[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by RedShirtWalking

Oh, I know! Yet, people think he is still the chief prophet on "Global Warming" (TM). I will never understand that.

At least he's brining it to people's attention.

[RedShirtWalking]

...like people tried to do when they thought the Earth was flat.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by RedShirtWalking

I really loved the part where he's talking about his friend who does core samples of the ice at the South Pole and, where the ice gets cleaner and clearer his friend says, "See that there...that's where Congress passed the Clean Air Act that President Clinton signed." (Or something like that.)

What a crock of ****e.

That would be referring to the measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations in air trapped in the ice cores. Basically the way the whole thing works is that the deeper the ice sample, the older that ice is and the older the air trapped in the ice is. So you measure the carbon dioxide concentration in the ice, probably using an infrared sensor. I forget how they determine the age of the particular sample, but you take the age of the sample and it's carbon dioxide concentration and compare it to estimated temperatures of that time period.

Getting average temperature estimates that far back in time is a complicated process unto itself. There are like several different proxies that can be used. But in any case, they are indirect measurements. Again, they are ESTIMATES, and are not direct measurements. And they only show correlation not causality. Takes even more additional steps and assumption to try to establish causality.

[Berengarius7]

I still think pollution can be dealt with responsibly and effectively and we can use our science and technology to find better ways to clean it up, and better ways to avoid polluting in the first place. But i think the real threat is nuclear proliferation. Now there's a way we humans can make this planet unlivable real quick. Oil slicks don't disperse lethal radiation and vaporize millions of lives in a second. Nukes are indiscriminate killers and the result of dropping one are horrifying beyond belief, not to mention an environmental nightmare. If our nations can't convince each other to get rid of these awful, horrible, apocalyptic weapons, and if some half-crazed idiotic despot starts throwing them and we start throwing them back, it's going to be all over for everyone. Nuclear weapons are doom in a pandora's box. A box i pray to almighty God that we never open again. In fact, i wish we could get rid of the box.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Berengarius7

I still think pollution can be dealt with responsibly and effectively and we can use our science and technology to find better ways to clean it up, and better ways to avoid polluting in the first place. But i think the real threat is nuclear proliferation. Now there's a way we humans can make this planet unlivable real quick. Oil slicks don't disperse lethal radiation and vaporize millions of lives in a second. Nukes are indiscriminate killers and the result of dropping one are horrifying beyond belief, not to mention an environmental nightmare. If our nations can't convince each other to get rid of these awful, horrible, apocalyptic weapons, and if some half-crazed idiotic despot starts throwing them and we start throwing them back, it's going to be all over for everyone. Nuclear weapons are doom in a pandora's box. A box i pray to almighty God that we never open again. In fact, i wish we could get rid of the box.

Well you can't put the "genie back in the bottle", but like you said things can be negoitated.

[FanWriter45]

Here's something interesting: Go to Space.com, and search topic for "Global Warming Mars" and follow the links...

Temps are up all over the solar system. Not just Earth. I think the sun is running a mild fever, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

[Akula2ssn]

Probably increased sunspot activity

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by SiskoNX01

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Wea...4682216&page=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc4SPG-bFIo

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...nvenient-truth

Algore used CGI shots from The Day After Tomorrow for his "Documentary" An Inconvenient Truth.

I'm not at all sure I understand the point of this "accusation". The reason the documentary used a few CG shots from that film is that it depicts a cataclysmic event which hasn't happened yet. Preventing that occurence is the point of the film (whether you buy it or not, that much is clear).

There is no way Al Gore or anyone can provide actual documentation footage of an event which would exist in the future. And if you don't think documentary films routinely provide illustrating examples to make a point, then you don't watch many documentaries.

If the argument here is that the clip shows an event which hasn't happened yet means the entire film and subject is fake, then that's a another fine example of logical fallacy... which is a very poor way to prove one's argument.

Opinions aside, I always wonder how many people discussing this film have actually bothered to watch it first?

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

I'm not at all sure I understand the point of this "accusation". The reason the documentary used a few CG shots from that film is that it depicts a cataclysmic event which hasn't happened yet. Preventing that occurence is the point of the film (whether you buy it or not, that much is clear).

There is no way Al Gore or anyone can provide actual documentation footage of an event which would exist in the future. And if you don't think documentary films routinely provide illustrating examples to make a point, then you don't watch many documentaries.

If the argument here is that the clip shows an event which hasn't happened yet means the entire film and subject is fake, then that's a another fine example of logical fallacy... which is a very poor way to prove one's argument.

Opinions aside, I always wonder how many people discussing this film have actually bothered to watch it first?

Mission-

You make some good points. But one of the other things that has been brought up (besides that footage) is that much of the other footage is not on point. Like the "cutting into the ice" scene were Al claims that it because of Clinton's policies that the ice is in better shape there. That kind of testing is nebulous and generalized that they were doing.

[FanWriter45]

This whole thread is biased anyway. You'll notice the OP used the Limbaughian "Algore" in reference to him. Obviously, the information we're being led to is deeply slanted in a GOP, polluter-friendly direction. (i.e. we're being manipulated.) So is this another trick by the fat, oxy-contin addled mind of Rush Limbaugh? Like his recent attacks on the democratic process?