the.crooked Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Re: An Inconvient Truth indeed. forgot that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Re: An Inconvient Truth Gore's conservative history isn't surprising, just look at Tipper Gore. What a cunt. "Bend up and smell my anal vapor. Your face is my toilet paper." I think that's gonna be my new signature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumPuncher Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 Re: An Inconvient Truth his position towards climate control and environmentalism has alienated him from a favorable mainstream political position before. I cant stand 'dont rock the boat' politiks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Re: An Inconvient Truth Gore's conservative history isn't surprising, just look at Tipper Gore. What a cunt. "Bend up and smell my anal vapor. Your face is my toilet paper." I think that's gonna be my new signature. Believe or not, Tipper is a big James Brown fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Re: An Inconvient Truth so i went to his slide show presentation in houston last night. met him as well. the meeting was rather as i expected. im sure he didn't remember me from adam after about thirty seconds from when i walked away. either way. the presentation was absolutely astounding. i haven't seen the film, but my mom said everything in the film was in the slideshow, but that he does more in the presentation. he was extremely articulate, funny, and empassioned. he responded that he is in no way seeking the presidency again. and that he is doing more good outside of the political process. i encourage everyone to see this film, and to force anyone else to. if we dont solve this it is because of our own collective ignorance. I have been trying to believe that we can work together as a global society to make it happen, but i just dont have that much faith in humanity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chance Em Redy Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 It seems the trailers aren't working on my computer at the moment, so could anybody that has already viewed this documentary provide a synopsis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 synopsis- if humanity doesnt get their shit striaght in 10-15 years, we are fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIZENO Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 synopsis- if humanity doesnt get their shit striaght in 10-15 years' date=' we are fucked.[/quote'] SECOND !!! Major changes .... Like no more Florida unless you feel like scuba diving to visit Disneyworld !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 i saw homies slide show. the one that is the basis for movie and book. astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weapon X Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I saw this about a week and a half ago. It was pretty good. I think every layman should see it. Not much of it is news to anyone who gives a fuck about global warming and reads about it, but there are some cool visuals, and you'll still learn something, most likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ckit Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 I saw this movie like two weeks ago i think? We got there a little bit late, like 10 minutes before the movie started, and ended up having to sit in the front row. my neck hurt for like two days afterword. I was hesitant to see a film with Al Gore as the spokesperson, but he actually did a really good job with this movie. A must see for all the people who still see global warming as a 'debate'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ckit Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 double poste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I got in the most retarded flame war ever with several idiots on the South Park IMDB forum about global warming. I swear, those people are the most ignorant, uneducated people on earth. Their big defense was Michael Crichton's pathetic book on global warming terrorists and a wikipedia page that listed a total of 6 people who anywhere from considering that there is not enough data to prove it to flat out denying it. Two of them were publically proven to have been in big oil's pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 people are fucking idiots. and they are the reason our children will inherit a lost world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodstamps Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I just got back from seeing it about an hour ago. The movie was a huge eye opener, even to someone who has been aware of a lot of the points used in the movie. The mood of the movie seemed so despairing.- everything from the choice of music to the the shortage of solutions. That is my main critisizm- the movie drew too much attention to what we are doing to get any chance of suggesting any of the ideas on what we should be doing. And no, that list in the ending credits did not suffice. I'm talking change from a macro scale, from the top down. Because our actions, our 'ecological footsteps' are a LOT less significant than those who influence us all. But yea, I do feel that those who are creating the greatest problems are probably the least likely ones to go see this movie, but who cares really. Because after all, we are the constituents, and changing our collective conscience is the first step in resetting their agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Haha... yeah I've heard that Michael Crichton defense before too. He writes science-fiction, and he should stick to doing that because he had alot more respect and credibility in my mind when he did. Noone even questioned global warming was real before Bush came along, then it was like information war broke out. No kidding, that's what I kept saying, "You're referencing the guy that wrote Congo"! They were like "oh he uses footnotes! he's got sources!