Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Voicelessness and Emotional Survival => Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board => Topic started by: Hopalong on July 23, 2006, 07:50:27 PM
-
The movie is simple.
The consequences of ignoring it, or acting on it, could not be more huge.
To me, its message trumps everything.
Please see it if you can.
love to all of us to the seventh generation,
Hops
-
Hi Moon,
You and your dear hubby will feel so much connection to this movie, I think.
It's Al Gore's film of the presentation he's made over 1000 times about global warning.
It is magnificently made by a major director, and truly important.
It is NOT dull. It is moving.
Frightening but inspiring.
xo,
Hops
-
To me, its message trumps everything.
Get both sides and think for yourself. Hollywood, politicians and Time magazine are notoriously poor places to learn about science.
Here are a few sites that present a somewhat different picture than what is allowed in the mainstream media..
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
mud
PS. The comment section at climateaudit is especially enlightening, if pretty technical.
-
Mud,
It would be so meaningful to discuss the film with you after you'd seen it.
Would be SO grateful if you'd consider doing that. Would you?
Hops
-
Would you?
Sorry, nope.
I would not watch a movie by a politician about an issue like this, even were it done by someone I agreed with. I would consider it akin to watching Godzilla to discuss the effects of South Pacific nuclear testing on marine life. The issues involved are science. There are innumerable sources for scientific views on both sides of this issue. Mr. Gore's movie isn't one of them.
I watch movies to be entertained. Now if Al is wearing a sequined gown and cuttin' himself a piece of rug I might take a look. Otherwise I'll stick to the written word.
mud
-
Okay Mud.
I respectfully disagree, especially about the science.
The scientific consensus is not a conspiracy of liberals.
It all transcends politics by a long shot.
But we can't discuss a movie we haven't both seen.
thanks for responding anyway...
Hops
-
It's an excellent movie, Al Gore is a good lecturer and that's how much of it is presented, like a talk; he goes round the world and talks the programme too.
He is clearly passionate about the subject and the contrasting photographs are pretty clear whatever the explanations.
On this topic my ex told me this week that a billion pounds is going to be spent by Ford in Britain developing a highest possible efficiency car.
One of my friends here drives a hybrid, it's good to drive.
-
Thanks, Write.
Gore has been educated and passionate about this subject since he was a college student.
I have my radar on about politicians, and he although he briefly mentions the election, he is doing this as a father (nearly losing his son, and losing his sister, were among the catalysts), and as a public servant.
It may seem impossible to believe that anyone is motivated by anything other than pork or greed these days, but this is an extraordinary service he has done.
I hope with all my heart that everyone possible will see the film.
Hops
-
PS Mud, re.
think for yourself.
Ummm....thanks?
As much as any layperson can. I have read a good deal, and right-wing talk radio, as well as the current administration, have made the denier side quite clear...
So I am grateful for An Inconvenient Truth.
My father was an environmental scientist, I have grown up surrounded by this.
The administration as well as the energy industry have enormou$ motive to dismiss or minimize the warnings. The rest of us, who would like our children to inherit a chance at a habitable planet, don't...
(I don't think you have to be an oncologist to know that cigarettes cause cancer.)
I am not normally compelled to speak this way, urging people to see a movie, etc.
But it's that big.
(I understand you won't, Mud. Still love ya.)
Hops
-
Hi Mudpuppy.
What are you worried about watching a movie?
You can still maintain your original position if you don't agree with it. But talk more knowledgeably I am guessing.
I totally agree about not relying on popular news and culture to inform, but An Inconvenient Truth for most relatively educated people is more of a stepping stone.
US news media is about uniformly bad, so anyone who is a news-hound purist here probably reads the BBC anyway....
-
Bet you were really powered by the moon, Moon... :)
I worked at a publisher that is at the forefront of sustainable philosophy.
I would give my leg to be able to afford to retrofit our home. Soon...
We do have a good deal of soapstone and passive solar.
