Pajiba

Hearing about the dangers of global warming so many times has really dulled the impact of the debate.

I mean, every 4th November, isn't the world about to end anyway? What is it this year- video games and 'the children'?

I think that people who aren't already interested won't go to see the movie. Too bad.

"blah blah blah...global warming...blah blah blah...imminent dire consequences...blah blah blah.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'll start caring about global warming when it stops using circular reasoning, evidence that defies the logic of the argument, and data trends with 99.99999998% error rate.

I'm just hoping that this will get a release here in the UK. All of the reviews that I have seen for it have been good so this one was no surprise.

The name of this film is possible the most appropriate title given a movie ever. Clearly this truth is too inconvenient for even some posters on this review to recognize. What sucks is that their willful ignorance causes the rest of us to suffer.

ARG! Possible = possibly.

I understand that a lot of people don't care about the environment (it's not an inexhaustible recourse, you know), and that some even think that the global warming theory is 99.99999998% wrong and will attack it for being "just a theory" (so is gravity, for the record) but perhaps these people should go see the work of a man (and knowing Gore, there are a lot of men and women working behind the scenes on his research) who has actually done research, actually knows what he's talking about, and at the very least is actually trying to do something to affect change. That might be truly groundbreaking.

Umm, martina, gravity is not a theory, it's a Law.

The same company that did Murderball? The ending scenes featuring young Purple Heart recipients learning how to "play" again were so devastating to me that they altered my world view. If they can bring that level of interest and empathy to a subject as ubiquitous as global warming, then sign me up. On the other hand, Al Gore? He's gotten so . . . puffy. He does know his shit on the environment though.

Manbearpig! Everyone! He's coming!

I have seen this piece of drek that is called a documentary. And as usual Gore has taken half truths and misleading facts to make people run around chicken little style.

For instance;
he discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Just go read two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.

He claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. But the simple fact/TRUTH is that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC (sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/013.htm) notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."

There are other misconceptions as well, so to call the man a "researcher" and "knows his stuff" is an insult to the rest of us who actually do research in the field.

Brazil had it's first hurricane in recorded history last year. Japan has been hit by record numbers of typhoons in the last two year. Every glacier on the planet is receding. Greenland is melting away. The island nation of Tuvalu is disappearing. My own hometown has been hit by more 1-in-a-100 year weather events in the last five years then in all the time I have lived here. Or perhaps you would like to head down to the gulf coast this hurricane season and watch the show?




Overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, increasing consensus between world leaders (not to mention a heandful of leaders within the fossil fuels industry itself), vs paid-for "research" courtesy of the same industry. Some debate.




Maybe people will stop serving dire warnings when people stop treating it like this year's crisis du jour and acknowledge the real scope of the problem.

I did my part for the environment during the 70's fighting off the imminent coming of another ice age and then again in the 80's saving the ozone layer. Forgive me if I sit this one out while you young'uns fight the good fight. It is true that few scientist disagree about climate change (not global warming; the inconvenient truth is that temperature trends both ways) but many question the assumption that the change is man-made. If we can change the climate then how about doing something about the weather next so I don't have to spend the next rainy Memorial Day weekend indoors, wasting my money on the latest crap Hollywood has to offer. As far as this movie is concerned, I haven't been able to watch Al Gore since his embarrassing performance in the debates of the 2000 campaign.

I would like to disagree on the subject of Global Warming. The scientific community has no hard evidence concerning the emissions of carbon dioxide as the cause of increased global temperatures. I will put this into lay-man's terms. The current theory within the scientific community is that the Earth is leaving the dust cloud in which Earth's galactic orbit enters roughly every 25,000 years or so. Earth will travel back into this section of the galaxy in roughly another 12,000 years and once again will enter another Ice Age. (Due to galactic spinning, Earth rotates around the galaxy and every 25,000 years or so, we enter a dust cloud in this section of the galaxy.) Earth is now leaving this dust cloud and the temperature of the planet is rising to its natural median temperature.

As Scott as posted, rising temperatures on Earth have been increasing for the last 8,000 years. This current argument is a near-sighted attempt to explain the natural cycle of Earth's hot-cold cycle. For crying out loud, open a science text book and read the section on the Ice Ages. It happens every 25,000 years...and how many years has it been since the last one? Oh yea, about 12,000.

I shudder at the billions of dollars being wasted on futile attempts to understand this natural cycle of Earth's history. Oh well, just think of the trillions of dollars that we will have to spend in the future, once these scientists (so-called) come up with a solution and then ram-rod the nations to conform to their thinking. I guess it is better to spend our tax dollars on this research then to feed the hungry, and cloth the poor.

And this post is from a right-wing, conservative Christian living in Easter Europe. And no, I am not a believer in scientology, so please leave the Xanu/Tom Cruise comments to yourself, please. While I am sure they will be very witty, my comments come from too many science courses at the university.

For people silly enough to still think that there is any "debate" about global warming, please give your heads a shake and do some research.

