Movie Recommendation (and a Great Debate on Global Warming)

Polly · Post by **Polly** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:12 am

Mornin' All!

Yesterday I saw "An Inconvenient Truth", the movie about global warming. I hope every citizen of our planet will see it. It is a subject that is not a partisan one - it is an urgent and ethical one. The movie has been out for maybe 6-8 weeks now, and I was surprised to see the theater FULL on a Sun. afternoon at 2:40 P.M.

The facts are now completely irrefutable. It is amazing to see photos of the world's various glaciers and snow-capped mountains from 30-40 years ago compared to now. Did you know that within 10 years there will no longer be any glacier in Glacier National Park? And that 40 percent of the arctic ice cap has already melted (I think within the past decade alone)? The shrinking can easily be seen in satellite photos of the earth. This is a HUGE problem, because ice REFLECTS 90% of the suns' rays hitting it, while water ABSORBS 90%. Thus, the more melting, the much greater increase in warming of the earth.

There is lots that we can do to reduce our own contribution to global warming, even though, to date, our country has lacked the political will to tackle this problem. I was interested to see that we have the lowest auto mpg "standard" in the developed world. China, Japan, India, etc. ALL have far more stringent requirements. Of course this means that we can't sell our autos in many other countries, but I guess Ford and GM have never been known for their "vision". LOL, but it's not really funny, is it? I think these corporations are actually in the process of sueing the state of California for its new state laws that will raise the mpg standard. Amazing!

I could go on and on, but I really think everyone must see this movie to understand both intellectually and emotionally what is happening to our home planet. Most of us already have appreciated the quantum shift in the world's weather toward far more violent and devastating events. One city in India last year had 37 inches of rain in 24 hours, while a neighboring city suffers longterm drought. And of course we can't get those images of Katrina out of our mind. Roger Ebert, in his review of this movie, said that anyone choosing not to see it should be prepared to explain their decision to their children and grandchildren.

Love,

Polly

TendrTummy · Post by **TendrTummy** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:56 am

Polly,

Thanks for posting this.. I'll try to see that movie ASAP - but I wanted to add to your post.

You mentioned that the glaciers reflect the sun and that water absorbs the heat - as I'm sure you can all guess, this heats the ocean. The delicate state of the coral reefs in our oceans is at risk. If we lose the corals, we lose the fish in the ocean. Think about the chain reaction that will cause. Many small villages survive on fishing exports alone. Those villages will be wiped off the face of the earth. And with no fish in the market, our diets will definitely change. Just things to think about. Corals can only survive in certain temps and even an increase of 1 degree can kill them all. The coral reefs in Figi are already dying, and they've made an Imax film about it. I can't recall the name right now, but it's a good one that all should see as well. (Sally, I've recommended this film to you before.. do you recall the name?)

Christine

Post by **tex** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:56 am

I hate to be a wet blanket, (though I'm sure the movie is entertaining and thought-provoking), but to put this all into perspective, read this:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html

The bottom line is, global warming is not significantly affected by human practices, but the perception of global warming is, because people love to talk about the weather, and they have been trying unsuccessfully to change it for thousands of years.

Love,
Tex

Alice · Post by **Alice** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:12 am

Hi Polly,

I saw the movie the first week-end it was out. It was very well done and totally believable, convincing. I too think it is something everyone should see. Why take any chances with our incredible, miraculous home - Earth?
Why not do all we can to preserve it for future generations?

It seems a daunting task, but we can do it! We've sent men to the moon, for goodness sake!

p.s. We own a Prius and love it!

Love,
Alice

Polly · Post by **Polly** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:47 am

TEX!

Oh, please, please, please see the movie! Pretty please? You of all people will appreciate the absolute scientific rigor with which the facts are obtained and presented. A great deal of attention is paid to explaining the scientific tests (like ice core studies which can tell us about the earth's temperature and CO2 levels up to 650,000 years ago) that show why the current situation is NOT following the natural cycles of the warming and cooling of the earth. In the past few years, the measured CO2 levels are WAY above those ever documented in the past 650,000 years - like 50% or more I think.

