The Inconvinient Truth
So, I finally watched the new Al Gore movie/documentary, An Inconvinient Truth. I have to say that even three days after watching it, the images of the ice bergs melting and the billowing smoke from industrial exhausts continues haunt me . . .
Here are my main thoughts about the movie/documentary:
1) Even though I found the flashbacks about Al Gore's life in the movie interesting, I did find them distracting during the presentation about global warming. Also, they left me with a lot of unanswered questions while I was watching the movie like: What happened to his son? (he survived, btw) and Why did Al Gore live in Washington and only spend his summers in the farm? (because his father was a senator of course), etc.
2) In general, I found his argument about global warming pretty convincing but he was essentially preaching to the choir. I have been pretty convinced that Mother Nature has gone berserk for some time with all these tsunamis, hurricanes and really hot summers. However, I have to say I was irked to find no scale on the y-axis on the CO2 graph that was shown and other potentially misleading graphs (groan) . . .
3) Even though I am convinced of the problem, unlike some other people, I have a hard time finding meaningful ways of solving it. After all, the environment is pretty fragile and influenced by forces greater than myself. As a result, I feel that Al Gore left me stranded with this feeling of impending doom with very little guidance on how to save the world.
I don't mean to sound too critical because it was a good production overall and should give people something think about (and facilitate a real change in attitudes about climate change). And who knows? It might even motivate me to cut down on my hot showers . . .
Here are my main thoughts about the movie/documentary:
1) Even though I found the flashbacks about Al Gore's life in the movie interesting, I did find them distracting during the presentation about global warming. Also, they left me with a lot of unanswered questions while I was watching the movie like: What happened to his son? (he survived, btw) and Why did Al Gore live in Washington and only spend his summers in the farm? (because his father was a senator of course), etc.
2) In general, I found his argument about global warming pretty convincing but he was essentially preaching to the choir. I have been pretty convinced that Mother Nature has gone berserk for some time with all these tsunamis, hurricanes and really hot summers. However, I have to say I was irked to find no scale on the y-axis on the CO2 graph that was shown and other potentially misleading graphs (groan) . . .
3) Even though I am convinced of the problem, unlike some other people, I have a hard time finding meaningful ways of solving it. After all, the environment is pretty fragile and influenced by forces greater than myself. As a result, I feel that Al Gore left me stranded with this feeling of impending doom with very little guidance on how to save the world.
I don't mean to sound too critical because it was a good production overall and should give people something think about (and facilitate a real change in attitudes about climate change). And who knows? It might even motivate me to cut down on my hot showers . . .
15 Comments:
How can i not respond to this post?!
Recently, I have been taking a few environmental classes at the Chicago Center for Green Technology. I recently went to a lecture that took a somewhat different perspective on what we can do as people to help the environment. Basically, this idea of making everything "greener" is a lost cause if we don't set big goals for ourselves in the future. The term "greener" is totally relative. An example covered in the lecture was "green" buildings. Typically the idea of being "green" means reducing your pollution. But how much pollution reduction does it take to be considered "green"? One building may reduce 1 ton of CO2, but should we really consider that "green"? According to this, one SUV may be considered "green" when compared to another.
So how does this tie back to the movie? Well, my problem with the movie was that it didn't get political enough. For a long time I have heard these numbers, known the issues, and considered my impact. So the science was interesting, but old hat for me. I wanted Al Gore to come out and say exactly what we can do to solve the problem, and I know that is asking a lot. But he doesn't, he explains the importance of voting (though he doesn't get into it too much), and at the end of the film, it gives you a bunch of ways as you, the individual can make a dent. I think this movie contributes to the idea that these small steps are all we are going to need, when in reality we need our government to be held accountable for the future of our planet.
