An Inconvenient Truth

[michaeledward]

There is a new movie coming out. It recieved high praise at the Sundance Film Festival.

An Inconvenient Truth

Information can be found here:

www.climatecrisis.net

Book your seats soon.

 

[fightingfat]

I think it's amazing that so many people in the US still believe this isn't happening, or, that if it is, it's nothing to do with man's impact on the environment. I have to say the opinion in Europe is very much the opposite. It is seen as fact, and by many, as having consequences that are now virtually unavoidable.
What's the old Chinese proverb? May you live in interesting times...

 

[Makalakumu]

I think it's amazing that so many people in the US still believe this isn't happening, or, that if it is, it's nothing to do with man's impact on the environment. I have to say the opinion in Europe is very much the opposite. It is seen as fact, and by many, as having consequences that are now virtually unavoidable. What's the old Chinese proverb? May you live in interesting times...

Heh. There are people in this country that believe a whole bunch of rediculous things. For example, did you know that the earth was 6000 years old? Did you know that there were dinosaurs on the Ark? Or did you know that Market solutions can solve every problem? And here is my absolute favorite...did you know that a military large enough to take on three regional conflicts at the same time, constitutes 50% of the entire worlds military spending, and consumes over half of the federal budget is for "defense" purposes.

Global Warming isn't some kooky liberal fantasy...just ask the Inuit.

 

[mrhnau]

I think it's amazing that so many people in the US still believe this isn't happening, or, that if it is, it's nothing to do with man's impact on the environment. I have to say the opinion in Europe is very much the opposite. It is seen as fact, and by many, as having consequences that are now virtually unavoidable.
What's the old Chinese proverb? May you live in interesting times...

Wasn't it in the 60's that they were talking about Global Cooling, and we were expecting glaciers to be knocking on our doors?

The environment changes from time to time. Its never been a stagnant systems. External (sun cycles) and internal (man, volcanic eruptions) influences always change things. I'm all for minimizing mans influence on the environment, but even if we totally stop our footprint on the earth, we are still going to have ups and downs. Thats nature. Minimize our influences, then realize that it won't make Earth a perfect Nirvana.

 

[mrhnau]

http://www.climatecrisis.net
Book your seats soon.

I think I'll pass on that one. If I want a guilt trip on "how man is destroying everything", I can just turn on the National Geographic Channel for an hour or so, or perhaps NPR on the radio. Mission accomplished.

When you do see it, do let us know how it is. I am curious, but not willing to pay for what I can get for free elsewhere.

 

[Monadnock]

There's a new threat to our environment - Global Raining.

Scientists anticipate it will soon be in your state.

Signed, Mike C. Soaking wet in NH.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think I'll pass on that one. If I want a guilt trip on "how man is destroying everything", I can just turn on the National Geographic Channel for an hour or so, or perhaps NPR on the radio.

Man isn't destroying everything. We are changing everything. For some forms of life and for many natural areas, this really is destruction. Denying any form of guilt for this, won't change that fact. Nor will it somehow erase that the fact that how we live is causing all of these changes. Maybe all of this change is inevitable, maybe it isn't. The simple fact of the matter is this...if you are going report about these changes, you need to talk about destruction and about the ultimate cause. Humans.

 

[mrhnau]

Man isn't destroying everything. We are changing everything. For some forms of life and for many natural areas, this really is destruction. Denying any form of guilt for this, won't change that fact. Nor will it somehow erase that the fact that how we live is causing all of these changes. Maybe all of this change is inevitable, maybe it isn't. The simple fact of the matter is this...if you are going report about these changes, you need to talk about destruction and about the ultimate cause. Humans.

There are two ways to take your final two sentances:
1) if we talk about the changes humans made, then we have to discuss the human involvement

2) if we talk about changes in general, we have to discuss the human involvement, since they are the ultimate cause.

Which did you intend? Just trying to clarify.
thanks!

 

[michaeledward]

There are two ways to take your final two sentances:
1) if we talk about the changes humans made, then we have to discuss the human involvement

2) if we talk about changes in general, we have to discuss the human involvement, since they are the ultimate cause.

Which did you intend? Just trying to clarify.
thanks!

No matter ... human beings are part of nature. Therefore, no action they take (individually or collectively) can be seen as 'independent' of nature.

The comforting thought to me is that the planet will go on, until the hydrogen has fused to helium, and when the helium starts fusing to carbon the planet earth will be consumed in a rapidly expanding sun.

Human beings existence on the planet, at best will be an insignificant footnote, when compared to the reign of the dinosaurs. We've managed barely 11,000 years of agrarian society compared to the hundreds of millions of years for the giant lizards. I imagine the insects might do as well as the dinosaurs.

