"An Inconvenient Truth" PLEASE READ

[RockinRollerCoaster]

Both, when they make predictions based on incomplete data.
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.

There is a difference between prediction and certainty. Any sufficiently complex system will render precise prediction impossible. For example, ask the engineers at Kellogs how many frosted flakes will be in the 365th box off of the assembly line. They will not be able to give you an exact number. However, they will be able to give you a VERY precise range.

Statistical control of complex systems (known in manufacturing as Six Sigma) is based on understanding the expected behavior of systems, watching for changes in that behavior, and trying to ascertain correlations or causes which might explain those changes.

One of the core principles of process control is that, if a sample from a previously stable system appears out of range (for example, if a 12 oz box of Frosted Flakes has 12.4 oz in it instead of between 11.93 and 12.06), then there IS a change in the system. If a series of samples show significant change in the same direction, that would mean the system is out of equilibrium and must be corrected (for example if 10 out of 12 boxes had more than 12.06 oz).

This type of trend and pattern analysis is the basis of both modern manufacturing and climate science. The meteorologist cannot tell you with certainty that it will rain, or that there will be a tornado in this county on this date - any more than the person responsible for making GoodYear tires can tell you exactly which tire in a lot will have a specific tread depth. However, both sciences have a strong understanding of how systems change over time. And both sciences know the difference between a stable and an unstable system.

I am concerned when we as a society demand absolute knowledge before taking action, because absolute knowledge is usually unobtainable. What I do know is that when I compare the potential consequences of inaction against the potential consequences of action, I feel compelled to act. And I can only hope that our society can move past our divisions and have a dialogue about reasonable actions that we can take together.

 

[poohandwendy]

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.

I have to disagree because I do not trust that a 'movie' is going to represent 'facts'. (no matter which side of the fence, or who produces it) And, in the same token, you cannot just disregard the political undertones. If this movie was made by someone with zero political bias, I would be much more interested in seeing it. But, even then, I would still want to see some proof of their stance.

I agree that people should be informed, but I think it is better for people to become informed on their own...by looking into the facts for themselves.


JMHO

 

[NewJersey]

There is a difference between prediction and certainty. Any sufficiently complex system will render precise prediction impossible. For example, ask the engineers at Kellogs how many frosted flakes will be in the 365th box off of the assembly line. They will not be able to give you an exact number. However, they will be able to give you a VERY precise range.

Statistical control of complex systems (known in manufacturing as Six Sigma) is based on understanding the expected behavior of systems, watching for changes in that behavior, and trying to ascertain correlations or causes which might explain those changes.

One of the core principles of process control is that, if a sample from a previously stable system appears out of range (for example, if a 12 oz box of Frosted Flakes has 12.4 oz in it instead of between 11.93 and 12.06), then there IS a change in the system. If a series of samples show significant change in the same direction, that would mean the system is out of equilibrium and must be corrected (for example if 10 out of 12 boxes had more than 12.06 oz).

This type of trend and pattern analysis is the basis of both modern manufacturing and climate science. The meteorologist cannot tell you with certainty that it will rain, or that there will be a tornado in this county on this date - any more than the person responsible for making GoodYear tires can tell you exactly which tire in a lot will have a specific tread depth. However, both sciences have a strong understanding of how systems change over time. And both sciences know the difference between a stable and an unstable system.

I am concerned when we as a society demand absolute knowledge before taking action, because absolute knowledge is usually unobtainable. What I do know is that when I compare the potential consequences of inaction against the potential consequences of action, I feel compelled to act. And I can only hope that our society can move past our divisions and have a dialogue about reasonable actions that we can take together.

Well said!

 

[adamak]

Even if you don't believe in global warming....
Even if you don't think we have enough evidence....
Even if the scientists haven't yet convinced you....

There is no harm to conserve energy. There is no harm to begin educating yourselves. There is no harm to get a fuel efficient car.

We do not have the luxury to have the absolute truth before we act.

 

[N.Bailey]

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)

I agree with you and I'd also note that the way they recorded wind temps probably wasn't very accurate either.

