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.
#87–pat==would that be the breeder-reactor? You are so secretive with you expertise==why not share?
Lets see, should anyone hold off on forming an opinion before he has studied the subject long enough to become an expert?
Surely the answer is=====yes, Yes, YES.
but I’m not gonna do it.
In the end, most questions are settled by “values.” Creating toxic poisons is not one of my values so the evidence to support it has to be overwhelming and prevalent. There are just too many alternatives I’m happy to live.
#95–J==tomorrow is another day, and each thread is a new subject. On each occasion, we chose who we wish to be. Being too nice, is boring. Being too aggressive is boring. Somewhere in the middle is interesting.
#92 – Probably because you guys didn’t see the Mensa debate.
Mensa is just another way to meet women with relaxed morals.
# 96 bobbo
“Being too aggressive is boring. Somewhere in the middle is interesting.”
Most of the time I don’t find it interesting to “be” anything. As you already probably know more often than not I don’t post at all.
BTW That stuff about you and Hollywood. I was just being a dick. If you ever do go that way good luck. I wouldn’t recommend it but good luck. Woodland is not the wonderful place or business you see on TV. It is full of assholes like me.
#97–OFTLO–I’ve read that the woman with the most relaxed morals is a spanish woman with a PHd who wears high heels and lipstick. Since reading that target profile, I was lucky enough to come across two women with that profile, but being married, my academic pursuit could not be continued.
# 99 bobbo # 97 OhForTheLoveOf
Nope.
Catholic Women and Born again Christians. LOL Can’t beat them off with a stick
#100 Really?
I recommend that everyone watch The Great Global Warming Swindle as the most entertaining scientific documentary on this topic.
#102 I don’t recommend that true believers watch this. You’ll go blind.
First Al has to explain why he can’t read his own graph Temperature vs. CO2 which shows CO2 levels rise 300 to 1200 years AFTER temperature rises, I seems whenever the sun’s output increases and raises the ocean temperature the ocean can’t hold as much CO2
Denier Series
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0
Al needs to explain why he can’t read his own graph Temperature Vs CO2 levels which clearly shows increased CO2 levels lag BEHIND temperature change by 300 to 1200 years. I seems every time the Sun’s output increases the ocean temperature rises and the oceans are unable to hold as much CO2 releasing it into the atmosphere.
#102==Shubee–that video is available on bittorrent. Fun to read the comments==seems the author of the video admits they fudged one of the charts by extending a time line, and there is already another video countering the claims of this counter message video.
Its like a thread on a blog==only done with video.
Cool. (Oops, I meant “That’s Hot!).
Bobbo, you’re talking about the destruction of the planet as we know it! With a technology that has been in widespread use for decades, vs solutions that either are minimal in actual impact(hybrid cars) or new technologies that are unproven and expensive with their own negatives(solar, hydrogen, wind).
102–Shubee==great video. Turns out all the weather data is “better explained” by solar energy output and cloud cover. The carbon lag factoid is one that has always bothered me==even moreso when Big Al lied about it.
“I can’t believe” the IPCC doesn’t take all this info into account? It more like one side is lying rather than just making a considered different opinion. When evidence conflicts, scientiest are not supposed to guess for one side or the other.
Well, I still have the “anti-global warming show is a scam” video to watch. I’m sure I’ll flip-flop again. If this were a ride, it would be fun.
#107–Mike==I’m confused. Yes, I think we are destroying our planet, slowly, but still destroying and then I lose you. Turning to nuke power I think would possibly (not saying likely) also destroy our planet–atleast in large areas for modern human use. Seems to me a non-destructive energy technology needs to be developed==maybe that would slow potential growth, but the growth would be “healthy.”
Ultimately, too many people will destroy the planet no matter what==but what the carrying capacity of the earth is is probably less complicated to figure out than global warming, but a whole lot more controversial.
So–what do you mean?
#50 – pat,
Well, at least the enviro nuts will get what they want, less humans mucking up the planet.
Attrition is better than warfare for getting rid of people. Warfare destroys more resources than the people would and the population bounces right back afterward.
More people need to join The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
#59 – pat,
bobbo – On a serious note. Search out data on Dr. Patrick Moore.
In general, you’ll make a much better point if you do your own homework. Try posting a link or two. Most people won’t even click through if you provide the link. No one will go searching.
#52 – bobbo,
while global warming may lead to war, I don’t see why a peace prize should go to Gore
If he’s alleviating conflict and creating a more peaceful planet, he deserves a peace prize. Must he state it in those terms to earn it? Wouldn’t that just be begging for one?
#73 – bobbo and others.
Re: Nuclear Waste
I’m going to post a link to my own blog here because I’ve actually written up a detailed post on the subject. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. The blog post is chock full of links to much more authoritative sources.
http://tinyurl.com/2ls68u
#86, 90,
Re: bobbo
I came. I saw. I concurred. == Once you get abused to the punctuation style == you’ll find that he makes a lot of very interesting points.
