• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Topic: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ojai, California
    Posts
    305

    One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    Published on Tuesday, June 21, 2006 by Inter Press Service
    Setting the Record Straight on Global Warming
    by Stephen Leahy

    Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth", is filling theatres across North America -- and gets the science right, according to climate experts. "I saw it last night and was impressed with the climate science presented in the film," said David Archer, a climatologist at the University of Chicago.

    "I left the theatre profoundly depressed because of the political insanity in this country that denies global warming is a concern," Archer told IPS.


    These photos provided by the National Park Service show Hidden Creek Glacier in Denali National Park, Alaska, in 1916, top, and the same glacier photographed in 2004. (AP Photo/S.R. Capps 1916, R. D. Karpilo 2004, Courtesy of the National Park Service)

    Gore's personal passion about global warming can be traced to the early 1980s. After losing the election to George W. Bush in 2000, Gore dedicated himself to warning the public about the devastating impacts climate change will have on hundreds of millions of people.

    "An Inconvenient Truth" is a 98-minute documentary comprised mainly of highlights from Gore's high-tech slide show explaining the science documenting global climate change.

    "Some truths are hard to hear, because if you really hear them -- and understand that they are in fact true -- then you have to change. And change can be quite inconvenient," Gore says in the film.

    Using an impressive set of graphics, he carefully illustrates changes underway such as receding glaciers, collapsing ice sheets, devastating floods and droughts. One memorable scene shows a graph of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere going back 650,000 years that varies only a little until fifty years ago when it skyrockets. Gore mounts a motorised platform to lift him up high up the chart so he can place his finger on the current level of CO2.

    Under the Kyoto Protocol, 34 industrialised nations are obligated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, which fuel global warming, by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. The United States has refused to ratify the agreement because Washington argues that it would be too damaging to the U.S. economy.

    But aside from a few remarks about the Bush administration's willful blindness on the issue, Gore leaves politics out. In fact, he says his experience as vice president taught him that meeting the challenge of climate change is best and most quickly done at the town, city and state level.

    And that is where action is being taken.

    A new report from the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change notes that 22 U.S. states and Washington, DC have set quotas for renewable power generation in order to spur economic development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    "Gore's documentary does a good job explaining the science and paints a compelling picture of the need for action," says Katie Mandes of the Pew Centre, a non-partisan NGO that works with business leaders, policymakers and scientists.

    "A very large part of the U.S. population doesn't understand the complexity around climate change," she told IPS.

    However, after last summer's record hurricane season, the U.S. public has become much more aware of the issue, she said. A poll conducted early this month showed that 81 percent of people in the U.S. aged 13 to 24 believe steps need to be taken right away to counter global warming.

    At the same time, global warming deniers have mounted an all-out attack recently, employing clever sound bites and citing selected science to mock Gore's concerns and muddle the data, she said.

    "It's a complex issue, it's easy for these sceptics to confuse people," said Mandes.

    Most of the sceptics have a vested interest, often financial, in arguing against the need for action, says Archer.

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an influential right-wing advocacy group financed in part by the U.S. oil company ExxonMobil, launched a series of TV ads about the "the alleged global warming crisis".

    Scientists whose research is referenced as "proof" in those ads are crying foul over CEI's misuse of the information. It's "a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate", said Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia in media reports about the misuse of his Antarctic ice-sheet findings.

    CEI claims it is only trying to tell both sides of the story.

    But as Gore notes in the documentary, a 2004 study published in the journal Science found that of the 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers published on climate change in the previous 10 years, not one disagreed with the view that recent climate change is due to human influences.

    "There was no disagreement. Zero," he says.

    But that is not the way the issue has been played in the U.S. media. Another study of major newspaper and magazine articles revealed that 57 percent of the global warming stories said there was no scientific consensus around the issue.

    "This is very frustrating for a scientist," said Andrew Weaver of Canada's University of Victoria and an internationally recognised expert on climate modeling.

    "There is a well-organised and financed disinformation campaign over an issue where there is very strong scientific evidence," Weaver told IPS.

    The objective of this disinformation campaign to confuse the public and to delay governments from taking action, he said, adding: "I hope a lot of people will see it (Gore's documentary)."

    Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service

  2. #2

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    I'm at the EEDAL conference in London this week. EEDAL is the International Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting conference. At the plenary meeting speaker after speaker has spoken about how to save energy and how many million tons of CO2 can be saved. Nobody has stood up and said "Global warming is a lie!" Not even the US representative who spoke glowingly of Bush.

    In fact, I saw the signing of an agreement between the US, Australia and China regarding energy efficiency in lighting.

    Here's the bottom line: it makes good econimic and strategic sense to save energy. For instance, investment in "labelling regimes", such as EPA Energy Star costs pennies and spurs investments in Energy Savings, saving consumers tons of cash. Now, what exactly is wrong with that?

    The European Union has moved to an ABCDEFG labelling scheme for appliances. Guess what? Most people buy A-rated products. Some buy Bs, and many buy A+ products. Few buy Cs, and they are looking to make D and below illegal in some countries.

    So, why save energy through efficiency?

    - Cut CO2 generation
    - Consumers save money, making them wealthier and spurring the economy
    - Spend less on new generation plants
    - Reduce nuclear energy proliferation
    - Reduce energy imports
    - Increase energy security
    - Spur investment in new, creative technologies

    And, guess what? The market won't do this. I saw projection upon projection of increased power demand when left to market forces. Such charts were shown by numerous people in numerous countries and job roles.

