| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Daisy Girl |
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 14:33:01
Anyone catch this Al Gore environmental lecture/movie?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MissMaceo |
Posted - 09/03/2006 : 03:52:15
good movie, great info |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 09/01/2006 : 13:34:06
So has anyone here seen this yet. I keep wanting to but it only plays at 7 and I'm usually too busy to do that.
 "No man remains quite what he was when he recognizes himself." |
| ScottP |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 19:08:41
From the looks of the 2006 British Open footage, things really are heating up. The course looks like its dead and all the sailboats are grounded. |
| Carl |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 18:16:07
Somebody should make a documenatry expose of corruption in the dentistry business called An Incovenient Tooth.
Join the Cult Of Pob! And don't forget to listen to the Pobcast! |
| floop |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 17:10:57
if this movie isn't depressing enough, go see WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?
"I don't have any money to buy new clothes and if they paid me to get some I'd probably buy more hoodies." - Mark Wainfur |
| Superabounder |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 16:54:50
When one steps back and looks at everything that has changed in civilization in the past 250 years, and all the changes in rainforests, oceans, ice caps, world population etc., even someone like me who is not trained in statistics or trends has to at least say "isn't it worth it to be concerned about what is going on instead of being a naysayer?" I mean, come on, it seems pretty obvious. Unless, of course, you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Hell, I'm gonna see the movie.
Mathematics moves at such a crawl |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 12:15:07
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
>And actually 10 out 14 in the past 250 I am guessing is statistically significant by a long ways.
but you seem to have a poor take on the idea of a statistical significance, 150 years is way too small a sample size for predicting climate change. You can't say anything from that.
My point is that it is not a ridiculously small sample for saying that there is a significant trend. That in the time-series of 250 data points near the end of the data set temperatures have been rising. There is no doubt about that if you look at the figures in my previous link. I agree that longer term data is needed to say that it is not a trend that is part of a 'normal' cycle.
I have a pretty good 'take' on statistics. It's part of my job. |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 10:48:20
ya sorry souces only go back 150 years.
And when you look at the whole picture via estimates, what do u see.
diddily squat.
>And actually 10 out 14 in the past 250 I am guessing is statistically significant by a long ways.
but you seem to have a poor take on the idea of a statistical significance, 150 years is way too small a sample size for predicting climate change. You can't say anything from that.
example:
If the temperate is cyclical (sine wave type for example) in the long term (10,000 years periods) your going to have up's and down's. Thus, if your on a upward curve for 500 years (small sample) then the last 10 of 10 years are going to be hotest in 500 years. The last 50 of 50 years are going to be the hottest in the last 500 years. seems like it getting hotter, well it is, but it is well within the norms.
The fact is that the 500 is to small to get the trend. Think of it as a sliding window. The window of 150 years is too small to predict anything when you look at like 450 million years ago etc.
This is just an example and im not saying the climate is not changing because I cannot. |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 09:55:59
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
Many, many inaccuracies in that review.
>The 10 warmest years in history were in the last 14 years.
Records only go back about 250 years. This sample size is ridiculously small to declare anything from.
Not true. Temperatures can also be estimated from things like treerings and ice cores. Now the quoted statistic about 250 years doesn't use those sources, but it is incorrect to say sources only go back 250 years. If that were the case, how we would know about previous ice ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
And actually 10 out 14 in the past 250 I am guessing is statistically significant by a long ways. |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 09:36:43
yup,
my point is that, lets say the cyclical graph that gore refers to as gone askew lately (my words) and it now seems non cyclical. If you have data for a longer period you would find that indeed it is very cyclical and everything is alright.
I was also just being a bit pedantic with the english words chosen (as it is meant to be science). Things like "off the chart" all stink of emotion and scare-mongering, things you see in volcano movies and not in science. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 07:30:49
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
Many, many inaccuracies in that review.
>The 10 warmest years in history were in the last 14 years.
Records only go back about 250 years. This sample size is ridiculously small to declare anything from.
>Last year South America experienced its first hurricane.