A link to the picture below, showing the northern ice cap, should be enough of a hint (I hope) that our world, is definitely warming up, faster than anyone could have anticipated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arctic_Ice_Thickness.png

Forgive me, but it seems to me that others who have posted aren't debating global warming itself, but the nature of the warming as told to the public. So, no offense, Shane, but the picture doesn't really prove Gore's point, does it?


I haven't seen the film. Don't know if I plan to. I am far from being an environmental scientist, so I cannot intelligibly refute the popular argument of global warming. Sounds like that are plenty of folks smarter than Gore and his entourage, and definitely smarter than me, who have posted some enlightening comments. I personally appreciate that. So thanks to Scott and G40 for that.


That being said, even if the popular argument is without merit, would it hurt us to be more thoughtful of our resources? Even if humans are not to blame for global warming, does it hurt to walk or ride a bicycle instead of driving a car when possible? Does it hurt to purchase a hybrid car if one is financially able? Using florescent light bulbs instead of incandescent bulbs? I don't see the harm in taking some action, even if it may be less convenient, and even if Gore's film is propaganda. And I don't see how taking some action would necessarily equate to believing the hype. Maybe there are just some people who like to conserve resources. Just sayin'.

Damn! A polite argument! There is no recourse! Way to go, Daphne.

G40 & Steve, thank you so much for making the point before I had a chance to. I really wish people would back their stories up with actual fact and evidence rather than relying on so-called "scientists" and the media bombarding our views with bull. This is a lot like the Bird Flu threat. It's killed about 10 people and suddenly it's a worldwide epidemic and we're all gonna die, so omigod Mr. President, fund the cure now!!

I remember from reading in my 7th grade science textbooks for Godssake that the evidence of harmful global warming is not sufficiently backed up. 50 years of research is not enough to back this kind of thing up. There's no evidence contradicting that this is not just a natural cycle of the earth. There have been high levels of carbon dioxide since before the Age of Industry. You can't blame humans with their cars and machines for killing the entire planet if there's absolutely no proof.

I don't mean to go on a rant, but really people, don't buy into it. I haven't seen this film and don't intend to because of the subject matter. I don't take being deceived lightly and am shocked that a Pajiber could support this documentary. Please don't watch this film and instead to some real research on the subject to educate yourself. Thanks.

Daphne, I appreciate and respect your take on the subject. I agree with Andre; very refreshing.

I think the problem most people have with the global warming theory (It is a theory, by the way. Definition of theory: "Unproved assumption.") is that the media and propagandists treat it as if the world is ending tomorrow. It's not. It won't for thousands of years, if ever. Get over it, News Channel.

No, there's nothing wrong with driving a hybrid or avoid using your car every once in a while. But ask yourself, why am I doing this? In all frankness and honesty, it's a large waste of time and will not make one bit of difference. Why buy a hybrid car when you could buy an equally as well running vehicle for a lower price and have the peace of mind that goes with the knowledge that you're not fueling propagandists? Maybe it's just me, but I don't see much point with even talking about this subject anymore. There's nothing to back up the global warming theory and I like my lightbulbs, thankyouverymuch. You're not "conserving" anything if there's nothing to be saved.

One thing scientists so often overlook is history. Earth has undergone environmental "shifts" several times since its inception. What is going on now is no different that what has happened before; the only difference is that we are helping to fuel the heating. Will it cause major issues? Well, the era that created vertebrates was preceded by a mass extinction period that killed 95% of all living things. We really aren't the end-all, be-all. Life on Earth will continue, we just have to evolve to it.

As an aspiring environmental scientist who will spend her days studying the effect of increasing radiation levels on developing arctic animals, I don't buy into the apocalyptic hoo-ha that makes its way into the media. However, as Daphne and others have said before, we can reduce our part of the problem.

You are all victims of hype

there is no global warming

the earth is cooling

Gore is just a whiny loser

There is a big difference between the way lay persons use the word "theory" and the way it is used in the scientific community. Gel writes that a theory is an "unproved assumption." It is when you are not talking about a scientific theory. Some prime examples (not global warming) are the "Theory of Gravity" (usually called the "law" but it is really a theory) and the "Theory of Evolution." Creationists like to say "It is just a theory" but they only use that excuse because they don't understand science at all.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

As Al Gore demonstrates in his film and his book, and as climatologists such as Jim Hansen have demonstrated (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/) the problems our world faces due to global warming are real. Fortunately there is still time to "fix" the problem. But first of all most Americans need to get rid of their complacent and wasteful attitudes and change their lifestyles. It is likely we won't suffer the consequences of our waste and short-sightedness, but I for one do not want to leave a mess for my children and grandchildren.

Thanks for the review, Pajiba!

For those of you looking for a well-researched, comprehensive source of information on global warming and what proof might or might not exist for it, I suggest you read Elizabeth Kolbert's excellent 3-part article on it for the New Yorker (a google search for her name will bring it up). It deals not only with the issues of global warming, but climate change in general and has a pretty interesting section on how humans have adapted to climate change in the past (which, as Katy points out, is not unique to the present; although it is misleading to suggest that humanity would be able to adapt to drastic climate change without some loss of life, whether or not that climate change be man-made).

