"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[Textcritic]

I am curious, has anyone read the book or seen the film yet?
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Personally, I am skeptical about the doom and gloom claims of the environmental movement. There are ample reasons cited by Bjørn Lomborg in his The Skeptical Environmentalist, and by Michael Chrichton and others for me to wonder if Al Gore's manifesto is much more than alarmist propoganda. I am at a disadvantage because I lack the scientific training to properly engage with much of the evidence for climate change, but there are many professionals who question the validity of global warming, rising sea levels, extreme weather, etc.
Thoughts?

[RougeUnderoos]

Yeah but there are more professionals that don't question the validity of global warming, rising sea levels, extreme weather. Maybe I'm a doom/gloom type but I believe that crowd. Now I don't believe everything every one of them has to say, but I find it kinda tough to believe that so many qualified people could be so wrong for so long and I've never understood what they'd get out of it to keep saying these things.

But Michael Crichton? Come on now. If Stephen King writes a book about global warming would they cancel each other out?

[Burninator]

Here is a review about the movie from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/movies/24trut.html
Even has a video incase your too lazy to read it.

[CaramonLS]

I really hate how this whole environmental issue has somehow become ideological.

I'm not an experienced environmental researcher, but from what I've seen to this point, I tend to believe in global warming.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

But Michael Crichton? Come on now. If Stephen King writes a book about global warming would they cancel each other out?

I took a chance with that one!
If Stephen King wrote from a scientific background and provided a solid, well researched case for his position, then perhaps they would cancel each other out. Crichton does not claim to be an expert, but he cites a great deal of expert testimony to support his position, which can be summarized as follows:
• It is impossible to predict future climates. We cannot even accurately forecast next week's weather, and a number of scientists and politicians expect us to believe in their climate projections in excess of hundreds of years. Like any other type of complex systems, the condition of the earth's climate cannot be forecasted any more accurately than the stock exchange, mortality rates, and next week's winning lottery numbers.
• It is impossible to excercise control over the biosphere. There are too many variables involved to be accurately assessed in order to exude a form of control.
I am not prepared to take a layman's opinion as gospel, but there is science that makes a compelling case to suggest that there is little reason to believe in an impending environmental catastrophy. Most projections about the earth's future are based upon the patterns of the past, but given the reliability of information and data from 50 years ago; 100 years ago; 200 years ago; 500 years ago; how accurate can we expect our projections to be? In human history, there is no record of a single global catastrophe, and it seems reasonable to me to assume that one (or several) are now suddenly immenant.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I really hate how this whole environmental issue has somehow become ideological.

When Al Gore describes "the need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions as a 'moral imperative,'" I would tend to agree.
For the record, I do not doubt that the planet is warming, I only question whether or not this is catastrophic. As I understand it, the world has been subject to a long history of periods of fluctuating temperatures; warming and colling ad nauseum. Is it possible that because we are transitioning from a "cool" period of the earth's history for the first time since the invention of science we are alarmed by it?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

When Al Gore describes "the need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions as a 'moral imperative,'" I would tend to agree.
For the record, I do not doubt that the planet is warming, I only question whether or not this is catastrophic. As I understand it, the world has been subject to a long history of periods of fluctuating temperatures; warming and colling ad nauseum. Is it possible that because we are transitioning from a "cool" period of the earth's history for the first time since the invention of science we are alarmed by it?

Well it goes both ways. I really don't see just because Al Gore said it that it must be part of some political agenda.

I just think it is a load of crap that this issue seems to be polorizing depending on who you vote for. More and more conservatives seem to be supporting the idea than global warming is fiction and vice versa (I'm not singling out you or anything, but surely you do notice the trend).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well it goes both ways. I really don't see just because Al Gore said it that it must be part of some political agenda.

I just think it is a load of crap that this issue seems to be polorizing depending on who you vote for. More and more conservatives seem to be supporting the idea than global warming is fiction and vice versa (I'm not singling out you or anything, but surely you do notice the trend).

