An Inconvenient truth?

[Jackinthebox]

Just wondering if you have seen this movie/doco by Al Gore yet?

As fishos, we all need a healthy environment to enjoy our pastime. Unfortunately, half the people who vote for the Greens want to do the right thing but have no bloody idea about what really makes a difference. For example, green zones that cause us major problems, not to mention seriously affect local economies, are just like pissing in the wind compared to the bigger problems facing this planet.

I urge you all to go and see it with your families and leave any cynicisms at the door. This is a very interesting show and Al Gore has laid it all out with real data that has been drowned out with static and misinformation by very powerful forces

You'll be surprised by the real facts.

Cheers,

Mick(Non tree-hugger - but care about the world I leave my kids)

[rick_k]

or it could be b.s. Al is after all a politician.

10 000 years ago we could have walked to Moreton Island. 40 000 to Tassie and New Guinea. That last was because Birmingham, according to Mr Attenborough, was under 1 mile of ice.

The world ain't a static place, and it has proved to be not all that friendly to those who live on it.

Still, if we could make a difference, and for the better, that would be good.

Rick K

[reelcrazy]

In Gore's instance, I'd say let your B.S. detectors be your guide.

There is considerable science refuting a lot of the junk science claims made by the environment movement.

Anyone looking for a good perspective on this should read Michael Crichton's - State of Fear.

I like Crichton, he does his research and while fiction, what he writes is so close to fact, the two are indistinguishable. I heartily recommend this book.

With attribution to his book State of Fear - I quote from part of the books appendix. Crichton uses the appendices to detail and record his research. You have to read this in it's entirety to get the broadest sense of how we are being misled by the environment movement, certain academics, Hollywoods rich and vacuous, not to mention politicians whose political star is fading.

Quote:

<<<We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K wasn’t a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the air. The same thing is true now of issues like species extinction and global warming. You never hear anyone say it’s not a crisis.

I won’t go into it, because it might lead to the use of facts, but I’ll just mention two reports I speculate you haven’t heard about.

The first is the report in Science magazine January 18, 2001 (Oops! a fact) that contrary to prior studies, the Antarctic ice pack is increasing, not decreasing, and that this increase means we are finally seeing an end to the shrinking of the pack that has been going on for thousands of years, ever since the Holocene era. I don’t know which is more surprising, the statement that it’s increasing, or the statement that its shrinkage has preceded global warming by thousands of years.

The second study is a National Academy of Sciences report on the economic effects to the U.S. economy of the last El Nino warming event of 1997. That warming produced a net benefit of $15 billion to the economy. That’s taking into account $1.5 billion loss in California from rain, which was offset by decreased fuel bills for a milder winter, and a longer growing season. Net result: $15 billion in savings.

The other thing I will mention to you is that during the last 100 years, while the average temperature on the globe has increased just .3 degrees C, the magnetic field of the earth declined by 10%.

This is a much larger effect than global warming and potentially far more serious to life on this planet. Our magnetic field is what deflects lethal radiation from space. A ten percent reduction of the earth’s magnetic field is extremely worrisome.

But who is worried?

Nobody. Who is raising a call to action? Nobody. Why not? Because there is nothing to be done. How this may relate to global warming I leave for you to speculate on your own.
Personally, I think we need to start turning away from media, and the data shows that we are doing just that, at least from television news. I find that whenever I lack exposure to media I am much happier, and my life feels fresher.>>>

end quote.

[MyEscape]

Yes there's a lot of talk about whether global warming is a fact or not. There's an interesting website that I check out for weather predictions at http://www.predictweather.com/

It's done by a NZ man called Ken Ring who is spot on with the weather and also has some interesting views on global warming.

An interesting view that I heard some 20 years go was that gloal warming debate has been caused by the UN wanting to have an equal living stanard for all people. The only way to acheive this is to reduce ours down to the third world, as there is no way to increase the living standard of theirs to ours.

Regards
Steve

[DICER]

Field reversal may not happen so quick and may not happen within 2000 yrs! But something is happening in the artic.......

You quote "nothing to be done" by Michael Crichton. Do you really believe that, and wish to tell your kids that!! Perhaps Michael Crichton's should stick his fingers in his cake hole.