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 ann coulter uses footnotes. she could also use my footnote being pushed through her fucking teeth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I want to devestate her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Michael Crichton's book on eco-terrorism is fiction. His criticizing of the scientific establishment is on fucking point though, and people keep misinterpreting what he's trying to say as if he was against global warming. All he's saying is for people to watch out for what they learn, because the scientific establishment has proven itself to sometimes be as agenda-based as politicians and corporations. Just because you decide to dedicate your life to writing fiction does not in any way invalidate anything truthful you might wanna say. Have you actually read any of his lectures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 i think the only issue mams, is that in using such as global warming as ones venue to discuss that topic you muddle something very important. not to say that the fallibilities of the scientific community should be ignored, but when the livelihood and wellbeing of millions...well billions of people is at stake here, one may need to weigh the effect of how they speak about it. im not saying that chrichton is wrong or that he needs to keep his mouth shut, but that global warming is one thing where everyone, absolutely everyone needs to get together and figure it out. you wanna talk about the agenda of the scientific community, talk about the stem cell cloning failure of whats his name in south korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 ann coulter is still a stupid cunt though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 global warming is one thing where everyone' date=' absolutely everyone needs to get together and figure it out. [/quote'] If criticizing the establishment is the primary point, then that's a very close secondary. He states very clearly that global warming is incredibly important and needs to get figured out STAT, which you agree with. His issue is that alarmists and agendas can further muddle this knowledge. Global warming is the perfect venue for discussion of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 i hate to say, i haven't read what is being argued. so im speakin in the dark. i just think that the fact that so many people dont understand global warming and its current and future effects are going to be misled when reading about specific agendas and how they use specific issues. take for example my other night. i went out with a friend and we hung out at his neighboors house at the end of the night. the guy was mad chill, very well read, well traveled and well versed. somehow the conversation moved to the topic of climate and global warming. this man is a civil engineer and is obviously intelligent. but, because of these types of discussions, however relevant they may be, does not believe that global warming is as much of an issue as it is. he started talking about cyclic nature of...blah blah blah. all im saying is that in so much as the majority of the people dont even believe that global warming exists, it doesn't help that perception when discussing the possible exploitation of this issue for specific agendas. I'm not sayin hes wrong, or anything of that nature. I just think that right now, it does more harm than good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 oh, and more on that dude. I started talkin to him bout academic reports, and all the other shit that i know of because of my moms position at the non-profit environmental defense fund. That all the scientific evidence is readily available but completely unbelieved by most causes me to think they are not bright enough to acknowledge what i take chrightons argument to be. They will get caught up in the agenda part of it and blow off that he is saying it does exist and is a major issue. People will automatically look to the easier answer and if they can choose to believe that global warming is just some agenda pushed concept, for it makes their lives easier. I suppose thats my only point. people are stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 You are completely right. It's a bit of a catch 22 in a sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Crichton has every right to question scientific establishments or anything he wants. But what he's doing is using incorrect facts and data to do this and it is giving many people the idea that global warming is not real. Just take a look at the Amazon.com comments. Here's some links that tear "State of Fear" to shreds: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp "State of the Media What's truly scary is the willingness of some major U.S. media to accept a sweeping dismissal -- from a novelist -- of scientists' conclusions from decades of research. From Matt Lauer, on NBC's Today show, asking Crichton whether environmentalists really could control the weather to improve their fundraising, to ABC's "20/20" refusing to allow scientists to appear on the show when asking Crichton to describe his theory, the state of fiction and science seem to be merging -- and that's not good for our nation." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 "Crichton next raises the apparently unrecognised (by the lawyer character at least) fact that the interior of Antarctica is cooling (p196), an issue discussed in another post (Antarctica cooling, global warming?). This is more or less correct (given the obvious uncertainties in long term data from the continental interior), but analogously to the example above, local cooling does not contradict global warming." "Next, and slightly more troubling, we have some rather misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988. "Dr. Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent" (p247). Hansen's testimony did indeed lead to a big increase in awareness of global warming as a issue, but not because he exaggerated the problem by 300%. In a paper published soon after that testimony, Hansen et al, 1988 presented three model simulations for different scenarios for the growth in trace gases and other forcings (see figure). Scenario A had exponentially increasing CO2, Scenario B had a more modest Business-as-usual assumption, and Scenario C had no further increases in CO2 after the year 2000. Both scenarios B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995. Rightly, the authors did not assume that they knew what path the carbon dioxide emissions would take, and so presented a spectrum of results. The scenario that ended up being closest to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The temperature change for the decade under this scenario was very close to the actual 0.11 C/decade observed (as can be seen in the figure). So given a good estimate of the forcings, the model did a reasonable job. In fact in his testimony, Hansen ONLY showed results from scenario B, and stated clearly that it was the most probable scenario. The '300 percent' error claim comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels who in testimony in congress in 