So can I say that the liberals believe in global warming, because, you know, Al Gore made a video about it?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

For the record, I do not doubt that the planet is warming, I only question whether or not this is catastrophic. As I understand it, the world has been subject to a long history of periods of fluctuating temperatures; warming and colling ad nauseum. Is it possible that because we are transitioning from a "cool" period of the earth's history for the first time since the invention of science we are alarmed by it?

I read a book a few months ago (this one) and (with a little fear of getting the summary quite wrong) I believe it said something like this: We've had good or even perfect climate for 10 or 12 thousand years (since the end of an ice age) and in that time us hoomans developed agriculture and reaped all the benefits that came with that development (ie "everything"). In all the time before that we couldn't do the farming thing because the climate was wrong. For 10 thousand years though it's been right we'd be screwed/non-existent if this set of climate circumstances didn't come about.

But the climate range for all the fun stuff we enjoy is pretty small. I won't pretend to remember the numbers he used to explain for me the layman how it works but I'll try to convey his message by using the numbers 48-52.

If the "temperature" stays between 48 and 52 then we can keep going hunky dory. If it were to drop to 47.9 or rise to 52.1 then we are out of the little safety zone that we've enjoyed for a long time. It's in our best interests to do what we can to keep it between 48 and 52. It doesn't sound like a big deal if we rise just one or two degrees, but it's a very small window so it is a big deal.

Bah, I know how simplistic that looks but it made sense to me.

There is also a great bit about what happened to the people from Easter Island.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I took a chance with that one!
If Stephen King wrote from a scientific background and provided a solid, well researched case for his position, then perhaps they would cancel each other out. Crichton does not claim to be an expert, but he cites a great deal of expert testimony to support his position, which can be summarized as follows:
• It is impossible to predict future climates. We cannot even accurately forecast next week's weather, and a number of scientists and politicians expect us to believe in their climate projections in excess of hundreds of years. Like any other type of complex systems, the condition of the earth's climate cannot be forecasted any more accurately than the stock exchange, mortality rates, and next week's winning lottery numbers.
• It is impossible to excercise control over the biosphere. There are too many variables involved to be accurately assessed in order to exude a form of control.
I am not prepared to take a layman's opinion as gospel, but there is science that makes a compelling case to suggest that there is little reason to believe in an impending environmental catastrophy. Most projections about the earth's future are based upon the patterns of the past, but given the reliability of information and data from 50 years ago; 100 years ago; 200 years ago; 500 years ago; how accurate can we expect our projections to be? In human history, there is no record of a single global catastrophe, and it seems reasonable to me to assume that one (or several) are now suddenly immenant.

I'm a huge Crichton fan, but he's full of bunk on this one. Just like his take on nanotechnologhy was pop-science crap I think he misses the mark on this one by a huge margin. The scientific community is laughing at him and his approach. One meterologist described his approach of writting an idea on a bar napkin and thinking that it will stand up to the light of scrutiny. Crichton writes entertaining fantasy, with the key on fantasy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I'm a huge Crichton fan, but he's full of bunk on this one. Just like his take on nanotechnologhy was pop-science crap I think he misses the mark on this one by a huge margin. The scientific community is laughing at him and his approach. One meterologist described his approach of writting an idea on a bar napkin and thinking that it will stand up to the light of scrutiny. Crichton writes entertaining fantasy, with the key on fantasy.

Yes. I posted the links in another thread, but the basic scoop on Chrichton is that his book is widely discredited as science.

A good way to think of it is like Jurassic Park. Is there science in that book? Sure. Is it science? Hardly.

[Flame On]

That Crichton book was so poorly written on an aesthetic level let alone basing your opinion of global warming on it! He totally had an agenda in it and reinforced it the entire way. If there's scientific debate fair enough, but he isn't in that realm at all.
All of it was based on temperature too, nothing to do with species extinction, bio diversity hell even pollution. Which no one can argue it wouldn't be good to cut down.

[Hakan]

There is also a great bit about what happened to the people from Easter Island.

They built false idols in the forms of the statues and when things started going bad, ie lack of resources from build all these false idols, they started ramping up production in the hopes that things would get better?

Hmm, something seems similar...

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yes. I posted the links in another thread, but the basic scoop on Chrichton is that his book is widely discredited as science.

A good way to think of it is like Jurassic Park. Is there science in that book? Sure. Is it science? Hardly.

True,

But there is talk of cloning the Woolly Mammoth now..

[Flame On]

but given the reliability of information and data

Its funny we have no reliability of data for when earthquakes will occur, yet building codes are in place to account for them now on the west coast.
In addition there are contingency plans for evacuation and emergency preparedness proceedures are in place by communities etc etc.

[Bingo]

Here's where I sit ...

1. I don't know. I'm a gas trader.
2. I've read compeling information in both directions.
3. I've seen the admission that Kyoto math was flawed.
4. I'm extremely uncomfortable that a very strong majority of our planet go with the Global Warming theory is an absolute fact when there's evidence to the contrary.

I'm not pushing global warming as a myth, but I'm one that thinks we should all slow down and actually figuere this thing out before bad decision after bad decision is made for the wrong reasons.

Add to that Al Gore's track record of self promotion and blathering to the media and it all makes me a little uneasy.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Global warming is left wing conspiracy. Isn't it obvious? Jesus, the left wing science whackos just created a new hurricane classification (level 6) because storms have exceeded the standards set for the old classification (not thought possible). These super-storms are nothing more than conspiracy and can be explained away by the proposition of a cycle. It all makes sense!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not pushing global warming as a myth, but I'm one that thinks we should all slow down and actually figuere this thing out before bad decision after bad decision is made for the wrong reasons.

Add to that Al Gore's track record of self promotion and blathering to the media and it all makes me a little uneasy.

I will second this.
There is a minority within the scientific community who believes that while the subject of sustainability is a noble enterprise and worth study, it needs to be tempered with a more cautionary approach than that which has been taken by the environmental movement. Is global warming happening? Probably. Has it been accelerated through the burning of fossil fuels and carbon based technology? Probably? Will continuing pollution trends destroy the planet in less than 100 years? This last point seems extremely debatable. We as a species and our planet have demonstrated in our respective histories an enourmous capacity for adaptability.
Scientists like Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich have been making forecasts of irrevocable and inevitable doom and catastrophes for DECADES, and so far none of them has come to pass. I was taught in school in the late '90's that by 2005 the air would be practically unbreathable; that half of the earth's species would be extinct; that oil and gas reserves would be practically completely depleted. none of it has happened.
My point is this: climatologists and environmental scientists have far from a flawless track record when it comes to the accuracy of their projections. Why should we spend the VAST amounts of money required to protect ourselves on something that MAY or MAY NOT happen in the next 100 years?
By the way, my introduction of Chrichton into this debate was probably short-sighted. As interesting as State of Fear was, I recognize as well as anyone that a piece of fiction does not constitute scientific research. Bjørn Lomborg is a much more credible and reliable source from which to argue. Chrichton just happens to be one of his supporters.

[Bobblehead]

Here's a link to a story (and clip) of Al Gore on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago. He is addressing the nation as if he had won the presidential election.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Global warming is left wing conspiracy. Isn't it obvious? Jesus, the left wing science whackos just created a new hurricane classification (level 6) because storms have exceeded the standards set for the old classification (not thought possible). These super-storms are nothing more than conspiracy and can be explained away by the proposition of a cycle. It all makes sense!

Well ... you're always good for a hyperbole, and over exageration.

If you were answering me you missed the mark. I didn't call it a conspiracy, and I'm not calling it a myth.

I am questioning why there is so much conflicting information and so little pause for thought with said information.

That's a rush to judgement plain and simple.

Is it possible that a rush to judgement can be proven the right judgement call when the dust settles? For sure ... but that doesn't remove the fact that the initial move was indeed a rush and with that there are dangers.

Why not slow down and get to the bottom of these things once and for all?

Seems the assumption of global warming is the one that doesn't want to hear any sort of opposition. Only natural for enviromental scientists to be pro-environment, the silent middle might have some pretty serious reservations, but don't want to be branded pro industry or pro pollution for questioning what has become a run table.