PF
Home Missouri Rail Rankings Articles Blogs Register Log in Poker Forums Off Topic Other Forums Staking Badges Reviews PocketFives TV Coaches Search Home Forums Off Topic
Which movie is telling the truth? (Swindle vs An Inconvenient Truth) Like 0 Tweet
Reply to Thread Page 1 of 11 Jump to page:
Go
Thread Tools 1. bfactor
Server Clogger
Chinese Camp, CA United States Posts: 30,868 Joined: Sep 05 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 1:45pm) I've watched both movies. An Inconvenient Truth talked about how the current global warming trend is mainly caused by us humans, and shortly afterwards the movie Swindle was released and APPEARED to confirm that there is in fact global warming, but prove that the CAUSE of the glomal warming had almost nothing to do with anything the humans are doing, and is just based on the cyclical trend of global temperatures of the earth, almost entirely determined by sunspot activity. My guess is that they both tell the truth about some of the stuff, and lie about other stuff, but I am a psychology major, not an environmental biology, or meteorology major etc and since I haven't done a lot of research on this topic ever, I am curious to see what some of the people who are supposed to know a lot abobut this subject (people who have either been majoring in a college major that deals with this topic a lot, or have a job that deals with this topic a lot) think about the two movies, and the situation in general. Ready, go Add bfactor to Rail Reply Quote #1
2. Willywoo
Kicked Joan Rivers dog "accidentally"
Colorado Springs, CO United States Posts: 28,652 Joined: Jan 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 1:54pm) in reply to bfactor It depends. If you buy carbon offsets to minimize your guilt about the size of your carbon footprint, then humans cause global warming. If you continue to intentionaly expand your carbon footprint, without guilt, then global warming is a natural phenomenom. How guilty do you feel? Sorry, I didn't get to the part about having some expertise in this area before I wrote this. Add Willywoo to Rail Reply Quote #2 3. bfactor Server Clogger Chinese Camp, CA United States Posts: 30,868 Joined: Sep 05 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 1:58pm) in reply to Willywoo Yea, I'm really trying to get opinions from people with a lot of knowledge on the subject. I know this thread could easily get like 23904902384902384 replies, since everyone and their mom thinks they have a smart opinion on this, but that isn't what I'm hoping to see. I'd rather only get posts from people who are directly studying or working on this specific topic in real life. -bfactor Thread StarterAdd bfactor to Rail Reply Quote #3 4. Willywoo Kicked Joan Rivers dog "accidentally" Colorado Springs, CO United States Posts: 28,652 Joined: Jan 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 2:08pm) in reply to bfactor I actually had a real point, and that is that we do not have an answer that is conclusive. People's position on this matter is mostly colored by their political affiliation and by how guilty they feel about it. Or you could just check one of the other 23904902384902384 posts made on this subject in the past 6 months. Add Willywoo to Rail Reply Quote #4 5. deletesweet_kate San Mateo, CA United States Posts: 1,038 Joined: Feb 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 2:08pm) in reply to bfactor I buy into An Inconvenient Truth. Add deletesweet_kate to Rail Reply Quote #5 6. ccm United States Posts: 3,633 Joined: Mar 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 2:11pm) in reply to bfactor not an expert by any means, but i'll take a crack at it. Humans are loading all kinds of gasses into the atmosphere. CO2 is a major one which contributes to the greenhouse effect. However, there are several confounding effects (which I can't remember the name of), that reduce the greenhouse effect. Some of the gasses we release make clouds MORE reflective, meaning sunlight bounces back into space because of our pollution. This has much less of an effect than C02 emissions, but is still measurable to some extent and therefore significant. The earth is in a natural warming cycle as it proceeds away from the last ice age. Scientists are pretty much in agreement that the natural warming is a significant contributor to recent global warming. The debate essentially then is HOW MUCH to humans contribute to the warming of the planet. Based on very complicated models that predict the warming of the globe, scientists are able to compare their theories of what is warming and cooling the globe. The most accurate models are those that do incorporate the human element as a result of increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. My opinion? Greenhouse gasses contribute in a very real way. While they may not have been the most significant factor in accelerating climate change, if we allow CO2 to continue to build up, it will very quickly overshadow any other factors contributing to this warming cycle. --------------------Disclaimer: