Political Crossfire Forums

[Random Evil Guy]

unfortunately, the movie is supported by science...

An Inconvenient Truth:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/trailer/

[lucidnightmare]

For some reason the film is broken for me.

I assume it's about global warming.If it is true that the waters in the Atlantic are warming it hits close to home for me because i live so close to the beach and have to deal with hurricanes.I've been in 4 already.They are plenty strong enough now.

[Citizendave]

Yes, the link is for a movie about Al Gore and Global Warming.

Quote: Eloquently weaves the science of global warming with Al Gore’s personal history and lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a thoughtful and compelling way. The film is not a story of despair but rather a rallying cry.

Documentary
Rating: PG
In Theatres: May 24th, 2006

I was surprised to see a commercial on CBS by ExxonMobil touting it's relationship with Stanford University. They have given $100 million dollars to that institution to research alternative fuels.

Of course there will be plenty of fighting over the solutions to GW, with different industries pointing fingers at each other, but it looks like the major stakeholders are no longer trying to refute whether or not GW is occurring.

Since this past November, several more studies have concluded that human induced GW is a drastic and gathering reality. I predict the skeptics on this site (lunkheads that they are - God love 'em) are going to keep whining about solar fluctuations and scientific groupthink. This debate is going to leave them behind, and I'm going to enjoy watching it happen.

[Random Evil Guy]

lucidnightmare wrote: For some reason the film is broken for me.

I assume it's about global warming.If it is true that the waters in the Atlantic are warming it hits close to home for me because i live so close to the beach and have to deal with hurricanes.I've been in 4 already.They are plenty strong enough now.

yes, it is a trailer for al gore's movie on global warming. i think it will cause quite the stir when it comes out...

[lucidnightmare]

I'm a conservative and no fan of Al Gore but I still believe in reasonable environmentalism.There have been drastic weather shifts in the past that have wiped out millions, and like I said,I live on the coast and the water warming a few degrees has real consequences to me,it could mean the difference between getting hit with a cat 3 or cat 5 hurricane.

The gulf stream is another problem,if fresh water were able to shut it down it would be catastrophic.It has to be looked at objectively and scientifically,politics of both parties be damned.

[Citizendave]

Quote:
no fan of Al Gore


If he turns out to have been correct on GW, there's a whole bunch of conservatives who are going to be questioning their "gut instincts." They have GW pegged as a non-issue conjured up by a bunch of money hating academics. But then again, it could end up being like the Vietnam War with many conservatives just unwilling to admit that the hippie freaks were correct.

As to the politics, I agree, politics normally carries the day regarding the environment. America is perfectly willing to fritter away a few species here and there, and eat, wash with, and breathe all manner of chemicals (are you aware of the "Latex Count?" You are breathing tire particles from the wheels of all the cars. Enjoy!)

But the question of global warming is not your typical environmental delimma:
1) The majority of Americans (leaders as well too I think) are listening to the scientists and believe it is happening.
2) When America starts considering how to regulate CO2 output, it's going to be a titanic political fight.

I think GW should get it's own forum here a Political Crossfire. The issue is more important than who can work where, who can marry who, or even, if you take the long view, our response to terrorism.

[ieatfood]

another alarmist documentary
i have come to the conclusion that documentaries cannot be trusted
i have not seen a single documentary that has provided an unbiased, balanced view of any issue, ever

documentaries are all one-sided dishonest presentations of a very narrow point of view--they use special cinematographic techniques to manipulate the emotions of viewers. I do not appreciate sitting there for 2 hours while someone tries to manipulate me with clever editing and purposeful music/sound effects. Some people are gullible and fall for such tricks. Not me. By far the most powerful propaganda tool one can have is a camera and an editing room.

there are so many considerations in this debate that the documentary ignores
if anyone really wants to learn the facts behind global warming, this movie is a waste of time

if you really want to leaern about an issue--read about it
going to see a movie thinking that you will educate yourself is just being naiive.

[Winchester]

ieatfood wrote: another alarmist documentary
i have come to the conclusion that documentaries cannot be trusted
i have not seen a single documentary that has provided an unbiased, balanced view of any issue, ever

documentaries are all one-sided dishonest presentations of a very narrow point of view--they use special cinematographic techniques to manipulate the emotions of viewers. I do not appreciate sitting there for 2 hours while someone tries to manipulate me with clever editing and purposeful music/sound effects. Some people are gullible and fall for such tricks. Not me. By far the most powerful propaganda tool one can have is a camera and an editing room.

there are so many considerations in this debate that the documentary ignores
if anyone really wants to learn the facts behind global warming, this movie is a waste of time

if you really want to leaern about an issue--read about it
going to see a movie thinking that you will educate yourself is just being naiive.