So do I think that we shouldn't take actions as individuals? Absolutely not! I am a firm believer that every individual can make a difference on this planet. I am a firm believer that every vote counts, and every little thing you do in life matters. That's why I drive a hybrid, recycle, have all the lights in my apartment as compact flourescents, have every appliance energy star, and have a time controlled thermostat. I think all these things matter, but not as much as what our government can do for us. They can make the big changes necessary. So that's why when you go out to vote (and if you don't vote, you definitely can not complain about the future) make sure you know exactly what you are voting for, and if that is what you believe in.
Inconvenient Truth needs a sequel. "Inconvenient Truth 2: Why the government refuses to look out for your health?" Or maybe "Inconvenient Truth 2: What I wish I would have said during the 2000 elections."
P.S. Don't feel too guilty about your hot showers. Just look forward to the future of getting a solar water heater.
Well, I have been reading a novel - The state of fear by Michael Crichton. His novel was filled with 20 pages of references at the end and he goes on to use these references to prove that global warming is more hype than a proven scientific fact...
I must say that like you, I was convinced that global warming is occuring but after reading that book, I am more agnostic... I would prefer to read the journals and see the data myself than hear a politician or an some eco-friendly organization preach to me about it... Not that I think that scientists do not believe in global warming but they did believe in eugenics until the second world war... or to hit the point a little closer to home, till the 80's they believed that we are entering into another Ice Age...
Hey Eric-
I totally agree that being "green" is a relative term and not very easy to evaluate. I can see how energy saving appliances is a clear step in the right direction. But, in the matter of plastic vs. paper, it is more complicated.
Recently I read about an innovative company called Carbon Neutral . What do you think of this effort?
Also, has anyone seen this one?
Who Killed the Electric Car
@ BAL-
Actually, this is a topic that I thought IT does a good job with. I agree that the Global Warming debate has become highly politicized and it is hard to figure out if a science is being manipulated to fit vested interest. There are some prominent skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg who have gained prominence. But it is important to keep in mind that his controversial book was found to have "scientific dishonesty".
Since I would have a difficult time interpreting actual climate data, I have found mainstream magazines like Time and The Economist a useful resource. Finally, reading about bizarre weather catastrophes across the globe, I realized even if scientists don't understand the final impact, it is plausible and highly likely that human activity is having a detrimental effect on the environment. . .
Without naming names, I hope you don't become like someone we know and confuse fact with fiction.
Carbon Neutral, TerraPass, and even this new policy the UK is instituting (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1823853,00.html) are having a positive affect. However, I think what these initiatives encourage is spending more to maintain current consumption/waste. I understand the idea behind them is to make people realise that they will save more money by conserving, but as Americans have shown, we will pay whatever cost to maintain our lifestyle. Look at gas prices. I don't think i have heard anyone say that they have reduced driving, I just hear people complain about how much they spend at the gas pump. Don't get me wrong, I think they have the best intentions, but I think it tends to teach people it is better to compensate than to conserve. The reason I believe in conservation is because there are/will be things in this world we will not be able to replace.
As for "Who Killed the Electric Car", I have not seen it, but I have heard that it is more focused on interviews with celebrities/politicians and so i was not excited to hear a bunch of opinions. I will probably watch it eventually (and if someone can correct my opinion, I'll be more eager to).
I also agree that politicizing and opinionating science can definitely skew it to the point where it is no longer factual. But the issue of global warming is two fold. It makes us look in the mirror and realize that at our current rate of consumption, we will cause a meltdown of our civilization (whether it be the US or the world). You can't argue that oil is an infinite resource. So even if you don't want to secede to the point that CO2 is warming the atmosphere, you might recognise that we are running out of that resource. Even if you don't want to believe that our biggest threat to our health and way of life is the extreme weather/drought/flooding that will occur due to global warming, you can admit that our next biggest threat is the wars that will ensue for natural non-renewable resource control (Note: I said will and not are, as that issue is up for debate). The problem our country faces, in terms of energy consumption, ironically fall hand-in-hand with the issues that cause global warming. So even if the science did some how get politicized, loss of natural resources is still a VERY large problem.
