|
Post by Badwater on Jun 23, 2006 1:39:19 GMT -5
I just went to see this movie this evening. Regardless of your politics, this is a must see movie. Besides, our individual futures are interconnected on some level and we can't really afford to be wrong on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Aethil on Jun 23, 2006 3:59:39 GMT -5
Uhm...what's the movie about >.>
|
|
|
Post by Mekerek on Jun 23, 2006 7:59:08 GMT -5
Plot Outline: A documentary on Al Gore's campaign to make the issue of global warming a recognized problem worldwide. More HereAnother political movie about how we are destroying the Earth perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Badwater on Jun 23, 2006 8:56:54 GMT -5
It's not so much a political movie, it's not like Michael Moore doing something on global warming. Al Gore does a talk on the scientific data behind global warming, and unlike the mainstream US media, there is no debate in the scientific community about the facts behind global warming and that we're changing the planet in ways that are going to be anywhere from very unpleasant to really bad. We're starting to see the effects of it and we haven't done anything about it yet.
|
|
|
Post by mercurial on Jun 23, 2006 8:59:45 GMT -5
I think most of the world realize it's a problem - it's the USA that doesn't want to deal with it right now (as one of the two nations that haven't ratified the Kyoto Protocol - though it was signed by Al Gore himself - which is mostly just symbolic).
The impact that it will have on the GDP of the USA is huge, and that is the main driving factor, not that the USA doesn't believe in it. So I don't know how the USA gets around it, they have been stalling on ratifying the protocol for 8 years - using the 'unfairness' of the protocol (where China and India are exempt) as an excuse.
If the worlds largest producer of greenhouse gases doesn't want to play ball (though the US is working on some carbon emissions redcutions), and the second largest producer (China) is expempt - then it is a sorry state of affairs. You have to wonder if what the rest of the world is doing will even make a difference?
I don't think that i'll bother going to the movies to watch it; i'll probably wait until it's on DVD or TV. How does it compare to a Michael Moore documentary? I tend to find his very one sided - and glorified - did you find it provided a balanced view?
|
|
|
Post by slidermike on Jun 23, 2006 11:17:06 GMT -5
there is no debate in the scientific community about the facts behind global warming and that we're changing the planet in ways that are going to be anywhere from very unpleasant to really bad. We're starting to see the effects of it and we haven't done anything about it yet. Hah!!! there is indeed some debate about global warming my friend within the scientific community. It is "widely" accepted in some scientific circles as fact but not in all or by all. No one knows for sure how much of the current warming trend is caused by us. Also it is becoming known via geological records that our earth climate seems to be cyclical from cold to hot or what ever the cycle is. Are we effecting our planet? My guess is yes but how much and is that amount enough to cause the climate to go out of wack more than it would on its own during its own cycles? Thats the true question and one that we dont really know the answer to 100%. It has recently been pointed out (at least that i have become aware of it) that cows are the #1 producer of green house gas in the world. I dont know if its the waste or actual flatulance (farting) or both. I for one (just like several of you) enjoy a good debate. There is no imperical evidence that has convinced every scientist in the world (and they are our so called experts) so until such a time comes about i believe the jury is out.
|
|
|
Post by Badwater on Jun 23, 2006 12:41:46 GMT -5
Just see the movie. It is just a compilation and presentation of hard data and some basic climate science. And your cow theory is a bit flatulent, it's easy to talk but where is your scientific paper to prove that assertion? Or any other? The movie presents facts. I can read assertions any day in any branch of the major media.
The empirical (not impirical) evidence of global warming is there and has been asserted since the 1950's. While it is true that some aspects of the impact of global warming is quite debatable, the broad climatological impact is not. Warmer temperatures = polar ice and glacial meltdown = some very bad planetary effects. I don't think we should wait for proof in the form of oceans rising which is also factually documentable and happening) to do something right now.
Humankind is having an enormous impact on planet Earth and it's up to us to control that impact. That seems awfully apolitical to me.
|
|
Dan0maN_ATX
Cult Member
Waimea Bay - Oahu, Hawaii
Posts: 33
|
Post by Dan0maN_ATX on Jun 23, 2006 13:34:57 GMT -5
i for one am all about getting to know the cold hard facts. i just don't really see getting that sort of information from the man who claimed to have "invented the Internet".
|
|
|
Post by Mekerek on Jun 23, 2006 13:46:19 GMT -5
*points at debate going on in thread and walks off muttering political indeed*
|
|
|
Post by slidermike on Jun 23, 2006 14:55:04 GMT -5
hehehe, more fuel for the fire!!! its cold in here!!! Here is an excerpt and its source linked from a scientific study posted in aug 2004 by russian scientists. Quote "It is generally believed nowadays that greenhouse gases are responsible for the growth of temperature of the atmosphere, but that might be wrong. Recent climate change is similar to those regularly developed in the past of our planet. Studies conducted at the research station "Vostok" revealed that for the last 100 thousand years an increase in temperature always preceded the growth of greenhouse gases concentration, but not inversely. When temperature began to decrease, the concentration of gases continued to grow for a period of 2-3 thousand years." End Quote. here is the source page and it also points back to the russian scientific teams own page but you will need to read russian to translate that source. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040816001233.htmMy point is this: We dont really know if whats going on is man made, partially man accelerated or neither and just part of the earths own cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Badwater on Jun 23, 2006 15:20:16 GMT -5
On the contrary, we do know, and simple logic based on hard data will confirm that. What we don't know is the specific impact in specific areas.
