[besson3c]

I wonder what this movie will be like?

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo...truth/trailer/

Looks very dramatic and possibily manipulative, but it will be interesting to see how its scientific fact-checking checks out. I guess sometimes you have to hit people over the head to have a positive effect, so maybe this movie will be a step in the right direction, providing its info is sound (or at least sound enough)?

Posting this here instead of the Political forum, because aside from the right wing knee-jerk reactions I'm sure this thread will get, in my opinion this issue is a scientific one, not a political one.

[besson3c]

Here's an article about this movie:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...a_talk_remnick

[pooka]

BWhahHAHAHAHHAH! So the movie is about science, and then you post an article link that is an obvious political tirade. Good luck keeping it in the lounge.

And any discussion of global climate change IS political. Nutbags on both sides has made it so that rational research/plan is almost impossible to achieve.

EDIT:
Oh, I forgot to comment about the flick.

I'm sure I will check it out but I'm not very hopeful. I've read reviews that state Gore has plenty of screen time. I personally find his speaking style to be mildly retarded and offensive to my ears. But before I receive the "knee-jerk right slanted asshole" badge, I want you to know that I turn the tv off if I hear Bush's voice as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by pooka

BWhahHAHAHAHHAH! So the movie is about science, and then you post an article link that is an obvious political tirade. Good luck keeping it in the lounge.

And any discussion of global climate change IS political. Nutbags on both sides has made it so that rational research/plan is almost impossible to achieve.

Who said I was advocating the article's point of view? Just trying to spark conversation...

[MinM]

Originally Posted by pooka

BWhahHAHAHAHHAH! So the movie is about science, and then you post an article link that is an obvious political tirade. Good luck keeping it in the lounge.

And any discussion of global climate change IS political. Nutbags on both sides has made it so that rational research/plan is almost impossible to achieve.

Welcome to the world of besson. "I'm going to take the high road and not make this political, but here's an article that unabashedly supports <insert leftist cause here>."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MinM

Welcome to the world of besson. "I'm going to take the high road and not make this political, but here's an article that unabashedly supports <insert leftist cause here>."

Fine, don't read the article... I don't really care. It just came up in Google, I really don't give two shits about it.

Now, can we talk about the movie?

[MinM]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Now, can we talk about the movie?

If you wanted to talk about the movie, that'd be most appropriate.

I'm not sure you do, though.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MinM

If you wanted to talk about the movie, that'd be most appropriate.

I'm not sure you do, though.

Great, now that we got that out of the way...


What do you guys think of the movie?

I almost think that the dramatic music and hype will ruin the effect, but perhaps people need to be entertained for something like this to sell.

[BlueSky]

I commend Gore for his dedication to this issue and I'll eventually see the film. Gotta say however that the trailer reminds me of a blueprint for a South Park parody...or lifted from SP's "Two Days Before...etc.". I suppose they had to sparkle it up to get attention, but they might have at least skipped the X-Men soundtrack or whatever that is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

I commend Gore for his dedication to this issue and I'll eventually see the film. Gotta say however that the trailer reminds me of a blueprint for a South Park parody...or lifted from SP's "Two Days Before...etc.". I suppose they had to sparkle it up to get attention, but they might have at least skipped the X-Men soundtrack or whatever that is.

It reminds me of The Day After Tomorrow, but it seems to be well hyped as a non-fiction movie, so I'll probably give it a chance... perhaps not in the theater though.

I wonder if Gore would like us to download the movie?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Here's an article about this movie:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...a_talk_remnick

The New Yorker is usually great, but they unfortunately let a few political nuts fall through the crackpots. Like this one.

[BlueSky]

I've seen reports that the global warming we're currently experiencing is a natural phenomenon, something that occurs every so many years or centuries and I've seen reports and graphs that seem to indicate that we're responsible for it. The graphs show that there's been a warming trend that lines up well with the beginning of the industrial era.

