Slashdot Mirror

What, exactly, do you mean by "nobody in the public sphere is willing to make an effort to explain it"?

Do you mean that the news media isn't explaining it? That's not exactly surprising; they don't explain anything. They just say cell phone radiation will cause brain cancer, they don't say why.

Do you mean that Wikipedia doesn't explain it? It does.

Do you mean that there are no websites with explanations from and discussion with climate scientists? There are.

Do you mean that there are no Youtube videos with explanations? There are.

Do you mean that Al Gore didn't make a movie out of his Powerpoint presentation? He did. (yes, I know there are problems with it - but you know what? That's what happens when you assume that a layman has the intellectual capacity of a sea sponge, and hand the presentation over to a politician).

If you cannot find layman's explanations for the science behind global warming, then that's because you're not looking. It's not like "the public sphere" can shove a tube into your brain and pump the information in.

I don't ever want to limit your knowledge or understanding of the world.

Creative works are different.

So, what you're saying is that there is nothing in any creative work that would in any way increase my knowledge or understanding of the world.

Well, then, I suppose we shouldn't have things like libraries and museums that look to preserve creative works for future generations.

How about we start with An Inconvenient Truth as the first thing that we make sure gets as little distribution as possible, because it has no information in it, being a "creative work". Yes, that's probably flamebait, but I'm trying to make a point, here, people.

Wrong again. According to Al Gore "The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it's already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence." He doesn't say no scientists disagree.

Over-hyping IS counter productive to coming to a consensus on global warming, but why would Al (or any of the other activists) want to hype it so much? The answer is money. He's an opportunist, profiting on hype. Wait, just hear me out.

I too saw Al's film and like you, I also felt that he exaggerated some of his points. So with questions in my mind, I went to the film's web site to look for some answers, as suggested in the film. What I found was:
Buy the DVD!
Now available on DVD.
Buy the DVD.
Yes, three times just on the home page. Then I thought following "The Science" link would help me out, but all I found was the same regurgitated alarmist statements that the film was pushing.

That's when I realized what Al's motives were. If global warming is as much a threat to all of humanity as Al claims, then why isn't he mailing a free DVD to every man, woman and child on this planet? Don't say it can't be done; I used to get discs from AOL all the time.

BTW, I borrowed the film from my public library, so he didn't get any of my money.

>He says it, almost verbatim, in the Inconvenient Truth documentary/film.

I regret to say that you have almost certainly been mislead on this. If Al Gore had actually said that 2ndhand cigarette smoke is a large component of global warming, there would be some evidence of this quote from a reputable source, such as the NYT or a peer-reviewed scientific journal ( FYI NewsMax and Drudge are not reputable sources). And if it were a claim in the movie, it would be repeated on the website.

AFAIK there is no scientific evidence that tobacco smoke contributes significantly to global warming; for all its many other health faults, burning tobacco merely releases carbon previously extracted from the atmostphere by the tobacco plant. Thus (discounting the carbon impact of farming) tobacco burning is roughly carbon-neutral.

And Al's presentations are scrupulously based on mainstream science; for him to have deviated from this pattern would be so newsworthy that it cannot be believed without an unsourced assertion to one of the most widely viewed documentaries of all timed.

Gore may be dismayed at tobacco farming because of the health impact of its product (a predictable 30+% of its users die prematurely from normal use, making it one of the most dangerous products in common use), see http://www.tobacco-facts.info/ warning: unpleasant photos. There may also be a carbon impact from tobacco farming different from that of other crops; but neither items have much to do with 2ndhand smoke. If you cannot quote the exact words and the point in the DVD when Gore says them, it must be concluded that the source of this data has misinformed you.

An Inconvenient Truth. Damn, that was a great title.

Innovative bio-fuels like will not really help mitigate the global warming crisis (http://www.climatecrisis.net/). If anything, they'll help promote a false sense of security--"we are driving bio-fuel-powered vehicles, so we are doing our part to help prevent global warming." When we burn bio-fuel, we still release the greenhouse gases responsible for causing climate change.

Instead, research should be targeted at fuel efficiency and conservation. While biofuel may be important for fighting foreign oil dependency and may be better than oil-derived fuels in terms of climate change, it is still no great leap forward.

Also, is it ethical for Amyris to take money for researching a more affordable anti-malaria drug for poorer countries and then use that money to develop a profitable fuel for use in the United States? Likely not.

Really, like feeding/clothing/housing the poor, like Jesus? Sure you "Social Conservatives" talk a good game, but when it comes to real action, you're just political players. Even your charities are only provided with strings attached.

Frankly you'all need to come to the conclusion that the neo-cons have fucked you like a back street whore, and paid you with counterfeit money.

Rhetoric, the undue use of exaggeration or display. Perhaps I need to explain "undue" as well. The thing that pisses 'us' off the most about them is that most do not know their game, and it is a game. The loser is society, and the first casualty is the truth.

