Just saw "An Inconvenient Truth"

What an amazing movie! I was the youngest person in the theater from what I saw. (16) My mom took the whole family out to see it. The facts are amazing and when you walk out of the theater you get a sense that YOU have to change right now. EVERYONE must change right now. The graphs are very interesting and at times the movie is funny. I encourage everyone to see it especially teenagers!

:bounce:

!!!!!!!

16 years old! Fantastic... soooo glad to have you here and thank you for the information.

I'll have to go see it at a "special" theater we have in our area, I presume. They wouldn't play Michael Moore's movies locally before.

Get the word out, we depend on you kids... you will be the ones who have to deal with the mess more than some of us. Not that I'm on a banana peel and on my way out, just a Boomer and could probably be a grand-mother to you by now!

Funny but so true. I can see that as a blurb for the movie:
"The graphs are very interesting." Actually the graphs are
astounding, terrifying, breathtaking, chilling. It warms my
heart to see a youthful youth like you appreciating the
worth of the movie. And Al Gore as never before. Yes,
everybody, see it.

a graph has ever elicited a collective gasp from the audience. :)

I saw the film yesterday here in los angeles. I thought it was very effective and moving. I hope it greatly increases the public awareness and understanding of the global crisis. We need Al Gore leading this country.

Al as our leader.

I've seen some promos for this, and recall that it did, but another DU poster disagreed with the premise. Thanks for letting me know. Hope it shows in our town soon!

and land ice falling in the ocean from both
greenland and antartica would cause a twenty
foot rise of sea level .

It's a great movie .

the are graphics of sf bay area, new york, and florida being covered

A poster here said I was "over the top" in insinuating that coastlines would be flooded and cities swamped by rising sea water. He said he hadn't seen the movie, but that I was silly to trust promos. I hope he reads your thread!

18 foot surges are a low-ball estimate and that's for surrounding low-lying watershed areas in MD.

It's not going to be pretty if we don't do something, soon.

Gore replied, I thought, clearly and effectively -- it depends on whether the projections are based on what is happening now (incremental) or whether one of two 'sensitive zones' - the land ice in Antarctica and Greenland - that are currently destabilized, give way and the projections have to shift as a result. Keep in mind that all of the global warming scientists are most concerned about the world reaching a 'tipping point' - after which the current incremental changes we see now will interact to cause sudden, dramatic changes.

ABC News video of Gore on THIS WEEK
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2037865

I get tired of posting here and being told my opinions are bunk, or that "scientists debunked this years ago" with no citations. I appreciate finding out I did hear correctly and that Gore explains the concept in more detail. Thanks for the link!

Keep posting!

:toast:

I haven't seen it but if he's telling the whole story adna leading from observation to conclusion in a logical way, it's going to be very powerful.

Big Oil wil have nothing to refute it with. As it is now, they're just grasping at straws to make their half-baked case that it isn't happening.

and George S. looked like an idiot with his linear extrapolation nonsense.

as much like that as our unethical, uninformed, cowardly, careerist journalists can be these days.

;-)

:hi:

If not, check it out here:
http://www.current.tv/

I'd love to get your opinion on it.

you can get stories and perspectives there that you would not anywhere else. I don't know why it isn't advertised more.

advertise - you're right about that. You'd think that since Al is also on Google's board and Google does shows on Current that Google would advertise it.

I recently saw an email and another web page talking about how bogus global warming is. I know they are full of crap but am not informed enough to counter their arguments...especially the one's regarding CO2 emmissions, in particularly.. the letter circulating how CO2 is good for the enviroment and that Mt. St. Helens blew more co2 than the entire history of human influence. I know its crap...but help me by giving me the language to use to counter these rediculous assertions...

Any ideas? anti-global warming myths and counter responses would be great to help me, and to educate others. Is there a website that blows holes in these claims?

Thanks in advance.

Here is an argument against it... help me out here:

CO2 represents about 335 ppm of the atmosphere or less then .1%. Its such a tiny part of the atmosphere and the amount attributed to emissions is at worst about 3% of that .1%. Mt St. Helen's eruption accounted for more C02 then all of human kind ever generated several times over. Finally, NOAA satellite data has shown that the uper atmospheric temperatures predicted by Global Warming to be false. I can't think of any theory that has gotten more attention as GW that has been so definetively disproven.

The sad part is that CO2 is one of the primary elements of life on earth. It is to plants what 02 is to mammals. The more CO2 the better! Unlike GW, this is supported by real science.

My degree is EE, which means I have probably forgotten more about science then most Environamentalist will ever know. My projects actually have to work. Novel thought I know. Most of these scientists that are 'concerned' about the environment do so because they get paid in the Billions of dollars every year to be concerned. Kind of like Al Gore... Those of us who aren't on the payroll think its ludicrous.