Weather patterns are extremely complicated and we do not know all there is to know. Confounding variables such as El Nino and La Nina make it more difficult (and are why we can go from having Katrina and other huge hurricaines one year, to very few in 2006). Regardless, we need to curb CO2 emissions if for nothing else, than for cleaner air to breathe. Add ccm to Rail Reply Quote #6 7. DesEsseintes United States Posts: 65 Joined: Jun 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 2:28pm) in reply to bfactor AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is largely accurate as a brief overview (except for a lot of the doomsday scenarios (which are still mostly speculation at this point.)) The SWINDLE film has already been discredited by the science community (and by the very scientists who were interviewed for it.) As I posted in a previous thread:
RE: GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE ...As for "the great global warming swindle" specifically: Carle Wunsch, who you probably remember from the film, wrote this: "In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important — diametrically opposite to the point I was making — which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected. Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the media—it's part of our role as scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are complicated, and it is easy to be misquoted or quoted out context. My experience in the past is that these things do happen, but usually inadvertently — most reporters really do want to get it right. Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value—clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration." Many others in the scientific community have complained about this film, even comparing it to propaganda. The producers already had a POV they were trying to express before the film was even started. * * * Add DesEsseintes to Rail Reply Quote #7 8. -AG- Chesterfield, VA United States Posts: 5,121 Joined: Jul 05 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 2:38pm) in reply to ccm PRO "Humans are loading all kinds of gasses into the atmosphere. CO2 is a major one which contributes to the greenhouse effect. However, there are several confounding effects (which I can't remember the name of), that reduce the greenhouse effect. Some of the gasses we release make clouds MORE reflective, meaning sunlight bounces back into space because of our pollution. This has much less of an effect than C02 emissions, but is still measurable to some extent and therefore significant" CON Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. PRO "The earth is in a natural warming cycle as it proceeds away from the last ice age. Scientists are pretty much in agreement that the natural warming is a significant contributor to recent global warming." CON The ‘little ice age’, which lasted from about 1400 to the latter part of the 19th century. It is hardly surprising that since then, temperatures have warmed up a bit. But it is only a bit – a mere 0.6°C rise in the last 150 years. PRO The debate essentially then is HOW MUCH to humans contribute to the warming of the planet. Based on very complicated models that predict the warming of the globe, scientists are able to compare their theories of what is warming and cooling the globe. The most accurate models are those that do incorporate the human element as a result of increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. CON Computer modelling is in general a dubious scientific tool. When it comes to climate change, it uses partial data to transform flawed hypotheses into prophecy. It is of little more use than a ouija board. As for mankind’s involvement in climate change, this is even more debatable. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas for which industrial man is blamed, accounts for only a minute proportion of the atmosphere. Hair-raising claims by the warming lobby have been shown to be false. The ice sheets, for example, are not shrinking but are actually increasing overall. Evidence about sea-level rise is contradictory, but in general the seas are not rising. As for air temperatures, past calculations which mistakenly used the seas as a gauge over-estimated air temperatures as a result by one third. When air alone was measured, it was found to have got cooler, not warmer, over the past two decades. and in conclusion........ So why have so many scientists produced ‘evidence’ to support a theory which doesn’t stand up to serious scrutiny? The brutal explanation is that they don’t get grant money or the approval needed for promotion unless their work supports the politically motivated theory of the times. Look at what’s happened to Dr Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish statistician and former member of Greenpeace. In his book The Sceptical Environmentalist, he shows how green doom and gloom has been wildly exaggerated. Natural resources are not running out but becoming more abundant; only a tiny fraction of species is likely to become extinct in the next fifty years and – heresy of heresies – richer countries are cleaner countries. just showing there will always be two sides to every debate.......... thats just life. Add -AG- to Rail Reply Quote #8 9. ccm United States Posts: 3,633 Joined: Mar 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 3:09pm) in reply to -AGMany of your points are inaccurate or misleading. 