Inconvenient Truth?

Question

Why do so many people talk about the movie here? People saw the movie and have accepted it as truth when there are other sources out there that can say it isn't happeneing as fast. When I researched it, I have found many sources saying that the temperature has only increased by 2 degrees withing the past 200 years. Doesn't seem like much of a deal. Cite sources please.

Answer 1

Wow where to start.

First there is alot of debate about global warming. Real scientists disagree all the time over much simpler things and the debate is constructive to learning the answers.

For example is a Tyrannosaurus a Predator or a Scavenger. We still have an active debate on that.

As for global warming a few items blow my mind when it comes to the "science" of this issue.
We still have a hellova time describing climate change in the seasons each year. This year we were supposed to have loads of hurricanes but guess what no big deal pretty mild season.

Just using anectdotal evidence of disasters is not enough to prove climate change. Katrina was a huge hurricane but it was the tremendous flooding that was really caused by political inaction over the last 50 years dealing with the levy system in New Orleans which really struck the city and destroyed the neigborhoods via flooding.

Whe you consider the amount of politics in this issue and the amount of money tied up in the "science of global climate change" you can just follow the money and social reconstructionists who wish to redistribute the wealth of western countries like the UK and USA to poorly developed nations in Africa and South America. Basically Kyoto is not designed to stop emissions but allow continued emissions at present rates if we purchase CO2 credits to "pollute" from African and South American countries with very little industry. It is all about wealth redistribution. Pollution becomes a export for poor countries. If they were really worried about CO2 they would want to stop pollution not let it continue for a price.

Scientists argue about evolutionary biology, physics, astronomy (Pluto is/isn't a planet) and medical science among others.

I am all for spirited debate but as is the case with Farenheit 9-11 you need only to look below the surface to see the pseudoscience and political ideology in "I Truth" I had to read AlGores book in college when I was getting my BS at Ohio State in Natural Resources.

The politics tends to favor a view and ignore the arguement. People who disagree are called heretics. I am for studying issues and reporting them accurately and without favor.

Remember the Spotted Owl and how it could not survive without old growth? Well what happened? Logging stopped in the NorthWest and the Owls moved to newer growth and nested there they didn't get wiped out. Science was wrong and nature found a way. But not before politicos ended a bustling industry costing thousands of people jobs.

Same with CO2. Trees grow faster in high CO2 atmospheres. Forestry scientists have been studying this for 20 years.

There are several scientific options to reduce heat but they do not require massive lifestyle changes. SO you don't hear about them. Like spreading miocroparticles of reflective dust in the atmosphere. We can do this with planes and the "dust" floats in the atmosphere for years. This reflects sun rays and lower global temps.

It is true a small change can create big problems but a really large volcano can emit more Sulpher dioxide than all the industy ever! The mini ice age from the 1300s to the 1800s was caused by a large volcano. It was pretty devastating but natural and we survived. Check out the National Geographic channel this week about that mini ice age. It lasted till the USA was founded. I am old enough to remember the supposed coming Ice age in the 70s. Then followed by big increases in temp in the 80s.

Such a change as you mentioned also was the harbringer of massive growth in population, increases in agricultural output, improvements in science and medicine, development and utilization of new improved natural resources. I mean we will survive. We can do things if it turns out to be real and I am not convinced it isn't primarily a combination of solar activity and natural processes.

But I am a science teacher and not a reactionary. I am happy to learn new ideas and be prepared for old ones to be proved false.

If you want to walk or take a bus great. Be happy and smile and have a good life but don't take things for granted. I doubt driving my car is gonna kill us all now a meteor hits us and well it is all relative. Like cutting down fat and jogging and then getting hit by a bus and killed. Coming up with better electric cars is great I am all for it but more for being free from foreign oil than global warming. Remember when school teachers taught critical thinking and questioning authority?

Answer 2

Well man, you have definatly NOT payed attention to the movie. If you are so sure of your scientist side and have the right sources, there's no worry, isnt it?
First: As the wind moves worldwide, it warms up and cools down, bringing the temperature to the same level in the role world. But if in the whole world the temp goes up two degrees, it means that in the North Pole the temp. went up another twelve degrees. Second: sources and cientists have always desagreed in many levels. Even the most known. But it's not hard to believe that CO2 have been produced a lot more that it had in the past. If Im sure, in the past there wasnt industries, agrotoxic and polution as there is today.
Problem is, people just ignore it.
Im not saying that polution HAVE to stop. All Im saying is that polution has grown, and we have to take care of it, but still produce, build and live.