Let me simplify my position with one of the most basic elements of science. A theory is only as good as its ability to accurately predict the future. Global Warming can't even predict what the temperature will be tomorrow with any level of confidence or consistency, least of all what it will be 10, 40 or 100 years from now. The theory is complete rubish! No real scientist with integrity would evey give such a theory with such a non existant track record any credence.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that created the commercials is a shill for Exxon. The CEI commercials are themed "We Call It Life" and you can watch them here: <http://streams.cei.org/>

The CEI commercials are complete and utter bullshit - yes, we do breathe out carbon dioxide and I do call that life.

Gas-guzzling automobiles, however, also release CO2 and they are NOT alive.

The "We Call It Life" campaign is a wickedly clever way to appeal to the religious right - the 'pro-life' folks.

Check out CEI at Center for Media & Democracy here





You can also tell them that Bill O'Rielly has encouraged EVERYONE to go see this movie! (No, I don't need a sarcasm icon - he really did).

I don't have the refutation of what you've posted. I hope that someone will create a site with Global Warming Lies & Refutations that would help us all out.

I can share three thoughts:

Laurie David, in an interview today, on Air America said that in a recent review article that examined 910+ peer-reviewed journal articles from independent scientists on global warming -- EVERY SINGLE ONE supported the following three facts:
1. The temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.
2. The impact will be catastrophic.
3. Human activity is causing the problem.

Another conversation from another show this past week - James Hanson, the scientist Gore quotes a lot - has had his research lied about by anti-global warming forces. Hanson, for example, wrote an article many years ago in which one illustration showed a family of curves representing the possible increase in temperature over the next few decades. The person who was lying about Hanson's research erased ALL of the curves except for the one that made the most extreme predictions and compared the actual change in temperature - which was lower. The liar concludes that Hanson is all wrong, when, in fact, the actual temperature falls in the center range of Hanson's predictions.

The claim that the Antarctic sheet is getting thicker is true - near the center of the continent, it is thinning at the edges and decreasing in mass overall. Important: Models of global warming specifically DO predict thickening at the center and thinning at the edges.

They've lied again and again - good luck finding what you need to debunk the volcano eruption bull...

:hi:

In particular, get the relevant facts and learn how to separate them from the bullshit. For instance, the absolute atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not relevant to the discussion, insofar as global warming is concerned. We are talking about a change in concentration, i.e. a relative effect.

> CO2 represents about 335 ppm of the atmosphere or less then .1%.
> Its such a tiny part of the atmosphere and the amount attributed
> to emissions is at worst about 3% of that .1%.

So right off, we can see that he's citing a statistic that has little meaning in this context. Then he goes on to dispute the amount contributed by human activity, and does it poorly. Does the author mean the amount of CO2 attributed to emissions annually is 3%? A 3% growth rate causes an amount to DOUBLE every 23 years. Funny how he didn't mention that.

Also resist this sort of appeal to authority:

> My degree is EE, which means I have probably forgotten more about
> science then most Environamentalist will ever know.

"Probably more than most" is probably mostly bullshit, especially from anyone who calls him/herself an engineer. Has he checked? Did s/he poll anyone to find out the actual statistics on that? If so, your engineer friend would cite them, as in, "I know with 95% confidence that I have forgotten more about science than 57% of Environamentalist(sic) will ever know, give or take 3%." Hell, he didn't even spell "environmentalist" correctly. But I could certainly believe that he's forgotten plenty about science, on that point I would not object.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of reputable published scientists who disagree with his assessments:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
I wonder how much science they know about that he doesn't? Climate modeling was *not* a part of the standard EE curriculum, last time I checked. His hypothesis that climate modeling should accurately predict tomorrow's temperature certainly displays ignorance on the basic point of what a climate is.

The wastrels' anti-science argument boils down to these three basic points:
1) Global warming isn't happening
2) Global warming isn't all that bad
3) Humans aren't causing global warming

If you can enunciate for yourself the internal contradictions inherent in those three points, you'll have a handy top-level guide on how to refute pollution advocates and industrial apologists.

The short answer is as follows: As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.


http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp4/question458.html

Now, I want you to sit down. What I say may shock you. Right wing think tanks have been known to lie and rely on the repetition of the lie to bolster their claims.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html


"On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions."

It's a similar picture for SO2, which actually acts to cool the lower atmosphere. There is more data on SO2 content of volcanic eruptions than CO2, but looking at the global CO2 graphs from those years, I don't see a significant bump-up in the Keeling curve, which one might expect if the addition were that big.



http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_jimomedal.html



The pro-(old)industry people claim that Mt. Pinatubo let off as much SO2 as the US annual total, but one could just as easily note that the US is emitting as much as a major volcanic eruption annually (and those don't happen each year!).