Ice the size of Texas melts in one year
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg19125702.800

Winter Arctic sea ice in drastic decline
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...c-decline.html

Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ple-speed.html

Glacial earthquakes rock Greenland ice sheet
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ice-sheet.html

Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant'
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ned-giant.html

Broken ice dam blamed for 300-year chill
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ear-chill.html

Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...i-ice-age.html

Climate warning as Siberia melts
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ria-melts.html

Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6124

Captain Cook's logs tell magnetic tale
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...etic-tale.html

[Jeremy]

Field reversal may not happen so quick and may not happen within 2000 yrs! But something is happening in the artic.......

You quote "nothing to be done" by Michael Crichton. Do you really believe that, and wish to tell your kids that!! Perhaps Michael Crichton's should stick his fingers in his cake hole.

Ice the size of Texas melts in one year
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg19125702.800

Winter Arctic sea ice in drastic decline
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...c-decline.html

Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ple-speed.html

Glacial earthquakes rock Greenland ice sheet
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ice-sheet.html

Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant'
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ned-giant.html

Broken ice dam blamed for 300-year chill
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ear-chill.html

Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...i-ice-age.html

Climate warning as Siberia melts
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ria-melts.html

Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6124

Captain Cook's logs tell magnetic tale
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...etic-tale.html

Nature is THE TOP peer-reviewed scientific journal today. New Scientist is just a bunch of reviews which is not peer-reviewed (from memory). Just the same as any other media which has to make stories to sell advertising space. I'll believe Nature myself thanks.

Jeremy

[imnotoriginal]

I'm sorry, but the part about global warming helping the Californian economy...come on, how short-sighted and inward-looking can Michael Crichton be? El Nino may have reduced the fuel bill in the US but it sure as hell buggered plenty of people, including the commercial fishing industries in South America and has also been linked to massive floods in Europe and droughts in Australia. It is having a rapid and destabilising effect on our weather. Finding one benefit amidst plenty of problems does not make it a positive occurrence.
Joel

[craftycarp]

An inconvenient truth is exactly that! People will refuse to believe it because deep down we are all human and greedy and we all want whats best for us and our family. We want the best car, nice house etc. This is all normal human behaviour. Lets forget about the global warming debate for a second, how about this FACT? When Al Gore was born there were about 2.5 billion people on the planet, now there are what 6-7 billion? If he lives another 10-15 years there will be 10. That is one generation. Whats the world going to be like when our kids are our age? I have a child on the way, what changes is this child going to see in his/her lifetime? With that exponential population growth. He/she can expect to be sharing the planet with what 25-30 billion? and if we dont find an alternative to the fuels we use they will all be driving cars that burn fossil fuels. Anyway thats the bit that freaked me out.

[imported_admin]

Saw it tonight, would suggest that if you haven't seen it yet that you get to see it.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair


Info on the movie can be seen at - http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[reelcrazy]

Good debate.

We need some more fuel for the controversy. A few more "inconvenient truths" follow.

------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

"End of Little Ice Age

Beginning around 1850, the world's climate began warming again and the Little Ice Age may be said to have come to an end at that time. Some global warming skeptics believe that the Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age and that human activity is not a decisive factor in present temperature trends. There is a wide debate among climate scientists, however, whether the present sharp upturn in temperatures is caused primarily by the increased proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by human activity."

(Here's one for the pom's. In the medieval warm age and much to the consternation of the French vignerons, excellent wine was being exported to France from Northern England)


-----

http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

"Fact: Many scientists argue correctly that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. But the Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence. According to satellite data, air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the past 20 years. Satellite data from NASA says the Earth has only heated by 0.04 of one degree in the last century, that which would be expected from natural fluctuation causes. This data conflicts with that of land-based thermometers and so is not released widely. But landbased measurements are less accurate because they are taken from cities, which are getting warmer all the time due to their expansion and replacing of trees and grasslands with asphalt.(source: science@NASA, October 20th, 2000)

Satellite data gives more of a global picture. 75% of the earth is covered by oceans. Of the rest, nearly 3% is covered by ice and of the remaining 24% less than 2% is habitable, when you take out swamps, deserts, lakes, ranges etc. In fact we live only on 1.4% of the surface of the Earth, hardly representative of the planet. According to National Geographic, all of Earth's metropolitan areas would only fit into an area less than the size of Spain. It is only a human vanity to imagine that our relatively small inhabited percentage of global surface has the ability to alter the climate of the whole planet. If we only occupy 1.8%, that means 98.6% of Earth is uninhabited.

Nearer to the truth is that the climate has always had its ups and downs. In 1100 AD the Earth enjoyed a much warmer environment than it does now - closer to a Meditterranean climate in the north of England. Around 549AD it appears a fireball may have swept through much of Europe, melting the facias of some castles. For many years the Vikings wandered around in their shirtsleeves. The Great Fire of London in 1666 came in a year of tremendous drought. This century just gone saw higher temperatures and heavy droughts around particular recurring years. Each drought in the past was described as the worst in living memory. But there is a simple mathematical pattern here."


more to come.

