[ARCHIVED THREAD] - An Inconvenient Truth (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 12/9/2006 9:25:18 PM EDT
| I just saw this movie tonight and thought I would bring it to life on the discussion forum. I thought that dispite 2-3 political jabs the movie stuck on point with the plot of showing the undeniable effects of global warming on the planet. I for one thought the before and after pics of some of the geological regions was astounding. I would encourage anyone with a open mind to the outdoors to watch this movie dispite the liberal funding. |
|
Most of us don't deny that global warming is taking place. What we don't believe is that it is totally caused by man, that the effects will be as devastating as is being portrayed, and that only the liberal agenda can save us. Personally, I think the weather is being affected by a solar-cycle... based on reading many sources that I really don't want to get into here. Anybody else here ever noticed that folks who believe in evolution and"survival of the fittest" feel it is somehow a bad thing that some species are going to disappear through an inability to adapt and compete with those species that can? Sorta seems like they believe that something that they say happened, is happening, and will continue to happen, but want to deny the results.  |
My sister begged me to watch it with her. I thought it was garbage. She reminds me of Virgilia from "Love and War"...only she is a modern eviromental extremist. -Ben |
|
I'd venture to say that the Sun is far more influential on global weather patterns than anything humans could ever do. I'd suggest reading hard science over having it spoon-fed to you in movie. Or you could just read State of Fear, and feel much better about the whole thing.  Sheep |
Absolutely. And while we're at it, the Earth is losing its magnetic polarity, which is a huge factor in the admission of cosmic radiation. Why don't we hear about any of these other theories? Because there is nothing we can do about them, and there is no way to GET MONEY OR POWER out of them. That's all this stupid fucking communist wants. He can't seem to go home and shut up. The communists want us to believe it's all of man's evil. This will allow them to tax the fuck out of anything that farts, breathes, smells bad, or isn't sending checks to Washington. |
More Junk Science . The truth is that we just don't know enough . For every retreating glacier , there is an expanding one , but there is more to it then that . The problem with predicting global climate trends is that we only have a small sample of data to gauge events that cover tens of thousands of years . The only thing that is true is that the media loves headlines . |
|
The numbers are probably off, but they run something like: Man contributes about 1% of the Carbon Dioxide in the air. Carbon Dioxide is about a 1% cause of Global warming. Water moisture in the air causes something like 90% of the Global warming. The Sun is going through one of its warmer periods, the other planets in the Solar system are showing signs of warming as well. (info from a Scientist who is an actual expert on Global temperatures). Interviewed by Bryan Suites on KVI570 a few months ago. |
|
I saw Algore's interesting bit of fiction at Wal-Mart packaged with an energy friendly light bulb. Think about it all the extra packaging material that went into making that cute little contrivance. Think of the earth's precious resources consumed for that frivolity. Consider he extra weight involved to ship these embellished DVD boxes and how much more of mother earth's life blood (oil) it consumed in the process. Algore. Raping the earth as he exploits the consumers. 
|
I'm sure no "conservatives" use scientists, and statistics wrongly to push their agenda. 
