An Inconvenient Truth - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-05-2006, 10:21 AM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I guess the truth of global warming is that junk science replaces understanding and conclusionary statements replace honest discussion (stepping beyond the tiresome claims that facts not supporting global warming are just propaganda from right-wing, big business supporting conservatives).

Relying of visual images can be very persuasive, but also very misleading (like statistics, it sound dramatic one way, but given perspective means something else). Visuals of the shrinking Antarctica miss the fact that snow packs are increasing on the continent and that calving of icebergs can be attributed to the excessive weight due to the snow pack buildups.

The political groups selling global warming are very savvy. Carefully selected facts help complete an existing picture in one’s mind the same way random occurrences during the day verify the truth of a daily horoscope.


amazing -- just flip things around, and you'll see that you're doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing, you know, the tiresome claims that facts supporting the evidence of man-made global warming are just propaganda from left-wing, environmentalist supporting liberals (complete with "my website is more accurate than your website").

try as we might, we cannot get around this statement of fact from National Geographic:

[q]Most scientists agree that the Earth is heating up, due primarily to an atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.
[/q]



and even your article agrees that:

[q]"There is little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas - albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
[/q]



so even your article is advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. it is saying that global warming is indeed real. the real question is not "global warming: yes or no?" but to what extent has man-made global warming harmed the planet as well as whether or not it has reached a dangerous tipping point. i will agree that there is much we do not and cannot know, but, it seems as if the only thing to do is to take the risk seriously lest we drown in the consequences in 100 years. it strikes me as amazing the lengths people will go to in order to try to exempt themselves from feeling any sort of regret or remorse about their lifestyles and the imprint their lifestyles have on the planet.

anyway, want some good news? check this out:

[q]U.S. carbon dioxide intensity (energy-related carbon dioxide emissions per unit of economic output) fell by 3.3 percent in 2005. From 1990 to 2005, the carbon dioxide intensity of the economy fell by 24.3 percent. By 2004 (the latest year of data for all greenhouse gases), carbon dioxide intensity had fallen by 21.8 percent and emissions of total greenhouse gases per dollar of GDP had fallen by 23.4 percent. The 3.3-percent drop in carbon dioxide intensity of the economy in 2005 is greater than the average reduction of 1.8 percent per year experienced since 1990.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press272.html
[/q]



why has this happened? because gas is more expensive! we're driving less because -- shock! horror! -- Americans do respond to price pressure. say it with me: GAS TAX!
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 07:38 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:14 AM
I appreciate how well my points about the lack of honest scientific dialogue have been underscored (even when words are added to my mouth). Global warming is predicated on summary statements of opinion as fact and is supported when snippets of science are used out of context to support the overall theories. The bottom line is a disinclination for honest scientific debate in favor of political control of the discussion, complete with ready made labels for each side’s position! In the global warming court of law, the political discussion prevents an inquiry of guilt or innocence, only welcoming the question of “how guilty are you?”
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 08:24 PM   #18
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 03:14 AM
Sir David Attenborough shows how global warming is real and down to us. This small clip was shown on the programme 'Are we changing planet Earth?'
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 08:40 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
why has this happened? because gas is more expensive! we're driving less because -- shock! horror! -- Americans do respond to price pressure. say it with me: GAS TAX!
A gas tax is generally ineffective, mainly because we're dealing with inelastic demand here. Gasoline is about on top of the list of examples of inelastic demand in a microeconomics textbook.

Most people do not wake up each morning saying to themselves, "So how can I destroy the environment today?" Most people drive out of necessity. Sure, I lived in a large city for a couple of years, but I can certainly see why people flee them. Between exorbitant housing costs, whether through rentals or mortgages; city taxes (where applicable); and/or jobs that do not pay relative to the cost of living, I can see why people flee cities.

The solution to this problem is not taxation--which will do little to curb inelastic demand, short of busting the economy completely--but through gradual regulation. Sure, it is not necessarily the place of government to interfere, but they certainly have the power to encourage and punish business practices as they see fit. If the government wants more E85 cars, for instance, they could certainly force the issue, much as they forced the issue of fuel efficiency in the 1970s or the elimination of leaded fuel in the 1980s.

However, you can see the priorities of our government, when there are tax credits that encourage outsourcing of U.S. jobs to foreign countries, and tax credits that encourage buying SUVs. Put this in contrast to half-assed tax credits for hybrid vehicles that puts on such severe restrictions as to be utterly meaningless.

