An Inconvenient Truth

[Zythryn]

So why the scare tactics then? Have you seen the commercial with the little girl in the path of the train? This is communicating "action now or certain death for the next generation". The dishonesty of campaigns like that discredit the good science that going on.

 

Because that type of marketing works. You can see it in the fear used in political ads, pharmacutical ads and many other areas.

I suspect that ad was a response to the ad stating 'CO2, it isn't polution, it is life'.

 

I agree both of these ads miss the true point. They are both marketing gimics trying to get popular support as our politicians have started using GW as a political football. And I agree, both do a diservice to the underlying science.

 

According to the report just released we are past the point of stopping global warming. So the implication that doing anything right now will change things for the next generation is contradicted by others on the same side of the debate.

 

Not exactly accurate Bill. The report states that even if we were to freeze emmisions where they are now, the average global temperature will still increase 1 degree ©. And, if we continue to pump and increasing amount of CO2 in the air (as has been the trend) that we can see an increase double that.

 

 

Maybe if the hyperbole were turned down a few notches we would make faster progress.

Bill

 

I agree completely!! When GW became a political issue things got a lot more complicated.

[CraigD]

So why the scare [about global warming] tactics then?

Based on personal experience with some of the people engaging in such scare tactics (OK, I must come clean – I have personally engaged in small-forum scare-mongering, with the intention of swaying public opinion on the subject), I believe the dominant reason for this approach is a fear that a worst (or even merely bad) case global warming scenario will result in unprecedented loss of human life. If one is personally convinced that such a scenario is likely, then by the moral code of many people, one must make one’s best effort to avert it, even if that effort requires simplification and exaggeration of scientific data and interpretation to the point of deception. (I don’t personally engage in such willful deception, but do attempt to persuade by force of argument, rather than the more scientifically ethical, but less practical encouragement of one’s audience to study basic science so that they can form their own opinion about global warming and other environmental policy issues).

 

I don’t believe this moral compromise is unique to the issue of global warming, or to a particular political ideology. During the cold war – and arguably more recently, in the months preceeding the 2003 Iraq War – people with political ideologies usually termed “right wing” promoted known falsehoods in order to sway public opinion to avert catastrophes they honestly believed would occur without such activities.

 

IMHO, the ideal resolution of the global warming debate is for every person to be so conversant in climate science that a consensus is reached by an appeal to educated, “common” sense. Unfortunately, I think this very unlikely. Rather, even competent, well-educated people will continue to need to rely on the opinions of a few qualified specialists, using common-sense skills to discern legitimate from illegitimate experts. Two such common-sense approaches are to accept the opinion held by of the greatest number of people with the title “PhD”, and ignore that of people who have received money from companies that stand to suffer financial damage from particular environmental policies. By these approaches, accepting the conclusion expressed in “An Inconvenient Truth” is, I think, unavoidable.

[InfiniteNow]

So why the scare tactics then?

Because that type of marketing works...I agree both of these ads miss the true point. They are both marketing gimics trying to get popular support as our politicians have started using GW as a political football.

I believe the dominant reason for this approach is a fear that a worst (or even merely bad) case global warming scenario will result in unprecedented loss of human life. If one is personally convinced that such a scenario is likely, then by the moral code of many people, one must make one’s best effort to avert it, even if that effort requires simplification and exaggeration of scientific data and interpretation to the point of deception.

To TheBigDog's question, all of the above, but moreso... Desensitization.

 

We are too used to the flashes and bulletins, so you'd better make a huge scene if you're going to grab our attention in any way that lasts longer than the following adverstisement. We're too used it, so it has to be bigger and better to get through our filters and hit deeply in our psyche. Only then will we act on it and make progress.

 

 

IMHO, the ideal resolution of the global warming debate is for every person to be so conversant in climate science that a consensus is reached by an appeal to educated, “common” sense. Unfortunately, I think this very unlikely.

Don't give up. That would make it even less likely. :confused:

[Buffy]

...and of course:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

-- Barry Goldwater

 

Gotta love those "conservatives" some times...

 

Conservaytive, conservahtive,

Buffy

[TheFaithfulStone]

the greatest number of people with the title “PhD”,

 

Caveat - greatest number of people with a PhD in climatology or a related field.

