Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Tread

an inconvenient truth

Recommended Posts

Guest Tread

thought I would get the topic started. anyone seen it? If not, I would recommend that you do.

 

It being a good film is irrelevant. It's hardly there for entertainment purposes.

 

What are the thoughts out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

We got the live show version at Current. Al did about 3.5 hours of material.

I think the marketing on this movie is all wrong. Who wants to go see a movie that makes you feel bad? The reality is that it's quite optimistic and not at all a downer. I was surprised that it was as good as it was - I give it two thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest crabbey1

I agree :D Very good job illustrating the point in simple to understand terms... Also, something that stood out to me were the credits... They alternated between crediting the people on the film and ways to help out the cause... It kinda made me feel that the people who made this film were no more important than the cause... Definately recommend it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fredcamino

"this is not a political issue... it's a moral issue"

 

bullshit. this is fear based politics at its best. it's no different than the republicans wanting to ban gay marraige (another MORAL issue... yeah right). take a hot topic "issue" that a particular group of people can easily latch onto and be "passionate" about and EXPLOIT EXPLOIT EXPLOIT. and then VOTE VOTE VOTE. your morals, those super specific objective things that we all agree are true and real, are at stake here!

 

plus, doesn't it feel damn good inside to know that you're saving the world.

 

It's hardly there for entertainment purposes.

 

 

alas, if only we were so lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest igorschmigor

Never heard of it. Apparently it's a movie or show or something about global warming? Is there anything new to learn about it (asking out of curiosity, not sarcasm)?

 

Good news is, Bush is moving towards alternative energy resources such as ethanol, wind and solar energy. And many people in Brazil already have cars that can use both, ethanol and petrol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

it's just the facts. Yeah they are scary, but it's change on a global scale. What's so wrong about caring, fred? I don't get you. Screw politics, its not about that for me. Al Gore doesn't even want to be president.

 

I learned alot from it. There are alot of facts Al has collected that I had no clue about. Like the fact we could change, and see the results of that change in our lifetime. But if we don't change, we are looking at 100 million refugees across the globe.

 

one of the major shelfs in the north pole has already cracked.

 

He made an interesting point about the ozone layer, which is a different problem by the way, but when that problem arose, we changed, and now the problem is going away.

 

the movie, although frightening, was really filled with messages of hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

it's just the facts. Yeah they are scary, but it's change on a global scale. What's so wrong about caring, fred? I don't get you. Screw politics, its not about that for me. Al Gore doesn't even want to be president.

 

I learned alot from it. There are alot of facts Al has collected that I had no clue about. Like the fact we could change, and see the results of that change in our lifetime. But if we don't change, we are looking at 100 million refugees across the globe.

 

one of the major shelfs in the north pole has already cracked.

 

He made an interesting point about the ozone layer, which is a different problem by the way, but when that problem arose, we changed, and now the problem is going away.

 

the movie, although frightening, was really filled with messages of hope.

I think it also does a good job of explaining the way the weather works on earth. It kind of debunks the "well if it's global warming, why is it colder here that it was last year?" kind of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mamurphy

Hmmmm. I don't completely disagree with Fred.

 

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I believe anyone who is or was involved in politics has nothing but personal or lobbyist agendas to push.

 

Al Gore may believe this with his whole heart and his delivery of "facts" may be sincere, but I willl reserve judgement on the film and on global warming. There are two camps in this battle, each using their own set of tests and numbers.

 

It was warmer 1000 yrs ago than it is now. Further in the past it was even warmer. It's all cyclical.

 

I believe that 'mother earth' and the environment as a whole is just to big and powerful to be manipulated by human interaction. Yes, there are probably micro-adjustments. Downtown is a few degrees warmer than the suburbs because of machinery and congestion, but to say that we can globally affect change is, in my opinion, far-fetched.

 

I believe we should all do what we can to be as green as possible. Same goes for countries (America, China, India). I don't drive a hybrid, but I drive a small car that get 35+mpg. I recycle. I buy organic whole foods.