1. Re: Water vapour. Yes, it is a significant contributor to trapping heat in the planet. And yes, you can say that because it primarily comes from evaporation of oceans and lakes (99.999%), it is naturally caused. But if other causes (i.e. CO2 and methane) increase the temperature of the planet slightly, MORE water evaporate into the atmosphere (albeit naturally), creating an exponential increase in water-vapour related warming. 2. Re: Other atmospheric greenhouse gases are also mostly of natural origin. Sorry, can you explain to me how CO2 has increased so hugely in the past 150 years from "natural origins"? 3. Re: Movement away from the ice-age. I think you and I are in agreement here. I was discussing how earth's warming since the ice-age is a major factor, so I'm not sure why you had it as a "PRO". 4. Oh God. "Hair-raising claims by the warming lobby have been shown to be false. Reference please? The ice sheets, for example, are not shrinking but are actually increasing overall. Complete Lie - Click here. Evidence about sea-level rise is contradictory, but in general the seas are not rising." If evidence is contradictory, why is your conclusion that seas are not rising? 5. "Richer countries are cleaner countries." Emissions by country
| #1 | United States: | 5,762,050 |
| #2 | China: | 3,473,600 |
| #3 | Russia: | 1,540,360 |
| #4 | Japan: | 1,224,740 |
| #5 | India: | 1,007,980 |
| #6 | Germany: | 837,425 |
| #7 | United Kingdom: | 558,225 |
| #8 | Canada: | 521,404 |
| #9 | Italy: | 446,596 |
| #10 | Mexico: | 385,075 |
Care to discuss that one any further? Add ccm to Rail Reply Quote #9 10. DesEsseintes United States Posts: 65 Joined: Jun 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 3:21pm) in reply to -AGRE: -AGI posted this first part previously in response to this same arguments: RE: little ice age etc: The Medieval Warming period, the Holocene climatic optimum, and all these other temperature shifts have been researched and studied ad nauseum in the scientific community. Posting that information (as valuable as it is to know) as if it disproves Anthropogenic Global Warming is quite silly. Yes, the Earth has been warmer before - science knows this. The Scientific community in support of AGW know this. They have researched it. (In fact, I think they're the ones who discovered it!)... But these periods only mean that it is possible for the Earth to warm from natural variables (which all science agrees upon); it does NOT mean that the Earth is currently warming from natural variables. All the data suggests that current warming trends are not caused by natural CO2 fluctuations, Milankovitch cycles, or any of the other possible culprits. RE: "Most CO2 occurs naturally in the environment (over 95%)." You also leave out deforestation when talking about human contribution to the greenhouse effect. I know all the arguments and counter arguments as well as the facts. Just as your Holocene argument means little in relation to current warming trends, you stating that the large majority of CO2 is emitted naturally also means little (assuming you were doing so as a counter argument to the AGW supporters.) The reason? Well, it shows a lack of understanding in how the environment works. The earth has a natural carbon cycle, and there is a natural carbon dioxide sink that absorbs the natural CO2. The reason
some of our emissions end up in the atmosphere is because we're producing CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it. Small percentages only sound insignificant. But it's true that these things look pretty damning at first glance. * * * RE: "'Natural resources are not running out but becoming more abundant; only a tiny fraction of species is likely to become extinct in the next fifty years" ABSURD! How do non-renewable resources become more abundant through increased use? That just isn't logical. (And concretely, to use an example, oil is running out. Peak Oil: go research it. War in Iraq: go research it. "Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world s economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality." - Dick Cheney, speech at the Institute of Petroluem, 1999.) And: a tiny fraction of species extinct? Go research the Holocene extinction event. Of course there will be opposing sides to every point of view, so? This issue isn't a philosophical debate. This is a debate where one side is wrong and one side is right. (Like debating whether or not the Earth is flat.) Of course the industry and everything that the world is based upon economically has to say that things are improving, otherwise we wouldn't let them poison our land and