Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

Grammatron said:
The same way they changed when he was Vice President.
Click to expand...


I don´t know if you live in the US, but doing a wiki search, it seems that during his vicepresidency and before he was pushing programs to raise awareness and initiatives to protect the environment.

During Gore's tenure as Vice President, he was a proponent for environmental protection. On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the worldwide GLOBE program, an innovative hands-on, school-based education and science activity that made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment and contribute research data for scientists.

In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [21] [22]. However, many of these proposals were not enacted by Congress, and/or were not implemented to the satisfaction of critics such as Ralph Nader.[23] In 1998, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia wrote Resolution S. 98 that opposed ratification of the Kyoto treaty, and in turn the Senate voted 95 to 0 against the treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environment
Click to expand...
 
Q-Source said:
I don´t know if you live in the US, but doing a wiki search, it seems that during his vicepresidency and before he was pushing programs to raise awareness and initiatives to protect the environment.
Click to expand...

And his big one, Kyoto, got shot down almost unanimously by the senate while he was VP. Becoming president wouldn't change that.
 
Q-Source said:
I don´t know if you live in the US, but doing a wiki search, it seems that during his vicepresidency and before he was pushing programs to raise awareness and initiatives to protect the environment.
Click to expand...

And how would things be different were he the President? 95 to 0 is quite a shutdown.
 
corplinx said:
Al Gore is releasing a new book on global warming as well as promoting the film where he scours the globe cherrypicking his data to promote his environmental agenda.

Let's take bets now on how many global warming myths and how much pseudoscience Gore serves up?

(for the record, I haven't dont enough research on the subject of global warming to form an opinion about it, I am just anti-bull)
Click to expand...

Have you done any research yet? Or is your post just pro-bull?

Here is the website related to his project:
http://climatecrisis.net/

I notice on this page there is a picture of hurricane katrina or rita:
http://climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm.html



Sounds like a bastion of credible scientific data.

Two people from the Byrd Polar Research Institute are on the scientific advisory panel. Gee, I wonder if they informed Gore that while sea-ice is melting (thus not increasing sea levels) the antarctic icecap is thickening.
Click to expand...

There is your first problem. If you haven't done any research, then you have no idea why what you just said is nonsense.

One member of the scientific advisory panel is merely an MD turned bureacrat. Hillary Clinton summarily dismissed Michael Chrichton's senate testimony about bad global warming advocacy because he was an MD and worse an author.

Looks like it may be fun to pick apart bad advocacy. Here's hoping.
Click to expand...


"Hoping"? Poisoning the well, more likely.
 
Here are a few of the organizations who agree that the current global warming trends are anthropogenic...

-The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
-The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India.
-The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
-The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
-The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement).
-The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
-The Union of Concerned Scientists

A few other facts that those who deny human caused global warming should know..

A study done by Naomi Oreskes to determine the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming analyzed 928 abstracts of papers in peer reviewed scientific journals concluded that 75% of the studies supported anthropogenic global warming and 25% dealt with methods of paelo-climate and taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. NONE of the studies examined disagreed with the consensus that current climate change is human caused.

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

Barnett et al. "Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans" (Science, Vol 309, Issue 5732, 284-287, 8 July 2005), says that current observervations of warming of the oceans cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...oken=478e88391c8e1ff344f98f5f5d3b62bac11e2a12

The atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide and methane have increased by over 30% and 150% above pre industrial levels since 1750. This is much higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years, the period from which we get our ice core data. We haven't had more co2 in our atmosphere since 40 million years ago and 3/4th of anthropogenic emissions of co2 into the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to burning of fossil fuels. The rest is due to mostly deforestation.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/006.htm

90% of glaciers reported to the WGM(World glacier monitoring service) have retreated since 1995.

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/


These are just a few examples. New information is coming in each day and more studies are coming in often and the facts supporting anthropogenic global warming continues to pile up. Making those who deny it more and more fringe and absurd. Here is a article summarizing a study posted yesterday on cnn.com with the title of..

Global warming already killing species, analysis says

"We are finally seeing species going extinct," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. "Now we've got the evidence. It's here. It's real. This is not just biologists' intuition. It's what's happening."
Her review of 866 scientific studies is summed up in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.
Parmesan reports seeing trends of animal populations moving northward if they can, of species adapting slightly because of climate change, of plants blooming earlier, and of an increase in pests and parasites.
Parmesan and others have been predicting such changes for years, but even she was surprised to find evidence that it's already happening; she figured it would be another decade away.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/21/climate.species.ap/index.html
 
Credit goes to Al Gore for bringing this farcical "debate" to an end. Market fundamentalists of varying degrees now feel it's safe to accept the scientific consensus. Compare the intellectual honesty, or "advocacy moments," of Al Gore's film to the propaganda campaign (financed by the energy industry) against him.