    In the best case labelling is used. That lets companies compete on efficiency, and informs the marketplace. Read Adam Smith. Open information critical for market forces to work properly. Labeling rewards best actors.

    The other approach is to ban poor performing products. This is the stick against bad actors. It's the market equivalent of jail for criminals.

    So... Will any climate change doubters tell us that product labelling and energy savings are bad things?

    If so, why is energy inefficiency good? And why is it good to keep consumers in the dark?

    And if energy efficiency is good, why are you wasting your oxygen arguing that climate change isn't real?

  3. #3

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    Quote Originally Posted by runamuck
    Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming
    Who is Al Gore? Is he a really good scientist?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ernstinen
    Prepare to get hammered by the corporate-rightwing types and Gore-hating cynics lurking around here, Jim.
    Why would we hate Al Gore so much when we can hate his wife so much more?

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    I'm at the EEDAL conference in London this week.

    And if energy efficiency is good, why are you wasting your oxygen arguing that climate change isn't real?

    ...and why is London so damned foggy? Paul? Anyone?
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Budleigh Salterton
    Posts
    1,477

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    Quote Originally Posted by Danimal
    ...and why is London so damned foggy? Paul? Anyone?
    Because it's a sh!thole.

  5. #5

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulR
    Because it's a sh!thole.
    Can't argue with that.


  6. #6
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    The National Academy of Sciences has released a report to Congress supporting the science behind global warming concerns. It is CNN.com's lead story at present.

    Many Republican congresspeople are speaking out in support of the report.

    And as usual, others can only offer shortsighted naysaying based strictly on our economy.

    I find it very disheartening that these people could be so uncreative in their approach to a problem. Are we so stupid as a nation that we cannot make up an economic shortfall in one area by making efforts in others? What has happened to American can-do-ism? At one time, our nation prided itself upon the idea that if we do the right things, and work hard, we will succeed in whatever we do.

  7. #7

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernstinen
    Yup, Bruce is correct:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/

    Bummer for you corporate Republicans. It was the lead story on the news tonight.


    Ern
    What makes someone corporate? What if Kerry's wife owns the Heinz company or whatever? Does that make him a corporate Democrat? Doesn't buying products that these supposedly evil corporations produce make people just as guilty? I certainly think so. Not taking sides here really. I just don't see how saying someone is "corporate" means anything at all.
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  8. #8

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    Who is Al Gore? Is he a really good scientist?
    He's a surprisingly good lecturer who's using his cachet to try and save the world from a major disaster the likes of which we've never seen. And they made his lectures into a damn good film.

    If he were a scientist, you'd come up with something else to avoid dealing with the inconvenient truth. It's just beyond me how intelligent people can take that attitude in the face of such obvious reality - asssuming you are taking that attitude and not just trying to play devil's advocate.

    What makes someone corporate?
    ~~~~ Kerry, and ~~~~ the Democrats, who are about to blow another election because they don't stand up for what we know is right. ~~~~ Republicans far more, but still ~~~~ the Democrats.

    What makes someone corporate? In this context: the deliberate, calculated, evil PR campaign to create doubt about the reality of man-made global warming for the sole purpose of making lots of money now for your corporation.

    Any other questions?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ojai, California
    Posts
    305

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    The global warming issue has not gone away. Neither should this thread.

  10. #10

    Re: One More Coffin Nail For You Global Warming Non-Believers

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    If he were a scientist, you'd come up with something else to avoid dealing with the inconvenient truth. It's just beyond me how intelligent people can take that attitude in the face of such obvious reality - asssuming you are taking that attitude and not just trying to play devil's advocate.
    I just don't think he's someone worth listening to. It has nothing to do with his stance on global warming. Personally, I think it's just a way for him to get publicity. Ann Coulter could become a human being tomorrow and adopt a Libertarian stance, and I still wouldn't listen to her. That's how I feel about most politicians, including Al Gore. Like I said, it doesn't have much to do with global warming. Al Gore would take the opposite stance and deny global warming and come up with speeches and facts to deny it if he thought it would help get him elected. YES. HE WOULD. BELIEVE IT.

    I definitely won't debate you on the fact that humans are raping the ~~~~ out of everything. So it really doesn't make much difference to me if we are or are not having anything to do with the supposed warming trend of the Earth. To me, the fact that we are raping the ~~~~ out of it is bad enough, and I support anyone who REALLY and GENUINELY cares about it. I can certainly question the validity of our impact on global warming while still being a good steward to my environment. If I do my best to support ideas that help the environment, and it ends up that it reduced global warming because of what we were doing, then great! If it doesn't have any effect, and it turns out that we never were having any effect of global warming in the first place, then that's great too. It's a win/win situation if a person takes the stance that a healthy environment is essential to our and our children's future.

    But when a politican comes along and decides it's time to make a movie, and everyone that doesn't get on board with his/her idea is an ~~~~~~~ or is against the environment, then that's stupid.
    Why not just do the right thing in the first place and take care of the Earth anyways??


    P.S. You should have seen the look on the lady's face that threw her cigarette butt out the window of her car the other day when I rolled down my window and told her that I was going to put it back in her car for her, because the rest of the world doesn't want to see it for a hundred years. (Only in North Dakota can you do that without the risk of the other person blowing your head off. I probably wouldn't have tried that in California.)
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •