An Inconvenient Truth

I saw it. An I'll add that I have been impressed with Gore ever since I read his book Earth in the Balance 10 years ago. What I thought was missing from the film was an economic component that could have been further justification (a if the widespread planetary destruction wasn't enough) forcing policy decisions and public action. In his book he imagined an economic model built around environmental clean up and the US leading the way. Doesn't that sound way better than war for oil? As to the global warming "debate" from what I have casually read it seems that the majority of scientists who study the issue agree that human activity is a cause, but there appears to be minor disagreements on some aspects of the science (sorry, nuttin specific). However ,there is little disagreement that there is an alarming trend towards global warming and that a significant cause is human activity. Anyhow, I have enough info to be convinced that we need to be more responsible. Oh, and I see no reason to believe Gore is an atheist. He is just not an obnoxious christian, which is confusing.

[Professor Chaos]

inkadu wrote

I knew someone was going to bring that up. I think that was a weasel on Bush's part. The question was "who is your favorite philosopher," or something, and Bush found a way to sneak in Jesus.

I haven't seen Inconvenient Truth, but remember before when I said, "There is no evidence that would convince me Gore's NOT an atheist." Well, I lied. Putting in "prayer" as a solution is pretty effin' stupid, something only a fucked up theist would do. I still like Gore anyway.

Well, he did say, "If you believe in the power of prayer..."

Seemed more like a suggestion to the religious rather than a religious suggestion.

[Professor Chaos]

inkadu wrote

There is seems to be no compelling cultural argument why scientists would almost all agree that pollutants are causing global warming. Also, the "voices in the wildernss" against global warming are very few, but they are are extraordinarily well funded by oil companies; or they are science fiction writers adored by the boy-king. Society as a whole loves their cars. Even environmental scientists own cars, have houses in the suburbs, why would they unconsciously distort scientific data in order to undermine the material basis of our modern lifestyle? It just doesn't add up. There doesn't seem to be much psychological motivation to "believe" in global warming, there isn't a financial motivation. You could say there is a conformist motivation, but that doesn't explain how the consensus was built in the first place. Maybe there was a concern about pollution -- there way there is about genetic engineering -- but genetic engineering concerns seem fairly fringe... I mean, can someone please come up with an example of when in the history of science have scientists were so united on an issue despite the evidence?

Inky, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Why would scientists have any motivation to analyze data and reach conclusions, then present those conclusions to the world? They're just presenting facts, which is their job.

Of course, the other motivation is the desire to not see mankind face extinction at worse, loss of lives in the hundreds of millions at best.

[DrunkMonkey]

southern_freethinker wrote

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but since global warming seems to be a religion (of sorts) of its own, here's a dose of skepticism:
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers...ld%20Media.pdf

Are we all gonna DIE??!!! Well, uh, yes we are. Will it be by GLOBAL WARMING???!!! Apparently nobody knows.

Awesome. Information from someone who really knows the facts of global warming- a senator. :rolleyes:

HeWhoAsks wrote

Just playing the Devil's Advocate to the Devil's Advocate, but the fundamental problem is that global warming is a reality; how the media plays it is a whole 'nother question.

Saying "Nobody knows" misses the idea that it is prudent to take action based on our best knowledge. No one has a crystal ball, but scientists make their living predicting how the world works, and we better listen to what they say.

It's all fine to be skeptical, but at some point, skepticism has to bow before the assembled weight of a huge amount of independent scientific thinking (that is, many lines of investigation that all converge on the overwhelming consensus that global warming is gonna screw us.

Well OK then, how about that great agency of corruption and ignorance, the UN? They just came out with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml

I suppose that won't be enough either for the True Believers who see Gore as the Second Coming of Christ.

[inkadu]

ManInTheWild wrote

. In his book he imagined an economic model built around environmental clean up and the US leading the way. Doesn't that sound way better than war for oil?

Yes, but so does printing my own money. I don't see an economic model built around environmental clean up... The thing about oil is all the hidden cost. As far as I'm concerned, the entire Iraq war budget should be folded into the cost of gasoline.

Professor Chaos wrote

Inky, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Why would scientists have any motivation to analyze data and reach conclusions, then present those conclusions to the world? They're just presenting facts, which is their job.

I know. I am trying to figure out if there is a non-science reason why the scientists could be wrong. Large groups of people can be wrong about a lot of things -- we're all atheist enough to know that. Since I'm a non-scientist, I trust scientists to get to the truth. However, since they're also people I reserve some skepticism that they might be wrong for personal or social reasons. I'm saying that if someone wants to convince me against global warming, they first have to explain the uniform consensus for it.

