An inconvienient truth

[tom3]

Often wondered how Mr. Gore would have been as president. Considering the moron we have currently, a vast improvement for sure.

[fredjacksonsan]

OK this thread's a bit old, but I've finally found the time to view the movie.

A couple of thoughts:

Although only certain indicators were chosen to be aired in the move, I don't doubt that the scientific measurements are correct in showing that temperatures are higher than maybe they ever has been, and CO2 is incredibly way higher than ever it was, at least as far back as can be measured (600,000 years).

While the temperature may vary somewhat and we could possibly be on the upper end of what might be normal, the CO2 is pretty damn high, and climbing.

One thing that I'd like to know: what is the amount of Oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere now, as compared to before? After all, we breathe O2 and exhale CO2. If O2 has been depleted, then we are in big trouble. If there's just more CO2 and O2 has remained stable, then not so much.

I found this article:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/atoxfall.htm

which states, in part, that there is a miniscule reduction in O2 in the atmosphere.

Now I'd agree that a miniscule change doesn't necessarily mean anything, so it could be argued that the O2 hasn't changed.

However anyone that has taken a basic chemistry class (or become familiar with pool chemistry) knows that with some chemical reactions there can be a large capacity to absorb certain chemicals or changes, but once a certain point is reached -boom!- a rapid change occurs.

I'd rather not experience a global "boom", whatever that would entail.

Since our atmosphere can be considered one huge chemical reaction, might it be the best thing to keep it balanced, or as close to balanced as it has been for the last 600,000 years?

Sure, we're putting out more CO2. But we're also cutting down forests and removing the planet's ability to cope with that CO2. The oceans can take it, but for how long? Do they have infinite capacity or is there some point at which the chemicals being put into the oceans will overcome whatever chemical buffers there are? I'm thinking we're on a slippery slope here.

I was especially interested in the extras I found on the DVD. More in depth and a bit more explanation about some of the phenomena, like the coral reefs and the problems they're experiencing.

Definitely food for thought.

[drunken monkey]

just posting to offer a counterpoint to the globabl warming debate.

link to channel 4 documentary page.

[Dyno247365]

I don't know much but I'm getting on the soapbox:
There's a huge difference in believing that SUVs cause global warming and that global warming is here. If you don't believe global warming is getting worse then if you haven't watched this move, watch it with an open mind, and if you still don't like what you hear, make some friends with some scientists where their job is monitoring our planet's heat 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and years and years, but most importantly, and I do mean most importantly, how it will adversely affect us if we don't do SOMETHING.

gets off the soapbox.

[drunken monkey]

for those too lazy to click the link and read the brief run-down of what was in the documentary:

it is looking very unlikely that CO2 itself, let alone human produced CO2 is the cause of the apparent rise in earth surface temperatures.
ergo; the oft cited "we need to cut carbon emmissions" is a load of bull.
in short, "global warming" isn't caused by humans and it isn't what you think it is.

of course, this doesn't change the fact that accessible resources (fossil fuels) are in the decline which is a different debate entirely.

[VR43000GT]

Originally Posted by Dyno247365

I don't know much but I'm getting on the soapbox:
There's a huge difference in believing that SUVs cause global warming and that global warming is here. If you don't believe global warming is getting worse then if you haven't watched this move, watch it with an open mind, and if you still don't like what you hear, make some friends with some scientists where their job is monitoring our planet's heat 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and years and years, but most importantly, and I do mean most importantly, how it will adversely affect us if we don't do SOMETHING.

gets off the soapbox.

I have seen my fair share of global warming preaching and the causes before I had any decision of what I thought was happening. However, b/c of what some scientists think is happening does not mean that that is what is happening. And please keep an open mind to the fact that this might be the regular warm cycle that we might be in that has been going on for millions of years.

[drunken monkey]

again, for those who haven't gone through the link I gave.

the main premise of Inconvenient Truth is that graph illustrating the CO2 levels over time matches the shape and trends the graph illustrating temperature. The thing that the Channel 4 documentary points out is that Al Gore's premise that temperature is going up as CO2 goes up is wrong. It is, if you look at the actual numbers instead of just the comparative shape, you'll see that the relationship between the two are the wrong way around. It is that CO2 goes up when the temperature goes up; i.e the temperature increase is what is causing the increase in CO2. The Graphs (the same graphs) show that there is at times, a 800 year lag betwen the Temperature and the CO2.

There are also other factors that show that it isn't CO2, let alone human produced CO2 that causes "global warming", one being that during a boom period of industrial growth (CO2 production) when there should be a corresponding increase in temperature increase, the temperature went down for approx. 40 years.
There are also other hot periods (where temperatures are higher than today) in history when CO2 production was nowhere near what it is today.

Again, in short, it is looking like that the "fact" that is forced onto us that Global Warming is caused by CO2 AND that it is because of man made CO2, is a lie.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

again, for those who haven't gone through the link I gave.

the main premise of Inconvenient Truth is that graph illustrating the CO2 levels over time matches the shape and trends the graph illustrating temperature. The thing that the Channel 4 documentary points out is that Al Gore's premise that temperature is going up as CO2 goes up is wrong. It is, if you look at the actual numbers instead of just the comparative shape, you'll see that the relationship between the two are the wrong way around. It is that CO2 goes up when the temperature goes up; i.e the temperature increase is what is causing the increase in CO2. The Graphs (the same graphs) show that there is at times, a 800 year lag betwen the Temperature and the CO2.

