Global Warming: Should We Believe Al Gore´s "An Inconvenient Truth"?

As some of you may know Al Gore has written a book about global warming which has now been made into a major documentary film called "An Inconvenient Truth"

In brief the film amongst other things presents the following:

o The ten hottest years ever measured all occured in the last fourteen years
o The hottest year ever was 2005.
o Within a decade there will be no more snow on the Kilimanjaro
o Ever stronger storms will hit the face of the earth caused by global warming
o Extraordinary rises in Ocean temperature will melt the Polar ice within our lifetime
o Sea level world wide will rise 20 feet when the polar ice caps are gone
o Disaster flooding scenarios within the next 10 to 50 years if we do nothing
o In the last 30 years 400,000 sq/mi of Arctic ice has melted

Trailer here

Parts of the film are already out on P2P.

Good review here:

Content-wise, An Inconvenient Truth contains compelling information. It also avoids the polarization that often surrounds discussions of Global Warming. Like an anti-Conspiracy Theory movie, it debunks several of the myths perpetrated by those who ignore scientific data while not embracing the sky-is-falling hysteria embraced by some fringe believers. When it's not giving us glimpses into Al Gore's childhood or recapping the 2000 election, An Inconvenient Truth sticks to the science of the situation. There are charts and graphs and, perhaps most disturbingly, "before and after" pictures of glaciers as they were 30 years ago and as they are today.

Source

So, if this is all true, it´s crunch time!

Do we need to prepare for disaster, or is this presentation exaggerated?

Don't believe Al Gore. His film is a lie. It has been disproven by climatologists. Read this:

In a letter to the New York Times (published March 1, 2001), Dr. S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, responded to the editorial [that claimed that GW is responsible for the melting of the snow on Kilimanjaro]. Doctor Singer had devised the satellite technology currently used for measuring stratospheric ozone, was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and is internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues:

“Before putting pressure on the White House to act …shouldn’t we be asking whether global warming is really happening? The Kilimanjaro ice cap is not a thermometer. It may well be melting, but this is simply a delayed consequence of a natural climate warming during the early part of the 20th century. Moreover, it will continue to melt as long as the climate doesn’t return to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age of past centuries.”

Dr. Singer then concludes his letter with this paragraph of particular interest in light of recent NAS proclamations:

“The National Academy of Sciences published a report last year that defines the geographic regions of warming and cooling during the last 20 years. Surface measurements of East Africa show no warming trend. Weather satellites show a pronounced cooling trend of the atmosphere there. No one has questioned these data.”

Link: www.americanthinker.com...

Ok, good counterpoint and interesting review.

Personally I think Marc Sheppard focuses a little too much on the Kilimanjaro issue and too little on the other facts for me to feel comfortable accepting his review.

We cannot close our eyes to temperature measurements and the fact that hurricanes have gained in strenghts over the last twenty years.

We cannot deny the fact that the Polar Ice Caps are melting at an alarming rate, and that this will cause the sea-levels to rise to a critical level which will cause flooding. Even NASA made a study about it but alas fails to get the point on the sea level...

Do you think these statements are exagerrated?

It´s getting warmer. Weather or not we as humans are the cause seems irrelevant, because the result will be the same, and I myself am not quite sure if the rise in temperature is indeed caused by the Greenhouse effect or just by nature cycling.

It would be nice if we as humans were the cause because that way we can also do something about it. In any case it is not a good thing if this trend continues, and a warning like "An Inconvenient Truth" seems like a good medium to warn the general public.

For that I commend Gore, whatever his ulterior motives may be...





[edit on 30-7-2006 by HardToGet]

[edit on 30-7-2006 by HardToGet]

Originally posted by HardToGet
We cannot close our eyes to temperature measurements and the fact that hurricanes have gained in strenghts over the last twenty years.

What are you talking about? How about reading Christopher Columbus's 1492 notes about the hurricane he witnessed in that year on his way to America?

Originally posted by HardToGet
We cannot deny the fact that the Polar Ice Caps are melting at an alarming rate, and that this will cause the sea-levels to rise to a critical level which will cause flooding.

Yes, but that can be prevented by building anti-flooding barriers, unless all of Antarctica and all of the Arctic melts, in which case anti-flooding barriers won't help.

Originally posted by HardToGet
It´s getting warmer. Weather or not we as humans are the cause seems irrelevant, because the result will be the same,

No, it is not irrelevant, because if human activity is the cause, then that means that we can take appropriate action to counteract GW.

and I myself am not quite sure if the rise in temperature is indeed caused by the Greenhouse effect or just by nature cycling.

But I am sure that the cause is human activity. In one year, all the TIRs of this world alone emit more CO2 to the atmosphere than a volcano eruption.

