Jump to content
Complete France Forum

An inconvenient Truth


Recommended Posts

Just watched, for the second time, the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. I think what he's saying about global warming needs to be taken more seriously by many people - me included. If what he is saying comes about, sea levels will rise by 40 feet, say about 14 metres. Even if he is out by a factor of five or ten, we are in for some interesting times. Glad I didn't buy a house anywhere near the sea or a river.

My view is there is definitely something to what he says. Some of the evidence he puts forward is fairly convincing. Enough to make you sit up and spill your cup of tea. It is just a question of scale and time - and not as much time as you might think.

I think it would be no bad thing for everyone to watch this documentary and discuss it with all and sundry. I first saw it broadcast on TV, but I got it from my DVD rental place yesterday and I'm going to download it from Amazon tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ford Anglia"]Good going. And when you've watched that one, get hold of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and compare the evidence.[/quote]

and then take a look at the suggestions on my previous post on another thread:

 Bugbear wrote:

Watch this for an alternative view. Seems to make a lot of sense to me.

It certainly makes interesting telly but is not necessarily very accurate or very scientific- it has been criticised in many quarters. See these links here and here and here for example.

Danny

Its very difficult to be sure about anything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear.

The scientific evidence is clear and unambiguous - global warming is here. We had better start taking note of this uncomfortable truth.

The television programme was a piece of entertainment not science. It was not even good journalism. It operated on the principle that that there will always be someone resisting orthodoxy. So they sought anti-orthodox individuals and gave them airtime. The scientifically-illiterate public assume that if there are alternative views, those views must be of equal importance to the orthodox views and that therefore there is a debate. They are renegade views - they are of questionable validity. There is no debate.

This has happened before. Remember MMR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has always seemed to me that these alternative views about global warming are put forward to salve the consciences of those who aren't prepared to do their bit (the US government for one?)and who would rather bury their heads in the sand and hope that they die before the consequences of the way in which we treat the planet are reaped.  OK, I know I'm boring on this subject, but even if you choose to ignore the body of evidence, there are still very good arguments for taking care of the ways in which we use limited resources .  Will our energy supplies last for the next generations if we continue as we are now?  What will we do with all the rubbish we accumulate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jane and Danny"]

 Bugbear wrote:

Watch this for an alternative view. Seems to make a lot of sense to me.

It certainly makes interesting telly but is not necessarily very accurate or very scientific- it has been criticised in many quarters.

Its very difficult to be sure about anything...

[/quote]

Of course the 'pro-GW' crowd disagreed it was a counter-argument.

Something is happening, pretty much no doubt about that and we should all do whatever we can. What really gets me wild are these stupid morons in government who grab any excuse they can to increase the tax burden of ordinary people, all in the name of global warming.

If you're rich, of course, you can just carry on as normal and just buy yourself some offsetting carbon points. Hypocrytical is a word that springs to mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Clarkkent"]

Oh dear.

The scientific evidence is clear and unambiguous - global warming is here. We had better start taking note of this uncomfortable truth.

The television programme was a piece of entertainment not science. It was not even good journalism. It operated on the principle that that there will always be someone resisting orthodoxy. So they sought anti-orthodox individuals and gave them airtime. The scientifically-illiterate public assume that if there are alternative views, those views must be of equal importance to the orthodox views and that therefore there is a debate. They are renegade views - they are of questionable validity. There is no debate.

This has happened before. Remember MMR?

[/quote]

Right. So why were the self-same scientists you now insist are correct, screaming that the next ice age was coming, during the seventies, when carbon dioxide emissions were almost as high as today?

And why do records show an increase in global temperature hundreds of years ago when carbon dioxide emissions were very low?

Sorry, it's not as cut and dried as the doom-mongerers are saying.

And the cycles of the sun? Do THEY have NOTHING to do with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford Anglia  thanks for that link.

We're doomed! or not as the case may be ...

The Great Global Warming Swindle was very interesting.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170  

More compelling in a way than the Al Gore effort.

The main thrust is that global warming is not caused by an increase in carbon emissions (from all sources), but that carbon emissions increase when the temperature of the earth increases.  What causes the temperature of the earth to increase ?  In their view the sun is responsible for variations in the average temperature of the earth. 

If global warming is not being caused by man-made (man-caused) carbon emissions, then the global warming argument as it stands falls apart, in fact it falls down ...  :-)

So we may just have a lot of people tilting at windmills.  People with vested interests; particuarly their job, or their research grant, or not losing "face".  This side of the argument seems to be very credible. 

However, regardless of the cause and consequences of global warming, what remains, in my opinion, is a strong need to husband our finite resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In France,  a lot of cynical people are claiming that the government has introduced radar devices just to earn more money for the state's coffers. The fact that thousands of lives and tens of thousands of horrific injuries are being spared each year means nothing to them.

Similarly, cynicism greets the global warming  alerts - and attempts to discredit the bringers of bad news are being made:" it's all a plot to raise taxes" is once again being used as an an argument to  prevent limits being put on our (the rich countries)  wholesale  rape of the planet.

 In fact, in real terms, petrol in the rich countries is cheaper now today than ever before - a real price hike in the price at the pump is the only way to limit waste, cut airborn pollution and encourage collective means of transport.

     It's  easy to claim that ecologists have 'hidden agendas'  or that governments introduce ecologic programmes to perpetuete 'tax swindling measures', but it is also highly dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Highly dishonest like perpetuating a false argument about the relevance of the role of humans in carbon emissions? Yours is a political argument, not a scientific one.