I've considered both possibilities and a combination of the two. What I don't understand are some people's immediate dismissal of the idea that we could possibly be responsible, or even partly so. It seems that after a while of reports and media exposure to something like this, it becomes quite the cliché, like something "new age", hippie-ish or Liberal, and becomes easier to dismiss and/or make parody.

I think at this point is comes down to that fact that we don't know. Even if it turns out to be a natural cycle, assuming at this point that we have nothing to do with it or are not contributing to it is arrogant. If the best we can do is to assume it's us and take steps in cutting down emissions etc., it sure isn't going to hurt the environment to do so.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

I've seen reports that the global warming we're currently experiencing is a natural phenomenon, something that occurs every so many years or centuries and I've seen reports and graphs that seem to indicate that we're responsible for it. The graphs show that there's been a warming trend that lines up well with the beginning of the industrial era.

I've considered both possibilities and a combination of the two. What I don't understand are some people's immediate dismissal of the idea that we could possibly be responsible, or even partly so. It seems that after a while of reports and media exposure to something like this, it becomes quite the cliché, like something "new age", hippie-ish or Liberal, and becomes easier to dismiss and/or make parody.

I think at this point is comes down to that fact that we don't know. Even if it turns out to be a natural cycle, assuming at this point that we have nothing to do with it or are not contributing to it is arrogant. If the best we can do is to assume it's us and take steps in cutting down emissions etc., it sure isn't going to hurt the environment to do so.

Exactly, what would it hurt to see what happens by cutting down emissions? Wouldn't this settle the debate? There are several ways industrial practices can be modified in an affordable and tenable way to help curb emission. What's the big deal?

I also don't understand why people are so dismissive of this issue. Perhaps this has become a political issue, but only because we have let it become one.

[Jawbone54]

This movie will irritate a lot of people, invigorate a lot of people, and won't even be heard of by a lot of people. I've been hearing about it for months now. I might watch it, but doubtful.

It is far more likely that global warming is a cyclical process, although Al would have you think otherwise. If liberals were more serious about the entire global warming issues, then they'd hit China harder, considering that it is currently head and shoulders over the U.S. as far as harmful emissions go.

[besson3c]

Another interesting thing:

It seems like the media and/or politicans are so good at dictating what the issue of the day is that we spend our time talking about. Right now it's immigration... why? It's not as if this is a new issue.

However, the environment is one issue that hasn't simply "gone away" like so many others.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Exactly, what would it hurt to see what happens by cutting down emissions?

That's no better known than the effects of global warming themselves. In essence, one side of the debate is demanding massive changes of one sort to stave off massive changes of another sort.

There is undoubtedly some sort of natural cycle; that much is known. We may be throwing it completely out of balance, or we may be exacerbating an existing upswing, or we may be having no effect at all; that's what isn't known. Nor are the effects of reversing the cycle known, which is what the current proposals risk doing. Essentially, every side wants to gamble on the unknown.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

If liberals were more serious about the entire global warming issues, then they'd hit China harder, considering that it is currently head and shoulders over the U.S. as far as harmful emissions go.

Ditto.

For all the energy/resources the US consumes, we are one of the most efficient when it comes to the gdp we put out per unit of energy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

If liberals were more serious about the entire global warming issues, then they'd hit China harder, considering that it is currently head and shoulders over the U.S. as far as harmful emissions go.

What?!?!?

The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.

I just had to put that up there a couple times, since people don't seem to get that. I'm not talking harmful substances, I'm talking greenhouse gas emissions - which concerns global climate change, which this thread is about. As well, if you talk about PER CAPITA emissions, then yet again, the USA (along with Canada) is the top emitter in the world.

And for the record, that's the dumbest argument ever, which we've been over. Instead of trying to get North America and the first-world countries to limit their emissions and lead by example, we shouldn't do anything and instead get quickly-industrializing-foreign-nation-China to lead the way?!?! That's ridiculous. Any climate change initiatives have zero weight until first-world nations back them, which is why an attempt like Kyoto has lost so much steam (with all of North America unwilling to go along with the plan).

