An Inconvenient Truth

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by otter, Jun 25, 2006.

  1. Stephen Rice

    Stephen Rice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,479
    Media:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    I went and Watched this movie myself and it's a definitely reality, it's funny that all of the naysayers are saying it's a farce, I firmly believe it's because it's too frightening to them because to accept it is to accept the fact that most humans have to change the course that there on. Whether we like it or not we are of the Earth and the Earth is of us. We are basically burning up the planet, you could say we are a virus, I know that may sound silly to some but it is true. it's not just the pollution we should be concerned about it's also the world population growth. we are using up what little precious resources we have now, and the people we elect can't even decide on whether to end a war much less pick there noses. face it, it will happen whether we like it or not if we don't change Mother Nature will change for us.:eek:
     
  2. Rich Schager

    Rich Schager You should have been here yesterday...

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Harstine Island
    Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect.

    Inconvenient Truths Indeed
    Tech Central Station 24 May 2006

    Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week. In the film Gore pulls
    together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening
    fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined.
    However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths:

    (1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration,
    Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were
    rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no
    mention, however, of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science
    is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to
    do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)

    (2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya's Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that
    human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of
    Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric
    moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject
    published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical
    Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in
    precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.

    (3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global
    temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record
    Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and
    Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence
    from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they
    become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the
    Medieval Warm period).

    (4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash
    floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if
    one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from
    the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No
    systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in
    the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm
    intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no
    significant trends evident over the 20th century."

    (5) Gore claims that sea-level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the
    world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea
    level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that
    "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been
    detected."

    (6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of
    greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this
    lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is NO. China, India and
    many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global
    concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United
    States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this
    movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.

    Throughout the film, Gore displays his passion for the global warming issue, and it is obvious
    that he has dedicated a substantial amount of time to learning about climate change and the
    greenhouse effect. This leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in
    December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three years to present the
    Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore's position in the Senate and
    his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then-Vice President Gore did
    not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime? "An Inconvenient Truth" is
    billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is
    not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous
    uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient
    Truth."
     
  3. Michael Brady

    Michael Brady New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    Media:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Home Page:
    Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University
    NCPPR scientific expert on global warming. (1996)

    Dr. Balling wrote the "Heated Debate," published by the Pacific Research Institute and "True State of the Planet," published by CEI. He co-wrote "The Satanic Gases" with Patrick J. Michaels, published by the Cato Institute. Balling signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1995.

    According to Harper's, Balling has recieved more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)

    PhD University of Oklahoma, 1979. Senior Consultant United Nations World Meteorological Organization.
    _____
    Do some research next time on your so called expert, because it looks to me like hes been getting some green from the oil companies. I might take that to mean he does biased science.
     
  4. creekx

    creekx spent spinner

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    371
    Media:
    14
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Rancho Deluxe
    As stated before: The motives of scientists who receive government grants or are funded by environmental lobbies like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace cannot be questioned, but if evil corporations fund research, we are to immediately dismiss and discredit their work.

    Oh, and above all, we know Al Gore is completely balanced and unbiased, that's why he allowed for all points of view in this movie.
     
  5. nathanj

    nathanj New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    Messages:
    81
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    seattle, wa
    Home Page:
    As stated before: Who gives a sh!t if it's cyclical, craused by man, or both.

    Don't you want to do everything you possibly can to try and stop it or slow it down regardless?

    It's petty simple to me: global warming (no matter what the cause) = bad.

    I'm having a hard time understanding why the naysayers on this board are fighting this so hard. Is it because of Al Gore, political interests, religion? Because none of it makes sense to me, unless you want life on earth to end...
     
  6. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Media:
    19
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    ok, so pretend al gore is your favorite personality delivering the same message. change anything for you????

    i can't believe the 'true believers' simply want to dismiss the message because the messenger happens to be al gore.

    lame, just totally lame.
     
  7. Michael Brady

    Michael Brady New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    Media:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Home Page:
    Yeah you are right on here. Because the government and environmental lobbies like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are not trying to sell a product to anyone. Meanwhile the other side, the oil companies want oil to keep being consumed so they can make more record profits. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace do not get anything out of lobbying for stricter fuel efficiency standards or avoiding drilling in ANWR. What they get out of the deal is the satisfaction of protecting the environment and preserving the earth for future generations.

    I refer you to the unbiased government agency known as the EPA
    http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateUncertainties.html

    Maybe the best quote from the page:
    "Global warming poses real risks. The exact nature of these risks remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is why we have to use our best judgement – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response to global warming should be."

    This is the point Al Gore is trying to make, if you have seen the movie you know. This is an attempt to wake up the public about the possible hazards associated with increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased global temps.
     