 

TFS

[Michaelangelica]

This 4 Corners report tonight (While the Oscars were on) was fascinating

Four Corners - 26/02/2007: The Denial Machine

The same guys who were paid by the cigarette companies to deny that cigarettes killed you are now getting their money from Exxon to deny global warming. Incredible!

The Denial Machine

 

Reporter: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

 

Broadcast: 26/02/2007

 

For years the global warming debate has swirled like a firestorm. Science has been tossed about in a tornado of spin from doomsayers and doubters, deep green activists and fossil fuel lobbyists.

 

How did the future of the planet become such a political battleground?

 

A few weeks ago the pre-eminent body of climate scientists, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reaffirmed that global warming is real, happening now and very likely caused by human activity.

 

Late last year a report to the British Government likened the potential economic impact of global warming to the two world wars and the Great Depression.

 

Yet some scientists insist that climate change, if it’s happening at all, could be a good thing.

[OzAnt]

How sad that this thread turned into a political thing so quickly.

 

I watched the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an interesting and informative - if nothing else, from a global science for dummies kind of perspective.

 

Love him or hate him (btw, I'm an Australian, so I had much less reason to do either), Al Gore, puts forward a compelling argument.

 

At no point did he sound like he had a political agenda. It really sounded like he cared for humanity, speaking with a sincerity in his presentation that was quite touching. Which, I found a pretty major thing for an ex-politician to be able to pull off given my natural dis-trust of 'em. I've got to hire the DVD and watch it again, but I'm pretty sure that I got the impression from the movie that he's out of politics for good and that he's doing this because of his deep personal beliefs of the matter.

 

I really do hope that everyone that's commented, has actually bothered to see the movie. I know this is a big ask, especially if he's on the other side of your political persuasion, but it's only in the interests of being fair to the man, not the party he once represented (and indeed headed).

 

Of course, it would also only be construed as fair to the planet we all inhabit to do so too.

 

I'm not saying don't criticise him, nor am I saying don't double check his figures and citations for validity and accuracy. I'm just sayin', as us Aussies do, give the man a fair go.

[HarmonyAlexandria]

Sadly, you are probably right.

 

Extremists of any religion are Feral.

 

Something must have happened to create Muslim Extremists.

Do we know what?

 

US Foreign policy in the 1970s:lol::eek2::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Everyone talks about the situation with Israel, which is true, but they neglect to point out what the US/UK did during the cold war.

 

Secular Arabs were drawn to socialism, as it shares many principals pertaining to social justice just like Islam, their lands also sit on most of the world's oil.

 

So in an attempt to ensure cheap oil, and to keep the USSR from gain influence over it, the US government supported the feudal/religious factions, and "killed", sometimes literally, the socialist ones.

 

The US is now reaping what they have sown

[Boerseun]

Well, after months of wanting to, I finally saw "An Inconvenient Truth" today.

 

And I have to say, ex-Vice Prez Gore makes a good public speaker.

 

There's a couple of things he said regarding the controversy over Global Warming that strikes true, and that is that mostly, there is no controversy over it to begin with. I suspect the Global Warming deniers and the Intelligent Designers have much the same approach to both their interests and agendas, namely, in order to support the unsupportable, you first have to place suspicion on the enemy's argument. Pro-ID'ers have exactly the same modus operandi as those attempting to cast a dark light over Global Warming.

 

There is no controversy. GW is real. And CO2 has a lot, if not most, to do with it. The data tells us so.

 

I also have to agree with Gore's conclusion that the only thing standing in our way of getting anywhere with this issue is the political will to do so. I have to say that I got the impression that Gore said that without any personal political agenda. He seems to be over Bush the Lesser stealing the title deed to the White House from under him. But then I might be wrong. Politicians are there to be distrusted and despised. But, unfortunately, they get to decide what will happen with our tax monies.

 

Besides that, the other issue I have with "An Inconvenient Truth" is that it's incredibly shallow. Not shallow as in an empty vessel, but shallow in that it only glosses over the data. But that is to be expected - his description of the Antarctic ice sheet collapsing, and the formation of 'moulins' lubricating the bottom of the ice took all of thirty seconds. A full documentary on that will take a few hours, at least. So he has to go quick over all the topics at hand in his allotted time. A necessary evil, I guess, but a bit disappointing.