In any case it is not a good thing if this trend continues, and a warning like "An Inconvenient Truth" seems like a good medium to warn the general public.

No, we need credible movies approved by scientists.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
What are you talking about? How about reading Christopher Columbus's 1492 notes about the hurricane he witnessed in that year on his way to America?

O, so quoting an isolated incident that happened 513 years ago gives you the right to debunk the fact that hurricanes have become stronger over the past 20 years. So what are YOU talking about? I have no idea what you´re talking about, really.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Yes, but that can be prevented by building anti-flooding barriers, unless all of Antarctica and all of the Arctic melts, in which case anti-flooding barriers won't help.

Ah I see, so now we are preparing for flooding, unless ALL of the Artctic melts, in which case we need not bother because we´re all going to drown.

Interesting chain of thought, but again not very constructive.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
No, it is not irrelevant, because if human activity is the cause, then that means that we can take appropriate action to counteract GW.

Right below I posted this:

Originally posted by HardToGet
It would be nice if we as humans were the cause because that way we can also do something about it.

Why did you choose to ignore that sentence to slip in some smart remark?
I seriously am starting to question your motives here... Counteract GW???

But I am sure that the cause is human activity. In one year, all the TIRs of this world alone emit more CO2 to the atmosphere than a volcano eruption.

So, duh, what are we arguiing about here exactly?

Your first post: Don´t believe Al Gore, His Film Is A Lie.
Your second post: the cause is human activity.

You are constantly contradicting yourself, which is classic trolling.

Originally posted by HardToGet
In any case it is not a good thing if this trend continues, and a warning like "An Inconvenient Truth" seems like a good medium to warn the general public.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
No, we need credible movies approved by scientists.

Again: a completely superficial argument. A movie being credible is highly subjective, and depends entirely on the opinion of each and every individual who watches the movie.

Thank you for your arguments JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter, but I´m not impressed.

Next please.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by HardToGet]

Regardless if this is exaggerated or not, you can't argue the fact that something will eventually have to be done. If all the movie does is speed up the process of cleaning the earth, then all the more power to it.
The movie certainly wont cause any harm, so good luck to it!

I was impessed by the film, and the change in Al Gore over the years.

I have seen the homes of the rich in Beverly Hills, Hollywood and other areas where lights burn all day and most of the night, where SUVs and Hummers are the principle form of transport for every single trip, where food is wasted by the platefull every day.

Bring on the melting and the floods, bring on the rot and the plagues, bring on the death and destruction, humanity is too short sighted to last.

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Bring on the melting and the floods, bring on the rot and the plagues, bring on the death and destruction, humanity is too short sighted to last.

How depressing. But there is still hope in the fact that films like this are very mainstream now, and in general the common census seems to be that indeed we need to do something about this before it is too late.

To that end, the film is helpful to make people at least stop and think.

So cheer up

We´re not flooded and frozen yet.....

O, so quoting an isolated incident that happened 513 years ago gives you the right to debunk the fact that hurricanes have become stronger over the past 20 years. So what are YOU talking about? I have no idea what you´re talking about, really.

In 1492, hurricanes were as strong as they are today. Read Columbus's notes from 1492.

Ah I see, so now we are preparing for flooding, unless ALL of the Artctic melts, in which case we need not bother because we´re all going to drown.

If we allow sea levels to rise by only a few metres, there is a point for building anti-flooding barriers. There is a point for COUNTERACTING GW no matter how high do the sea levels rise. We should counteract GW SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO BUILD THOSE ANTI-FLOODING BARRIERS.

Your first post: Don´t believe Al Gore, His Film Is A Lie.
Your second post: the cause is human activity.

Don't falsify my posts. I didn't say that GW isn't caused by human activity, I only said that the melting of the Kilimanjaro icecap isn't caused by human activity.

A movie being credible is highly subjective, and depends entirely on the opinion of each and every individual who watches the movie.

Who would you believe: a climatologist or a person who lacks any scientific (never mind climatological) credentials?

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
Who would you believe: a climatologist or a person who lacks any scientific (never mind climatological) credentials?

I would believe a person who has been presenting and warning about GW and closely works with scientists (including climatologists) to get his data.

GW is undisputable. The topic is to what extent we should prepare and if the Guggenheim presentation is exaggerated.

We could start by asking why we are still burning fossile fuels despite the fact we are running out of those resources, and despite the fact that alternatives are available which could bring CO2 emissions (at least for cars) down to zero.

Pick your choice: Electrical, Hydrogen or Hybrid Engines, or simply BioFuels.
All a reality but not in mass production. To the why we can be short and simple:

Oil lobby.