Wow. This is a must see movie! This is a movie of Al Gore's slide show that he has been touring the world with for the past few years. Anyone who has any doubts of on global warning will leave with none. Some of the facts he puts out are: http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level. The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade. At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles. If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences. Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year. Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050. More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050. There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now
So you guys agree with everything in the documentary but the Hurricane info like the link you posted? "Masters, like me, agrees with virtually everything but the hurricane info. " OK.
That was certainly the position of the guy at wunderground.com...Jeff Masters. I thought about posting that part of his blog when I read it last week. Interesting stuff.
I agree with Gore about there being a trend towards more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes as global warming increases. In short, I kinda disagree with Jeff, although I certainly understand his argument. In any given year for the past several decades, NOLA could have had a devastating hurricane like Katrina. It happened, as we all know (and my dear departed grandmother was old enough to remember it, and talk to me about it), to Galveston in 1900. It could have happened to NOLA 40 years ago... whenever. That's not Gore's point. His point is that the conditions for more storms, and more powerful storms, are increasing. I think that is true. It doesn't matter that Katrina could have happened anyway. Perhaps not making that fact clearer was a minor mistake in an incredible documentary. I urge everyone to see it, regardless of your political leanings. It is an eye opener, even to those who already knew most of the info Gore presented so well. I knew most of it already, but I hadn't seen it all presented in such a cogent fashion, all at once. It's stunning and terribly frightening. My children are going to experience a far different world than I have, or the rest of you who happen to be a couple of decades younger have known. I used to think the difference would be more along the lines of huge overcrowding from uninhibited population growth, and an environment clear-cut, raped, and pillaged. The future is going to be far different. We're looking at that, and the destruction of several countries, and the living areas of hundreds of millions, with the attendant displacement. Think figuring out where to put the Katrina victims was pretty hairy? Multiply that by 100 or 1000 times, and you have our future, unless we act now. Even if we act now, it may be too late. I hope not. Keep D&D Civil.
Well this answers my question of where the documentaries are?...About time, I was getting worried about the track record...
I'm not a fan of Gore or his movie, but anyways.... Nature 441, 674-675 (8 June 2006) Published online 7 June 2006 Insurers' disaster files suggest climate is culprit Rising costs hint at weather effect. Insurance companies, acutely aware of the dramatic increase in losses caused by natural disasters in recent decades, have been convinced that global warming is partly to blame. Now their data seem to be persuading scientists, too. At a recent meeting of climate and insurance experts, delegates reached a cautious consensus: climate change is helping to drive the upward trend in catastrophes. The meeting, held near Munich on 25–26 May, was jointly organized by Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance company, and the University of Colorado in Boulder. It brought together climate, atmosphere and weather researchers with economists and insurance experts to discuss what could be behind recent disaster losses, both economic and human. Insurers have been outspoken in blaming global warming. But scientists have tended to be more cautious, with many arguing that the rise could be primarily due to socioeconomic changes and natural climate variability. Under discussion were data compiled by Munich Re, whose NatCatservice database, comprising 22,000 natural disasters dating back to ad 79, is the largest of its kind. NatCatservice shows that the frequency of weather-related catastrophes has increased sixfold since the 1950s. The number of non-weather disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions, has only marginally increased during the same period. Delegates seem to have found the record persuasive. Their consensus statement, to be released on 8 June, says there is "evidence that changing patterns of extreme events are drivers for recent increases in global losses". There was no agreement on how big a role global warming has played, however. "Because of issues related to data quality, it is still not possible to determine the portion of the increase in damages that might be attributed to climate change," the workshop concluded. "Dissent over the issue is clearly waning," says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks department, who co-chaired the workshop with Roger Pielke Jr, director of the University of Colorado's Center of Science and Technology Policy Research. "Climate change may not be the dominant factor, but it has become clear that a relevant portion of damages can be attributed to global warming." Previously sceptical, Pielke says that he is now convinced that at least some of the increased losses can be blamed on climate: "Clearly, since 1970 climate change has shaped the disaster loss record." He adds a note of caution, however: "Disaster damage is not the place to look for early indications of climate change," he says. "Policy advocates should exercise caution in using disaster losses to justify climate mitigation, lest they go beyond what science can support." But environmental groups are already using the rise in extreme weather events to help their campaigns about climate change. For example, Germanwatch, an environmental and developmental watchdog group, has used the Munich Re data to compile a ranking of the countries most badly affected by weather-related disasters in 2004. The group ranked countries according to four indicators — the number of casualties from extreme weather events, the number of