Originally Posted by Millenium

There is undoubtedly some sort of natural cycle; that much is known. We may be throwing it completely out of balance, or we may be exacerbating an existing upswing, or we may be having no effect at all; that's what isn't known. Nor are the effects of reversing the cycle known, which is what the current proposals risk doing. Essentially, every side wants to gamble on the unknown.

Your gist is good, but your argument is pretty flawed and incorrect. To say "we may be having no effect at all" goes against almost every piece of current scientific literature on the subject. It is incorrect, as far as we currently know - and if our decades of research on the subject indicate this, why should we be using your statement to affect current opinions and policy towards climate change?!?! To say "oh well, we MAY be having no effect, because our research correlations may not equal cause" is one thing, but to go against the vast body of modern research without any competing research evidence (as your statement has done) is just simply foolish.

How can we be having "no effect?!?!" Look at climate change in the Middle East since the rise of human civilizations ~5000 years ago - we clearly can have long-term regional effects on climate through our actions, and have turned what was once a forested, fertile area into a desert. Look at climate patterns around cities as another example. These local and regional climate changes as a result of human activity have increasingly been studied and applied to a global level, and as of today, as I said, everything indicates that the real question is not "ARE we" causing a change, but "how MUCH" of a change we are causing.

greg

[Spliffdaddy]

People, in general, are skeptical of zealots.

The folks who are at the root of the whole "global warming" myth tend to be zealots.

The same was true of the "global cooling" zealots not so long ago.

[Dark Helmet]

Americans will try to discredit every statistic.

The rest of the world will watch the movie more objectively.

Guess which category Zimphire, SimeyTheLimey railroader, kilby are in.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Americans will try to discredit every statistic.

The rest of the world will watch the movie more objectively.

Guess which category Zimphire, SimeyTheLimey railroader, kilby are in.

67% of Americans will try to discredit every statistic actually...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

People, in general, are skeptical of zealots.

The folks who are at the root of the whole "global warming" myth tend to be zealots.

The same was true of the "global cooling" zealots not so long ago.

Like many things, there are vocal activists pushing policy, and there are those in the trenches. Those in the trenches are not necessarily activists, and many (most) of them have been supporting the theory of global warming for years.

[Hal06]

"The New Yorker", a magazine with great covers but a weird website…

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Millennium

That's no better known than the effects of global warming themselves. In essence, one side of the debate is demanding massive changes of one sort to stave off massive changes of another sort.

There is undoubtedly some sort of natural cycle; that much is known. We may be throwing it completely out of balance, or we may be exacerbating an existing upswing, or we may be having no effect at all; that's what isn't known. Nor are the effects of reversing the cycle known, which is what the current proposals risk doing. Essentially, every side wants to gamble on the unknown.

The key word is "natural". If we weren't interfering at all and this global warming was happening, that would be one thing. There is nothing natural about pumping all these synthetic chemicals into the air/water/earth.

Look at every human encounter of nature: the preservation of wildlife, the affect on an ecosystem from clearcutting, etc. It seems clear to me that nature wasn't designed with our interference in mind. It is tolerant of instability up to a point, but it can only take so much.

If there was nothing we could do that would affect the Earth, why don't we just cut down all the trees and throw the wood into the ocean and see what would happen?

[davesimondotcom]

Keywords for this thread: Gore, global warming, debate, liberals, etc...

Why, oh, why, is this not in the PL?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Keywords for this thread: Gore, global warming, debate, liberals, etc...

Why, oh, why, is this not in the PL?

I think you'll probably live...


Like I said, this thread is about the movie, predictions on its effect, and the science behind the data presented in this movie (which opens soon).

