I'm about to watch this, and realizing its now 10yrs old, I can't help but wonder whether its still relevant. I get that dome people don't believe in climate change (I do) but that aside, is a documentary about an area of hotky contested and rapidly developing science still relevant after all this time?
I'll have an opinion in about 93mins, but over to you. Just steer clear of the CC debate and stick to relevance.
"I get that dome people don't believe in climate change (I do) but that aside, is a documentary about an area of hotky contested and rapidly developing science still relevant after all this time?"
I don't see why it wouldn't still be relevant. Ten years isn't all that long in the grand scheme of things.
Another documentary that deals with a contentious and hotly debated issue is Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine. It came out in 2002, but it still remains relevant today. (Unfortunately.)
Yeah, you're right. I didn't know what the pitch would be before seeing it and wondered ... but actually, even though the data is not current, the debate hasn't shifted that much at all, and from the perspective of one who believes the risks of climate change depressingly little progress has been made.
The film/slideshow had its weaknesses eg the bit about diseases, so the film isn't a masterpiece, but it's definitely still relevant, and I would argue, important too.
Another documentary that deals with a contentious and hotly debated issue is Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine. It came out in 2002, but it still remains relevant today. (Unfortunately.)
[deleted]
Relevant on how the left these days has become shameless with dishonest propaganda.
So are you implying that leading scientific bodies such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--pretty much the scientific consensus--are likewise promulgating propaganda since they're basically saying the same thing--that humans are responsible?
Well I would say it is about as relevant as it was when release...which is not much. Without getting into the nitty-gritty details: A British High Court Judge, on October 10, 2007, ruled that former US Vice-President Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth on the alleged dangers of climate change/global warming was littered with no less than eleven inconvenient scientific errors.
The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.
..Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so.
If you eliminate the factual errors, you are left with Al Gore talking about his dog & whining about losing the election...ok, maybe not quite that bad but about the only parts that the Judge considered allowable without a factual error disclaimer being shown were little fluff pieces about Al's personal life.
There are better climate documentaries both pro & con out there. Personally I recommend "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which also contains some factual errors but not nearly as many as An Inconvenient Truth.
Climate is usually based upon 30-year averages.
Sure, global avg temps have gone up in the last 40 years, but by a small amount -- about 0.2 to 0.4F -- not much, but having stabilized for almost the last half of that period (post-1998).
It should be noted that 1880 to 1910 the temp increase was about the same increase/rate as near recent, and that was without any significant increase in CO2.
***If you really believe in AGW (CC), you should know the answer to these questions:
What is the CO2 level and average global temperature now, in 1945, in 1900, in pre-industrial era, in pre-history...
I could give you more questions, but few can answer those -- not necessarily in numbers, but in variance. If you cannot, you are unqualified for input.
For example:
Is the Earth extra hot now? AKA, does the planet have a fever?
What is sea level now, relative to the past?
Are you familiar with ice ages? What melted the ice then?
Weather extremes are not higher, and that is not even an effect of higher temps. Look closer to the equator. More storms there, or in summer?
I could go on. I'll destroy -- intellectually & factually -- any of you alarmists (aka enviro-wackos, anti-humanists, etc). I know logical fallacies, science & facts. YOU ALARMISTS dont't. Prove me wrong! Haha losers
Did any of you notice that many in the media & gov want AGW to be true? Listen to their demeanor -- untruthful, fallacious & ad hominem. People should be relieved when there is evidence of maybe no AGW.
What a surprise that when I mention facts, such as (one of many) minor temp increase from about 20-45 years, and a similar increase from 75-125 years, but without CO2 increases, that nobody responds.
Wouldn't it be nice for AGW to not be true? We should all hope that. The facts show that GW is hardly immense; GW does not prove AGW. Why do many many people. & most of media want AGW to be true? It should be noticed by their logical fallacies, mis-information, withholding info, lack of sources & other.
