An Inconvenient Truth

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

  1. 509

    509 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WENATCHEE, WA
    I notice that both Germany and Canada have decided not to meet their targets under Kyoto. The social costs were just to high in their eyes.

    I'm wondering how many of us would be willing to change our lifestyles to meet the Kyoto targets (which might not be enough to reverse global warming)?

    My WAG. We would have to eliminate jet travel for general transportation. In western Washington that would eliminate all those Boeing jobs and the multiplier jobs. For personal transportation my guess is that we would probably have to use Jimmy Carter's gas coupons. His plan was to ration gas at 10 gallons per licensed driver per week. We would have to change the way we generate electricity and price of electricity would triple or quadruble.

    My question: Given your understanding of global warming would you be willing to make the above changes to your lifestyle??

    So much of the discussion has focused on new technologies...well in almost all cases they won't arrive in time. Don't use that argument.

    When the typical American adds up the impact you can see why Congress voted 95-0 against Kyoto and Germany and Canada are bailing.

    I think its unfortunate that we are discussing about the truth of global warming rather than discussing how to reduce our impact. The discussion is always about the OTHER person reducing their impacts.
     
  2. 05tacoma

    05tacoma Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Auburn, WA
    I'm curious, what does believing in evolution have to with this?
     
  3. Sloan Craven

    Sloan Craven Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,472
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    NoSho, ma
    A few random brain farts:
    The Al Gore Movie is Stupid. What the hell were people thinking when they made this? THey had a chance to do something great and they bring in Al Gore. I'm passionate about the environment, and I think that people that understand Global Warming don't even know about half of the danger we're in. THe problem is Al Gore. He's a smart guy, a perceptive guy, but one of the dullest people on earth. I'm not gonna pay 10 bucks to watch him for two hours. Not sure id watch him if I was paid 10 bucks. And I'm an educated guy thats actually interested, what about the rest of the american public. This is what they should have done: Have National Geographic film it, have Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones narrate it, and never mention Al GOre or any other political figure Boom, you have a hit. All proceeds can go to research of Global Warming.

    The earth was warmed and cooled several times throughout its existance. But never has it warmed at the speed it is now and never since large mammals roamed the planet has it been this hot. And never has there been so much greenhouse gas pumped into the atmosphere as over the last 6,000 years... since we started agriculture, population started growing, and we started burining everything. As someoen else pointed out, even if we are contributing a small portion, we're still gonna be #$%^&*!!!! It won't be nice and gradual etiher. More crazy weather, more heat waves, more floods, and more hurricanes. And remember that lousy movie when New york freezes. That'll happen. Not that fast. But in a matter of a couple of decades. Growing conditions will change. Food production will drop drastically. Prices of food with increase tenfold. People will stave. In places of drought, people will start fighting over water and land. Many governments will collapse.......The end of civilization is the end of civilization, do we really want to hurry it along.

    Finally, scientific theory is often misconcieved. Theory is not necessarily a hypothesis yet to be proven as we were taught in grade school. Rather scientific theory is a body of knowledge surrounding key concepts. Like the theory of evolution or theory of relativity. Evolution and relatvity are not doubted in scientific circles. They are facts. But they are referred to as theory as a body of information surrounding certain key concepts. Therefore when a scientist discusses therories of global warming, its doesn't mean he or she doubts that global warming exists or that there is not adequate evidence that demonstrates the earth is getting hotter due to human interference.

    Republican or democrat does not matter. Politicans are politicans. They talk a big show but generally lack action. Some of the best environmentalists were conservatives (Roosevelt, Nixon) as well as some of the worst (Reagan, Bush Jr). Just as some of the best envrionmentaists were liberals (Gore) and well as some of the worst (John Kerry). A person interested in the environment should vote based on a candidates beliefs, ideas, and whether you think they will take action; rather than party affiliation. I personally know more staunch democrats that throw away their recyclables than staunch republicans. This is something that scares the %^& out of me and I don't think that blindly supporting one politcial party over another is the solution.

    Some solutions:
    Tax the crap out of pollutors and give tax breaks to those that come up with alternative energy sources and low emissions. Money talks.

    Legislate the use of air-conditioning. Yeah, I said it. Your gonna think about Global Warming more when its 100 degrees and certain body parts are stuck together.

    Come up with our own standards. THere is not another country that is doing it better. Maybe Canada, but I don't know. We need to think big. We need to be unpopular. Tax imports. If people no longer buy cars or anything else from Japan or Europe cause of tariffs, no one will use the fuel to get stuff over here.

    FIX public transportation. A bus can't be half an hour late and a train can't be delayed an hour. I have tried repeatedly to start using public transportation. But it has caused me to miss appointments and flights repeatedly. If its not reliable I can't use it, and anyone else that has a place to be can't either. Look at NYC and London. You can set your watch to a train.

    I've probably managed to piss of just about everyone, so its a good time to stop.
     
  4. Michael Brady

    Michael Brady New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Home Page:
    Response: Nothing, I was just ripping on "conservatives" for fun.

    In all seriousness, we aren't going to get anywhere in the reduction of CO2 without the otherside at least coming to the meeting and understanding the science. The fight against CO2 and global warming has to be realized by all people, so collectively, we can reduce our effects on the atmosphere.
     
  5. BigBill

    BigBill Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0

    WORD!
     
  6. Stephen Rice

    Stephen Rice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    1
    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:
     
  7. Rich Schager

    Rich Schager You should have been here yesterday...

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    158
    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."
     
  8. Michael Brady

    Michael Brady New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    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.
     
  9. creekx

    creekx spent spinner

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    229
    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.
     
  10. nathanj

    nathanj Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    Messages:
    80
    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...
     
  11. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,617
    Likes Received:
    9
    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.
     
  12. Michael Brady

    Michael Brady New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    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.
     
  13. 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
     
  14. nick m

    nick m New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    51
    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.
     
  15. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    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...