Look at the Galveston storm of 1900. In all honesty, the winds were probably much more intense than stated to have caused the damage and death that it did.

One thing I will say against global warming is, Pennsylvania sure as heck isn't hitting record highs! I can't remember the last time it was warm enough to swim on the 4th of July. Today is June 4th and the Weatherbug is saying it's 64 degrees out. Far from record highs in this state, eh?

I'm not convinced of anything either way. I do believe we're seeing more storms though but that doesn't necessarily prove global warming.

 

[NewJersey]

I have to disagree because I do not trust that a 'movie' is going to represent 'facts'. (no matter which side of the fence, or who produces it) And, in the same token, you cannot just disregard the political undertones. If this movie was made by someone with zero political bias, I would be much more interested in seeing it. But, even then, I would still want to see some proof of their stance.

I agree that people should be informed, but I think it is better for people to become informed on their own...by looking into the facts for themselves.


JMHO

I appreciate the response.

However, I have not yet seen the movie, but I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong), that Gore used the same available facts out there that a person with zero political bias used. So, if that's the case, why should it matter that the narrator and person who made it, does have a lot of political associations.
I do agree, that to someone who sees this preview and hears Al Gore's voice for the overhead, it could immediately turn them off since anyone in politics or frankly anyone who voices their opinion, runs the risk of.


And I do agree with you when you say you wish that people would inform themselves on their own, but sadly many either don't have enough time, don't care enough to put the time in, or are too lazy. But, here we have a movie that presents facts (if they can prove their foundation) in a concise manner where people who cannot investigate on their own can sit and hear some of the arguments on that side of the issue. IMO, I'd rather see the movie, and then go home and do my own research and talk to others about it, to get a better understanding.

 

[poohandwendy]

However, both sciences have a strong understanding of how systems change over time. And both sciences know the difference between a stable and an unstable system.

This is precisely why I am not convinced that the global warming theory is something to be alarmed about. We simply do not have enough data collected to know how much of this is cyclical vs a man made disaster scenario.

I am not disputing the data they have, I am disputing the conclusions being drawn. There is no way to know how much of the current trends are man made or that they will bring about dire conditions.

When I mentioned predictions, I meant that there is no way to predict what alarmists are predicting (with global warming). Global warming as a man made danger is being presented as factual prediction. I have a problem with that.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

I have to disagree because I do not trust that a 'movie' is going to represent 'facts'. (no matter which side of the fence, or who produces it) And, in the same token, you cannot just disregard the political undertones. If this movie was made by someone with zero political bias, I would be much more interested in seeing it. But, even then, I would still want to see some proof of their stance.

I agree that people should be informed, but I think it is better for people to become informed on their own...by looking into the facts for themselves.


JMHO

I agree completely.
Btw, am I the only one having F-9/11 flashbacks?

 

[Planogirl]

I have to disagree because I do not trust that a 'movie' is going to represent 'facts'. (no matter which side of the fence, or who produces it) And, in the same token, you cannot just disregard the political undertones. If this movie was made by someone with zero political bias, I would be much more interested in seeing it. But, even then, I would still want to see some proof of their stance.

I agree that people should be informed, but I think it is better for people to become informed on their own...by looking into the facts for themselves.


JMHO

I don't think that it's possible to find someone totally unbiased. You yourself are biased and that is bound to color your own perceptions. It's just the nature of us humans IMO.

Again, I prefer to see both sides of the discussion and listen to both viewpoints just as I do here. Then I decide what makes sense to me. I know which side I fall on now but that's just how I perceive the world.

Dang, I'm in a philosophical mood today!

 

[poohandwendy]

Even if you don't believe in global warming....
Even if you don't think we have enough evidence....
Even if the scientists haven't yet convinced you....

There is no harm to conserve energy. There is no harm to begin educating yourselves. There is no harm to get a fuel efficient car.

We do not have the luxury to have the absolute truth before we act.

I wholeheartedly agree. But for completely different reasons. I do not believe that we are harming the planet long term, but I do believe that we are harming ourselves. I think that is enough reason to conserve energy and be less wasteful.

