An Invonvenient Truth

[tallrd]

First, let me say I'm not a hardcore democrat, republican, green party, environmentalist, or whatever, so this is not meant to be a political thread. This is more for people who want to share their thoughts on the movie and how it effected them. Keep it positive people.

This was the movie Al Gore did about global warming, and I watched this movie for the first time lastnight. I was speechless after watching it. Literally. I was in shock.

I think it hurt the cause a little by Gore directing/staring in it personally b/c then people thinks it's politically charged. For the most part, it's not (although, political policies of each party certainly effect the environment one way or the other).

If you haven't seen it...PLEASE go watch it.

Put it this way: I have always been a fast car guy. We all are. I get my cars and the first thing to go is usually the stock exhuast and cat or cats. After owning cars w/out cats for 11 years, I had one cut into my Corksport exhaust the day after watching the movie b/c I felt such a responsibity to do my part. No matter how small. I was that shocked and moved to action...AND I'M NOT EVEN AN "ENVIRONMENTALIST." s***, I'm still in shock...and I hope I remain in shock so I keep it in mind. Plus I have 3 kids who I am thinking about now. It's just scary where the track were on is leading us.

 

[NVP5White]

I appreciate you bringing up this important topic. I have not seen Big Al's movie, but I have seen the trailer and about 10 minutes of his interview with Charlie Rose (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3412657607654281729&q=inconvenient+truth).

Seeing the interview reminded me a two things about Al Gore:

1. He is a pompous ass, which comes from years of finding personal fulfillment in Gallup polling results.

2. He stretches information so that it better supports his position.

In the first few minutes of the interview Gore is talking about his movie's findings when, IMO, he feels the need to explain how he comes to a different conclusion then the scientific community as a whole. He states that he has, through his tireless efforts over the last 30 years (right!), made many personal friends in the scientific community. These scientists hold strong personal views which they share with him about global warming, etc. Of course, they can't publish these feelings "because of this little thing called the scientific process and peer-reviewing" [I'm paraphrasing here, but this is the idea]. What he means to imply is that there is some kind of global conspiracy amongst scientist (different scientists then his friends, of course) that seeks to keep negative scientific findings from being published, i.e. from being vetted through the rigorous peer-reviewing process. What he actually tells me is that these scientific 'opinions' can not be supported with scientific evidence that sums to proof that these ecological changes are linked to man's activities.

So right up front he says that all the little trinkets of data he's collected and put adjacent to one another to imply connection really can not be connected, or at least not scientifically proven. Take that for what its worth...

With that said, I believe this movie is a good thing even if it is a bit of preaching to the choir. I mean is there really a more polarizing recent figure in American politics (besides our current President and his staff) then Al Gore? How many people will not see this VERY IMPORTANT and COMPELLING story about global change because Al Gore's name was all over it. I know he feels like he did a lot of the legwork to collect these data and place them into context for the general public, but why couldn't he sit back while someone with better vocal talent narrated the thing? Maybe someone neutral so that the whole thing doesn't turn into political speech. It seems to me he's trying to make a blip in those Gallup pole results again...

So lets be sure we take away the correct lesson from Big Al's efforts. Cars ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Especially modern fuel efficient catalytic converter equipped cars. If we if we determine that CO2 it the culprit of Global Climate Change then the generation of electricity is a much larger contributor of emissions then cars. Some forms of transportation are pretty bad emitters such as airplanes and cargo ships. There are many MANY things that can be done to reduce our use of electricity, but no one is pushing those. How many people would SERIOUSLY resist if incandescent lighting were to become banned? How about if we BANNED the burning of unprocessed coal and made LEGAL the on-site breeding (recycling) of existing spent nuclear fuel for reuse in the same reactor it was generated in? The combination of these three changes would have very little impact on the American way of life AND reduce national CO2 emissions by maybe 60%...maybe more.

For more information on coal gasification, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification

For more information of recycling nuclear fuel, see: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepProliferationResistantRecycling.html

Quick fact about nuclear power: When used in current nuclear power plants, one uranium pellet the size of the tip of your little finger is equivalent to the energy provided by 1,780 pounds of coal, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 149 gallons of oil.

 

[Smooth1]

I appreciate you bringing up this important topic. I have not seen Big Al's movie, but I have seen the trailer and about 10 minutes of his interview with Charlie Rose (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3412657607654281729&q=inconvenient+truth).