For all of our so-called intelligence, we can't seem to prevent ourselves from hurting ourselves.

 

[mrhnau]

No matter ... human beings are part of nature. Therefore, no action they take (individually or collectively) can be seen as 'independent' of nature.

Yes it does matter. If you are going to say that all the destruction in the world is a result of humans, I'll violently disagree with you. Species have gone extinct long before we arrived. Yes, we are all part of "nature", but we have some unique characteristics. We have mind, intellegence, and if you will, spirit. We have the ability to control our environment in unique ways. however, often what we are doing can be caused by other natural phenomenom. for instance, extinction of a species can come through disease, a misbalance of the food chain, global warming/cooling that is not human driven (yes! it can occur!), alteration of the environment by nature (flooding, beaver dams, earthquakes, fire from lightning, natural occuring radiation, etc.), and on and on.

Another unique characteristic of humans is the ability to feel guilt. I don't see lions crying when they consume their prey. I also don't see vegetarian lions, feeling sorry for their lunch. When a beaver builds its dam, I don't see much guilt. Animals have not gotten to the level of destruction that we could incur, but nature has other methods. New viruses, asteroids, solar flares... the list goes on. There are many ways the world can end, and not every one involves mankind.

I agree we should preserve what we can, but we don't have the ability to keep a stagnant environment. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not losing sleep every night I drive my car, nor am I going out of my way to destroy whats here.

 

[Bigshadow]

you need to talk about destruction and about the ultimate cause. Humans.

That is not fact. The fact is the earth is a very resiliant environment and is ever changing. Yes, every living thing here affects the environment in one form or another. Yes, humans have the capacity to effect more than their share. I agree we should reduce our footprint, but I also face the fact that we as a species may not "live forever". Whether our demise is at our own hand or the cleansing forces of nature I do not know. But in reality what the film is about is not letting nature do as it wishes, but rather to bend and force nature to preserve the human species. It is truely an inconvenient truth that the human species just may not live forever.

My take on the whole environment thing is that yes, we do some things to speed things along (in the worst of ways) but this isn't soley a creation of humans, I believe it is largely the natural cycles of the planet, the solar system, and the universe.

As for the film, I will pass on it. I don't identify with Al Gore in any way, so it would be very difficult for me to watch it.

 

[Flying Crane]

My take on the whole environment thing is that yes, we do some things to speed things along (in the worst of ways) but this isn't soley a creation of humans, I believe it is largely the natural cycles of the planet, the solar system, and the universe.

While it is true that the earth does go thru natural cycles of heating and cooling, as well as changes in weather patterns, what is also true is that the changes we are seeing now are happening at rates that far far exceed the rates shown in the geological record that the earth goes thru naturally. These super-speeded up changes have been linked directly to the tremendous volume of pollution that we humans dump into our environment.

Yes, the earth is tremendously resilient, and over time it can cleanse and heal itself and adjust to new conditions. However, if it is constantly polluted at ever-increasing rates, it will never cleanse itself, nor heal from the damage we are doing to it. This damage adds up, and can push the natural balances of the globe beyond the point where it can heal in any period of time that would be meaningful to humankind, or many of the other species of plants and animals currently sharing space on this planet with us.

Humankind may well go extinct at some point in time, but I would hate to live (and die) to see that happen some time in the next 50 years or so due to our own stupidity and greed as a species.

Another truth is that environmental scientists submit reports to the Whitehouse regarding these findings. Before these reports are made available to the public they are carefully re-written by Whitehouse attorneys, to make the language less dire and imply that the reports are far more speculative than the authors intended.

 

[Phil Elmore]

what is also true is that the changes we are seeing now are happening at rates that far far exceed the rates shown in the geological record that the earth goes thru naturally.

Can you cite an objective source for this?

 

[Bigshadow]

we are seeing now are happening at rates that far far exceed the rates shown in the geological record that the earth goes thru naturally.

Oh, last time I checked geological records is not an exact science, it is like a guesstimate of time at best, an accuracy of 10s of thousands of years. Additionally, we do not know enough about the history of this planet to truely state as fact that what we are seeing is not the natural cycle of the planet. I don't disagree that what we do can be harmful, but I disagree with "The Sky is falling" charades.

Another truth is that environmental scientists submit reports to the Whitehouse regarding these findings. Before these reports are made available to the public they are carefully re-written by Whitehouse attorneys, to make the language less dire and imply that the reports are far more speculative than the authors intended.

I seriously do not believe that either. I am sure the government would JUMP at the chance to make it sound more dire than it really is. They have nothing to gain by doing what you assert, but everything to gain by doing the opposite, which they do have a track record for.