In other words, if our elected officials were as serious about creating fuel efficient transportation as much as they are serious about building a missile shield, we'd make sure to get it done in a reasonable amount of time. But, as we have seen, we know where the loyalties of our government lie, so why rock the boat when Big Oil is making Big Profit?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:31 AM   #20
The Fly
 
Sylvia127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Local Time: 06:14 AM
I saw it this weekend. A very important documentary. No, I don't think Gore is using it as any kind of lead in to a political run-he just happens to have been a US Senator who took a keen interest in the science and data that started trickling in. He's delivering a message-he could be a D, a R, a communist or socialist. It can't be denied, and he doesn't deny it, that his view on the tobacco industry now is of course influenced by the fact that he lost his sister, a smoker, to lung cancer. That's what brings change-finally having that first hand experience. The first clear look. The decision to contribute no longer to that, to say No More.

The melting of the glaciers, the intensifying weather patterns, the collapse of Larsen B and similiar type happenings on our planet reinforce the idea that we have an unfavorable impact, and the skyrocketing population means there are more of us to do it.

It's so late in the game. And the damn car industries either won't offer the hybrid or other type low emission car, or they do, but have now jacked up the price... as they have their eyes on the gold bars on the weight demonstrated in the movie.

I hope more people will contribute by following the environmental measures available in whatever area-recycling, driving the most efficient vehicle possible, safe disposal of chemical cleaning agents, etc. I hope many, many people see this movie. (documentary)
__________________
Sylvia127 is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 10:46 AM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I appreciate how well my points about the lack of honest scientific dialogue have been underscored (even when words are added to my mouth). Global warming is predicated on summary statements of opinion as fact and is supported when snippets of science are used out of context to support the overall theories. The bottom line is a disinclination for honest scientific debate in favor of political control of the discussion, complete with ready made labels for each side’s position! In the global warming court of law, the political discussion prevents an inquiry of guilt or innocence, only welcoming the question of “how guilty are you?”


whenever you're ready to point out examples of actual "honest" scientific debate that's free of "ready made lables" (like "junk science") and offer arguments with substance against the overwhelming accumualation of evidence in support of man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions, please do so.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 11:25 AM   #22
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lee's Summit, MO
Posts: 127
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl

If we heed the warnings and implement new energy sources and change our lifestyle only to discover the threat of global warming was overstated, what harm has been done?
An inconvenient over-exaggeration?
__________________
swizzlestick is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 02:22 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:14 AM
I'm going to see this movie this afternoon.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 04:45 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by swizzlestick


An inconvenient over-exaggeration?
I can live with that.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 06:34 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:14 AM
Truthiness
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-07-2006, 09:57 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:14 AM
I really want to see it, of course it's not playing at my friendly neighborhood evilplex

Wall St Journal - Former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore is planning to address Wal-Mart Stores Inc. executives next week at the retailer’s quarterly conference on sustainability, part of the company’s recent efforts to become an environmental leader, a Wal-Mart spokesman confirmed.

Gore will speak on global warming, the subject of his recently released documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” The conference is an outgrowth of Wal-Mart’s mission, outlined by Chief Executive Lee Scott last November, to minimize its negative impact on the environment. At the time, Wal-Mart committed to, among other things, reduce energy use in its stores, improve the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet and substantially cut down on solid waste produced by its stores.

Wal-Mart has seized on the issue of sustainability in an effort to bolster positive public relations at a time when its various business practices have been heavily criticized, from its worker pay and health benefits to its effect on smaller retailers. Still, the company has attempted to make changes. For example, it outfitted its trucks with an alternative power unit that uses 90% less fuel than its engines do while idling. The company created 14 internal networks to explore and implement more environmentally sound business practices. The 14 groups, made up of both Wal-Mart executives and outside experts, focus on different business areas, including operations and logistics, food and agriculture, textiles, global greenhouse gas and jewelry and mining.

Called the sustainable value network, the groups meet individually throughout the year. They also hold their own conferences. Last month, for instance, Wal-Mart held a two-day conference on sustainability and textiles. It brought together Wal-Mart executives, environmental consultants and members of nonprofit groups to discuss issues surrounding organic textiles, including certification and standards. Next week’s meeting, held at the company’s home office in Bentonville, Ark., is one of four where all the company’s internal groups working on sustainability issues get together to discuss progress, stumbling blocks and other issues.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-10-2006, 01:22 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:14 AM
(AP)Tom Brokaw is giving Al Gore some company in the effort to raise awareness of global warming. The former NBC anchorman is host of "Global Warming: What You Need to Know," which doubles as an explainer and call to action for average Americans. It premieres Sunday at 9 p.m. on the Discovery Channel.

Brokaw said he has seen and was impressed by "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore's documentary on the subject.