Well said. :clap:

[Citizendave]

Any particular documentary might carry more wieght than any article or book, but I would assert that journalists and authors are unbiased as well.

Scientific research is biased when you consider that a hypothesis is designed to test one thing or another.

Even so, the Gore haters of the world are going to have to swallow it whole: stinky old Gore was right on Global Warming all along. (Isn't it awful?!)

[Winchester]

Citizendave wrote: Any particular documentary might carry more wieght than any article or book, but I would assert that journalists and authors are unbiased as well.

I'm assuming you meant biased. If so, yes they are and that is what makes it difficult to sort through what are truths, what are half truths, and what are outright lies or wishful thinking based on ignorance.

[ieatfood]

Citizendave wrote: Any particular documentary might carry more wieght than any article or book, but I would assert that journalists and authors are unbiased as well.

Scientific research is biased when you consider that a hypothesis is designed to test one thing or another.

Even so, the Gore haters of the world are going to have to swallow it whole: stinky old Gore was right on Global Warming all along. (Isn't it awful?!)

science is not biased--no one takes hypotheses as truth--it only becomes hard science if there is evidence for it

and sure, books and articles are biased all the time
but its a bit different because you cant be as easily manipulated by a book or article. Sure, someone can use words that spin things this way or that. But it can only go so far. A documentary uses far more powerful tools of propaganda--such as strategic editing or purposefully timed music or sound to manipulate the emotions of people.

This is why documentaries are far more sinister tools of propaganda.

[Citizendave]

Winchester - quite right I meant BIASED. I have a theory that everyone is biased, and I think the idea of an unbiased news outlet is impossible. I remember about the big fear in the late 1980's, the Japanese were going to buy up all of our skyscrapers.


ieatfood - only a fraction of the money used to research GW has been devoted to the possibility that solar fluctuations are causing it. Like a police detective who sees a likely suspect, science has honed in on CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer, but to those who aren't, that is the sort of thing construed as bias.

Your point is well taken about documentaries. Frequently the same person shooting the footage does the research, interviewing and editing. Even it it's a small team of people, they are like minded.

But if you were to stack up all of the influence that documentaries have had on the issue of GW, and balance it against what print journalism has done, the documentaries wouldn't count for much. Newspapers are the outlet that have hammered away on the issue for the last decade. They bought into the idea early, and have stuck with it. TV has given it the short shrift, but then again they run car ads 24/7, so it's remarkable that they acknowledge it at all.

Is GW a reality? I don't know coz I'm not God, but GW will be the basis for actualizing government policy. Big oil has failed to shout down the idea of GW down.

[ieatfood]

Citizendave wrote:


ieatfood - only a fraction of the money used to research GW has been devoted to the possibility that solar fluctuations are causing it. Like a police detective who sees a likely suspect, science has honed in on CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer, but to those who aren't, that is the sort of thing construed as bias.

Your point is well taken about documentaries. Frequently the same person shooting the footage does the research, interviewing and editing. Even it it's a small team of people, they are like minded.

But if you were to stack up all of the influence that documentaries have had on the issue of GW, and balance it against what print journalism has done, the documentaries wouldn't count for much. Newspapers are the outlet that have hammered away on the issue for the last decade. They bought into the idea early, and have stuck with it. TV has given it the short shrift, but then again they run car ads 24/7, so it's remarkable that they acknowledge it at all.

Is GW a reality? I don't know coz I'm not God, but GW will be the basis for actualizing government policy. Big oil has failed to shout down the idea of GW down.

did I ever say that GW is not caused by CO2?

No.

That's not where the propaganda is. Science has clearly shown that humans releasing CO2 is the cause of global warming.

The propaganda occurs when people say that global warming will lead to the total anihilation of the earth. The most advanced climate models show no such thing. In fact, those models show that countries like the US will likely be affected only minimally.

Propaganda also occurs when people overestimate what can be done to stop GW. For example, even if the US passed Kyoto, it does NOTHING to stop global warming. Nothing at all.

As for documentaries, I agree that they exert an insignificant influence on public opinion. I just hope it stays that way.

