Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

"An Inconvenient Truth"

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I went and saw Al Gore's movie last night and I must say, it was quite an eye-opener. These people that claim that our period of global warming is just cyclical when the facts and figures prove otherwise, are plainly wrong.

It seems almost nobody in the scientific community believes that global warming is not a man-made issue yet articles in magazines and the press try and imply that there IS massive division amongst the scientific community - which there isn't.

The Bush administration is so preoccupied with 'global terrorism' but, as the largest polluter in the world (at the moment), it is allowing mankind to walk into a whole new, terrifying world with our eyes wide open.

Anyone else see the film and have views?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I havent seen the film but I am mystified by the people who say that the warming is largely natural and so we shouldnt do anything.

    Surely even if the warming is largely natural we should be doing everything we can not to add to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Go see the film if you like but afterwards . . .

    Keep a tight hold on your wallets and purses ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Surely even if the warming is largely natural we should be doing everything we can not to add to it.
    My thoughts entirely. America produces so much pollution is ridiculous, plus India and China cant be that far behind them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Go see the film if you like but afterwards . . .

    Keep a tight hold on your wallets and purses ;)

    Which means ... that it will cost us?

    Yes, there is no doubt it will cost us. But if we don't pay now, your descendants will experience a life of hell in just a few generations.

    The polar ice caps are melting and even a rise of 20 foot in sea levels will see huge amounts of people (many millions of people that is) being displaced in the Americas, China, India, Bangladesh etc ... it's bad enough trying to deal with 100 000 refugees but this will be on an almost unimaginable scale.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My thoughts entirely. America produces so much pollution is ridiculous, plus India and China cant be that far behind them.
    What about OUR lifestyles???

    The average 'eco-footprint' for the south west is 5.24... So if everybody lived like us we'd need five planets to sustain the human population.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Go see the film if you like but afterwards . . .

    Keep a tight hold on your wallets and purses ;)
    Why?

    Living green isn't that expensive is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    I havent seen the film but I am mystified by the people who say that the warming is largely natural and so we shouldnt do anything.

    Surely even if the warming is largely natural we should be doing everything we can not to add to it.
    Also, all we do that reduces polution also reduces consumption of resources that are, fact, running out. Which is a reason to do it as much as anything else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Scientists now believe by 2040 the North Pole will be completely ice-free in the summer.

    Which means the entire polar bear population will die.

    And you still get cunts claiming there is no such thing as man-made global warming or that it doesn't really matter if the planet is warming up.

    Fucking sad and sickening.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about OUR lifestyles???

    We're crap as well. But at least we are starting to focus on it more unlike some other contries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Scientists now believe by 2040 the North Pole will be completely ice-free in the summer.

    Which means the entire polar bear population will die.

    And you still get cunts claiming there is no such thing as man-made global warming or that it doesn't really matter if the planet is warming up.

    Fucking sad and sickening.
    Wel yeah of course people deny it, for two reasons...
    1. That you cannot blame Communists, Muslims or any group of people for it like you can for terrorism. It is down to our own consumption of fule and goods and a lot of people don't wish to change their lifestyles. Too many people are content with real roses on valentines day, apples imported from South Africa, being able to drive their cars everywhere, processed food, cheap flights, wide screen televisions and seven hundred different pairsof shoes.
    2. Most scientists who denied climate change were funded by the companies who are contributing to it... Also, in many ways it is not in the interests of a country's leader which makes so much money out of anything which damages the environment, to admit to it.

    I do feel sad for polar bears. The loss of up to 40% of all biodiversity is something that's expected. All because we're greedy, lazy, self-centred and pampered...

    But then both China and India are industrialising quickly and their demand for fuel is going up.

    What can you do, stop countries from developing?

    We need to stop investing our development aid on oil and fossil fuel projects and start investing in renewables for the global south as well as setting examples here at home (we can't expect a country that aspires to be like us to use renewables if we don't).

    We need to cut down our consumption and especially eat less meat. And to stop importing out of season fruit and vegetables from other far away places. We need better public transport, or at least some form of private transport which is environmentally friendly.

