I thought the movie was pretty good.

Come on, the man gets in a lift, risking life and limb to prove his point.

You got to respect that.

6/26/2006 5:57:10 PM

Quote :

"well why wouldnt charlotte have an increase in average temperatures over the last century? maybe because theres not enough data to PROVE OR DISPROVE global warming like i've been saying all along???/?"

I spit out my drink when I read that.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 9:04 PM. Reason : i]

6/26/2006 9:04:15 PM

Quote :

"theres not enough data to PROVE OR DISPROVE global warming"

that is a complete FACT

when you're laughing at all my ideas...just remember...i've heard BOTH sides of the argument, not just one side

6/26/2006 9:28:46 PM

So have I

During my two years at Appalachian they had a few open panels where they'd invite researchers in the field from other schools to debate it. We even got the head of a glacier drilling expedition from OSU to come and give us a presentation on it.

The thing was, there wasn't a whole lot to debate about.

6/27/2006 3:07:29 PM

I find it interesting that theres been 7 pages to this shitty thread and no one with a view point against global warming has cited any evidence other than semi-related(but not really on point)... or just outright biased articles. Oh... and treetwistas "INFORMED" opinion that he can't decide yet, which makes less of an argument about the state of the evidence and more of one for his' lack of intelligence. but i could go on bashing treetwista all day ... sorry to be off topic once again.

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : puntuation]

6/27/2006 3:51:56 PM

anybody who starts a thread off with "Just saw Al Gores new movie. I liked it and would recommend it"

is a dumb ass

6/27/2006 3:54:00 PM

quite the compelling argument

6/27/2006 4:01:16 PM

i made 5 pages of compelling arguments

but its no surprise you would ignore those because they dont allow you to bash me

Quote :

"and treetwistas "INFORMED" opinion that he can't decide yet, which makes less of an argument about the state of the evidence and more of one for his' lack of intelligence"

see Amkeener...here is just one example of what YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ABOUT SCIENCE

you assume that someone can look at some different data and conclude one way or another about global warming or they lack intelligence? you really don't know what science is about do you? its about performing experiments and analyzing data to make the best GUESS on what is actually happening on...oh brother

6/27/2006 4:17:34 PM

i've gone back and forth with you plenty. i just thought that your comment earlier on the page was unnecessary.

6/27/2006 4:32:38 PM

Quote :

"and treetwistas "INFORMED" opinion that he can't decide yet, which makes less of an argument about the state of the evidence and more of one for his' lack of intelligence"

TAKE THAT, DR. RICHARD LINDZEN, PROFESSOR OF METEOROLOGY AT MIT! Amkeener thinks you're stupid!!!

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 4:43 PM. Reason : O]

6/27/2006 4:43:07 PM

an article on the cato institute. awesome.

i also find it funny that there are no references listed in this paper.

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/27/2006 4:44:37 PM

We have no time to waste on silly pursuits like "referencing" scientific articles... or "sustaining" credibility while discussing.... We must fight the dirty-french-science article quoting-liberals.

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 9:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2006 9:08:24 PM

that paper is from 1992 (a long time ago in the global warming debate) and is not peer-reviewed. Dr. Linzens more recent research (mainly on the climate forcing of clouds) does raise some good points about uncertainties in future predictions of the climate state, but his work in no way invalidates the evidence for increased temperatures and the link to anthropogenic co2.

6/27/2006 9:38:26 PM

He also had an article reiterating most of those points in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, but you have to be a subscriber to view it online.

6/27/2006 11:17:46 PM

whether or not you believe in global warming

WE STILL FUCKING NEED TO SLOW THE FUCK DOWN ON OUR USEAGE OF FOSSIL FUELS

6/28/2006 4:32:33 AM

Quote :

"Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press. The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book. But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right." Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary. "I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error." Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right." The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington. One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view. "I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography. Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming. While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list. "They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day." As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair.""

6/28/2006 4:47:25 AM

Quote :

"The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book. "

so most scientists havent even seen the movie yet but somehow "the nation's top climate scientists are giving (gore's movie) five stars for accuracy? what is that like 3 scientists that are doing that?

Quote :

"One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view. "I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography. Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming."

6/28/2006 9:21:59 AM

You act like a movie intended to help the general public understand the issue needs to be presented in a peer reviewed scientific format.... His point with this movie is to get the topic discussed more by the public and politicions....

6/28/2006 11:07:38 AM

^well the movie has definitely brought the topic into public discussion

but the article that Docido just posted has a very misleading title

"Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right"

except it talks about how most of the scientists contacted had not even seen the movie

also it mentions that Gore, like many many many others, oversimplify the causal-link between CO2 and rising temperatures

6/28/2006 11:12:34 AM

But it is a causal link... and we do dump CO2 into the atmosphere....

6/28/2006 11:15:36 AM

^look, you just oversimplified it

6/28/2006 11:17:40 AM

So you never simplify to make a point... you havn't quoted one article in this whole thread and layed out every detail from it... and then backed it up with other sources to make sure your stating every facet of it?...

6/28/2006 11:20:34 AM

With your logic why even bother making a movie on any complex issue... Two hours is not enough time to even scratch the surface of global warming unless you paraphraze a bit... But fuck it...

6/28/2006 11:21:36 AM

i just pointed out that scientists said that Gore oversimplified the link between CO2 and rising temperatures...because he completely linked rising temperatures to CO2....and didnt factor in earth cycles, solar fluctuations, etc

the same scientists you say agree in consensus about global warming

those scientists criticize Gore for oversimplifying the link

i know if i criticize him you dont care but those are the same scientists that believe in global warming that criticize him!