Also, I would urge everyone to consider other scientific ideas that are theories. Electromagnetism, for example...or relativity, on which so much of modern physics is predicated. Just a thought...

Now I know why Pajiba doesn't post political columns anymore. Is it really so difficult to have a civil discussion?

I myself don't have any degrees in geophysics nor am I studying at a presitigious research institution, but I think a bit of respect for the world that we live in can't be a bad thing. Leaving aside the issue of global warming, I think we can all agree that our current fuel quality levels and consumption rates are unhealthy. As someone who lives in Los Angeles, which has the second-highest cancer rate in the US, I am unashamed at admitting that I am unhappy with our country's lack of concern for both the enviornment and the welfare of the people who inhabit it.

Thanks for the review, Daniel. I wasn't sure whether or not I'd be interested in this movie, but your review made up my mind.

For anyone who's interested in the film, Terry Gross had an interesting interview with Gore on NPR's Fresh Air today. I'd recommend you check it out--http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5439305 or you can download Fresh Air's podcast from iTunes.

I have few doubts about the veracity of global warming; the warnings from the scientific community seem to be intensifying all the time, and most scientists not funded by fossil fuel companies have agreed that there is cause for concern.

But even if you don't believe the evidence created by some of the finest minds in the world today, then surely you can believe that oil reserves are finite. We're going to run out of petroleum, natural gas, and coal at some point anyway. I for one would like to stop using fossil fuels ASAP: the environmental damage of extracting them is huge (see: Alberta oil sands) and if we want to avoid huge economic shocks we ought to be phasing in renewables, like, yesterday. And there are so many cobenefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. reduced urban air pollution) that it just makes no sense to insist on being backward energy-wasters to make a point about the imperfections of the scientific method.

Jessdott, you said it perfectly.
Let's assume for argument's sake "climate change" and "global warming" are false theories. Conserving energy and reducing carbon emissions will have no effect on our environment. Even if that were true, our dependency on fossil fuels creates different problems. Take the obscene oil wealth and subsequent corruption in places like the Mid-East and Nigeria.

I dunno.

What's so bad about buying a Ford Focus instead of a Honda Pilot (see how I made an American car the 'good guy' so there goes the "buying foreign made cars hurts the US economy" argument)? Honestly, how many Pilot drivers really need that huge car to commute to and from the office (alone)?

Plus, think of the money you'd save in gas!

Yesterday, me and my husband took four of his highschool students to see the movie. We all reacted the same...shocked! I strongly agree with Shane's post...you may not believe that us humans are affecting global warming, but their is definately a shift occuring in the environment. A few years back, due to the extensive forest raping in Mexico, millions upon millions of migratory Monarch butterflies were killed. We must use common sense, we must have a conscious, we must make choices that not only affect us today but our future children. Gore's movie only reaffirmed what I've been seeing first hand around Mexico and C. America...humans are damaging this earth. Lakes that bathed and fed for generations are dried up. The ocean of Veracruz, Mexico is so polluted that swimming is not recommended.

I read here about natural shifts in the Earth and how the Earth has warmed up at other times...but have massive cruise ships been invading the ocean's natural path, the massive influx of littering and wasteful tourists, and hotels flooding the Gulf of Mexico with polluted waste been apart of this warmup in the past...I think not! Our coral reefs are ruined...we have damaged our ecosystem and evolution.

Once you see the movie, you need to really question Sr. Bush's statement: "We will be up to our necks in owls with no jobs." Where are our priorities folks?

I have to admit that I'm quite shocked about some of these comments. It's completely beyond me how you can not even consider this "theory" to be true and totally ignore the changes in our environment.

And to those who say "The world is not going to end in another so-and-so-many thousand years" - yeah, maybe it will not, but I'm certainly glad that I'll not be around to see what this world looks like in 200 years if we change nothing in our behavior.

And to even suggest that the world is "cooling down" when icecaps are melting is just plain stupid, imho.

Maybe the ignorance of Mr George W. does have an effect on certain people..

We are all drinking the kool-aid, just different flavors. No one really KNOWS the truth. Just be the best steward of what we have been blessed to have - that's really all I can do.

Okay I will agree that we could all use a little conservation in our lives. But it should be by choice and not this "The sky is falling" hype this movie will generate.

Look at it this way, even if the US could reduce its greenhouse emmisions to the levels of say 1970 (very unlikley but lets just say), emerging countries like India and China are increasing their emissions ten fold over the next 5 years, we would only be cutting the warming by a hundredth of a degree by using the formulas presented in Gore's movie.

It has been mentioned that Brazil had it's first hurricane ever, I do not know about that, but there is this. Hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster.

Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions.

But if we are to lower our greenhouse emissions, and lower the CO2 we are producing, we would have to see some tremendous advances in technology, including a return to nuclear power.

Weather humans are causing the Earth to heat up or not, we MUST change anyways.

We ARE causing the destruction of the coral reefs. We HAVE destroyed gigantic chunk of the world's rainforests. There is smog; Most cities have disgusting air. Waterways are polluted; you cannot fish in just any river and eat your catch like you could 50 years ago.