All hail hybrids! I'm still stunned at the shortsightedness of the whole SUVs
for townies thing. Ugghh.
Hops
-
Right wing radio?
Sorry, but if that's where you listen to rebuttals after listening to some other celebrity or politician tell you anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is occurring you're not really hearing much, if any, science.
Here are a few examples:
You'll hear from proponents of AGW, such as Gore, that the Antarctic and Greenland icesheets and glaciers are melting. Sounds bad right? Sea levels are going to rise catastrophically, right? Al has scary pictures of calving glaciers, right?
Unfortunately it appears that both interior icesheets are actually growing and there is a net gain of ice in both Greenland and Antarctica.
Or take the Kilimenjaro(sp?) icecap. It is frequently trotted out as proof positive of AGW. But it started receding well over 100 years ago and even most AGW scientists admit it probably is only caused by local factors such as deforestation. But that doesn't matter to popular media or celebrity spokespeople.
The Mann 'hockey stick' temperature graph has undergirded most every model and study (including the IPCC) touting AGW for the last several years. It has now been demonstrated that it was flawed and a statistical artifact, and that has undercut nearly every assumption about AGW that has recently been made. But you won't hear about that in Time magazine or on CNN.
The impact and intricacies of water vapor and carbon sequestration are not known nor even modelled, so the models are useless as forecasts. Even the modellers admit they are not forecasts but merely possible scenarios.
And it is becoming clear that solar forcing has been excluded for the most part from the models and projections for a variety of reasons. This would be like not taking cigarettes into account when studying lung cancer.
One of the sites I linked to mentions the well documented fact that CO2 levels and temeprature have almost no historical correlation. The best case being the one cited in the article when CO2 was about ten times what it is now and temperatures were the coldest for hundreds of millions of years.
******************************************
I also find troubling the insinuation that those who are skeptical of AGW are motivated by greed and are not open minded while those who promote it are merely altruistic. The fact is AGW is a cottage industry. Scientists who are skeptical have a more difficult time being funded relative to those who advocate AGW. Environmental orgnizations raise millions upon millions with cataclysmic mailings, but that couldn't possibly be because they like money or power. And unfortunately there is a great deal of politics and ideology involved as well. No doubt there are base motives on both sides as there are on every issue, but it is on both sides.
This is not something where you can listen to a couple of people, do a little light reading and possibly understand it. I don't understand a great deal of it and I've spent a lot of time reading about it. The scientists themselves don't understand it and the honest ones admit as much.
Here's my best guess of what will turn out to be true. We had a period known as the Medievel warm period followed by a period known as the little ice age which we emerged from about 150 years ago, prior to any significant CO2 increase. The climate has slowly been warming since then. The emerging evidence points to solar fluctuations as overwhelmingly the dominant factor in climate variablilty. It is very poorly understood and only at the very rudimentary phase of being integrated into the overall climate science. When it is, I suspect the AGW 'consensus' will have gone the way of the 'ice age is coming' consensus of thirty five years ago.
More importantly, the 'just do something, even if we don't fully understand it' theory is bunk. We banned DDT decades ago based on a few studies which were contradicted by many others. But whether DDT is harmful to wildlife or not is not the point. The consequences of banning DDT has been the resurgence of malaria in SE asia and Africa. Close to a million people, most of them children, die every year because of the ban on DDT. The 'just do something' mentality never seems to think there is a cost to just doing something. There is and its often a pretty high one and its usually the poorest of the poor who are hit the hardest. That is who will be clobbered by just doing something about AGW, which may not even exist.
It may turn out that AGW does exist. I am open to any science which can strongly make that case. That science does not yet exist. The solutions advocated by Gore etal would cause gigantic economic dislocations which would have terrible consequences for everyone, but the poorest countries most of all. It doesn't seem too much to ask for science to actually answer a few basic questions before we start sacrificing people on the altar of another supposed 'crisis'.
mud
BTW, I have read and listened to Al Gore on a variety of environmental issues. He's a propagandist not a balanced teacher.