[KeyLimePi]

I wonder how long it is before this movie gets compared to Fahrenheit 911. That's the problem with letting a political satire masquerade as a documentary....it will weaken every legitimate documentary that follows.

*Which isn't to say that Inconvenient Truth is a legitimate documentary....I only know what I've read so far...but if it is, it's going to have a little tougher time being accepted by conservatives because of the 'documentaries' that have come before it.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by besson3c

67% of Americans will try to discredit every statistic actually...

So in other words they won't believe that statistic either

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

So in other words they won't believe that statistic either

Why are you discrediting my stat?

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why are you discrediting my stat?

I believe you. I am saying they won't

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think you'll probably live...


Like I said, this thread is about the movie, predictions on its effect, and the science behind the data presented in this movie (which opens soon).

And because it's a movie, it can't be political, right?

Even if that movie does feature prominantly the ex-Vice President of the United States, who, in the trailer introduces himself (quite sarcastically) as "I'm Al Gore, I used to be the next President of the United States."

The guy still can't get over losing an election and has just become more and more of a wacko as the Presidency of his opponent goes on.

Even if that movie features a hot-button political topic masquerading as a scientific topic simply because it involves science.

But, never mind, none of it's politcal. It's just a movie.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

And because it's a movie, it can't be political, right?

Even if that movie does feature prominantly the ex-Vice President of the United States, who, in the trailer introduces himself (quite sarcastically) as "I'm Al Gore, I used to be the next President of the United States."

The guy still can't get over losing an election and has just become more and more of a wacko as the Presidency of his opponent goes on.

Even if that movie features a hot-button political topic masquerading as a scientific topic simply because it involves science.

But, never mind, none of it's politcal. It's just a movie.

Whatever man.. unwind. It's not a big deal either way.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

What?!?!?

The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
The US is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the world.

I just had to put that up there a couple times, since people don't seem to get that. I'm not talking harmful substances, I'm talking greenhouse gas emissions - which concerns global climate change, which this thread is about. As well, if you talk about PER CAPITA emissions, then yet again, the USA (along with Canada) is the top emitter in the world.

And for the record, that's the dumbest argument ever, which we've been over. Instead of trying to get North America and the first-world countries to limit their emissions and lead by example, we shouldn't do anything and instead get quickly-industrializing-foreign-nation-China to lead the way?!?! That's ridiculous. Any climate change initiatives have zero weight until first-world nations back them, which is why an attempt like Kyoto has lost so much steam (with all of North America unwilling to go along with the plan).

Again, our emissions compared to how much GDP we produce with it is VERY efficient. India and China are horrendous in this respect. Emissions per capita is a misleading statistic

[FeLiZeCaT]

There is a lot to say about the power of images.

See a collection of pictures with garbage as a topic, put a few naked children playing in it, and people will be revolted. Soon after you leave the theater, you see the nice city park, that guy over there picking up wrappers from the sidewalk, people recycling around them.

Why should anyone be concerned if the garbage situation is far, far away, when home is so clean?

The strategy has been used countless of times by the industry of paper mills. Whenever you cut a forest, make sure it cannot be seen from the road. Industrial wastes have to be expelled out of sight, except where people have grow with that scene in plain sight. Nobody ever appears to be hurt from that. Never is the relationship appearing as something obvious.

Yet, correlations, studies, research and surveys lead to a doubt, a serious doubt. Proofs? never so clear. Suspicions? Always. But how can one be really certain that there is that thing that appear to be a cause can lead to that clear effect?

I think the media are making themselves rich from the attention, but that is because of the need for attention. How can we get to the bottom of this? How can we know with certainty that this movie is not just one more attention seeker, and really what it tries to convey: a real concern for our future?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Again, our emissions compared to how much GDP we produce with it is VERY efficient. India and China are horrendous in this respect. Emissions per capita is a misleading statistic

That's a misleading statistic in my eyes. Isn't that merely a product of being a completely industrialized, first-world country?!? You have better, more efficient technology? Third-world countries should generally always have a higher emissions per GDP, no?

greg

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by pooka

And any discussion of global climate change IS political. Nutbags on both sides has made it so that rational research/plan is almost impossible to achieve.

