Funny, that’s how I feel about someone who uses trends that’s stretch for decades, or even centuries, to claim man-made global warming when the sun clearly has cycles with periodicity of thousands, or tens of thousands, of years that we can only guess about.
My, you mean you think that the thousands of scientist working on the problem are basing their conclusions just checking tempertures for the last 100 years?
Tell me I’m being whooshed. Gore has said zip about population growth.
Isn’t the vast majority of human impact within the last 100 years?
I’m not sure what argument you are trying to make. We have excellent data going back much farther than 100 years, via ice cores.
Most civilizations collapsed because they depleted their soil. They could not longer grow the crops to feed the people. Other civilizations grew in other areas. Our modern society is global. Our food comes from everywhere. All our environmental issues are global issues. There is no other place for civilization to start over.
Clearly? I don’t know too much climatology, but a quarter of the physics department here are solar physicists, and I can tell you for certain that the Sun doesn’t “clearly” have cycles of thousands or tens of thousands of years. It certainly has cycles of ~3 days, ~30 days, and 11 or 22 years, and there are some vague indications that there might be a cycle of a few hundred years, but beyond that, nobody know just what cycles the Sun may or may not have.
What do you mean? Sure this has become a political issue and politics exaggerates for its own gains. That can be very dangerous.
I’m not about to be duped by Al Gore but that doesn’t mean he is wrong. I know too many people who have watched this movie who are now on the bandwagon. I agree with you, they need to get educated. It’s one thing to wake up on the issue of global warming. It’s another to start walking to work even when its cold out.
But people need a starting point to learn from. “Think for yourself”, what does that mean? Nobody would know anything about this issue if no information was available.
As a science teacher, I am one of the most skeptical people I know but I’m still waiting for that one person to say that any of what Al Gore presented is bullshit. Let’s have someone put out an opposing movie just like they did with Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911.
People are often duped by flash and politicians grab hold to get votes. The question is, is this movie flash or fact?
I’ve always wondered if it even matters. It seems that, once global warming is accepted, that the debate becomes nature vs. man. Who cares? If the climate is really warming, what do we do about it? I don’t care why it’s broke (beyond not doing what broke it), but let’s fix it.
I do say this without having seen the movie.
About the population chart that featherlou posted: Why does the population curve jump up so sharply in the 21st century? Shouldn’t it be a gradually steepening curve, rather than have such a sudden rise?
That’s exactly what I’m doing with this thread. Rather than watching the movie and accepting it as gospel, I’m running it by a group of very intelligent, well-informed, massively skeptical people. I’m not saying I’m going to accept the opinions of this group as gospel any more than I’m going to accept the movie, but the more information I assimilate, the better informed my decisions will be.
flex727
where do you think the CO2 has come from?
I recommend that you watch the movie. It really is a well-done “Introduction to Global Warming.”
It’s an exponential curve. The extremely rough math -
One couple (two people) have two kids, and you have four people.
6.5 billion people (3.25 billion couples) have two kids, and you have 13 billion people (your original 6.5 billion people plus their 6.5 billion kids).
13 billion people have two kids, and you have 26 billion people (13 billion couples).
You get a massive amount of people doubling the population, and the doubles are freakin’ huge, hence the spike.
(Like I mentioned earlier, my education is based in biology. If a mathematician/statistician has a better explanation, be my guest.)
Maybe these are Earth cycles related to changes in the tilt of the Earth or changes in the eccentricity of its orbit.
Be careful what you wish for. 
And maybe it’s due to Intelligent Wobbling. Maybe there are purple elephants dancing the Watusi on the far side of the moon. Maybe Anna Nicole Smith is still alive, munching on apple fritters in a diner somewhere with Elvis. Maybe the internet is just a silly, silly place.
Is there a climatologist in the house?
Sewers don’t actually do anything but pipe the shit out of your house. You then have to treat the shit so it’s not hazardous (unless you like things like dysentary, typhus, and other such nasties). That gets tricky. Wastewater treatment plants are expensive and don’t do a very good job. Properly managed wetlands do a better job, but take up a lot of land, which can be a problem. (It’s not single use land, however, you can site parks on it.)
Of course, since they’re now looking at turning cowshit into building material, then perhaps we can look at doing the same thing with human shit as well (and all our pet shit, too).
Note that the article points out at present, livestock is producing something like 1 trillion pounds a year just to feed a population of 300 million people and we’re having trouble getting rid of it properly. What’s going to happen when the population of the US doubles? Are we all going to become vegetarians? Add in the rest of the garbage we produce (and we 'Merkins produce more of it than anyone else) and it quickly becomes a problem.
spoke-, yeah but’s just going to last a week and it’s the first big storm they’ve had in years.
I liked the movie - I thought it did a good job of presenting the basic arguments for global warming and of countering some of the commonly-raised objections.
The things I disliked about the movie didn’t have to do with science. First, I thought it spent too much time on Al Gore the person. I don’t need to know about his personal history in this context.
Second, at the end when it listed recommended actions, almost everything was at the individual level: buy a hybrid car, use fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescents, carpool, etc. It seems obvious to me that a problem like this won’t be solved by billions of people all over the world individually deciding to cut down on energy use. We need changes on a larger scale. For example, it would probably help to build more public transit. Many people think we should start building nuclear power plants again in the U.S. Some people are in favor of a carbon tax. Our cities and highways were laid out before we knew about global warming - maybe we should think about moving things around so people don’t have to drive so much. I wish the movie had done more to encourage people to think about changes in public policy.
It’s so unfair that Al Gore is not only rich–he’s famous. People listen to him. And U2 is also famous. Even worse, Al’s American & U2 is Irish!
You’re much more pure! But your influence is limited. Keep practicing that guitar…
I just finished watching it for the first time. I must confess it wasn’t what I expected. It was slick, political, and convincing. I like the way Al Gore speaks and his presentation is impressive.
That doesn’t mean I buy the premise in entirety. What I will question least is that the planet is warming, at least in the short term. That brings up all the usual questions like how serious is it, how much does man contribute, is the change bad or good, can we change it and should we.
One thing that did pop out at me, though, is the story of the frog in boiling water, which is an urban legend:
When such things crop up, while they don’t invalidate other points in the show, they don’t inspire confidence in them, either. Any presenter who researched his facts about frogs so poorly might be using other misleading statistics for his own purposes as well.
As I like to say, this is an ilustration of the “Thirteenth Strike Rule,” to wit, “If a clock strikes thirteen, not only is it false, but it casts doubt on the other twelve.”
I thought the frog was supposed to be pure metaphor, not part of the science of the film.
Actually, what pissed me off about that damn boiling frog is that they saved it – much to the audible relief of the entire theater audience, I might add – but didn’t do the same for the poor polar bear! Dayum! Did Stephen Colbert write this film or what?
(Don’t get me wrong, I wanted the frog to get out alive, but seeing that polar bear pathetically trying to crawl up onto a melting ice floe was heartwrenching.)