"It's the same science that we are drawing upon and it's irrefutable," he said. "I thought there was too much of Gore, but that's not my call. I thought it was very effectively done. To give credit to him, he's been on this issue for a long period of time."

Discovery, which has a partnership with NBC News, asked Brokaw last year if there were any projects he would like to work on. He said he was interested in the environment, and Discovery mentioned its global-warming project, which it was making in partnership with the BBC.

Brokaw's wife, Meredith, is vice president of the environmental organization Conservation International. They've traveled to some of the places featured in the Discovery documentary, like Patagonia and Mongolia, and have seen firsthand the effects of global warming.

He's tried to alter some habits to save fossil fuels: changing light fixtures in his homes, for example. He owns a hybrid car, and so do both of his daughters.

"It's not affecting our lifestyle at all, not one whit," he said.

On the Discovery documentary, producers travel great distances to make the case that man has contributed to a rapid warming of the planet's atmosphere that has already had noticeable effects and will potentially have much more.

A scientist in the Arctic explains how the increased melting of summertime sea ice is slowly starving the polar bear population. Rising sea water seeping through the ground threatens to eventually swallow entirely the South Pacific island of Tuvalu. Drought threatens the giant Amazon rain forest. Explorers bring cameras beneath ice sheets in Patagonia to show the melting.

More frightening are the scenarios that scientists can see for the future: increased sea levels swallowing cities like New York, more vicious hurricanes like Katrina, more land turning to desert. One expert even envisions half of the planet's species disappearing by the end of this century.

"By the year 2100, in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, our world will be a drastically different place," Brokaw says in the documentary.

In helping put together the film, Brokaw said he was surprised at the speed with which everything is happening and the growing agreement among scientists about what was once a controversial notion.

Producers speak to no one, at least on film, who believes the current warmth is part of the Earth's natural cycle and who minimizes the importance of what is happening.

"You go around the world and it is the overwhelming number of people in the science of climatology who say this is happening," Brokaw said.

Discovery does intend to alter one part of the film that, in a preview tape, talks about the United States' refusal to participate in the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, he said. During the discussion, a picture is flashed of a demonstrator holding a picture of President Bush emblazoned with "toxic Texan." Brokaw said that political blame should be distributed more broadly.

The same scientists who warn of dire consequences also say that there are things that can be done to greatly slow the rate of global warming.

In the film, Brokaw presents examples big and small — from New York City promoting more energy-efficient mass transportation and environmentally friendly building construction to families that can save a remarkable amount of energy by simply unplugging television sets when they aren't being used.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 11:42 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:14 PM
If your going to see the Gore movie then at least read State of Fear, it's your usual Crichton techno-thriller but with the a global warming message.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 10:48 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Doozer61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Setting up house on Scooter's Star
Posts: 20,218
Local Time: 02:14 AM
saw it yesterday
__________________
Doozer61 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 09:00 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:14 AM
I still havent seen it but I don't know how people can't connect the dots. Yes I know it is summer, but I read the other day that the first half of 06 is already the hottest on record, something like that. I would have to look that up again..

huffingtonpost.com

by Toby Barlow

I'm once again completely blown away by the inability of the major media to connect the dots in even the most simplistic way.

This Associated Press article on the heat wave is full of all sorts of cutesy comments about the current record heat, "I could use a pool out here", "Oh, I love it balmy." etc, but there is not ONE mention of the fact that this current trend is - in fact - a clear sign of global warming.

This is how it has been for the last couple of decades, an endless drumbeat from the news at five chanting "record heat", "record temperatures", "record highs" while it's left to the "left" to point out that maybe this is part of some much larger event, one that threatens life everywhere on this planet.

The only consolation, and it is a small one, was that yesterday in the Burlington Airport I overheard a man on his cell phone saying "Yeah, I'm going down to New York... yeah it's hot...hey did you see that Al Gore movie?...Yeah, it's good." So maybe the message is getting out there. Then again, that was Vermont.

Meanwhile, we have George Bush for two more years and a rate of incumbency in the House and Senate making it hard to believe that any change is going to happen. And no matter what happens here, the Chinese are still building coal plants at a nice clipped pace and every species that doesn't have the blessing of central air (armadillos, crayfish, etc.) just keep heading north, you know, up to where the polar bears are dying. And the life that can't move, like the coral reefs, are slowly being cooked to death in the ocean's warming waters.

Once the heat gets high enough, melting the permafrost and releasing the enormous quantities of methane trapped below, our "record temperatures" will leap even higher. Then it's going to be real "balmy." Oh, yeah.

But there's not a single prominent world leader doing anything about it. Nero only had one fiddle; we've got a whole damn orchestra.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...546824,00.html
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com