Global warming has nothing to do with us or CO2, but with water. Heat up the water, you heat up the air surrounding it. Those of us that have been in Chicago know this for a fact (near the lake its cooler in the summer, warmer in the winter because it takes a whole lot more time for the water to heat/cool). Water is a huge heat sink, and it easily takes in and releases that energy to the surrounding area. That goes back to basic physics.
Now, if you want to talk about the extra heat being dumped into our ecosystem (from powerplants, cars, etc), then we might have something to talk about. While I don't think it's much, it's definitely non-trivial. At least it's more of an issue as compared to CO2 generation.
Climate Change
Moderators: MrSpall, bassjones, sevesd93, zenmandan
-
bwohlgemuth
- Addict
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:44 pm
- Location: Huntington, IN
- Contact:
-
WBOB
- Too Much Free Time
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:51 pm
- Location: ....in the express lane
bwoglemuth said:
after reading all the long and sometimes unrelated
opines(mine included).
Sometimes it just goes to show you...
the Physics of Nature,... it's a beautiful thing.
But,,.... back to the beginning of the thread,..
Has anybody seen Gore's film on this??
I've been reading this thread for the last few days,....Water is a huge heat sink, and it easily takes in and releases that energy to the surrounding area. That goes back to basic physics.
after reading all the long and sometimes unrelated
opines(mine included).
Sometimes it just goes to show you...
the Physics of Nature,... it's a beautiful thing.
But,,.... back to the beginning of the thread,..
Has anybody seen Gore's film on this??
.
Less is always more
Less is always more
-
heaven's chimney
-
Massage...Bored
- I Beat Up Kittens
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: Fort Pain, IN
- Contact:
I'm prolly gonna see it this week sometime.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
OhSoHumorous.com
TopDailyMemes.com
BestDailyMemes.com
FortWayneMusic.om
Kwalis.com
SoHumorous.com
FailUniversity.com
FaceFullOf.com
NuZuDu.com
FireFlyGoods.com
ThePeopleBlog.com
StealMyMemes.com
DontStealMyMemes.com
More to come...
EARTH IN THE BALANCE
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic
www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic
www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
-
Massage...Bored
- I Beat Up Kittens
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: Fort Pain, IN
- Contact:
Why do you have such an aversion to treating the Earth with a little bit more respect? Even if this film is total bullsh*t, I still hope those that see it try and make better choices when concerning the ecosystem around them and possibly get active in enviromentalism.
You are making yourself look like bad, Bassy. Do you really hold that much hatred of the Democratic party that if someone is merely trying to increase awareness about our sh*tty treatment of the environment, you'll find whatever little "news" bit you can to dissprove his claims. Its a little sad. I can't imagine you hate the Earth that much, seeing as how you are a hunter and all, why, that would make you a hypocrite.
You are making yourself look like bad, Bassy. Do you really hold that much hatred of the Democratic party that if someone is merely trying to increase awareness about our sh*tty treatment of the environment, you'll find whatever little "news" bit you can to dissprove his claims. Its a little sad. I can't imagine you hate the Earth that much, seeing as how you are a hunter and all, why, that would make you a hypocrite.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
OhSoHumorous.com
TopDailyMemes.com
BestDailyMemes.com
FortWayneMusic.om
Kwalis.com
SoHumorous.com
FailUniversity.com
FaceFullOf.com
NuZuDu.com
FireFlyGoods.com
ThePeopleBlog.com
StealMyMemes.com
DontStealMyMemes.com
More to come...
I think that's a highly inaccurate (and slightly inflammatory) assumption on your part, regarding my distrust of "global warming" hoaxes. I do think we should treat the earth well. I just don't buy "the world according to Albert". I also think people should look at both sides of the issue before assuming that just because the media calls Al's version of global warming a "consensus opinion" doesn't make it so. Scientists from MIT and other highly respected scientific institutions are highly skeptical as to the extent of global warming or the extent of human causation if it is happening, or even if it would be a bad thing if the earth were to warm a little bit.
I myself try to do my part by driving an ecologically friendly car (even if it is somewhat cramped for my large frame), recycling, not smoking (which if there were a human causation I would think smoking would attribute far more than automobile use, but maybe not), hunting (yes, I do see hunting as part of eco-conservation), etc...
Why do you automatically buy these assumptions of global warming and impending doom? Seems oddly religious for the non-religious... Some might go so far as to call it faith.
I myself try to do my part by driving an ecologically friendly car (even if it is somewhat cramped for my large frame), recycling, not smoking (which if there were a human causation I would think smoking would attribute far more than automobile use, but maybe not), hunting (yes, I do see hunting as part of eco-conservation), etc...
Why do you automatically buy these assumptions of global warming and impending doom? Seems oddly religious for the non-religious... Some might go so far as to call it faith.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic
www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic
www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
-
Massage...Bored
- I Beat Up Kittens
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: Fort Pain, IN
- Contact:
Firstly, I apologize for being a little harsh. But I just get very angry when people try and "debunk" the global warming issue. Its like giving people reassurance for their dependency on oil and all the general harm that pollution has caused over the last century and a half. (Our coastlines are lookin' pretty rough these days, for example.) "Its okay, Joe Sixpack, no you go ahead and buy that Hummer, I know you've wanted it. What...not good for the envi...wait, wait, wait, haven't you heard? Global Warming's not real, we're fine, nothing can stop us humans!"
