An Inconvenient Truth...
polycounter lvl 19
...is a movie about global warming. Whether you believe it to betruth or believe it to be malarky you should check the trailer out. Stuff like this always interests me and I'm going to be checking this one out. The movie is getting good reviews on movie wires aswell.
A lot of it does scare me, to some degree, as the hurricane hits and temperature rises lately have been offly... odd. Computer-generated results are one thing, but referencing decade old photos to more recent ones is another - and is enough for me to believe.
A lot of it does scare me, to some degree, as the hurricane hits and temperature rises lately have been offly... odd. Computer-generated results are one thing, but referencing decade old photos to more recent ones is another - and is enough for me to believe.
Replies
I still dont understand the "head in the sand" group but any stab at making the masses give up their SUVs is alright by me
At the other end Gore had some financial interest in a lumbar company in South America so I don't believe he is the best spokesman.
... and for the insightful opposing viewpoint (and a good read to boot) ... read State of Fear by Michael Chrichton.
[/ QUOTE ]
Michael Crichton? Seriously?
Personally, I try my best to not contribute to the problem by conserving and all that, but it's not something I fret over. I tend to agree with George Carlin's cynical position on the issue:
http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/420992.html
... and for the insightful opposing viewpoint (and a good read to boot) ... read State of Fear by Michael Chrichton.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will read your book if you go see this movie, Paul
So like I say, what a fucked up attitude. Even worse than those that deny this.
Boy talk about a fucked up attitude (Carlin). Of course its self righteous! I mean jeezuz, it's called hope. Instead of thinking of all the evils we are capable of and not giving a damn while at the same time getting annoyed at others who do, he could think of the potential and compassion each person is capable off. That we are worth saving.
So like I say, what a fucked up attitude. Even worse than those that deny this.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would say it's a realist attitude. Well, a realist attitude taken to the point of a hyperbole for humor (he is a comedian, after all). It's not as if he's really praying for the end of humanity, he's just acknowledging that it's an inevitability (whether it be because of global warming, nuclear war, a comet, the sun imploding, or whatever the fuck). He's not really that annoyed by the people who are concerned about this stuff, it was just the setup-up to expand on his philosophy that humanity is not the be all, end all of existence.
he's just acknowledging that it's an inevitability
[/ QUOTE ]
He's not acknowledging we have the potential to evolve in more enlightened beings. That potential is there also.
I realize you probably didn't mean evolution in the literal biological sense, but I went off a tangent just for the hell of it because I think we're both taking Carlin's rant way too seriously.
We're actually still evolving. Two enzyms [or chemicals or something, I don't remember exactly] that are associated with artistic ability and musical talent, repsectively, have been steadily increasing in our brains since we first evolved both concepts. Going from 0% in the population to something like 70% for art and 30% for music.
This is a horribly inspecific post, I'm just remembering a rather fascinating program I saw on the discovery channel. Take it as you will.
If Carlin would just bother to actually learn more, he couldn't make such statements. He also fails to realize we are part of the world, we aren't separate from it. Of course yes, then he might be forced to loose his sense of nihilistic sarcasm. Never thought much of his brand of humor anyways.
Oh sorry, back on topic.. *Me goes and hugs a tree*
[ QUOTE ]
he's just acknowledging that it's an inevitability
[/ QUOTE ]
He's not acknowledging we have the potential to evolve in more enlightened beings. That potential is there also.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a whole nother discussion.. I think a tiny small tinsy fraction of a fraction could possibly become more enlightened beings, but the vast majority of the earth are incapable of becoming anything more.
If you're talking about evolution in the biological sense, I think the Homo genus has just about reached its maximum potential. We've reached a point where our technology seems to diminish the effectiveness of natural selection, and any further advancements mostly serve to advance our ability to destroy ourselves. Like Carlin said, "just another failed mutation; just another closed-end biological mistake; an evolutionary cul-de-sac." If any species has the potential to evolve into something better, I would guess dolphins or elephants or something. And even that is short-sighted; evolution takes place over millions and millions of years. In fact, the extinction of species is a part of the evolutionary process.