1998 deleted the bottom two curves in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable." "At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message. In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/ "Atmospheric CO2 Levels. Here, at least, Crichton seems aware that he's building his case on the backs of scientists who don't agree with him. In a cross-examination scene early in the novel, one character who has been raising doubts about human-caused climate change observes that the data she's citing have all been ''generated by researchers who believe firmly in global warming.'' Crichton then cites a paper by David Etheridge and his colleagues at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which concerns changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 1,000 years. But Etheridge says he objects to this characterization of his so-called beliefs. ''There is little indication for Crichton of what beliefs I may or may not have,'' he said via email. ''My work as a professional scientist allows me only to produce and deal with evidence, not beliefs.'' The Big Picture. In Crichton's defense, those seeking to counter consensus scientific conclusions on climate change--and to use published evidence to support their own views--face an uphill battle. Naomi Oreskes, a science studies scholar at the University of California, San Diego, recently analyzed more than 900 scientific articles listed with the keywords ''global climate change,'' and failed to find a single study that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming. While such literature may exist, it appears minimal. That hasn't stopped Crichton from expounding his views in recent speeches, including a talk on ''Science Policy in the 21st Century'' held late last month at the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution's Joint Center for Regulatory Studies in Washington, D.C. In an appendix to ''State of Fear,'' Crichton frets about ''Why Politicized Science is Dangerous.'' But he may himself have provided a case study." http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4371 "State of Fear: The record of increasing surface temperatures cited as evidence of global warming is actually caused by the so-called "Urban Heat Island Effect," and is thus a local, not a global, phenomenon. The facts: Urban areas do tend to be warmer than rural areas. As the world becomes more urban, average surface temperatures will appear to be increasing. However, the surface temperature record that is used to track global warming has been carefully analyzed to filter out urban heat island effects. Moreover, the evidence of global warming goes well beyond surface temperatures. Contrary to the flawed arguments advanced by Crichton (see above) sea ice is melting, glaciers (like those in our own Glacier National Park) are disappearing, ocean temperatures are on the rise, the permafrost in Alaska is melting and sea levels are increasing." "State of Fear: The scientists who developed the evidence for global warming cannot be trusted. They have "cooked" the data; they have a vested interest in advancing a global warming agenda; and/or they have a "herd instinct" that causes them to support the accepted view of things. The facts: Again, nothing could be further from the truth. 1. A huge community of scientists from different organizations using different approaches and assumptions are working on the problem and publishing their findings, usually in peer-reviewed journals -- there is no way to "cook" the data and not be found out. 2. It is not clear what special interest scientists have in advancing the proposition that human-caused global warming is occurring. Some of the most outspoken proponents work in federal laboratories with their source of funding, the U.S. government, openly negative about global warming, 3. Scientists by nature are skeptics. Their reputations are made by upsetting the accepted view, not by supporting it. If a scientist were able to prove that the globe is not warming or that the warming is caused by natural processes instead of GHGs, he or she would instantly become a world-renowned scientist. That has not happened, but it is not for lack of trying. For more, see a detailed point-by-point discussion of Crichton's assertions and interpretations, by Gavin Schmidt, a NASA/Columbia University climatologist." His book is dangerous and wrong, the man is a villian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 thank you fermentor for taking the time to do that. even cited the group me moms works for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASER1NE Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Like stated by others The fact that the earth is going to shit , but it was a good movie to showcase just how badly and quickly its going there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 ann coulter is still a stupid cunt though... Uber cunt! I hear her pussy smells like money... because she uses it as a purse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 hes, better outside of the presidency. if he got the presidency it would be like lincoln inheriting the civil war. Even if a democratic president wins this election, they will spend their entire term fixing the past eight years. Al Gore does not want his legacy to be the garbage man of George W. Bush. He wants the world to remember him as the man who saved humanity through a slide show presentation. And I for one, think he has a good chance at affect what future we may have, and I think it has a much more positive and credible attraction outside of the presidency. Take for example when I made my thread about going to see his slide show? I asked if anyone had questions for him, and Man with the Answers told me to "ask him when his publicist told him that goign environmental is the thing to do." The fact first off that this has been one of his major platform positions from the beginning is irrelevant. What is important is that there is a perception that this push for the environment is a grassroots campaign for seeking the democratic nomination for presidency. But if that happens, he would lose much of his popularity, Sort of like Howard Dean. Its novel until there is a chance of it happening, then we fuck things up and decide to ellect the next best thing on the ticket, ala Kerry. Basically my point is that Gore couldn't win, even if he wanted to, but he will do much better for the things he cares about, money and the environment, by staying out of the presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.