"An Inconvenient Truth" PLEASE READ

[DizGeek]

Burning anything releases CO2, which then attributes to a thick blanket of pollution above our heads in the sky. Heat goes in, but can't get out. It's not rocket science, everybody, and it's not propoganda.

You realize that CO2 is produced naturally as well...and that nothing can be done about it, right?

 

[TheBellhop]

You realize that CO2 is produced naturally as well...and that nothing can be done about it, right?

However, if there is something we can do to control our actions regarding CO2 emissions, then we should do all we can.

 

[bsmcneil]

Propoganda

if you're going to rudely dismiss something because you'd rather not better the world and instead you'd like to enjoy your privilege and screw over future generations, then at least run spell check.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

I wouldn't believe a word that Al ("I invented the internet") Gore would say!

There are plenty of arguments out there on both sides of the global warming issue. I tend to believe that although humans have an effect on the Earth, we are in no way cauing imminent destruction.

This was probably one of the biggest faults with the film. The fact is that Al Gore is a political figure, so it instantly politicizes the discussion.

Also, imminent destruction is an interesting term. Will the world still have life in 50,000,000 years. I would tend to say yes. Will the world find a new equilibrium after we make our changes and burn the reserve fuel sources. I would tend to say yes.

Will the effects we can cause change the world in ways I wouldn't want my children to live through? I want to be a little more conservative on this one, and I say - if there's something we can do to make things better, why not take a look?

 

[poohandwendy]

Who is being irresponsible, the 900 peer reviewed climatologists and geologists, or the media who quote press releases from Oil & Gas funded "research?"

Both, when they make predictions based on incomplete data.

The data that they are comparing against is 650,000 years of mean temperature and carbon dioxide level mappings from ice cores in Antartica. Should we wait until we have a million?

I will wait until just one scientist out there can accurately predict what the climate will be in any one city of the world 1 year from now. Until then, I rest knowing that we are collecting data and learning things. But we cannot know, with ANY level of certainty, what will happen to this planet in the future based on incomplete data. Without a level of certainty, without a proven method of predicting, we are doing nothing but theorizing.

 

[bsmcneil]

Over-abundance of hurricanes? By whose measure? Note that we have had less hurricanes in recent years than when human pollution was less abundant.:http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

I am not convinced, in any way, that global warming is an issue to be alarmed about. (Or that it is not normal fluctuations for the earth)

I just do not think we have enough data to cause the sort of alarmism I am seeing.

Alarmism? Alarmism is banning cars with less than 3 people in them in order to decrease pollution. Alarmism is a lot of things but it's NOT asking people to be consume less. Know what I think is an issue to be alarmed about? People who care more about being able to do what they'd like than caring about future generations.

 

[bsmcneil]

I wouldn't believe a word that Al ("I invented the internet") Gore would say!

There are plenty of arguments out there on both sides of the global warming issue. I tend to believe that although humans have an effect on the Earth, we are in no way cauing imminent destruction.

Of course you wouldn't believe anything he said. But apparently you do believe something he didn't say. He never, not once, claimed to invent the internet. On the other hand, our current administration DID claim to have a hand in creating the iPod. They said, in essence, the exact same thing Al Gore said - that they supported funding and research and the government had similar programs that enabled things like the (internet/iPod) to be created. Yet, I don't see you referencing George "I invented the iPod" Bush. I really wish people who used the internet could use all facets of it - like google, snopes.com or other fact checking sites.

 

[TheBellhop]

Alarmism? Alarmism is banning cars with less than 3 people in them in order to decrease pollution. Alarmism is a lot of things but it's NOT asking people to be consume less. Know what I think is an issue to be alarmed about? People who care more about being able to do what they'd like than caring about future generations.

 

[poohandwendy]

Alarmism? Alarmism is banning cars with less than 3 people in them in order to decrease pollution. Alarmism is a lot of things but it's NOT asking people to be consume less. Know what I think is an issue to be alarmed about? People who care more about being able to do what they'd like than caring about future generations.

FTR, I have nothing at all against asking people to consume less. I believe people should consume less. I just do not agree with using 'the sky is falling' as the method of going about doing that.

Can someone explain to me why Hurricane Katrina was mentioned in this movie? Adn what it has to do with global warming and pollution?

 

[kerrynic78]

I think I'll see The Break Up instead, but thanks.

 

[Planogirl]

Can someone explain to me why Hurricane Katrina was mentioned in this movie? Adn what it has to do with global warming and pollution?

If I'm not mistaken, the movie explains the relationship.

I personally prefer to hear BOTH sides of the argument. I will see this movie because I would like to hear this viewpoint. I also have nothing against Al Gore and have no problem hearing what he has to say. At least he cares enough to say it.

 

[N.Bailey]

This is some research I'd done after Katrina hit. At the time, all information wasn't available for '05, so it's not all included. Keep in mind too, the wind speeds are in knots, not MPH. I believe 1 knot = like 1.15 knots (that may not be accurate, but I believe it is).

Now, I can't say it's global warming, but something is definitely bringing more frequent storms. Just look at the past 10 years. With the exception of '97, there has been an unprecedented number of storms. I know we need to remember that we don't have records to look back on for earlier times, but IMO, something is going on. It's not simply a cycle, IMO.

You be the judge?