You clearly indicate that you understand that they are lying/ misrepresenting themselves, and you see nothing wrong with it, as a 'balance' for the 'lies from the left'. Bullshit, you better hope that God doesn't have a conspiracy clause for the eight Commandment or you'll be roasting in hell with the rest of them. That's our basic problem on the American left we just can lie like you'all. When someone talks about global warming I need to see proof, not the hyperbole, slander, and smear, so often 'employed' by those you venerate. Sure there are some who are 'too left' for me, and I will openly disagree with them, I have. Unlike you and others like you, I DO NOT BLINDLY SUBMIT TO ANY MAN, and those few whom I choose to follow know my disagreements, even if I choose to table them. Also, I do not believe that I can force others to bend to my will, besides, those who 'bend too easily' have little for me and do not significantly add to my understanding of the world; Unlike Rush and Anne I have no proper use for worshipers such as yourself.

So... You are arguing that in order to make a Science Documentary Film more palatable it should have MORE numbers in it.

You do realize this was a theatrical release film, right. It is supposed to spur you to action, including looking up the numbers at, oh I don't know, the film's website.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

I'm sure they're out there, but if I'm a science teacher and I'm going to spend valuable teaching time showing a movie, I want everything to be put together for me.

They present problems, but no solutions.

God, you're an idiot. Solutions, like these? Or like these? Or these? But God forbid we use less energy, even if we could do so with no impact whatsoever on our quality of life.

all of them live in cities, obviously, which are the least environmental of surroundings imaginable

Hey, guess what? You're still an idiot.

I'm not a big fan of soon to be ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, but he recently said "What is not in doubt is that the scientific evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is now overwhelming," in remarks made at the Royal Society in London.

My family and I visited London in 2003 - it was one of the hottest summers ever in Europe. The Underground was almost dangerously hot - and our room at the Gate Hotel in Notting Hill had no AC. We had no problem sleeping, since sightseeing all day helps you get to sleep pretty quickly, but it was warm at night. I first traveled to London in 1972, also in the summer, and remember much cooler weather and definitely cool nights. Again, anecdotal, but real enough to me.

I think the concentration on one aspect of possible causes to climate change is necessary if not the best scientific way, since if you want to change people's opinions about life style changes on a global scale, it's hard to mention every variable that might affect the planet without confusing or diluting the message.

If you've been to http://climatecrisis.net/ recently, you'll see an aerial picture of the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic - Haiti's side has been stripped bare of all foliage. When there are storms, mudslides result, usually killing many people. The DR side is lush, green - just as you'd expect in this area - but they have enforced policies against cutting down forests that protect the land and stop soil erosion.

So while the focus on CO2 emissions might seem misplaced, please understand that it's a way to get other ecological messages out, and I think that "An Inconvenient Truth" might turn out to be one of the most important films ever made, if it prods the countries of this world to stop behaving as if we can simply strip bare the planet and pollute willy-nilly withoust serious planetwide consequences.

Have a great Thanksgiving and the Beatles Rule!

Paramount Classics announced today that "An Inconvenient Truth" has grossed over $20 million dollars, making it the #4 highest grossing documentary of all time. As part of the campaign to encourage audiences to see "An Inconvenient Truth," Classics made an unprecedented pledge of 5% of all box office receipts to be donated to The Alliance for Climate Protection. With the success of the film, that donation will exceed $1 million dollars.

Consider our development aid record. Last year, the nations of the world spent over $1 trillion on armaments. But we contributed less than 10 per cent of that amount - a mere $80 billion - as official development assistance to the developing parts of the world, where 850 million people suffer from hunger. My friend James Morris heads the World Food Programme, whose task it is to feed the hungry. He recently told me, "If I could have just 1 per cent of the money spent on global armaments, no one in this world would go to bed hungry."

It makes sense to me that Gore would push for privatization of space etc. After all if we're all doomed due to Earth's climate problems then there's really only two ways to go.

One is underwater living in habitable, environmentally sound structures transporting between these different underwater cities via large underwater vehicles.

The other would be space. Mars or deep space or something that isn't broke that we don't want or need to fix.

This is great. According to the Gore film An Inconvienent Truth the auto makers were suing California over emission standards. Counter-suing for once seems like a good idea.

If you'd like to run a Global Warming simulation on your own computer you can. The EdGCM project has ported a NASA global climate model to Win/Mac and wrapped it in a point-and-click interface. Check boxes and sliders can now be used to run the GCM on your own computer instead of an advanced FORTRAN programmer and a supercomputer.

Disclaimer: I'm a developer on the project

Gore cancelled all his carbon outputs from the movie. http://www.climatecrisis.net/blog/?p=15

it's that there's been greater public attention to documentaries (and hopefully more docs will be funded in the future). For example, I wonder if An Inconvenient Truth would be receiving so much attention if it wasn't for such a dearth of quality Hollywood movies.

That being said, have you been outside lately?!

I'd also recommend seeing http://www.climatecrisis.net/ "An Inconvenient Truth". I saw it last night and, regardless of your political leanings, Al Gore makes a convincing case that humans are having an impact on the environment. Should we put a solar shade in space? It certainly could help slow the warming, but we need to decrease the cause: CO2 in the atmosphere.

Just think of all the jobs that can be created by switching to other forms of energy generation: water, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

No, that was real water surrounding the levees, not a bunch of politicians shoving those levees over. Oh, I get it! Wow, that's deep. Didn't think of climate change as a man-made engineering disaster, but you got a point.

Can this guy ever get a break? He just released a movie called An Inconvenient Truth telling us that the sky was falling. Now we learn its staying right where it has always been all along even with Chimpy McHaliburton in charge. My God, the next thing you will read is that the ice is getting thicker in Antarctica and Greenland.