I no more expect to be enlightened by 'An Inconvenient Truth' than I do 'Triumph of the Will'. I'm not equating him with a Nazi, but propaganda is propaganda and science is science and ne'er the twain shall meet.
-
Bravo, Mr. Pup !! :)
Hope
-
It saddens me that some people work so HARD to discount global warming,
when whether or not it's simply a question of degree, surely anyone with
common sense can see that we are polluting the planet into oblivion?
Just as cigarettes can take life away from a person who stays in denial
until it's too late, it is sensible to me that multiple attacks on the fragile
ecophere of this planet have a similar cumulative effect...and tragically
for all of humankind, as with many smokers, IT IS POSSIBLE TO WAIT
UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
The earth is not invincible. It is a living organism that can only absorb what
it can absorb.
If global warming, like the existence of deity, weren't provable except by a leap
of faith (plus any human's intuition and right of observation, not only scientists')...
I have that faith, unfortunately.
Even if a citizen felt that s/he had to make an incompletely-informed guess, I hope
most won't gamble any longer on the side of ripping everything from the earth that can
be profited from. Or even when profit is not the motive, resistance to accountability or changing comfortable habits (recycling diligently, giving up gas guzzlers, investing in alternative energy...).
The window is narrow and I don't believe the majority of scientists who acknowledge the reality
of GW are Chicken Littles. The majority of sober scientists are in clear consensus, despite some
different interpretations, and the mainstream media sometimes does tell us the facts. I don't feel like blaming a conspiracy of media, of liberal politicians, or anything else. I believe the planetary
environmental crisis is actually what metaphorically passes for original sin. I believe the issue is also whether we can see it as a moral imperative. Do we have dominion over this precious planet, to exploit without regard to its survival,or do we have stewardship?
There's an interdependent web of existence that is sacred. I've got a long way to go in
reducing my own carbon footprint, however. Surely, my hot air is not contributing. :?
So I'll quit, except to say that this isn't right: "Let the grandchildren clean it up."
I hope people will be curious, keep their minds open and see the film for themselves.
Would be great to have more views.
Hops
-
Dear Hops
I do things like recycle like a maniac. Nothing plastic, tin, aluminium, paper or glass goes in the bin.
But then I hear that our recycled plastic is sent to...................
CHINA :shock:
for recycling. What a joke. :x
I'm aware of how much I drive and I feel guilty using an aircraft.
Someone close to me has become a grandparent recently. I asked them how they felt and they said they were worried: what kind of future will this child have?
Lots of people care Hops, lots of people are working on getting the momentum going to change certain things. Me, I can't be optimistic for the fate of our species, as it exists right now. I hope we evolve pretty quickly. It's possible! We can do our best, each one of us, we can inform ourselves and keep our minds open - but that doesn't make certain things possible. I think mentally we're an unstable creature, truly I do, our big brains let us down. We need smaller brains!
-
Hi,
Jac's response brought me to think about why I don't get all charged up about topics like global warming. There are a number of reasons, I'm sure, but I think fundamentally it's because I believe in a loving Creator God who holds the very stars iwithn their places in the sky, at His will.
I do agree with Jac's statement re: the law of cause and effect, which I believe is a variation of the law of sowing and reaping. My belief that God gave mankind dominion over the earth goes hand in hand with my belief that mankind is responsible for good stewardship of everything within his dominion... from his own heart to the land, the seas, the atmosphere... always aware of his impact on everyone and everything around him.
I guess what I resist about some of the environmentalists I've read is the spirit of fear which is expressed in many of their dire warnings. I believe that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him with all of their hearts, plus He also makes His sun to shine on those who don't know Him, as well as on those who do. In other words, I believe that He gives knowledge re: science ~ medical, environmental, etc ~ because He loves the children whom He created and wants to help them do the best with what they've been given. The fact that some may not heed what I view as God-given wisdom as it relates to good stewardship of this planet is, to me, far less of a concern than the fact that some will not heed God's offer of a Savior in His Son, Jesus Christ.
