An Inconvenient Truth

[andrewr]

I saw Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth last night, and I just wanted to say that I think this is a very important movie that everyone should see. Watching someone like Al Gore talk about global warming for 90 minutes didn't sound very exciting to me, but I was not bored for one minute. And even though I have been interested in environmental issues for most of my life I have never heard the science, as well as the myths and the misconceptions, of global warming explained in such a clear and compelling manner.

Here's what Roger Ebert said about this movie: "In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

If you're in Toronto it's playing at the Cumberland (http://www.cinemaclock.com/aw/crva.aw/p.clock/r.ont/m.Toronto/j.e/i.9271/f.An_Inconvenient_Truth.html)in Yorkville.

For more information visit the website:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Cheers,

Andrew

[Glen C]

Thanks Andrew... I plan to check it out here in Halifax when I can.

[Digiteyesed]

Allow me to add some counterweight to this:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[andrewr]

Allow me to add some counterweight to this:

Hey Sean. Do you know anything about who's behind this website or this article that has absolutely no attribution whatsoever? We should all be immediately sceptical of anything published on the web with no attribution, so let's find out who's behind junkscience.com, which according to the site title is published by Steven J. Milloy.

According to SourceWatch.org (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy), a collaborative project of the non-profit Center for Media and Democracy which documents the activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals and also includes "specific case studies of deceptive PR campaigns, corporate PR campaigns, the activities of front groups, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts":

"Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.

"Milloy defines 'junk science' as 'bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the food police, environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune.' He regularly attacks environmentalists and scientists who support environmentalism, claiming that dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all 'scares' and 'scams.'

"Although Milloy frequently represents himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

Here's some more info about Milloy from Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html): "Some key “skeptics” show up again and again in the echo chamber funded by ExxonMobil. STEVEN MILLOY: A columnist for FoxNews.com and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups—apparently run out of Milloy’s home—received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto’s implementation will 'live in scientific and economic infamy.' Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five."

For another review of Milloy's dubious background see:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

To use a quote from An Inconvenient Truth: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

[Darrol]

Personally, I'm trying to keep an open mind about the whole thing. What I find most interesting about debates of this nature such as politics, religion, the environment (which seems to be a combination of both), etc. is the absolute, unequivocal conviction that each side has. Both sides believe, to the very depths of their souls, that they are right and the other side is wrong. You don't have to move too far in either direction to get to the extremes. Its all very black and white.

In my mind, we haven't been keeping records long enough to make any statements, for or against, that have any credibility whatsoever. The earth has been making weather for a long time, and we've only charted a couple of geological seconds of it. I don't think we have enough accurate information to even debate this issue. I do a lot of work for our provincial natural gas company, and in dealing with them, I get informed about actual numbers...not conjecture. When I find out how much natural gas we can use in a single day (based on the "coldest day" record), I can't imagine having enough gas to last next week, let alone the next 100 years. To those numbers, I add numbers my wife gives me (she works for the hydro company, or rather, in Saskatchewan's case, the coal-fired company) and I find out how much electricity we use. This information makes me wonder how the #@%* Las Vegas keeps the lights on at all! And don't get me started on fresh water...My god, the amounts of that stuff we go through!

No, I'm far more worried about running out of stuff. I am totally in favour of abandoning all future oil projects in order to throw all our money into alternative energy pursuits, not because of climate change, but because these oil development initiatives are dead end projects, and we simply cannot afford to wait until these resources are all used up before we find alternatives.

But, for the record, I hope the "JunkScience" guys are right. Unfortunately, neither side of this debate is going to help us when the gas runs out.

As a side note, I find it amusing that Andrew (from Toronto) is an advocate of "An Inconvenient Truth" and Sean (from Alberta) is, apparently, not. Open minds, my friends, will set you free.... :)

[andrewr]

As a side note, I find it amusing that Andrew (from Toronto) is an advocate of "An Inconvenient Truth" and Sean (from Alberta) is, apparently, not.
Yeah I had to chuckle at that as well. ;) It seems that stereotypes are alive and well. However, I feel inclined to point out that while it might appear that I'm a stereotypical urban Toronto environmentalist, I was actually born and raised in a part of Canada that was highly dependent on oil for almost 100 years before it was even discovered in Alberta. Sarnia, Ontario, which is the home of The Chemical Valley, is surrounded by places with names like Petrolia, Oil City and Oil Springs, (the location of the first commercial oil well in North America in 1857). My great-grandfather started working in the oil industry in the early part of the last century, and he was followed by my grandfather, my dad, and then myself. I spent five years working in one of the petro-chemical plants, but I realized it wasn't the life for me and decided to quit and go back to college.