    We need to ban cheap flights, especially short haul flights from London to Manchester... I mean what the fuck???
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We're crap as well. But at least we are starting to focus on it more unlike some other contries.
    How exactly?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Scientists now believe by 2040 the North Pole will be completely ice-free in the summer.

    Which means the entire polar bear population will die.

    Apparently, over the last year, is the first time people have been finding numerous bodies of polar bears 60 miles out to sea - who drowned from exhaustion because they could not reach the (expected) ice flows .... horrifying.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What can you do, stop countries from developing?
    No. But making them more efficient, responsible and cleaner.

    It is possible to evolve and develop and yet cut on emissions. If everyone in this country (and presumably most other countries) were to swtich their light bulbs to energy efficient ones, we would cut our energy consumption by a massive 20%. Just like that.

    And if we change people habits and get it into their heads that driving a monster truck is an irresponsible act and that they are acting like selfish dickheads (unless they really need one, and 90% of them don't) we would cut on CO2 emissions quite drastically as well.

    And if we put more pressure, even the threat of economic sanctions on those nations that refuse to cut down their emissions (one or two come to mind) then we will make even more progress.

    So a lot of things can be achieved without detriment to development. We just need some twats in Washington and elsewhere to stop lying and acting like selfish greedy scumbags and to admit that there is such thing as man-made global warming after all and that we need to act very very quickly or things are going to go very wrong indeed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not just focusing all our efforts on CO2 would be a good start too, methane is far far more 'warming' than CO2 and there seems no push to reduce that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Not just focusing all our efforts on CO2 would be a good start too, methane is far far more 'warming' than CO2 and there seems no push to reduce that.
    I agree on that, but on the main point. Even if the vast majority of the scientific community are wrong, and global warming isn't being caused by human actions, does that mean that we should just go on consuming every natural resource this planet has? Or should we try and actually cut down on our consumption anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Not just focusing all our efforts on CO2 would be a good start too, methane is far far more 'warming' than CO2 and there seems no push to reduce that.
    Yes it does, but methane only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere whereas CO2 can last for up to 200 years.

    Not that methane isn't important however...

    CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and cement production... Methane comes from livestock farting, rice production and landfill sites. A problem we have here is that rice is a part of the staple diet of billions of people world-wide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about OUR lifestyles???

    The average 'eco-footprint' for the south west is 5.24... So if everybody lived like us we'd need five planets to sustain the human population.


    "Eco footprint built on weak scientific foundations and should not be used in sustainability debates."
    http://imv.net.dynamicweb.dk/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fRapporter%2fVerdens+og+Europas+tilstand%2fecological_footprint.pdf
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unfortunately what's necessary is a collective effort, not individual ones because the latter isn't going to entirely solve our problem. Sure, contribution is good and all that, but one individual won't solve this massive problem (am not saying you should not care, because one should never give up struggling for this). The problem is an earnest attempt of the calibre necessary is too costly and I'm intrigued at when the world and the major polluters realises the consequences.

    You can't really blame them. Many people are willing to contribute to something invisible to guarantee maximum productivity. Thing is it isn't that invisible anymore and the we're seeing right now who values money over our future environment.

    It doesn't happen over one night. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day, but someone has to lay the first brick, innit?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    "Eco footprint built on weak scientific foundations and should not be used in sustainability debates."
    http://imv.net.dynamicweb.dk/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fRapporter%2fVerdens+og+Europas+tilstand%2fecological_footprint.pdf
    Something a little more recent?

    A few criticisms of this article:

    Eco-footprinting is an attention grabbing device - Good, people need to have this kind of thing brought to their attention. Every model will have its fault somewhere. The good thing about the eco-footprint is that it is simple and understandable. It has also probably evolved since this was written.

    It is not clear whether the concentration of CO2 is a problem yet - People have been arguing climate change for at least a decade. I wonder if this would change now there is new research.

    People will be switching to renewables soon - Hopefully, but that doesn't mean that it is any less valid at this time.