 

[rayelias]

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.

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

The world has been around for 4,000,000,000 years. Humans have been here for 6,000 years.

You're basing an increase in hurricanes on 200 years of data? That's not even enough data to BE a margin of error, not to mention HAVE a margin of error.

I'm not saying there's no "global warming", but I am saying that if you think that mankind has some hand in it, you've got some ego. I don't think if every single person on the planet TRIED to make the world warmer we would even make a negligible dent!

A single volcanic eruption throws up more pollutants in the atmosphere than ALL OF MODERN civilation has created so far.

So, if you're serious about "global warming", start corking up the volcanos.

I am, however, VERY interested in finding and using alternative energy sources. But, unfortunately, many of the "scare 'em to death" organizations, (Greenpeace, eg), are vehemently opposed to one of the best sources of alternative energy - nuclear. But that doesn't fit their fundraising mission.

 

[poohandwendy]

I don't think that it's possible to find someone totally unbiased. You yourself are biased and that is bound to color your own perceptions. It's just the nature of us humans IMO.

Again, I prefer to see both sides of the discussion and listen to both viewpoints just as I do here. Then I decide what makes sense to me. I know which side I fall on now but that's just how I perceive the world.

Dang, I'm in a philosophical mood today!

LOL, good point. That is why I basically do not see movies that are so obviously heavily biased. I prefer to do my own research and form my own opinions.

My opinion is nothing but that, my own.

 

[Planogirl]

I am, however, VERY interested in finding and using alternative energy sources. But, unfortunately, many of the "scare 'em to death" organizations, (Greenpeace, eg), are vehemently opposed to one of the best sources of alternative energy - nuclear. But that doesn't fit their fundraising mission.

I like Greenpeace and some of the so-called "scare 'em to death" organizations. I personally think that nuclear energy is a great thing but until someone figures out what to do with the waste, I'm not on that bandwagon.

Solar power and wind power are good too but need much more development.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

This is precisely why I am not convinced that the global warming theory is something to be alarmed about. We simply do not have enough data collected to know how much of this is cyclical vs a man made disaster scenario.

Actually, the 650,000 years of ice core data discussed earlier includes information from the last 13 ice ages. The natural cycles (of the system which has existed for the entirety of our existence as a distinct species) ARE known. And the conditions of the last 50 years have shown a change in that system, with an exponential acceleration of that change in the last 10.

As far as the disaster scenario goes, when you drive in the snow, you don't KNOW that you are going to hit black ice and plow into another car. But you adjust your driving according to the conditions as a precaution. We are, as a society, driving 80 in the snow. And many of the most powerful people in our society don't even want to look out the window. We may make it to where we're going - but I'd rather not depend on luck.

 

[Beca]

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.

Very well said!! I, too would certainly want to take a look at any movie put out by the oil industry (or any other industry) who wanted to present scientific data to show this was not happening. If a movie like that comes out, I will certainly see it. Actually, I have just been taking a look at CEI's website...I don't believe what they are saying, but I have been looking.

I guess what I don't understand (and, maybe some of you can explain to me) is why there is SOO much animosity towards making constructive changes? The fact of the matter is that fossil fuels are running out...that is a fact that both sides of the political aisle will agree on (even though I HATE that this is a political debate). We are going to have to find alternative energy choices to maintain the lifestyle we have....no matter what. It's really interesting, some of the retail chains have reported their 2nd quarter earnings, and the data shows some interesting trends. Upper-end retail stores such as Nordstrom had VERY strong earnings for the second quarter, but those stores such as Walmart, that cater to the lower and average middle class showed a significant decrease in earnings. Walmart executives contribute this entirely to rising fuel costs. They even have the exact dollar amount decrease, per week that working class families have lost in spending ability at their stores. Walmart is actively looking at ways to lower costs of products so they don't lose market share. The working poor in this country are already feeling the effects of the energy crisis.