And so what is proof for you? How many Category 5 hurricanes is proof? How many record typhoons are proof? How much ice has to melt, how high do the oceans have to rise to be proof? How many people will have to be impacted for there to be proof for you or anyone else?
The fact is that humans are causing the CO2 levels to go way beyond what is normal in the past 650,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels is what is releasing CO2 in the atmosphere in amounts that are unprecedented and certainly not 'normal'. But we have a choice and we can lessen the impact, same as has happened with CFC emissions and the ozone layer, same as we have with DDT and how it impacted the upper end of the food chain. Controlling CO2 emissions may be incovenient in the short run but will be far preferable to the impact the global warming will have if it continues unabated.
Global warming is here. Only humankind can do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by Badwater on Jun 23, 2006 15:22:35 GMT -5
i for one am all about getting to know the cold hard facts. i just don't really see getting that sort of information from the man who claimed to have "invented the Internet". Al Gore didn't invent the Internet and didn't come up with these facts and pictures. He only presents them.
|
|
|
Post by slidermike on Jun 23, 2006 15:55:59 GMT -5
This comes from a television interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that was aired on March 9,1999. TruthOrFiction.com has a transcript of the entire broadcast. Vice President Gore was not yet a formal candidate for the presidency, but was clearly setting the stage for it, and Blitzer's questions focused on his potential campaign. At one point, Blitzer asked Gore why the Democrats should support him over rival Bill Bradley. Gore answered, "Well, I will -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins, and it'll be comprehensive and sweeping, and I hope that it'll be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Some of the emails criticizing Gore for this statement point out that Gore has often shown ignorance about computers, so how could he have created the Internet? He did not claim, however, to be a computer geek who toiled in his basement and came up with the idea. He did claim that somehow as a member of congress he not only played in role in creating the Internet, but "took the initiative" to do it.
To his credit, Al Gore has participated in advancing information technology. When he was a senator, he supported funding for NSFNet through the High Performance Computing Act that became law in 1991. He wrote guest columns for Byte magazine that reflected an appreciation of technology. But even his supporters have to say that any notion of having created the Internet is tough to stomach.
According to the encyclopedia Britannica, the Internet dates back to at least 1973 and in an article that broke the Gore story, Declan McCullagh of Wired News says the Net goes back as far as 1967 when Al gore was 19 years old. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency started experimenting with ways to allow networked computers to link and communicate. It was called The Internetting project and the ultimate system became known as The Internet. In a related article on March 11, 1999 in Wired News, McCullagh says Gore has introduced bills about software for teachers and a "federal research center for educational computing to support an "information systems highway."
We've never found any explanation by Gore as to why he made the claim, but he did have a sense of humor about it. At a meeting of Democratic leaders, he said, " I was pretty tired when I made that comment because I had been up very late the night before inventing the camcorder."
|
|
|
Post by Badwater on Jun 25, 2006 15:50:34 GMT -5
Well, slider, you had to reach really deep to find the 'science' to fit your opinion. Care to point out what a real science agency, Like the National Academy of Sciences, is saying with their hard data and climitological models that are the most state of the art around? Everyone with synapsing neurons knows that the Russians are woefully second-world scientists, at best.
|
|
Ilithi
Cult Member
Humans have such great potential, why do you waste it?
Posts: 8
|
Post by Ilithi on Jun 25, 2006 20:57:02 GMT -5
And once again, the presentation of excellent data and evidence and information is utterly spoiled and flushed down the drain by childish insults. Should know better than to comment by now, but... can't help myself.
Slidermike presented his information in a reasonable fashion, providing evidence and sources to support his opinions and positions. Badwater, if your evidence is superior, state it and list sources. Resorting to insults is childish and immature, and though I do think you have solid evidence, your insults completely ruin any presentation you could have made in that post. If you want real science and logic, you must keep up the standard yourself. Condescending insults have no place in real science.
To put in my two cents on the scientific matter, from what I have gleaned from articles in Popular Science (would list specific issues and page numbers, but they're still at my parents'. They were about the time The Day After Tomorrow came out, and covered a lot of the science involved in the film, along with global warming in general) and various PBS specials, yes, the Earth's climate has shifted drastically on it's own in the past, and does so regularly (if I recall correctly, it was stated by several different specialists that the relatively calm periods like we're living in/have been living in are actually uncommon, or the short irregularity between climate shifts.)
Though these 'calm' periods are brief (again, I might be recalling some/all of this incorrectly), geological patterns show that we should still have some time before the climate would shift naturally (though that's not a given certain by far), and that global warming (which is proven to exist) is quite likely accelerating it, and could very well tip the balance and spark another ice age.
Again, this is stating from memory, and I don't have easy access to my sources for reference or referral, though I should be able to have at least some of them in a couple weeks.
Edit: Fixed a couple typos
|
|