I realize you probably didn't mean evolution in the literal biological sense, but I went off a tangent just for the hell of it because I think we're both taking Carlin's rant way too seriously.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree...I think our tech is just taking us in a whole new direction. It's more about smarts now than physical prowess - smarts that come in different forms, such as being financially successful, being socially successful (rock stars / movie stars etc and their mimics). It depends on what you mean by "something better". I also disagree that part of the evolutionary process is extinction - that ties back with what you mean by "something better" but in my book, extinction is evolutionary failure, i.e. the inability to adapt.
anyway, arent we due for another ice age?
from what i understand now they are thinking that AFTER the warming we will have one. earth heats up, melts all this snow and ice, dumps it in the oceans cooling everything down and then the coldness begins.
ah well...karma and all ;P
Be-all-end-all doesn't matter, humanity is MY species and I fucking well care if my species goes extinct. We were born to make the species survive and we better damn well do!
[/ QUOTE ]
We all have that desire to perpetuate our own species, it's an evolutionary imperative -- if we didn't have it we wouldn't be here. But it's not a desire that's based in logic. I know I am going to die. The behavior of self-presevation is biologically programed into me, but with logic I am able to accept my own mortality. That doesn't mean I am eagerly anticpating death, or that I won't do everything in my power to postpone it, but I'm also not going to fret over it. C'est la vie.
[ QUOTE ]
In response to Keyser's somewhat offtopic reply:
We're actually still evolving.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know, I know. Evolution is a continuous, fluid process that doesn't just happen all at once. I was being rhetorical.
anyway, arent we due for another ice age?
[/ QUOTE ]
number 2 is still in theatres. give it some time.
Its about responsibility beyond the self that one should be concerned and watchful of these issues.
I disagree with you oxy, we will never evolve past are lust to destroy because its key to why we are alive today. We are built with a complex to be better. This normaly is seen as a good thing because well it got us to where we are now. Thing is look what else it came with, a ego that makes us kill our own so that we can show how much better we are. You can't have a technolgicaly advanced species with out the unding will to be better.
Yes we should try and postpone the end of our species era. For those of you who know people who don't belive in global warming and know the facts, dont blame them. After all who wants to realise that we will be the bringers of our own enevitable extintion. Its rather depressing.
oh and the world wont end because of us, i will just kill off everything that cant live here and new life will form.
[ QUOTE ]
I also disagree that part of the evolutionary process is extinction - that ties back with what you mean by "something better" but in my book, extinction is evolutionary failure, i.e. the inability to adapt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then apparently you don't completely understand evolution, because extinction is indeed a part of evolution. Evolution is not capable of failure or success. That would imply some sort of purpose, which would then be a question of teleology, and evolution does not deal with teleology. Evolution is a process, with no particular purpose or guiding force.
[ QUOTE ]
We are going to die, but that doesnt mean we have to let the world end with us.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not, that's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that I have accepted the inevitability that our species will die out eventually, and that the planet will disappear eventually. I'm not laying back and just waiting for it, and I'll do what I can to solve or avoid any problems that come our way, but I'm not going to fret over it.
AstroZombie ... already done seen my "OMFG The Sky is Falling, the Sky is Falling" movie: The Day After Tomorrow. I'm afraid that you're just going to have to miss out on a good read.
[/ QUOTE ]
Michael Chrichton... The Day After Tomorrow... do you base all of your opinions on works of fiction?
[edit] yes, I broke my promise of no more posts in less than 5 minutes... man I suck.
If Carlin would just bother to actually learn more, he couldn't make such statements. He also fails to realize we are part of the world, we aren't separate from it. Of course yes, then he might be forced to loose his sense of nihilistic sarcasm. Never thought much of his brand of humor anyways.