|
The fact is that while GLOBAL WARMING AS A PHENOMENA may be documentable, HUMAN CAUSATION is not... In fact, it is far more likely that INCREASED SOLAR OUTPUT is causing said 'WARMING' if it is in fact occurring and that we may have 'GLOBAL COOLING' soon as the sun 'down cycles'... Global warming, as a political issue, is a prime example of the luddites, socialists, and environmentalists uniting to bring down the 'evil extravagant western culture' by trying to convince us we're destroying the planet |
|
Isn't he US a net consumer of carbon? So even though the Kyoto Accords would have limited our, already low, carbon emissions, it would not have done the same to those already polluting more than we are. In my mind this exposes it as anti-American rather than pro-environmental. The fact that we had .gov epresentatives willing to put us in an unfavorable position disgusts me anyways. Add in the fact that it was junk science and had no basis in reality and it looks darn near treasonous. 96Ag |
SInce most of us aren't going to watch it, give us some of the major points, and we will try to show you why this is merely a propoganda piece aimed at people who want to believe it. |
And so what if they do? How is that pertinent to the subject at hand? When conservatives cook the scientific books, they're usually doing it in a way that favors industry, which is good for the economy. When the socialists do it, they usually do it in such a way as to damage this country's economy as much as possible. |
Assuming they do how would make it right for anyone else twist information. |
There is no evidence that shows man is causing global warming if it is occurring… none. The movies whole premise is based on a lie. The movie is political propaganda filled with bad and questionable science aimed at the weak minded. The real Inconvenient Truth is Al Gore is a buffoon and embarrassment. Really how can you take anything seriously from a man who said second hand cigarette smoke was contributing to global warming? Anyone who would make that claim is mentally unbalanced. |
|
The evidence as presented in the film is quite clear. Assuming it is factual -- and there's no reason to doubt that it is -- the Earth's weather patterns are definitely changing (as always) but what they're NOT doing is returning to some sort of normalcy between shifts. That human life, in its relatively short time here, is at least partially responsible is absolutely undeniable. The truth is called "Inconvenient" because, as so many here have proved, to acknowlede it is to A) Acknowledge a problem in the first place, and B) God forbid, acknowledge that a man with whose politics you may disagree, yet has no political agenda in this particular matter unless you call survival of the species as a whole "political," is right. Never mind that solutions are few and far between, not to mention almost insurmountably inconvenient -- the healing can't start until the disease is acknowledged. For a good, long, sustained laugh, try imagining George W. Bush talking intelligently and coherently about ANYTHING -- with or without a teleprompter -- for an hour and a half. Like him or not, Gore's an intelligent man who cares about the whole planet and its people, not just his job security and the continued distribution of obscene amounts of wealth to his friends and family. But no, you just go about your petty little lives, prattling away about libtards and gun confiscation and illegal immigrants and  COMMIES. Meanwhile, your children's children's children will be lucky if there's enough breathable atmosphere to sustain a single breath after birth before choking immediately to death.Oh, but that's not really happening, is it?  |
Actually no, it's not. I don't know a single prediction by any mainstream scientist, even those who agree in anthropomorphic climate change, that says that our great grandchildren will be faced with an unbreathable atmosphere. |
That's exactly right -- YOU DON"T KNOW. So I'm off a generation or two (or three or however many you're comfortable with). It's your great, great, GREAT grandchildren that will choke to death immediately after birth. Denial won't make it not so. |
So we "solve" this whole thing by passing things like Proposition 87 in California, right? |
And your hand-waving, alarmist assertions won't make it so. I could just as easily predict that we'll all die from a mutated bioweapon in ten years and when you responded "You don't know that," I could say "Yeah, you DON'T KNOW! So I'm off a hundred years or so? So what? They'll ALL DIE!" You sound like a raving lunatic. |
I, for one, am against this mutated bioweapon, and will vote for the first candidate who assuages this great threat against the children. 
|
If I didn't already know you as the Post-Whoring King of Contradiction I might just pity you and write you off as a garden variety retard. But you actually TRY to come across like that which is so much miserably worse. But now, it's time for  RikWretard's lame and utterly predictable rephrasing of "I know you are but what am I?" Which one will it be THIS TIME?!?!?
|
This would be yet another example of things you think you know that just ain't so. Oh, and BTW, thanks for using the oh-so-ingenious "RikWretard" instead of the even less original "PrickRider" or "DikRider" that most of the juvenile flamers use. At least your juvenile flame is less unoriginal than theirs... |
|
A couple of months ago, a girl in my office talked about wanting to see An Inconvenient Truth, but her boyfriend wouldn't see it because it was "a boring documentary". She's a left-winger, her aunt ran for Congress as a far-left anti-war candidate. Anyway a week or two ago, I go into her office and on her table is State of Fear, a book whose central message is deep skeptism towards the cause of global warming and the motives of those pushing it. So I knew someone had gotten to her, so I asked who might have given her that book. One of the doctors did. I pointed her to this lecture by Michael Crichton, which basically explains the points he was tryig to make in his novel. Aliens Cause Global Warming |
I rest my case. |
It is precisely for short-sighted head-in-the-sanders like you that the truth is so inconvenient. As I said, just try to imagine George W. Bush making a coherent and intelligible hour-and-a-half argument for or against ANYTHING. He's the poster child for "Buffoon and Embarrassment." |
