An Inconvenient Truth: Fact or Fiction?!?

Channel 4, here in the UK, on Thursday evening broadcasted an interesting documentary that shunned the whole Global Warming hype that is currently gripping the western world.

So yesterday I decided to go out and purchase (from Smiths for £5![y]) Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, in order to be able to draw my conclusions on the matter.

Anyway I thought I would open up the debate on here- seeing as we are all, by being frequent flyers destroying the world apparently, I felt it would be particuarly apt.


My thoughts:
It is very hard to say who is correct and who isn't Putting my Scientist hat [|:)] on here- there is much speculation in both arguements and no real hard facts
Al Gore et al produced the most conviencing arguement
Regardless of who is correct, I believe we are better to act with best intentions rather than do nothing and then realising we should have done something when its too late

If you haven't seen Al Gore's film do go out and buy/rent it. It is a must see. Regardless of ones political beliefs and views of Gore he is a fantastic speaker and the film was very interesting.

Anyone got any views......

I haven't seen the film as yet but I think we should all be aware of the point that Al Gore is raising and take it very seriously.

Enough to keep us all awake at night!

Yes, Al gore looking out of aircraft windows bemoaning global warming, very astute of him...not!

Originally posted by AlanA
Yes, Al gore looking out of aircraft windows bemoaning global warming, very astute of him...not!

Very true but at least he is doing something about it- which is more than can be said for a lot of other politicans and people in this world.

[Pete]

I've seen both the Al Gore film and the Channel 4 documentary, and I'm tempted to believe the Channel 4 evidence a little more than Gore's glossy Powerpoint slides.

Basically, it would seem, we are going through a process of warming, but not necessarily one caused by humanity.

WISH I had seen the documentary hope they show it again.

I think its all pants personally but I know some people have an opposing view. and some a rather evangelical approach to it.

My view is it is common decency to be careful with ones environment and respect for our planet, however the present politicisation and ranting about an apocolyptic future is ridiculous and untaxworthy

Interesting to see on Fox Mr Gores annual home elelctricity bill is $30,000.

I am not sure he would have been so overtly ecological had he been President, though I am pretty sure he should have been.

Originally posted by easygoingeezer

My view is it is common decency to be careful with ones environment and respect for our planet, however the present politicisation and ranting about an apocolyptic future is ridiculous and untaxworthy

Totally agree with you here EGG.

Everyone should do there bit to look after our planet, although in the back on my mind I think it is just the cycle of the planet.

Mark

I believe An Inconvenient Truth and apparently most respectable scientists do too. To me the evidence is clear. And even if we haven't perhaps contributed to it yet and there's plenty of argument about that, that's no reason to simply ignore what we are doing now. I'd prefer not to ruin our future lives.

Originally posted by easygoingeezer
Interesting to see on Fox Mr Gores annual home elelctricity bill is $30,000.

I am not sure he would have been so overtly ecological had he been President, though I am pretty sure he should have been.

Ew, I can't believe you would trust Fox news with such information..

I feel it necessary to point out that if you research this you will find that all of that energy comes from "The Green Power Switch program" run by the electric company that gets all energy from wind, solar, and methane gas and that about half of the money spent by him is because it costs extra for him to have that service. Also, more electricity is required for security services that most other American's don't have. So there's really no hypocricy here.

Originally posted by VS-EWR
I believe An Inconvenient Truth and apparently most respectable scientists do too. To me the evidence is clear. And even if we haven't perhaps contributed to it yet and there's plenty of argument about that, that's no reason to simply ignore what we are doing now. I'd prefer not to ruin our future lives.

With respect there are an equal number of respectable scientists
who disagree, thats what scientists do debate theories, always have always will.

Respect for the planet your immediate surroundings and fellow human beings is common sence.

The holier than thou approach of some semi eco fanatics is crazy.

I should dearly love to be able to power my home in the same way Mr Gore does, alas politicians here spend more time inventing ways to punish us for living through new forms of tax rather than investing seriously in eco power, then spend the cash on unrelated subjects.

Ew, I can't believe you would trust Fox news with such information..

I feel it necessary to point out that if you research this you will find that all of that energy comes from "The Green Power Switch program" run by the electric company that gets all energy from wind, solar, and methane gas and that about half of the money spent by him is because it costs extra for him to have that service. Also, more electricity is required for security services that most other American's don't have. So there's really no hypocricy here.

Thanks Nick for that information - it always goes to show that anyone who wants to, unquestioningly, soak up the bias of the most powerful news media will get a one-sided view of the world. I can recall how Murdoch's papers in the UK ran all sorts of stupidity in the 80s against Labour, much of which was then demonstrated to be total crap or one-sidedness, but once it was out there people believed it. Fox News just does more of the same.

As for global warming - I am inclined to believe that we humans have pretty much set ourselves on a course of desolating this planet - and our actions have created an imbalance in a natural cycle of events (warming patterns being one). Being a bit of a Darwinist, I hope that some cataclysmic event does happen and humans are reduced to a fraction of our current population, to allow some kind of balance to result, and over a long time period.

hang on Slinky.
Wasn't it Murdoch's papaers taht have given us the abysmal Socialist Government of today, being avid supporters of Bliar?
I would say that the 80's information supplied about Laboiur did not go far enough

Originally posted by easygoingeezer

Originally posted by VS-EWR
I believe An Inconvenient Truth and apparently most respectable scientists do too. To me the evidence is clear. And even if we haven't perhaps contributed to it yet and there's plenty of argument about that, that's no reason to simply ignore what we are doing now. I'd prefer not to ruin our future lives.

Must admit that Scientists do always disagree- just look at the Quantative v Qualitative debate that has been going on for years in areas such as psychology.

But I agree- there is no point in not doing anything, we need to do a little something.

I wonder if this film has had more of an effect on the American people as a whole than it has on English? After all it seems like every day good old Gordon introduces another green tax.

Originally posted by AlanA
hang on Slinky.
Wasn't it Murdoch's papaers taht have given us the abysmal Socialist Government of today, being avid supporters of Bliar?
I would say that the 80's information supplied about Laboiur did not go far enough

My point is, which ever news media you consume, there's always truth to be found elsewhere. And, that some media forms have more power, and their points of view seep into public consciousness more than others, whether they're true or not.

As for did Murdoch give us Labour, well I happen to think that at the time that was a very good thing. If he really did, then perhaps we ought really to go for a Murdoch global dictatorship because he also gave us Maggie's third term, let's cut out the middlemen and women! [}:)][}:)]

seems the tories have decided that regular fliers will be taxed more if they get in, so they are aiming at the business travelers specifically, odd I thought tories were all for business and commerse.

This whole subject has become a political football in this country and at present is onlybeing used for point scoring by all sides.

Sky gave us a nice little interview with a little eco facist telling us we should do this and we shouldn't do that, some of them are beginning to sound like those extreme animal rights protesters, who are these people, at this rate it won't be long before we have balaclavered eco gangs slashing our tyres and threatening us.

Its all getting very silly and in the end actually nothing worthwhile will be done about this global theory untill people stop point scoring or using it as a cash cow.

[Pete]

Originally posted by VS-EWR
I believe An Inconvenient Truth and apparently most respectable scientists do too. To me the evidence is clear. And even if we haven't perhaps contributed to it yet and there's plenty of argument about that, that's no reason to simply ignore what we are doing now. I'd prefer not to ruin our future lives.

You've probably not had the benefit of the insightful Channel 4 documentary (hopefully you'll be able to find a Torrent of it), so you really need to look into statements like "most respectable scientists do" and "the evidence is clear". I too followed the crowd (whipped up in a media frenzy) that global warming is a human problem. The Channel 4 documentary offered an alternative view, with plenty of evidence, which makes me question my previous beliefs.

Originally posted by pixuk
You've probably not had the benefit of the insightful Channel 4 documentary (hopefully you'll be able to find a Torrent of it), so you really need to look into statements like "most respectable scientists do" and "the evidence is clear". I too followed the crowd (whipped up in a media frenzy) that global warming is a human problem. The Channel 4 documentary offered an alternative view, with plenty of evidence, which makes me question my previous beliefs.

Perhaps neither documentary is right - I'm not really taking a stance on those, I'm just describing what I personally believe. And it all comes down to the fact that no matter who's documentary is correct, I'm not goint to stop criticizing people for driving huge SUVs with 5 mpg just to drive to the supermarket...

I thought the Ch4 programme was really good quality. Certainly there is an evangelical movement that would have us all cycling to work and killing global enterprise; a view that is way too simplistic IMHO. The shame of this evangelicalism is that it both turns people off and leads to half-baked, ill considered analysis of the facts. From what I can see, while the situation is complex, there are some 'facts'
1) We are seeing a dramatic increase in green house gasses - CO2 is at 360ppm compared to 280ppm 1000 years ago, methane up to CH4 up to 1750ppb from 750ppb 1000 years ago. Similarly for N2O.
2) There have been similar peaks before. However they have been at much lower levels. For example CO2 hit 290ppm about 150,000 years ago (last highest point). And the rate of increase at the moment is phenomenal compared to history.
3) Northern Hemisphere temperature is higher. A number of studies show this, but Tom Osborn's summary of research is pretty well respected showing a 0.5C increase compared to the last 'hot-spot' and 0.75C over the 1000 year average.
4) But this measures surface temperature not Troposphere. This is a very important distinction as the Troposphere should show a greater increase. We only have relatively recent data on this, so drawing conclusions is difficult. However we are not seeing a greater high level increase in temperature in, say, the lats 150 years. Is this a problem for the green house theory? I am not sure anyone can tell.
5) The mean temperature anomaly (ie where the biggest changes have taken place) is over the north and particularly the developed world - can a conclusion be drawn.
6) We are seeing reasonably dramatic changes in weather patterns now - greater monsoon failure, the trade winds are on average 35% weaker, the northern late summer sea ice is reducing at 8% per decade, the Greenland ice sheet melt area is increasing by 16% since 1979, all but one of the major glaciers are now receding, and average sea levels have risen by 10-20cm per century since the early 16th Century.

