Al Gore's movie, "Inconvienant Truth"

**Bill Harsey** · 11-26-2006, 10:55

Anyone seen this? If so how credible is it?

cool analysis wanted.

Edited to add; a search here showed zero results.

**Bill Harsey** · 11-26-2006, 14:04

OK, no ones going to admit to seeing it...

my HH6 drug it into the house wants me to see it.
I really don't.

incommin · 11-26-2006, 14:11

How credible can it be? It is based on pseudoscience.........computer models where all factors are not entered..............

Jim

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 11-26-2006, 14:23

Damn Bill, it's Al Gore's movie that should speak volumes on its "credibility"!

gunnerjohn · 11-26-2006, 14:27

No Comment.... at least in Laura's presence

11-26-2006, 14:51

Mr Harsey,

Maybe you should make one of these - it should help

-a

mugwump · 11-26-2006, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Harsey

Anyone seen this? If so how credible is it?

Haven't seen it but I'm a Believer. The evidence is compelling enough to suggest we should be taking prudent steps now. Besides, the remedies appeal to my nature: I hate ostentatious displays of wasteful consumption; cutting dependence on foreign oil also cuts the legs from under these tin-pot tyrants we are constantly having to deal with; and, the technological solutions present an enormous business opportunity for American know-how. I just don't see the down side.

I also think some realpolitik is in order. Europe (except for Britain), Japan, Canada, etc. aren't meeting their Kyoto goals. Why don't we cynically sign on the dotted line while we do what we think is prudent?

RE: Gore. What tees me off is how the Dems have co-opted the 'green' banner. I'm a conservative, gun totin' tree-hugger and it's hard to find people who espouse my views. The latest batch of Blue Dog Democrats -- pro-gun, fiscally conservative, pro-environment, pro-military -- are going to continue to eat the Republicans' lunch if they don't watch out.

PSM · 11-26-2006, 15:13

Damn Global Warming! I took the family to Northern California to see the Great Glacier, but this is all we saw:

NotME · 11-26-2006, 15:18

"The evidence is compelling enough to suggest we should be taking prudent steps now. "

What evidence? Thirty years ago "scientist" were quoting figures and statistics supporting a theory that the next ice age was just around the corner. Were they wrong then? Or are they wrong now?

Also, what prudent steps? One forest fire covering no more than 20 square miles can produce more atmospheric pollution than 5000 Chevrolet Suburbans in their entire useful lifetimes; and I think that forest fires have been going on since long before we figured out that lightning wasn't just God's way of telling us he was really mad at us for something.

Sorry, it always amazes me how even amazingly intelligent people can be so quick to overlook the obvious in favor of what passes for evidence on this topic.

incommin · 11-26-2006, 15:35

"Haven't seen it but I'm a Believer."

Mugwump, a believer in what? That the earth is going thru a warming cycle? I believe that too..... The rub is "what percentage is caused by burning carbon fuels? that seems to be the big cry.....

Scaring the hell out of people with maybes is not going to change things. People around the world will not stop clearing land, buying vehicles, building more and more and more! The earth will continue to go thru hot and cold cycles.

Blaming the warming cycle on mankind is like blaming the President for a upturn or downswing of the economy. The economy is just too large to be affected by one person.

The earth will change. Man will adapt. Species will adapt or die out......survival of the fittest will continue to mold what lives on the earth just as it has since the formation of life.

my 2 cents.

Jim

Intel_Airman · 11-26-2006, 16:36

I had it in my hands at Blockbuster last week. But then I thought back to the time I rented a popular Michael Moore movie that I turned off half way through, and I put it back. I figured it would be on the same level of "truth" and "proof". Did any of you guys see the article in Popular Science last year that explained a theory in which the industrial revoluation might have saved us from an ice age? Whoah, there's a concept! All of the bad things we've done to the planet kept us alive.

Leozinho · 11-26-2006, 16:44

I've seen it. Even if you are already convinced global warming is a hoax, why not spend the 90 minutes to watch it now that it's at your local Blockbuster?

I do think Gore oversteps a bit when he tries to correlate seemingly every weather "disaster" with global warming, and there's a terribly out-of-place and self-serving vignette of Al Gore waxing poetic about his idyllic childhood in the middle that slows the film down.

However, the rest of the film, along with the science behind it, is compelling.

It is not in the same vein as the "documentaries" (I use that loosely) of Micheal Moore.

lksteve · 11-26-2006, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leozinho

However, the rest of the film, along with the science behind it, is compelling.

save me some time...how does it account for the Little Ice Age of the 16th-19th century...or does it...?

let me add that any film that receives such a warm reception at the Sundance Film Festival is suspect...

**The Reaper** · 11-26-2006, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leozinho

I've seen it. Even if you are already convinced global warming is a hoax, why not spend the 90 minutes to watch it now that it's at your local Blockbuster?

I do think Gore oversteps a bit when he tries to correlate seemingly every weather "disaster" with global warming, and there's a terribly out-of-place and self-serving vignette of Al Gore waxing poetic about his idyllic childhood in the middle that slows the film down.

However, the rest of the film, along with the science behind it, is compelling.

It is not in the same vein as the "documentaries" (I use that loosely) of Micheal Moore.

I do not think there is much science behind it.

Science would imply that there is a demonstrable cause and effect relationship between human pollution and global warming. We could just as easily be in a cyclical climatic warming period.

Those who claim that man and warming are independent factors, or that man is a relatively small part of this trend are insulted, shouted down, or denied the forum to speak. Gore shows only the "experts" who support his position, and denies the others. That does not represent science, as I understand it.

I would not rent it because to do so puts money in AlGore's pockets, supports environmental whackos, and prepares him for his 2008 bid to be POTUS.

Kyoto would punish the West while letting the big new polluters like China and India off the hook. Why sign up for an economic suicide pact?

I would rather spend 90 minuteds of my life doing something beneficial, like reloading. That is just my opinion though.

TR

**Kyobanim** · 11-26-2006, 18:45

I saw a quote from a GM muckity muck that went something like, "98% of the scientests say there's a problem with global warming." Then he went on to say they were going to do something about lowering emissions on their cars. If I can find it I'll post it.

Little ice age in the 16th or 17th century? Yep, there was. And the only reason more people didn't die during this time is they practically deforested Europe to stay warm.

So what's wrong with practicing a little ecological conservancy? I want my grandkids to be able to breathe and enjoy nature when they grow up. Why not err on the side of caution in this instance?

This is the only planet we've got and if we fook it up, that's it. Why chance it?