video.google.ca— You've seen An Inconvenient Truth, and heard people talk lengths about the subject; now check out the other side of the argument. Whatever your opinion is, this is an interesting movie to watch.
Apr 3, 2007View in Crawl 4
So...clearly global warming is happening. Whether it's by us, or simply the earth doing it's thing, or a combination of both is obviously a huge debate.My question is: is it so bad to want to help the environment? Whether you fight for one view or the other, we could all still decide to do our part and conserve energy and recycle. It certainly doesn't hurt either argument.
No - but the overwhelming body of publishing researchers are. And, documentary film making does not count. Martin Durkin has a horrible reputation as director who simply edits out any context that may be damaging to his contention.
"Anyone arguing that global warming isn't caused by man only wants to distract from the main topic: Pollution, of any type, is bad."Actually, raising Global Warming as The Topic is distracting from the issue that "pollution, of any type, is bad". So, basically, you are saying that nobody was listening when you were saying "Pollution is bad" so you created a bogeyman to scare people in to doing something about it? I don't understand the logic...you took a fairly universally accepted argument, pollution is bad, and cobbled some science together to build the calamity in order to get people to act and you wonder why some people are saying "Hey, wait a minute...something doesn't smell right."If you want people to conserve you have to give them incentive to do so. Build cars that cost less to run, build light bulbs that reduce your energy bills, invest in alternative energy companies and so on. Fear only motivates in the short-term and long-term consequences are lost on most Americans (reference our negative savings rate as a country).
This is an opportunistic documentary just like Loose Change that is trying to make money on peoples desire to hear what they want to hear. Humans are contributing to global warming, live with it.
Actually, the last few minutes (the part about Africa wanting to develop) raised some interesting questions about "global warming"'s implications. (I should note, rather the "CO2 causes global warming" implication; I personally am still neutral on whether CO2 does implicate global warming as much as the media dishes it up to be.** See comment after.)One (African) person in the film mentions, in respect to people telling Africans that they need to be restricted to using solar/wind power generation, a more expensive (and "inefficient" and "unreliable") form of energy creation:"How many people in Europe, how many people in the United States, are already using that kind of energy, and how cheap is it? You see, if it's expensive for the Europeans, if it's expensive for the Americans, and we're talking about poor Africans... you know, it doesn't make sense. The rich countries can't afford to experiment in some (exarious??) forms of experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we're still at the stage of survival." I should note that the film hinted at Africa having large amounts of coal and oil reserves, but that they are being persuaded (prevented, it felt like) from developing those resources.** On my original note: I really am annoyed of the global warming (read: CO2 causes it) debate as I'm reminded of my skepticism when the US & Britain went to war with Iraq over WMD's, which was (at the time) largely unfounded. Even though it was plausible that Iraq had something, there was not enough factual evidence to support it, and far too much politics driving it. I fear real science is getting tested and, if CO2 warming turns out to be a hoax, science will become the shunned target instead of the media or politicians. (Who are just as, if not more, to blame for propagating "global warming" as we know it.) I'm also highly bothered by the fact that whenever "global warming" is mentioned it's automatically assumed that CO2 (and humans) are the cause. Why should I believe that they know enough about CO2 and warming to know we are causing it, yet I can't get a reliable 4 day forecast for the weather?FYI, I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" this morning, then happened to come across this documentary. I've also watched the rebuttal mentioned above, all of which I've seen (and listened; gah, the audio blows on the rebuttal video) in their entirety. I have a BSc with a true double major and I'm still just as unconvinced (both for it AND against it) about the CO2 to global warming relationship. There's just too many unknowns in all of this, without going through it in such detail that I would likely be able to get a PhD in Climatology after figuring it all out. Even then I still wouldn't know everything. (Heh, as the video suggests, at least I'd have a job, unless I managed to prove it false. =)The good thing about all of this is that there's always lots of comments to read when someone posts any global warming article, either here on Digg or on Slashdot. =)