    Any model can be criticised, it could also be seen as ethnocentric too, but it is widely used and personally I do think that it is a useful tool.

    Note: Will read the entire article when I get time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I should really start contributing more to the planet, considering I am that way inclined I am all too lazy when it comes to recycling etc.

    Time to pull my finger out I think!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The simple attack on scientists questioning global warming that they're in the pockets of oil companies is in many cases a completely unfounded criticism. And it works both ways, there's scientists on the other side who have a vested interest in pushing the scaremonger theory that we're doomed...

    For Al Gore, Greenpeace and co the fact that there is no proof that radically changing our behaviour will stop climate change must be a truly inconvenient truth. Ban every car, ground every aeroplane, completely end the use of fossil fuels - there's little evidence to suggest it would make any difference.

    Nobody denies that the climate is changing but anybody who thinks we're doomed unless aeroplanes are banned and everyone is driving around in hybrids is deluded.

    Many of the scientists who believe global warming is caused by natural processes are highly respected. (As are many of those who disagree with them). I don't know who is right - I'm guessing time will show much of what we've heard from the latter to be exaggerated.

    Fossil fuels are going to run out and become more expensive, they also make us reliant on some unsavoury sources. If the doomsayers are right viable alternative fuels or the simple reality of the oil running out are the only things that will make any real difference. Sticking windmills on houses, banning 4x4s and slapping 'green' taxes on everything that pollutes might make the likes of Al Gore feel good but it won't do much else.

    Climate change 'is the norm' - and 'global warming is indeed a scam.'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The simple attack on scientists questioning global warming that they're in the pockets of oil companies is in many cases a completely unfounded criticism. And it works both ways, there's scientists on the other side who have a vested interest in pushing the scaremonger theory that we're doomed...

    The vast majority of scientists are on the side of those who believe global warming is a man made event.
    For Al Gore, Greenpeace and co the fact that there is no proof that radically changing our behaviour will stop climate change must be a truly inconvenient truth. Ban every car, ground every aeroplane, completely end the use of fossil fuels - there's little evidence to suggest it would make any difference

    So we just stop trying?

    Computer forecasting systems show that small changes in our lives will have real impact of the carbon emmisions we produce.
    Nobody denies that the climate is changing but anybody who thinks we're doomed unless aeroplanes are banned and everyone is driving around in hybrids is deluded.

    I haven't hear anybody go as far as that ...
    Many of the scientists who believe global warming is caused by natural processes are highly respected. (As are many of those who disagree with them). I don't know who is right - I'm guessing time will show much of what we've heard from the latter to be exaggerated.

    There is plenty of evidence to show that we are going through an unnatural and extended period of global warming - completely unprecedented in history. It's a fact. The three other occurrences within the last 1000 years or so were very short and did NOT reach the temperatures we are experiencing now.

    And this is a different, minority viewpoint which you are fully entitled to believe. But ice samples drawn from the Arctic ice sheets show that what we are going through is a hugely freakish event with nothing remotely similar occurring to this scale for the last 650 000 years. The changes we are experiencing now are so sudden, so dramatic and so prolonged.

    It may well be that in time that the above writer of teh article is proved right but until that time, it is best to err on the side of caution. Even if we can maintain current levels of CO2 emissions, it is better than ignoring the situation and finding out that the majority was right when it is too late.

    "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences." WC
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote:
    There is plenty of evidence to show that we are going through an unnatural and extended period of global warming - completely unprecedented in history.

    unprecedented my arse.

    globaltemp.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    unprecedented my arse.

    globaltemp.jpg
    Where did that picture come from?

    Do remember that the creataceous period ended around 65 million years ago. So the scale of the temperature rise is relative to that.

    The Pleistocene period lasted just over a million years I think... Look at the scale to which the temerature has changed during the pleistocene period then compare it to how much it has changed so far since 11, 550 years ago.

