An Inconvenient Truth

[kippure]

Cant believe that this has not been mentioned yet. I think this will sum up what a few threads are trying to say.

A pictures paints a thousand words.

Heres the full site.

Here

Edited June 5, 2006 by kippure

[Dawlish]

Cant believe that this has not been mentioned yet. I think this will sum up what a few threads are trying to say.

A pictures paints a thousand words.

Heres the full site.

Here

HI Kippure,

As soon as you read the intro, below, you begin to understand why it hasn't been commented on and why it doesn't sum up anything. It's a Hollywood film; it isn't science. It requires ignorance. I really wish I hadn't posted this. Anyway, here's the start of the film blurb.

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

Yeah, really.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Dawlish

[drgl]

HI Kippure,

As soon as you read the intro, below, you begin to understand why it hasn't been commented on and why it doesn't sum up anything. It's a Hollywood film; it isn't science. It requires ignorance. I really wish I hadn't posted this. Anyway, here's the start of the film blurb.

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

Yeah, really.

If it get americans sitting up and listening to what is going on with the world climate then it's a worthwhile film. Maybe the science or whatever behind it is flawed but if it get's the USA kerbing it's emissions and thirst for fuel it's worthwhile IMO.

[kippure]

As soon as you read the intro, below, you begin to understand why it hasn't been commented on and why it doesn't sum up anything. It's a Hollywood film; it isn't science. It requires ignorance. I really wish I hadn't posted this. Anyway, here's the start of the film blurb.

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

Yeah, really.

[Dawlish]

As soon as you read the intro, below, you begin to understand why it hasn't been commented on and why it doesn't sum up anything. It's a Hollywood film; it isn't science. It requires ignorance. I really wish I hadn't posted this. Anyway, here's the start of the film blurb.

"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

Yeah, really.

Disasters are all ready happening in the world. If this hightens awareness of what we are doing to the planet then its a good thing.

Droughts are causing farmland to disappear.

Floods are more common "Flash Floods" intense rain fall.

Epidemics are a run off from weather Disasters like Famaine.

Killer heat waves, France for example where alot of people died.

Yeah really

No, sorry, don't agree at all. Highlight the dangers, fine; but sensationalising anything ruins the argument. Highlight the dangers with good science and statistics, not with Hollywood trying to "show" us what we, or the USA, should be thinking. The film is sensationalising an important issue, simply to make money.

Paul

Edited June 6, 2006 by Dawlish

[drgl]

No, sorry, don't agree at all. Highlight the dangers, fine; but sensationalising anything ruins the argument. Highlight the dangers with good science and statistics, not with Hollywood trying to "show" us what we, or the USA, should be thinking. The film is sensationalising an important issue, simply to make money.

Paul

And you think if it was a science FACT film the audience would be interested? No,sadly not. If it helps what's the problem?

[Dawlish]

And you think if it was a science FACT film the audience would be interested? No,sadly not. If it helps what's the problem?

The problem is, that if science is exaggerated, using the media, to prove a point, it does not help at all. In fact, whichever side in the debate uses poor science, to illustrate a point to a mass audience, they take the debate nowhere, as they influence a lot of people to believe what they are saying, not to examine the arguments and come up with their own, reasoned viewpoint. To step back and consider, is far better than being influenced by rhetoric, or celluloid.

Paul

[kippure]

No, sorry, don't agree at all. Highlight the dangers, fine; but sensationalising anything ruins the argument. Highlight the dangers with good science and statistics, not with Hollywood trying to "show" us what we, or the USA, should be thinking. The film is sensationalising an important issue, simply to make money.

Paul

Fair enough, I think yes to high lighting the dangers through science and proving it, C,O 2 levels have gone through the roof for example. As for statistic,s well they can prove anything you want. Hollywood is showing us what IS happening right now and its giving a very clear message that WAKE -UP we,re ruining the planet . ITs obvious dont you think, Do you not think that a change in our climate has taken place? Besides talk of natural cycles , varations etc.

