There is no question that Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful example of how scientific knowledge can be communicated to a lay audience. What is up for debate is whether it accurately presents the scientific argument that global warming is caused by human activities. Climate change experts express their opinions on the scientific validity of the film’s claims in articles just published online in Springer’s journal, GeoJournal.
The papers in GeoJournal agree that it does an excellent job of raising public awareness of man-made global warming and explains why increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to warming.
They also agree that its main weakness is that it tries to use individual extreme events, such as Hurricane Katrina, to prove the existence of global warming.
In the first opinion piece, Eric Steig from Washington University states that the film gets the fundamental science right. The minor factual errors do not undermine the main message of the film…
There are several articles in the GeoJournal [registration, subscription]. True Believers who reject peer-reviewed science will continue to be upset.
#1–J==you almost have it right in that what is written/meant is not spelled out so completely that it cannot be missed by those ignorant of the standard construct of language, or misused by those who do.
“Rich People” describes the majority of those behind/causing political issues==it does not describe rich people as a group.
Please understand this, or stop misusing it==whatever your case is.
No matter how many “Think Global” bumper stickers one sees, it’s just not easy for most people to do that, considering how in ancient times the ‘world’ was pretty much bounded by small areas as far as folks were concerned, and apparently that old instinct or behavior or whatever you want to call it continues on.
But then it’s also hard not to think that _some_ kind of negative results could eventually happen from industrial activities on such a vast scale, but what will they be, exactly? Apparently not even giant computers can predict the giant future very well (considering all those pesky unseen variables, etc).
If there were a sudden natural disaster of global proportions, I’m sure we’d all have to address the situation quickly. But if our own bad habits (magnified by enormous populations) do indeed cause eventual widespread strife, perhaps it would be more slow-acting, giving everyone a chance to learn how to deal with it, whatever it is. Here’s hoping…
Seems to me that while some of the conclusions in the film were questionable. The facts presented in general were not. Facts; that glaciers and polar ice are melting fast, CO2 is on a steep increase, desertification is on the the rise, etc.. – to claim that this isn’t scary is living in denial.
We need to stop worrying about whose fault it is and start asking ourselves where this is leading and what can be done about it.
Frigging naysayers, where were they when scientists were saying that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen – trying to convince the everyone to be calm, that it’d be too expensive to fix.
#30–Pat==how will societies be harmed? I’m thinking going green will open up all kinds of good jobs across many sectors of the society perhaps even creating a renewed middle class in America rather than be concentrated in a few international corporations. Isn’t that what you are actually against???
#36 – “how will societies be harmed? I’m thinking going green will open up all kinds of good jobs across many sectors of the society perhaps even creating a renewed middle class in America”
So, you didn’t study Econ OR Engineering in college? What DID you study?
#8 – dusan maletic,
It seems that you think that other planets warming indicates that all warming on earth is caused by increase solar radiation.
Here’s a question for you, with Venus being 3 times hotter than Mercury, as measured in degrees kelvin, despite being farther from the sun, how do you explain the temperature difference?
CO2 is the explanation.
If you understand and accept this, as you well should, then answer this:
How on Earth (literally and as an emphatic expression) could one possibly believe that doubling the CO2 here on Earth would not be a huge factor in causing global warming?
#29 – Well, we fought wars for oil when global cooling was the concern==so I’d say “nothing.”
If we fight over oil, water, maybe next its air, who knows, but if we fight over it we are fighter over environmental issues. As we grow, expand, and consume, the environment and the economy become more and more closely intertwined.
It doesn’t matter if Global Warming, per se, is valid or not. The shifts in climate and the changes in the environment are real, and indisputable, and at the center of conflict.
That is the connection.
It ain’t the whole thing, but you just wanted to know what global warming has to do with peace. That’s it. It’s an issue in the swirling vortex of issues that drive global conflict.
There was no trick in my rhetorical question and I am not implying any answers to the global warming questions often argued here…
And I never accused you of being in Mensa 🙂
# 33 bobbo
“you almost have it right in that what is….”
No I have it completely right. “Rich people” means “All Rich people” unless otherwise stated. You are so bad with misusing words and spelling you are no one to tell others about the contract of language. LOL”
“Rich People” describes the majority of those behind/causing political issues”
Wrong again. The big problem is the average Joe that won’t change the way they behave and continue on a selfish path of self indulging
BTW, don’t forget to check out Gore’s latest slideshow.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243
In this one, he points out that data shows that the stratosphere is cooling and the lower atmosphere is warming. This is exactly what one might expect from a blanket of CO2 keeping warmth in the lower atmosphere and preventing it from warming the stratosphere.
It is also exactly the opposite of what one might expect if the bulk of the warming were caused by increased solar radiation.
This is not to say that solar radiation is not high right now and making matters worse. However, most peer reviewed publications show that it is causing 5-15% of our observed global warming. A few say as high as 30%. Even at this extreme, it still leaves humans responsible for at least 70% of all warming. So, don’t expect an ice age when the radiation declines.
I think when all is said and done, decades from now, Global Warming will seen as the biggest sham in modern history.
>>I think when all is said and done, decades
>>from now, Global Warming will seen as the
>>biggest sham in modern history.
Well. Now THERE’S a compelling argument. “gquaglia said” thinks it’s a sham. Fuck all the peer-reviewed scientific research, fuck the overwhelming consensus to the contrary, fuck the fact that all the naysayers are paid shills of the military-industrial complex; “gquaglia said” thinks it’s a sham.
Mission accomplished.
# 41 # 42 Misanthropic Scott
Good links. To answer one of the questions you posted. Not that you already don’t know the answer. lol
“So, if climate change is already causing one war, how long before the conflicts increase in area and intensity as more people starve or die of thirst?”
NOT LONG!!!
#39–OFTLO==once you place global warming and the Peace prize into the context of a “swirling vortex of issues” no one can disagree with you. Kudos.
I could probably never get into Mensa. Try as I might, I never understand how to answer a double negative. I hope that’s genetic so I can add it to the list of things to blame my parents for, rather than myself.
#40–J==you strike me as too young to have stopped learning. But by demonstrating you have, at least I have learned something new. Our educational system has failed us.
#41–Scott==good stuff as always. I like the way correct scientific theories get supported by various and multiple findings–the warp and weave of a scientific approach to the universe.
# 44 Mister Mustard
“Well. Now THERE’S a compelling argument. “gquaglia said” thinks it’s a sham.”
I don’t know about you but when I look for accurate info on Global Warming I turn to gquaglia. LOL LOL
He is a typical puppet controled by the tele.
#28, Philleep,
I’m all in favor of global warming, in spite of what it would do to the local fisheries and my income.
I will give you credit for your honesty about your position. That, though, is much different from denying and falsifying data about climate change.
#16, I’ve asked this before, “How much has the planet warmed since 1998?” No one answers. Why not?
That is a bad question without an easy answer. Last year reached a high of 45 on this date. Today they expect a high of 70. Can I say the planet warmed by 25 F in just one year? Yesterday it got up to 72. Geeze, are we going through a period of global cooling?
Getting back to serious, here is a pretty little chart showing the overall trend in average temperatures. You should really like this one. It was written by someone named Buckley.
The National Post is a right wing nut propaganda arm of denial and FUD. About the only thing with any validity is their horoscopes.
# 46 bobbo
More ad hominem attacks? You can never refute the actual issue can you? No wonder some of the right wing morons here are annoyed by you.
Would you like to compare education resumes? I would think not. Since you yourself admit you couldn’t get into Mensa.
How about you show proof to the claims you make? That would help all of us. That way you can tap dance around the issue.
#42 – “So, if climate change is already causing one war, how long before the conflicts increase in area and intensity as more people starve or die of thirst?”
Well, at least the enviro nuts will get what they want, less humans mucking up the planet.
The reason for skepticism about Mr. Gore’s is the fact that people are scared. It is much easier to blame the chaos on ” natural” causes. We are to blame. Let’s face it!
#42–Scott==and OFTLO
I’d have to look at the Gore Show again but pretty much didn’t he just talk about the fact that global warming was here and secondarily about the fact that it was human caused, and maybe only briefly mentioned how to correct or stop it?
If so, he made no connection between global warming and human conflict and no suggestions as to how to accommodate global warming so as to best avoid war.
So==while global warming may lead to war, I don’t see why a peace prize should go to Gore==or any other award except for rasiing consciousness about global warming. A Peace Prize should go to the person who make that connection, not to someone who only sets up the premise.
#50 pat
“Well, at least the enviro nuts will get what they want, less humans mucking up the planet.”
How does that make one an envrio nut?
#49, J,
No wonder some of the right wing morons here are annoyed by you.
Damn it “J”, its spelled moran, got that, MORAN. With an “A”.
#52 “How does that make one an envrio nut?”
It doesn’t. I said enviro nuts want less people. Not everyone who wants less people are enviro nuts. Some people just don’t like crowds. Lots of reasons for wanting to see the human race die off…
#49–J==you say
1. More ad hominem attacks? You can never refute the actual issue can you? No wonder some of the right wing morons here are annoyed by you./// Attacking you for you is not ad hominem. Rather, it is on point. === Never is a long time, we’ll have to wait and see === I would hope I exaggerate enough that all right wingers here get a chuckle now and then. Seems to be the Marxist Looney Left that gets most upset, or maybe second only to the grammar police.
2–Would you like to compare education resumes? I would think not. Since you yourself admit you couldn’t get into Mensa. /// Now comparing resumes would be ad hominem wouldn’t it? And Mensa is supposed to test for intelligence, not education. Oh that’s right, you think the two are the same. Sorry, I forgot.
Maybe this thread, but at least today, someone asked what my education was. I almost answered. Glad I didn’t.
3–How about you show proof to the claims you make? That would help all of us. That way you can tap dance around the issue. /// What claims? Pick just one issue.
# 51 bobbo
Once again you show your inability to understand what you read. You don’t even understand what the peace prize is. “Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. ” Do you see how it says “and for peace”? Not “Just for peace”.
If you are going to post and make dumb statements and pose dumb questions at least educate yourself about how dumb they are.
# 53 Mr. Catshit
Isn’t Moran a tug boat or something? 🙂 I still don’t know what that whole Moron/ Moran thing is about. Is Moran a misspelling by bobbo?
#55 bobbo
“Attacking you for you is not ad hominem. Rather, it is on point.”
Why don’t you go look up the definition and get back to me.
“Never is a long time, we’ll have to wait and see ”
I am still waiting to see you refute an actual issue with something more than an argumentum ad hominem.
“Seems to be the Marxist Looney Left that gets most upset, or maybe second only to the grammar police.”
The ad hominem attacks continue. There is a certain amount of grammar errors that are ok especially on a blog comments section. You however redefine the language to suit your position on a debate.
“Now comparing resumes would be ad hominem wouldn’t it? ”
No. Like I said go look up the definition and get back to me.
“And Mensa is supposed to test for intelligence, not education. Oh that’s right, you think the two are the same. Sorry, I forgot.”
Once again reframing the debate. No I don’t think they are the same thing. I was referring to your inability to read and think being a hindrance to your education
“Maybe this thread, but at least today, someone asked what my education was. I almost answered. Glad I didn’t.”
You shouldn’t be embarrassed! I know many good people that didn’t graduate high school or college.
“What claims? Pick just one issue.”
OK
““Rich People” describes the majority of those behind/causing political issues” -bobbo
Show me the evidence. Where are your stats? Show me the research.
I would argue that the uninformed masses like yourself that are easily manipulated are mostly to blame because we live in a democratic republic.
#56–J==over the course of a few days/threads, it has become clear to me that my intelligence, education, (and I’ll throw in reading), are no match for your own. I see here and there that other people have shown me I am wrong and I have to correct myself. I think I saw you do that once with a quibble, but it may have been a dream. So, the record is clear, you are right, and everyone disagreeing with you is wrong. If you could in the future turn on the CAPS key to highlight when you are posting anything that is open to question, I’ll wait for those occasions to offer a differing view.
You have me so cowed now, I can’t even think about who might be behind those easily manipulated masses you refer to. Could it be SATAN?
bobbo – On a serious note. Search out data on Dr. Patrick Moore.
# 57 bobbo
I like how when I call you out on the carpet and ask you to provide proof you always redirect the debate. It is so obvious
“over the course of a few days/threads, it has become clear to me that my intelligence, education, (and I’ll throw in reading), are no match for your own.”
I am glad you can see that. LOL
“I see here and there that other people have shown me I am wrong and I have to correct myself.”
I know it is a very common experience for you.
“I think I saw you do that once with a quibble, but it may have been a dream. ”
No it wasn’t dream. I am the first person to say I am wrong if I have been proven such. You have never shown that proof.
“So, the record is clear, you are right, and everyone disagreeing with you is wrong”
Again you are wrong. Wow your lack of understanding is monumental. Not everyone. Just you! LOL
“You have me so cowed now,”
I had you cowed a few days ago It just took you until now to realized it.
“I can’t even think about who might be behind those easily manipulated masses you refer to.”
That’s your problem. You can’t think. It isn’t that simple but for you and you bias about your own knowledge I guess it would be.
#37 – So, you didn’t study Econ OR Engineering in college? What DID you study?
Pat… It’s kind of fair to assume that most people didn’t study Econ or Engineering in college. Despite my obviously brilliant observations posted here, rather than political science, I, myself, studied motion picture production.
So maybe, you could actually answer his question if you have some insight that could satisfy his curiosity?
Meanwhile, Gore has gotten rich off his global warming hysteria(plus his family’s oil companies), to the point where he is going to spend hundreds of millions to change people minds on the issue(and make even more money for his companies.
#43 – I think when all is said and done, decades from now, Global Warming will seen as the biggest sham in modern history.
IF global warming is invalid AND your cock bulges up 10 times over being right, you conservatives can have an apocalyptic circle jerk over the issue…
But that FACT remains that climate changes are happening and people are being displaced, even dying, in massive numbers, globally, as a result.
Can we pro-actively seek solutions? Or should we just keep bitching about who loves/hates Al Gore the most?