There are also other factors that show that it isn't CO2, let alone human produced CO2 that causes "global warming", one being that during a boom period of industrial growth (CO2 production) when there should be a corresponding increase in temperature increase, the temperature went down for approx. 40 years.
There are also other hot periods (where temperatures are higher than today) in history when CO2 production was nowhere near what it is today.

Again, in short, it is looking like that the "fact" that is forced onto us that Global Warming is caused by CO2 AND that it is because of man made CO2, is a lie.

I believe your sources and I feel they have done credited research to help support their backing. No matter what thou, there will be reports of scientific value that end with conclusions that back either way...which mainly is whether or not we (humans) contriubute to the "global warming" phenomenon that many see and most scientist conclude that is actually happening in our present day. Now I can't conclude through research to say that either is wrong or right.... The earth could possibly be percieved in a manner that it itself is a living and breathing foundation (kinda like the constitution...in a sense) with no predefined boundries and unknown outcomes of what will be. I'm not asking you to sway to a certain side of an arguement by any means. Each persons view and perception of the world is infinately valuable and each person is entitled to their own thoughts. This is what makes us dynamic and fluid...enabling us to understand our situation not only as a short term period, but also in a long term panoramic view. I'm only here to forward my dialogue.... perspective.

In no other time I feel I can safely say that things have been changing more rapidly than they have now. We have built a incredibly sophisticated world. Utilizing gadgets and widgets that have never been on our world, replicated prior. We are the masters...the dominate figure tenfold. Most people conclude that it is because of our superior intelligence that we have found ways to quite literally civilize every inch of the world. We can build homes to weather the elements and define a primary living space. Build factories that produce and tease the ever growing scarcity or our needs and wants. We can even defy the boundries our world to study and quite literally, experience the space around it. But the laws of energy still bind us to everything that we achieve. We pump the black blood that provide these very things. We chop down and toxicate the backbone that provides the air that keeps us alive. Not only do we do this, but everyday we burn these into the air...further compromising the quality and outcome that in turn, we consume with each take of breath we breathe.

Can we really say with abosolute certainty that we don't contribute at all to the dynamic changes of the world? We can see the great wall of china from space. I can visibly look up in the sky and see the hazy air quality in LA. Is this a natural and unexplainable outcome of mother nature? Or..is it possible that we could actually be just another factor thats contributing to this unexplainable situation?

[drunken monkey]

again, more info from the documentary and something for those of you interested to google:

the documetary explored other possible causes for changes in Earth's temperature and the likely candidate that they concerntrated on was the Sun; more specifically sunspot activity.

again, to clarify and to reiterate something said by one of the scientists on the documentary;
this isn't to say that global warming is happening; just that it isn't caused by CO2 levels and especially not CO2 created by man.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

again, more info from the documentary and something for those of you interested to google:

the documetary explored other possible causes for changes in Earth's temperature and the likely candidate that they concerntrated on was the Sun; more specifically sunspot activity.

again, to clarify and to reiterate something said by one of the scientists on the documentary;
this isn't to say that global warming is happening; just that it isn't caused by CO2 levels and especially not CO2 created by man.

Well let's hope it's not the CO2 that's causing it. Because the planet is definitely warming.:

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/...=wxcenter_news

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Dyno247365

I don't know much but I'm getting on the soapbox:
There's a huge difference in believing that SUVs cause global warming and that global warming is here. If you don't believe global warming is getting worse then if you haven't watched this move, watch it with an open mind, and if you still don't like what you hear, make some friends with some scientists where their job is monitoring our planet's heat 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and years and years, but most importantly, and I do mean most importantly, how it will adversely affect us if we don't do SOMETHING.

gets off the soapbox.

Do SOMETHING? Like what? How can we reverse something that we have NO control over as much as we like to believe. The only thing to stop the global warming is to make the sun stop behaving the way it is. Not gonna happen. Otherwise, we adapt. And we will. We have before and we will again.

The channel 4 broadcast is right, all this global warming bullshit has become so politically charged, you cna't make real arguments anymore. You're either on the goddamn bandwagon, or else you're a planet hating heretic that deserves to be burned at the stake. Yet, 30 years ago, scientists were warning aobut a global cooling trend, and the the end of the world is near. Global warming was laughable.

Christ. With the amount of stupidity going around, only getting worse with modern sensationalist media, i'll be suprised if this goddamn race makes it another 100 years. The biggest stories in the news is the global warming bullshit (as evidenced by the hurricanes and such... from the el nino effect of the ocean, but i guess that was last decades news eh?) and anna nicole smith. While real news doesn't even get published.

Next time one of the environmentalist parades happens in boston, i'm going to make it a point to find a catless RX-7, run 2-stroke oil in my gas (its good for the motor) and just sit there and rev. Maybe find someone with a barely running old diesel and REALLY tick those hippies off.

[drunken monkey]

you can't do anything until you know what really is going on and that is the biggest problem here; we don't really know what is going on.

[Steel]

Precisely.

[drunken monkey]

regarding some of the sources in the channel 4 program:
if i recall correctly, most of those interviewed are experts in their field (i know....) having oxford, cambridge, MIT, etc backgrounds and lecture at all of these institutions. Most of them have also at one time been on the IPCC but because they have found that the IPCC seem to be pushing the agenda of reducing carbon emmisions instead of researching the situation, they have removed themselves from the board.

However, it is also mentioned that the IPCC board (the "thousands" of scientists and experts you keep hearing being mentioned) aren't made up of just scientists. Instead, anyone having anyone that has anything to do with the subject be they polititians or scientists or lobbyist can be listed and even some who have left the board and are now opposed to the idea that CO2 causes global warming are still being listed by the ipcc as being members.