As for sensationalising the issue, well i hope it makes more people aware of whats happening not simply to make money , theyll make it anyway and more since its a well respected politician narrating.

Edited June 6, 2006 by kippure

[Dawlish]

Fair enough, I think yes to high lighting the dangers through science and proving it, C,O 2 levels have gone through the roof for example. As for statistic,s well they can prove anything you want. Hollywood is showing us what IS happening right now and its giving a very clear message that WAKE -UP we,re ruining the planet . ITs obvious dont you think, Do you not think that a change in our climate has taken place? Besides talk of natural cycles , varations etc.

As for sensationalising the issue, well I hope it makes more people aware of whats happening not simply to make money , theyll make it anyway and more since its a well respected politician narrating.

My recent netweather writing on GW, should show my position: The world is warming; exactly why is still a matter for research and for debate until science finds the cause. Sensationalisation will polarise the debate. It certainly won't convince anyone that feels that the Earth is not warming. Neither will it convince someone who believes that we are not responsible to believe that we are. Hollywood is serving to highlight what will make a good film and, as usual, the truth slips somewhere short of their mark. nothing is "obvious" in this debate, for me, apart from the reacent warming trend.

It is obvious that a force acts upon a falling object. We know the strength of that force and we know the cause. That is scientifically proven and it is obvious. The cause of GW cannot yet be proven is therefore not obvious. Neither is the need for a hollywood wake-up call. There have been quite enough of those. Science will out on that one, but what if science proves that there is not an anthropomorphic cause to GW and, in fact, something else is the prime cause? How will this film be judged then? What if the wake-up call is signalling the wrong thing as far as CO2 is concerned?

Hollywood studios do not make films to "make people aware of what is happening". Hollywood studios make films to make money. They may make people aware of a point of view, but that may well not be what is actually happening. "The Day After Tomorrow" was a case in point. So many people think the NAD is shutting down, as a result of that film, when there isn't one scrap of evidence that is what is actually happening.

Paul

[Thundery wintry showers]

I tend more towards Dawlish's views on this topic.

In fact, I think that sensationalism is one of the key reasons why so many people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, as they recognise that the sensationalists usually have other agendas that they are using the environment as an excuse to push.

[kippure]

I think we,re getting away from the point, its true what you have said dawlish. But awareness of climatic changes is important and that we recoginse them. We are talking but not making any dent to stop these changes if indeed that we are making them or nature is taking a natural course.

However are we as humans not interfering in this, putting extra unwanted pressure on our climatic system? Have we added to much "HOT WATER" and are pushing our climate to far.

If we think of are climate over millions of years, maybe what we are seeing is nothing? Is it that we have been recording weather for such a short time that we are not seeing the big picture? Maybe its just panic that over the last 10 years we,ve seen the highest tempetures.

But as i say awareness is important but not in a way that the real issues are clouded over by sensationalism "the day after tomorrow"

Edited June 6, 2006 by kippure

[Methuselah]

I tend more towards Dawlish's views on this topic.

In fact, I think that sensationalism is one of the key reasons why so many people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, as they recognise that the sensationalists usually have other agendas that they are using the environment as an excuse to push.

I'll second that, Ian...I think that sensationalism is just more grist to the conspiracy theorists' mill. I cannot see the use of helping to spread misinformation.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Superted

[Scribbler]

No-one seems to have noted that the film is essentially a visualised version of one of Al Gore's lectures that he's been giving for many years.

I don't like politicians anyway and to trust a failed US Presidential candidate (etc) to give a clear and unbiased message is asking too much. :blink:

Sure - there is a message but the film (and his lectures) do indeed sensationalise the truth.

