Al Gore in person; movie: An Inconvenient Truth

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ May 8 2006, 01:49 PM) [snapback]251602[/snapback]</div>

There are entire fields of science dealing with this, and there are proponents on both sides of the arguments. I can understand direct analysis of CO2 in trapped air bubbles from ice cores, but any temperature numbers are assumptions based on indirect data. There is no way to "know" the global temperature based on ice core samples.

Tree rings, salinity levels, pollen counts, etc. are all extrapolations and not direct measurement. When one is talking about differences of tenths of a degree, extrapolations and assumptions can be suspect. Is it better to be safe than sorry? Yeah, but I don't think the sky is falling.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ May 8 2006, 04:46 PM) [snapback]251688[/snapback]</div>

I am very familiar with the use of trend graphs like this. They are used in industry and finance for all sorts of things. I am not sure that most people really understand what they are looking at unless they have been put through the pain of creating one.

I am not hostile to the consensus that the earth is warming, but I am somewhat negative about the cooked data that seems to be on both sides of the debate.

The "average" of the graph is described as a "30 year average" with an asterisk indicating a missing explanation in our discussion. I did not search hard enough to find the missing explanation. The first point which is before 1860 implies: a. 29 or 30 years of earlier data to generate the average or b. the average isn't a 30 year average until around 1890.

Beyond that is the fact that the baseline is actually a trending downward temperature for almost all of the graph! The correct way to do this is to weight each year's point, but a quick look shows that the delta from 1860 through 1940 exceeds -0.2 deg. C most years. So the average up through 1940 has dropped more than 0.6 degrees C! This is then followed by another 30 years of more down than up. It is not until the 1970's that the graph trends up and that is less than 30 years of measurements at an average of something like plus 0.2 C. Thus my reading of the graph is that it shows a net drop of 0.4 degrees C over its span. A careful calculation (which would require the original data) could show an even greater downward effect.

This is partially why it is so important to understand the methodology of collecting a "global" temperature in the days before satellite measurements. It also shows one reason why lots of scientists were warning of an impending ice age in the middle of the 20th century.

I believe there is global warming. I just don't think graphs like this "prove" anything by presenting a bawdlerized version of a difficult topic.

- Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom_06 @ May 8 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]251729[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. That's why I also posted a link to the UCAR webpage for
How Do We Know Earth is Warming Now?

The point being that these climate systems do not revert back quickly. The human race can't all of a sudden say "we'll be good now" and expect that their children and grandchildren will benefit from the change.

As to whether the "sky is falling", depends where one lives. In New Orleans, the sky fell. If you're a polar bear, the ice is falling out underneath you. If your water/power/irrigation supply depends on glacial snow melt - watch the sky.

 

priusguy04 and the radical neocon idiot dberman:

Flood their homelands? Think they are all desert? Though much of the Mid East consists of desert, Those assumptions are beyond ignorant. Most Muslims desire peace and even democracies (through their own, not by powers foreign to their lands)... go read a copy of "Arab Voices Speak to American Hearts" and educate yourself.

Find out some more about the world you live in:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579...iddle_East.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ May 16 2006, 09:31 AM) [snapback]256201[/snapback]</div>

Unfortunately, the biggest threat to us all is ignorance, and we live in a time when ignorance is not only rampart, but respected, at least by those in power. Understanding people and cultures in other parts of the world- that's dismissed as liberal nonsense.
Nonetheless, Mirza, those of us who haven't succumbed to the "ignorance is bliss" philosophy understand that most Muslims desire peace.
This also points to another impediment to thwarting the problem of global warming- the people who are most threatened are non-white, poor, and in developing countries. They tend to live in places that are affected the most by rising sea level. The death toll from Hurricane Katrina was due certainly to the neglect of the levees, but it was also caused by decades of development of the oil fields off the Gulf coast disregarding the effect on the barrier islands protecting the coast.
Models based on the event of the North Atlantic Current being deflected or turned off due to an influx of water from melting ice suggest that the climate of Europe would become uncomfortably cold, Africa and South America would be unbearably hot while the US continued to have a relatively benign climate. In fact, the one government agency that actually takes global warming seriously is the Pentagon, which is preparing to deal with it my turning the US and Europe into a "virtual fortress" , keeping out migrants from other parts of the world that have turned uninhabitable.

 

Inconvenient Truth about Big AL!

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2301/Some_Incon...s_About_Al_Gore

Wildkow

 

I find it very funny that Al Gore is doing all he can to address and get people info about climate change and all the loser of 2000 can come up with as his best accomplishment over the past 5 years is "I caught a big ol' fish". Lovely.

Sad, but very funny.

Impeach bush now!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ May 27 2006, 11:00 AM) [snapback]261763[/snapback]</div>

Not only that; he lied about the fish too!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/8/123228/7545

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 27 2006, 01:33 AM) [snapback]261662[/snapback]</div>

First, you start flashing some teat with your avatar, and now you post a link that complains that Al Gore is too conservative! Wildkow, are you having a crisis of faith? Or have mind-controlling tentacle aliens entered or left your body recently?

 

Al Gore is a retard

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ May 4 2006, 12:02 AM) [snapback]249548[/snapback]</div>

Why didn't he make the wall of water 50 ft high? wouldn't that have been more dramatic? Al used many of Michael Moore's techniques to make his climate movie. As far as Bush's criminal inaction on climate change? If you charge W what is ol' Al guilty of? Wasn't he #2 only 5 years and 5 months ago? Maybe Al just misses being on the evening news and since he is such a lifeless hack as a politico he is trying to make a name for himself as an enviro.

 

The problem is that people are very complacent about the issue... how else do you propose people like Al bring this to the attention of the ADD public?

Did you even see the movie or read his book, honestly?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jun 8 2006, 07:55 PM) [snapback]268417[/snapback]</div>

Why, Malorn, what a very good question! Here are some answers for you:

1. There was no "wall of water" depicted by Al Gore. You just made that up.
2. The 20ft "rise in sea levels" was characterized by Mr. Gore as a worst-case scenario, and it was based on what scientists have learned about the size, composition, and behavior of glaciers.
3. There isn't enough land-based ice to melt to get to your 50ft assertion, no matter how warm the Earth gets.

Got any more questions?

- Bob R.

 

I'm wondering how many of the people badmouthing "An Inconvenient Truth" have actually seen the film? I was looking to see when the film would be showing in my area, and, according to the official website, it appears that the first showings around the country were today (6/17). So either the website is erroneous, some people have seen advance screenings, or the "critics" here have no idea what they are critiquing. Which is it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 17 2006, 09:47 PM) [snapback]272944[/snapback]</div>

It has been playing in the Los Angeles area for at least two weeks. It is not unusual for a movie of this type to first open in Los Angeles and/or New York (and perhaps a handful of other major metropolitan area) several weeks before it starts playing nationwide.

P.S. I just located this:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 18 2006, 02:36 AM) [snapback]272965[/snapback]</div>

You guys out in LA are just so far ahead of us!
I still suspect, though, that the people posting their vitriol against "algore" and his "propoganda movie" have not actually seen the film. I will refrain from making any comments about the movie until I actually see it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 18 2006, 09:47 AM) [snapback]273077[/snapback]</div>

Not really. Boutique and independent movies often open in limited release first, most commonly in Los Angeles and New York, to create a buzz and generate free publicity before they are released in general distribution nationwide. The independent studios do not have the seamlessly unlimited publicity budgets that are so common in the major studios and must resort to creative publicity techniques to compensate for their limited funds. In this case the publicity campaign worked like a charm.