Seeing the interview reminded me a two things about Al Gore:

1. He is a pompous ass, which comes from years of finding personal fulfillment in Gallup polling results.

2. He stretches information so that it better supports his position.

In the first few minutes of the interview Gore is talking about his movie's findings when, IMO, he feels the need to explain how he comes to a different conclusion then the scientific community as a whole. He states that he has, through his tireless efforts over the last 30 years (right!), made many personal friends in the scientific community. These scientists hold strong personal views which they share with him about global warming, etc. Of course, they can't publish these feelings "because of this little thing called the scientific process and peer-reviewing" [I'm paraphrasing here, but this is the idea]. What he means to imply is that there is some kind of global conspiracy amongst scientist (different scientists then his friends, of course) that seeks to keep negative scientific findings from being published, i.e. from being vetted through the rigorous peer-reviewing process. What he actually tells me is that these scientific 'opinions' can not be supported with scientific evidence that sums to proof that these ecological changes are linked to man's activities.

So right up front he says that all the little trinkets of data he's collected and put adjacent to one another to imply connection really can not be connected, or at least not scientifically proven. Take that for what its worth...

With that said, I believe this movie is a good thing even if it is a bit of preaching to the choir. I mean is there really a more polarizing recent figure in American politics (besides our current President and his staff) then Al Gore? How many people will not see this VERY IMPORTANT and COMPELLING story about global change because Al Gore's name was all over it. I know he feels like he did a lot of the legwork to collect these data and place them into context for the general public, but why couldn't he sit back while someone with better vocal talent narrated the thing? Maybe someone neutral so that the whole thing doesn't turn into political speech. It seems to me he's trying to make a blip in those Gallup pole results again...

So lets be sure we take away the correct lesson from Big Al's efforts. Cars ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Especially modern fuel efficient catalytic converter equipped cars. If we if we determine that CO2 it the culprit of Global Climate Change then the generation of electricity is a much larger contributor of emissions then cars. Some forms of transportation are pretty bad emitters such as airplanes and cargo ships. There are many MANY things that can be done to reduce our use of electricity, but no one is pushing those. How many people would SERIOUSLY resist if incandescent lighting were to become banned? How about if we BANNED the burning of unprocessed coal and made LEGAL the on-site breeding (recycling) of existing spent nuclear fuel for reuse in the same reactor it was generated in? The combination of these three changes would have very little impact on the American way of life AND reduce national CO2 emissions by maybe 60%...maybe more.

For more information on coal gasification, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification

For more information of recycling nuclear fuel, see: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepProliferationResistantRecycling.html

Quick fact about nuclear power: When used in current nuclear power plants, one uranium pellet the size of the tip of your little finger is equivalent to the energy provided by 1,780 pounds of coal, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 149 gallons of oil.

Gore is a pompas ass. Polls dictate what he does. It's all what's best for him and no I will waste my money or time watching this doush bag.(jerkit)

 

[slayer4u]

Global warming is bulls***. The planet has gone through hot stages like this before. The whole theory that we are causing it is based on obsevations made since the sixties. It takes the earth hudreds of thousands of years to go through these kind of changes. Maybe we are speeding it up a bit but there just isn't enough evidence to say we are causing it. I find it comical that people blamed our odd weather patterns on greenhouse gases. Is everyone forgeting the drought we had back in the 30s?

 

[slayer4u]

I appreciate you bringing up this important topic. I have not seen Big Al's movie, but I have seen the trailer and about 10 minutes of his interview with Charlie Rose (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3412657607654281729&q=inconvenient+truth).

Seeing the interview reminded me a two things about Al Gore:

1. He is a pompous ass, which comes from years of finding personal fulfillment in Gallup polling results.

2. He stretches information so that it better supports his position.

In the first few minutes of the interview Gore is talking about his movie's findings when, IMO, he feels the need to explain how he comes to a different conclusion then the scientific community as a whole. He states that he has, through his tireless efforts over the last 30 years (right!), made many personal friends in the scientific community. These scientists hold strong personal views which they share with him about global warming, etc. Of course, they can't publish these feelings "because of this little thing called the scientific process and peer-reviewing" [I'm paraphrasing here, but this is the idea]. What he means to imply is that there is some kind of global conspiracy amongst scientist (different scientists then his friends, of course) that seeks to keep negative scientific findings from being published, i.e. from being vetted through the rigorous peer-reviewing process. What he actually tells me is that these scientific 'opinions' can not be supported with scientific evidence that sums to proof that these ecological changes are linked to man's activities.

