An Inconvenient Truth...

[TheDoctor]

Why? Did the film send her to sleep?

ford family

No. America needs to wake up and face the truth about global warming.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Ok, finally saw the film yesterday. I have to admit, Al Gore really surprised me. I expected it to be a 2 hour nap but it really wasn't. It was the first time I've seen him natural and relaxed and like a regular person!

The only thing I wondered about was why we saw Al Gore the Senator talking about the environment and we saw Al Gore the private citizen-but unless I missed it-there weren't any views of Al Gore the Vice President. It seemed kind of odd that he would leave those 8 years out-was he unable to push his environmental cause as VP?

Other than that, it was well done, interesting and enlightening.

 

[Charade]

No. America needs to wake up and face the truth about global warming.

I doubt that many Americans don't believe there is global climate change. The debate is what is the cause. On the poll I started the other day about 1/5 of the votes were for 100 percent human cause. Do you agree with this? I heard an "expert" (I put quotes there because there are "experts" on both sides) say that human impact on global climate change is number 9 on the list of causes.

 

[Charade]

Other than that, it was well done, interesting and enlightening.

I haven't seen it yet but "well done" and "interesting" are much different than "enlightening". To be enlightened, you must have come away from it believing at least some of what they presented.

But what scares me about these type of programs is not the program itself, it's people who come away from it believing everything they were told. The people who don't believe any of it scare me as well.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Whether it is "our fault" or not isn't really the issue. There are things that we as humans can do to help the situation and we should do them. The film says that the US was the leader in reducing the cause of the damage to the ozone layer, and we were so successful that the ozone "hole" is no longer an issue. I didn't even notice that we did that! I know that my asthma inhaler changed somewhat and that there are more spray bottles out there than the old aerosal cans, but it certainly hasn't been any kind of sacrifice in my life.

Even if we all do something small, it should help, right? When your refrigerator or washer/dryer dies, buy an Energy Star to replace it. When the bulbs burn out in your lights, buy the energy saving ones-yeah, they're ugly, but they'll last longer and save you money over time. Plan your driving time so that you get the most stuff done with the fewest trips.

I think part of the problem is that people think they have to go extreme to make a difference, so they don't do anything at all. I don't think that's true. With so many people in the country, even little adjustments by all of us can make a big difference.

 

[toto2]

I saw this today , and thought It was a nice addition to the conversation:

"Panel hears climate 'spin' allegations

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 30, 6:51 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.
ADVERTISEMENT

Another tie? Get what you really wanted.

The hearing focused on allegations that the White House for years has micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.

Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record). They expounded — and at times tried to outdo each other — on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"This is a problem whose time has come," Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proclaimed.

"This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?"

At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media.

The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee.

Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.

Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.

Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate.

"I am no climate-change denier," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the committee, but he questioned whether "the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized."

"The mere convergence of politics and science does not itself denote interference," said Davis.

Administration officials were not called to testify. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change.
President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said "the reality is that science and politics are intermixed."

Pielke maintained that "scientific cherry picking" can be found on both sides of the climate debate. He took a swipe at the background memorandum Waxman had distributed and maintained that it exaggerated the scientific consensus over the impact of climate change on hurricanes.

Waxman and Davis agreed the administration had not been forthcoming in providing documents to the committee that would shed additional light on allegations of political interference in climate science.

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," said Waxman, adding that he is "not trying to obtain state secrets."

At Boxer's Senate hearing, her predecessor as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., had his own view of the science.

There is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing global warming, declared Inhofe, who once called global warming a hoax. "We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time."

"I'll put you down as skeptical," replied Boxer.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

 

[Fitswimmer]

Al Gore referred to this in the film. He talked about the Bush Administration official who now works for Exxon. He also related a quote about how when a person's salary depends on them not believing something, it's pretty hard to get them to believe it.

I haven't seen it yet but "well done" and "interesting" are much different than "enlightening". To be enlightened, you must have come away from it believing at least some of what they presented.

I didn't address this earlier, but yes I did come away with knowledge about the issue that I did not have before. I was viewing it more as a political issue and it's really shouldn't be politicized. It is in both parties best interest to deal with this honestly.
I also learned that we had solved a problem regarding the ozone layer and I never noticed the difference.

 

[Charade]

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman

I agree. But by the global warming (caused primarily by human events) propagandists/alarmists.

 

[Charade]

I didn't address this earlier, but yes I did come away with knowledge about the issue that I did not have before. I was viewing it more as a political issue and it's really shouldn't be politicized. It is in both parties best interest to deal with this honestly.
I also learned that we had solved a problem regarding the ozone layer and I never noticed the difference.

I thought you might have been ignoring me!

I agree it shouldn't be politicized. But it is and there's not much we can do about it. There are plenty of counter-arguments that human events aren't the primary cause of global climate change. Who are we to believe? Who do we *want* to believe?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I thought you might have been ignoring me!

I agree it shouldn't be politicized. But it is and there's not much we can do about it. There are plenty of counter-arguments that human events aren't the primary cause of global climate change. Who are we to believe? Who do we *want* to believe?

We can stop trying to determine the percentage of the cause and instead work on a solution. If there is something that we as humans can do to solve it, isn't that worth trying?? It worked for whole ozone hole thing..

 

[toto2]

I thought you might have been ignoring me!

I agree it shouldn't be politicized. But it is and there's not much we can do about it. There are plenty of counter-arguments that human events aren't the primary cause of global climate change. Who are we to believe? Who do we *want* to believe?

I agree that it is not always easy to know "who to believe", but one way to do it is try to see who is paying the sayer ! It is not always easy to do. A lot of the reserche groups that are sceptics about global warming are in fact fronts for polluting corporation ( I think this was adressed earlier in this thread)

Secondly , the reserche has to be peered approved , wich is rarely the fact with the sceptics.

