We just watched the documentary by Al Gore on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and I was wondering what Dopers thought of it. Is it accurate? Is the science sound? Do you agree with the conclusions drawn? I thought it was well-done and thought-provoking, with the premise, supporting evidence, and conclusions well-laid-out and presented, but there were a few moments when my “handling/political spin” alarm went off.
I’ll give Al Gore full credit for one thing; he seems to be a fantastic public speaker. I guess you don’t damn near win a presidency without being a great public speaker.
I saw the movie from a different perspective. I was already aware of most of the arguments and I already believed in them. So I left a little disappointed he did not spend more time on possible solutions instead of just raising the alarm.
It took on conversation on the Dope to remind me that raising the alarm is the bigger job currently. Hopefully the new UN report will help in this regard.
I live the movie, but I found it a little slow as it was covering stuff I already knew.
I loved Al’s line: “I used to be the next president of the the United States…I don’t find that particularly funny!”
Man-made or not, the degradation of our planet needs to be addressed. One thing IS true: it’s the only home we’ve got, and there’s nowhere else to go when it becomes uninhabitable.
I enjoyed watching it. I found it informative and entertaining, except when he started talking about why he does what he does, where he grew up and such. I thought that was boring. If the entire movie was just the presentation, I would have liked it a lot better.
I thought it was a bit risky to link Katrina to global warming, but given as the kind of person who would call him on it (since there’s no way to know whether it was due to global warming or entirely random) won’t watch the movie, it doesn’t matter I guess.
Otherwise, I would just wish that rather than showing pictures of his kid that he’d showed the methods by which the data was gleaned in more detail.
I thought his point was okay - that global warming is causing an increase in the severity of storms like hurricanes, not that Katrina was caused by global warming, per se. We actually stopped the DVD and re-watched that part - the film of Katrina developing was spec-tacular.
That’s where my questioning feeling is coming from, I think - his science was soft and glossed-over. It was more like “An Introduction to Global Warming,” rather than an in-depth look at it. Which I suppose was also okay, because I don’t think he was aiming higher than that.
Al is now running training seminars so that people can spread the word and I think that part of the point of the film was to act as an infomercial for those. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
Nor do I think that the film was unnecessarily watered down. Too many people don’t realize that global warming is real. How they can ignore this fact is beyond me. When I was a kid, we had snow on the ground all winter in Ohio, and now they’re lucky if they get a dusting.
One thing that I’m not sure if he missed or if he left out deliberately (though he slightly alluded to it) is that when the Earth’s population hits 9 billion, we’re pretty much screwed, even if we get global warming under control. There’s simply no way the planet can sustain that level of people unless all of our technologies get so efficient that there’s no waste. Just the amount of fecal matter from humans that will have to be processed is staggering, then when you add in the amount generated by food animals it becomes overwhelming.
I’ve heard this argument my whole life, except it used to be about 5 bn and then 6 bn ASF. It’s my understanding that the earth is *not * over populated. Mismanaged in places - yes.
So - do you have a cite?
What tends to annoy me is the likes of a scientific nincompoop like Al Gore, or scientific nincompoops like newspaper/TV reporters screaming at me and telling me that I have to believe that global warming is all caused by human activity or I’m no better than a holocaust denier.
Also, just because the population’s hit a certain number doesn’t mean that we’re going to start dying off automatically in droves. It generally takes a bit of time for these things to start happening. The US has one of the highest living standards in the world, and IIRC, our population of a “mere” 300 million people consumes 25% of the world’s resources (not sure of the exact percentage, but we suck up more stuff than the rest of the planet, IAC). China has over 3 times the population of the US, and most of their people do not have a standard of living approaching that of ours. If they want to be fat and lazy like we Americans, then they’re going to need all of the world’s resources to be able to do so. Clearly, that’s not going to fly.
Admittedly, thanks to technological innovation, it will be possible to reduce the demand for resources, while maintaining the same standard of living. However, if you manage to cut the combined US and Chinese demand to 25% of the world’s resources, that takes care of roughly 2 billion people. What about India (which will soon have a population larger than that of China’s)? What about the rest of the planet? If we’re choking on the filth produced by roughly 1 billion people (I’m WAGging that the total number of people on the Earth who enjoy the same standard of living as 'Merkins is about 700 million.), imagine what will happen to the planet when you have 9 times that number living at the same level as those of us in the developed world. Simply cutting the amount of pollution to 1/9th the level per billion won’t be enough to keep the planet going. You’ll have to cut it even farther than that if we want to survive happily.
Can it be done? Maybe. It all depends upon what technological breakthroughs happen between now and then and how easy it is to reverse the damage that we’ve done to the planet.
Gosh, that’s dreadful. Though I am personally convinced by the findings of the scientists in the IPCC (and all the US and UK governmental institutions that stand behind the IPCC findings), I would happily denounce this “screaming” and unpleasant accusations. Please provide examples of this happening, and I’ll write an email of protest in your support.
Then look it up yourself from what research has actually been done. Either the reports are hyping a minority view, or the methodology of the tests was faulty–or it’s the truth. Personally I’m satisfied that there is enough data to come to a conclusion, but that’s going to be an individual choice regardless of anything.
So, you’re telling me that the folks who wrote this report for the UN are all nincompoops since they say that they’re 90% certain global warming is caused by humans? And while I realize that 90% does seem like a low number, according to the scientist interviewed on NPR, the only reason that it was that low was because of pressure from certain “political” groups.
There’s a lot of “appeal to authority” mixed in with the highly speculative guesswork science in all of that, but it’s a more cautious approach than the one adopted by the scaremongers in the media.
Just to remind you all. I have not claimed that there is no global warming on Earth and Mars.
But how does the Martian global warming compare to that on Earth? Is it going up by a similar amount? Larger? Significantly smaller? Is it in any way related to the fact that Mars was closer to the sun a few years ago than it has been in thousands of years? Is it possible that there’s some sort of biological or geological activity responsible for it? Are our measurements of the temperature on Mars really all that accurate? We’ve got data on Earthly temps going back hundreds of years (that was collected by humans) as well as estimates taken from ice and soil samples that date back hundreds of thousands of years. We can’t say the same for Mars. Perhaps our initial detailed observations of the planet took place during a time when the planet was unusually cold.
“Those clowns” is actually one staff writer and blogger for a magazine that bills itself as “gloom and doom with a sense of humor”. I agree what he wrote is absurd in its hyperbole. I think you - and the Senator - are exaggerating his importance. I’ll email him nonetheless.