There is no info to indicate the source of the article you shared, but in preparing for the movie, something like 900 of the peer-reviewed articles in the top scientific journals of the past 5 years were reviewed, and guess how many top climate scientists are in agreement that global warming is here and that it has been caused by man? 100%!

However, in the popular press, about 50% of the time the reporter will still say that there is some doubt (although I have noticed that this is occurring less and less over time). The movie presents evidence of a memo from the petroleum industry that indicates a desire to promote "doubt" in people's minds, similar to what the tobacco industry did for years after the surgeon's general's report linked smoking to lung cancer. It is a stategy that works very well.

I agree with you that perception is the key here.

Love,

Polly

kate_ce1995 · Post by **kate_ce1995** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:06 am

Hi Polly,

My folks saw this a couple weeks ago and Mom also raved about it (apparently dad caught a few winks).

As a causual geologist, I am also skeptical when hearing the numbers because, as a planet, we are still coming out of the last ice age. And because we only have, at best, about 100 years worth of weather data, we don't know that some of these trends haven't happened before. Of course we do have some dating info from the ice caps/glaciers, etc.

The earth is a dynamic environment and we just haven't been here long enough to know what to expect. I mean, think how enraged and worried we'd all be if we were at this point with technology when the last ice age occured and the northeast was being approached by a growing ice sheet.

I have not seen the film and I am sure that as a society we are doing damage to the planet, but at the same time from a scientific site, I'm not sure we know enough to know that Katrina like storms didn't happen 300 years ago or 1,000 years ago. And quite frankly, I really don't think the force of Katrina was the issue, so much as the weaknesses in the infastructure and warning systems. Sadly, America's infastructure gets a C to D rating, in general. Thats pretty poor. If we were achieving an A or B would the levees have failed?

I do think there needs to be focus from both a geologic and environment standpoint. And we need to do better as a society to be willing to pay extra to force pollution controling things into place, and developing alternative energies that don't cause the pollution and such. We complain about how high taxes are, but to some extent keeping the taxes low is what drives how far we go with these "clean" initiatives.

Katy

mle_ii · Post by **mle_ii** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:42 am

If I didn't feel that it was politically motivated I "might" see it, but seeing who's doing it doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about the content.

Though I do agree that something is amiss in our environment and know quite a bit about global warming, or at least from what I've seen on discovery, science channel, and have read in science magazines, news, etc.

One very interesting show was a show called "Global Dimming" or something to that effect. If you thought that info about global warming was interesting then watch this show. Can't remember who made it, but the basic premise is that global warming is far worse than it could be were it not for global dimming, and given that we're getting better and better about not contributing to the factor that causes global dimming then global warming is going to get worse.

mle_ii · Post by **mle_ii** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:46 am

Oh, and if we're doing something bad to the planet, I'm not to worried about the planet. It'll do pretty well in taking care of itself, even if it means getting rid of us first. LOL So I'd be more worried about what we're doing to ourselves first. :)

Also, I don't mind folks worrying about it too much, so long as when they worry about it they don't pollute as much. :)

Polly · Post by **Polly** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:17 pm

Hi, y'all!

I really enjoy hearing what everyone thinks.

Re the partisan issue: Yes, it is Al Gore who is featured in this flick. Remember him? That guy who "won" the 2000 election (the popular vote but not the electoral vote). Was that ever a crazy time or what???

However, I hope everyone is aware of the Bush Administration's stand on this issue. Initially there was no stand because the President wished to undertake more study of global warming. Now, of course, President Bush and his top science advisors have publicly stated that they believe that global warming is upon us and that humans have played a part in it.

Thus, this is no longer a partisan issue, except for how we go about doing something about it.