[drgl]

But's it's OK for ITV news through Laurance Maginty(sp?) to do the same? And the BBC have been going on about it for years-and now we have their climate change season! (with the usual ice falling into the see and chimney stack pictures!!) Can you trust the BBC? Of course as they are BristiDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me I don't think so-look at the pictures they used to demonstrate why the WTC collapsed-the diagrams of the buildings construction was all wrong!! Are we really warming? Or have the world super powers realised what will happen when we run out of fossil fuels? There are so many takes on this subject it's unreal. I for one have noted a warming since the late 80's-a trend that has been reversing since about 2000-as far as the winters i've experienced are concerned. Apparently i'm imagining it as the stats say we are warming-and a country the size of the UK has no baring on the world climate! If a country the size of the UK has no baring on world climate why is our governmrnt hell bent on hurting us in the pocket as far as fuel is concerned? Is it all about climate? Or a tax issue? The USA puts economic growth and stability before world climate so what hope is there? The chinese are building power plants by the week-more CO2 into the atmosphere. If this IS happening maybe it will take a major event in the USA to actually get them to wake up?....................or a Holywood film!

[Scribbler]

Hi drgl

Ah – but the BBC is next to Holy, isn’t it.

Thou shalt not take the word of the BBC in vain!!

It’s logical to assume that any headline news may well eventually be made into a Hollywood film and despite all our cynicism and bad-mouthing, these recent films do awaken people to global problems.

An Inconvenient Truth; The Day After Tomorrow and The Perfect Storm are just three examples of the film-makers works that have used current news scenarios to make blockbuster headlines.

I’m sure that there are numerous other films that have portrayed other ‘disasters’ waiting to happen.

Any offers? :blink:

As for politicians ‘saving the world’ – there isn’t one who isn’t spouting his or her so-called gospel without trying to claim a few more votes when it matters.

And they all need good band-wagons (e.g. global warming) to climb (or cling) onto!

[PersianPaladin]

I tend more towards Dawlish's views on this topic.

In fact, I think that sensationalism is one of the key reasons why so many people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, as they recognise that the sensationalists usually have other agendas that they are using the environment as an excuse to push.

100% agree with you there.

Very good point.

[SNOW-MAN2006]

After just seeing the starting clip of that website i have come to my conclusion about global matters

we are not in a state of emergency where every natural disaster will be as bad as hurricane katrina

the atlantic, mexican gulf and pacfiic oceans are getting larger amounts of water in them from melting ice caps which means hurricanes and more extreme weather will contiune to happen as jet streams move positioning storms differently and merging them to make stronger ones

CLIMATE CHANGE is happening but is not related to pollutants in the atmosphere as the world has been changing since its exsistance and it will continue to do so so there is no need to blame GW!

SNOW-MAN2006

[Scribbler]

CLIMATE CHANGE is happening but is not related to pollutants in the atmosphere as the world has been changing since its exsistance and it will continue to do so so there is no need to blame GW!

SNOW-MAN2006

So 6 billion people all coughing out CO2; building new industrial conurbations; using fossil fuels; tearing down forests, etc, etc, have nothing to do with climate change?

Come On............!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me you're joking!!!!!!!

[Somerset Squall]

So 6 billion people all coughing out CO2; building new industrial conurbations; using fossil fuels; tearing down forests, etc, etc, have nothing to do with climate change?

Come On............!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me you're joking!!!!!!!

I think we are worsening this current period of warming, but snowman has half a point, after all, Britian used to be a desert, and the world has been warmer than it is now.

Edited June 15, 2006 by AtmosFear

[Devonian]

I take it all those critics of the film have actually seen it? No, probably not, but I hear the sound of knees jerking.

The reports I've read say the science in it is actually pretty sound: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...al-gores-movie/

After just seeing the starting clip of that website i have come to my conclusion about global matters

we are not in a state of emergency where every natural disaster will be as bad as hurricane katrina

the atlantic, mexican gulf and pacfiic oceans are getting larger amounts of water in them from melting ice caps which means hurricanes and more extreme weather will contiune to happen as jet streams move positioning storms differently and merging them to make stronger ones

CLIMATE CHANGE is happening but is not related to pollutants in the atmosphere as the world has been changing since its exsistance and it will continue to do so so there is no need to blame GW!

