Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
"An Inconvenient Truth" . . for some.
Posted 22 January 2007 - 06:59 AM
Fortunately for the sake of the students, another parent got ahold of a copy of the film and arranged free public viewings. And oh, by the way, when asked of the fundy if she had ever seen the film? "No"
I hate fundys. I really do.
Posted 22 January 2007 - 12:46 PM
That shows the level of scientific understanding of most of the so-called "pundits".
A fundy need not see the film, all they have to do is hear Bush, et al, tell them there's no such thing as global warming, and that's enough fo them to rail against it in the schools, or anywhere esle they think they'got some pull.
Posted 22 January 2007 - 06:37 PM
Posted 24 January 2007 - 07:09 PM
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find where it says "temperature right here right now". Besides, did these people somehow miss the springlike temperatures we've had for most of the winter? Let's see what that radio pundit has to say when we go through another 100+ degree heatwave next summer, like we did last August.
In a way, denial of evolution is no different from denial of global heating. If conservatives can't see or feel it happening at that moment, it must not be true. Who cares what 99.9% of scientists have to say?
But by that logic, I can prove God doesn't exist with a simple test. "Helloooooo, God?" *waits* I win. Take that!
Posted 24 January 2007 - 10:19 PM
Posted 25 January 2007 - 10:13 AM
Posted 25 January 2007 - 07:13 PM
There are noticeable changes going on right under our feet which could have dire implications for future ecological systems. Microbes are so important for fixing diatomic nitrogen (fertilizer!), providing food for other ecologically valuable species, and cleaning up nature's garbage (leaf litter and animal carcasses) to make highly enriched soils. Needless to say, humankind will be up shit creek with no paddle should the climate cause these microbes' habitats to become less hospitable. We will also be collectively starving. For an example of what our midwest "breadbasket" may look like in 100 years, see the Sahara desert.
On the flip side, what's even more worrying is the recent explosive emergences of tropical pathogens in non-tropical climes. The govt. has admitted that our temperate latitudes are warming; they have an entire department devoted to studying emerging diseases due to global climate change!
And that's just microbes. I wouldn't have a job if the normal soil microbiology in Colorado wasn't being slowly replaced with organisms that prefer warmer, more basic soils....
Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:46 PM
Posted 26 January 2007 - 06:41 AM
The denial of responsibility for global warming by Fundamentalists is consistent with a pattern of dogmatic acceptance of preferred fantasy tales as opposed to uncomfortable or subversive facts that can be known through science. I'm getting a mental picture of Homer Simpson covering his ears and going La La La to prevent hearing uncomfortable facts.
Any minute I expect Our Glorious Christian Leader to announce a faith-based initiative to fund the Salvation Army to do biblical research on the subject of climate change. Paul Wolfowitz and Darth Cheney could serve on the review committee to verify that the facts found by the study are the preferred facts.
Posted 29 January 2007 - 12:32 PM
First of all, I really could have done without the the boring autobiographical content, or the self-promotion on Gore's part. Almost half of the film's content consisted of him talking about himself, almost as if he's trying to sell himself for another run for president. It gave me the feeling that it wasn't so much a science documentary as it was a movie by Al Gore about Al Gore starring Al Gore. While I did support him in 2000, I can't say that I appreciated his making me sit through him talking about himself all that time.
Second, I seriously wish that he would have cited his sources, instead of asking people to take his word for it during his presentation. That way those who are interested can check out the sources and read up on the issue themselves. Likewise, those who doubt his claims can look it up and see for themselves. I really would have liked to see how he derived his statistics and figures. Instead all he has is a link to HIS website at the end. Where are the interviews with experts, or the names to his studies? Hell, even putting a little bibliography at the bottom of each chart would have sufficed.
Third, he spent about 95% of the movie on exposure or "spreading awareness" and about 5% explaining the solutions to the problem, or what each of us can do to help. It should have been 50-50. I don't appreciate how he only shows very brief slides of things like alternate energy sources, without devoting the least bit of explanation to them. I got the feeling that he was being patronizing, as if it wasn't worth his time to go into that much detail about solutions to climate change.
Fourth, it is seriously disingenuous of him to put 100% of the blame on Republicans or Republican lobbyists. The Clinton administration, which he was a part of, had 8 years in office to start putting in place many of the changes he spoke of, like higher emissions standards, and yet it dragged its feet. Clinton even vacillated on the Kyoto treaty, if you remember. When Bush took office in 2001, he did little more than continue the policies and trends that Clinton/Gore had started. Of course, all of the subsequent cuts to environmental regulations were entirely Bush's fault, mind you.
All in all it wasn't a terrible movie, but I would not use it as a reference source or an in-depth educational tool either.
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:11 PM
Posted 29 January 2007 - 06:11 PM
Posted 30 January 2007 - 07:34 AM
As I mentioned before it isn't if global warming is occuring, but rather is there anything we can actually do about it. We'd all like to believe we could be a part of the solution but in reality, could we?
There might be some advantage in sequestering CO2 by pulling it out of the atmosphere and pumping it into old oil wells, caves, and such. The goal being to seal off only extracted CO2 thus reducing the atmospheric content.
Planting green things is never a bad idea either.
Posted 30 January 2007 - 03:11 PM
Prof, I hope you're being facetious about pumping carbon dioxide out of the air and into old caves. That most likely wouldn't work.
Posted 05 February 2007 - 10:23 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users