Growing up in Sarnia you were taught at a young age that the stench of the refineries was the "smell of money", and virtually all of my friends and family where involved in the oil and chemical business in one way or the other. So I know how important oil is to people's livelihoods and our economy.

Of course none of this makes me an expert on anything. :confused: But the point is there are thousands of scientific experts who do know what they are talking about and who have collected and studied data going back 650,000 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm). And contrary to the statements of paid advocates for big oil there is really no debate within the scientific community about the reality of global warming. For more info on this see Science Magazine's analysis of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

I agree with you totally about having a open mind and the article above also points out that "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."

[bmrstudios]

How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006) by Michael Shermer (Scientific American, June 2006)

[gr82bart]

Allow me to add some counterweight to this:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Being an engineer by education, you'd think I'd be interested in accurate data to back up any claims, one way or another. But, as someone else posted, like religion and politics, I'm going with 'feeling' on this one - we humans are screwing up our planet. Period.

Does one really need any evidence to back that up?

Regards, Art.

[bmrstudios]

Hi all,
This topic was originally posted one year ago. Yesterday I picked up the latest issue of American Scientist. One of the feature articles is The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed? (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553?fulltext=true) (you can use the link to read the article online). The authors point out that "The disappearing ice cap of the "shining mountain," which gets a starring role in the movie [An Inconvenient Truth], is not an appropriate poster child for global climate change."

BTW American Scientist is an excellent magazine and I highly recommend it.

Barry M. Robinson

[Robert_Ottawa]

One of the problems with the topic is the timeframe in which people conduct their lives. The global warming models talk of swings of a few degrees over a century, because of human habits. The swings in climate that affect us immediately such as ice storms, droughts, heat waves, occur on a daily basis. It takes scientific training to think about the concepts in a separate and detached way. Hardly anyone in our culture receives this training, so it's understandable that there are wide differences in opinion.

People don't know what valid data is. People don't know what a mathematical model is. People don't know what science is, by and large.

In the past, scientific errors have lead people to ridicule scientists. It's simpleminded backlash. Errors in theory, experiments, etc are normal. Making mistakes is what scientists and researchers do every day. You form a theory and you test it. Most times, you're wrong, and you make progress that way. The media deals in sound bites of less than 30 seconds in length. Analysing complex and difficult scientific concepts in the media or popular web sites is like debating foreign policy at a barbecue, while drunk.

When out shooting pics, I often drive down obscure dead-end logging roads looking for what might be there. I have yet to go anywhere and not see our garbage. You have to be blind to think we're not affecting the climate. It's been well-known for decades that municipal micro-climates affect weather. Toronto is at a different temperture than Barrie. There are 3 cities in Canada with populations over 1 million. There are 160 in China.

For some reason, there is still a residual belief that we should aim towards a sustainable way of life because we should be nice to mother nature. That's the hippy granola point of view. I prefer a more pragmatic approach. We should adopt sustainable methods of living before mother nature kills us. Millions of species before us become extinct. We have no reason to believe that we're immune.

[Toni]

For some reason, there is still a residual belief that we should aim towards a sustainable way of life because we should be nice to mother nature. That's the hippy granola point of view. I prefer a more pragmatic approach. We should adopt sustainable methods of living before mother nature kills us. Millions of species before us become extinct. We have no reason to believe that we're immune.

Im by no means a tree hugger (heck, I worked one summer as a tree killer) but Ive always taken the "hippy granola point of view" that we should be nice to mother earth. But I dont understand the mentality of "save the planet". Im not naive enough believe that my (and my fellow humans) miniscual lives have that much power. We do however, cause enough damage for Mother Earth to wipe us out when shes good and fed up with our behaviour. There are no other species know past or present that are as self destructive as we are. Extinction cant be that far off.