#109 – bobbo,
Yes, I think we are destroying our planet, slowly
This is a point on which we disagree strongly. We humans have only been on this planet for 200,000 years and have already caused a mass extinction greater than the one that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs 65.3 million years ago (MYA).
If we continue with global warming, we will likely cause a Permian/Triassic level extinction. Here’s a link that describes the occurrence at the P/T boundary 250 MYA. It was the largest mass extinction in the history of our planet and was very likely caused by global warming according to a lot of new data.
Interestingly, our biochemistry also shows signs that this is the case. Further, this information is providing new possibilities for medical treatment. This link is a very interesting read on many levels. I highly recommend it. (And, it’s not another plug for my blog.)
http://tinyurl.com/6q7qn8
If you’re really interested in reading about mass extinctions on this planet and their causes, I highly recommend Under A Green Sky, a book by Peter D. Ward, who proved the impact theory of the K/T extinction and has now moved on to determining the causes of the other 4 mass extinctions on this planet.
#112–Scott==thats my point. He didn’t do any of that. He gave a factually incorrect slide show with misstated causation and said nothing about peace, or avoiding future conflict, or what steps should be taken to internationally to curb the pollution or to accommodate displaced persons ((or no big emphasis if he did mention any because I don’t remember it.).
Any connection to Peace or making the world a better place is created by the audience–an audience already independently motivated to those ends. Gore is to be acknowledged for raising awareness–but not the Nobel.
Afterall, you and I aren’t getting the Nobel for literature just because we post here. Whats the difference?
#115–Scott==you say you disagree with me saying we are killing the planet slowly. From reading your post though I can’t tell which way you disagree. Are we killing it fast or even slower than what I said. My own reference point is one human lifetime.
I look forward to reading your blog on Nukes. It gives me a warm feeling to be a parasite on someone else’s work. Please keep it up.
#72, pat,
Even though the warm period between 3 and 7 thousand years ago made the mid-East through Egypt a wet paradise.
Not true. The ice age moved the temperate belt closer to the equator, thus providing North Africa with more rainfall.
Through known history, Egypt has relied upon the Nile for almost all its water needs.
#116 – bobbo,
#112–Scott==thats my point. He didn’t do any of that. He gave a factually incorrect slide show with misstated causation and said nothing about peace, or avoiding future conflict, or what steps should be taken to internationally to curb the pollution or to accommodate displaced persons ((or no big emphasis if he did mention any because I don’t remember it.).
Actually, he gave a mostly very factually correct slideshow that raised awareness and told people exactly how to take action to avert crisis. He did not mention that it would also reduce conflict. But, he most certainly did offer solutions.
His newer slideshow also discusses the importance of not only taking action in the home but of forcing legislation to regulate the carbon output of companies. He advocates a revenue neutral carbon tax. Some others advocate a cap and trade. I have mixed feelings and no strong preference between the two. But, Gore does indeed offer solutions and has been tirelessly traveling the world to spread the word.
If you want to look for people that did not deserve the peace price, you can start with Arafat.
#117 – bobbo,
#115–Scott==you say you disagree with me saying we are killing the planet slowly. From reading your post though I can’t tell which way you disagree. Are we killing it fast or even slower than what I said. My own reference point is one human lifetime.
Sorry for the lack of clarity in my post bobbo. I’ve been thinking in longer time frames for so long that I think things are obvious when they aren’t.
Human lifetime is about a geological nanosecond. In fact, to make the point, I sometimes talk about nanoeons (years).
At the American Museum of Natural History’s Rose Center for Earth and Space, there is a timeline of the universe 1000′ long. The first images of seriously red-shifted distant objects come a few feet into the 1000′ spiral. Then the images are of progressively closer images, using light as a time machine. Much later, more than halfway through, we start seeing images that include Earth. Nearing the end, we start to see the dinosaurs and mammals with which we are familiar. At the very end, there is a human hair. Every human that ever lived lived within the timespan represented by that thickness of a human hair.
So, humans have not been here long enough for anything we do to be slow. We are a fast growing cancer on the planet. When our destruction is over, either by us coming into balance with the planet, which I doubt, or by our extinction, the occurrence will be within a geologic instant. Future civilizations, should any arise, will see this mass extinction in the paleontological record as nearly instantaneous.
If however, we do cause a warming event like the one at the P/T boundary, it will be tens of millions of years for life to bounce back to even the number of species and diversity that we have today. Or, at least it will be so for multicellular life. Most of life on this planet, by number of species and by biomass, is bacterial and probably couldn’t care less.
#118 – Get a clue: Mid-Holocene Warm Period
#83 Mr Mustard puked “Are you saying that depleted uranium has the same physical characteristics as glass?”
No, DU is a metal (why you mention DU is a mystery as it isn’t needed as an encasement material). GLASS has the same characteristics as glass.
# 121 pat
You knowledge of the Mid-Holocene Warm Period. is SEVERELY flawed.
#124 “Me” knowledge is fine. Your wonderful “insight” into this period is appreciated though. 🙂