Scientists look at the long-term annual averages, because while eruptions like Mt. St. Helens or Pinatubo are spectacular (and in the case of the latter, did affect global climate patterns for a couple of years), it's the decade or century-long trends which are of the most interest, for determining long-term climate impacts. And definitely humans, through the burning of huge amounts of fossil fuels (and deforestation), are having more of an impact than the volcanoes.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

If you want to see something really wild, look at how we've affected the nitrogen cycle. We add as much as nature does, every year ... so much for the belief that natural processes are so big that we can't have a significant effect! The results are eutrophication, acid rain, and photochemical smog, among other things.

I think every scientist and talking head would have dismissed man-made Global Warming long ago.

What these guys do is have Limbaugh spew this shit, spread it around FR and then rely on a viral disinformation campaign to muddy the waters.

You'd expect to see at least a bump, right? Or even in the historical data with some of the massive eruptions.

Good research, thanks for the links!

And yet they do, in large numbers. Strange how they do that.

Maybe it means that this writer has not, in fact, "forgotten more about science then most Environamentalist will ever know", but instead forgotten much, much more. Or never learned it in the first place.

My "Freeper EE" theory is definitively proven.

If that much were given off by the volcano, where did it go? And if one assumes it's been absorbed by the oceans, why isn't the same thing happening to the annual anthropogenic emissions (the graph is trending upwards).

Also -- "good" is a vague term which scientists tend to avoid. It's already been documented that things which enhance growth in small amounts, like many plant nutrients, can actually be harmful in large quantities. Spread fertilizer on the lawn 6 inches deep, and see what happens! In the case of plants, extra CO2 is not going to add to growth rates unless there is adequate water (the main limiting factor in many areas of the world) -- and we already know that global warming will tend to increase water stress, due to higher evapotranspiration demand (and often, decreased supply due to reduced snowcap, as Mr. Gore's movie shows).





http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_jimomedal.html

Change in CO2 levels is not, at least not on the massive scales we're seeing here.

And yes, plants use CO2 as we use oxygen, but they can't absorb much more than the natural rate of uptake.

And, if you haven't noticed, we've been decimating all those large forests and plant biomass that actually use all that CO2.

And lately it's been predicted that deserts are spreading beyond their normal boundaries because of climate change and the disruptions in precipitation. Ask any Australian rancher.

We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either we try to restore the lungs of the planet and cut back on the production of CO2 or face a future that's not likely to be pleasant.

That is a really really bad effort. Some one really sent that to you? They may be beyond help to be honest.

Most of those specific questions are answered at http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

More CO2 is not better. Studies have already been done that show that plants cannot take up all the extra. Besides, are we really to be believe that some random dude on the internet has re-discovered or remembered some basic ecology 101 fact that hundreds of highly educated scientists have missed??

As to some of the assertions , they really are so stupid that it hardly deserves a response. This person thinks it is environmentalists driving the global warming discussion? Ummm hello?? It is scientist doing the work not activists. If he knows so much more than the degreed scientists doing the work he needs to get busy publishing in the peer reviewed journals. He could get very rich if he can back up his claims.

He thinks global warming is supposed to predict tomorrow's weather? Wow. What a dunce. Climate and weather are two different things. Climate focuses on long term; weather short. See what I mean? This guy claims to be trained in the field? Give me a break. If he is trained and doesn't know that then he surely flunked all the 101 level courses.

:wtf:

"My degree is EE, which means I have probably forgotten more about science then most Environamentalist will ever know."

He's comparing apples and oranges here. "Environmentalist" (which he apparently can't spell) is a very nebulous term. It could mean anything from Earth Firsters to someone who goes out of their way to recycle their trash. If he's comparing scientific knowledge then he should be comparing himself to professions like climatologists. Otherwise the comparison is meaningless hand-waving meant to distract from the real issues.

and limited release.

I bought the book for my wife yesterday. She loves it.

It's N#13 on Amazon

I'm an old mid-50s guy, who voted for your post as one of the Greatest. You write beautifully! I will be long gone when you are my age, but global warming and so much more will be horrible for you, family and friends. Please keep posting. I don't have contact with people your age (my daughter is 30; no grandchildren here.). Your post is a breath of fresh air (ironic). Funny coincidence; last night I watched a PBS special on '60s music, and when I was exactly your age, Jimi Hendrix played Purple Haze with his teeth. On video. And it was great to see it again. Thank you with all due and well deserved respect.

amazing, just amazing. It can no longer be refuted, everyone needs to see it. It'll be on TV eventually. Then afterwards there were Dems handing out defeat Santorium printouts and email sign ups. As we waited outside the elevator of the parking garage the main topics were the movie and defeating Santorium. Then drove home on a beautiful crisp nigbt listening to the Chicks new CD. Things are looking up.