Weather the Earth is heating up or not as a reslut of human behaviour is up for some debate I suppose. However the facts are we certainly ahve damaged the planet in coutnless other ways...so we need to shape up either way.

While I think that it's absolutely great the Gore is trying to do something good for our environment I think he's going about it the wrong way. Graphs and statistics are politically correct but lets be honest...who really wants to go watch a movie about global warming? Does anyone want to sit through hours of data and droning speeches? I would be so much more effective to show pictures of people dying from heat strokes, water levels going down, polar caps melting, and the smog that pollutes the city. Stuff like that will get people to wake up, maybe they can go to sleep again afterwards if they choose but for a brief second they will be forced to realize the state of our environment. I think that alone will be an accomplishment.

What a shame to see such a spot-on review that instilled a little bit of hope in me that maybe people will open their eyes to the facts, only to read the ignorant and outrageous comments to follow. Gore is not claiming the world will end because of global warming. He is merely spotlighting the widely accepted evidence (and YES, it is evidence) of the effects of all the damaging changes that are occuring that are detrimental to our environment and to ourselves. For those who claim to have researched the matter or taken classes- I challenge you to attend any Earth Science 101 course at any school in the U.S. and see how well your argument holds up. It is disgusting that people are choosing to blantatly disregard this global-scale issue that affects ALL of us because it's "inconvenient."

And by the way- regarding the claim that we should focus on "real" problems like poverty and hunger- these aren't mutually exclusive from the "unreal" problem of global warming. Crops dying, water sources drying up, animals dying due to changing migratory patterns and lack of food and water, these are all problems compounded or in many cases, direct results of global warming.

There are several posts that are dismissive towards global warming as man-made or man-induced, or man-helped. The argument is that we are simply passengers on the planet, which will adjust its climate no matter what. Any trends (and I note that some posters accept the trends, while others do not) towards warming/cooling should be accepted stoically. Is this a straw man or not? Because I've read and heard from many, and all of those who either dimiss global warming as a myth or an uncontrollable global trend both advocate sitting on our hands. The apathy solution. The ostrich solution.

Is there apathy because you don't want to change your way of life? Is it because you honestly don't believe there is a problem to be faced? Do you believe in your mind and heart that US consumption levels are healthy and sustainable?

What level of responsibility do you take for your actions? I believe that the Republican party pushes the idea that they are the party of personal responsibility... so why don't we all participate and take a little responsibility for our actions, individually and collectively.

How responsible are we for:

Deforestation, pollution levels both locally and inernationally, poverty levels both locally and internationally, species extinction, weapons proliferation, disease (curable and incurable), infant mortality, addiction, and hunger.

In all these areas, we can make positive changes regardless of the global warming/cooling trends. In all of these areas, the United States is a leading contributor to the negative statistic. The United States is collectively responsible for:

The most deforestation. The greatest contributor to world pollution, poverty through lopsided trade agreements and economic sanctions. Responsible for the most species extinctions and endangerments. Sell and distribute the most weaponry (our #1 export). The United States refuses to sell and distribute generic drugs to prevent curable diseases, and contributes the least foreign aid (in percentage) of all industrialized nations... the list goes on.

None of this is our direct fault. We contribute a little to these problems every day through apathy and a sense of powerlessness. We are isolated and manipulated. But the consequences of our national policies and trade are going to bring disaster. It is already happening... and what are we getting for this? More debt, higher prices, lower quality food and health care, diminishing prospects for retirement, and shitty weather.

This is not right/left. There is no us/them. We have all, simply, adopted the bottom line (as in maximum profit for the least effort) as our national religion. Global warming just brings that bottom line mentality out.

There were times in our national history when our leaders called to us for sacrifice and civic duty. Now, unless a leader pushes tax cuts and perpetual war, we won't rally. No one is willing to rally around the realist who sees sacrifice as a noble goal to achieve peace and prosperity. I guess that died with Kennedy.

OOWWW... What was that? I think a piece of the sky just hit me?
Seriously Eric, deforestation causes poverty? Governments cause poverty through oppressive policies (or military force) that prevents citizens from operating in a free market. (or through benevolence that rewards poverty with handouts.) Conservation is an outstanding goal but it is most effective when it saves money. We could, and will, debate man's responsibility to the planet until the sun explodes but real results come from individuals doing what benefits them. (econ 101)

Where did I say that deforestation causes poverty?

I simply listed several areas where the US is #1 in the wrong direction... these are areas that we as a nation can impact the world positively, and then note if there is any impact on the environment. You can infer that mankind has an impact on global warming/cooling, but the proof lies in taking concrete action in important environmental arenas and seeing their impact.

As far as your cheeky definition of poverty, would you consider regulation an oppressive policy that prevents individuals from participating in a free market? How do you, Mr. Econ 101, define a free market? Better yet, exactly how far does a regulation have to travel before it becomes oppressive? And to whom does it oppress? The rich, the poor, the middle class? Does corporate welfare interfere with the free market? What about political corruption? Is Social Security a handout? What about Medicaid? Or unemployment? How can measures, like Social Security, increase poverty while going at great lengths to prevent it?