How do you know this? again many only in the last 250 years. Whose to say that there is'nt one hurricane in south america every 500 years and that is was about time?
U can't use natual occurrences when you only have events from such a small sample of data. Some of the measurement about reactions from carbon dioxide may be correct and it is scientifically sound to do so, cause effect directly.
This one made me laugh
>Gore stands in
>front of a graph showing the ups and downs of carbon dioxide over the
>centuries. Yes, there is a cyclical pattern. Then, in recent years,
>the graph turns up and keeps going up, higher and higher, off the
>chart.
Make the chart bigger.
There are some innaccuracies (that wasn't my point). However:
1) Records only go back about 250 years.
This is true, but there are others ways, proven ways, to determine temperature based on everything from fauna to soil to well, I'm not a geologist or biologist but there was recently a very well received and respected result published that looked at the record worldwide back 10,000 years. And yes, the 1990s were the hottest in that data as well. This has been examined by other scientists and validated.
Now I have no idea about hurricanes. I suspect they come with warmer weather. I don't think you will find many scientists disagreeing that the climate is changing. What they'll disagree on is how much human impact there is.
Fact: The gulf stream is moving.
Fact: Many (but not all) glaciers are receeding. And more importantly, receeding at a quickening pace.
Fact: Carbon dioxide levels in the past ten years are the highest they've ever been. This can also be verified through soil and rock samples and has been. And even if it hadn't, if you'd actually seen the data on the sharp rise of CO2 - particularly as it corresponds to the rise of the automobile - you might not be so smug.
In short, while I suspect that part of global warming is:
a) A result of measurements being largely taken in urban areas where other things affect data in a skewed fashion. Compare urban and rural readings and there is an interesting distinction.
b) A result of the environmental movement resorting to tactics employed by heavy industry to get a point across.
c) Part of a natural cycle that we don't have a terrible amount of control over.
d) Exasperated by the amounts of energy we are producing.
Whichever of the above are true or false, and my feeling is all have some truth to them, this does not change the fact that we NEED to find and work seriously towards reducing pollution, CO2 emissions, and reducing our environmental impact. Otherwise, we'll nature will quite happily find a way to take care of us. You can argue all you want about global warming being true or false, about CO2 levels or temperatures actually falling in some areas, that is NOT the point; it's only the exigence. We need to spend research dollars and promote development of more efficient and more clean energy generation to improve our lives, our impact, and our ecology.
The question is, then, do we do it now or later? With the amount of uncertainty in our actual impact and contribution to the warming we're experiencing, perhaps it seems foolish to try to accomplish as much as possible as soon as possible. To me, it seems foolish to sit back and wait when:
a) There are reputable scientists who believe we must act urgently.
b) We have to work on this sooner or later anyway - why not now in case the 57% or whatever it is are correct or even partially right?
This is why I have trouble with this bipolar left/right philosophy. Instead of thinking things through, people just respond with the knee-jerk reaction that is part of the doctrine of whichever side they happened to fall upon.
"No man remains quite what he was when he recognizes himself." |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 07/20/2006 : 04:04:11
Many, many inaccuracies in that review.
>The 10 warmest years in history were in the last 14 years.
Records only go back about 250 years. This sample size is ridiculously small to declare anything from.
>Last year South America experienced its first hurricane.
How do you know this? again many only in the last 250 years. Whose to say that there is'nt one hurricane in south america every 500 years and that is was about time?
U can't use natual occurrences when you only have events from such a small sample of data. Some of the measurement about reactions from carbon dioxide may be correct and it is scientifically sound to do so, cause effect directly.
This one made me laugh
>Gore stands in
>front of a graph showing the ups and downs of carbon dioxide over the
>centuries. Yes, there is a cyclical pattern. Then, in recent years,
>the graph turns up and keeps going up, higher and higher, off the
>chart.
Make the chart bigger.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 23:19:25
That it moved Ebert enough to write this type of 'review' means I want to see it... one of the few movie critics I respect.