  8. otter

    otter Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Angeles, Washington
    A couple three things (i feel a certain amount of responsibility because i started this thread)

    Number One: DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER. If you read through this thread end to end you will find that there is no one-to-one correlation between a person's religion, politics, lifestyle, age or sex and their carefully considered opinion about the effects of global climactic change. So if you have prejudices about people's religion, politics, lifestyle, age and sex leave them at the door. There are bigger fish to fry, here. To me, this is a king hell example of American free speech IN ACTION, and more power to you all. And BTW i will defend to the bitter end the right of any person to voice their own opinion withour fear of prejudice or retaliation. If you dont believe it just try me.

    That being said.........

    The point of the poor and starving - third world people and i will add the poor and starving in our own country - has been brought up several times. So let's say for example that out of six billion people in the world four billion are poor and hungry and two billion are consuming 40-50 percent of the available resources. I'm not a statistician so don't take these numbers for real but for example. So we say "gotta bring those four billion up to our level of consumption". Big Scary. Because obviously that math just plain dont work. The underlying assumption here - and a false one by the way - is that IF YOU REDUCE YOUR LEVEL OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION YOU WILL EQUALLY REDUCE THE QUALITY OF YOUR LIFE. Who sez? If one solitary soul can prove that to me then i will stand down.

    The BLAME GAME. If one solitary soul can prove to me that assigning BLAME creates an ongoing solution to the problem then i will stand down.

    Finally, there is an awesome amount of amazingly good thinking happening here, including some bare-knuckle differences of opinion, which are just as neccessary as the thinking. When we all walk out of this room, I'd like to think - no, i'm gonna modify that - i KNOW we will create big change for the better out there. And - to the real point - our kids and their kids will someday be standing hip deep in a goddam beautiful river, maybe locked on to a ballistic chromer or maybe skunked, but enjoying it all the same.

    Yrs. truly


    Otter
     
  9. nick m

    nick m New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    51
    Media:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Groton, Ma/Walla Walla
    To all the naysayers:
    Al Gore may be the embodiement of a wooden plank but he has done more to protect the environment that we all cherish than most of us here. I think anyone who is devoting their lives to the preservation and protection of the natural world deserves everyones respect.
     
  10. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Media:
    516
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    ". Because the government and environmental lobbies like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are not trying to sell a product to anyone. Meanwhile the other side, the oil companies want oil to keep being consumed so they can make more record profits. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace do not get anything out of lobbying for stricter fuel efficiency standards or avoiding drilling in ANWR. What they get out of the deal is the satisfaction of protecting the environment and preserving the earth for future generations. "

    We'd like to believe in that those representing both sides if this issue have good honest well intentioned reasons for their positions. I don't doubt there are corporate lobbyists who don't want tighter controls.

    But please don't be so niave to assume these 'agencies' and 'clubs' don't have many subtle agendas - and yes MONEY is definately a factor. Just look at how PETA likes to scare and manipulate peoples emotions to rally around their cause. That's how they get MONEY. Who would support the sierra club or greenpeace if their wasn't an emotional battle to rally people behind?

    Anyway - otter, good post.

    I still haven't heard of many suggestions on how we can and should make a difference globally. How are we going to convince China, India, Russia, etc to slow down the population growth, reduce emissions and other pollutants, plant trees and fight erosion, stop burning up fossil fuels, etc? Sure, we can start at home, but we need a global strategy or it will litterally be like peeing in the ocean...
     
  11. Charles Sullivan

    Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,474
    Media:
    13
    Likes Received:
    638
    Location:
    bellingham wa
    Home Page:
    Al wins, thank God. We are all talking about this.
    BTW- Global warming caused by humans is real. We gotta use newer sunlight to power our lives. Never has there been a peer reviewed study that disputes it. Thank You Al.
    Sox win. Thanks for 7 of the best Pedro!
    cds
     
  12. otter

    otter Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Angeles, Washington
    Chad -

    Global stuff. What enrages me about the Kyoto Accord is that it was and is the first genuine strategic attempt to "agree to agree", globally, on managing emissions. So what did we do? Pulled out. There's 80 some odd nations out there that are willing to share the load, and we're saying screw you based on the fantasy that somehow we are so cool that we are above a global crisis. Read continued record American profits here, and the sick and sorry knowledge that we've gotta gotta gotta have that energy fix.


    Otter
     
  13. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    .
    Hell if I know, but trying to exert some leadership on the issue would be a good place to start. I have no idea if the Kyoto Protocol was worth a crap, but all we did was say "f*$% it" and whine about how we would lose gazillions of jobs if we signed on. We didn't come up with anything better. Which I suppose should not be surprising. It is hard to exert leadership in trying to solve for human induced climate change when the people who run this country keep denying the problem exists in the face of a preponderance of scientific evidence that it does.