Underlying your post is the dogma of the bottom line. The key is convincing people that conservation benefits them more than this sorry-ass debt-ridden consumer binge culture does. Right now, we define benefits by our assets, and not by our contributions. We no longer reward service and compassion. And I don't mean $$.

Where did I say that deforestation causes poverty?

I simply listed several areas where the US is #1 in the wrong direction... these are areas that we as a nation can impact the world positively, and then note if there is any impact on the environment. You can infer that mankind has an impact on global warming/cooling, but the proof lies in taking concrete action in important environmental arenas and seeing their impact.

As far as your cheeky definition of poverty, would you consider regulation an oppressive policy that prevents individuals from participating in a free market? How do you, Mr. Econ 101, define a free market? Better yet, exactly how far does a regulation have to travel before it becomes oppressive? And to whom does it oppress? The rich, the poor, the middle class? Does corporate welfare interfere with the free market? What about political corruption? Is Social Security a handout? What about Medicaid? Or unemployment? How can measures, like Social Security, increase poverty while going at great lengths to prevent it?

Underlying your post is the dogma of the bottom line. The key is convincing people that conservation benefits them more than this sorry-ass debt-ridden consumer binge culture does. Right now, we define benefits by our assets, and not by our contributions.

Are you more benefitted by obesity, compound interest debt, smog, terror alerts, surveillance, infiltration, American Idol, inflation, wage stagnation, hurricanes, and goose-stepping... or by helping your fellow men regardless of race, color, or creed and helping future generations live better and longer than you?

Holy shit, look at all little footsoldiers in the Christo Fascist Neocon Zombie Brigade! It's almost as if there were some sort of vast, right wing conspiracy, wherein minions have been dispatched to every corner of the globe to quickly and crudely "debunk" and defame Al Gore and his film...

I am SO looking forward to his candidacy in '08...

Dan really brings up a good point. Econ 101 and countless other biology courses kind of reveal what true human nature and drives are all about.

Our instinctive selfishness, and our capacity as intellegent beings to take it to the extremes are what drive, I would argue, ALL of the problems facing the world, environmental issues included.

Sorry Eric. I lumped your deforestation and poverty comment together. My point is that the people of the US have done more for the welfare of world then the rest of the UN members combined. If you are going to blame us for the woes of the world, please take credit for the good that we do also. If you want to change your behavior to make the world a better place, by all means do so. If you want me to change my behavior, you have to convince me of the benefits first. Or you can use the power of government to make it painful for me to not change. I like the first way better.

Eric,
I don't have the time to argue all of your points but let me just say that from my observation, democracies tend to have less poverty then dictatorships. Yes, political corruption, corporate welfare, Medicare, social security and American Idol are all negative factors in society. What's your point? I conserve energy because it's expensive. I help my less fortunate neighbors because it makes my community a better place. I support worldwide charities because I feel better knowing I did something to help victims of natural and man made disasters. Does this make me a selfish capitalist? Yes, and proud of it.

RS,

isn't the concept of a universal "human nature" difficult (I would say impossible) to define, though? One could, I suppose, say that we are all motivated by selfishness or greed, but I don't believe that, and I really can't believe that you would either. I do agree, though, that selfishness/greed is responsible for many of the problems that we have created.

The "climate change doesn't exist" comments are utterly mindnumbing.

Yes, it isn't proven. Scientific research can only be supported or rejected. NEVER proven. The theory of climate change hasn't been rejected. But it has been supported many a time. So to those who claim to have university education, sadly nothing seems to have sunken in. Keep on driving your Hummers and believing there is such a thing as clean coal.

Crap, you guys are getting all Hobbes and Locke here -- defining a universal concept of human nature? Really? This is a website that reviews movies. No one is going to change anyone else's core belief systems here. I call truce. Visit the hundreds of other websites (or *gasp* a library) that provide reseach and facts on the subject and then go outside and talk to real life people about it.

So who else is so excited to see The Break Up this weekend?!? I am!!!

Wrong about global warming = no worries!
Right about global warming = everybody dies!

Maybe we should err on the side of caution?

"My point is that the people of the US have done more for the welfare of world then the rest of the UN members combined."

This is my last comment in a movie review thread. But this film, and Al Gore in particular, bring out a lot of kneejerk reactions. The above is a typical myth. We contribute very little in foreign aid, if you do not include military aid. The nation that receives the most in foreign aid (by far) is Israel, and our foreign aid comes with no stipulations, i.e., Israel can spend or retain the US money however the government sees fit. Most of it goes to armaments, surveillance, and the wall.

Most of our foreign aid is tied up in the IMF and World Bank, which hands out loans and guarantees with heavy stipulations... most of which revolve around giving certain businesses trade access and leverage in consumer affairs. The payment of these loans come at a heavy cost, and most countries are drowning in debt. Go look up our history of foreign aid for yourself, and see just how little is humanitarian and charitable.