 

I just feel that this film is agenda-based, fear-mongering at its core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest superegophobia

Good news is, Bush is moving towards alternative energy resources such as ethanol, wind and solar energy. And many people in Brazil already have cars that can use both, ethanol and petrol.

Sure the notion is great but I get really fustrated when they say stuff like that then I see massive tax breaks for small business owners if they buy a gas guzzling SUV or Hummer:

http://4wheeldrive.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...SUVtaxbreak.htm

http://4wheeldrive.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...2FGG-Report.pdf

 

also a friend mentioned that Ford has a car called the "Ka" which supposedly gets like 50+ mpg (don't think it's a hybrid) but they won't sell it in the US because they consider it "too small". anyone have any other info on that ridiculous notion? wikipedia says it was the best selling car in it's class in the UK for a number of years. i have a feeling it's just because Americans will buy bigger more expensive cars and Ford doesn't want to undercut themselves...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest carniceria

I believe that 'mother earth' and the environment as a whole is just to big and powerful to be manipulated by human interaction. Yes, there are probably micro-adjustments. Downtown is a few degrees warmer than the suburbs because of machinery and congestion, but to say that we can globally affect change is, in my opinion, far-fetched.

 

Sure, the earth will bounce back. But we won't be there when it does, millions of years later. See, everything you just mentioned - the film discusses. So reserve your reservation until after you've seen it.

 

This is the problem with media in general. Many news stations from which you hear 'cyclical weather' blah blah are merely repeated the talking points of oil funded special interest groups. Oil is putting shitloads of money into this issue to achieve just enough doubt among people to let political inertia keep the status quo the way it is. With us still buying SUVs, still eating food that took millions of gallons of gas to get from the farm to our store etc...

 

So i'm glad there is a film out there, despite whos behind it, to simply provide another opinion. And a more patient and well thought out opinion than say, those of this group: http://streams.cei.org/ - who put out their commercials on national tv right before inconvenient truth was set to open in theaters. Now whos playing politics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

It was warmer 1000 yrs ago than it is now. Further in the past it was even warmer. It's all cyclical.

 

where are you gathering this data? YEah, it's buzzing around. I heard it too. But you need to get your facts straight, and you can do that by seeing the film. It explains this 'theory', and how and why it just isn't true. Yes, we are on the up swing of the cycle, but the current upswing is way overshooting the trends in the past.

 

It's so easy to hear something like this, unconciously be fueled by doubt and apathy, and then pass everything off like someone made a mistake in their data and believe it's really not happening because at night you can sleep better.

 

The data is painfully obvious that what we are about to face is not normal earth behavior. Stop making your own damn conclusions because you heard someone say this or that. It's so irresponsible.

 

Even if it isn't true, what's the harm in being a little greener in your actions? What, you like dirty air, and water? For someone not to care about that, deep down, is pretty damn selfish in my book. Everyone on this planet has one obligation in common. Our home. Nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

It was warmer 1000 yrs ago than it is now. Further in the past it was even warmer. It's all cyclical.

As Carniceria said, you should see the movie before you start making assumptions. The presentation I saw fully acknowledges that there is a natural cycle involved in the changes in weather globally. Suggesting that the two things are at odds is kind like the argument that science and religion can't co-exist - doesn't make much sense if you open your mind enough to think about it.

Seeing the movie is not the same as voting for the guy - get a bootleg if you're concerned that you might accidentally support a political view that you don't agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mamurphy

Stop making your own damn conclusions because you heard someone say this or that.

 

Ted, I could say the same about anyone who listens to Al Gore and takes his 'facts' as gospel truth.

No, I don't have my own facts. That 1000 yrs thing was kind of tongue-in-cheek.

 

To tell the truth, I hate rampant, unchecked industrialization.

I hate clear cutting forests for a new subdivision.

