An Inconvenient Truth: MOST IMPORTANT FILM EVER or a decent rental or neither?

[The Fake Shemp]

Debating whether or not to rent it.  I don't like preachy documentaries, so I'm not sure if I'll like it or not.

[Flannel Boy]

It's the end of November and there's no snow on the ground here in Quebec!
I likes!
High five!

[Phoenix Dark]

Al Gore is a hypocrit

[Cheebs]

On of my favorite films of 2006.

[Human Snorenado]

I dunno, I didn't find it all that great.  A bit depressing to sit through, but none of it was really NEW information to me.

[The Fake Shemp]

Why is it depressing?

[ToxicAdam]

It's a movie for the maleks of the world. People who look out their windows and need a reason to blame every climate anomaly on something.

Early this summer, ABCNews on their website, implored users to send in their observations of "global warming" in their city/town. Examples were: flowers blooming later than usual, wildlife that wasn't in their area anymore. Shit like that. Amazing.


I wish I could fast forward time. In 10 years, we will see if the 'hockey stick' chart is bullshit .. and if solar cycles are the real reason behind our recent spat of warming. The answers are right around the corner.



 

[The Fake Shemp]

Oh no, is this going to turn into another Mandark vs ToxicAdam thread.  I have a feeling this thread will be more entertaining than the film.

[ToxicAdam]

No, I'm pretty much spent on the topic.

GW feeds into a certain part of the liberal mind that is impossible to sway. It's like telling a conservative that there is no liberal media. It's almost a genetic predisposition.

The only difference is that I am willing to change my mind on GW. If the solar cycles prove to have no bearing on our planets temperature .. then I will be 100% pro-human caused Global Warming.

There will be no change of heart for the liberal. Man and progress is a destructive force in their minds. You will see, in the coming years (it has begun already). As these projections and doomsday scenerios are proven wrong, the liberals will just "move the bar". The retort will be "Oh well .. we didn't have ENOUGH evidence then. The scientific evidence is FAR greater now than 10 years ago .. NOW is the projection you should believe".  And so on and so on. It's the same kind of horseshit you see with Peak Oil projections.

Then my favorite liberal crutch: "Well, there's nothing WRONG with scaring people or exaggerating the dangers. It's for the GOOD of the planet. Better to be safe then sorry."

Which is just fucking amazing.

[shedt]

It's the end of November and there's no snow on the ground here in Quebec!
I likes!
High five!

true and it's really mild out today. not cold at all.

[Flannel Boy]

It's a movie for the maleks of the world. People who look out their windows and need a reason to blame every climate anomaly on something.

I wasn't being serious. Though climate change is very real, seasonal temperatures always vary. For instance last year this time it was extremely cold.

[shedt]

no it's true though, same thing for me back home in Nova Scotia, the weather is more mild then before.

Maybe not sooooo much that we should worry.


it's sunny out my window right now.

[cubicle47b]

Early this summer, ABCNews on their website, implored users to send in their observations of "global warming" in their city/town.

That's distinguished mentally-challenged.

[LiuKangBakingAPie]

If you read the GAF global warming threads, you already know all of the information in the movie, and it's boring as shit.

It's more of an Apple laptop advertisement than anything else.

[Melissa]

It is only heavy and/or shocking if you don't already know anything about the subject.  It's Global Warming 101 - pretty much a vanilla PowerPoint presentation with Al Gore standing in front of it pointing at things and putting it into dummied down terms so the lowest common denominator can understand it.

From all the hype, I was expecting a lot more.

It's more of an Apple laptop advertisement than anything else.

HA HA HA QFT!

[Mupepe]

It was boring.

[Phoenix Dark]

No, I'm pretty much spent on the topic.

GW feeds into a certain part of the liberal mind that is impossible to sway. It's like telling a conservative that there is no liberal media. It's almost a genetic predisposition.

The only difference is that I am willing to change my mind on GW. If the solar cycles prove to have no bearing on our planets temperature .. then I will be 100% pro-human caused Global Warming.

There will be no change of heart for the liberal. Man and progress is a destructive force in their minds. You will see, in the coming years (it has begun already). As these projections and doomsday scenerios are proven wrong, the liberals will just "move the bar". The retort will be "Oh well .. we didn't have ENOUGH evidence then. The scientific evidence is FAR greater now than 10 years ago .. NOW is the projection you should believe".  And so on and so on. It's the same kind of horseshit you see with Peak Oil projections.

Then my favorite liberal crutch: "Well, there's nothing WRONG with scaring people or exaggerating the dangers. It's for the GOOD of the planet. Better to be safe then sorry."

Which is just fucking amazing.

I agree with everything you said, except the liberal media part. There is a liberal and conservative media, they just include different parts of the media.

[brawndolicious]

I dunno.  It probably makes a decent argument because that's pretty hard not to but I don't know if it's worth renting.

IT'S NOT.  A LEARNING.  EXPERIENCE.