And, if we take steps to encourage new techologies, and try to live "green" (or, whatever the new catch phrase is), what is the worst that can happen? We will have an economic "hiccup" as technologies change, sure....but, imagine how many jobs would be created by these emerging technologies. Wind farm construction would require a lot of manpower, and solar panel factories could employ many in small towns where manufacturing facilities have closed. I read somewhere that by June of each year, America has used up all of its natural resources, and is relying entirely on the resources of other countries to provide our energy needs. Wouldn't it be nice to say that we are a self-sufficient country? I would LOVE to leave my daughter the legacy of a country that led the technological change from a middle east fossil fuel dependant, polluting world, to a technologically advanced, self-sufficient world where people depend only on renewable resources for fuel. A people who, instead of polluting the world, actually leave it cleaner because of the way they choose to live. Habits are just that....habits. And, with a little effort....can be changed and new habits can become comfortable parts of our daily lives. We're going to have to adapt our habits, or become victims of cruel reality when fossil fuels are depleted.

And, the most exciting part of all of this change is...the technology to significantly change the effects we have on the globe already exists! And, that is with just a VERY small percentage of the minds of this world putting effort into change. Imagine the clean technologies we could create if more and more people showed an interest (and, in this country I am referring to a financial, as well as academic interest) in keeping our world "house" clean?Why not start now? What is the worst that can happen?



Beca

 

[N.Bailey]

The world has been around for 4,000,000,000 years. Humans have been here for 6,000 years.

SNIP

I agree with you, but that's all we have to go by. There are no records for those years between 6000 and 4 million years ago. It would be nice to have all that data at our disposal, but we simply don't have that luxury.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

I like Greenpeace and some of the so-called "scare 'em to death" organizations. I personally think that nuclear energy is a great thing but until someone figures out what to do with the waste, I'm not on that bandwagon.

Solar power and wind power are good too but need much more development.

Good points - that's the problem with the whole "one answer" solution. The challenge is to balance. I took a look at my local power company's web site and found out the balance of the fuels used to power my home. 88% coal, oil, or gas, 11% nuclear, 1% renewables.

We as a society will always be looking at tradeoffs - oil and gas emit greenhouse gasses and heavy hydrocarbons, nuclear generates long lasting highly toxic waste (anyone remember Space 1999 ), hydroelectric changes water use patterns and is dependent on consistent rainfall, large scale solar requires large areas of undeveloped land with limited cloud cover.

The challenge is to avoid our overdependence on one of the technologies. The challenge is to continue to improve the technologies we have and develop the ones in the future. France is currently investing as a government in hydrogen fusion power. They have invested a few billion Euros in a prototype reactor. IMHO, they will probably fail. BUT, when they are done, we will understand MUCH more about the possibilities and limitations of hydrogen fusion as a source of large scale energy.

As long as we, as a society, continue to think election to election (in government) or quarter to quarter/fiscal year to fiscal year (in industry), we as a society will lag in this regard, and we may find someday that our dependence on foreign energy has caused us to lose control of our own destiny.

That's why we have to, as a people, try and change our personal habits and communicate with our leaders (of whatever party) and our businesses to let them know that we DO have a longer view and we expect that of them as well.

 

[Charade]

There is a difference between prediction and certainty. Any sufficiently complex system will render precise prediction impossible. For example, ask the engineers at Kellogs how many frosted flakes will be in the 365th box off of the assembly line. They will not be able to give you an exact number. However, they will be able to give you a VERY precise range.

Statistical control of complex systems (known in manufacturing as Six Sigma) is based on understanding the expected behavior of systems, watching for changes in that behavior, and trying to ascertain correlations or causes which might explain those changes.

One of the core principles of process control is that, if a sample from a previously stable system appears out of range (for example, if a 12 oz box of Frosted Flakes has 12.4 oz in it instead of between 11.93 and 12.06), then there IS a change in the system. If a series of samples show significant change in the same direction, that would mean the system is out of equilibrium and must be corrected (for example if 10 out of 12 boxes had more than 12.06 oz).

This type of trend and pattern analysis is the basis of both modern manufacturing and climate science. The meteorologist cannot tell you with certainty that it will rain, or that there will be a tornado in this county on this date - any more than the person responsible for making GoodYear tires can tell you exactly which tire in a lot will have a specific tread depth. However, both sciences have a strong understanding of how systems change over time. And both sciences know the difference between a stable and an unstable system.

