

And now He's telling me I have to cut back (
I'd love to heat my mansion to a comfy 77 degrees in the winter wink

SHOW us how it's done, AL



What was i saying about leading by example ?


Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol, New Zealand

Total posts: 493
Posted:The film is massively flawed in its conclusions.

The conclusions Gore presents, suggests that through personal consumer choices Americans can lower their carbon emissions to 1970 levels. US CO2 emissions per capita have stayed more or less constant since 1970.

The current US anuual per capita co2 emission figure is 19.8 cubic tonnes. Compared with the UK's 9.4, China's 3.2 and Uganda's 0.06

If everyone in the world behaved like Gore's green consumers then anthropogenic climate change would accelerate far faster than the IPCC's worst predictions.

The only way then, that Gore's green consumers can acheive anything other than satiating their own guilt is by enforcing global laws which require that everyone else pollutes less than Americans. As they currently contribute disproportionately to the problem, rewarding them thus seems entirely ridiculous.

The green capitalism proposed by Gore is another manifestation of the David Cameron story... While riding a bike to parliament turns heads, the Lexus that follows with his briefcase highlights the hypocrisy of the empty rhetoric


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom

Total posts: 1858
Posted:Do you have a source for the US emissions from the 70s?

I can only find them going back 10 or 15 years.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Page: 12

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [inconvenient truth] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > imperical truth or anlytik truth [26 replies]
2. Forums > An Inconvenient Truth [57 replies]
3. Forums > Truth and Lies [38 replies]
4. Forums > Love of truth = death of love ? [73 replies]
5. Forums > The last to post the truth is: [47 replies]

     Show more..