So I saw this film yesterday and I felt compelled to post about it. I think Roger Ebert said it best when he said "You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you don't, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to." It is powerful, insightful and lays global warming out so that the general public can wrap their heads arounds it. It also takes a fews jabs a the current administration which was just fine with me. Perhaps more importantly, it shows that Al Gore is not the robot he was made out to be when he ran for president. His slideshow presentation in the film is haunting, foreboding, and honestly scary...even if only half of it were true. I felt like most, if not all, were based on undisputed fact. If so, then everyone in the United States needs to see this movie. If they aren't ready to do their part, then I am sad to know that my son will likely suffer the consequences.
Go to http://www.climatecrisis.net for more information.
an inconvenient truth
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
-
- improvstitute Offline
- Posts: 790
- Joined: May 16th, 2006, 12:14 am
an inconvenient truth
-Ted
"I don't use the accident. I create the accident." -Jackson's Polyp
JUNK IMPROV
"I don't use the accident. I create the accident." -Jackson's Polyp
JUNK IMPROV
-
- nadine Offline
- Posts: 915
- Joined: November 28th, 2005, 1:05 pm
- Location: quantum probability
- Contact:
I'm still on the fence about global warming, at least as far as humans are concerned.
I don't doubt that the movie shows a lot of facts (even though it's poster has a backward hurricane, a factual error right in the main marketing face of the movie, which makes me a little wary of the validity of the facts within). But facts mean nothing without proof of causality. I can state factually that Sweeden has an average temp of x degrees and Florida has one of Y degrees. Then I can tell you factually that Sweeden does not circumsize and only x% of the population is circumsized and that Florida does circumsize and y% is circumsized, but that does mean there is a causal link between the rates of circumcision and temperatures, even if I cited concrete facts.
And I'm sure the movie still makes the same mistake that a LOT of global warming reports have, though few ever admit it, which is compare reports that are similar, but not the same to mark trends. For example, one major 'scare' report was discredited a few years back when it was shown that the data they used didn't account for the fact that different methods were used to take the temperatures (which doesn't produce equally comperable temperatures). For example, if one study stakes the temperature of surface water, another of the air 2 inches above the water and another of the air a foot above the water, they will all give different results, and if your data from 40 years ago was all taken one way, but your new data is taken another, then the two cannot be honestly compared.
And a lot of global warming studies go back 100 years, or 1,000 years, but rarely over great spans. Over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, over millions, over more. We are generally thought to be comng out of one of the coldest periods in Earth's history. We're still south of the overall average Earth temperature over the last billion years. And it is impossible to correlate data sources of today with the past as some sources don't exist. I mean, sure some Venetian may have kept temp records in 1450 that look damning, but his records are insular and don't show good global trends, they don't show the energy output of the sun in the same time period, they don't tell if the sesaonal ice caps of Mars were also shrinking during the same period (they seem to be now, which may lend credence to a sun-based theory of warming since we are not adding CO2 on Mars). There are many things we can measure today that we could not then. And our techniques and technologies may have gotten more accurate. What is a 1 degree rise in 500 years if it turns out the relatively primitive temperature taking device of 500 years ago had a margin of error of even 1 or 2%?
That said, I still plan to see the movie if I have time.
I just hope it doesn't merely spew facts without really backing up the science behind the calculations and better proof of causality, not coincidence.
I don't doubt that the movie shows a lot of facts (even though it's poster has a backward hurricane, a factual error right in the main marketing face of the movie, which makes me a little wary of the validity of the facts within). But facts mean nothing without proof of causality. I can state factually that Sweeden has an average temp of x degrees and Florida has one of Y degrees. Then I can tell you factually that Sweeden does not circumsize and only x% of the population is circumsized and that Florida does circumsize and y% is circumsized, but that does mean there is a causal link between the rates of circumcision and temperatures, even if I cited concrete facts.