And I find it somewhat funny that even though the issue of global warming has been politicized, gained celebrity backing, has journalists putting in their two cents, it is still a losing issue. What I mean is that despite what the public says, there is currently no large scale environmental reform being brought about by the U.S. government. But this is just my opinion. born a libran, I would love for you to post some of those references that Michael Crichton has in his book. I do enjoy seeing the other side of the arguement (this might be why i enjoy watching fox news on a regular basis).
P.S. When it comes to paper and plastic, cloth is the best choice ;). Paper is better IF it comes from recycled material (as it can once again be recycled itself). Plastic can be recycled as well. A reusable carrier is by far the superior though.
In the last month or so, there have been news reports that a group of scientists show global warming might actually be beneficial for the survival of humans. in effect, their counter-argument to the argument of global warming is that humans and plants adapt well and adapt fast to such small temperature variations, resulting in more robust crops and extra land area available for cultivation. of course, some area near the sea shores will be submerged but they calculate (using detailed simulations) that the benefits outweight the negatives. my 2 cents (that are not american)
littlecow, I would be interested in seeing these studies. To me they do not make much sense because it does not seem to take into account that climate change will not always be small temperature increases. From what little i know, it seems to me that it is actually an exponential increase. Every year, more and more of the polar ice melts away. This is our largest source of reflecting light. Thus, the less polar ice, the more light that is absorb by the planet. This in turn heats the planet. Currently, we have a large source of polar ice. But every year that there is less polar ice, which means that more light is absorbed than the previous year. Thus, every year, the amount of temperature change is more than the previous year. And likewise, with the temperature increase, more polar ice is melted than the previous year. But, when we run out of polar ice, theoretically our temperature shouldn't increase beyond that. But, this little example does not take into account that while the polar ice is melting, we are also continuing to put more and more CO2 into the atmosphere (thus increasing the temperature even faster).
Perhaps the study you mentioned does take into account the fact that the polar ice caps will be gone, and perhaps CO2 does not contribute to global warming, but does it also consider the change in weather patterns that will occur with the disappearance of the polar ice?
I posted on State of Fear.
Here you go eric!
http://soc.enotes.com/global-warming-article/40262
Keep writing your interesting viewpoints... They make good reads!
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
Check out this document. 17 000 researchers saying that for all we know, increased emissions of CO2 might actually be good for the planet and for us. Al Gore is using some really dirty rethorical tricks saying that there is consensus in the world of science concerning global warming.
Jonas Henricsson
jgh.logimatic@telia.com
Jonas, thanks for the post. I took the time to review the abstract on "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". Interesting read, though there were a few points that I'd like to discuss.
First, let's talk about the studies view of global surface temperature. This study basically says that one cannot suggest that global warming is increasing at an alarming rate based on surface temperature, mostly due to temperatures taken in urban areas far exceeding rural areas due to "urban heat island effect". Nevermind that the surface temperature measurements are averaged and not all are taken in urban areas, we will assume the abstract is correct, and that the only way to determine what the heat increase is, is to look at atmospheric temperature.
The abstract itself states, "At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth's atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. It does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated." So we will ignore the possibility that the atmospheric CO2 levels could have been altered due to unknown atmospheric factors. So let's analyze the data taken of atmospheric temperature. First, it is apparent to me that most of the data sets are only taken between 1979-1998. Why not over a larger period of time so we can if the increase is more dramatic? More disturbing is when they plot a trend to the data. Look at the end points of the trend. On all of the graphs, the data set does not end at the most recent data, but rather at the year in which temperature is decaying. This is most apparant in figures 6-8. This does not seem to be the most accurate method of determining a trend. I would have more faith in this data study if they had taken more points into consideration. Also, I find that it would be a better study if it was more recent and not from 2001. I also wonder why in figures 2&3, the data is only shown up to 1975, wouldn't it have been useful to include everything beyond 1975 as well?