If you see the foreign aid that is military or arms deals, you will see nations that are dictatorships of the worst sort. The US has a history of propping up strong men, as evinced by South America, Africa, and the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is propped up by the US petrodollar (as great a reason we have for energy independence), and they are as repressive a dictatorship as they come. Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, South Africa, Iran (yes, Iran), Egypt... the list goes on. Can you truly equate this part of history with the shining city on the hill that Ronald Reagan so nobly praised after hugging the wreath laid for the SS at Bitburg?

The fact is that the US has long journeyed towards the heart of darkness that is imperial empire. We have the capacity to make a difference, transcendent of political leanings, by operating from a self interest elevated above "base human nature."

Perhaps we can operate from a self interest that sees beyond us versus them and mine versus yours. The key is for more people to see that we are in a position, militarily, economically, and environmentally, of diminishing or extinguishing human quality of life... that understanding alone brings circumspection and charity. Just look around at the activities of those who recognize the dangerous state of affairs. They are out there doing something... which is a lot better than saying that "humans are selfish, so lets just fiddle while Rome burns."

Eric,
I'm developing a picture of you based on some unflattering stereotypes that may not be fair to you. I simply made a comment on a movie based on my 50 years of experience observing human nature. I too list foreign aid as one of the evils of the world and urge my representatives to stop it immediately. I speak of the charitable nature of the American people who, collectively, donate enormous amounts of their time and money around the world. Eric, you have a lot of passion and seem to be a pretty intelligent guy. Please make the world a better place. Personally I'm a little more focused on working my ass off for a few more years so I can retire somewhere above the poverty line. I thank the staff and readers of Pajiba for allowing Eric and I to discuss this topic in this forum. And with that Eric, I'll let you have the last word.

Here's a link for everybody who thinks that Gore's "End of the World" cries are too dire. Skip to the 33 minite mark to hear a couple of scientist/policy-makers talk about Gore's movie and then suggest a more level, practical view of what's likely to happen and what they think should be done about it.

http://kcrw.com/cgi-bin/ram_wrap.cgi?/tp/tp060526Al_Gore_Back_in_the_

I will openly admit that my comment has absolutely nothing to do with my viewing of this film. I haven't seen it, and I'm not sure whether or not I will. However, I'm still going to say what I feel I need to say.



It bothers me greatly that when the term Global Warming is mentioned all people can wrap their heads around is temperature changes. If you've investigated the theory, then you know that the idea of Global Warming is much more complex than a 1/16 of a degree difference in average temperature between 1970 and 2000. Then again, I'm also baffled by the fact that to most Americans evolutionary theory automatically means that man came from monkeys. If we simplify the theories too much, we run the risk of simplifying the issues - and the issue is clear. Regardless of whether or not you think Global Warming is a doomsday theory touted by psuedo-scientists or a legitimate consideration, the fact remains that collectively we are doing very little to conserve our resources or provide a clean environment to future generations. The fact that the US is one of the most adament in rejecting environmental improvements just furthers the argument that we are a wasteful, self-indulgent society. We'll bitch and moan about gas prices, but we don't do a damn thing to conserve (i.e. riding a bike, carpooling, mass transit). We'd rather someone else fix the problem - so we ignore it until the last possible second. I'd rather we err on the side of caution and start making some IMPROVEMENTS now rather than waiting until it's too late.



Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some trees to hug.

I actually went and saw this, but it wasn't as convincing to me as the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." We're really at an environmental crossroads right now, and if we aren't careful, our reckless abuse of the world's resources will result in a bunch of storm supercells over the northern and southern hemispheres...the whole world will freeze to death! Gore's documentary was okay, but didn't really humanize the issue with the reality of people separated from their familes, or being trapped in the New York Public Library. Let's wake up, people!

I saw a very interesting (read frightening) documentary on PBS about a phenomenon called "Global Dimming." I haven't seen Gore's movie so I don't know if he references it or not. According to the PBS show, pollutants in the air have been shielding the sun's rays from hitting the surface. In some places where the pollution is thickest the temperature has actually cooled. Many first world countries (if you'll excuse the term) have mandated that industry use filters that clean up the particulates but still release the same greenhouse gasses. Industry in India and China, specifcally but not limited to these countries, still release the "dirty" gasses. The point of the documentary was that due to "global dimming" we don't have an accurate picture of the true acceleration of global warming. The two phenomenons pull at opposite ends. I obviously am not a scientist but I find that shockingly few people have heard of "global dimming"--so I throw that bit of scientific information into the fray for you all to check into. I want to add one comment to Daphne's. Who benefits from telling us that the global warming theory is wrong? There are a lot of people that stand to lose money if we believe the theory is right and take action. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I have often found that the money factor looms over truth. What have we to lose if we choose to believe that we need to clean up our acts?

How come no one mentions that the icelevels in antartica are in fact growing larger?

Or that scientists now believe that the north pole was once a lot like florida?

Dan: news flash: the world does not revolve solely around the USA.