Answer 3

I is true that there are contradictory views on the subject. But overall trend is undeniably upward. Its most likely consequence, the erratic and extreme weather conditions is also reality. Establishing a direct cause and effect would not be possible as long as we cant simulate global climate in the lab.
The report of the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change confirms that climate change is a reality and predicts that global average temperatures this century will rise between 2°C and 4.5°C as a result of the doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
The US National Academy of Sciences has said the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable
period in the last 400 years. NASA says that 2005 was the warmest year ever
TO ME IT APPEAR REAL, IT IS HEATING UP and WE NEED TO DO WHATEVER LITTLE WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Answer 4

Renewable energy is not just for those who are concerned about global warming. It can also be for those who want a better residential investment

The key to bringing renewable energy to suburban America is to communicate the concept of how progressive technology combined with innovative architectural design can provide a lower monthly cost of ownership. For example, most people finance their home through a mortgage. If you design a house that will reduce your monthly utility bills by $150 while only increasing your monthly mortgage payment by $50 dollars, you will save money from the day you move in, although your home actually costs more. It’s all about combining the best design practices with sound financial strategies. Check out zeroenergy.com

Ben Uyeda
Chief Architectural Officer Independence Energy Homes
Formerly
Visiting Lecturer, Cornell University Department of Architecture

Answer 5

People talk about the movie here because asking people to comment on the movie was one of the original lures Yahoo used to get people to check out this website.

RE: global warming, a 2 degree temperature increase does not sound like a lot, but the effects could be significant. I don't have all my references handy (I studied Paleontology about 10 years ago), but even small increases and decreases in temperature can cause significant changes in climate and the survivability of flora and fauna.

Please note: if you're going to do any serious research, you have to be able to accept that the planet is more than 4000 years old.

Now, as far as references are concerned, I'd start by reading about some of the following: Scientists have studied things like carbon dioxide bubbles and radioactive isotopes stored in ice floes and other indicative elements trapped in sediments to determine the concentrations of gases in the atmosphere. Sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contain reveal a lot about climate and climate change, so get a recent edition of an Earth history book and give that a once over. In addition, modeling of historical plate tectonics and likely oceanic currents have also been conducted. Some of this should be covered in the Earth history book, but good recent books on plate tectonics may also be useful. I bet if you did a yahoo search on the movie, you'd be able to get tons of other useful references from Gore's website.

I had to take about seven years worth of classes to even begin to get the big picture. All of these different studies are being looked at to determine how things like planetary temperatures, atmospheric conditions, locations of continents, etc. affected sea levels and environments on the surface of the planet.

Most studies indicate that fluctuations in global temperatures are very slow (several degrees per millions of years). Of course, the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs likely cooled the planet very rapidly over the course of only a few years until all the dust and smoke cleared out of the atmosphere.

So, from a geological/paleontological standpoint, heating an entire planet up by two degrees in 200 years (actually, more like 100 years) is a pretty damn big deal. It's hard to imagine how much atmospheric mass, land mass, and water mass is out there, and how much energy it takes to heat that much mass. But it's happening.

And we really need to ask this question when we're researching global warming: When someone's giving their opinion, find out who's signing their paycheck, and their boss' paycheck, and their boss' paycheck.

So, I'm keeping my inland property in Seattle. I'm sure in the next 30 years, I'll have waterfront property. Just in time for me to retire. Everybody, keep driving your SUVs!

Answer 6

There are isolated scientists who question whether man is causing serious excess warming. But the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that is exactly what is happening, and it's likely to cause serious trouble in the future.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"...statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case."

The movie may have been at the upper edge of scientific uncertainty. But it is far more accurate than statements of those who deny global warming is real.

It's actually gone up a bit less than two degrees. But enough to seriously melt land ice in the Arctic. That is raising sea levels, and the trend is almost certain to accelerate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5344208.stm

Both articles have solid data (and give references) to back them up.

And weather is becoming more unsettled. That will hurt agriculture. The costs to deal with these problems are going to be huge.

EDIT: The Arctic thing is getting worse:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm

Answer 7

Just today the UN has backed down on global warming. Time and Newsweek were running articles about the coming global cooling in the 70's. All in all Al Gore is an @ss!

Answer 8

The wattsupwiththat article asks which thought is in problem given that of flat temperatures? The reply is the one who says that local weather is stimulated through just one aspect. Realists are not making this sort of declare approximately carbon dioxide, even though denialists declare that approximately the Sun. OM That sounds just like the emails the East Angia hackers published.

Answer 9

Many people talk about it here? Really? You're the first I've seen talk about it and I'm on here quite regularly.

In my opinion, regardless if global warming is happening or not, it couldn't hurt to reduce emissions in our lives. Generally, animals, including ourselves, can tell what is healthy and good for us, and what isn't by smell. For example, I used to have a cat who goes outside with me whenever I go for a smoke. I remember once she sniffed the smoke and she didn't like it because she knows that it's not good. So if you stick your nose in an exhaust and you don't like the smell, chances are, it's not good for you.

Also, exhaust emissions creates the smog you see in many major cities like Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, and Moscow. It's disgusting and it affects the way you breathe. There are also many more smog-related deaths in the elderly during the summer. Again, it really couldn't hurt to cut back our emissions.

Answer 10

2 Degrees not much of a big deal. hrmm. When the Ocean Temjp rises 1.5degrees we have increased Storm Activity. When the Ocean Tempature Drops by 3degrees the Glaciers form and strat moveing, not a big deal.