I hate multi-billion dollar corporations "grand-fathering" their production plants so they don't have to clean up the massive amounts of pollution belching out of the smoke stacks.

I hate that every morning on the radio I have to hear the ozone report being in the hazardous level.

I hate seeing people driving their Hummers and Tahoes and suburbans and corvettes 90 mph on the freeway.

I hate those stupid plastic grocery bags that choke the landfills.

 

I do what I can to be as green as possible. I mentioned a few in my last post. I hope and suggest to other that they do as much as they can.

 

I do know that Al Gore seemed to lose his mind after the 2000 election. He stormed across the states screaming to crowds of people, rabid with hatred for 'W'. I mean what better target that the idiot, oil grubbing, money grabbing moron in charge? He still beats that drum and I understand he does it a little in the film. I just question his motivation.

 

Is it to save the earth?

Or is this a platform that gives him a voice and visibility in the public spectrum where he would probably otherwise fade away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BillD222

I see the real agenda here. Al Gore is Ted Gore's uncle! :)

Edited by BillD222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

so what... what's the harm? So what if he gets elected president. Could he be any worse than bush? That shit bag?

 

And if saving the earth is the unintended by product of that, I won't complain.

 

I really don't see the argument about what al gore's agenda might 'really' be. I'm just an optomist with hope. And maybe I'm naive, but Al Gore seems a little genuine and sincere to be faking this whole thing. If he is, he's a damn good actor. I've talked to several people who have met him in person, and they say that you could not meet a more humble and generous human being.

 

given what is at stake, and what could possibly happen by going along with him, sorry, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I guess the worst thing that could happen is he gets elected president and then drives this country to hell. hmm, yeah, screw it, global warming isn't happening.

 

hasn't anyone else seen it, or care about this? The only people that have responded in it's favor are the current.tv guys who got a personal presentation on it.

 

I see the real agenda here. Al Gore is Ted Gore's uncle! :)

 

well, he is a distant cousin. I've never met him, but sure would like to. Any affiliation because of our last name is by coincidence only... :rolleyes:

Edited by Tread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mamurphy

I just wanted to contibute something positive to this discussion:

 

http://www.nrdc.org/

 

a nice site detailing most of the environmental threats we face.

Each section has articles on governmental policy and suggestions how we can all make a personal contribution in our daily lives.

 

I certainly hope any impending doom is hype, but if not, Tread is right. What could it hurt to do all we can to have a cleaner, healthier environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BillD222

I don't think you understand the real threat to Earth. It's not this liberal propoganda of rising temperatures and catastrophic storms. Pfft... these Liberals with their facts and their substantiating evidence.

 

Don't you understand?? DUDES WANT TO GET MARRIED TO EACH OTHER! There is no greater threat facing this earth, then denying two same-sex people who love each other civil union and tax benefits.

 

Open your eyes tree huggers!

 

 

 

so what... what's the harm? So what if he gets elected president. Could he be any worse than bush? That shit bag?

 

And if saving the earth is the unintended by product of that, I won't complain.

 

I really don't see the argument about what al gore's agenda might 'really' be. I'm just an optomist with hope. And maybe I'm naive, but Al Gore seems a little genuine and sincere to be faking this whole thing. If he is, he's a damn good actor. I've talked to several people who have met him in person, and they say that you could not meet a more humble and generous human being.

 

given what is at stake, and what could possibly happen by going along with him, sorry, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I guess the worst thing that could happen is he gets elected president and then drives this country to hell. hmm, yeah, screw it, global warming isn't happening.

 

hasn't anyone else seen it, or care about this? The only people that have responded in it's favor are the current.tv guys who got a personal presentation on it.

well, he is a distant cousin. I've never met him, but sure would like to. Any affiliation because of our last name is by coincidence only... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fredcamino

I don't think you understand the real threat to Earth. It's not this liberal propoganda of rising temperatures and catastrophic storms. Pfft... these Liberals with their facts and their substantiating evidence.