[DrunkMonkey]

southern_freethinker wrote

Well OK then, how about that great agency of corruption and ignorance, the UN? They just came out with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml

Article wrote

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

In order to deny global warming, you would have to deny one of the following:
1) Humans are giving off more and more greenhouse gases (mostly Carbon Dioxide) from the burning of fossil fuels
2) Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the global temperature

Both are facts. I don't see why people want to deny global warming.

I suppose that won't be enough either for the True Believers who see Gore as the Second Coming of Christ.

What. The. Fuck.

PanAtheist wrote

At the end of the movie, it asks that if you do believe in the power of prayer, that you pray (to save the world 'n' all!).

In fact this is one of a tiny sprinkling of practical pieces of advices given as "how to deal with the problem" in the entire film. Mostly the advice given is "take action and responsibility",and "go find out yourselves how you can help - and here's a website!"

yes, he quotes an African proverb, “when you pray, move your feet”. (which says alot about africans I think :thumbsup: )

[calpurnpiso]

darwinfish wrote

yes, he quotes an African proverb, “when you pray, move your feet”. (which says alot about africans I think :thumbsup: )

This is due to restless feet syndrome....many people do it when going to bed. AHHH..moving one's feet feel good while resting. Christ-psychotics do it because their brains are out of control by their delusions, so, they act them up by moving their feet and lips, and fingers, and heads and eyes and knees....:lol:

http://adam.about.com/reports/000095.htm

This goes well with the Jerusalem Syndrome and other strains of Religious psychosis disorders....:)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm :lol:

DrunkMonkey wrote

In order to deny global warming, you would have to deny one of the following:
1) Humans are giving off more and more greenhouse gases (mostly Carbon Dioxide) from the burning of fossil fuels
2) Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the global temperature

Both are facts. I don't see why people want to deny global warming.

What. The. Fuck.

I don't know much about global warming or climate science, but I tihnk its rather obvious that there's much validity in their claims. Everyone knows that correlation doesn't require causation, but in this case, the facts are too bleakly obvious to ignore. The logical chain is as follows: 1) Humans give off lots of pollution and the amount of pollution has been increasing. 2) The gases present (like CO2) in our pollution can have an adverse effect on the ozone layer. 3) In recent years, coinciding perfectly with our increase in pollution, the ozone layer thickness has depleted, sea levels havce risen, glaciers have melted, storms have gotten worse, etc.. These effects are caused by an increase in pollution. 4) Thus, it is rather naive to state that the global warming is merely a coincidnece. With the available data, the best hypothesis is not a regular climate change, but a human induced one. I rest my case, bitches.

I don't think global warming is caused by depletion of the ozone layer. The mechanism is increased heat retention due to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

[Professor Chaos]

southern_freethinker wrote

Well OK then, how about that great agency of corruption and ignorance, the UN? They just came out with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml

I suppose that won't be enough either for the True Believers who see Gore as the Second Coming of Christ.

Jesus fucking Christ, do you even realize what the article you quoted says?

the main point of the article wrote

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.

Is this supposed to be some kind of argument against global warming? Even this article you posted says we're fucked:

Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London wrote

People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens.

calpurnpiso wrote

This is due to restless feet syndrome....many people do it when going to bed. AHHH..moving one's feet feel good while resting. Christ-psychotics do it because their brains are out of control by their delusions, so, they act them up by moving their feet and lips, and fingers, and heads and eyes and knees....:lol:

http://adam.about.com/reports/000095.htm

This goes well with the Jerusalem Syndrome and other strains of Religious psychosis disorders....:)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/577180.stm :lol:

honestly cal, I don't think you quite got it. It means something to the effect of "pray, but don't count on prayer to do anything for you, do it yourself"

It's amazing to what degree the Global Warming cause resembles a religion. Any dissent is swiftly attacked (just like Xians or Muslims do when their religion is attacked), it has its high priests (the media and academics), and a Messiah (Al Gore), and countless minions who repeat the "gospel" verbatim with nary a bit of skepticism. I'm old enough to remember when the Deep Thinkers warned us that we were all going to die because of Global Cooling and an impending Ice Age. And I also remember the scorn that was heaped on skeptics of that scenario too. It's amusing that this blog, of all places, has so many enviromental religious fanatics.

Also, folks might not be aware of it (or even care, since it contradicts the holy sacrament of their Global Warming religion) that Mars is also undergoing a global warming of its own:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html
http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html
...and to my knowledge there are no SUVs or smoke-belching factories there. Could the Sun be putting out more solar energy, thereby affecting both planets? There HAS been more solar activity in the past few years. Hmm...