So if this is so what would sustain the life of the expectant mother until the birth of the condemned child? Bizarre assertions don't make it so either. And calling Al Gore an intelligent man doesn't help your cause much. Wasn't he cited for waste discharge for a paper mill operation he owns BTW (water pollution in his home state of TN)? Seem to remember he is quite the globe trotting elitist and has no problem with adding to the problem to further his own agenda. |
It's obvious that solutions are few and far between, not to mention inconvenient. That's not the point. The point is acknowledging the situation and beginning to start to consider taking any and all possible actions to fight it. |
You didn't have a case to rest. Maybe you should actually come up with an argument before you rest from it. |
|
Open mind and insert trash. Sorry, but I demand that something meets certain standards and level of proof before excepting it. As as chemical engineer who studies thermodynamics, as a fly fisherman and hunter, and as a sailor, I think global warming is absolute bullshit. - It is a way for flunky scientists and raticals to have jobs since they can't survive in the private sector - It is a way for politicians to extract cash from idiots - Its a way for the dishonest and stupid to start "environmental industires" through regulation - It is a way for nations like China to destory the economy of its opponents - It is a way for dictators without economies to extract money from industrial nations All in all, it just shows how many people can be easilty duped and have little common sense Consider this: Yearly volcanic activity produces 255 million short tons of CO2 without major eruptions. This does not include aerosols, sulfuric acid (about 10000 kT), and other acids. The entire US produces 5000 million short tons of CO2 per year. A minimum of 3% of the US CO2 produced is reclaimed for industiral use. The worlds largest polluter is China (all gasses and chems combined). All members of the Koyoto treaty co-signers finally approved the China exemption. China is the second largest CO2 producer in the world. Aren't politics a bitch.
|
 Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer posted: 02:30 pm ET 20 March 2003 In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s. The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does. "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said. In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era. "Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today. Significant component Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term. But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20th Century, "it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said. That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned. Scientists, industry leaders and environmentalists have argued for years whether humans have contributed to global warming, and to what extent. The average surface temperature around the globe has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880. Some scientists say the increase could be part of natural climate cycles. Others argue that greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and industry are largely to blame. Willson said the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods. Confounding efforts to determine the Sun's role is the fact that its energy output waxes and wanes every 11 years. This solar cycle, as it is called, reached maximum in the middle of 2000 and achieved a second peak in 2002. It is now ramping down toward a solar minimum that will arrive in about three years. Connections Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth. At solar max, Earth's thin upper atmosphere can see a doubling of temperature. It swells, and denser air can puff up to the region of space where the International Space Station orbits, causing increased drag on the ship and forcing more frequent boosts from space shuttles. Changing Sun In 1996, near the last solar minimum, the Sun is nearly featureless. By 1999, approaching maximum, it is dotted by sunspots and fiery hot gas trapped in magnetic loops. SOURCE: ESA/NASA/SOHO/US Naval Research Laboratory Sun Cams: See the Sun Now Long-term: A previous study showed that changes in the Sun's output appear to be related to temperatures on Earth, based on studies of tree rings, sunspots and other data. Learn More Solar max has also been tied to a 2 percent increase in clouds over much of the United States. It might seem logical to assume tie climate to solar output, but firm connections are few. Other studies looking further back in time have suggested a connection between longer variations in solar activity and temperatures on Earth. Examinations of ancient tree rings and other data show temperatures declined starting in the 13th Century, bottomed out at 2 degrees below the long-term average during the 17th Century, and did not climb back to previous levels until the late 19th Century. Separate records of sunspots, auroral activity (the Northern Lights) and terrestrial deposits of certain substances generated in atmospheric reactions triggered by solar output, suggest the Sun was persistently active prior to the onset of this Little Ice Age, as scientists call the event. Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most frigid. Large-scale ocean and climate variations on Earth can also mask long-term trends and can make it difficult to sort out what is normal, what is unusual, and which effects might or might not result from shifts in solar radiation. To get above all this, scientists rely on measurements of total solar energy, at all wavelengths, outside Earth's atmosphere. The figure they derive is called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). |
Naw I think we now have a new poster child for that... got a mirror handy. |
Oh, you're in trouble now...he'll come up with some real witty twisting of your name and then "rest his case." 
|
Oh boy... can I be a Post-Whoring King of Contradiction retard tooooooooo.  I have sinned against the Church of Global Warming with Man as the Cause. I guess I must do penitence at the temple of the wooden head buffoon (Al Gore). I forgot free thought and questioning the dogma of the Church is not permitted… you must accept all without question. You must disengage the ability to think for yourself and submit to the will of the profit (Al Gore and no that is not a spelling mistake). I am afraid now... |