food with pesticides, our air with depleted uranium and CO2, our milk with bovine growth hormone, etc etc etc. And all the other things you posted are either false or misleading, but people who care about Truth can find that out for themselves. Add DesEsseintes to Rail Reply Quote #10 11. norcaljeff my post count > your post count San Francisco, CA United States Posts: 99,132 Joined: Sep 07 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 3:31pm) in reply to bfactor In the past 5 years china has gone from 44% of our emmission levels to passing us (the US) in emmissions. Have we sunk into the sea? If you believe the wackos like al gore shouldn't (by their own math) we have seen some horrible effects from china's emmissions? China opens a new coal factory every single day, but if the us cuts it's emmissions by 20/30/40% or whatevs it's going to make a difference? Ever notice that we're always "10 years away" from something really bad happening? Be wary of Chicken Littles in gulf stream jets and massive mansions who are sure they know the best way for you to live. I try to worry about the seas covering the earth, but I'm still too busy worrying about SARS, Avian Bird flu, african killer bees, mad cows, Y2K and every other disaster that's about to hit. Add norcaljeff to Rail Reply Quote #11 12. ccm United States Posts: 3,633 Joined: Mar 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 3:34pm) in reply to norcaljeff
Add ccm to Rail Reply Quote #12 13. steely Delray Beach, FL United States Posts: 1,800 Joined: Mar 05
Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 3:48pm) in reply to ccm I like Bjorn Lomborg's line: very possible that Global Warming (tm) is at least partly anthropogenic, but an absolutely terrible response to that possibility would be to make "stopping it" a huge priority. Part of what the poster you ridicule says is quite valid -- even if we take radical action to lower emissions, most major polluters (esp. China and India) will not (and even if they joined us, we STILL would have at most a minute impact on the climate). We will suffer major economic devastation and the climate will approximate what it would have been anyway. Further, the HUGE amounts of time and money being spent to "fight Global Warming(tm)" could have been used to stop the spread of AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, increase literacy, decrease world hunger, reform radical Islam, lobby Congress to repeal the Frist Act, etc. Add steely to Rail Reply Quote #13 14. ccm United States Posts: 3,633 Joined: Mar 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 4:38pm) in reply to steely Just so I understand. You're saying it's not worth the time or money to stop polluting the environment. Is that a fair summary? Add ccm to Rail Reply Quote #14 15. norcaljeff my post count > your post count San Francisco, CA United States Posts: 99,132 Joined: Sep 07 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 4:55pm) in reply to ccm yes, that's exactly what he said. gg reading & comprehension. Add norcaljeff to Rail Reply Quote #15 16. Underdog MVP of OT (self-proclaimed) Posts: 20,063 Joined: Jan 05 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 5:03pm) in reply to Willywoo However, I think you would agree with me that there is an answer to the question, right? You might not think we know it yet, but there is an answer that is completely independent of how you or I feel about the issue. Add Underdog to Rail Reply Quote #16 17. ccm United States Posts: 3,633 Joined: Mar 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 5:14pm) in reply to norcaljeff Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
If you are being sarcastic, and you think he didn't say anything like my summary, then i quote him here, which seems to be saying what i paraphrased. "the HUGE amounts of time and money being spent to "fight Global Warming(tm)" could have been used to stop the spread of AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, increase literacy, decrease world hunger, reform radical Islam, lobby Congress to repeal the Frist Act, etc." If you're serious, and you agree that it's not worth the time or money to quit polluting, then I just want to put it out there that there will be severe health-related costs if we continue to spew pollutants into the atmosphere. And that with government incentives, conversion to non-carbon based economies is possible (e.g. tax breaks for purchasing hybrids, companies that develop hydrogen vehicles, or best of all oil companies that spend money to R&D a hydrogen delivery infrastructure). There are ways to make it work, but everyone needs to be on the same starting page, which we are obviously not. A new 'clean-energy technology' industry will hopefully arise, creating jobs and wealth in place of those lost in the oil industry. Add ccm to Rail Reply Quote #17 18. terva Finland Posts: 1,300 Joined: May 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 5:40pm) in reply to DesEsseintes Des > * Add terva to Rail Reply Quote #18 19. norcaljeff