Of course as we transition from a discussion of pure science into policy, we should be cautious of the ideologues' suggestions, which will almost invariably insist that global warming is a fait accompli, and the best thing to do is not do anything so that the Holy Market will unleash some brilliant new technology. We just have to have faith. And because of the way they conducted themselves in the first phase -- and turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong -- we should be extremely skeptical of their prescriptions now.


corplinx said:
This is a thread from a long time ago recently resurrected. My views are not necessarily what the same as when that thread was posted.

I do however still claim there are bad advocacy moments in the film. I'm not the only one either.
http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

I would just let this thread rot on the vine much like the film did.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. But remember, Easterbrook is a _New Republic_ douche who has had to do his own backtracking on this issue. He wrote a silly op-ed in the NYT awhile back saying similar stuff.

http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/2006/05/gregg-easterbrook-is-liar-and-fraud.html
 
corplinx said:
This is a thread from a long time ago recently resurrected. My views are not necessarily what the same as when that thread was posted.

I do however still claim there are bad advocacy moments in the film. I'm not the only one either.
http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

I would just let this thread rot on the vine much like the film did.
Click to expand...

So your problem is with Gore and his approach to publicising AGW, which is fair enough, that is a matter of opinion. The facts of AGW appear to be true, though, so even though he is not the most pristine of advocates warning about it, he has in fact been pretty correct on the basic facts these past 20 years. The usual trashing of him was not warranted.
 
Cain said:
Oh, sure. But remember, Easterbrook is a _New Republic_ douche who has had to do his own backtracking on this issue. He wrote a silly op-ed in the NYT awhile back saying similar stuff.

http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/2006/05/gregg-easterbrook-is-liar-and-fraud.html
Click to expand...

There is no evidence yet of imminent rapid change [my emphasis]. But if the higher GCM projections prove to be accurate, substantial responses would be needed, and the stresses on this planet and its inhabitants would be serious.
Click to expand...

As my scientist friend says from the CSIRO, it's not just the immediate changes that are the problem, it's that these changes are going to keep going on. He believes there won't be a runaway effect, bring Earth to a similar condition as Venus, but the changes will be happening for centuries to come.
 
a_unique_person said:
As my scientist friend says from the CSIRO, it's not just the immediate changes that are the problem, it's that these changes are going to keep going on. He believes there won't be a runaway effect, bring Earth to a similar condition as Venus, but the changes will be happening for centuries to come.
Click to expand...


It is the projection stuff like that has me scratching my head. I mean, from what I have read about these models...
 
a_unique_person said:
So your problem is with Gore and his approach to publicising AGW, which is fair enough, that is a matter of opinion. The facts of AGW appear to be true, though, so even though he is not the most pristine of advocates warning about it, he has in fact been pretty correct on the basic facts these past 20 years. The usual trashing of him was not warranted.
Click to expand...

This is why I guess, there was so much "This is me Al Gore" stuff in the film. So he could try and overcome peoples preconcieved notions about him. Being from the UK and not really knowing anything about Al Gore except that he can't spell potato and that "he invented the internet" I can kind of see why he might want some of that in there just to try and get rid of some of that partisan baggage.
 
fsol said:
Being from the UK and not really knowing anything about Al Gore except that he can't spell potato and that "he invented the internet"
Click to expand...
The potato deal was Dan Quayle, GWH Bush's vice president, not Al Gore.

DR
 
Grammatron said:
And how would things be different were he the President? 95 to 0 is quite a shutdown.
Click to expand...

My reply was in reference to your post about Al Gore not doing enough as a vicepresident. I showed you that this was not the case.
Anyway, Al Gore is not the point of the film, he raises very important issues about what´s happening with the Planet. People seem to forget that the most endangered species are us. Many who oppose taking measures to reduce CO emissions think that it is matter of choosing between being environmental friendly or reducing your profits. It is not a choice, either you die or live.
 
a_unique_person said:
What have you read?
Click to expand...

The report of the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Interesting stuff about "flux adjustments". Ask you friend about them, the CSIRO model has a good few apparently so he/she should be familiar with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom