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.
#59–pat==on any subject of interest to me, I tend to read the opposition more than my preferred position. Its more likely to cause a change, and every time I change my mind, it feels like an angel has won its wings. But I decline to go on an undirected web search. I’d be interested to read whatever you specifically recommend. It would be nice if you gave it a one or two sentence preview of your take on it.
60–J==please stay after me. Its like a shiatsu massage.
61–OFTLO==close to my heart. When I think about what I might do if given a second chance at life, I often think writing/directing for Hollywood would be a good potentially rewarding choice. Or would I have ended up driving taxis? And would driving a taxi lead to writing “Taxi Driver” or is life just not that wonderful? Liberal Arts===a good basis for starting a life time of learning.
#62==Lyin Mike–isn’t the point that there is not enough concern–the opposite of hysteria? Lets see, Gore. Rich. In politics. Getting Richer. Nope, I don’t see any connection.
# 64 bobbo
Still can’t find that evidence?
#64 – Sorry ’bout that. Dr. Moore is one of the founders of Greenpeace. You might find his views on nuc energy interesting and what he has to say about how Greenpeace was perverted into what you see today…
As someone who had contributed to the eco movement
more than most people AND more knowledgeable than myself, I find his data to be of value.
The real reason for Global Warming:
http://tinyurl.com/5xete2
# 64 bobbo
“I often think writing/directing for Hollywood would be a good potentially rewarding choice.”
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA LOL OTFL HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA LOL HGDOL LOL HA HA HA HA HA
YOU WOULDN’T STAND A CHANCE! Your ego is too big even for woodland. LOL
It’s the damn duck. It looks, quacks and waddles like itself.
Gore’s message seems to be more along the lines of “What can we see, and what does that suggest?” more than “This caused that.”
Big storms will happen in the best of times, and certainly have. But as the air warms, the sea rises, and there is no other capable mechanism on Earth to guide that, other than the collective effort we can make.
If we can’t steer it, I guess the only thing to do is try to use as much energy as possible making as much money as possible and let the grandkids fend for themselves.
#68–J==I coulda been another Oliver Stone!!!!!! Still could in fact. I’m just too lazy.
# 70 bobbo
“#68–J==I coulda been another Oliver Stone!!!!!!”
I worked with Oliver Stone on Natural Born Killers. trust me you are nothing like him LOL He may say strange things but he doesn’t talk out his ass.
“Still could in fact. I’m just too lazy.”
Yeah woodland is full of dopes like you thinking they have more talent than they do.
#69 – “Big storms will happen in the best of times, and certainly have. But as the air warms, the sea rises, and there is no other capable mechanism on Earth to guide that, other than the collective effort we can make.”
Good to hear there will be more rain for growing crops. Although, the “sky is falling” crowd will inevitably say it will never fall where it is already dry. Even though the warm period between 3 and 7 thousand years ago made the mid-East through Egypt a wet paradise. There will be bad AND good effects…
#66–Pat==by directed I meant provide a link like this one:
http://tinyurl.com/qa6rn
but you met me half way, so I did the search.
Yes, he makes nuke sound reasonable. He did not address the pollution/environmental harm in mining the raw materials, but “most” of those issue I think are manageable.
It disturbs me that I read two types of absolute statements==nuke waste lasts for 1000’s of years (or 100,000) and others that say as does Clark that its no problem at all. France currently stores waste on premises. Reports I have read get confusing over large quantities of radioactive waste cooling water and how long it is radioacttive, with smaller amounts of waste like spent fuel rods and how long that is radioactive.
What does the IPCC recommend?
Until the nature/risk of the waste stream is nailed down, why not go with what everyone agrees is safe? I don’t know, but believe, if the tax supports given to big oil, big nuke and so forth were redirected into renewable energy, we’d already be there, or close enough.
Keep the good stuff coming.
71–Jay==I’ll avoid the set up and say that Natural Born Killers–each time I watch it, I like it more. Lyrical in its development of violence. I think it makes my top 20 list. I envy your involvment, as I do any experience I haven’t had myself. I look forward to you providing hollywood insights should the right thread arise.
# 74 bobbo
“I look forward to you providing hollywood insights should the right thread arise”
Here my insight. You don’t have a chance so don’t bother. It sounds like you are already in you 30’s or 40’s and if you haven’t made it there it is too late. Not to mention the people that run it are like me and a lot of them are friends with me. They won’t like you at all!!!
[Chill. – ed.]
#73 – 1st. Converting nuke weapon material into power plant grade fuel is being done by the US from USSR weapons. Mining some ore vs. paving over New Jersey for solar power is a non-issue.
There is a whole subject on what you do with fuel through enrichment and almost complete usage until it is low level. Quite a lot of material on the subject.
Creating safe long term storage isn’t a problem other than politically, due to Big oil via their unwitting eco patsies hysterically blocking all efforts to do so.
#76–pat==I thought every storage system to date leaked or leeched in a very short years surprising everybody? The key to credibility is not to overstate?
#77 – “I thought every storage system to date leaked or leeched in a very short years surprising everybody? ”
No. Study the subject for yourself. Non-liquids don’t leak.
#78
NON-liquids will LEACH if they get wet…Soaked..