Thanks, Jac... for what I've received as a wake-up call re: finding a spiritual voice as well as a fleshly one. Your other thread re: The Problem was the beginning of another step of growth for me.
Hope
-
.... I don't believe the majority of scientists who acknowledge the reality
of GW are Chicken Littles. The majority of sober scientists are in clear consensus....
Yes there is a consensus that the earth has warmed about one degree centigrade in the last one hundred years.
However, amongst actual climatologists, paleo and otherwise, there is not consensus that it is the result of man. More importantly there is no consensus on what the furture holds. And the science is beginning to point away from anthropogenic causes not toward it, or at the very least to vastly minimizing man's effects.
Absent God's widespread and recorded direct supernatural intervention on earth His existence must be a matter of faith.
However, to substitute faith in those areas that are susceptible to hard science is perfectly OK for individuals, if not wholly reasonable, but it is certainly not something that public policy effecting the lives of billions of people should be based on.
And its why I won't watch Mr. Gore's movie. I have listened to and read him enough to know that he cherry picks the facts to support his faith. When a creationist does that to tell us the earth is 6000 years old he is called a backwards, bumpkin of a boob and correctly laughed off the stage. When its done in the name of Gaia you get an Oscar nomination.
mud
BTW. I agree with all of the posts about being a good steward and I personally am against pollution. Who isn't? Unfortunately much of the worst environmental problems come from the poorest people merely trying to survive. That is a lot harder to solve than a few wealthy westerners buying a Prius instead of a Hummer.. The point is understanding as best we can what it is we're stewarding so that we can make intelligent and effective choices. Google Bjorn Lomborg for the kind of environmentalist who is reasonable and still wants to save the world. I can't say I agree with everything he says, but he makes a lot of sense.
-
Good posting, Mud.
-
Mud, friend,
I continue to disagree. As does NASA (and if they could speak, perhaps the drowning polar bears who can't swim far enough to reach ice floes any more, and for which the process of legislation to make them an endangered species has begun. Some are resorting to cannibalism.)
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.
A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.
The impact of global warming
Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory
Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.
Harm to ocean life
Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.
Changes of habitat
Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.
Weather damage
Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.
Rising sea level
Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.
Threats to human health
Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.
This is true, Mud, and will only worsen without extensive international cooperation and attention to the economic needs of the developing world:
Unfortunately much of the worst environmental problems come from the poorest people merely trying to survive.
However, the United States is responsible for over 25% of the greenhouse gases output on the entire planet. If our country were one-fourth of the planet...but that is only the attitude of the engines that run the country (for now), not its entitlement.
I'm sorry you have little respect for Mr. Gore. I have a great deal of respect for his film and his commitment to this issue. I think it could be a good idea to see the film before judging his "cherry picking" so easily. It would even be good to separate political dislike from what he's saying, if you could.
But that would require seeing the film, or reading the book An Inconvenient Truth. I found it a compelling book that did not ring inflated or false to me.
Only one person's judgment, but my conviction in this matter is very strong. I would, in fact, stake life itself on it.
I do feel the earth is a sacred creation, and don't want to wait for God's rescue. This may be the biggest test of free will yet, so I hope there will be a spirit of love and cooperation as the policy and processes are beginning to.
I do believe GW will soon be accepted as commonly as the reality of cigarettes and cancer.
(Hope we're still both posting that day soon!) And in the short term, again, I do hope people will see the movie and decide for themselves.
Must run...more later,
love,
Hops
-
I would, in fact, stake life itself on it.
Just don't stake mine on it, please. :D
I hope there's no personal offense Hops. I haven't intended any, nor have i intended to sound Abrahamic. :lol:
And as an aside while I disagree with Mr. Gore's politics, if someone with whom I agree 100% politically had made the same film I would find it just as egregious and lacking in merit. (while I haven't seen the film, I have read extensive excerpts of the book, although not from cover to cover, as well as Earth in the Balance). In fact I'll wager, although I'm criticized for being unwilling to look at Gore's movie, that I have read a whole lot more stuff that disagrees with my take on this than the folks doing the criticizing have.