Mike - I have read a little about the "global dimming" theory, too. It is fascinating. I read that if you look at satellite photos of the major cities in China, you will see "black", which is actually the accumulation of soot/particulate matter/pollution over the city. However, it turns out that this soot is able to deflect the sun's warming rays and actually keep the city cooler. And once the pollution over these cities is cleaned up, they will get hotter.

Also, did you know that the water particles in the exhaust streams from the jet planes in the air at any given time over the earth actually help cool the earth? Remember immediately after 9/11 when there was a period of time when no planes were allowed to fly in the U.S.? Well, the climate scientists confirmed this theory during that time by founding out that the earth underneath averaged 2 degrees hotter without the exhaust streams.

Love,

Polly

P.S. TT - the movie does mention the problem with declining health of coral reefs.

Post by **tex** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:46 pm

Polly wrote:TEX!
There is no info to indicate the source of the article you shared, but in preparing for the movie, something like 900 of the peer-reviewed articles in the top scientific journals of the past 5 years were reviewed, and guess how many top scientists are in agreement that global warming is here and that it has been caused by man? 100%!

Polly,

I find it rather hard to bellieve that 100% of the top scientists in the world are proponents of global warming. I don't doubt that 100% of the ones that they quoted in the movie were in agreement. That's a no-brainer.

Did you actually read the article I posted? The author's names were listed just above the list of references, and there are plenty of quotes from high level scientists, and others, (including proponents of global warming).

THIS PAGE BY:

Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb

Regarding CO2, (from the article I cited):

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.

Human CO2 influence is insignificant in comparison with natural events over which we have no control.

I have to agree with Mike. In all honesty, I don't believe that I could stand to watch any movie that involved Al Gore's idea of "Truth" Virtually every thing that he says is designed to promote his own political career. Frankly, his endorsement of this concept would make me suspicious of it, even if valid scientific evidence actually supported it.

Katie is correct. In just a couple thousand more years, we will be entering another ice age again, and Al Gore's descendents will be blaming it on us. During the warming part of these cycles, food is plentiful, and life is good, when the next ice age gets under away again, as always, many species will become extinct, due to starvation and inhospitable climate changes, and huge areas of the continents will become arctic deserts, where nothing can survive. I'll take the warming phase of the cycle, thank you. The cooldown phase sucks, bigtime.

IMO, concepts that are promoted by polititians are almost always politically motivated, and not in the best interest of society, civilization, the planet, or anything else, other than politicians.

Love,
Tex

P S Polly, I apologize for not being able to persuade myself to view that movie, and for stating a contrary position. I hope you understand that I don't have much choice in the matter, given my personality type.

starfire · Post by **starfire** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:00 pm

Sorry Polly, but I go along with Tex, Mike & Kate. I remember all that all that hoopla about the ozone layer several years ago. I've read in different places that one volcano eruption destroys more of the ozone layer than anything we can do to it. It's hard for me to get all excited about some newfound "problem" when it's probably been waxing and waning since the beginning.

I am also turned off by Al Gore.

We all have our differing feeling and opinions don't we.

Love, Shirley

harvest_table · Post by **harvest_table** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:02 pm

The summers of 04 and 05 spoiled us Alaskans with record breaking temps, warm and sunny Jun-Aug. It was wonderful. This summer has been more typical, cool and rainy.

In the 14 years I've lived here I've seen first hand dramatic glacier retreat. One in particular, Portage Glacier which is just a couple hours drive from our place is among some striking photos on this site.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org ... ciers.html

Thanks for the movie tip- I had not heard anything about it.

Love,
Joanna

Polly · Post by **Polly** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:55 pm

Evening, All!

A few more comments:

Joanna,

It makes sense that Alaskans are more aware of rapid environmental changes than other Americans might be. This is because the greatest impact of global warming occurs near the two polar ice caps. Thus, those who live farther north, like in Greenland, Norway, or Alaska are seeing major changes first. If the earth's avg. temperature were to rise 5 degrees, only 1 degree of increase would occur at the equator, but it would become 12 degrees hotter at the two poles. This is due to the position of the sun and related physics. Thanks for the website!