the more important fact in this film, is the amount of funding that is going into global warming research, many enviromentalist groups have become corporate enterpise. If you read or watch anything about patrick moore, you will see this exact thing happened with greenpeace. The go green movement is more of a money making endevauor. If you walk into chapters you can find a million books on green living, or global warming. Yes the climate is changing, yes there is to much pollution. But is a little green power gona save everything, and stop oil production. A main point in the film was what about developing nations how will they be able to devlop as fast as the west has. Is denying them a future a viable option. The truth is no one really knows what is going to happen. My point would be that we need to spend less money on just reaserach on what might happen and try and move wealtheir nations to allternative sources of energy such as nuclear or hydrogen or ethanol. Let third world countries develop as we did and then follow suite. We need to de whats practical. There is no perfect answer. If Al gore was given all the power to change the world to how he wanted it, would he still be able protect the human race from climate change, probably not. down the line thousands of years im sure were going to run into climates change whether or not we contribute to it or not. The ones who can adapt the quickest will survive. Not the ones who were the most worried about it and when it happend could say i told you so. There is one thing that bugs me about this whole argument, if co2 is the main problem, instead of just cutting the emmisons we send out in cars and such, how about PLANT SOME TREES, OR ANOTHER APOTION IS TO PUT LEFT OVER DECOMPOSING FARM PLANTS INTO THE OCEAN. We can reduce Co2 other ways than just buying a hybrid car. I guess when it comes down too it, why is fair that are sacrafice is spending some cash on a hybrid car, yet the poor in thrid worls countries have to give up electricity.
"Even if human global warming is not true ... lets put chances on our side. Who likes to smell pollution anyway ?"I was thinking the same but do you want the government involved witch means more laws taxes money and powers for them .As for that powerpoint presentation. Worst audio quality I have ever encountered I couldn't bare to watch it. He should redo it.
labmouse42Apr 5, 2007
How much CO2 was added over the course of 12 months?
dreednycApr 5, 2007
So...clearly global warming is happening. Whether it's by us, or simply the earth doing it's thing, or a combination of both is obviously a huge debate.My question is: is it so bad to want to help the environment? Whether you fight for one view or the other, we could all still decide to do our part and conserve energy and recycle. It certainly doesn't hurt either argument.
triphopApr 5, 2007
No - but the overwhelming body of publishing researchers are. And, documentary film making does not count. Martin Durkin has a horrible reputation as director who simply edits out any context that may be damaging to his contention.
dreicherApr 5, 2007
"Anyone arguing that global warming isn't caused by man only wants to distract from the main topic: Pollution, of any type, is bad."Actually, raising Global Warming as The Topic is distracting from the issue that "pollution, of any type, is bad". So, basically, you are saying that nobody was listening when you were saying "Pollution is bad" so you created a bogeyman to scare people in to doing something about it? I don't understand the logic...you took a fairly universally accepted argument, pollution is bad, and cobbled some science together to build the calamity in order to get people to act and you wonder why some people are saying "Hey, wait a minute...something doesn't smell right."If you want people to conserve you have to give them incentive to do so. Build cars that cost less to run, build light bulbs that reduce your energy bills, invest in alternative energy companies and so on. Fear only motivates in the short-term and long-term consequences are lost on most Americans (reference our negative savings rate as a country).
koorbApr 6, 2007
This is an opportunistic documentary just like Loose Change that is trying to make money on peoples desire to hear what they want to hear. Humans are contributing to global warming, live with it.