And I'm sure the movie still makes the same mistake that a LOT of global warming reports have, though few ever admit it, which is compare reports that are similar, but not the same to mark trends. For example, one major 'scare' report was discredited a few years back when it was shown that the data they used didn't account for the fact that different methods were used to take the temperatures (which doesn't produce equally comperable temperatures). For example, if one study stakes the temperature of surface water, another of the air 2 inches above the water and another of the air a foot above the water, they will all give different results, and if your data from 40 years ago was all taken one way, but your new data is taken another, then the two cannot be honestly compared.
And a lot of global warming studies go back 100 years, or 1,000 years, but rarely over great spans. Over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, over millions, over more. We are generally thought to be comng out of one of the coldest periods in Earth's history. We're still south of the overall average Earth temperature over the last billion years. And it is impossible to correlate data sources of today with the past as some sources don't exist. I mean, sure some Venetian may have kept temp records in 1450 that look damning, but his records are insular and don't show good global trends, they don't show the energy output of the sun in the same time period, they don't tell if the sesaonal ice caps of Mars were also shrinking during the same period (they seem to be now, which may lend credence to a sun-based theory of warming since we are not adding CO2 on Mars). There are many things we can measure today that we could not then. And our techniques and technologies may have gotten more accurate. What is a 1 degree rise in 500 years if it turns out the relatively primitive temperature taking device of 500 years ago had a margin of error of even 1 or 2%?
That said, I still plan to see the movie if I have time.
I just hope it doesn't merely spew facts without really backing up the science behind the calculations and better proof of causality, not coincidence.
-
- nadine Offline
- Posts: 915
- Joined: November 28th, 2005, 1:05 pm
- Location: quantum probability
- Contact:
(I'm in training this week and they're going so slow that I'm bored out of my mind)
There's this very lazy viewpoint of global warming: it's such a big issue, and there's nothing I can do that will effect it in a significant way, so I'm not going to do anything.
I've also heard the theory that we're just coming out of an ice-age, and etc. I've also noticed that temperatures in Austin has increased over the last few years (last winter was a joke) and someone who lived here longer have commented on the lack of cold too.
But those are just personal observations. On a larger scale, a majority of rainforests have been cut down, and they're a big chunk of CO2 consumers. C02 doesn't magically turn into Oxygen. If we cut down all the plants, it's going to impact the atmosphere. If we keep spewing gasses that aren't naturally present to the atmosphere, something is going to happen. We're altering atmospheric content. We're altering oceanic content (overfishing, mercury, industrial dump).
All these might cause global warming, but even if it doesn't, it's causing some other bad stuff too, like the sperm count of men are dropping, and people don't know why.
So we should get greener. But it's too expensive for most corporations, and they're not going to do that without incentives. This is where capitalism fail... it's not lucrative to go green.
There's this very lazy viewpoint of global warming: it's such a big issue, and there's nothing I can do that will effect it in a significant way, so I'm not going to do anything.
I've also heard the theory that we're just coming out of an ice-age, and etc. I've also noticed that temperatures in Austin has increased over the last few years (last winter was a joke) and someone who lived here longer have commented on the lack of cold too.
But those are just personal observations. On a larger scale, a majority of rainforests have been cut down, and they're a big chunk of CO2 consumers. C02 doesn't magically turn into Oxygen. If we cut down all the plants, it's going to impact the atmosphere. If we keep spewing gasses that aren't naturally present to the atmosphere, something is going to happen. We're altering atmospheric content. We're altering oceanic content (overfishing, mercury, industrial dump).
All these might cause global warming, but even if it doesn't, it's causing some other bad stuff too, like the sperm count of men are dropping, and people don't know why.
So we should get greener. But it's too expensive for most corporations, and they're not going to do that without incentives. This is where capitalism fail... it's not lucrative to go green.
But that post is exactly my point, and my fear for this movie. That it will inflame passions and emotions and make a lot of scary claims, without showing or explaining (because it is boring) the data collection and comparison methods, the potential flaws in the theory, or the competing theories (like the sun, that could still agree that warming is happening, but not by man).
