An Inconvenient Truth

[No Mo Moss]

I've heard nothing but great things about the quality of this film on global warning. Yes it stars AL Gore, but I really hope it doesn't become a political thing. I mean both parties inhabit this planet last time I checked. Here's the trailer:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth&pl=true

[jack's smirking revenge]

I've read about it and can't wait to see it. And, of course it'll be treated as a political statement first. Bush has already gone on record to say that he won't see it.

tyler

[FavreChild]

This is a country where it was a crime for Moussaoui to do nothing and let 9/11 happen, but it is OK for our government to do nothing about global warming.

No chance that this won't be politicized to death.

I liked your framing of the issue, No Mo, as "an inconvenient truth." Denial has gone on for too long; let's just hope that in addition to all the political finger-pointing, some action will emerge.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

[Little Whiskey]

i could have used a little global warming last weekend. Its may and shouldn't be 40 degrees.

[Deputy Nutz]

First illegal immigrants, now global warming, does it ever stop!!!! Really one is a solution for the other. With global warming, all the grass will dry up, hince no need for it to be cut.

[Scott Campbell]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

I'm in agreement with you about the industrial revolution, and the filth it created. I believe the planet is far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. People complain about cars, yet they all run cleaner than they used to. And people have forgotten what horses used to do to the environment. We no longer dump raw sewage into rivers.

We can do better, and environmentalist groups are helping us make continuous progress. But they tend to look like extremists with their dire predictions.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

I'm in agreement with you about the industrial revolution, and the filth it created. I believe the planet is far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. People complain about cars, yet they all run cleaner than they used to. And people have forgotten what horses used to do to the environment. We no longer dump raw sewage into rivers.

We can do better, and environmentalist groups are helping us make continuous progress. But they tend to look like extremists with their dire predictions.

I think "doom & gloom" is the only way to get anyone to pay attention anymore. We're a desensitized nation. War and murder and violence and death are our typical top stories (the primary reason why I ditched journalism in college--death sells). Environmental stories are buried if they aren't threatening.

I don't want to turn this into an environmental debate, because there are truly strong arguments on both sides. Take, for example, what's happening in Africa. The droughts and death of wildlife can be directly contriibuted to global warming. Both of those could cause millions of deaths in the nation over the next decade. The weather patterns changed by global warming may not mean much in America, but they are having an effect at other places across the globe.

tyler

[Little Whiskey]

Take, for example, what's happening in Africa. The droughts and death of wildlife can be directly contriibuted to global warming.
tyler

damn, there goes my safari hunt i had planned

[No Mo Moss]

Scientists can't even agree on global warning and its consequences. The industrial revolution was incredibly unfriendly to the environment (much worse than what is happening now), but was useful beyond belief. I have tremendous doubts whether whatever we do in this little snapshot of time in the grand scheme of things will have any lasting effect on anything. Technological advancements are coming at a rate that nobody could comprehend 50 years ago. When oil runs out (not necessarily pertinent to this discussion) we'll find a better and safer fuel source. Picture me not all that worried about what is going on, environmentally. The environmental groups are incredibly organized and powerful, so I'm impressed with that.

"Humans won't destroy the Earth. Humans will only destroy humans. The Earth will be here long after we are gone."

I'm in agreement with you about the industrial revolution, and the filth it created. I believe the planet is far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. People complain about cars, yet they all run cleaner than they used to. And people have forgotten what horses used to do to the environment. We no longer dump raw sewage into rivers.

We can do better, and environmentalist groups are helping us make continuous progress. But they tend to look like extremists with their dire predictions.

I think "doom & gloom" is the only way to get anyone to pay attention anymore. We're a desensitized nation. War and murder and violence and death are our typical top stories (the primary reason why I ditched journalism in college--death sells). Environmental stories are buried if they aren't threatening.