So right up front he says that all the little trinkets of data he's collected and put adjacent to one another to imply connection really can not be connected, or at least not scientifically proven. Take that for what its worth...

With that said, I believe this movie is a good thing even if it is a bit of preaching to the choir. I mean is there really a more polarizing recent figure in American politics (besides our current President and his staff) then Al Gore? How many people will not see this VERY IMPORTANT and COMPELLING story about global change because Al Gore's name was all over it. I know he feels like he did a lot of the legwork to collect these data and place them into context for the general public, but why couldn't he sit back while someone with better vocal talent narrated the thing? Maybe someone neutral so that the whole thing doesn't turn into political speech. It seems to me he's trying to make a blip in those Gallup pole results again...

So lets be sure we take away the correct lesson from Big Al's efforts. Cars ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Especially modern fuel efficient catalytic converter equipped cars. If we if we determine that CO2 it the culprit of Global Climate Change then the generation of electricity is a much larger contributor of emissions then cars. Some forms of transportation are pretty bad emitters such as airplanes and cargo ships. There are many MANY things that can be done to reduce our use of electricity, but no one is pushing those. How many people would SERIOUSLY resist if incandescent lighting were to become banned? How about if we BANNED the burning of unprocessed coal and made LEGAL the on-site breeding (recycling) of existing spent nuclear fuel for reuse in the same reactor it was generated in? The combination of these three changes would have very little impact on the American way of life AND reduce national CO2 emissions by maybe 60%...maybe more.

For more information on coal gasification, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification

For more information of recycling nuclear fuel, see: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepProliferationResistantRecycling.html

Quick fact about nuclear power: When used in current nuclear power plants, one uranium pellet the size of the tip of your little finger is equivalent to the energy provided by 1,780 pounds of coal, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 149 gallons of oil.

So basically he is another michael moore.lol

 

[MAZDASPEED MX5]

I remember a day back when the glaciers extended down thru Ohio.......oh wait they melted thousands of years ago....Goddamn cave men and their campfires.

All kidding aside, I consider my self a conservative, automotive nut. I like hp in my car but it's not the most important thing....If it was I would be driving a muscle car instead of a Miata (granted it's the Mazdaspeed version). Of course we are impacting our environment, everything does. Should we scale back on known pollutants, of course. There are other things in the world that have a greater immediate impact that no one considers. For instance, when an area has cloud cover overnight, it makes the area that much easier to warm the following day because it traps the warm air in like a blanket (we hear about this in New England). Maybe we should build a dehumidifier to extinguish some of these storm fronts? Then we have the cows farting and bacteria in the oceans emitting Methane. Should we cork the asses of cows and cap the oceans too?

 

[Smooth1]

So basically he is another michael moore.lol

I took a s*** that had more smarts than him..it looked like him too!

 

[tallrd]

Gore is a pompas ass. Polls dictate what he does. It's all what's best for him and no I will waste my money or time watching this doush bag.(jerkit)

Thanks for a very well thought out response NVP5White; I mean that. You sound like a smart guy who's worth listening to (I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but that you have good things to say).

Smooth1...you have proven both of our points that people will refuse to see this movie simply because Al Gore was so deeply involved in it. Too bad that you have closed yourself off to a side of the story that differs from your own personal views simply b/c of that reason.

I believe we can learn a lot from people who hold different views from own, but I realize not everyone will feel this way.

I didn't realized this was going to turn into a lightning rod for negativity. Sheesh (& and I even said "keep it positive" --i.e. mature, respectful, etc. That obviously failed quickly).

 

[Mr. Win]

The movie itself just made Global Warming media worthy. The real issue to me is the amount of chemicals we use in our foods, beauty products, otc drugs, and in our water.

We are also running out of space to put our trash.

 

[Killer]

Meh.

 

[Kansei]

Global warming is bulls***. The planet has gone through hot stages like this before. The whole theory that we are causing it is based on obsevations made since the sixties. It takes the earth hudreds of thousands of years to go through these kind of changes. Maybe we are speeding it up a bit but there just isn't enough evidence to say we are causing it. I find it comical that people blamed our odd weather patterns on greenhouse gases. Is everyone forgeting the drought we had back in the 30s?

This "hot stage" is shockingly and drastically hotter than any in the past.