[Citizendave]

Frankly, as a believer in GW, I can forgive the more dire spin. I guess it's like being a Republican and believing that "Sadam must go," and so what if the administration tells a few whoppers to get the job done.

As for those computer models, I've read different things about them. I don't think they've been able to replicate (retroactively predict) climate as well as you are implying. In other words, when they plugged in data for May of 1998, they did not generate the world climate conditions which were recorded for June, July and August (and so on) of 1998 ( the dates are my example).

I did read an article in the New Yorker where a model did perform (predict) correctly. The same article explained that the models are composed of hundreds of thousands of lines of code. That does not inspire me with confidence, I do not believe any computer model will ever be able to predict weather, but if so I'd like to know if any tornados are going to hit Kansas City in the vicinity of 50th street in the upcoming years (I plan to live about 40 more).

If those models worked as well as you imply, we'd be hearing not just more about them, we'd be hearing ALOT about them. I just finished the 30 page write up on GW in Newsweek and I don't remember them being mentioned at all. [April 3rd 2006]

As for Kyoto, cutting back on CO2 is (obviously) going to be a human endeavor, and it is our habit to learn through failure. I see Kyoto as a good thing which America should sign onto because it is an international treaty which states the proper intention. When it fails, the world community can examine why, then do Kyoto II. Sometimes you have to mess up in order to clean up.

[ieatfood]

Citizendave wrote: Frankly, as a believer in GW, I can forgive the more dire spin. I guess it's like being a Republican and believing that "Sadam must go," and so what if the administration tells a few whoppers to get the job done.

that's a bit dishonest, isnt it?
lying and propaganda is ok when you agree with the conclusion?


Citizendave wrote:

If those models worked as well as you imply, we'd be hearing not just more about them, we'd be hearing ALOT about them. I just finished the 30 page write up on GW in Newsweek and I don't remember them being mentioned at all. [April 3rd 2006]

models aren't perfect but they're the best we got
ever hear of predictions saying that the temperature will rise X degrees in the next 100 years? that's from the models.

without models, we won't know if the warming will be 0.2 or 20 degrees. Thus, the entire claim of global warming is based on models. Without models, you can't claim that we need to stop global warming since we wouldn't even know if global warming would occur.

Citizendave wrote: As for Kyoto, cutting back on CO2 is (obviously) going to be a human endeavor, and it is our habit to learn through failure. I see Kyoto as a good thing which America should sign onto because it is an international treaty which states the proper intention. When it fails, the world community can examine why, then do Kyoto II. Sometimes you have to mess up in order to clean up.

Even if the US were to sign onto Kyoto, it would prevent global warming by 0 degrees. This is because Kyoto is set to expire in about 10-15 years. But even if Kyoto were extended for 100 years, it would only delay the impacts of warming by about 5-6 years at an estimated cost of $100 billion per year.

[Pebble]

Quote: The propaganda occurs when people say that global warming will lead to the total anihilation of the earth. The most advanced climate models show no such thing. In fact, those models show that [b]countries like the US[b] will likely be affected only minimally.

The sooner that the US realises that it is not the only country in the world the better.

[Random Evil Guy]

as for the accuracy of climate models:

Quote: In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.

"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."

as you can see, the scientific debate is as good as done. the consensus is clear; humans are the primary cause of global warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

[Citizendave]

ieatfood wrote: that's a bit dishonest, isnt it? lying and propaganda is ok when you agree with the conclusion?

Shindler lied to save those Jews, and I support what he did. Look, Dow Jones is a junkie who would sell his gandmama for 10 cents at 6% APR. I happen to view life as a game of collisions.

ieatfood wrote: models aren't perfect but they're the best we got
ever hear of predictions saying that the temperature will rise X degrees in the next 100 years? that's from the models.


Right, and I thought it over this morning, and my saying that Newsweek did not talk about Models in a 30 page article, that did not sound right. I flipped about 2 pages and I saw a reference to a model. But here's the catch:

Quote:

from page 39 of Newsweek the graphic says:

"Global average sea-level rise, in meters Projections of several models"

[I'll describe the graphic]

The years go from the year 2000 to 2100. The results of 5 models are presented.

The first model predicts between 10 to 21 cm of sea level rise. The next model predicts from 21 cm to 32 cm sea level rise. Model #3 predicts from 32 to 50 cm in rise. #4 from 50 cm to 70 cm. #5 from 70 cm to 85 cm.