    Showing some leadership is one way to get places like India and China on board. As much as I am often upset by how we short shrift the enviroment in this country, I realize there are way worse places than the U.S. But we have got to show the way.

    Also, China and India alone are HUGE markets. If we showed some leadership in developing ways to produce energy and transport people and things in more earth-friendly ways, American companies could make a lot of money there. (That takes government policies that tilt the playing field a little more towards encouraging new approaches.) We don't necessarily need to assume that the only path to development that we can expect in places like China and India over the next 50 years has to look like the West's inglorious path to development over the last 150 years. Think of it wireline vs. wireless communication in the developing world. Many less developed countries had little wireline infrastructure historically, leaving those markets wide open for wireless technologies to fill the void. As a result, wireless communications in a lot of of developing countries dominate. Now is the time to give developing countries better ways of producing energy and moving people and things than burning oil, petroleum products and coal. (Some are figuring out on their own, like the very high use of domestically produced ethanol in Brazil.) But our elected leaders' number one priority is to maintain the status quo of the primacy of oil and other greenhouse emitting energy sources, because that is who is getting them elected to office right now (e.g., maybe why increased CAFE standards got left out of the Energy Policy Act of 2005?). So if places like China and India do get religion on these issues, it's probably going to be non-U.S. companies who make the killing because of our failure to better encourage new approaches through government policy.
     
  14. Snake

    Snake tryin' not to get too comfortable

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    between the mountains and the sound
    The bottom line (IMHO)? Too many people on a planet with limited resources, producing too much toxic waste through our own consumptive lifestyles.

    What happens when you inoculate a nutrient broth with bacteria? Log phase growth (happy bugs growing merrily), followed by a flat line (resource depletion and waste accumulation), and then the inevitable death curve.

    I don't give a rats ass that we are going to kill ourselves because we can't see the writing on the wall, but it isn't fair that we are going to pull the rest of the species on this magnificent planet down with us.

    Technology and conservation might prolong the inevitable, but until we hit ZPG (zero population growth), it's a given that we will run out of resources. You think gas prices are a problem? Wait until we're waging wars over water!

    After the last animals are gone, and the air is so toxic we can't breathe naturally, and there isn't any uncontaminated water left, maybe we'll finally realize money isn't everything.

    I hate to be such a cynic, but bring on a good influenza epidemic! Cull the herd, I say! (I'm not going to comment on the ludicrous trend of mega-millionaires trying to improve 'global health'. Are they trying to buy their way into heaven, or what?) In the meantime, enjoy every day you have. Make them count. Reduce your impact as much as you can for the sake of the critters that don't have a say in the fate we are foisting upon them, and accept the fact that every person dies. But not everybody truly lives.
     
  15. otter

    otter Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Angeles, Washington
    Mr. Snake -

    Yr. the WORD. ZPG is the bottom line - and this goes back, at least for me, to the 1960's.
    And water will be the mother of all wars, not oil...............

    So how do we do this without mass voluntary suicide or murder on a grand scale?

    You have proposed the problem - no escape until you throw your answer into the arena.

    Otter
     
  16. Snake

    Snake tryin' not to get too comfortable

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    between the mountains and the sound
    Jeez, Otter, the problem was proposed long before I ever thought about it, and there's no way I have an answer for it....

    The best thing I can do is try to live large and keep my footprint small, and hope the balance somehow gets restored.

    This is a great time to live. So much technology and knowledge, unprecedented freedom and wealth, but before the consequences come to bear. The next 20 years of human existence will be interesting.......
     
  17. Jason Decker

    Jason Decker Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,627
    Media:
    263
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Issaquah, WA
    Home Page:
    honestly, go start a enviromental forum.......... you're making me dizzy
     
  18. Nailknot

    Nailknot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,909
    Media:
    38
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Those frickin EU clog hopper lutifisk eaters are making millions on off wind and deep drilling. Frickin risk taking innovators.
     
  19. Sloan Craven

    Sloan Craven Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,467
    Media:
    43
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    NoSho, ma
    Probably doesn't change much for people discussing in this thread, though I might actually go see the movie. But it would change a lot for the majority of people living in democratic states. Since statistics show that about 60-70 percent of voters simply vote along party lines regardless of the issues or who's running, having a political figure at the center of the film isn't a bright idea.... that is if delivering the message is what's important. So I definitely think the movie would make a bigger impact if it was Denzel Washington or Catherine Zeta-Jones. Or maybe Lindsay Lohan.
     
  20. creekx

    creekx spent spinner

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    371
    Media:
    14
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Rancho Deluxe
    nathanj, if you were paying attention you would understand that is exactly my point. I don't have to believe every doom-and-gloom scenario in the movie to be a good steward of the environment. Several posts here have the usual smugness you'd expect - you either believe everything Al Gore says, or you don't care about the environment.
     

Share This Page