I don't want to turn this into an environmental debate, because there are truly strong arguments on both sides. Take, for example, what's happening in Africa. The droughts and death of wildlife can be directly contriibuted to global warming. Both of those could cause millions of deaths in the nation over the next decade. The weather patterns changed by global warming may not mean much in America, but they are having an effect at other places across the globe.

tyler

Tyler, they do mean a lot to us in America. We are coming off the worst storm season in the History of our country.
Not to disrespect anyone on here, but the scientific community is now almost in complete agreement on global warming. Probably less than 10% still resist it. I get worried when even the republicans are starting to embrace the notion. The thing is, yes cars are getting cleaner, but there are also more people on the planet now and the manufacturing processes used today allow automobiles to be accessable to nearly everyone. Even stil the average house contributes more greenhouse gases than the average car because coal is still the #1 way we generate energy in this country and the world. Yard maintenance contributes significantly to greenhouse emissions. Per hour of operation, a power lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto. A weedeater emits 21 times more and a leaf blower 34 times more.
Some interesting facts:
In The United States the use of SUVS (Suburban Utility Vehicles) is the latest fad and passion. SUVS on average releases 5,600 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, double the amount of the average car driven the same distance.
Air travel has become commonplace for vacationers, but not with out it's unseen costs to the environment. A round trip flight from New York to Los Angeles release as much as one automobile does in an entire year. On a yearly basis all air travel releases 600 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Despite the evidence either way I think it is irresponsible to think of our atmosphere as a toxic waste dumping ground and expect that any talk of global environmental impact is nonsense. Its like we don't have facts to support it?

*The parts per million of CO2 in 1870 was 290 ppm
*The parts per million of CO2 in 2000 was 370 ppm

[jack's smirking revenge]

I'm with you No Mo. I think there's enough evidence to show that human activities are affecting the environment in adverse ways, yet our government finds ways to convince us that it isn't really a problem. Bush didn't jump onto the Kyoto Protocol for financial reasons--he was protecting the industries that support his presidency.

Is it irresponsiblity or greed that we create machines that pollute our planet when, cumulatively, we have the intelligence and the technology to create tech for the masses which is far more green than what we use today?

The current answer:

"The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you."

tyler

[SkinBasket]

LOL!

Nice effen graph! I especially like where the line goes from declining to a steep incline right at the point where the "projected" portion of your graph starts. Who the fuck drew this? Mike Moore?

BTW, it's incincere and idiotic to play up your "I hope this doesn't get politicized" line. It's a "film" on an issue that's more of a political issue than a scientific one, and it stars Al fucking Gore! But I guess in your mind Al Gore is a politically neutral figure. Give me a freakin break.

My apologies to the PGness of the Romper Room.

[No Mo Moss]

Well I thought the graph was a nice illustration for people. Before you go on spouting the illegitamacy of the material why don't you do a little research. I apologize as the graph is from 1998. Here is something straight from the horses mouth to further my point.





Exxon rep: CO2 output to rise 50 percent by 2020
Thursday, November 20, 2003 Posted: 10:53 AM EST (1553 GMT)

HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- Worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide, considered a culprit in global warming, are expected to increase by 3.5 billion tons, or 50 percent, by the year 2020, an executive for ExxonMobil Corp said.

At the same time, global demand for energy will rise by 40 percent as the world population increases and economies grow, said Randy Broiles, global planning manager for Exxon's oil and gas production unit.

"Between now and 2020 we estimate increases of some 3.5 billion tons per year of additional carbon emissions, so it's definitely increasing," Broiles said Wednesday at an energy conference sponsored by accounting and consulting firm Deloitte.

He said about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, go into the earth's atmosphere each year from power plants, cars and other sources.

Experts say the United States, which has the world's largest economy and 4 percent of its population, is responsible for about 25 percent of so-called "greenhouse" gases now produced, but Broiles said most future growth in output will come from developing countries.

"Eighty percent of that number, 80 percent of 3.5 billion tons, is going to be driven by those developing countries, those economies that are growing at the 4 to 5 percent range, so that's where it's coming from," he said.

A huge increase in the number of cars will cause part of the pollution growth.

Broiles said there are now 15 cars for every 1,000 people in the world, but ExxonMobil expects that number to rise to 50 cars per 1,000 by 2020.

He said ExxonMobil foresees a 40 percent increase in energy demand even though humans are boosting their energy efficiency by about 1 percent a year. Despite advances in technology most energy will still come from fossil fuels, and in particular oil and gas, of which there remain very large reserves, he said.

"The oil resource base is huge -- it's huge -- and we expect it to satisfy world demand growth well beyond 2020," he said.

This is from 2003, but the information was covered on the news today from this so I think its relevant.

[No Mo Moss]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You're right though. I do hope it is politicized. I do hope that the party of "there is no such thing as global warming" has so much egg on their greedy little oil gulping faces that they can never recover as a whole. I just hope NY city doesn't have to be under water to demonstrate the legitamacy of it.

That's more like it. I hate when there is a facade of moderation.

What will you say when we go back to a normal storm season in 2006?