[/ QUOTE ]
He's a damn comedian! And a funny one too!
I'm not going to say Global warming is complete BS, but it's definitely not near the threat the media makes it out to be. Now I know that by me saying that, I'm going to have a bunch of people jump all over my case and get offended that I don't see the "obvious", but there's plenty of evidence to prove that global warming isn't tommorow's armageddon. It seems to me that so many people take up the stance without even questioning it.
It's all going as planned.
I don't need a bunch of hippies to tell me that something strange is going on with the weather. I can just look out my window.
Maybe it is just a minor thing, and the weather will go back to normal, but then again maybe not. I don't need any new theories to explain climate change. The climate has changed a lot in the past, it almost certainly will change more in the future, and we may be experiencing a serious climate change right now.
The Michael Crichton book has a well researched scientific apendix does it not? It isn't just fiction.
[/ QUOTE ]
It does- I had the misfortune of reading it. Probably the most condescending book I've ever read. Knock-you-over-the-head condescending. I've read most of his books and in general I'm a pretty big fan. Yes, he makes some good points. Probably valid points. At the end of the book he spells out what HE believes (as opposed to what the book's loathesomely superior characters believe) and it comes down to this: do more research- don't make any hasty decisions we might all regret.
A while back I read an article in Scientific American (I think) that had several far-out 'solutions' for global warming. One was dumping iron dust into the Antarctic Ocean, thus causing a huge plankton bloom which would theoretically eat up lots of CO2... this would be drastic.
To me the book seems misguided. Regardless of whether or not global warming is accelerating due to human activity, pollution is BAD. Cities socked in with smog is BAD. Rising asthma rates, increased cancer rates, acid rain- BAD, BAD, BAD. All Chrichton does, in my opinion, is give more justification to the "if we do it cleaner, it'll ruin our profit marg- er, economy!" crowd. A hearty "Thank you!" from the Bush administration, from Big Oil, and from China. Way to go, guzzlehead.
I'll see this movie. Doesn't mean I'll believe every word of it, but it's gotta be more informative than that Day After Tomorrow fluff.
I'm pretty much on board with Ninjas. Climate has fluctated for centuries on both micro and macro levels.
I'm all for people chosing to make decisions based on the environment ... so long as they understand that it's not a one-size fits all world. Their lifestyle choices are not necessarily correct for everyone.
At the other end Gore had some financial interest in a lumbar company in South America so I don't believe he is the best spokesman.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to know the source of that claim.
We can only hope Gore attempts to run for president in 2008.
[ QUOTE ]
At the other end Gore had some financial interest in a lumbar company in South America so I don't believe he is the best spokesman.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to know the source of that claim.
We can only hope Gore attempts to run for president in 2008.
[/ QUOTE ]
My bad... it wasn't timber.. It was OIL!
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=00-P13-00042#feature9
...That doesn't mean I am eagerly anticpating death, or that I won't do everything in my power to postpone it, but I'm also not going to fret over it. C'est la vie.
[/ QUOTE ]
That pretty much sums up my position on this. Earlier this year I did some reading on global warming, nuclear war, and the collapse of oil-powered society; all that it got me was depressed
Perhaps it's a bad policy, but I know that I was happier before I read stories of "The Post Industrial Stoneage" or nuclear winter. Ignorance is bliss.
My bad... it wasn't timber.. It was OIL!
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again...it's COAL! Gore's family is associated with a subsidiary of Occidental, Island Creek Coal Company, which handles coal and mineral production in his home state of Tennessee. And your source is outdated, OXY (the company, not you...weird) no longer has interest in those areas due to protests, but a Spanish company took over.
So to a Republican campaign manager, what's more useful? Gore's family legacy, or his personal intentions? You're expecting someone born from a cabbage patch to lead a discussion on environmental awareness?