Reducing carbon output to recommended levels (roughly to that of 1880, per capita) would be disastrous to economies & life. Concrete production & agriculture each would be that amount. And the IPCC & others estimate that that would only reduce projected temps by less that 1F, by 2100
So, adapt. The only real bad things by increasing warming (ie 2-4F) is less land to live on. That would be gradual, so low coastal lands becomes less livable, people recede, buildings there decay. This 20' rise will take more than a millennium (less than 12" per 50 years, quarter inch per year).
***
Imagine if temps increase as predicted: 2-4 F by 2100, even it's been zero in the first 15 years of this century:
Modern buildings have a lifespan of 50-100 years, some less. In 50 years, say sea level rises by 5". That's not much, & time to regroup. Low coastal development will gradually recede.
Agriculture will keep increasing. Population density will increase for some time, but growth rate has already going down, and could become negative, maybe a billion less people in a century.
Imagine the technology then, which could easily mean less impact by your doomsayer scenario, especially on using water (having more). There could even be new ways to emit less GHGs, without harming development.
So alarmists, please stop sweating, & particularly look at facts.
This thread isn't for debating climate change. Read the OP.
shareComprehension problems?
What is this thread or any threads here about?
I've noticed that you have no substance to contribute. Please go elsewhere & try to make good for humanity.
[deleted]
"Comprehension problems?"
Indeed you have. The OP of this thread specifically said THIS thread is not for debating climate change. It's even in the thread's TITLE. Start your own thread if you feel the urge to troll.
the truth has never had any relevance to warmists.
it's just not their thing.
You're right. Most of the content in this film has been debunked...
shareYou're right. Most of the content in this film has been debunked...
Not really.
you still have not figured out that getting all your information
from the left is a bad idea.
bcofnd,
I'm sorry. But are you able to "debunk" the information in the movie, without going to political sources? The trouble is that you will consider all material opposing your viewpoint as being political. But there is a non-political way to check it. Via peer-reviewed scientific material.
So lets us verify if it is debunked - in the following way:
A) Let us agree on an issue within the movie.
B) We each collect and present scientific papers (not blogs, newspapers, and/or other potentially coloured material) to a) debunk it b) confirm it.
I will wager you, that i will have significantly more material to confirm it, than you will have to debunk it. In fact i'll sidewager that i will find at least a magnitude more material than you will.
Are we in agreement?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - Lazarus Long
Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate, physics 1973.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw
jcarpenter-1,
Yes, it is really really sad when people get old and their minds start failing.
There was a reason that i asked for scientific papers, and not speeches/blogs/newsarticles.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - Lazarus Long
not when you don't consider your own sources to be political.
GLOBAL WARMING IS POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE.
bcofnd,
It is no problem finding political sources on either side of the american debate. But my suggestion was specifically directed at a-political sources, namely scientific sources.
But cover me unsurprised that you aren't capable of producing scientific papers to support your POV. That is exactly the point that i was driving at.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - Lazarus Long
If you like a story about religion, this is a good film.
share"If you like a story about religion, this is a good film."
"[Evolution is] pure religion." - Kent Hovind, creationist.
A sequel is coming soon, and so , yes- it definitely is relevant. An important point is that more and larger storms rise off of warming waters in the warmer seasons now-
We had MAJOR precipitation all last summer and Fall resulting in floods in Louisiana Texas and Mississippi, despite a RECORD ice melt in the polar regions, which on the other hand moderates the warming by sending up much moisture and clouds into the thin atmosphere over us.
And another hurricane at the same beginning of October time as last year that damaged Florida beachfronts and flooded the Carolinas as it had South Carolina in October 2015.
Perhaps we could say that the huge wildfires then in the south- i.e. Gatlinburg were maybe more spurred by huge amounts of unburned fossil fuel exhaust being constantly sprayed upon plat life in areas that may very soon be even much drier inland.
More storms are not a result of GW. Science does not portend that.
Storms might seem more frequent & destructive due to to media & higher population.
Regarless of any effects to a 0.8F rise in temp, the cause needs to be considered.
CO2 has very little to do with it.
BE AWARE: Posts stop 2-20-2017