I have not stated that I buy the global warming issue, in fact I am as skeptical as a lot of folks are. Doesn't mean I can't be concerned about the Earth. After all, I do plan on a career in Marine Biology.
I would have to say autos are more harmful than smoking.
I see the need for a hunt, but only when they need to thin out the numbers, I'm still not big on game hunting in general (thats just me).
I think that if you mess with the Earth and the environment too much, it'll let you know when it has had enough.
I have not stated that I buy the global warming issue, in fact I am as skeptical as a lot of folks are. Doesn't mean I can't be concerned about the Earth. After all, I do plan on a career in Marine Biology.
I would have to say autos are more harmful than smoking.
I see the need for a hunt, but only when they need to thin out the numbers, I'm still not big on game hunting in general (thats just me).
I think that if you mess with the Earth and the environment too much, it'll let you know when it has had enough.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
OhSoHumorous.com
TopDailyMemes.com
BestDailyMemes.com
FortWayneMusic.om
Kwalis.com
SoHumorous.com
FailUniversity.com
FaceFullOf.com
NuZuDu.com
FireFlyGoods.com
ThePeopleBlog.com
StealMyMemes.com
DontStealMyMemes.com
More to come...
-
heaven's chimney
Yeah I'm not real concerned with global warming. I think the whole clear-cutting (logging), ultra-pollution, f'd up water, destroying ecosystems things are more important. Global warming is just one of many environmental issues. And no doubt, when we've divorced ourselves from our landbase, we'll feel it.
-
bwohlgemuth
- Addict
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:44 pm
- Location: Huntington, IN
- Contact:
To who? Trees? That's why trees grow wonderfully next to interstate highways....I would have to say autos are more harmful than smoking.
To people, well yeah if you include auto accidents.
I think you are talking about "cause & effect" here which is true anywhere in the universe.I think that if you mess with the Earth and the environment too much, it'll let you know when it has had enough.
Put too many chemicals into the ground and it will sink into the ground water.
Put too many contractors on a Death Star and the rebellion will try to blow it up.
etc....etc.....etc.....
-
Massage...Bored
- I Beat Up Kittens
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: Fort Pain, IN
- Contact:
Thanks for the relevance.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
OhSoHumorous.com
TopDailyMemes.com
BestDailyMemes.com
FortWayneMusic.om
Kwalis.com
SoHumorous.com
FailUniversity.com
FaceFullOf.com
NuZuDu.com
FireFlyGoods.com
ThePeopleBlog.com
StealMyMemes.com
DontStealMyMemes.com
More to come...
-
Massage...Bored
- I Beat Up Kittens
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: Fort Pain, IN
- Contact:
WBOB wrote: What I was trying to get was somebody
that's seen it and then give a POV on it after viewing.
I saw it with the lady in tow on Monday night.
Gore presents some pretty solid evidence to his claims that he goes into further in his book of the same name. I'm sure you get more source quotes in the book than could be expressed in his speech. This isn't some new fangled b.s. that he's touting, he's been trying to raise awareness for something like 30-40 years with little luck in the states, but he's very well received in other countries. Big in Japan? Sh*t, he's big in China of all places. The worst thing I saw that he presented was the US regulations on MPG for automakers. The lowest you are allowed to manufacture in the states is 19 MPG, thats the worst in the world. The best is in Japan, where they have it set at like 45-50. We are way behind China as well, and the resolution that they are trying to pass in CA will put them at China-levle (today) standards in 11 years....and the US automakers are suing them because of it. The logic he puts forth is, "In 11 years, you would think that the automakers would be able to do that for the entire country, wouldn't you?" This isn't, all drivers must drive cars that get such and such gas mileage, this is automakers need to provide vehicles that meet the MPG standards.
Gore is pretty funny in his speech, which I wish he was as comfortable and personable as this when he was trying to run for office. I used to dislike him for being a bore, but here he is pretty captivating and shows a great sense of humor. He explains the global warming "science" (I use "" because I know how touchy it is) and then says, "But thats the boring way, here's the way I enjoy the most..." He then plays the Global Warming clip from Futurama. He also introduces himself, "Hello I'm Al Gore, I used to be the next President of the United States." And then proceeds to chuckle it off with the audience.
The only downfall of the film itself are the personal asides from the speech portion (which takes up most of the film). He talks about how he came to the conclusions and who showed him, he talks about his sister's death from lung cancer, and how the environment was going to be a big part of his presidential agenda. Some of this stuff felt tacked on, or maybe it was because I wasn't expecting them to be there when I sat down, but it didn't hurt the film. It just took it into a more personal area of Gore than I was expecting, maybe making it more of about him than it needed to be. Also, a new Melissa Etheridge song through credits was torturous, ugh.
If you have anysort of interest in the film, see it, its worth your money. It may open up your eyes to some, if not all, of the problems Gore presents to the viewer. I have made an oath to not drive my car unless I absolutely have to, I'm back on the bicycle. Not bragging, just letting you folks know what I'm doing to possibly help out.
If you want to know what I am working on check out these sites:
OhSoHumorous.com
TopDailyMemes.com
BestDailyMemes.com
FortWayneMusic.om
Kwalis.com
SoHumorous.com
FailUniversity.com
FaceFullOf.com
NuZuDu.com
FireFlyGoods.com
ThePeopleBlog.com
StealMyMemes.com
DontStealMyMemes.com
More to come...