An Inconvenient Truth

[Donut.Hole]

Is Al Gore right about the effects of global warming? A lot of scientists think that Gore is wrong, but his data seems pretty solid to me.

 

Any thoughts, opinions, facts?

[ydoaPs]

Cows produce more green house gasses than humans!

[antimatter]

I believe that he is right, although there are many good arguments against him.

Scientists have however, found that some of the units in the book were wrong, and over exaggerated to add to the whole 'fear factor' of the movie. I thought that it was great that Gore was trying to get Global Warming out and all, but he needs to tone down the whole theme of horror.

 

A common argument for non-believers is that humans occupy less than 1% of the land on Earth, and that we couldn't cause that much damage to the atmosphere.

Another common argument is that we're just part of a natural cycle.

 

Really, I think there's solid evidence on both sides, though I'm going to have to side against the nonbelievers on this one.

 

 

 

 

By the way, Donut, I like the new G-Man icon

[iNow]

The science is solid.

There is no debate among experts regarding what is happening.

Gore is in the marketing side, trying to increase awareness and encourage action.

His film emphasized urgency over accuracy.

The science being done is solid.

There is no debate amont experts regarding what is happening.

 

The debate pertains to how to mitigate the issues.

Gore's film/movie was an attempt to bring the rest of the population to the proverbial table during those idea exchanges.

[antimatter]

So what are the common suggestions of how to mitigate the issue?

[iNow]

Here's a good source I came across a few days ago which shares a few suggestions:

 

Scientific American - 10 Solutions for Climate Change

 

The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called "wedges" for nations to utilize toward this goal—each of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels—there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.

[antimatter]

I think that that's a way Al Gore could've made An Inconvenient Truth look slightly better in the eyes of the scientific community; explaining how we can help.

[Pangloss]

Here's a good source I came across a few days ago which shares a few suggestions:

 

Scientific American - 10 Solutions for Climate Change

 

Oh geez, great article. Here, let me sum it up:

1) Stop driving.

2) Stop flying.

3) Stop cooling your home.

4) Stop heating your home.

5) Stop consuming food.

6) Stop drinking water.

7) If you do eat food, don't eat beef. (?!)

8) Stop cutting down trees (not a problem; I'm already dead on 1-7)

9) Unplug the AC and heater you're not using (?!?!)

10) Don't have any children. (...)

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hey, it would probably work.

[antimatter]

Oh geez, great article. Here, let me sum it up:

1) Stop driving.

2) Stop flying.

3) Stop cooling your home.

4) Stop heating your home.

5) Stop consuming food.

6) Stop drinking water.

7) If you do eat food, don't eat beef. (?!)

8) Stop cutting down trees (not a problem; I'm already dead on 1-7)

9) Unplug the AC and heater you're not using (?!?!)

10) Don't have any children. (...)

 

 

 

Don't put down Scientific American, it's a great magazine, and that's waaay to0 over simplified!

It just comes off like you skimmed through the article and didn't really understand any of it!

 

It's not as bad as this site

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/

 

Look at the bottom under "Ways to Stop Producing Carbon Dioxide"...

[Pangloss]

Well I've been a subscriber since before probably half of our membership was born, so I guess I'm entitled to a LITTLE fun.

 

Thanks for the link, that was amusing too. I especially liked this one:

 

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

 

Hehe!

[Chris C]

Is Al Gore right about the effects of global warming? A lot of scientists think that Gore is wrong, but his data seems pretty solid to me.

 

Any thoughts, opinions, facts?

 

Hi.

 

From what I've seen (and agree with), the main criticisms against his film are on issue of timescale and sensationalism. For example, he speaks of 20 something feet sea level rise. This is what would happen if you melted West Antarctica or Greenland fully, but that would take centuries. I know Gore never explicitly mentioned a time table, but I don't disagree with those who say this could be misleading. Then, he spends a while talking about Katrina and showing emotional pictures of victims. Hurricane Katrina is not caused by global warming; it may have been intensified by percentages in the single digits, and I know that Gore did not "technically" say it was caused, but if I was completely ignorant of the issue that may have been a take home message.

 

There are other criticisms agaisnt his film such as about how his CO2/temperature chart going back 650,000 years is misleading because of the "CO2 lags temperature" argument, or how GW might be impacting corals, etc...and I find such "errors" to be nonsense. Gore is on very, very solid ground by using the paleoclimatic record as evidence of CO2 relationship with temperature (though the relationship is not as simple as CO2 and then T goes up), or how corals, lakes and tropical glaciers (he talks about Kilimanjaro and Lake Chad specifically, but changes in climate are not ruled out for these) may be effected. Changes in glaciers, corals, droughts, etc are extremely well documented in the literature, and though one place or one event may not be an indicator of global warming, the trends on a global scale, and on decadal time scales are.