Any issue can be made political, however the issues of global warming (or cooling, depending on the area) as well as ozone depletion are very much scientific and social. These are scientific facts and that does not change because some politicians have taken up the issue and attempted to manipulate the facts to their advantage.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

Any issue can be made political, however the issues of global warming (or cooling, depending on the area) as well as ozone depletion are very much scientific and social. These are scientific facts and that does not change because some politicians have taken up the issue and attempted to manipulate the facts to their advantage.

I agree.

However, I wish I could understand why people's opinions on this issue (and a few others) often seem split down partisan lines. Brainwashing?

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I agree.

However, I wish I could understand why people's opinions on this issue (and a few others) often seem split down partisan lines. Brainwashing?

Came late to the thread. It's too bad people can't restrict their comments to the topic, here.

I don't care about who is to blame. I don't care about ANY of the politics of the matter.

We ALL have a vested interest in helping perpetuate life on this planet.

Just for shitz and giggles let's think about this.

If the US WAS knowingly fouling the planet's environment and kept doing so with full knowledge of the ramifications of this, (btw, what WOULD they really be?) why would they/we do this?

I wonder if the govt. knows something we don't.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

That's a misleading statistic in my eyes. Isn't that merely a product of being a completely industrialized, first-world country?!? You have better, more efficient technology? Third-world countries should generally always have a higher emissions per GDP, no?

greg

Those things don't make it a misleading statistic. Instead, it means that the statistic mirrors reality.

The fact that the first world is more efficient is why I am not a fan of Kyoto, which essentially gives third world countries a free pass to pollute, whilst forcing the first world to hamper production to meet quotas.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Those things don't make it a misleading statistic. Instead, it means that the statistic mirrors reality.

The fact that the first world is more efficient is why I am not a fan of Kyoto, which essentially gives third world countries a free pass to pollute, whilst forcing the first world to hamper production to meet quotas.

If the first world countries are the first to get their hands on new technologies, don't you think that by setting the bar at a certain level, the benefits would trickle down over time?

[Monique]

Even if the U.S. is not without blame; they are not the evil of this world.

They have pollution problems like the rest of us. At least, they are not hypocrites. They did not sign the Kyoto accord probably because they did not know how in the h..l they would respect it.

Unlike Canada, that signed the accord and now face huge fines because it made no effort in diminishing its emission levels.

Again, I live in a city in the middle of huge oil refineries causing huge amount of emissions and polluting our atmosphere; when I wait to cross some streets here you can see a huge cloud of gas emission coming from out-dated cars, hummers, vans, trucks, etc. But, no one cares around here, they think they are perfect and that it is all the fault of evil U.S. even though the states under us are Montana and Idaho, huge polluters right.

When you point a finger at one specific country make sure you are white as snow. But now we do not have any snow in Alberta, we are again in the middle of a drought and no signs at all of any rain. Actually we had 2 weeks of rain last summer, 3 weeks of snow and cold weather last winter; but this is it for the past 9 years. I blame in part the cars owners, the oil industry, and the stupid person that decided to plant hundred of trees in the desert.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

If the US WAS knowingly fouling the planet's environment and kept doing so with full knowledge of the ramifications of this, (btw, what WOULD they really be?) why would they/we do this?

Because it is financially and economically more profitable to continue fouling the planet's environment than to try and change our country's entire way of life to use less natural resources and produce less pollution.

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

If the first world countries are the first to get their hands on new technologies, don't you think that by setting the bar at a certain level, the benefits would trickle down over time?

Only if the pollution control technology become less expensive. And that's not likely to happen.