Even metals Rust and the radio active materials go with it.. How do you think we get DIRT/stains out of your clothing..
Study in Yuca mountain, they found that INSTED of being totally DRY, it ran a 30+% moisture level..Which would Wick the material installed int eh mountain, and carry the radioactive material Into the Aquifer Below..
#79 – Yep. And the solution is simple. But, don’t let that get in the way of your hysteria. Continue.
>>I worked with Oliver Stone on Natural
>>Born Killers.
Heh heh. That’s probably the most hilarious thing I’ve seen on Dvorak dot org slash blog. Is your name in the credits? {snicker}. Were you executive producer, or what?
#79 – “NON-liquids will LEACH if they get wet…Soaked..
Even metals Rust and the radio active materials go with it..”
Since your hysteria has inhibited your ability to read up on the subject or reason at all, I’ll give you a hint. Glass.
Continue head spinning hysteria.
>>I’ll give you a hint. Glass.
Are you saying that depleted uranium has the same physical characteristics as glass?
Haw!
That’s even better than the Oliver Stone guy!
# 81 Mister Mustard
“Heh heh. That’s probably the most hilarious thing I’ve seen on Dvorak dot org slash blog.
“Is your name in the credits?”
Why because it wouldn’t be within the realm of possibility? I am not the only one. I know of another person that comes here and post that is also well connected in woodland. If they want to come forward that is up to them but I will never tell.
“Is your name in the credits? ”
Would it matter if I told you yes or no. You still wouldn’t be able to check because I am not going to give you my name. You can take it at face value or you can reject it.
“Were you executive producer, or what?”
I was an “or what”. It has a lot to do with what I own.
Heres the first site I found regarding turning liquid nuke waste into glass.
http://tinyurl.com/5z8rrb
Its all worse than I thought. The links in the article have the meat.
Looks to me the “back end” cost of removing the waste Plus the risk of contamination make nukes unviable==mostly because the site got me back to billions of gallons of waste that are toxic for 100K/s of years.]
I have to stop being open to new information as 95% of new information is lies.
What a good thread. The debate that never ends, and unfortunately never progresses.
I have also found the vitriol between J and bobbo to be somewhat amusing.
I haven’t yet had the pleasure of debating J, but I have debated bobbo on occasion and I find his comments both helpful and insightful. I have found him to stick to his guns when he believes he is right and appropriately introspective when evidence dictates otherwise.
That’s all anyone can ask and more than most could ever give.
#85 – bobbo. You need to fully study it. Knee jerk reactions after reading a few paragraphs of an op ed piece won’t cut it. It’s a complex engineering problem. If you can’t do more than a skin deep study don’t bother. But, don’t bother forming an opinion either as it will probably be wrong..
At La Hague, the French do something that’s not allowed in the United States: They reprocess — recycle — highly radioactive commercial spent nuclear fuel so it can be reloaded into reactors and used again.
In that years-long recycling process, the French recapture 97 percent of the spent fuel’s plutonium. Unlike U.S. utilities which are stuck with it all, they’re left with only 3 percent to be disposed of as highly radioactive waste.
I think in the scientific community, this debate ended 20 years ago. And it never had anything to do with Al Gore.
The IPCC reports represent the work, and the rough consensus, of literally thousands of scientific people around the world. If you’re not able to accept those findings at this point, then you simply have a problem with science, period.
Don’t worry though. If this problem is finally solved – by rational, objective people – you’ll get the benefit of their work. Just like you will with stem cell research. Or do you plan to decline treatment when you get Parkinson’s, 20 years from now?
# 86 Ah_Yea
Probably because I either haven’t seen your posts or you are not an asshat whose comments are stupid, attack me, or offend me. I tend not to post unless one of those issue arise.
#86 – What a good thread. The debate that never ends, and unfortunately never progresses.
I had to scroll to the top to remember what the debate was about.
I have found him to stick to his guns when he believes he is right and appropriately introspective when evidence dictates otherwise.
As is often the case 🙂
I certainly try not to be an asshat. That gets us nowhere. I do look forward to debating you in the future.
# 90 OhForTheLoveOf
“As is often the case”
Oh please! I can’t believe that is coming from you. How sad. There is plenty of evidence to show otherwise on DU. How sad:(
# 91 Ah_Yea
“I do look forward to debating you in the future.”
I don’t know where you stand on anything so I can’t say that would nessacaraly happen.
If we do debate in the future It usauly isn’t personal like it is with bobbo. I don’t see him the same way you and OFTLO do. Probably because you guys didn’t see the Mensa debate.
Debate: a contention by words or arguments: as
1. the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure
2. a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
So, I think “debate” is more formal than what passes here. Ah Yea–thanks. I had the feeling I miffed you a few times, but maybe you were just opening up another plant?
OFTLO–yea, I read your comment as a humorous dig against me so if J has it right, I apologize. I will admit though, you have changed my mind more than anyone else on this blog==although, right now, I can’t think of any.
J==sometimes I play too rough and feelings get hurt. I think you do the same. I don’t assume I ever hurt your feelings–but maybe some others. Never my intent, but that’s just my failure to take responsibility.
It never hurts to be a better person.