I would also that I am glad that I do agree with one part of this abstract. "There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases such as H2O and CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere decrease the escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth." So we do agree that temperature is increasing, we just disagree on the affects that it will have. Increased plant growth and animal activity does not necessarily attribute to all positive effects. It just means that the hardier fauna and flora will survive, while the ones that need a more stable environment. Take polar bears for example. Their populations have turned to canabilism because food is getting harder to come by. The reason food is becoming more scarce is because ice flows are further apart due to the melting. Some may look at this as a natural evolution, but I look at this as a systematic destruction of the natural ecological system, one in which we cannot know if increased plant growth is necessarily a good thing.
And lastly, here is a little info on one of the authors of the abstract from Jonas' website.
blog.joehuffman.org/2005/05/23/Quote+Of+The+DayArthur+B+Robinson.aspx
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
If I was to indulge myself on a cheap pun, I would say, "This discussion is heating up". But I won't.
Getting back on topic, D sent me an opinion written by the lead author of one of the scientific papers used by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear" and others. He clearly states that he believes that his study has been misintepreted and misunderstood.
As for me, the fact that a part of the world or even the average temperature of the world over a certain period is not increasing does not lead to the conclusion that there is no "global warming". This is because when I talk about "global warming", I am talking about climate change due to human activities (particularly burning of fossil fuels, etc). The warming of the earth's atmosphere is a likely result of this activity but I think scientists disagree on what exactly is going to happen.
Interesting note: In the Doran opinion, he cites the lack of a hole in the ozone for a possible reason that can lead to the warming of the Antartic. Does this make sense?
@Bdeshini: I read that and I am aware of the piece... So there is this thing called Urban Heat Effect which causes the temperature of a city to increase because irrespective of the temperature of the surroundings. This is because the breeze is not allowed to flow as easily due to the buildings. Now there is a correction factor due to the population in cities (because they are increasing in size) applied to the raw temperatures before we see the corrected temperature. Now Crichton claims that that temperature factor might not be right. If you remove big cities from the temperature studies and look at the temperature over the last 150 yrs, he claims that the rise in temperature is not sharp over the last 30-40 years but is the same as expected before that... He shows some 30-40 graphs for this in the book. There is also a paper he cites which says that the temperature factor might not be right because in some city, in Austria the population did not increase but the UHE has increased. I dont know how good the scientific critic is but the point remains that if you remove just the big cities, then probably, the avg temperature does not increase sharply (I use probably because I am ignorant of any such study). Yes, this is human activity but would you rather remove all the buildings? Another thing is if the average global temperature increases, that is the reason it is called "Global" warming - not because of local effects.
As the website that Jonas' linked to states, surface temperature measurement cannot be used to determine whether or not global warming is happening (whether or not I disagree with this is irrelevant). Did Crichton look at any atmospheric data?
Also, there is a somewhat ironic point that you made, that most environmentalists need to consider. It is that humans are the biggest threat to the environment. Thus, extremists would have you believe that suicide is the only solution to saving the planet. But then who would be here to enjoy the beauty of the world? My opinion is that through conservation and responsible human interaction, humans will one day be able to coexist with the natural world.
Interesting discussion. As a scientist working in the field of global climate change, I'm still surprised to learn there are folks that are not sure if it is a problem. Unfortunately there are a lot of reports out there that obfuscate the issue with irrelevant facts. I loved how during the Supreme Court hearing to determine whether CO2 was a pollutant that should be regulated, people were arguing that CO2 is a fertilizer and we should all look forward to increased crop yields. World hunger solved!! It is true that it has been shown that plants increase their primary production under elevated CO2. If they're getting all the other nutrients they need. That would be great, if crop yields were limited by carbon.
I'm super proud of Al and his nobel prize. I have my fingers crossed that we are in the beginning of a wave of a green revolution! People in the United States now see this as the most important domestic issue after health care.
Post a Comment
<< Home