There are some pretty cataclysmic predictions made from all this. For example some say that the greenland ice sheet will melt from below and ultimately slide off the land causing a massive and sudden sea level change. I'll believe that when I see it! And there are all the stories about Rhyl being flooded. Well apart from not being clear if that is too much of a problem (;)) I am sure a developed nation like the UK could invest in sea protection to minimise the damage.

However amongst all they hype I do think there is one area to be worried about. Much of the data (both measured results and modelling) points to the wet regions becoming wetter, and the dry drier. The changing weather patterns are certainly affecting seasonal rain fall in some areas where it is critical. We have started seeing this with the Monsoons, and if you have visited the river Jordan it has been pretty much reduced to zero flow with the remaining water being sewage being pumped in by Israel. There has already been unrest caused by the damning activity on the Nile. I for one am very concerned that the areas of the world which we currently see unrest in are also the areas that are hugely dependant on seasonal rainfall, and are developing at a rate that is increasing their water usage rapidly. The thought that these countries may in the future be staved of rainfall, but at the same time may be seeing the country 'up river' from them damning and extracting their water seems like a recipe for future warfare.

So like many previous posters I do not necessarily believe all the predictions. I don't believe the ridiculous predictions. But I do believe something is happening to the climate. And I can very well see that this may lead to wars for water.

And we can't have GJ with no jumpers [:I] [}:)] It's cold outside! [}:)]

I think I first saw "An inconvient truth" on a virgin flight.... and then went and bought the DVD.
I like his opening line "I used to be the next president of the United States".

Aside from the direct message of his documentary, you can't help but wonder if the world would be a very different place today if the courts had ruled in his favour in the 2000 election recounts. I don't doubt that the atrocities of 9/11 would have still happened, but would we have seen a for more considered response, and not one driven by pentagon warmongers and a puppet president?


Back on message... Al Gore certainly delivers the evidence (which is there for all to see) in a convincing and well informed manner.
He certainly has the background and credentials to back him up.

I did an Open Univesity Climate modelling course last year. He is pretty much presenting a lot of the facts that I learnt from that, and I feel only really adding common sense rather than any particular spin to the message.

The "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature rise against atmospheric CO2 is pretty convincing, and they are simple measurements backed up by simple science:

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. It WILL trap heat in the atmosphere.
CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing. This is taking from direct measurement plus a little dose of common sense - Burn fossil fuels at an increasing rate, which have been locking Carbon away for millions of years PLUS cut down larger and larger areas of forest which would normally help remove the CO2 and lock away the carbon again.
It is difficult to deny we are causing a large part of this change in temperature.

Now, the real question is whether the earth, as a closed system, can compensate and bring everything back to a steady state?
Perhaps it can. But it maybe at our expense through droughts, floods, famines and wars.

Originally posted by easygoingeezer
WISH I had seen the documentary hope they show it again.

You can rent it from Channel 4s On-Demand service for 99p (if you're in the UK or Eire). You'll need to download the software first.

You can also find more info on the documentary here.

Personally I think I agree with willd. I'm pretty convinced by the global warming argument but accept that there could still be room for speculation. However I'd rather try to do something about it even if there is nothing in it that do nothing and find out later that it's all true.

Phil FM

Anyone who wishes to read all the scientific debate can find more information on journal websites such as http://www.googlescholar.com and http://www.jstor.org and the like.

Apple did pretty well out of the movie- seemed like every minute we saw the logo.....of course no surprise to see Al Gore is on the board at apple.

Originally posted by PVGSLF
Now, the real question is whether the earth, as a closed system, can compensate and bring everything back to a steady state?

I'm not sure the 'earth' and 'steady state' are mutually compatible. The dinosaurs had their turn, we're having ours; maybe its the insects' turn next?

Originally posted by Ian
... The dinosaurs had their turn, we're having ours; maybe its the insects' turn next?

Or the White Mice [:?]

I like to use the documentary as an example to my electrically challenged wife. I'm forever switching lights off behind her. Now I use the grapical example of the Yangze river delta flooding her home town. Asking her if she wants our apartment to turn into "beach front"?
She's not amused

Originally posted by FamilyMan

Originally posted by easygoingeezer
WISH I had seen the documentary hope they show it again.

You can rent it from Channel 4s On-Demand service for 99p (if you're in the UK or Eire). You'll need to download the software first.

You can also find more info on the documentary here.

Phil FM

It's on More 4 at 10pm tonight