Science does not depend upon local anecdotes of "Man, these last few years sure seemed hot" to prove a theory, nor does the slow change of Earth's cycles mean that even a single person's lifetime of anecdotes ("Things seemed cooler 40 years ago") mean anything. First, because a change that takes 100,000 years may in fact have a blip of 500 years one way or the other and second because people see what they want and someone who's come to believe in manmade warming will artificially believe that things seemed cooler, even if they were not. It's the curse of remembering the "good old days" through rose-colored glasses. And such anecdotes do not compliment the issue, so much as turn people away, but confusing the facts and making it less scientific and more political.
All these might cause global warming, but even if it doesn't, it's causing some other bad stuff too, like the sperm count of men are dropping, and people don't know why.
If people don't know why a thing is happening (as per the end of your sentence), how can it be said that these things are causing it to happen (as per the beginning/middle of your sentence). This is the kind of statement I hear about global warming all the time and one I'm willing to bet this movie makes at some point or another. An admission that nothing can be proven, then a firm statement that it remains true none-the-less. Again, this does not strengthen the case.
There's also a new (and to me odd) colloquial use of the word theory to mean essentially "wrong" or "unproven." To be called a "theory" is a scientific slur. The creationists have been using it to attack the "theory" of evolution and in you post you mention the "theory" of coming out of an ice age, but never refer to global warming or human contribution to it in a similar manner, when scientifically-speaking, it too is a "theory."
(Again, you see this a LOT in favor of manmade global warming, but never this showing LONG-term trends.
I don't mean to pick on your post and I'm not saying that humans are not in fact helping or exaccerbating what is a natural trend, but I still have yet to see strong correlation evidence that isn't riddled with questions and holes on technique and data. I do science all day for a living, I read scietific papers. I just expect more from the evidence I've seen and it just isn't there. I'm curious about this movie, but my gut is it is more of the same. Strong facts without proof of correlation, lots of scare tactics, and lots of emotion (though I admit I cannot fairly judge until viewing it. this is just my gut from what press I have seen. Maybe someone who has seen it can give me a fair synopsis on my concerns).
Science does not depend upon local anecdotes of "Man, these last few years sure seemed hot" to prove a theory, nor does the slow change of Earth's cycles mean that even a single person's lifetime of anecdotes ("Things seemed cooler 40 years ago") mean anything. First, because a change that takes 100,000 years may in fact have a blip of 500 years one way or the other and second because people see what they want and someone who's come to believe in manmade warming will artificially believe that things seemed cooler, even if they were not. It's the curse of remembering the "good old days" through rose-colored glasses. And such anecdotes do not compliment the issue, so much as turn people away, but confusing the facts and making it less scientific and more political.
All these might cause global warming, but even if it doesn't, it's causing some other bad stuff too, like the sperm count of men are dropping, and people don't know why.
If people don't know why a thing is happening (as per the end of your sentence), how can it be said that these things are causing it to happen (as per the beginning/middle of your sentence). This is the kind of statement I hear about global warming all the time and one I'm willing to bet this movie makes at some point or another. An admission that nothing can be proven, then a firm statement that it remains true none-the-less. Again, this does not strengthen the case.
There's also a new (and to me odd) colloquial use of the word theory to mean essentially "wrong" or "unproven." To be called a "theory" is a scientific slur. The creationists have been using it to attack the "theory" of evolution and in you post you mention the "theory" of coming out of an ice age, but never refer to global warming or human contribution to it in a similar manner, when scientifically-speaking, it too is a "theory."
(Again, you see this a LOT in favor of manmade global warming, but never this showing LONG-term trends.
I don't mean to pick on your post and I'm not saying that humans are not in fact helping or exaccerbating what is a natural trend, but I still have yet to see strong correlation evidence that isn't riddled with questions and holes on technique and data. I do science all day for a living, I read scietific papers. I just expect more from the evidence I've seen and it just isn't there. I'm curious about this movie, but my gut is it is more of the same. Strong facts without proof of correlation, lots of scare tactics, and lots of emotion (though I admit I cannot fairly judge until viewing it. this is just my gut from what press I have seen. Maybe someone who has seen it can give me a fair synopsis on my concerns).