SNOW-MAN2006

Well, that's told us...

Err, care to back up your assertions with, well, anything? Specifically an nice science based justification for your, frankly, denailist 'CLIMATE CHANGE is happening but is not related to pollutants in the atmosphere' (my emphasis).

How can you judge a film by the start of a clip . Sorry, but your post reeks of a prejudical attitude.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Devonian

[johnholmes]

I think we are worsening this current period of warming, but snowman has half a point, after all, Britain used to be a desert, and the world has been warmer than it is now.

yes Britain has been a desert, its been under a warm ocean and much of it has been covered in Ice.

However ALL these instances are not in even a realistic time frame in terms of humans. The time period is millions of years ago not thousands let alone hundreds!

John

ps

Britain was once where Antarctica is now, Scotland and England were once part of separate 'continents'.

Edited June 15, 2006 by johnholmes

[MAF]

just to put a stick in the spokes of the Global Warming wheel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5076322.stm?ls

i find the article quite refreshing in the fact that there are still unresearched reasons as to what is exactly happening to the planet.

[Methuselah]

Interesting article, Mick. I'm not sure of what the ramifications are, and I can only guess at the cause; but, plate tectonic processes or an overall (in the Arctic) increase in SLP come to mind as possibles???

One thing's for sure though: as more and more data become available, the situation appears to get ever more complex...Only time will tell?

[Dawlish]

just to put a stick in the spokes of the Global Warming wheel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5076322.stm?ls

i find the article quite refreshing in the fact that there are still unresearched reasons as to what is exactly happening to the planet.

Hi Mick,

With respect, the article doesn't stick anything in the "spokes of the Global Warming wheel". What it does is points to an unexpected outcome of some climatic research - of which there will be many and it refreshes me too! It is really interesting.

It doesn't show that GW isn't happening - it is. That is scientific fact. For the last 30 years, at least, the world has been warming. It does show something that needs explaining; which is exactly what the Dutch Team says needs to happen. What the team did not do was to question GW, which you are implying that they are doing.

Good science raises questions, then solves them. Good science does not put spin on someone's perfectly good research, for a particular agenda.

Paul

EDIT - nearly missed that! There is an excellent graphic on the beeb site which shows just what GW has been doing to Arctic Ice, for the last 1/4 of a century. Have a watch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5076322.stm?ls

Edited June 18, 2006 by Dawlish

[MAF]

Interesting article, Mick. I'm not sure of what the ramifications are, and I can only guess at the cause; but, plate tectonic processes or an overall (in the Arctic) increase in SLP come to mind as possibles???

One thing's for sure though: as more and more data become available, the situation appears to get ever more complex...Only time will tell?

trouble is Pete, how much time is there to tell. i feel this is another element in the equation and can only be detremental to the outcome. again the confusion has me unsure as to the future conditions.

Hi Mick,

With respect, the article doesn't stick anything in the "spokes of the Global Warming wheel". What it does is points to an unexpected outcome of some climatic research - of which there will be many and it refreshes me too! It is really interesting.

It doesn't show that GW isn't happening - it is. That is scientific fact. For the last 30 years, at least, the world has been warming. It does show something that needs explaining; which is exactly what the Dutch Team says needs to happen. What the team did not do was to question GW, which you are implying that they are doing.

Good science raises questions, then solves them. Good science does not put spin on someone's perfectly good research, for a particular agenda.

Paul

EDIT - nearly missed that! There is an excellent graphic on the beeb site which shows just what GW has been doing to Arctic Ice, for the last 1/4 of a century. Have a watch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5076322.stm?ls

saw the graphic too Paul, your reasoning is a fair response to the article, but i still feel the article highlights yet more concerns.