"My point is that the people of the US have done more for the welfare of world then the rest of the UN members combined." ....when there is something to gain from it $$$$$$.
Un-be-lie-va-ble statement!

It's not your fault, I've seen with my own eyes the kind of News and Media you are subjected too.

Cancers are on the rise,as are allergies & asthma, smog in all large cities in the world, mercury in fish, ozone thinning, pollution etc...

No, there is no sound proof. We must all be imagining things...it's inconvenient to think of all that bad stuff that if happening.
Let's put our heads in the sand pretend it not happening OK. Anyways, we won't be here when it all blows up, so who cares right?

without commenting on global warming itself, I would like to point out that the word "theory" has a technical meaning in the scientific community that is separate from its colloquial meaning, similar to the difference between everyday "leverage" (pressure or ability to pressure) and financial leverage (mix of debt and equity that has nothing to do with leverage). The technical sense of "theory" isn't "unproved assumption," but "conclusion supported by data," e.g. almost every "law" of physics. So please distinguish between theory (colloquial) and Theory (technical). Whether global warming is the former or the latter is another matter.

Sorry, that should have read "mix of debt and equity that has nothing to do with pressure or manipulation."

Id just like to comment that this review was by far the best review Ive read for this movie, and Ive read all the ones I could find to see what people were saying. You touched on points that I got from the movie that no one else bothered to write about and were so obvious to me. Thanks.

Also, scanning through the comments It seems to be that many of the people who are for whatever reason, passionatly against the movie, have not yet seen the movie. Many arguments, Gore already had the answers for, such as the natural climate shift argument.

Say what you want about it, just see it first. You might find your thoughts or arguments will change quite a bit.

Everyone with a brain pretty much knows and understands that climate change is real, and that we need to figure out a good plan "quick" to stop fucking up the Earth.
However, this is yet another example of frickin' Al Gore making himself into a big joke. Does he really believe that he is telling us stuff we don't know? He has a desperate need to write himself into history as a pivotal figure, and keeps jumping on bandwagons, then pretending he's the driver. Isn't this the same man who claimed he invented the Internet????

are you being serious or sarcastic? because he has been invovled in environmental issues for over 30 years. and the "I invented the internet" quote never happened. check it out for yourself. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

"Everyone with a brain pretty much knows and understands that climate change is real, and that we need to figure out a good plan "quick" to stop fucking up the Earth."
yah... at June 4, 2006 11:36 PM

ummm obviously not if you read about half of the comments above...

Law vs. Theory. This is a good site: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

There were some problems with Gore's movie, but the fact is that the only people in the scientific community that disagree that global warming exists are the nutcases and people paid to disagree. So, I certainly won't be pointing out the minor flaws since the overall presentation was quite good.

I have heard Gore holds up China as having better emission standards than the United States. This is a joke.

China is an environmental disaster and it is not because of its laws. It is because of the lack of enforcement of the laws. China's care emission laws may be better than the United States', but that is basically irrelevant because there are a huge number of cars their whose emissions would probably not meet anyone's standards.

www.chinalawblog.com

Of course when Al Gore pretends to know his shit everyone is all down on him...because perhaps he's brave enough to acknowledge the fact that the U.S. government and its people have done irreperable damage to the rest of the world. Sure, we are not the only ones to blame (there's China of course), global warming is happening whether or not you think its a misconception...I'll try to pretend that Katrina, the tsunamis and the fact that the polar ice caps melting has not happened at all and continue to buy gasoline at inflated prices to appease those in power...they're the ones who should be doing something about it, besides claiming that "everyone else" is addicted to oil and we should use ethanol and switchgrass...to distract from the very reason why we went to war in the first place...hello?!?!

Okay, I stopped reading at around the March 30 comments. I can't take it any more.

People, Global Warming is a "theory", yes, but one which is generally overwhelmingly agreed upon in the scientific community. There remain questions about the exact mechanics involved, although the proposed mechanism outlined in Gore's presentation is generally agreed upon as a top contender and without logical flaws.

The primary area where scientists differ in opinion - and this is a matter of degree, not of kind - is in how fast and how far our actions will change the Earth's environment. Some say the point of no return is ten years from now; some say we've already passed it; some give us a hundred years. Some believe the thermal ocean flows will persist, others believe they will cease and plunge Europe into an ice age, which might actually serve to stabilize the warming trend by reflecting more of the energy out.

Global warming is real. It is accepted as real by the scientific community. Stop listening to Republican idiots and Exxon-funded spinners.

Not really a 'global warming' excerpt but one that has stuck with me on global pollution: A Yale University graduate student, who served as a college intern at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, brought back this account: "Directly adjacent to the Embassy's high-rise office building was a muddy, trash-filled canal that children bathed in every morning. The view from the top floors was unforgettable: a layer of brown sky rising up to meet the blue--a veritable pollution horizon. In the distance the tips of skyscrapers stretched up out of the atmospheric cesspool below, like giant corporate snorkels. Without fresh air to breathe, my days were characterized by nausea and constant low-grade headaches. I went to Indonesia wanting a career in government, and left determined to start a career working with the environment."