[Peter Wm. Richardson]

I have spent and still spend, a good deal of time with both the Pueblo Indians of Taos New Mexico and the Dine Nation ( Navajo) of western New Mexico and northern Arizona. Although, they have adapted to the modern world, to a degree and do not follow their past beliefs as much as some, mostly non Indians, would have you believe, they still honour a deep respect for Mother Earth and her peoples. Amongst the Dine, there are tribe members in the remote corners of the nation, who have never left it and who still live much as they did 100 years ago and there are modern day entrepreneurs and even a couple of movie stars. For the Pueblo people, the modern world has caught up to them more fully, but they still honour traditions and the sacred Taos Pueblo. Both believe that Mother Earth can heal herself, given a chance and that all people owe a huge debt to her that can only be repaid with respect and caring. It is not such a bad belief and a lot more realistic than most "white interpretations" of Indian traditions. We can not save the planet, you are right Toni, but we can let her heal herself, by honouring our debt to her and caring about our world. We can, in the long term, stop the pollution and the greenhouse gases if we try and we can certainly reduce them ,in the short term dramatically. Perhaps the planet itself will do the rest, we will never know until we try. We are all peoples of the earth and we all need to try and remember that when we are going about our daily lives. No one can do it alone, but together we can make a start.

Nizhonigo Nanina,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

PS> Before someone wants to venture a PC opinion, both the Pueblo tribes and the Dine refer to themselves as Indians in English, not Native Americans.

[Robert_Ottawa]

I believe that what you say is true, Peter. Of course the planet can heal itself, I believe that that is a given. The only question is are humans going to be extinguished in the process. Mother Nature has rendered millions of species extinct in the past, for a variety of reasons, in a variety of ways. She does not seem to have any pre-conceived notions of what survives and what doesn't. I think that, up to now, humans have more or less believed (because we've chosen to believe it) that we are part of Mother Nature's grand plan, that we have a special place in it. That's simple arrogance on our part, imo. Maybe, we're actually in the way of that plan. Or we could choose a way of living that puts us in the way.

If we do not succeed in curtailing our more short-sighted practices, we'll contribute to changes that may kill us. Mother Nature has no special loyalty to us. She will kill us. And will continue on afterwards, healing itself, perfectly happy.

The quasi-religious polarized debates that take place on this issue are understandable. Addressing environmental problems goes to the heart of how our societies function. Everyone wants freedom of action. We want to be rewarded when we work hard. Most often it seems, the rewards involve the consumption of goods and services that produce waste by-products. When we were 1 billion or so in number, the rate at which we created garbage may have been in balance with the way that the planet re-cycled it. Sooner or later, and we may be there, or we may be there 50 years from now, or even 200 years from now, we will cross a line when that's no longer true. I find the political debates about the exact timing comical. Science is honing in on the exact placement of that line in fits and starts; that's the way science works.

It is of little consequence if one person drives an oversized vehicle to buy some groceries. But when 3 billion do it, it has consequences. But combating that needless overconsumption means convincing 3 billion people that they need to stop doing what they think they have the right to do, (or simply like to do) for the common good. That's a tough sell.

If we evolve intelligent social practices, we may survive. If we persist in acquiring evermore self-centred living standards to please our petty arrogant egos, we may not.

You sound like an optimist. I am less so. I hope that you're right and that I'm wrong.

[Peter Wm. Richardson]

Hi Robert:
Not nearly the optimist you may believe, but perhaps closer to spiritual being within me than most. Nevertheless, if you re-read my post, the tone is actually closer to your own than to optimism. I just phrased it from my native friends point of reference. Mother Nature, Mother Earth, they are both the same being and they will both do what they will with us. However, if by acting on our debt to her and starting to care for and respect her, we begin to provide her with the opportunity to heal, all that those of us with foresight want to see, may start to happen. In the meantime, all the salient points you raise must be addressed, including, perceptions, birth rates ,population control, peoples desires versus reality etc. Deep respect for a concept and caring for it's inception is not a common trait of modern humanity. Change is inevitable, the form it takes is a choice and governments have no role to play in that choice, only the electorate.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com