6/28/2006 11:25:31 AM

Quote :

"because he completely linked rising temperatures to CO2....and didnt factor in earth cycles, solar fluctuations, etc"

You still haven't seen the movie, right?

There are numerous graphs in the movie showing the cyclical nature of both temperature and CO2 levels on several scales, showing both the annual cycles due to the position of the earth relative to the sun, and the long term cycles of heating and cooling going back hundreds of thousands of years. And, considering you could get a doctorate on these matters and study them for your entire life, it's fucking ridiculous to think that a movie could be expected to fully explain every nuanced detail of the matter. A movie cannot perfectly and completely explain ANYTHING, really. Maybe we should just stop with the documentaries completely.

6/28/2006 11:32:02 AM

i'm just pointing out that SCIENTISTS criticized Gore's movie

and i didnt think documentaries were supposed to be biased

6/28/2006 11:42:55 AM

Quote :

"Of course, we can trade links from experts all night and day from supporters and detractors. I guess it comes down to deciding who to believe. Though I would think that Al Gore should be very far down on that list."

Is there anything more fun than a self-fulfilling prophesy?

6/28/2006 11:48:48 AM

There are plenty of great documentary films that are biased. That's why they don't call them the news.

Obviously this film has a point of view that it wants to support, so it mainly presents you with information that agrees with its viewpoint. That doesn't meant that there isn't other information that would conflict with or disagree with its viewpoint, but it also doesn't mean that the information in the film isn't true.

I guess I would hope, as many filmmakers might, that the audience has the slightest ability to see a movie and then actually THINK. History, box office numbers, and human nature in general are acting against that, though.

6/28/2006 11:51:06 AM

the sad thing is now i want to see this movie

6/28/2006 12:36:58 PM

then go watch it and shut up you ignorant fuckstick

6/28/2006 1:15:54 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701646.html

Quote :

"An Outdated Ban It's time to allow more offshore drilling. Wednesday, June 28, 2006; Page A24 FOR THE PAST quarter of a century, the federal government has banned oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters. Efforts to relax the ban have been repelled on environmental grounds, but it is time to revisit this policy. Canada and Norway, two countries that care about the environment, have allowed offshore drilling for years and do not regret it. Offshore oil rigs in the western Gulf of Mexico, one of the exceptions to the ban imposed by Congress, endured Hurricane Katrina without spills. The industry's safety record is impressive, and it's even possible that the drilling ban increases the danger of oil spills in coastal waters: Less local drilling means more incoming traffic from oil tankers, which by some reckonings are riskier. Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified. The House of Representatives is about to vote on this question, probably tomorrow. A bipartisan bill would maintain a ban on drilling within 50 miles of the shoreline and allow states to extend that to 100 miles. But it would lift the congressional restriction on drilling beyond that perimeter. This compromise would give states that are unwilling to countenance the perceived environmental risks a reasonable measure of control over their coasts. But it would also open the way to more drilling. The economic benefit of that drilling would be especially pronounced if it were aimed at natural gas extraction. Despite all the rhetoric about energy independence, it doesn't make much difference whether the United States gets its oil from its own coastal waters or whether it buys it on world markets. There is one global price for oil; producing more from U.S. waters will bring down that global price, benefiting all consuming countries rather than just U.S. consumers. But natural gas is traded globally only in small quantities, in liquefied form; nearly all of the gas consumed in the United States is produced domestically or in Canada. So producing more natural gas in U.S. coastal waters would bring down U.S. natural gas prices rather than world prices. Because natural gas is much cleaner than its main alternative, coal, this would have environmental as well as economic benefits. Unfortunately, the House legislation is flawed. It diverts billions of dollars' worth of oil and gas royalties from the federal government to the states, even though the waters from which the resources will come are federal. The states nearest to the oil rigs may feel they carry most of the perceived environmental risks, and some sharing of revenue may be justified to bring them along, but the House bill leans too far in that direction. We hope the bill passes tomorrow, but we also hope this flaw is fixed before it becomes law."

6/28/2006 2:57:22 PM

I don't care if it's due to humans or just fucking normal....but it's fucking hot as hell lately. Who likes it when it's over 100 degrees outside? Not me. I don't care whose fault it is, but if we can try to do something about being so damn hot, let's do it.

The sun is bad enough as it is for us ginger kids... soon we will become extinct.

6/28/2006 4:11:44 PM

lets stop emitting co2

that way in the summertime it will be 50 degrees in the temperate ~35 degree north latitude of the southeastern US

6/28/2006 4:14:42 PM

Ha ha... better than 50 degrees Centigrade

6/28/2006 9:14:48 PM

anybody see him on the Daily Show last night?

one thing Gore said was that "all scientists agree" with global warming

another thing he said was never in the history of science had there been an issue with this much consensus

he also said he had no aspirations whatsoever to run for President in 08

lets see if he told 3 lies or just 2

6/29/2006 9:19:21 AM

I miss this thread.

7/17/2006 8:53:20 PM

Saw it on Friday. Informative movie.

7/17/2006 9:24:10 PM

I saw this the other day. Didn't learn anything I didn't learn in MEA 100.

I loved the shots of Gore tinkering with his Powerbook, and the credits.

7/18/2006 5:41:45 PM

Anyone see the Tom Brokaw(sp?) special on discovery....?

7/24/2006 2:32:02 PM

I have it recorded but havent watched it. I was told however that there is nothing that you wouldnt already know in there.

7/24/2006 3:23:41 PM