I came back to ask a question about this movie but for some reason I feel the need to defend my previous comments as an anonymous blogger to other anonymous bloggers.

Like it or not, the world does revolve around the US. Even though we tend to ignore the rest of the world, they pay attention to us. For better of worse, we are the last remaining superpower and we are admired and/or hated because of it. Evidence of this can be seen in the amount of coverage of the US in foreign news as compared to domestic media coverage of the rest of the world.

Secondly, I can't speak for other individuals, but when I donate my time or money to an individual or a cause, I do not get any financial gain other then the tax deduction. That means that I get 10% to 20% of my financial donation back in tax savings.

Since I am not inclined to see this movie, could someone just give me the bottom line on what Al is asking of me? I have heard the hype about Kyoto ruining the economy and I surely can't support that. How much of a sacrifice is an individual expected to make to save the world from impending doom? Try to keep your answer short and civil, and remember that any restrictions on corporations (like oil companies) will be passed on to the consumer in higher prices. Extra points awarded for solutions that do not involve governmental controls. Although I've inserted a fair amount of sarcasm in this post, this is a serious question.

Ok, so everyone's arguing the geo-political points to this "film," why couldn't it be released in a 2 hour special on the Discovery Channel? If you're really that bored to death, that you would sit through this drivel in a energy sucking, land grubbing, environment killing mega movie theater, I suggest you reassess your life. And the lives of the countless millions that will be affected by your choices!

hey, everybody who feels like they shouldn't have to change their lifestyles to benefit the conservation of our environment, visit this website:

http://www.earthday.net/Footprint/index.asp

(If everyone on the planet lived like I do, we'd need eight earths to accomodate our consumption.)

>"Everyone with a brain pretty much knows and understands that climate change is real, and that we need to figure out a good plan "quick" to stop fucking up the Earth."
yah... at June 4, 2006 11:36 PM

>ummm obviously not if you read about half of the comments above...

obviously he was not talking to you nor the half above that you refer to since he said "everyone with a brain"

I'd like to share a quote from Upton Sinclair which is featured prominently on Gore's web-site for the movie:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair? He was a communist, which is all I need to know to avoid this movie.

When someone figures out a way to stop Mar's and Jupiter's global warming, then I might pay attention. Of course, I was raised during the global cooling era, so I come by my skeptism naturally. Maybe these scientists can figure out a way to turn down the sun, instead of trying to get me to alter my lifestyle.

Dan: To answer your question some of what is being asked of us is:

-recycle
-bike/walk/take the bus
-switch to energy efficient lightbulbs
-use energy efficient applicances
-turn off electronic appliances when not in use
-check air in your tires
-avoid excess packaging
-adjust thermostat
-plant a tree

Simple, no?

God, the way some people act you would think they were being asked to give up their first born.

Thanks Georgia. I've been doing those things for years. (except the bike/walk/bus thing, not practical for me but I'm 9 non-stop miles from my job) But you said "some of the things being asked of us..." It's what you didn't list that worries me.

i saw a preview for this movie and they seem to be marketing it as a horror flick. i love horror flicks... especially ones with al gore in it... makes them even scarier!

After reading in "Earth in the Balance" that the Sahara desert has expanded into southern Europe (according to Gore, and I AM NOT making this up), it's difficult for me to take anything he says seriously.

Daphne Dykeman:: FYI, Martina was right. Gravity is NOT a law. It is a THEORY. The common use of the word "theory" means something totally different when used in a scientific sense. We all accept gravity as truth, but it is still nothing more then a theory. However, theories in science must be proved and backed by a substantial amount of evidence in order to even be CALLED a theory.

So obviously, global warming is not simply an idea that a couple of paranoid scientists thought up one day. It has been carefully investigated (as this film shows) and should not be disregarded as simply an "idea."

Just a general point: An ad-hominem attack against the messenger never weakens the message. Some posters don't like Gore -- that's fine. Some question his motives (which is strange considering he's been doing environmental work for 30 years). One dismisses him because "isn't this the guy who claimed he invented the internet? HAW!" (no it isn't, by the way -- google that quote and learn the true story).

What very few people are doing is actually evaluating the evidence Gore presents. Is it because it's too scientific, too over-our-heads? I think it's because we're lazy. The inconvenient truth is that people just don't care enough to research something until it's finally so obvious that they become scared. Guess we'll have to wait. In the meantime, let's keep our heads in the sand -- it's so comfortable here!

Oh. My. God.

It never fails to make my jaw drop to see ignorance like that I've seen displayed in this comments section. Seriously, the kind of fuckwits who respond to global warming with douchebaggery like "Al Gore is a whiny loser" are exactly the kind of people who think "proletariat" is a type of CHEESE. And they can READ -- astonishinger and astonishinger.

Consider my gast... flabbered.

Worst comment thread EVER! Those first three especially. Commenter #3's whole argument would be shattered simply by viewing the film he is criticizing. Talk about circular logic... I won't go see the film because I presume they use this method of logic, but YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM!!

Idiots.

ionolsen16 HI! I love this place!www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11