Lastly , it is important to know that the vast majority of scientist studiying in those fields are in agreement. We hear a lot about the sceptics because the press want to seem to be " fair" to both sides.

 

[wvrevy]

Fits, I'm afraid you might as well be talking to the wall. You're not going to convince John - someone who has admitted to not bothering to actually watch the documentary - because he doesn't want to listen. John, like Inhofe and others, want to make this a political issue, rather than a simple scientific one. They continue to argue that there are "experts" who disagree with the "theories" about global warming and climate change, all the while ignoring the simple facts of the situation. Facts that are easily attainable and that Gore uses in his film. Facts that are NOT in dispute by ANY reputable scientist.

It has become the republican battle cry..."IT'S NOT OUR FAULT"...

And no, politics and science should NOT mix. Period. Politicians have no business sticking their uneducated noses into things they do not understand. When a consensus has been reached in the scientific community - and make no mistake, there are no serious scientists anywhere in the world that are arguing with the FACTS of global warming - it is not up to politicians to "balance" things out, just because they want to protect their political contributors (Exxon).

 

[Fitswimmer]

Fits, I'm afraid you might as well be talking to the wall. You're not going to convince John - someone who has admitted to not bothering to actually watch the documentary - because he doesn't want to listen. John, like Inhofe and others, want to make this a political issue, rather than a simple scientific one. They continue to argue that there are "experts" who disagree with the "theories" about global warming and climate change, all the while ignoring the simple facts of the situation. Facts that are easily attainable and that Gore uses in his film. Facts that are NOT in dispute by ANY reputable scientist.

It has become the republican battle cry..."IT'S NOT OUR FAULT"...

And no, politics and science should NOT mix. Period. Politicians have no business sticking their uneducated noses into things they do not understand. When a consensus has been reached in the scientific community - and make no mistake, there are no serious scientists anywhere in the world that are arguing with the FACTS of global warming - it is not up to politicians to "balance" things out, just because they want to protect their political contributors (Exxon).

That's why ethics reform is so important. I want to know who contributes $$ to candidates. From what I understand, most BIG companies like Exxon contribute heavily to candidates on both sides of the aisle. With that going on, no wonder we can't get higher gas mileage rules or alternative fuel vehicles! There's no way that a politician is going to vote for something that will alienate a major contributor, and it doesn't matter what party they're from. Hopefully, with the population becoming more aware and demanding that we do something, things will start to change.

 

[schmitty]

Charade, that article you posted on the 1st page is by someone who consistantly lies. He is a paid advocate for companies. Nothing this guy says about science should be taken as true. He is a liar and is in it just for the money.

 

[WDWorld2003]

Here's another thread posted a few months back....

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1129436

 

[Charade]

We can stop trying to determine the percentage of the cause and instead work on a solution. If there is something that we as humans can do to solve it, isn't that worth trying?? It worked for whole ozone hole thing..

Sure, we can lessen the impact that we humans have on the environment as a whole, which is a good thing but if global climate change is only marginally influenced by human events, then there's not much we can do to stop it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do as much as possible to keep our impact as minimal as we can.

 

[wvrevy]

That's why ethics reform is so important. I want to know who contributes $$ to candidates. From what I understand, most BIG companies like Exxon contribute heavily to candidates on both sides of the aisle. With that going on, no wonder we can't get higher gas mileage rules or alternative fuel vehicles! There's no way that a politician is going to vote for something that will alienate a major contributor, and it doesn't matter what party they're from. Hopefully, with the population becoming more aware and demanding that we do something, things will start to change.

I'd also argue that the corrupting nature of the system is an excellent argument for term limits. In conjunction with the ethics reforms you mention, I think those two things would go a long way towards getting people into office who are more concerned with governing than they are with staying in office.

Oh, and one thing I'd add to your ethics proposal: real teeth. Any member of congress caught shilling for a corporate fundraiser should be barred from presenting legislation favorable to that industry, under penalty of impeachment. I would make the ethics committee one of the most powerful in the entire congress, and it would be bipartisan, split right down the middle (don't think for a second that I don't know corruption comes in blue as well as red). It would be headed by a chairman appointed by the majority party, but it would absolutely require a majority to pull the trigger on any major punishments.

 

[TheDoctor]

I doubt that many Americans don't believe there is global climate change. The debate is what is the cause.

The bushies have been trying to lie to the American people for some time on this issue. This is eye-opening. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/scientists-warming/

A new report presented to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project shows 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years. Some other findings of the survey:

– 46 percent of government scientists “personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.”

– 46 percent “perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.”

– 38 percent “perceived or personally experienced the disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate.”

– 25 percent “perceived or personally experienced situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”​

James Hansen, the government’s top global warming researcher, has also revealed that the Bush administration tried to prevent him from speaking freely about global warming to the media. In 2004, the administration also had a requirement that “NASA press officers listened in whenever NASA scientists spoke with reporters, either on the telephone or in person.”

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

In the 70's it was Global Cooling.

Maybe in the next decade, things will be just right -- and we can call in "Global Goldilocks" (unless we're still off by 0.1 degree is any region of the world!)

 

[toto2]

In the 70's it was Global Cooling.

Maybe in the next decade, things will be just right -- and we can call in "Global Goldilocks" (unless we're still off by 0.1 degree is any region of the world!)

It is called getting better with time. You know , in first grade , you dont know how to read and write , and you start by reading a simple word , then sentences , then paragraphs. You go from reading the comics to one day maybe a novel , then maybe the Bard himself. The more you study , the more you understand.

To take an analogy close to your hear , the first time you started studing the Bible , you did not understand it ( at least not all of it) The more you study it , the more you understand , the more you know.

Well , science is exactly the same !