casualties per 100,000 population, total economic damages, and economic damages relative to the country's gross domestic product. It combined those rankings to give a final "climate risk index". The ranking is topped by Somalia and other underdeveloped countries. But the United States and Japan, where natural disasters in 2004 caused considerable economic losses, also ranked highly. The list has been criticized by experts, who say that data for a single year are largely influenced by random events and reveal little about how climate change is affecting different countries. But Sven Anemüller, co-author of the report and senior adviser for climate and development with Germanwatch, counters that the 2004 list is just the beginning of a longer-term analysis. "We're not saying that the countries listed this time are the ones that will lastingly be hit hardest by climate change," he says. The group's approach, if continued, does make sense, agrees Höppe. Looking at the rankings over years or decades could eventually provide much-needed information as to which countries are most at risk from climate change, he says. ------------------------------ It's still up for debate, but the increase of natural disasters theory certainly isn't out of the question.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909 AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 27, 2006 The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology. AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted. The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 ) Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro. Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore: Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006 Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote: “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect. “…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film: “…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column. Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970. "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote: “ A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. MIT's Sloan School is their business school. I don't know about you but I really like to get all of my science news from business (after the bible) as read in the Wall Street Journal.
are you certain he's a business professor, though? is it possible that the name Sloan is also used in the sciences at MIT? his title indicates he might know a little something more about Atmospheric Science than my finance professors. EDIT: he ain't a business professor. here ya go: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
This whole global warming debate signifies everything I hate about politics. The right is french kissing Big Business. The left is french kissing The Siera Club. Most of what you read in the news is just a flimsy facade from people with a radical agenda. Big Business wants laissez faire and Enviros want to be overly protective of something that has always been very dynamic. The truth is somewhere inbetween. But we can't debate the truth since how could the politicos raise money from that.
I've seen these names before, these guys are the usual suspects who have built up lucrative careers as professional skeptics (some of whose careers are directly funded by various oil & energy concerns) in this area. This whole press release seems like a thinly veiled piece of propaganda released by the senator (I'm guessing it's Inhofe, who' seems a little bit right of a caveman, in my opinion) who controls the committee. That's fine, but if its purpose is to dispel "bias", well - it's basically launching catapults from inside greenhouses. An interesting anectdote about Lindzen, the darling of right wing talk radio , from wikipedia: Attempted betting on global warming, 2004-2005 The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[16] Climatologist James Annan,[17] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[18] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[19] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[20] In response, Lindzen denied telling Reason that he would bet at 1:1 odds that temperatures would be lower in 20 years than they are now, and stated that he would only bet if offered "much higher odds." According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree.[21]. (Annan subsequently responded to Lindzen's response.[22]).
Damn that Sloan for giving $$$ to two separate MIT departments. Publishing global warming opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal still does not pass the sniff test.
Bob Carter is not even a fuill professor. He also gets funding from Exxon . He also works for the Institute of Public Affairs, a corporate funded think tank. He is a well known corporate buffoon. In my previous post about this movie you can see how he and his ilk operate. I love the tone of this article, it makes it sound like Carter is being censored - when in fact the only news venues willing to voice his bull**** are far-right rags like the Canadian Free Press. Guess who Lindzen works with ? http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17 Besides the fact that ol' Spencer works for a well known corporate front, any fool can tell you that yes, variations in temperature in the arctic peaked briefly in the late 30s, PRIOR to WWII, and then peaked again in the 1960s PRIOR to environmental legislation. Not surprisingly, this correlates with similar rising and falling in GHG emissions. And on and on. I research this stuff a lot. Trust me, everytime you hear an "expert" denying global warming or signs of global warming, they're bought and paid for. Global warming is a fact. Accurately explaining the reasons why is complicated, but as a whole the scientific consensus is clear - humans (and particularly the industrial era) are massive contributors. You'd be better off quoting Thomas Gale Moore, at least he argued against global warming on the basis of greed and indignation. Research him - it'll make you sick.
Saw this yesterday, and highly recommend it. I admit there are sections of the movie that were gratuitously pro-Gore/anti-Bush (and I wish they had been excised), but the scientific explanations were extremely well-done and very eye-opening.
Even the leftist pussyfooters for crying out loud against America club are getting tired of predictable slanted "documentaries"...