I think you will be hard pressed to find someone who does not agree that we need to take measures to sensibly use finite resources and not pollute the planet, but please let's be honest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Paysages de France"]In France,  a lot of cynical people are claiming that the government has introduced radar devices just to earn more money for the state's coffers. The fact that thousands of lives and tens of thousands of horrific injuries are being spared each year means nothing to them.
[/quote]

Perhaps they, too, have seen that much of the death reduction is due to safer cars, crumple zones, better tyres, better brakes, seatbelts, seatbelt pre-tensioners, airbags, side airbags, built-in roll cages, safer windscreens, better designed junctions, better road surfaces, better signs, lower speed limits, education of drivers and pedestrians etc etc..............but do ANY of those get a mention by those campaigning FOR speed cameras? Nope.

There's dishonesty everywhere, it's endemic. Just like the DfT claiming in the UK that speed cameras were CHEAPER than flashing speed signs. They "accidentally forgot" to figure in the cost of the actual camera, and quoted a price for just the housing? Dishonest? You tell me.[;-)] 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in terms of the global warming and its causes debate, people will read into the various arguments and points what they want to see.  It is a well-researched technique for resolving potential conflict in our minds - cognitive dissonance - works every time. [:)]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Thibault"]I think in terms of the global warming and its causes debate, people will read into the various arguments and points what they want to see.  It is a well-researched technique for resolving potential conflict in our minds - cognitive dissonance - works every time. [:)][/quote]Bang on Thibault. [:D]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: "perhaps they, too, have seen that much of the death reduction is due to

safer cars, crumple zones, better tyres, better brakes, seatbelts,

seatbelt pre-tensioners, airbags, side airbags, built-in roll cages,

safer windscreens, better designed junctions, better road surfaces,

better signs, lower speed limits, education of drivers and

pedestrians etc etc..............but do ANY of those get a mention by

those campaigning FOR speed cameras? Nope."

    "Safer cars?' - not in the case of SUV's which are prone to turn over  as their centre of gravity is too high and which cause horrific injuries to pedestrians if hit.

  All of the above mentioned  advancements in any case were in place in 2002, when the yearly death toll in France was still around 8000 per year . Radars were introduced  and immediately thousands of lives were saved.

         There are speed restrictions for very good reasons - to flout them puts lives at risk

    I'm not particularly happy about the fact that there are radars on the roads but I  know that it is the only way to save lives.

         

      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="cooperlola"]  OK, I know I'm boring on this subject, but even if you choose to ignore the body of evidence, there are still very good arguments for taking care of the ways in which we use limited resources .[/quote]

Not to me Cooperlola, you are never boring on this subject. As far as I am concerned, you can repeat it over and over again, as you are absolutely spot on. Eventually, with enough repetitions,  it might sink in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are too kind.  This subject and the way in which it is debated just makes me grind my teeth.  I'm a speed freak so my head says a different thing from my heart but even so..  Say, for the sake of argument, that global warming is either a) a myth or b) is not caused by we humans.  Even so, without the development of sustainable alternatives, what do all those people who think it's a con', propose that their children and their children's children run their cars, heat their houses etc with when the oil runs out?  Where are they going to put all the waste that's being produced?  What will happen to all the spent nuclear reactors?  IMHO it's a spurious argument really.  We have to face the consequences of our consumersism, even if we argue about the causes. 

We have an ageing population, there are more and more of us born onto the planet every year and in the developed world we live longer.  We cannot stop the 2nd and 3rd  worlds wanting what we have, and mass communication brings our world - or at least a view of it - closer to them every day.  We should not be debating the causes, but how to deal with what we do about this, and how we persuade developing nations of the importance of thinking about the long term effects of industrial expansion - without depriving them of the opportunity to live long and well.  At the risk of sounding patronising, those in the developed world have a responsibility to show an example and lead the way.  It's not just a matter of recycling a few bottles and buying a Toyota Prius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cooperlola

There's the rub.  How can we tell developing nations they can't have what we have?  Sanitation, lighting / electricity, transport infrastructures -  things that we take for granted that make a huge difference to people living more fulfilled lives.  On the other hand it is imperative that we husband our resources and fill less holes in the ground with our detritus.

Notions of happiness not coming from material possessions will probably not have currency with people who have very little.  This is a preoccupation of the well off.  Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs and all that ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Paysages de France"]     "Safer cars?' - not in the case of SUV's which are prone to turn over  as their centre of gravity is too high and which cause horrific injuries to pedestrians if hit.

I'm not particularly happy about the fact that there are radars on the roads but I  know that it is the only way to save lives.
         
      
[/quote]

The point you make about SUV's is complete 'anti-4x4' garbage and shows a high level of ignorance on the subect.

Speed cameras have their uses and placed in known problem spots, they do their job. Unfortunately that is not the case in many situations. Police statistics in the UK have shown actual increases in accidents in some areas when cameras have been installed.

If you can show me a speed camera that can catch people on their bl**dy phones, messing with radios/sat nav's, reading maps, flicking cigarettes out of the windows not using signals or just driving badly then they would get my vote.

Until then, the majority are just a means of income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments are 'Complete Anti 4x4 garbage ?'

      You arte mis-informed, as usual.

  SUV's are prone to turn over because of a higher centre of gravity - it's a fact.

 And, anyone who had the choice of vehicle  if they were to be  run into would choose a Clio rather than a SUV with or without  anti buffalo bars attached I'm sure....

  As for speed cameras 'getting 'or 'not getting' your vote - that's irrelevant as the government has been voted in and can pass laws installing speed cameras if they wish to without referring to you.

   Individually, you have only the power to waffle on and on, on internet forums, which is why I (as well as promoting the landscape protection  cause here) belong to an association agreed to act in justice and which achieves positive  results all over France.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bugbear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop encouraging PdF. These sort of posters just looooove confrontational posting.

And as for waffling, whilst I haven't read all your posts PdF I don't think you've included one provable statistic in all of your rantings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...