As I typed up that description I noticed something. Wouldn't it be possible to have the different models OVERLAP?? I mean, the way this graphic is presented, the different models come together perfectly.

Having said all that, I feel the need to re-iterate, just because the models have a HUGE variance regarding what they predict in terms of sea-level rise over the next 100 years, that does not mean that GW is not happening. They all point to a rise, we need to take action, C02 is the culprit, and we would have been better off if Gore or Kerry had been elected.

Random Evil Guy wrote: as you can see, the scientific debate is as good as done. the consensus is clear; humans are the primary cause of global warming.


The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly clear, I agree with you 100%, thanks for the link.

I re-read about the Feb 2005 research results and I remember when that all came out. I find myself trying to reconcile the scientist's references to "the model" in your article to the wildly disparate Newsweek sea level predictions I summarized above. I don't know if these are the same models.

Quote: Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice.

At any rate, the models were employed to replicate the effect of CO2 on rising ocean temps over a 40 year period, and they did so correctly. The best thing I like about the article is that the scientist is speaking very DIRECTLY. In so many of the other articles, if you look closely, the scientists pepper their statements with circumspect language.

[ieatfood]

Citizendave wrote: ieatfood wrote: that's a bit dishonest, isnt it? lying and propaganda is ok when you agree with the conclusion?

Shindler lied to save those Jews, and I support what he did. Look, Dow Jones is a junkie who would sell his gandmama for 10 cents at 6% APR. I happen to view life as a game of collisions.

but if you have to lie to convince others of your cause, what does that say about your cause?



Citizendave wrote:

Having said all that, I feel the need to re-iterate, just because the models have a HUGE variance regarding what they predict in terms of sea-level rise over the next 100 years, that does not mean that GW is not happening. They all point to a rise, we need to take action, C02 is the culprit, and we would have been better off if Gore or Kerry had been elected.


i agree--but i think that leaves more questions than answers
the question is how much sea-level rise?
how much will it cost to prevent such rise?
versus
how much will it cost to adapt to sea-level rise?

the answers to these questions determine if action should be taken

from what I have researched, the costs of global warming abatement are generally greater than the benefits
Citizendave wrote:

The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly clear, I agree with you 100%, thanks for the link.

the scientific consensus is very clear, but the economic consensus does not exist
there is no consensus that global warming abatement is cost-effective
without an economic consensus, i am not sure i can support action to stop global warming
Citizendave wrote:
I re-read about the Feb 2005 research results and I remember when that all came out. I find myself trying to reconcile the scientist's references to "the model" in your article to the wildly disparate Newsweek sea level predictions I summarized above. I don't know if these are the same models.

i am talking about temperature models--they model the rise in temperature--not sea level
the temperature models are in much more agreement than the sea-level models
it is much easier to forecast temperature than sea-level
thus, there is a scientific consensus that warming will occur
there is not as much consensus as to what this warming will cost society, which I think is the more important question in deciding whether warming abatement policies are a good idea

the debate is actually quite more complex than most green liberals realize
for example, we have to take into account the discount rate
one dollar today may be worth 100 dollars in the year 2100
so, if we spend $100 billion today to prevent something from hapenning in the year 2100, the calculations of cost-benefit ratios get really interesting.

[Citizendave]

I've gotten to this point of the discussion before (how much should we reduce, exactly what are we risking?) and I have no big ideas here.

I do have a question for you though: since most of the economic loss is going to be associated with loss of land due to sea level rise (isn't it???), and predictions by the models vary so much, what do we gain by guessing about what the losses will be to the world economy?

What will the loss be if sea level rises 9 cm? What if 75 cm? Heck, I'd like to be all pragmatic about this, but there's just too much we can't know. I think that's why liberals such as myself would rather look at this problem in terms of "what is the earth doing," what should it be doing, and can we cut back on CO2 so that the system "goes back into balance." If we can't exactly get it back into balance for financial reasons, let's get it as close as we can.

I think many of the same conservatives who denounced global warming, and plenty of those indicted the character of people who believed it, will grasp at anything to mitigate the reality that businesses of all sizes are about to confront: government is going to have to regulate CO2 output.

ieatfood wrote: but if you have to lie to convince others of your cause, what does that say about your cause?

If it's do or die, and the "do" is lie, it is best to lie. I would rather the press throw around an occasional frightening prediction on the issue of GW. If the situation gets a low amount of attention, there won't be any action.