1853 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1856 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1866 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1882 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1894 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1898 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1899 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1900 - 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
1910 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1912 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1915 - 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 115)
1919 - 1 cat 4, (winds 120) this was 1 of 3 storms the entire year
1921 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1922 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1924 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1928 - We see our 1st Cat 5 (winds 140)
1929 - 1 cat 4, (winds 120) 1 of 3 storms for the entire year
1930 - 1 cat 4, (winds 130) 2 storms total this year
1935 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1938 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1939 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1943 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1946 - 1 cat 4 (winds 114)
1947 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1951 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115) and 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1952 - 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1956 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1957 - 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 135)
1958 - 2 cat 4''s (winds 115 & 115) and 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1960 - 2 cat 5's (winds 140 & 140)
1963 - 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
1965 - 1 cat 4 (winds 135)
1967 - 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1975 - 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1977 - 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
1979 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115) & 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
1982 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1991 - 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1992 - 1 cat 5 (winds 150)





All these years had 11 or more storms that particular year

1870 saw 11 storms, NONE over a 3
1878 saw 12 storm, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1880 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 130 & 120)
1886 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 135)
1887 saw 19 storms, NONE over a 3
1893 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1901 saw 12 storms, NONE over a cat 2 and there was only 1 cat 2 that year
1906 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1916 saw 14 storms, NONE over a 3
1926 saw 11 storms, 4 cat 4's (winds were, 120, 120, 130, 115)
1932 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 115) & 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1933 saw 21 storms, 2 were cat 4's (winds 120 & 130)
1934 saw 11 storms, NONE greater than a 2
1936 saw 16 storms, None hit over a cat 3
1944 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1945 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120)
1949 saw 13 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 115 & 130)
1950 saw 13 storms 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120) and 1 cat 5 (winds 160)
1953 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1954 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1955 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 150)
1959 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 120)
1961 saw 11 storms, 2 cat 4's (120 & 125) & 2 cat 5's (winds 150 & 140)
1964 saw 12 storms, 4 cat 4's (135, 115, 125, 130)
1966 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1969 saw 18 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 165) No other storm was over a cat 3
1971 saw 13 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1974 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 130)
1978 saw 12 storms, 2 cat 4's (115 & 120)
1980 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 5 (winds 165)
1981 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1984 saw 13 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 115)
1985 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125)
1988 saw 12 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 160)
1989 saw 11 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 140)
1990 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 3 all the others were 2 or below
1995 saw 19 storms, 3 cat 4's (winds 120, 120, 130)
1996 saw 13 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125 & 120)
1998 saw 14 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 135) & 1 cat 5 (winds 155)
1999 saw 12 storms, 5 cat 4's (winds 125, 120, 135, 130, 135)
2000 saw 15 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 120 & 120)
2001 saw 15 storms, 2 cat 4's (winds 125, 120)
2002 saw 12 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds125)
2003 saw 16 storms, 1 cat 4 (winds 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 145)
2004 saw 15 storms, 3 cat 4's (winds 125, 125, 125) & 1 cat 5 (winds 145)

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/

Oh, and please leave a margin of error as this took a long time to put together. I didn't bother rechecking.

Edited to fix the dates so they're in order.

Edited a 2nd time to include 2005:

"05 added:
2005 saw 28 storms, 1 cat 4's (winds 130) & 4 cat 5 (winds 140, 150, 155, 160)

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

Before this dissolves into an 'internet' and 'ipod' debate, here are the quotes by both Bush and Gore. Draw your own conclusions.

Bush:
"...the government funded research in microdrive storage, electrochemistry and signal compression. It turned out that those were the key ingredients for the development of the iPod."

Gore:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

 

[chobie]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

 

[bevtoy]

Propoganda

Ditto

 

[Planogirl]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

It won't do any good. The next time Al Gore is mentioned, someone will bring up the Internet thing again. And the legend lives on!

 

[N.Bailey]

It won't do any good. The next time Al Gore is mentioned, someone will bring up the Internet thing again. And the legend lives on!

The same could be said about Reagan and the "ketchup being a veggie" comment.

Both sides play the same games. I'm not choosing sides, just pointing it out.

 

[poohandwendy]

Now, I can't say it's global warming, but something is definitely bringing more frequent storms. Just look at the past 10 years. With the exception of '97, there has been an unprecedented number of storms. I know we need to remember that we don't have records to look back on for earlier times, but IMO, something is going on. It's not simply a cycle, IMO.

You be the judge?

To be fair, we have to take into account the fact that with at least 100 of the years you mention, they did not have anything remotely like the current technology (or population) to record every single storm that existed. These are just the ones they recorded. So, by all accounts there could have easily been many more storms off the Atlantic that were never even noticed or accurately recorded.

That is the reason I used data (in my earlier post) that showed storms that actually made landfall. It is much more likely that people without current technology would have an accurate account and record storms that were witnessed, firsthand.

That is why I cannot say this is necessarily data that proves a specific trend or cycle. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s2005.htm

(lol, that had to take a long time to compile)

 

[poohandwendy]

The same could be said about Reagan and the "ketchup being a veggie" comment.

Both sides play the same games. I'm not choosing sides, just pointing it out.

True, and I really, really hope this discussion does not have to dissolve into a political pissing contest.

 

[NewJersey]

Whatever your views are on Al Gore or politics or global warming, I think it's important to see this film so you can get a better picture of this side of the argument. I plan on seeing this and if the oil industry or anyone who believes global warming isn't happening then I'll go see that one as well. It's all about getting informed people.

And as for the person who said "propoganda" at least have the decency to look at the facts on both sides, and maybe stay here for a grown-up debate.