 

It places too much focus on Al Gore himself, and his Crusade (however laudable this particular crusade might be). The whole thing is about Gore presenting his famous slideshow, and, to tell the truth, he told me nothing I didn't know. But then again, I suppose his movie is aimed at the less-informed man on the street. Not that I'm a boffin regarding climate studies in any degree, but hanging around with you folks for the last couple of years have made me read up more about this topic than the average person does, I guess. So, for the regular Joe, this might be an eye-poppin' revelation of the state of climatological affairs. And that's a good thing.

 

All in all, a good presentation presented by a good speaker. Little bit thick on the jokes, a little bit thin on the nitty-gritty, but then I don't think this movie was made for us genial super-intelligent widely-read hypographers anyway.

[Michaelangelica]

Science Show

Saturday 30 June 2007

 

Listen Now - 30062007 | Download Audio - 30062007

 

* 00:00: Mark Lynas and Six Degrees

* 12:17: Human activity and climate change

* 22:44: Climate models and The Regional Climate Group

* 32:20: Human responsibility and climate change

* 38:35: Scientific response to The Great Global Warming Swindle

* 44:40: Global warming effects on ecosystems

 

Where is the GW debate up to?

The ABC screens a "Global Warming-lies" show this comming week.

What 'Interesting Times' we live in

[Monomer]

I watched the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an interesting and informative - if nothing else, from a global science for dummies kind of perspective.

 

At no point did he sound like he had a political agenda. It really sounded like he cared for humanity, speaking with a sincerity in his presentation that was quite touching.

 

I just saw the movie on the weekend, and I agree with OzAnt. Global warming is something that Al has been looking at for 20+ years, and he believes that we have the power to do something about it. The only political aspect of the issue was what Boerseun mentioned...

that the only thing standing in our way of getting anywhere with this issue is the political will to do so

 

It seems that Al's loss to Bush gave him the opportunity to focus on something that is really important to him, and now he has the time to present his slide show and educate the general public.

 

As Boerseun mentioned the movie didn't present anything indepth, but it's at a level that everyone can understand, and he offers very practical things for people to do to help reduce CO₂ emissions.

[InfiniteNow]

OK you tell me what you think? I don't know any Muslims. :cup:

I think this should be done in a different thread. ;)

 

 

Btw - I've known a lot of Muslims, but I'm not too sure what an "American" is besides someone who was born at a certain longitute/latitude.

 

 

 

I liked the movie, and the fact that it wasn't too laborious with details makes it more accessible to a wider audience. Perhaps a "Part 2" can delve deeper. ;)

[Qfwfq]

OK you tell me what you think? I don't know any Muslims.

I know plenty of them and I think your post is based on misconceptions as well as being full of non sequiturs. Please read our rules about hate speech. As IN points out, it is also quite off topic to discuss, but you should not open a thread for hate mongering, thanks.

[DougF]

OK first off let apologies to everyone here I do not hate anyone, and I wouldn't step on any Religion.

I also have the up most respect for Michaelangelica and all at hypography.

I started reading this thread yesterday and read (Michaelangelica post #8) I felt like I was ................ (I wish no harm) and again please accept my apologies (it won't happen again)

 

 

HAPPY 4th OF JULY Every one.

[Qfwfq]

I see what you mean, re Mike's #8, but it's all a matter of not confusing the actual religion with what the terrorists are preaching. No point in spreading the misinformation; quite the contrary, the more the terrorists abberrate the religion the more they should be debunked instead of confirmed.

[DougF]

and again please accept my apologies (it won't happen again) :cheer:

 

 

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.

Mahatma Gandhi

[InfiniteNow]

Doug, I think you were taken out of context, and intended no harm. If I'm not mistaken, I saw the content of your post in one of those "humor" emails that get sent around. It was full of silly misconceptions, but I don't think your intent was hateful. Thats my "only even prime number" of cents.

 

 

So...

 

Who here thinks that the movie is helping the populace to better wrap their minds around the idea? Who here thinks that it will cause people to do more research on their own and come to more informed decisions? Anyone think that the conversations the movie has generated are detrimental?