Thirty Five Errors in Gore Movie

[michaeledward]

Scaring my kids into thinking that they are going to live on a post-apocolyptic dust ball is another issue alltogether.

Part of the challenge with this topic, is that the events can very well be extreme. And we have very little way to know for sure. The events of global warming could be more than just a tipping point, but a drastic, immediate change.

Sea levels for instance. Many people argue about the apocolyptic sea level changes that were reported as a possibility in 'An Inconvienent Truth'. The arguement that the sea levels, if they do change, they will change very slowly. There is no way the entire borrough of Manhattan will be underwater by the year 2030.

The fact is ... and scientists will tell you this ... is that we do not know.

We do know that arctic ice is evaporating. We do know that glaciers are accelerating in both flow, and evaporation. There is good modeling to indicate that the glacial ice packs can collapse; dramatically and suddenly.

We have never before witnessed or recorded a dramatic and sudden loss of glacial ice packs. So, we do not know what - or if - global climate change will trigger the sequences in the models, in the way the models have behaved.

We do know, however, that if all of the water locked in the glaciers of Greenland is released into the ocean, there will be an impact on the coastline. We don't know if it will be a rapid change, or a slower change.


What I do know, is that there will be impacts from the amount of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. And people who make jokes about Moose Farts are in denial. And that's not just a river in Egypt.

 

[CanuckMA]

What I do know, is that there will be impacts from the amount of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. And people who make jokes about Moose Farts are in denial. And that's not just a river in Egypt.

Of course there will be. My biggest issue with the 'usual suspects' is that doomsday, it's all man's fault, we need to go back to the caves attitude.

Climate is changing. 30-40 years ago we were all talking about the coming ice age. Man's activities influence those changes. We need to tackle 2 fronts. 1) what can we do to minimize our effect on those changes and 2) what do we need to do to adapt to those changes, because if the planet is warming, nothing we do will change that. We can affect the speed, not the outcome.

There's also a resentment about what NA and Europe are being asked to do and looking at China and India pumping CO in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.

 

[Dave Leverich]

I do my bit, recycle, home office (I only drive for martial arts).
I wouldn't mind a hybrid, but reality says it's after this car goes kaput (98 civic).
Now if they'd just put out those cars that run on water...

 

[Dave Leverich]

I do find Gore's home energy use to be disheartening though, even with the 'green dollars' mentality, it's still a ton of energy being used.

 

[Cruentus]

Of course there will be. My biggest issue with the 'usual suspects' is that doomsday, it's all man's fault, we need to go back to the caves attitude.

Right, I agree. Every week there is some special on National Geographic or Discovery about some sort of apocalyptic threat; meteors, UFO's, World Wars, Super Volcano's, you name it. Climate change often gets lumped into the category. So, it seriously deminished the discussion, and makes it difficult to take climate change seriously.

I don't really believe in the grandios doomsday predictions regarding climate change, but as M.E. said, we really don't know. We do know, however, that it is occuring, and we do know that we are probably going to have to do something about it.

I just happend to think that it would be best to be proactive regarding our energy consumption and impact on the planet so we can maintain (or even better) the technological and productive society that we know, while being more environmentally friendly.

I use examples such as the Hurst Building and George Bush's house as a good sample of what our future infastructures could be like. But we have to start looking at alternative resources and methods of energy consumption now to make this happen.

Better then our usual status quo: wait for the **** to hit the fan, then figure out how we might go about fixing things.

I do find Gore's home energy use to be disheartening though, even with the 'green dollars' mentality, it's still a ton of energy being used.

I hear ya, but I really am not surprised, though. There were inconsistancies and hippocracies with him throughout his political career. I don't look at him as a hero or a stunning example of living green, and I certainly don't think anyone else should.

But that is besides the point. I find it interesting that his opposition are really very quick to attack the person rather then the argument on this issue (not that you are doing that, but I am just saying).

 

[Blotan Hunka]

We do know, however, that it is occuring, and we do know that we are probably going to have to do something about it.

That kinda assumes that WE are doing it in the first place dont it? I dont think the jury is out on human causation and the odds of us being able to "DO" something is unknown too.

 

[Cruentus]

That kinda assumes that WE are doing it in the first place dont it? I dont think the jury is out on human causation and the odds of us being able to "DO" something is unknown too.

The thing is, that is the very recent assumption made by the scientific community. This is opposed to the last survey 10 years ago, that stated 44% of scientests believe that it is a natural phenomenom. Most of the surveys are not up to date, and the ones that are survey scientific liturature dating from the 90's, when there still was an argument.

Since 2001 until now, most scientific organizations seem to uphold the claim that "we" had something to do with climate change, although no recent survey has been done on a population sample of all individual scientests. So, this is relatively new based on recent data that we have acquired only over the last few years.

I agree with you though that what can/needs to be done about it now, however, is largely unknown. My issue is, how are decision makers (politicians, public) going to formulate solutions if some still want to argue about the problem? I admit that I don't know percisely what needs to be done, but I do know that on a policy level we should be moving towards a direction of coming up with solutions. The time for argueing over the problem, I think, has passed.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

That I do agree with. There is a tendancy to exaggerate claims when it comes to this sort of thing. There is also a tendancy for certain people to want to use a global warming "scare" to try to promote an unrealistic utopian view of how society, government, and economies should be run. However, the other side of the argument often exaggeratedly ignores good science because it doesn't support the idea that we should continue business as usual. So often, exaggerations are used on both sides of the argument, and that I do not agree with.

I will agree with you on that one. As a little bit of a tangent, I believe that is why alot of children do not believe adults. Because alot of claims are exaggerated, and they are smart enough to know it.

The science overwhelmingly supports climate change. That is not debatable.

The evidence reasonably points to the notion that we may have something to do with it. That is not as clear as the fact that climate change is occurring, but it is reasonable to assume this based on considerable evidence.

So although our involvement and to what degree falls in line with strong theory as opposed to undeniable fact, the real question is why argue against it?

I will agree with you that climate change is, and always has, occurred.

But there is evidence to suggest that there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the man-made contribution to this climate change is minimal.

It seems pretty clear to me that we should be aware of our energy useage, and that we should be looking into alternatives to fossil fuels for economic and national security reasons to begin with. So why are we going to argue against a strong theory? If we find that the theory is wrong, how would that change what we need to do in regards to our energy expendatures?

I agree. And I think there should be credible alternatives out there. And the theory of man-made contributions may have no change in regards to what we should do with energy expenditures. But I absolutely do not believe that we should frame a debate incorrectely in order to justify a position. The the issues justify themselves. So although the end result may be the same, lets be honest.