 

Don't you understand?? DUDES WANT TO GET MARRIED TO EACH OTHER! There is no greater threat facing this earth, then denying two same-sex people who love each other civil union and tax benefits.

 

Open your eyes tree huggers!

 

 

some people really believe that. just like others believe that the world will melt in 10 years unless everyone switches to sustainable lightbulbs. choose your side and save the world, in one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest milksac

First off, thanks Ferd for the "take the pledge" post on this same topic. :D

 

Regarding controlling carbon emissions, someone out there besides Gore plans on making a few bucks off all the hysteria.

 

THE need to cut carbon dioxide emissions around the globe is creating a new opportunity for investors. Countries across the EU have already embarked on a scheme to deliver emissions reductions in the most cost-effective way, by creating an emissions trading scheme.

 

This is seen by many as the start of a global carbon trading market which is forecast to grow rapidly. Many of the companies involved in this market are UK-listed and will be held not just in environmental funds, but in funds within the UK all-companies sector. The global carbon emissions trading market could easily exceed £20bn by 2010, based on a forecast of actual carbon credits traded.

 

SOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

I have not seen the film, so I can't comment on it directly.

 

Here's why I'm a skeptic about the overall concept of global warming: The best scientists in the world can't tell me what the weather will be in my town in two weeks. I'm supposed to believe in some climate model that is predicting global temperature changes 50 years out? Please.

 

If this planet had perfectly consistent temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years, and then suddenly in the last 100 years things started warming up, I might raise an eyebrow, but the fact is that there have been much more severe, even cataclismic climate changes on earth that have happened over and over and over again before there were even people, much less industry. Given that a) Earth has naturally occuring climate changes, and B) Science has yet to come up with a terribly accurate way of predicting long term weather/ climate changes, all we are left with are theories.

 

There is a huge confusion here between facts and proof. For instance, it's a widely accepted fact that the earth's average temperature has gone up about 1 degree in since around 1880. It's also a fact that the industrial revolution started fairly close to that time. However, this does not mean that it is a fact that human industry caused the increase in temperature. Proving the link between those two facts takes a lot more work than simply drawing a line between them.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't think we should be smart about things like pollution and resource management, because of course we should be. But I also don't think we should stop the presses every time someone tells us that we're raping the planet and are going to die in 10 years because of it, because frankly the record of predictions from the environmental doomsday crowd sucks, and unfortunately is often tied directly to some political agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kinojay33

Well, yeah Scott, but that's just because no one every wants to tell the evil truth--that the ice age was caused by climate shifts that came about as a result of a huge release of CFC's from Aqua Net hairspray used by dinosaurs to keep their unruly '80s bangs down.

 

1219vh3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest faston

But I also don't think we should stop the presses every time someone tells us that we're raping the planet and are going to die in 10 years because of it, because frankly the record of predictions from the environmental doomsday crowd sucks, and unfortunately is often tied directly to some political agenda.

 

I mean no offense, but I really don't think most people are even remotely qualified to make judgements based solely on what they've heard or think they understand about the concept and consequences of global warming. This includes many politicians. This is one of the reasons i think the film is valuable: it presents solid scientific concepts and data that give us a better basis that will enable us to form our own conclusions. I don't understand the resistance to learning more about something that affects all of us.

 

The best scientists in the world can't tell me what the weather will be in my town in two weeks. I'm supposed to believe in some climate model that is predicting global temperature changes 50 years out? Please.

 

I don't know what to tell you about your local meteorologist. I actually know one of the most respected climatologists in the world. He works at the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a laboratory that is funded by the current administration, and recently published an article in Nature that was reported on by many newspapers: San Fran Chronicle Article

 

It objectively finds evidence that carbon dioxide emissions have altered weather patterns in the tropical pacific. Since this is an academic paper, there is no useless speculation about the world ending in ten years, simply matter of fact evidence that humans are causing gradual changes that may completely change cetain areas of the world. The article's free, and there's no political agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jasfish

This doesn't mean that I don't think we should be smart about things like pollution and resource management, because of course we should be. But I also don't think we should stop the presses every time someone tells us that we're raping the planet and are going to die in 10 years because of it, because frankly the record of predictions from the environmental doomsday crowd sucks, and unfortunately is often tied directly to some political agenda.