Tex,

I went to the website that you noted, the one by Monte and Harrison Hieb.
Apparently the term "West Virginia plant fossils" is a fancy term for COAL (a fossil fuel that is implicated as an important contributor to global warming). This appears to be a website extolling the virtues of coal, which is understandable since W. VA. is a very poor state and coal mining is the major employer. However, it appears that these 2 are not climate scientists (I couldn't find any reference to their credentials) and obviously there is a major conflict of interest to be taken into account when reading their viewpoint. Also, most of the few references they cited in preparing their paper were from 1997. The great bulk of the research related to global warming has occurred in the past 3-5 years.

Love,

Polly

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:33 pm

What and interesting discussion. Particularly the science Politicks part. If you have read any in depth history the two have been long intertwined. Inextricably intertwined.

The development of an accurate sea going clock in order to navigate the oceans of the world was politically motivated in order to find faster, safer routes to the orient or plunder the Pacific Ocean for whales or to optimize the trade routes between Europe and the Americas. At least for some small part that is why we are here.

Some of the greatest advances in aeronautics were politically motivated in order to dominate enemies in the first world war resulting in the kind of commercial air travel that we have all enjoyed for years.

The race to space was a politically motivated move to beat our European neighbors to the moon. It has resulted in everything and any thing from the development of the micro chip to better caulking materials to better frying pans.

The building of the Panama Canal was politically motivated but resulted in a vaccine that has saved millions of people from suffering and death. Read David McCullough’s “Path Between the Seas” .

The development of the atomic bomb and the splitting of the atom was politically motivated and despite one of the greatest horrors of modern man has resulted in advancements from anything from health care, to more accurate clocks to geological dating that continually gives a new view or our universe.

Keeping an open mind and absorbing everything is truly the most basic concept of the scientific mind. Certainly some of the worst horrors of the world have been a result of those following politics instead of thinking for themselves.

Every idea is worthy of quiet attention.

Love

Matthew

Post by **tex** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:16 pm

Hi Polly,

If the polar regions are warming 12 times as fast as the tropical regions, then what's the problem? That's exactly what this planet needs in order to extend agricultural production to higher latitudes, so that farmers can continue to feed the world as the population continues to swell.

Plus, the more advantageous temperature profile will make higher lattitudes much more appealing places to live, and we all know that the future population growth will require new places for people to live. Alaska and Siberia still have a lot of room for development.

True, many coastal areas will be slowly covered with water, but remember, this is not going to happen next week--we're talking about what will happen over a period of roughly 15 to 20 thousand years or so. Coastal developments will slowly move inland, over thousands of years, and hardly any generation will notice any serious effects, since the changes will be extremely slight during each lifetime, and normal evolution will continue to operate, as always.

Touché! LOL. Well, everyone has a reason for writing an article, and usually it's monetary. Whether it's writing for pay, or writing in hopes of gaining a better position in the marketplace, most articles are written from a mercenary perspective. Are you implying that Al Gore is a climate scientist, and that he had nothing to gain by his participation in that movie?

The Hiebs don't have to be climate scientists to write an accurate article, so long as the "facts" they quote are correct, which certainly seems to be the case, since the article appears to be adequately documented. Likewise, Al Gore doesn't have to be a climate scientist, to promote his "cause" in that movie.

However, I'm betting that Al Gore's profits from that movie, (and the satellite fringe benefits that he will acrue), will exceed the profit that the Hiebs derive, from their article, by untold orders of magnitude.

Prior to 1997, research concerning global warming was starved for funds, so scientists who worked in that area did it mostly because they were truly interested, whether it paid anything or not, and whether it brought them any fame or not, so they could afford to be objective.

Certainly, much of the research concerning global warming has occurred in very recent years. It's suddenly a fashionable "cause", because big names, and big money, are now becoming involved, (they see opportunities galore), and money can buy a lot of research. And, as we all know, those who pay for research, get the research results they want, (or they stop paying).

Love,
Tex