Thanks for bringing up the Sponsored by ExxonMobil, Inc side of the argument though (first)

 

[ProtoType5]

The changes that are happening in the Artic, the high mountains in Africa, and Europe, and the warming of the oceans have spiked dramatically in the last 40 years...Polar Ice caps are dwindling, the Snows of Kilamangaro are GONE!!!, Glaciers that have been intact for thousands of years are receding at a drastic pace you can measure by the year, not by the decade or century as would be normal....

You state that we have "only" been collecting data on these changes since the 60's, yet these changes are supposed to take "hundreds of thousands of years"....Ice Ages are naturally about 10,000 year cycles, so first get that fact straight, and they don't abrubtly shift in 40 years, it is a slow process....

Denying the validity of the argument based on the fact the Gore has a role in the movie is absurd.....This really is not a bipartisan political war, what would the dems have to gain????? It is a battle to educate people of the damage we are doing to the world, and the changes in temperature are only a small part of the contamination of our world and our children's world.

 

[Familia323]

Global warming is bulls***. The planet has gone through hot stages like this before. The whole theory that we are causing it is based on obsevations made since the sixties. It takes the earth hudreds of thousands of years to go through these kind of changes. Maybe we are speeding it up a bit but there just isn't enough evidence to say we are causing it. I find it comical that people blamed our odd weather patterns on greenhouse gases. Is everyone forgeting the drought we had back in the 30s?

I never saw this movie, but maybe I missed something. Where does it say that humans are causing global warming? I don't think we are causing it, but there is no way that we aren't negatively affecting it. I think that is the real issue here.


If this movie influences even a few people to pollute less, which it obviously has effected Tallrd, then I'm happy that it was produced.

 

[mazdaowner123]

I saw the movie. It had a good message, but the delivery was horrible. Basically, Gore spend an hour and a half saying global warming is a problem. Then he says experts know it's a problem. Then he goes through 5000 different examples, all saying it's a problem. Or that people know it's a problem. Somewhere along the way I was thinking, "OK here comes the answer or at least something we can do." Nope. In the last 10 minutes he says you can reduce your carbon emissions to 0! (somehow). He gives some weak points and that's that. Also, what about the 10 minute segment where he randomly talks about losing the election but winning the popular vote, because that has so much to do with global warming.

Anyway, yes it's important that we do something about global warming, but the message needs another frontman.

 

[Diehonda]

Global warming, polution, and chemicals we add to everything will not change as long as there is money to be made.

It may take thousands of years for the changes to happen "naturally" but look at the people in Japan wearing face masks. Yeah they would have been wearing them anyway. Right.

They should take a census of everyone that thinks that it happens naturally and we shouldn't change anything, then when it all goes to s*** send those people to the front line to clean it up.

I am a scout master and we go out monthly to clean up areas that affect wildlife, agriculture, water supplies, and erosion. We are destroying many more things than our air.

 

[ZoomZoomH]

I saw the movie. It had a good message, but the delivery was horrible. Basically, Gore spend an hour and a half saying global warming is a problem. Then he says experts know it's a problem. Then he goes through 5000 different examples, all saying it's a problem. Or that people know it's a problem. Somewhere along the way I was thinking, "OK here comes the answer or at least something we can do." Nope. In the last 10 minutes he says you can reduce your carbon emissions to 0! (somehow). He gives some weak points and that's that. Also, what about the 10 minute segment where he randomly talks about losing the election but winning the popular vote, because that has so much to do with global warming.

Anyway, yes it's important that we do something about global warming, but the message needs another frontman.

i guess you didn't watch the ending credits brian (poke)

watch this movie if you haven't done so already, some of the stats Al gathered was brand new stuff to me, and I thought I was pretty up-to-date on this environmental stuff.

<--- says the guy that dumps out CO2 from his car like there's no tomorrow lol

 

[Killer]

Al Gore should look up the word "Cyclical".

 

[ZoomZoomH]

Al Gore should look up the word "Cyclical".

he did, you should really watch the movie to see what he has to say about it.

 

[MAZDASPEED MX5]

he did, you should really watch the movie to see what he has to say about it.

He could Just Google it on his "Internet"

 

[slayer4u]

Thanks for bringing up the Sponsored by ExxonMobil, Inc side of the argument though (first)

I don't see how they have anything to do with it. YOu remember when everyone was saying that the hurricane seasons were going to get worse beacause of global warming? Well guess what, there were 5 hurricanes this last season and none of them hit the united states. One of them was in the pacific ocean. That's what I find comical about this whole deal. Next poeple will be blame our high gas prices on global warming.