 

Agreed. It would also be nice if environmentalists would at least acknowledge the viability of nuclear power. With the peak oil crisis looming (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency) and natural gas becoming harder to get and more expensive we're going to need to do something for our future energy needs. I don't know why so many people refuse to have any dialog on this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I've read quite a bit of Europe already uses nuclear energy to help out with current energy needs. I think the US should be doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jaan

I have not seen the film, so I can't comment on it directly.

 

Here's why I'm a skeptic about the overall concept of global warming: The best scientists in the world can't tell me what the weather will be in my town in two weeks. I'm supposed to believe in some climate model that is predicting global temperature changes 50 years out? Please.

 

If this planet had perfectly consistent temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years, and then suddenly in the last 100 years things started warming up, I might raise an eyebrow, but the fact is that there have been much more severe, even cataclismic climate changes on earth that have happened over and over and over again before there were even people, much less industry. Given that a) Earth has naturally occuring climate changes, and B) Science has yet to come up with a terribly accurate way of predicting long term weather/ climate changes, all we are left with are theories.

 

There is a huge confusion here between facts and proof. For instance, it's a widely accepted fact that the earth's average temperature has gone up about 1 degree in since around 1880. It's also a fact that the industrial revolution started fairly close to that time. However, this does not mean that it is a fact that human industry caused the increase in temperature. Proving the link between those two facts takes a lot more work than simply drawing a line between them.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't think we should be smart about things like pollution and resource management, because of course we should be. But I also don't think we should stop the presses every time someone tells us that we're raping the planet and are going to die in 10 years because of it, because frankly the record of predictions from the environmental doomsday crowd sucks, and unfortunately is often tied directly to some political agenda.

 

your rational, critical perspective makes you the ideal kind of person to see the movie. i hope you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

I mean no offense, but I really don't think most people are even remotely qualified to make judgements based solely on what they've heard or think they understand about the concept and consequences of global warming. This includes many politicians. This is one of the reasons i think the film is valuable: it presents solid scientific concepts and data that give us a better basis that will enable us to form our own conclusions. I don't understand the resistance to learning more about something that affects all of us.

I don't know what to tell you about your local meteorologist. I actually know one of the most respected climatologists in the world. He works at the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a laboratory that is funded by the current administration, and recently published an article in Nature that was reported on by many newspapers: San Fran Chronicle Article

 

It objectively finds evidence that carbon dioxide emissions have altered weather patterns in the tropical pacific. Since this is an academic paper, there is no useless speculation about the world ending in ten years, simply matter of fact evidence that humans are causing gradual changes that may completely change cetain areas of the world. The article's free, and there's no political agenda.

 

First of all, no offense taken.

 

Second, I never said the film isn't valuable, or suggested that it's not a good thing to learn more about this. To me that includes giving equal time to both sides of the issue; not seeing one film or reading one article and coming to a conclusion. No offense to your friend, but in the 70's many of the world's leading climatologists were warning of the coming ice age caused by our recklessness. They blew that one big time. Some of those same guys are now on the global warming bandwagon. Am I wrong to be a wee bit skeptical?

 

I have done a fairly extensive amount of reading over several years on this topic, and I've read many academic papers from many leading climatologists. The bottom line is, I am not convinced because as far as I can tell, the experts (as a group) are not convinced, despite all the claims of "global warming consensus."

 

This does not mean I do not believe we are having a significant impact on the climate, it simply means that I believe there is reasonable doubt. I also recognize the ease at which issues like this can be manipulated for political gain, which adds to my skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...