-
- kbadr Offline
- Posts: 3614
- Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX (Kareem Badr)
- Contact:
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
This could easily be a picture of a hurricane in the Southern Hemisphere, which would spin in the opposite direction of the hurricanes we're used to seeing. And your quote proves one of the problems with these sorts of arguments, those who believe and those who do not believe in global warming are so eager to point out mistakes in OTHER's arguments, that they never really take the time to examine their own argument for mistakes.Wesley wrote:I don't doubt that the movie shows a lot of facts (even though it's poster has a backward hurricane, a factual error right in the main marketing face of the movie, which makes me a little wary of the validity of the facts within).
I don't know who's right or who's wrong, I just know that we should never simply jump to conclusions based on any single piece (or small amount) of evidence.
It's why evolution is still a theory (a widely-accepted one, but still considered a theory), we have so much evidence to prove it, but still haven't discovered that one single thing with a huge sign on it pointing to evolution as absolute truth.
The ultimate point is, humans ARE doing a lot of unnatural things to this planet. Of course, the planet has been around for 4 billion years and we've only lived a fraction of that time. George Carlin said it best when he said that we are at our MOST arrogant when we think that we (insignificant little bugs we are) could destroy the entire world, where, it is much more likely that the world will destroy us first, and continue on incorporating all of the junk we've left and damage we have caused. The world will purge itself and continue on without us as more species develop.
Just imagine, 60 million years from now, our liquid remains will be powering the future.
Snack on that.
-
- nadine Offline
- Posts: 915
- Joined: November 28th, 2005, 1:05 pm
- Location: quantum probability
- Contact:
I'll admit that global warming is a theory too.
I think the experts are half and half on global warming. A lot of really smart scientists, who have more degrees then me or you, believe in it. There's people who say that temperature change is occuring really fast. And like you pointed out, temperature change should be gradual, not measurable in a person's lifetime.
We can argue: since it's not a definitive fact that humans can affect climate change in a significant manner, we should continue with our industrial development the way we've always been doing.
But that's faulty reasoning. If we wait for complete evidence that it's true: there'll already be even more widespread destruction. If however we change to be more earth-friendly, and it turns out that humans were too insignificant to affect change, there's no harm done.
As for the sperm count dropping: "In a well-respected study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Swan, now at the University of Rochester Medical Center, found that sperm counts are dropping by about 1.5 percent a year in the United States and 3 percent in Europe and Australia, though they do not appear to be falling in the less-developed world" (http://www.slate.com/id/2140985/)
Yes people don't know why. But are we going to wait till it drops to when humans can't reproduce? (which seems to be current plan.)
Inconvenient Truth might be hyperbole but it can't be as bad as the CE institute ads on "CO2 is life".
I'm all for being skeptical and dilligently scientific and all (I'm a computer scientist). But until it's proven that pesticides are good for me, I'm going to choose organic food when it's there, and use the blue recycle bin.
Btw, Wes, I don't mind you nitpicking my post. I don't think either of us have gotten personal yet. You... mummer you.
Nadine.
PS: NPR thinks global warming is no longer a matter for debate. So there.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... ceCode=gaw
PSS: they just got to for loops in my C# training. Arrrrrrrgh.
I think the experts are half and half on global warming. A lot of really smart scientists, who have more degrees then me or you, believe in it. There's people who say that temperature change is occuring really fast. And like you pointed out, temperature change should be gradual, not measurable in a person's lifetime.
We can argue: since it's not a definitive fact that humans can affect climate change in a significant manner, we should continue with our industrial development the way we've always been doing.
But that's faulty reasoning. If we wait for complete evidence that it's true: there'll already be even more widespread destruction. If however we change to be more earth-friendly, and it turns out that humans were too insignificant to affect change, there's no harm done.
If that what makes common people act, then I'm for it. People do things for emotional reasons (see our election) more then for dry data.Wesley wrote:But that post is exactly my point, and my fear for this movie. That it will inflame passions and emotions and make a lot of scary claims
As for the sperm count dropping: "In a well-respected study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Swan, now at the University of Rochester Medical Center, found that sperm counts are dropping by about 1.5 percent a year in the United States and 3 percent in Europe and Australia, though they do not appear to be falling in the less-developed world" (http://www.slate.com/id/2140985/)
Yes people don't know why. But are we going to wait till it drops to when humans can't reproduce? (which seems to be current plan.)