Meanwhile, Bush indirectly hold part ownership in oil and timber companies. Tho he doesn't seem to realize it, or simply decided to deny it during the 2nd presidential debate against Kerry...cleverly playing it off as a joke, and an error on Kerry's part. Tho at the time it was only gas and oil, it's now timber as well.
[ QUOTE ]
oil in their land. In Peru, native people living alongside a former Occidental oil field can't drink water or eat fish caught in the
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok so how am I wrong again? It was oil that was the confrontation. The point is he had a financial interest that made him at the time somewhat very hypocritical to the message he was giving to the 2000 elections. One of the many reasons I decided on Nader.
You're speaking more flame than fact, and it's misguiding.
This film will be seen by many. To insult his message by claiming he seeks financial support from oil production is uncalled for. Many would not check your statement, and make false assumptions of their own. If his interest was in oil profits, why would he strongly advocate the replacement of internal combustion engines with more advanced technology? Of course, when you're trying to defeat a political opponent, those questions mean nothing.
Also, I would have loved to cast my vote for Nader. But, he holds a 0% chance of taking office in this nation at its current state, and was mostly ignored by the majority of voters. So voting for Nader only gave Bush the advantage by taking votes away from Kerry. And the first step to change would have been taking the Bush administration out of office, and replacing it with someone slightly more respectful of public opinion and interested in slightly more safe and effective political strategies. All we need is contrast to our current situation. The first step is a small one.
That pretty much sums up my position on this. Earlier this year I did some reading on global warming, nuclear war, and the collapse of oil-powered society; all that it got me was depressed
Perhaps it's a bad policy, but I know that I was happier before I read stories of "The Post Industrial Stoneage" or nuclear winter. Ignorance is bliss.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, it sounds like you fed into the fear mongering hype. Sure there will be some problems, there always will be, but do you know how many people thought everything was shitty and was fucked during World War 2? Do you know that the government has told us several times "We're totally out of oil, and we're boned!"? I think this is due to sites that are like "Guess what, OIL PEAK IS LIEK TOMMOROW, AND WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE, AND EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT A SCIENTIST, I KNOW I'M RIGHT!". Then people say, "Well, he says he's right, he must be! We're fucked!", without even questioning it. We're not even close to peaking oil yet, there's so much oil that I, the global warming sceptic, am more worried about global warming before I am an oil crisis. If you're interested, I can provide the reading materials (gotta look em up
Relax! It's not THAT bad!
I think we'll just switch to other energy sources. Why pay $10 a gallon for gas when you can generate the same amount of energy from the sun for $4 a "gallon"
In a lot of ways, running out of oil is one of the best things that could happen to us. The kind of investment in cheap, clean energy that we are seeing now will result in breakthroughs that we could have made a long time ago if we weren't using oil as a crutch.
ugh this is crazy, when did science and politics have a bastard child!? Was there this many debates over the ozone hole in the 80's?
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah but dialup was very slow back then
Please allow me to qualify: the extinction of a species is evolutionary failure from the species' point of view, you pedantic SOB :P
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you used that to support your claim that extinction is not part of the evolutionary process, which is simply incorrect. The extinction of species is a HUGE part of evolution. But you're right, I'm being pedantic and not trying to make any real argument. I'm just saying that ultimately, the end of humanity is inevitable. Whether it be 10 eons from now, or 10 years from now, it's going to happen and it's not an inherently bad thing. It's just part of a process.
I'm not trying to argue against efforts to prevent or diminish the effects of global warming -- I'm all for that stuff -- I'm just stating my philosophical stance on the issue. People tend to act as if the destruction of humanity is some sort of crime against the universe or existence itself. I'm sorry, it's not. There is much more to existence than (y)our extremely limited experience of it.
Oh and why are you talking about 10 years from now? Dont you know that the end of the world is in november 2012... duhhh the mayans have been saying that for a few thousand years. Were all going to be wiped out by the "tools".