![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jonathan Cook wrote:
We went to see this movie over the weekend. Although not much in it was new to me, overall it was a pretty good presentation of the data and issues surrounding global warming. If anyone out there actually believes the "global warming isn't happening" or "it is but we don't have a part in causing it" lines, you should really see this movie, without any blinders on or partisan preconceptions. Yes, Al Gore throws in a couple of snide partisan remarks, and I wish they hadn't included those because it detracts from the message of the movie, but overlook them and listen to the data. Whether you like or despise Al Gore, he's obviously taken a lot of time and effort to polish his understanding and presentation of this issue. The movie is worth seeing. I'll go out on a limb with an opinion and an OBROFF (though not needed as this is a valid environmental sbject). There has been extreme debate over this at the office involving massive research on the part of many people to try and convince one side or the other. This is good but I remain unconvinced that the movie is nothing more than alarmist though I, admitedly, base this largely on a basic, and very fundamental, premise of not ever, ever getting my facts from career politicians. In my opinion the scientific community at large has to share established data and so you hear the same basic 'facts' touted over and over with, what I see, as very little in the way of original, exhaustive studies. The politics of science is huge and really misunderstood, in my opinion and there is corruption after corruption, changed paradigms after changed paradigms. Research Frederic Sietz. This coupled with the fact that accuracy of recent data gathering would show potentially more variance as well as other serious anomolies and contradictions in terms of times of coincedent global warming with decreased CO2 'inflation' just, well, bugs me. I also do not trust complex simultation as I do not believe they can get all of the variables right and that some singular events (Krakatoa, Mt. Saint Helens) can change the outcome dramatically. Something that bugs me too is the fact (I'm open to hearing someone who knows this) that our ability to accurately measure CO2 dimishes in times in times of high solar impact. The other thing is the most recent comment that, if the statistics are right, coupled with 'population growth models' the current recommendations proposed will not do enough and the movie could make us complacent about real, additional, research and problem solving. My opinion only. OBROFF: I was suprised that a map of the San Juan National Forest I bought recently did not have terrain elevation contours. I saw a road following a river for 12 miles before crossing it so I went, assuming good access. I'm a dilligent hiker who believes one must generally walk a minimum of 1-2 miles to avoid people on public water but I was not prepared for the fact that this road was 1000-1500' above the river which was 1/4 mile away with no way to reasonably descend. Get a map with terrain elevation data!!!! Your pal, Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Movie: An Inconvenient Truth | [email protected] | Fly Fishing | 8 | July 12th, 2006 12:07 AM |
Movie: An Inconvenient Truth | jeffc | Fly Fishing | 2 | July 10th, 2006 02:16 PM |
Movie: An Inconvenient Truth | JakBQuik | Fly Fishing | 4 | July 7th, 2006 07:17 PM |
Movie: An Inconvenient Truth | rw | Fly Fishing | 0 | July 6th, 2006 11:43 PM |