Inconvenient Truth might be hyperbole but it can't be as bad as the CE institute ads on "CO2 is life".
I'm all for being skeptical and dilligently scientific and all (I'm a computer scientist). But until it's proven that pesticides are good for me, I'm going to choose organic food when it's there, and use the blue recycle bin.
Btw, Wes, I don't mind you nitpicking my post. I don't think either of us have gotten personal yet. You... mummer you.
Nadine.
PS: NPR thinks global warming is no longer a matter for debate. So there.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... ceCode=gaw
PSS: they just got to for loops in my C# training. Arrrrrrrgh.
My opinion is that we do have an effect and so long as we don't know what it is, perhaps we should try and treat more lightly. Of course I say this living my little middle class married, kids, two car blahdy blah life. The truth will out.
"Love is the ultimate outlaw. It just won't adhere to any rules. The most any of us can do is to sign on as its accomplice. Instead of vowing to honor and obey, maybe we should swear to aid and abet." Tom Robbins
If that what makes common people act, then I'm for it. People do things for emotional reasons (see our election) more then for dry data.
Which is a problem with our people that we need to be seeking to remedy rather than catering to. You can't condemn the results in one setting and then use the same tactic to get what you want without reinforcing the behavior. Unless, of course, you secretly want more of those types of elections?
Which is a problem with our people that we need to be seeking to remedy rather than catering to. You can't condemn the results in one setting and then use the same tactic to get what you want without reinforcing the behavior. Unless, of course, you secretly want more of those types of elections?
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
Here's my other beef with the "global warming" debate, as well as every other environmental issue.
I see nothing wrong with taking care of the environment, let's be honest here, it's somewhat important...
mostly, to OUR survival.
But I'm sick and tired of liberal hippies claiming that they care about the environment because they care about the world. Fuck that, you care about the environment because you care about yourself. That's it. Plain and simple. The world will not die anytime soon, and we are in no way accelerating the worlds decline, no more than dinosaur farts accelerated the world's decline and might've caused an ice age, blah blah.
We are only accelerating our OWN demise.
Your fake paraded care for the environment is only your natural urge to preserve yourself and your offspring.
Don't save the whales, save ourselves, and of course, saving the whales might play a small part in that, so we should save them too, but it's not for them, it's for us.
Maybe more Americans can buy into it that way, if you make it a self-help thing, instead of a Gaia mother earth-goddess thing.
God Bless America.
I see nothing wrong with taking care of the environment, let's be honest here, it's somewhat important...
mostly, to OUR survival.
But I'm sick and tired of liberal hippies claiming that they care about the environment because they care about the world. Fuck that, you care about the environment because you care about yourself. That's it. Plain and simple. The world will not die anytime soon, and we are in no way accelerating the worlds decline, no more than dinosaur farts accelerated the world's decline and might've caused an ice age, blah blah.
We are only accelerating our OWN demise.
Your fake paraded care for the environment is only your natural urge to preserve yourself and your offspring.
Don't save the whales, save ourselves, and of course, saving the whales might play a small part in that, so we should save them too, but it's not for them, it's for us.
Maybe more Americans can buy into it that way, if you make it a self-help thing, instead of a Gaia mother earth-goddess thing.
God Bless America.
It really seems to be the opposite to me- Since nothing significant is going to happen in our lifetimes, or probably even our children's lifetimes, maybe even if the lifetimes of anyone who we'll ever know, it's so easy to not worry about it. I don't think our gut preservation instinct kicks in with such an abstract, hypothetical stimulus. If you're going to argue that's it's self-interest, okay, but it seems more like the feel-good-by-doing-good kind of self interest. I don't believe alruism is possible or even desirable.
Parallelogramophonographpargonohpomargolellarap: It's a palindrome!