 

[elder999]

Oh, last time I checked geological records is not an exact science, it is like a guesstimate of time at best, an accuracy of 10s of thousands of years. Additionally, we do not know enough about the history of this planet to truely state as fact that what we are seeing is not the natural cycle of the planet. I don't disagree that what we do can be harmful, but I disagree with "The Sky is falling" charades.

Where did you check, exactly?

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about 420,000 years.

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature,is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods

At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.

 

[ginshun]

Another truth is that environmental scientists submit reports to the Whitehouse regarding these findings. Before these reports are made available to the public they are carefully re-written by Whitehouse attorneys, to make the language less dire and imply that the reports are far more speculative than the authors intended.

So you know this because you have read both versions?

Or are you saying that every environmental study on earth is first filtered through the Whitehouse before anybody in the USA hears about it?

Come on, you just cheapened all the good stuff you said with your anti-government crap.

 

[ginshun]

Where did you check, exactly?

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about 420,000 years.

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature,is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods

At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.

I don't understand this. How can the gases in the ice in Antarctica tell us about the climate around the rest of the globe? And does the amount of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere directly coincide with global temperature? Is the earth hotter now than it ever has been in its history? Or even in the last 420 thousand years?

Is that what we are supposed to conclude from that information?

And just for the record, I am honestly asking these questions too, not cocking you off or posing hypotheticals.

 

[Bigshadow]

Where did you check, exactly?

Actually, I didn't because I am all knowing.... J/K No, actually the first thing that came to mind is the wide swath of accuracy that surrounds carbon dating. I was aware of the process you are talking about but it didn't jump to mind when I was reading. Nevertheless, it doesn't change my opinion either way.

At any rate, this method of reassembling the historic climate changes is considered to be accurate (isotopes don't lie, the government does!) to within plus or minus 5%.

The changing climate is not in question. It is the "why"s that are though.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't understand this. How can the gases in the ice in Antarctica tell us about the climate around the rest of the globe? And does the amount of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere directly coincide with global temperature? Is the earth hotter now than it ever has been in its history? Or even in the last 420 thousand years?

Is that what we are supposed to conclude from that information?

And just for the record, I am honestly asking these questions too, not cocking you off or posing hypotheticals.

The people who choose to argue that human actions are not having an impact on the environment do not understand what elder999's statement means. If they understood it, there would be no discussion on the effects of fossil fuel in the ecosystem.

Very good questions. Follow up on them carefully. And try not to mess yourself when you gain understanding as to what the answers mean.

If you are going to say that all the destruction in the world is a result of humans,

That is not what I said. To use the descriptive word 'all' your claim is disingenous, regardless of how violently you disagree. Those who look at the science do not state that human activity is responsible for everything that is being destroyed. As some have noted, species have been dying off for a variety of reasons for hundreds of millions of years. Sometimes, the die offs would happen rapidly, sometimes not so rapidly. What caused the destruction of species may be significant, or may be insignificant.

If you were able to gather data about the average amount of extintion over, oh, let's say, every millenia, I believe you would be hard pressed to find a millenia in which that was more rapid die-off of more species than what we are experiencing right now on this planet.

Mankind, in its cleverness, has discovered how to convert the potential energy in fossil fues into kinetic energy less than two hundred years ago. Is there a correlation between these two facts?

Fortuneately, man's lifespan is too short to give a damn. Really, what does it matter if there are snows on Killamanjaro, anyway?

 

[Makalakumu]

The changing climate is not in question. It is the "why"s that are though.

Even that isn't really a question. Take a look at this argument. Greenhouse gasses scatter photons in the infrared wavelengths...effectively trapping them. If one adds greenhouses gasses to the atmosphere, then temperatures will increase globally. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including the ice core studies portrayed above. So, when we take a long look at the data and see that there has been an unprecedented rise in greenhouse gasses in our time with a subsequent rise in temperature...it's simple cause and effect.

Furthermore, if we look around on the earth for sources of greenhouse gasses, the only measureable, verifyable, and demonstratable source large enough to account for the climate change we've already seen are the gasses produced by the industrial burning of fossil fuels. There may be other sources out there, but we don't know, for sure, if they are major players. This is our BEST explanation.

The hardest thing about climate change is that it's predicatibility is limited. Too many variables. The relationships are not A +B = C. Reality is that we will have large changes in some places and small changes in others. For example, we may not ever be able to predict exactly how climate change will affect MN. One prediction is that it's climate will start to resemble Iowa. Another is that it's climate will start to resemble SD. Despite this uncertaintly, we know that MN's climate will change. And we know that humans, by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, are (at the very least) part of the cause of this change.