Review of Gore Global Warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth"

Americanexpat · #1 (**permalink**) 06-16-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth released to wider audience today.
Friday, 16 June 2006

Tonight I saw the truth.

An Inconvenient Truth opened to a wider movie audience on June 16th. I just got back from the big screen, so here's the dish...

It presents the evidence of what's happening in stunning visual clarity. Factual, scientific evidence. Real scientific facts. Perhaps I'm overstating the factual, but it needs to be done. Many have been tricked to think global warming is a partisan issue or environmental alarmism by chicken littles. It's not, it's real and it's time to act - individually and collectively.

The most amazing evidence in the movie:

The levels of CO2 and temperatures are now measurable for the last 650,000 years from Arctic ice cores.
Looking at the 100 foot long graph reflected on a wall behind Gore you can see both CO2 and temperature go up and down throughout the 6500 centuries in unison. The two are obviously related, the pattern undeniable. You can see several ice ages, and the matching patterns of CO2 and temperature drop during those times. In the last 30-40 years the graph shows CO2 has risen higher than it has ever attained before. Much higher. It's rise is relentless and unprecedented, and the temperature is on the cusp..following right behind.

Rest here: http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/26/1

Scroll down 3/4 way for link to official site list of what you can do to help.

apotropoxy · #2 (**permalink**) 06-17-2006, 09:07 PM

I saw the film tonight. Stunning! ... and fully documented.
Swiftboaters, start your engines.

Americanexpat · #3 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

I saw the film tonight. Stunning! ... and fully documented.
Swiftboaters, start your engines.

Sadly, the swiftboaters are starting their engines.

The term "swiftboating" has become synonymous with lying though, and I know this movie with weather the storm. As you said, it is documented. The science is not being denied thus far, mostly the man himself is being attacked.

Americanexpat · #4 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 03:33 PM

To any who doubt the most troubling science presented by this movie, here's one of many links:

CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm

Quote:

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."
snip
We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker.
"The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation."

Rebellion · #5 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006, 11:26 AM

by climatologists across the globe. Nice alarmist piece of propoganda.

Americanexpat · #6 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

this film has been slammed by climatologists across the globe. Nice alarmist piece of propoganda.

What nonsense. Do you think by repeating a lie it will be true? Give it up, you're damaging your credibility beyond repair.

Rebellion · #7 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americanexpat";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

this film has been slammed by climatologists across the globe. Nice alarmist piece of propoganda.

What nonsense. Do you think by repeating a lie it will be true? Give it up, you're damaging your credibility beyond repair.

Enjoy your crow.

Another lib suckered in by the likes of a left wing movie.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Quote:

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

Mack · #8 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americanexpat";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

this film has been slammed by climatologists across the globe. Nice alarmist piece of propoganda.

What nonsense. Do you think by repeating a lie it will be true? Give it up, you're damaging your credibility beyond repair.

Enjoy your crow.

Another lib suckered in by the likes of a left wing movie.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Quote:

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

That would be "a" climatologist who happens to be across the world. From the prestigious James Cook U...founded in the early 1970's.

Rebellion · #9 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006, 07:49 PM

Geographical location is irrelevant as is the age of the college. Conveniently you missed the several other scientists who agree.

Mack · #10 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

Geographical location is irrelevant as is the age of the college. Conveniently you missed the several other scientists who agree.

So basically you take a handful of testimony from an extreme minority of scientists to justify your belief that global warming isn't caused by humans. Why exactly do you chose to believe the extreme minority? It wouldn't have anything to do with your political party affilitation now would it? You could find well educated and well qualified people to justify just about any position. That doesn't mean your position is intelligent. If 99% of the most educated people think one thing, how smart is it for your thoroughly less educated self to side with the extreme minority? The fact that the article has to go to a no name university in Australia to get an expert to testify against human caused global warming is a clue to how small a minority this group is.

Lets take the the HIV/Aids correlation. Here's some evidence from well educated people that claim hiv does not cause Aids.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/nheuropean.htm

Now...wouldn't I be a little stupid to believe that Aids isn't caused by HIV do to the arguments of a few highly educated individuals who are in the extreme minority in their beliefs?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode