From Ireland…this looks like something we should all take a closer look at…it brings up a LOT of interesting points that have not been considered by the general population.
There aren’t any points in that preview that I haven’t already heard people from the general population make. What’s new in it?
It’s from Europe, and offers substantive fact based analysis of what is going on with the climate…it is finally nice to see some of our European friends get behind the science of what is actually happening.
Well, they sure don’t put any science in their preview.
Too late to edit.
And looking at contributors listed on their websites they don’t seem to really have a lot of scientists listed other than the ones they are trying to debunk. Have you already seen the whole film? I assume you have since you talk about it being about science even though there is very little in the preview or on the film’s website to show that the film is really concerned with science in any way.
I can recall seeing a powerpoint presentation that had NO science behind it, yet it won an Academy Award…maybe a little research would lead you to finding out a bit more…or you can be dismissive, and keep your head in the sand…
Should I use peer-reviewed scientific journals for my research or should I just listen to lawyers and lobbyists that work for heavily polluting companies?
Of course you will choose whomever supports your point of view…I would rather look at it from a much less biased position (from partisan views and lobbyist funded organizations), and make a determination that we should try to be the best stewards of the planet as possible, but not to the detriment of human kind, as a whole…
It is a matter of prioritization…we cannot change solar fluctuations (which is the #1 source of heating or cooling of the planet, regardless of CO2 emissions) We can look out for the welfare of those who do not have water or medical treatments…
Global Warming (change or whatever you want to call it) is an alarmist notion that detracts from beneficial works that those of us with the ambition and resources can accomplish in a direct matter, such as taking care of the homeless, donating time at hospice, etc.
I realize that LA is burning…the west typically burns pretty good every year that I can recall, and that goes back a few years longer than you have been alive, for sure…is the cause Global Warming? No…it is the result of overuse of resources and poor community planning in the case of LA…that many humans in such a small area is a bad recipe for living, and I’m afraid it will get worse, before it gets better…the drain on the water resources is a huge emcumbrance on what is happening locally for you, but there are other areas in the Sates and the world that are thriving beyond your comprehension, because it is not in your sphere of influence.
Arguing this point, when you are not even remotely receptive to other possibilities is akin to navel gazing, and that is not an excercise I care to be engaged…
To dismiss the new documentary based on what you’ve already written speaks volumes…
Wow… aside from some things that skrobo and howdidigetsogood posted, this is one of the most ignorant posts I’ve seen here.
You’re interesting.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html
I choose to believe what Al Gore said…
From the author (an atmospheric physicist at MIT who was the lead author of Chapet 7 of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming) of the article:
I chose to follow a scientist in this regard. (Your personal opinion and attack are indicative of a lack of REAL information to back your position)
I guess i’m a bit confused on this.
Is this recognizing global warming and accepting it, that with it everything will be ok? (Ignoring the animals that will die.) Or just trying to disprove it?
A big thing I don’t understand is where does change fit into all of this (i’m not talking about Obama’s change either). People ASSUME if we act on global warming we are just going to shut down everything and leave everyone without jobs. We would first get jobs up on green energy plants and systems to make a bunch more jobs, then make the switch. And THEN close down the factories. NO LOSS OF JOBS! Come on… Really are people that ignorant to the fact we wouldn’t prep for something like a big chance in industry? This blows my mind. Haven’t people basically come to understand we really aren’t doing much about this anyway. So why agrue? The little we are doing is leaving no one without jobs. Again, mind blowing.
-Shaun Johanneson
p.s. “Al Gore needs to go about his business somewheres else.” WHAT? Somewheres!!! Why would you interview this person! Um… “Somewheres” isn’t a word. That told me all about his character and the content in this film. Bad move. It one thing for a typo or mispelled word, but to speak that horribly, I’m not even talking about an adjective where an adverb should be. No this is just a word that doesn’t exist.
Have you seen the documentary?
You make claims about it that aren’t substantiated by what I could find out about the film (from it’s own website, which I would assume would glorify it’s own work) so I can only assume you must have already seen the film. Unless you have and give me additional information it would be a stretch to say this film is fact based or about the science of what is happening.
Again I could be wrong, I haven’t seen the film. I’m only going off the information I can find from the producers of the film, but I really don’t see any scientific basis that the film has. They certainly don’t show it in the preview or on their website.
You’re missing a large part of what I said. And you are jumping to conclusions.
I stated three things. That the trailer confused me. Already showing, no i haven’t seen the documentary. Did you read my post?
I insulted the people in the trailer saying “this town would collapse” if their industry was shut down. Thinking there would be no change in anything before this happened.
Then I took the guy with the horrible english and questioned why they interviewed him period. Or put the interview in the trailer. It shows me their bad choices, or desperation. Just a huge horrible first impression. Again saying I haven’t done any research on my own. (First impression)
I was replying to VideoToast, you happened to post during the time I was writing my response. I agree with you. My views are based on the trailer which give little evidence that the film focuses on science at all. Their website doesn’t either.
I have seen both an inconvenient truth, and the great global warming swindle, and another movie that tries to disprove human influence on global warming. They all have equally convincing arguments. The question now is who to believe?
I can see the motive behind both sides of the argument, but the side opposing global warming it seems like they would have a much much stronger motive, whereas the motive behind trying to prove it exists is very insignificant it seems.
But I have decided until one gets proven, perhaps only through time, I do not intend to have a position on this. Not that I would even count, due to my underageness.
You do count though. You can’t vote for a few years. But you can make purchasing decisions, influence the purchasing decisions of your parents, and take small actions against energy waste, etc.
All very notable and intelligent things to do, no matter your opinion of global warming…
Like I have stated, being a good steward of our planet is a good thing…but to follow in lock step with a BAD idea, is a very bad thing to do…
(some forms of recycling actually are a detriment to our environment, when you consider the additional trucks and fossil fuels it takes to make 2 and sometimes 3 trips to pick up the different recycling bins…when 1 truck could do it all, and then a single sort facility…I digress)
We obviously a agree on a lot of things. My only point is that this documentary seems to be as biased and unfounded as every documentary on anything even slightly political.
My only point in this thread is that to say this documentary is scientifically founded seems unwarranted based on the evidence available from the film preview and the film’s website.
Just because someone who does not speak English as their first language is a perfect speaker, it doesn’t mean they are stupid in their profession.
Apparently you do not see the motives of both sides. On the global warming side, you have a multinational governmental organization that has been trying to impose taxes on the world for a while now and “climate change” is their global fear mongering tool to hopefully allow them to do this. On the other side, you have the appearance of large energy companies that will suffer if their product is limited. We’ve all been taught to hate these companies. The energy companies will do just fine either way though, because if co2 emitting products are limited, they will likely be the ones to adapt to provide the new replacement technologies. The UN on the other hand, will have to find a new “threat” to scare us all into believing.
So, if you are following the money/control, you have to side against global warming (and all other wars governments fear-monger us into).
I believe the person he is referring to is the man in the pick up truck, of whom there is no evidence to assume that he is not a native speaker or to assume that he is any sort of expert on anything related to the film.