Movie: An Inconvenient Truth

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.

In article . com,
says...
Jonathan Cook wrote:

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 don't doubt that there's something going on, but I don't believe the
scientific studies. It has been a while now, but I knew some of the
scientists who were doing the computer simulation models. Even those
doing the modelling admitted that their models were drastically
inaccurate. Tweaking knobs slightly caused wildly different results.
Their models didn't correlate with the observed measurements.

As I'm sure you're aware, those with the most dire published results
receive the most continuing funding.


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

:-) Where I fish, it's unusual to see another human for 1/4 mile in
either direction. Unfortunately it was almost 100 degrees out this
weekend. I took my daughter out fishing Sunday. Every bonehead and
his brother was out drinking and screwing around on my local river.
One guy comes down our section on an inflatable camping mat, climbs out
right in front of my 4 year old. I wanted to go elsewhere, but she
wanted to stay in "her fishing spot." She caught four nice cutts all
on her own.
- Ken

Computer simulations are notoriously unreliable.
They are written by computer programmers (a semi-anti-social
bunch the includes the likes of Tim Walker and me, for example).

A steep and observable rise in atmospheric CO2 is not in dispute
however, nor are thinning ice caps and receding glaciers.
CO2 levels are, by some reports, approaching unprecedented levels.
Is all or any of this a natural phenomenon with no correlation
to fossil fuels? Some correlation? Total correlation?
Only a fool would say there is no correlation.

Global warming has become a political issue because the ideological
right sees it as a threat to (their) ideal of unregulated and
unrestrained business growth (free market capitalism).

Regardless the causes, I wouldn't make any long term real estate
investments in the Bahamas.

wrote in message
...
...I don't doubt that there's something going on, but I don't believe the
scientific studies....

Ah, the beauty of gyromancy!

Wolfgang

Jonathan Cook wrote:
wrote:
Global warming has become a political issue because the ideological
right sees it as a threat to (their) ideal of unregulated and
unrestrained business growth (free market capitalism).

I agree. But we consumers play along, too, not wanting any
impacts on our energy-intensive, affluenza-driven lifestyles...

Most excellent.

"Affluenza"

I will definitely steal that one.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. net...
Jonathan Cook wrote:
wrote:
Global warming has become a political issue because the ideological
right sees it as a threat to (their) ideal of unregulated and
unrestrained business growth (free market capitalism).

I agree. But we consumers play along, too, not wanting any impacts on our
energy-intensive, affluenza-driven lifestyles...

Most excellent.

"Affluenza"

I will definitely steal that one.

You won't be the first:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Wolfgang

In article , says...
wrote:
wanted to stay in "her fishing spot." She caught four nice cutts all
on her own.

Awesome. Probably more fun than any "adult" fishing you've had.

It was until I screwed up. I told her that there was a bigger trout
a couple feet over from where she was casting. She handed me the rod
and told me to catch one of the big ones for her. We only brought her
rod and she refused to take it back until I caught that trout.
Of course I couldn't interest him either......

......it was still a great day!
- Ken

wrote in message
ups.com...

A steep and observable rise in atmospheric CO2 is not in dispute
however, nor are thinning ice caps and receding glaciers.
CO2 levels are, by some reports, approaching unprecedented levels.
Is all or any of this a natural phenomenon with no correlation
to fossil fuels? Some correlation? Total correlation?
Only a fool would say there is no correlation.

All true and correct. Unfortunately, there are many millions of fools.
Note, for example, that global warming has been a very real phenomenon for
well over a century, a matter of great concern to some few thoughtful
individuals for nearly as long, documented fact for decades, and the
scientific literature is voluminous and incontestable.......which is to say
that it's simply been a myth......till now. NOW, we have a movie! It is
just a matter of time till the DVD comes out, at which time it gets on
T.V.......at which time it becomes (at long last) REALLY real!

Global warming has become a political issue because the ideological
right sees it as a threat to (their) ideal of unregulated and
unrestrained business growth (free market capitalism).

That's only a small part of a large complex of reasons. The short version:
global warming is a political issue because it IS real and it is merely the
biggest and most far reaching thing that has confronted our species since
the last recession of the continental ice-sheets.

Wolfgang

Regardless the causes, I wouldn't make any long term real estate
investments in the Bahamas.

wrote:

...PS: I consider myself well-informed,

Yes, of course you do. And that is precisely what makes you such a
scream when you're serious and so excruciatingly dull when trying to be
funny. Get it?

and yes, it is.

Oh no it's not.......not by half.

Wolfgang
who will be happy to provide a hint to the solution to dicklet's
problem........if anybody asks.

--
Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH

I don't doubt that there's something going on, but I don't believe the
scientific studies. It has been a while now, but I knew some of the
scientists who were doing the computer simulation models. Even those
doing the modelling admitted that their models were drastically
inaccurate. Tweaking knobs slightly caused wildly different results.
Their models didn't correlate with the observed measurements.


from memory. I was taking geography course when the initial buzz about
global warming started about 25 years ago. Subsequently I read that
comparisons of actual climatic results to the computer simulations of the
time indicated the results were far more moderate than the predictions.
There is little doubt global warming is taking place. Reliable information
on mean air temperature, rainfall, ocean temperature, glacial movements,
polar ice cap depth and extent have been taken for many decades and these
all indicate "warming". The bigger question is do we know the cause and can
we do anything about it? Is this a relatively short term trend like the
"little ice age" of hundreds of years ago?
The earth and been both signficantly cooler and warmer in prehistory (based
on pollen samples). Temperatures in moderate latitudes were much higher in
the millenium after the official end of the last ice age. So is this just a
natural trend or a man made trend. I'd bet the later is a factor and we'd be
fool not to try to reduce our CO2 output. Conversely I wish I had a buck for
every expert who told me the world was going to end in the next 2 or 3
decades. Still none the less the sunset of our petro based economy is
expected, switching from fossil fuels to alternate sources makes sense long
term in this regard alone.