Dr. Robert Balling reviews Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth". He has a few inconvenient truths that Gore conveniently left out of the movie. You really have to read this, it's rather interesting. Balling's close says it all.
Throughout the film Gore displays his passion for the global warming issue, and it is obvious that he has dedicated a substantial amount of time to learning about climate change and the greenhouse effect. This leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. Given Gore's position in the senate and his knowledge and passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime?
"An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth."
Balling is a climatologist.
Balling is right on many points.
However, not once he cited non-US sources.
That would lend more credibility, it always help citing independent sources, ones that are not influenced by the US government.
Given that for every report stating that “no change has been surveyed” there is another report stating that “dramatic changes has been surveyed” I think you can’t confidently for either side at the moment.
Maybe if there were really independent – not sponsored – reports and surveys, but so far I don’t know of any.
And the final reports are always edited by some government/corporate guy. Just to “polish it”.
I wish there were some independence. Logically, speaking as an engineer, the idea that a few hundred PPM increase in CO2 (which is what the rise is) seems too little to be causing huge amounts of widespread warming. It may be contributing a little, but there have to be other factors at work.
I think it is not about CO2 – or at least not exlusively.
There are several hundred factors in it I bet.
On the other hand, with that few hundred PPMs, we could easily talk about that “last drop”.
I think the doomsayers are only talking about man’s part in it, which is unfortunate. There are a lot of factors and wasting time just going after “greenhouse gases” may actually derail things we should be doing if we are simply going to have to adapt to a warmer environment for a time.
Well, man certainly has a part in it.
I am a bit more worried about the polluted sweet water reservoirs, the oceans, as they are an important part of the whole thing, and turning them into fluid wastebins can contribute to the accumulation of “greenhouse gases” – like not binding enough of them, not producing enough oxygen, etc.
I would not deny that industrial advancement is responsible for the situation, but then there are a couple of other things.
Like the current climate being an extremely rare and favourable one compared to the “usual” ones in the long history of the planet, and it would change without any help from mankind.
But then, it’s not a bad idea to try and cut back on pollution a bit.
Starting with dropping the chips bag in the trash bin, not on the ground.
I’m not against cutting pollution, either. That is just good sense. One thing that never seems to get mentioned is that the US has decreased all pollution emissions across the board by 1/3 since 1970. I’m betting you never heard that before. But it’s on the EPA website. You have to get the data out yourself, though.
But, the EPA is funded by the US government. It’s not independent like all those foreign sources of information that are completely independent and always get their facts right since the UN is on the job and we can all trust their independence from the corrupting influence of guys like Saddam, and those Frogs who took his money and kept their complete independence anyway. So we can just shut up, relax, and trust those foreign monkeys are looking out for our interests. Gee, can’t we all just get along?
No, I don’t think I heard of that.
It’s seems countries can’t enhance their own image.
When you hear them saying something positive about themselves, it’s like some extreme nationalist remark, or some ludicrous thing – like the Hungary advertisement with Tony Curtis -, but on the whole, nothing really positive.
It’s either loud shouting or some low voiced, shy mumbling which can’t be heard at all.
What you see of the US on this thing is harsh “No, we won’t sign the Kyoto”.
Maybe politicians should think about less aggressive responses, which are heard everywhere, and more well-mannered statements.
And it’s the same everywhere. Why do we keep the politicians at all? They just get in the way
))
Gee, Black Jack, tell us how you really feel!
I think I was talking about something like this.
Sincerely yours
A Foreign Monkey
“…it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in “An Inconvenient Truth.”
What do we expect from a guy with a chronic credibility problem?
No kidding portent… isn’t Gore always coming up with some crazy story? Except this time he’s just trying to get attention to boost himself in ’08.
Gore is very odd, I think.
There’s no such thing as a completely independant source, everyone has a bias whether it’s admitted or not. But the point should be who’s telling the truth and on that score I don’t think there’s consensus.
On a lighter note, this makes for a good chuckle: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2729684
Absolutely fabulous! Thank you for sending that.
That did indeed make for a good chuckle.
I just hope that people have the sense to see that this movie isn’t completely accurate and that it is instead sensationalizing the issue.
That was a really, really funny clip.