    Unless I'm mistaken, we have only been farming for around 8,000 years, when the weather was suitible. We are still more dependent on agriculture than we think. Also, yes, the planet does go through periods of climate change, but this has been proven to be made a lot worse by human activity. We are causing it to heat quicker than the earth's biodiversity can adapt, essentially we're on our way to killing the planet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The simple attack on scientists questioning global warming that they're in the pockets of oil companies is in many cases a completely unfounded criticism. And it works both ways, there's scientists on the other side who have a vested interest in pushing the scaremonger theory that we're doomed...
    But why would they have an interest in 'scaremongering'? Why would the UN want to scaremonger?
    For Al Gore, Greenpeace and co the fact that there is no proof that radically changing our behaviour will stop climate change must be a truly inconvenient truth. Ban every car, ground every aeroplane, completely end the use of fossil fuels - there's little evidence to suggest it would make any difference.
    Says who?
    Nobody denies that the climate is changing but anybody who thinks we're doomed unless aeroplanes are banned and everyone is driving around in hybrids is deluded.
    Like who?
    Many of the scientists who believe global warming is caused by natural processes are highly respected. (As are many of those who disagree with them). I don't know who is right - I'm guessing time will show much of what we've heard from the latter to be exaggerated.
    But then could it be too late? That's like saying "I don't know if smoking will give me cancer so I'll keep at it and hope I don't get ill".
    Fossil fuels are going to run out and become more expensive, they also make us reliant on some unsavoury sources.
    Such as?
    If the doomsayers are right viable alternative fuels or the simple reality of the oil running out are the only things that will make any real difference. Sticking windmills on houses, banning 4x4s and slapping 'green' taxes on everything that pollutes might make the likes of Al Gore feel good but it won't do much else.
    Why not?
    Got anything more recent?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where did that picture come from?

    Do remember that the creataceous period ended around 65 million years ago. So the scale of the temperature rise is relative to that.

    The scale is quite clearly shown by the size of each period's block. Earth has been in one of the longest cold spells in its history.

    The Pleistocene period lasted just over a million years I think... Look at the scale to which the temerature has changed during the pleistocene period then compare it to how much it has changed so far since 11, 550 years ago.

    eh?
    Unless I'm mistaken, we have only been farming for around 8,000 years, when the weather was suitible. We are still more dependent on agriculture than we think. Also, yes, the planet does go through periods of climate change, but this has been proven to be made a lot worse by human activity. We are causing it to heat quicker than the earth's biodiversity can adapt, essentially we're on our way to killing the planet.

    The above article showed that the per capita footprint is declining and that earths biodiversity can cope. More efficient use of resources caused by economic growth and third world farmers using their land better (they have the largest land to yield ratio) mean less and less land is needed to sustain the human population.

    The article also reviews previous doom and gloom predictions and shows how they all turned out to be nonsense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But why would they have an interest in 'scaremongering'?

    Scientists taking the doomsayers line through their frightening guesses of what's to come attract attention from politicians and the media. This translates into wider press coverage, more government funding, UN funding and lucrative junket and summits. And the 'green' groups making up the global warming lobby are pretty wealthy organisations these days. As for the other side, sure, some oil companies have funded a few small think tanks that have raised a few difficult questions but I don't think it matches the scale of benefits for scientists who subscribe to what is fast becoming the establishment opinion on global warming.
    Says who?

    Er, that's just the fact...To put it simply, thinking on global warming so far hasn't got much further than observing the rising temperature and explaining it by human activity. Will changing human activity - i.e. reducing emissions, have an effect? It might do but there is absolutely no evidence that it will. Guesswork about how future behaviour will affect the climate isn't proof.
    Such as?

    Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia for a start.
    Why not?

    Because there isn't any evidence to say that sticking windmills on houses and banning 4x4s will stop climate change.
    Got anything more recent?

    Are you not capable of looking for yourself? I found this interesting though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ostrich.gif
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you not capable of looking for yourself? I found this interesting though.

    But these are minority views. For every ONE article you show me, I can produce dozens. Is it worth hanging on to the fact that the minority MAY be right in the long run? I don't think so - but you seem willing to take that chance. Are you not in the least bit concerned about your descendants and any wrong choices you make today?
Sign In or Register to comment.