[Mandark]

From what I've heard it's kind of boring, and unless you've never heard of global warming, there wouldn't be much point in watching it.  Rent Spellbound or watch this instead.

Oh no, is this going to turn into another Mandark vs ToxicAdam thread.  I have a feeling this thread will be more entertaining than the film.

Hell yes.

Toxic: Your entire post, and pretty much all your posts on this subject, involves making a blanket accusation about the motives of anyone who disagrees with you (the anti-market religion of The Left), while patting yourself on the back for an open-mindedness that you simply haven't earned.

Of course some people are going to accept GW because of their idealogical disposition.  Of course some people are going to accept GW while not understanding it, and make bad arguments about it.  Of course some people are going to try to profit from alarmism, politically and financially.  Of course some people are going to convince themselves that it's okay to exaggerate the problem to push for a solution.  Of course some people have made wrong predictions decades ago concerning the climate (and yes, they sold these ideas in popular books!).


Does any single one of those facts have anything to do with the science of it?  Anthropogenic global warming is basically as accepted in the climatology community as evolution (which PD will also tell you is bunk) is accepted in the biology community.

You're just making a lot of vague, blanket attacks on unnamed people, or entire groups.  Do you really think GW skeptics are naturally more intellectually honest?  That they don't have internal biases that make them think a certain way?  That they are more open-minded?

How many times have you decided you knew the science better than the actual scientists did, when your own ideology was not threatened?  How many times did you reject a scientific consensus, when it didn't conflict with your worldview?

[ToxicAdam]

Toxic: Your entire post, and pretty much all your posts on this subject, involves making a blanket accusation about the motives of anyone who disagrees with you (the anti-market religion of The Left), while patting yourself on the back for an open-mindedness that you simply haven't earned.

That's untrue. I have posted several articles on certain aspects of GW that cast doubts on the current GW talking points. I have linked scientists that say that there is ZERO funding for projects that may refute certain aspects of GW. I have posted numerous graphs and charts that links warming to the solar cycles of our sun. I have shown the great deal of uncertainity regarding the nature of how much sunlight carbon can absorb at higher densities.

On and on and on and on. Luckily, there are still some rational people who think as Darwin once did. Always question. Even question your own work. So, there exists a small minute body of work that still holds the 'hockey stick' chart (and proved incorrect) and the alledged 'consensus' into question.

Of course some people are going to accept GW because of their idealogical disposition.  Of course some people are going to accept GW while not understanding it, and make bad arguments about it.  Of course some people are going to try to profit from alarmism, politically and financially.  Of course some people are going to convince themselves that it's okay to exaggerate the problem to push for a solution.  Of course some people have made wrong predictions decades ago concerning the climate (and yes, they sold these ideas in popular books!).


Does any single one of those facts have anything to do with the science of it?  Anthropogenic global warming is basically as accepted in the climatology community as evolution (which PD will also tell you is bunk) is accepted in the biology community.

Comparing GW to evolution is laughable. Evolution has undergone a century of study and its process has been recreated by man. AGW is a new psuedo-theory that is based on (observations that are turned into) HUMAN-created computer models and imprecise global temperature calculations. Which have not been recreated in any way on any level. 

If GW scientists are not biased, ask yourself: Why do they care so much about MINIMIZING the importance of the Medieval Warm Period?

[Human Snorenado]

So who had about 12 hours in the pot? 

I'm going to content myself with this statement:  gravity is still technically a theory, and it's worked pretty well for me.  Just sayin!

[xnikki118x]

So who had about 12 hours in the pot? 

I'm going to content myself with this statement:  gravity is still technically a theory, and it's worked pretty well for me.  Just sayin!

My research methods professor dropped a pen the other day, and he was like "oh good, gravity still works." So the whole class is like  and he's like "well you know it's still technically a theory."

Weird.

/random

[Mandark]

I have linked scientists that say that there is ZERO funding for projects that may refute certain aspects of GW.

I don't think this statement is strictly true.  Heck, I even searched on GAF for posts with the words "funds," "funding," or "money" in them.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The stuff you've posted in the past seems like pretty thin gruel.  A totally unsourced chart for the solar stuff, Benny Peiser's alleged debunking of the consensus (which he admitted was wrong), this super-goofy page, etc.  Maybe I'm mischaracterizing it.  If I am, please humor me and give me a Greatest Hits of GW Skepticism.

The MWP is a European phenomenon (you know as much; you've cited "written history").  The issue is global/hemispheric mean temperature rather than regional temperatures, so I'm not sure how this is a "Gotcha, BIAS!" moment.

My main point is that you don't "always question," even as you anoint yourself a modern-day Darwin.  You don't question the CERA report, you didn't question the Hiebs' site, and you're certainly not applying the same amount of skepticism towards solar forcing as you are to anthropogenic forcing.  You question the stuff that bothers you, results-wise.  I don't think that really takes any special talent, or gives you the high ground.