I was 18 when I became aware and thought for myself. Must be exceptional in these times, though. I rea 'diet for a small planet', 'the prophet', siddartha, steppenwolf', and grist for the mill' in a short period of time.

I could never watch TV news or listen to politicians the same again. Toss in the Viet Nam war lies and Watergate, and I was questioning authority full time.

Good review O/P.

Please pass the word along to everyone you know. I saw it the other night and am going to buy tickets for my teenage daughter and her friends to see the movie too.
I hope this movie is all call to action for everyone old enough to vote. You'll be old enough to vote in the '08 election. You can help make a change for the better!

Up here in this total red-county, nada. I can't believe it's only playing in 3 locations in Maryland.

....hope I can help line up some speakers (environmental scientists, policy folks) to do a Q & A afterwards but even if I can't - NO WAY will I miss seeing this film.

Thanks for the review!

Several readily heard gasps in the audience at different moments through the film.

Serious.


pro-Bu$h = Anti-America, Anti-Humanity, & Anti-Earth

I heard from a person living in New Zealand that the hole in the ozone layer is very real there. Kids go outside covered up, she said; there are commercials that remind kids -- and everyone -- that they must not be in the sun without being covered up.

Good question, bobbieinok.

The ozone layer is in the stratosphere, while most global warming takes place in the troposphere, within about 10 km of the earth's surface (90% of the atmosphere's gases are down there, so it makes sense that's where most of the heat is being retained).



Also, the "ozone hole" lets in harmful (very short wavelength) ultraviolet radiation. That doesn't play much of a role in global warming, because overall there is a lot more energy contained in visible light (which is absorbed by the earth's surface), and the invisible longwave infrared (heat) which is given off by the earth. It's the longwave that's causing the problem, because it's supposed to escape into space, but is being absorbed and retained by carbon dioxide, methane, and other "greenhouse gases".

There are some connections between the two problems -- for example, if trees and phytoplankton get sunburned by UV, they won't grow as well, and can't lock away CO2 as efficiently (so the concentrations would go up). Also there is some concern about ozone depletion changing temperatures in the stratosphere (which would normally heat up due to absorbing incoming UV) -- some researchers think this affects global circulation and climate.

In fact scientists are saying that since most of the world has either cut back or banned CFCs, the ozone hole is shrinking. Computer estimates show that by 2050, the hole may be gone.

Right now though, it is still there and a big problem for people living in southern Australia or New Zealand.

The Ozone layer does nothing except block out UV-C radiation. This is a very dangerous wavelength to both plant and animal life. That's why the ozone is so important to the environment. Where the hole is located, it doesn't increase the ambient temperature. In other words, it doesn't feel any hotter. However, you are being hit with very dangerous wavelenths of ultraviolet light. And this is the leading cause of skin cancer.
And for reference purposes, UV-A and UV-B is what causes tanning and sun burns. These wavelengths will penetrate the ozone. That's why you have to wear sunblock. But that's normal and required by some plant life.

Global warming is a completely differnt issue. The leading theory is that with a collection of "greenhouse gases" it causes the earth's temperature to rise. An example of a greenhouse gas would be a build-up of carbon dioxide. These greenhouses gases trap heat into the atmosphere that cause the air temperature to rise. This then will cause the ocean temperature to rise which melts glaciers and the polar regions of ice. This extra water and change in temperature could dramatically alter the ocean currents and the jet stream. It would lead to massive flooding of coastal areas and could create some severe weather conditions.

There is debate on this though. Climatologists are pretty convinced global warming is taking place. However meterologists claim it is junk science. The head of NOAA recently stated that global warming "is the greatest hoax ever played on the American people."

Right now, the United States is the world's leader in production of greenhouse gases. However, by 2012, the Chinese will overtake that role. Which means we have to hope our relations with the chinese improve over the next decade or they decide to start cutting back their emissions. Or they will become a bigger danger to the environment than we are.

earthling.

What's so great about this movie is how Al makes scientific data easy to comprehend and the evidence that we are in danger is overwhelming.

I know many people here are well aware of what our climate is going through but it would make a huge statement if people went in droves to support this groundbreaking film. Supporting this movie is a simple way for the average person to be heard.

Fingers in ears... la,la,la,la,la,la,la... idiots!

I brought my brother-in-law who was a doubter and I think he has something to think about now. Hes still hung up on the economic aspects of it thou.

Personally I ran out and bought some energy efficient light bulbs.

It scared my daughter to death. I was glad it had that effect frankly. My husband and I were already there. I think it's important for the younger generation to get on board NOW.