destinedApr 7, 2007
Actually, the last few minutes (the part about Africa wanting to develop) raised some interesting questions about "global warming"'s implications. (I should note, rather the "CO2 causes global warming" implication; I personally am still neutral on whether CO2 does implicate global warming as much as the media dishes it up to be.** See comment after.)One (African) person in the film mentions, in respect to people telling Africans that they need to be restricted to using solar/wind power generation, a more expensive (and "inefficient" and "unreliable") form of energy creation:"How many people in Europe, how many people in the United States, are already using that kind of energy, and how cheap is it? You see, if it's expensive for the Europeans, if it's expensive for the Americans, and we're talking about poor Africans... you know, it doesn't make sense. The rich countries can't afford to experiment in some (exarious??) forms of experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we're still at the stage of survival." I should note that the film hinted at Africa having large amounts of coal and oil reserves, but that they are being persuaded (prevented, it felt like) from developing those resources.** On my original note: I really am annoyed of the global warming (read: CO2 causes it) debate as I'm reminded of my skepticism when the US & Britain went to war with Iraq over WMD's, which was (at the time) largely unfounded. Even though it was plausible that Iraq had something, there was not enough factual evidence to support it, and far too much politics driving it. I fear real science is getting tested and, if CO2 warming turns out to be a hoax, science will become the shunned target instead of the media or politicians. (Who are just as, if not more, to blame for propagating "global warming" as we know it.) I'm also highly bothered by the fact that whenever "global warming" is mentioned it's automatically assumed that CO2 (and humans) are the cause. Why should I believe that they know enough about CO2 and warming to know we are causing it, yet I can't get a reliable 4 day forecast for the weather?FYI, I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" this morning, then happened to come across this documentary. I've also watched the rebuttal mentioned above, all of which I've seen (and listened; gah, the audio blows on the rebuttal video) in their entirety. I have a BSc with a true double major and I'm still just as unconvinced (both for it AND against it) about the CO2 to global warming relationship. There's just too many unknowns in all of this, without going through it in such detail that I would likely be able to get a PhD in Climatology after figuring it all out. Even then I still wouldn't know everything. (Heh, as the video suggests, at least I'd have a job, unless I managed to prove it false. =)The good thing about all of this is that there's always lots of comments to read when someone posts any global warming article, either here on Digg or on Slashdot. =)
oneloveApr 9, 2007
the more important fact in this film, is the amount of funding that is going into global warming research, many enviromentalist groups have become corporate enterpise. If you read or watch anything about patrick moore, you will see this exact thing happened with greenpeace. The go green movement is more of a money making endevauor. If you walk into chapters you can find a million books on green living, or global warming. Yes the climate is changing, yes there is to much pollution. But is a little green power gona save everything, and stop oil production. A main point in the film was what about developing nations how will they be able to devlop as fast as the west has. Is denying them a future a viable option. The truth is no one really knows what is going to happen. My point would be that we need to spend less money on just reaserach on what might happen and try and move wealtheir nations to allternative sources of energy such as nuclear or hydrogen or ethanol. Let third world countries develop as we did and then follow suite. We need to de whats practical. There is no perfect answer. If Al gore was given all the power to change the world to how he wanted it, would he still be able protect the human race from climate change, probably not. down the line thousands of years im sure were going to run into climates change whether or not we contribute to it or not. The ones who can adapt the quickest will survive. Not the ones who were the most worried about it and when it happend could say i told you so. There is one thing that bugs me about this whole argument, if co2 is the main problem, instead of just cutting the emmisons we send out in cars and such, how about PLANT SOME TREES, OR ANOTHER APOTION IS TO PUT LEFT OVER DECOMPOSING FARM PLANTS INTO THE OCEAN. We can reduce Co2 other ways than just buying a hybrid car. I guess when it comes down too it, why is fair that are sacrafice is spending some cash on a hybrid car, yet the poor in thrid worls countries have to give up electricity.
levedgeApr 9, 2007
Even if human global warming is not true ... lets put chances on our side. Who likes to smell pollution anyway ?
yage2006Apr 10, 2007
"Even if human global warming is not true ... lets put chances on our side. Who likes to smell pollution anyway ?"I was thinking the same but do you want the government involved witch means more laws taxes money and powers for them .As for that powerpoint presentation. Worst audio quality I have ever encountered I couldn't bare to watch it. He should redo it.
maxdwolfMay 25, 2007
Here's the problem w. the co2 lag argument. It relates to past warming periods. All the icecore samples show is that co2 did not initiate the warming. It's probable that the warming was accellerated by the co2. This from actual scientists, not activists, corporate shills, or politicians.<a class="user" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/</a>