And for what it's worth NASA's climate science is dominated by Dr. Hanson who first sensationalized the idea of global warming and has continued to do so even as many of his research projections have been demonstrated to be wrong and he has been forced to retract the more outrageous of them.
Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory
This is a perfect example of the disingenuous stuff put out by the advocates. It is true that there ia penninsula of Antarctica that has warmed and melted somewhat in recent decades. This is probably due to shifting ocean currents. But they neglect to point out that this is a small percentage of the Antarctic ice sheet and the rest of the ice sheet is in fact gaining ice not melting. And regardless it does not answer the question of whether it is a natural phenomenom or a manmade one.
Most scientists once said the earth was the center of the universe. I think history will show we are presenly in the geocentric era of climatology.
mud
-
I don't really want to debate climate change today ( my mind is on musical matters and I'm full of ideas and joy :) )
But I think everyone 'cherry-picks' facts to support their particular argument or agenda. Even the most revered sources of information have to present the best of their particular perspective to acquire funding and legal status etc.
I liked Al Gore's movie and presentation style, and I especially like that he can answer questions thoughtfully and intelligently and 'off the cuff' which many public speakers and politicians can't here.
-
Mud, Abrahamic? :P :mrgreen:
Well, not to sound Mosaic or anything, but I would like to clarify:
[ Hops: "I do feel the earth is a sacred creation, and don't want to wait for God's rescue."]
I don't believe that this created earth cries out to be worshipped, but rather to be tended. The Creator, on the other hand, does both demand and is worthy of worship. When stating my beliefs in my earlier post, I didn't intend to imply that I am an advocate of waiting around to be rescued by God. Rather, I believe that that He already has offered to humankind a rescue from the real, true horror of ultimate destruction. Whatever happens to this physical planet won't make a bit of difference unless issues of spiritual rebirth are attended to. It's important to me to not give the impression that my beliefs have left me gazing into the heavens waiting to be swept away from all the mess. I don't think it's necessary to worship this world or try to make it last forever in order to take a responsible, active role in maintaining as much of it as we can have an influence upon.
Hope
Hope
-
It's okay, Mud. I do understand how you look at it.
I know you're very smart and have read a lot about this.
You are a very thoughtful logger, that's for sure.
I am a paper user with a fat carbon footprint I want to shrink!
It's back on the bus for me, and no more bringing home plastic bags.
And I need at least 6 more compact flourescent bulbs.
BTW, I don't think Mr. Hanson is responsible for NASA's summary. It's only one
among many respected organizations. I don't take just one as gospel (no pun intended)
but I am past the tipping point, where the critical mass of information is persuasive
to me.
I am not taking on the cumulative wisdom of most of the world's best climatoligists
but I respect your spunk. My brother used to share your resistance. He's shifting though.
I do hope that people will see An Inconvenient Truth and decide for themselves.
(tree)hugs to you,
Hops
PS--Hope, glad you're a good steward, bless you for it!
-
(1:00 Eastern Standard Time on Air America) Richard Feely, an oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He'll talk about our increasingly acidic oceans.
If you don't have a station in your area that runs Air America, you can hear it online at:
http://www.airamerica.com/listen/
Hops
-
It really doesn't help to have very liberal sources cited to "prove" points. Just as you might be wary of being sent to a Limbaugh site for information "proving" the errors in your thinking, I would not visit a site or listen to a station that was self serving and political when trying to bring scientific information to a neutral table.
-
I see your point. Well taken...
NASA and/or NOAA aren't "liberal"--they're government scientific organizations, but you're certainly right that Air America radio is. I didn't perceive the guest oceanographer as having a partisan concern...I think he's just worried about what's happening as the ocean gets hotter.
But people can find their own way to what is right, and some will work together.
I am very hopeful.
Hopalong