Here's the link to his review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002/1023
"No man remains quite what he was when he recognizes himself." |
| Superabounder |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 19:41:41
I just received an email with the following review:
>Subject: An Inconvenient Truth
>
>
>BY ROGER EBERT / June 2, 2006
>
>I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I
>am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of
>politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I
>believe, agreement among the world's experts.
>
>Global warming is real. It is caused by human activity. Mankind and its
>governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.
>
>If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point"
>and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the
>other species on this planet. After that point is reached, it would be too
>late for any action.
>
>These facts are stated by Al Gore in the documentary "An Inconvenient
>Truth." Forget he ever ran for office. Consider him a concerned man
>speaking out on the approaching crisis. "There is no controversy about
>these facts," he says in the film. "Out of 925 recent articles in
>peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no
>disagreement. Zero."
>
>He stands on a stage before a vast screen, in front of an audience. The
>documentary is based on a speech he has been developing for six years, and
>is supported by dramatic visuals. He shows the famous photograph
>"Earthrise," taken from space by the first American astronauts. Then he
>shows a series of later space photographs, clearly indicating that glaciers
>and lakes are shrinking, snows are melting, shorelines are retreating.
>
>He provides statistics: The 10 warmest years in history were in the last 14
>years. Last year South America experienced its first hurricane. Japan and
>the Pacific are setting records for typhoons. Hurricane Katrina passed over
>Florida, doubled back over the Gulf, picked up strength from unusually warm
>Gulf waters, and went from Category 3 to Category 5. There are changes in
>the Gulf Stream and the jet stream. Cores of polar ice show that carbon
>dioxide is much, much higher than ever before in a quarter of a million
>years. It was once thought that such things went in cycles. Gore stands in
>front of a graph showing the ups and downs of carbon dioxide over the
>centuries. Yes, there is a cyclical pattern. Then, in recent years, the
>graph turns up and keeps going up, higher and higher, off the chart. >
>The primary man-made cause of global warming is the burning of fossil
>fuels. We are taking energy stored over hundreds of millions of years in
>the form of coal, gas and oil, and releasing it suddenly. This causes
>global warming, and there is a pass-along effect. Since glaciers and snow
>reflect sunlight but sea water absorbs it, the more the ice melts, the more
>of the sun's energy is retained by the sea.
>
>Gore says that although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists,
>a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent
>question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These
>figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in
>the 1990s by the energy industries to "reposition global warming as a
>debate." It is the same strategy used for years by the defenders of
>tobacco. My father was a Luckys smoker who died of lung cancer in 1960, and
>20 years later it was still "debatable" that there was a link between
>smoking and lung cancer. Now we are talking about the death of the future,
>starting in the lives of those now living. "The world won't 'end' overnight
>in 10 years," Gore says. "But a point will have been passed, and there will
>be an irreversible slide into destruction."
>
>In England, Sir James Lovelock, the scientist who proposed the Gaia
>hypothesis (that the planet functions like a living organism), has
>published a new book saying that in 100 years mankind will be reduced to "a
>few breeding couples at the Poles." Gore thinks "that's too pessimistic. We
>can turn this around just as we reversed the hole in the ozone layer. But
>it takes action right now, and politicians in every nation must have the
>courage to do what is necessary. It is not a political issue. It is a moral
>issue."
>
>When I said I was going to a press screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," a
>friend said, "Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor...ing!" This is
>not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and
>Gore's concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and
>relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie
>review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you
>do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you
>decided not to.
>
>Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be
>"impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position
>like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended. Sen. James Inhofe
>(R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, has said, "Global
>warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I
>hope he takes his job seriously enough to see this film. I think he has a
>responsibility to do that.
>
>What can we do? Switch to and encourage the development of alternative
>energy sources: Solar, wind, tidal, and, yes, nuclear. Move quickly toward
>hybrid and electric cars. Pour money into public transit, and subsidize the
>fares. Save energy in our houses. I did a funny thing when I came home
>after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth." I went around the house turning off
>the lights.
Mathematics moves at such a crawl |
| Carl |
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 19:57:01
No, but it sounds kinda interesting.
--------
"Leguman...Leguman!" |
|
|