I am concerned when we as a society demand absolute knowledge before taking action, because absolute knowledge is usually unobtainable. What I do know is that when I compare the potential consequences of inaction against the potential consequences of action, I feel compelled to act. And I can only hope that our society can move past our divisions and have a dialogue about reasonable actions that we can take together.

That's pretty good but I think you're comparing hurricanes and tires. Actually, you are.

I do not buy into your assertion that weather analysis can be compared to manufacturing consistency. There are way too many variable in the weather than in the pieces parts that go into making tires and cereal. IOW, we have control over what goes into making tires and cereal. We do not have that with the weather.

The near future weather is predicted by seeing what's going on in the region. We've seen many times that a storm is going to hit somewhere only to veer one way or the other around the predicted locale. Or fizzle out. I don't think other than it will be sunny and warm in the summer and cold with a chance of snow in the winter the weather will ever be able to be predicted as accurately as manufacturing tires to a fairly uniform tread depth or filling boxes of cereal within a nominal weight range on a consistent basis.

 

[RockinRollerCoaster]

I wholeheartedly agree. But for completely different reasons. I do not believe that we are harming the planet long term, but I do believe that we are harming ourselves. I think that is enough reason to conserve energy and be less wasteful.

And that is the basis for dialogue to find a consensus on action.

 

[Beca]

I appreciate the response.

And I do agree with you when you say you wish that people would inform themselves on their own, but sadly many either don't have enough time, don't care enough to put the time in, or are too lazy. But, here we have a movie that presents facts (if they can prove their foundation) in a concise manner where people who cannot investigate on their own can sit and hear some of the arguments on that side of the issue. IMO, I'd rather see the movie, and then go home and do my own research and talk to others about it, to get a better understanding.

Tim,

ITA!! My reasons for initiating this discussion (not trying to be Al Gore "inventing" the internet here... ) was partly due to my own naivety. I did not really want to go see the movie yesterday. I really didn't want to be berated for behaving badly. Ironically....the movie did no berating. That's not what it is about. It is more motivational...encouraging us to be the best we can be. And, isn't that the belief that America was founded on? That we could become something better than we were?

I have been going through life, trying to recycle where I can. We have changed all of our lightbulbs to low voltage flourescent ones (and seriously, with the exception of the lights taking a few minutes to gain full brightness, you don't notice any difference...except in your electric bill...they even produce the "decorative" ones to in your bathroom vanity lights, and chandelier lights....we're not talking here about grandma's flourescent lights).
But, up until seeing this movie, I assumed that taking advantage of the opportunities offered to me was "doing my part". Now I believe differently. I believe that CREATING new opportunities for my daughter to take advantage of in her lifetime is what is required to "do my part". I am no great scientific mind...but, for the sake of my daughter, and all future sons and daughters of this earth...I intend to make changes to my lifestyle and live "cleaner". I may not be able to make signigicant changes by myself...but, just like they say at election time, "Every vote counts". And, I can institute new habits in the way she lives....that is pretty powerful.

The reasons above are why I posted the suggestions (that, and I hoped many on this board could add ones of their own). Until I did research last night, I did not know all of the possibilities I had for making changes in my daily life. I am not here to berate anyone in the way they live, I just wanted to offer some easy suggestions for anyone who is interested in this subject to make cleaner choices in their daily life.

And, for the poster who said the Prius would not work for them...I agree. A Prius is not a good car for a large family. But, the problem is not with the Prius, it is with the fact that there are currently, in America NO good choices for a larger family who wishes to live green to choose from when purchasing a car. And, the significant fact is that there won't be any...if we don't start expressing it as a desire. The Ford Escape and the Toyota Highlander hybrid are good starts to begin addressing this "gap"....but, with some effort, I know we can create better choices. And, those who still wish to drive a larger, traditionally-fueled SUV can still choose to do so. And, when gas is hovering around $10 per gallon, if you still wish to drive that car...more power to you. It's all about creating choice.



Beca