[DICER]

It was never claimed that the New Scientist was the top most journal. Not everyone wants to read and try to comprehend the data in an article or letter published in Nature? Moreover a majority of the people on this site do NOT have access to this elite journal. Therefore the New Scientist links were posted as it draws on a variety of different journals (including Nature, Science etc), review articles and institutional data from around the world, which maybe of general interest.

Nature and Science group of journals are advertising journals! Whatever!

Sometimes the word "gagged" comes to mind when I think of CSIRO and a few govermental departments.

[rough_shag]

It's a trend in the modern world that a large proportion of people have lost the ability to think for themselves in an independent manner and the world's media is very happy to make trillions and weild their power by FEEDING us their heavily vetted information.If the media want us to believe something for their own reasons they will present a totally BIASED story/program which is cleverly angled using highly manipulated statistics/images etc to convince the gullible recipient of the point of view they want to be accepted as FACT.
The so called global warming issue is only one of many which simply do not stand up once subjected to REAL scientific research,but of course it's easier to sit glued to a cinema screen and be fed SCAREMONGERING NONESENSE than to actually make an honest effort to research an issue BEFORE a person BELIEVES what they are being FED by media etc who have their own agendas.
As mentioned elsewhere on this thread the world/universe is in a constant state of change,even our sun pulsates in a changing cycle which effects us all.Changes to our planet systems cannot be measured in decades or even hundreds of years because most changes occur within a geological time scale over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS and although these are natural changes they aren't always 'life friendly'.
One example of the emmissions debate is the fact that a natural event in the 1980's (Mt St Helens erruption) actually sent more carbon emmissions(and other toxic gasses etc) into the atmosphere than the entire U.S.A did in the decade of the 1970's!!!, and that was a relatively tiny erruption in Earth's geology.
We should all be careful what we believe and seek the WHOLE TRUTH looking at the BIG PICTURE and not accept as fact something which is yet to be proven and agreed upon as fact by the wider scientific community after unbiased research.Jace.

[el_carpo]

Are we heating up the earth with pollution? No idea. Too much political cr@p and personal interests getting thrown into the mix to get a clear view of the real deal.


HOWEVER.............

Are we polluting the air, land and water with pollution? Yes.

Is our dependance on foreign powers (some of whom hate our guts) to provide us with our fuel a good thing? No.

Can we do things to better conserve our resources? Yes.

Do we want a better world for the kiddies (even the rotten, little brat who called me stupid-looking while waiting in line at the grocery store)? Yes, but I sure would have liked to smack that little snot in the head. >


That's how I view the subject. I have a built in mistrust of anything with such a political/economic aura about it.

I don't know if we're heating up the world but I do know that I wouldn't drink ANY water from the Cal-Sag cannal. We did that with our eyes wide open----- and that is a shame.

EC

[where_is_dave]

Some more fuel for the debate. These are excerpts from Greenspirit.com a Patrick Moore's (one of the founders of GreenPeace) website. He holds balanced views and opinions of which I must say I agree with in the main. He split from GreenPeace as he opposed the extreme anti everything philosophy that took over the organisation

There is a lenghty discussion in 'Environmentalism for the 21st Century' worth a look.

As we begin the 21st century, environmental thinkers are divided along a sharp fault line. There are the doomsayers who predict the collapse of the global ecosystem. There are the technological optimists who believe that we can feed 12 billion people and solve all our problems with science and technology. I do not believe that either of these extremes makes sense. There is a middle road based on science and logic, the combination of which is sometimes referred to as common sense. There are real problems and there is much we can do to improve the state of the environment.

to be continued...

[where_is_dave]

Next extract fits the topic nicely

website is: http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm

Climate change is a wonderful example to demonstrate the limitations of science. There are two fundamental characteristics of climate change that make it very difficult to use the empirical (scientific) method to predict the future. First there are simply too many uncontrollable variables -- the empirical method works best when you can control all the variables except the one you are studying. Second, and even more significant, is the fact that we have only one planet to observe. If we had 50 planet Earths and increased the carbon dioxide levels on 25 of them, leaving the other 25 alone, we might be able to determine a statistical difference between the two samples. With only one Earth, we are reduced to complex computer models of questionable value, and a lot of guesswork.