 

Concerning AGW itself, and the effects, there is no serious controversy in the scientific arena that we are influencing climate, and that unmitigated "business-as-usual" emissions and continued land-use/deforestation etc will have high consequences. Despite what you get on blogs and the media, this stuff is settled. The peer-reviewed literature and the tone if you go to academic conferences (unless it's the Heartland Institute) and amongst academic organizations shows unequivocally that man is changing the climate, and there is no reason to suspect that these changes will be negligible. There is a lot of "honest skepticism" and "debate" going on, but not the kind you think of after reading too many internet discussions on global warming, evolution, etc. The debate is on the technical details, and better understanding the responses to climate change (how far North will X species migrate, how many degrees and how fast does it take to get Greenland to melt, how do clouds change with a warming climate). There are also issues in better understanding individual and extreme events, small timescales and regional climate change.

[bascule]

If you do eat food, don't eat beef.

 

That's a prudent suggestion in general

[Donut.Hole]

Gore's data is solid stuff, but I think he was presenting it in a very dramatic way. So he was giving solid data, but maybe not giving arguments against his own words, so it was heavily biased.

 

Besides, I've heard that Gore is a hypocrite trying to promote his public image. I don't want to believe it, but it is true that Gore owns several large mansions/large housing establishments and has a ton of stocks in Oxy oil company. Anyone have anything to say about this?

[antimatter]

Gore's data is solid stuff, but I think he was presenting it in a very dramatic way. So he was giving solid data, but maybe not giving arguments against his own words, so it was heavily biased.

 

Besides, I've heard that Gore is a hypocrite trying to promote his public image. I don't want to believe it, but it is true that Gore owns several large mansions/large housing establishments and has a ton of stocks in Oxy oil company. Anyone have anything to say about this?

 

Not to mention all those black and white shots of him typing on his laptop, then staring out of his personal jet!

And it's just got him and his pilot!

Talk about hypocrisy.

Also, his car is known for being one of the most 'gas-guzzling' cars of all time, by Consumer Reports.

[Donut.Hole]

Not to mention all those black and white shots of him typing on his laptop, then staring out of his personal jet!

And it's just got him and his pilot!

Talk about hypocrisy.

Also, his car is known for being one of the most 'gas-guzzling' cars of all time, by Consumer Reports.

 

Yeah, I know, antimatter. It's almost laughable that he's on a jet, researching global warming on a laptop. Plus, Gore's "black power" (opposite of green power) usage is around equal to that of 20 AMERICANS. If he were everyone's role model, I would find it scary.

[antimatter]

Yeah, I know, antimatter. It's almost laughable that he's on a jet, researching global warming on a laptop. Plus, Gore's "black power" (opposite of green power) usage is around equal to that of 20 AMERICANS. If he were everyone's role model, I would find it scary.

 

I'm not doubting you, but just wondering, where did you find that statistic?

[Donut.Hole]

I'm not doubting you, but just wondering, where did you find that statistic?

 

Here is the article (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm):

 

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"

Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

 

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

 

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

 

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

 

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

 

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

 

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

 

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

 

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

 

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006

[Phi for All]

Not to mention all those black and white shots of him typing on his laptop, then staring out of his personal jet!

And it's just got him and his pilot!

Talk about hypocrisy.

Also, his car is known for being one of the most 'gas-guzzling' cars of all time, by Consumer Reports.

Do you think it would use less fuel for him to *drive* where he needs to go instead of flying? I doubt if his schedule allows even waiting for commercial jet clearances and delays.

 

And aren't there security issues like Secret Service attendants for a former VP that necessitate that big SUV? If you accept their help you accept their rules. You need a big engine to haul all that armor plating around.

 

Sometimes the chance NOT to look hypocritical is taken away from us by circumstances.

[antimatter]

He could have NOT had those clips in it...

[iNow]

<sigh>

 

You guys have bought into old data. For example, his house being so inefficient. When it was brought to his attention, he made improvements and completely retrofitted it.

 

Here's a story I saw about him recently:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3980795n

 

 

 

Also, a follow-up on that house inefficiency charge at roughly 2 minutes into the next link:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3974164n

[Donut.Hole]

Do you think it would use less fuel for him to *drive* where he needs to go instead of flying? I doubt if his schedule allows even waiting for commercial jet clearances and delays.

 

And aren't there security issues like Secret Service attendants for a former VP that necessitate that big SUV? If you accept their help you accept their rules. You need a big engine to haul all that armor plating around.

 

Sometimes the chance NOT to look hypocritical is taken away from us by circumstances.

 

I agree, Phi. But what about his power-guzzling house and lifestyle? And it's true that he could not have had shown the clips in the film.

[Phi for All]

He could have NOT had those clips in it...

That makes him a bad editor, not a hypocrite.

[antimatter]

He's a hypocrite for living in that house, flying in the plane...ALONE!

If he cared that much he would...plane-pool...

[iNow]

I agree, Phi. But what about his power-guzzling house and lifestyle?

 

See post immediately above yours.