If we faced an undeniable prospect of total catastrophe within the next 20 years and we as a planet HAD to do anything and everything we could to prevent it, would we be debating who and what and standards and bars and all?

No. We would all be looking at survival.

Well, there are those who believe that's just what we're talking about...survival. And there are those who believe we have time to play with before we must get serious.

If those scientists and politicians who say that we have time are proven wrong, I take some comfort in the fact that we'll all die together. But before we die you all will be chastised and hounded and tormented so badly for your folly that you should wish for death.

Imagine playing politics and playing for profit margins while allowing life to come to an end.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Because it is financially and economically more profitable to continue fouling the planet's environment than to try and change our country's entire way of life to use less natural resources and produce less pollution.

Actually, I was going BEYOND the obvious. There are those who believe the President knows we are all doomed anyway you look at it and so he's just going through the motions. Then, there are some who believe in the Dave Chappelle theory. That the POTUS is in contact with space aliens and at the right time he's just going to flip off all of his critics and fly off to another planet and leave Earth to rot or blow up or whatever.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by abe

Only if the pollution control technology become less expensive. And that's not likely to happen.

Why not? Old standards are constantly being replaced by new standards. Digital TV will soon replace analog TV. 82398234 years down the road when analog TVs are no longer being manufacturered and are a scarce commidity, they'll even cost more.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by abe

Actually, I was going BEYOND the obvious. There are those who believe the President knows we are all doomed anyway you look at it and so he's just going through the motions. Then, there are some who believe in the Dave Chappelle theory. That the POTUS is in contact with space aliens and at the right time he's just going to flip off all of his critics and fly off to another planet and leave Earth to rot or blow up or whatever.

And there are those of us who think that when it comes to science, the president doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground...

Or however that expression goes...

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why not? Old standards are constantly being replaced by new standards. Digital TV will soon replace analog TV. 82398234 years down the road when analog TVs are no longer being manufacturered and are a scarce commidity, they'll even cost more.

Per unit costs only drop when there's enough volume sold. Pollution control technology will never reach the volume of demand of even general aviation airplanes, which sell quite a few but not all THAT many units per year. The costs to produce the technology must be profitable. If they can't get the profit from volume they have to keep the per unit costs high.

Sorry. Damn that capitalism stuff.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Because it is financially and economically more profitable to continue fouling the planet's environment than to try and change our country's entire way of life to use less natural resources and produce less pollution.

i heard about iogen on the radio this morning. looks like a good model. the plant's, once up and running, are completely sustainable - don't require any additional fuel other than what they make, which would be great for the costs of running the operation. otherwise i don't know how well it runs economically. and according to their website, the fuel produced can power current automobiles.

thought people in this thread might enjoy looking into what we appears to be a viable, modern replacement for our current system.

(not sure if this is the switchgrass bush talked about or not)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by abe

Per unit costs only drop when there's enough volume sold. Pollution control technology will never reach the volume of demand of even general aviation airplanes. The costs to produce the technology must be profitable. If they can't get the profit from volume they have to keep the per unit costs high.

Sorry. Damn that capitalism stuff.

Supply and demand. If there is enough demand, there is increased sales, which leads to the ability to decrease per-unit costs and make up for this loss in volume.

My metaphor for TVs still applies, but perhaps a better one is digital cameras. Even though analog cameras are cheaper than digital, the demand in digital has created a surge in both volume sold and a drop in unit cost.

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

And there are those of us who think that when it comes to science, the president doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground...

Or however that expression goes...

Actually, we don't really know how much he knows about science. We know that he believes or puts more stock in the arguments that oppose many of the positions held by many scientists.

What that means is that we MAY not know what he knows about the arguments in favor of his decisions. Many people don't agree with them. Many do.

I'd rather leave the blame out of the argument. It's better to have ONE plaintiff (i.e. the Earth's health and viability to support life) than any number of defendants (Bush, et al.).

Keep it simple. Don't play the blame game.