my post count > your post count San Francisco, CA United States Posts: 99,132 Joined: Sep 07 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 6:02pm) in reply to ccm you seem to think that the choice is between spending huge amounts of time and money to "fight Global Warming(tm)" or "polluting." I disagree. Global warming is a different issue than say, poisons in our rivers. Again, if you look at the math proposed by the doomday people, what possible difference could it make if the US cut emmissions by 20/30% with the rest of the world still developing? Look at what the rush to ethanol has done. Corn prices have doubled because of ethanol mandates. Who is really helped? Is ethanol even cleaner? Do poor hungry people give a crap about the seas maybe rising maybe in the next 10/20/100 years? the hysteria over global warming is a collosal waste of time and money Add norcaljeff to Rail Reply Quote #19 20. ccm United States Posts: 3,633 Joined: Mar 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 6:32pm) in reply to norcaljeff How is a discussion of emissions in the atmosphere different than poisons in the rivers? Both affect people's health, and need to be stopped. Even without global warming, it is important to cut air pollutants, but once you also consider the fact that global warming could change the face of the planet in the next 10/20/100 years, it becomes a very important issue for ALL people (hungry, homeless, everyone!) Ways global warming will affect the world: 1. Increased extreme weather conditions (see last month's Scientific American) (New orleans residents might care, in addition to South Pacific, East Asia, Carribbean, and other residents of the globe) 2. Rising oceans (estimated 1 billion people living within 30 vertical feet of the ocean - that's a lot more hungry homeless people probably getting diseases too!) 3. Air quality worsens (not a result of global warming, but a result of continuing to pollute the atmosphere, the cause of both). 4. Drought (you talk of wanting to help hungry people. When Africa gets hotter, think that will help their crops?) These are not extreme loonybin worst case scenarios. We are beginning to see these effects already. Add ccm to Rail Reply Quote #20 21. norcaljeff my post count > your post count San Francisco, CA United States Posts: 99,132 Joined: Sep 07 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 6:40pm) in reply to ccm yes, that is your claim. and what effects have we seen? hurricanes, droughts, floods? same as it ever was. so IF the ice caps melt and IF sea levels rise 20 feet and IF hurricanes get worse and IF droughts get worse and IF weather gets more extreme it will be bad? I agree, but then again, if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. Add norcaljeff to Rail Reply Quote #21 22. PANTERA Posts: 2,356 Joined: May 06 Sep 25th, 2007 (9/25/2007 7:53pm) in reply to bfactor ice ages happen about every 1000,000 years...thers that 10,000 year window of stable weather that we're in now...it has to do with the earths orbit that tends to be more egg shaped 90% of the time...2-3% variation Add PANTERA to Rail Reply Quote #22 Reply to Thread Page 1 of 11 Jump to page:
Go
Return to Off Topic Similar Threads Gore film Inconvenient Truth not fit for schools
By mathclub in Off Topic Last Post: Oct 11th, 2007, 07:34 PM 46 Replies Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore
By Jaybone2315 in Off Topic Last Post: Sep 3rd, 2007, 10:46 PM 35 Replies Inconvenient Truth - you may be surprised
By Artiecat in Off Topic Last Post: Mar 2nd, 2007, 01:00 AM 99 Replies Everyone should rent "An Inconvenient Truth"
By The Mooks in Off Topic Last Post: Jan 2nd, 2007, 02:04 PM 79 Replies OMG Hikkespett Owns!! Amazing laydown at FT of PP$100 (if hes telling the truth!)
By Ollie79 in Poker Advice Last Post: May 8th, 2006, 07:36 PM 1 Replies
Daily Fantasy Sports Articles Dan DraftKings US Open Millionaire Maker Winner Scores a Perfect Game kellykip DFS Strategy: MLB Bankroll Management Dan 'justinmacmahan' Wins FanDuel Playboy Mansion Championship
Daily Fantasy Sports Sites 1
DraftKings Sign Up Review
2
FanDuel Sign Up Review
US-based P5ers PocketFives does not recommend playing online poker on sites offering rake-based games in the United States, except on statelicensed sites in New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware. We understand your frustration with the current situation, and that frustration is shared by many of us in the poker community. We hope to have positive news soon regarding online poker regulation in the remaining U.S. states.
Advanced Search Contact Us | DMCA Notice Poker Forums Poker Community Poker Strategy Poker Sites Live Poker Bad Beats Poker Legislation Off Topic Daily Fantasy Sports 888Poker Live Online Poker Rankings Sortable Rankings Sliding PLB Yearly PLB Monthly PLB Pro Poll Podcast Nevada Poker Sites Forum Stats Poker Blogs Write a Blog RSS Feeds FAQ Forum Rules Advertise with US About Us Search Strategy donkbluff Poker Articles Podcast
PocketFives © 2018 PocketFives.com