"An Inconvenient Truth"

[Teagan]

I went and saw Al Gore's movie last night and I must say, it was quite an eye-opener. These people that claim that our period of global warming is just cyclical when the facts and figures prove otherwise, are plainly wrong.

It seems almost nobody in the scientific community believes that global warming is not a man-made issue yet articles in magazines and the press try and imply that there IS massive division amongst the scientific community - which there isn't.

The Bush administration is so preoccupied with 'global terrorism' but, as the largest polluter in the world (at the moment), it is allowing mankind to walk into a whole new, terrifying world with our eyes wide open.

Anyone else see the film and have views?

[budda]

I havent seen the film but I am mystified by the people who say that the warming is largely natural and so we shouldnt do anything.

Surely even if the warming is largely natural we should be doing everything we can not to add to it.

[seeker]

Go see the film if you like but afterwards . . .

Keep a tight hold on your wallets and purses ;)

[purplebutterfly]

Surely even if the warming is largely natural we should be doing everything we can not to add to it.
My thoughts entirely. America produces so much pollution is ridiculous, plus India and China cant be that far behind them.

[Teagan]

Go see the film if you like but afterwards . . .

Keep a tight hold on your wallets and purses ;)

Which means ... that it will cost us?

Yes, there is no doubt it will cost us. But if we don't pay now, your descendants will experience a life of hell in just a few generations.

The polar ice caps are melting and even a rise of 20 foot in sea levels will see huge amounts of people (many millions of people that is) being displaced in the Americas, China, India, Bangladesh etc ... it's bad enough trying to deal with 100 000 refugees but this will be on an almost unimaginable scale.

[Namaste]

My thoughts entirely. America produces so much pollution is ridiculous, plus India and China cant be that far behind them.
What about OUR lifestyles???

The average 'eco-footprint' for the south west is 5.24... So if everybody lived like us we'd need five planets to sustain the human population.

[Namaste]

Go see the film if you like but afterwards . . .

Keep a tight hold on your wallets and purses ;)
Why?

Living green isn't that expensive is it?

[Fiend_85]

I havent seen the film but I am mystified by the people who say that the warming is largely natural and so we shouldnt do anything.

Surely even if the warming is largely natural we should be doing everything we can not to add to it.
Also, all we do that reduces polution also reduces consumption of resources that are, fact, running out. Which is a reason to do it as much as anything else.

[Aladdin]

Scientists now believe by 2040 the North Pole will be completely ice-free in the summer.

Which means the entire polar bear population will die.

And you still get cunts claiming there is no such thing as man-made global warming or that it doesn't really matter if the planet is warming up.

Fucking sad and sickening.

[purplebutterfly]

-']What about OUR lifestyles???



We're crap as well. But at least we are starting to focus on it more unlike some other contries.

[Namaste]

Scientists now believe by 2040 the North Pole will be completely ice-free in the summer.

Which means the entire polar bear population will die.

And you still get cunts claiming there is no such thing as man-made global warming or that it doesn't really matter if the planet is warming up.

Fucking sad and sickening.
Wel yeah of course people deny it, for two reasons...


That you cannot blame Communists, Muslims or any group of people for it like you can for terrorism. It is down to our own consumption of fule and goods and a lot of people don't wish to change their lifestyles. Too many people are content with real roses on valentines day, apples imported from South Africa, being able to drive their cars everywhere, processed food, cheap flights, wide screen televisions and seven hundred different pairsof shoes.
Most scientists who denied climate change were funded by the companies who are contributing to it... Also, in many ways it is not in the interests of a country's leader which makes so much money out of anything which damages the environment, to admit to it.


I do feel sad for polar bears. The loss of up to 40% of all biodiversity is something that's expected. All because we're greedy, lazy, self-centred and pampered...

But then both China and India are industrialising quickly and their demand for fuel is going up.

What can you do, stop countries from developing?

We need to stop investing our development aid on oil and fossil fuel projects and start investing in renewables for the global south as well as setting examples here at home (we can't expect a country that aspires to be like us to use renewables if we don't).

We need to cut down our consumption and especially eat less meat. And to stop importing out of season fruit and vegetables from other far away places. We need better public transport, or at least some form of private transport which is environmentally friendly.

We need to ban cheap flights, especially short haul flights from London to Manchester... I mean what the fuck???

[Namaste]

We're crap as well. But at least we are starting to focus on it more unlike some other contries.
How exactly?

[sophia]

.

[Teagan]

Scientists now believe by 2040 the North Pole will be completely ice-free in the summer.

Which means the entire polar bear population will die.

Apparently, over the last year, is the first time people have been finding numerous bodies of polar bears 60 miles out to sea - who drowned from exhaustion because they could not reach the (expected) ice flows .... horrifying.

[Aladdin]

-'] What can you do, stop countries from developing? No. But making them more efficient, responsible and cleaner.

It is possible to evolve and develop and yet cut on emissions. If everyone in this country (and presumably most other countries) were to swtich their light bulbs to energy efficient ones, we would cut our energy consumption by a massive 20%. Just like that.

And if we change people habits and get it into their heads that driving a monster truck is an irresponsible act and that they are acting like selfish dickheads (unless they really need one, and 90% of them don't) we would cut on CO2 emissions quite drastically as well.

And if we put more pressure, even the threat of economic sanctions on those nations that refuse to cut down their emissions (one or two come to mind) then we will make even more progress.

So a lot of things can be achieved without detriment to development. We just need some twats in Washington and elsewhere to stop lying and acting like selfish greedy scumbags and to admit that there is such thing as man-made global warming after all and that we need to act very very quickly or things are going to go very wrong indeed.

[budda]

Not just focusing all our efforts on CO2 would be a good start too, methane is far far more 'warming' than CO2 and there seems no push to reduce that.

[I'm With Stupid]

Not just focusing all our efforts on CO2 would be a good start too, methane is far far more 'warming' than CO2 and there seems no push to reduce that.
I agree on that, but on the main point. Even if the vast majority of the scientific community are wrong, and global warming isn't being caused by human actions, does that mean that we should just go on consuming every natural resource this planet has? Or should we try and actually cut down on our consumption anyway?

[Namaste]

Not just focusing all our efforts on CO2 would be a good start too, methane is far far more 'warming' than CO2 and there seems no push to reduce that.
Yes it does, but methane only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere whereas CO2 can last for up to 200 years.

Not that methane isn't important however...

CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and cement production... Methane comes from livestock farting, rice production and landfill sites. A problem we have here is that rice is a part of the staple diet of billions of people world-wide.

[minimi38]

-']What about OUR lifestyles???

The average 'eco-footprint' for the south west is 5.24... So if everybody lived like us we'd need five planets to sustain the human population.


"Eco footprint built on weak scientific foundations and should not be used in sustainability debates."
http://imv.net.dynamicweb.dk/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fRapporter%2f Verdens+og+Europas+tilstand%2fecological_footprint .pdf

[Deep Fathom]

Unfortunately what's necessary is a collective effort, not individual ones because the latter isn't going to entirely solve our problem. Sure, contribution is good and all that, but one individual won't solve this massive problem (am not saying you should not care, because one should never give up struggling for this). The problem is an earnest attempt of the calibre necessary is too costly and I'm intrigued at when the world and the major polluters realises the consequences.

You can't really blame them. Many people are willing to contribute to something invisible to guarantee maximum productivity. Thing is it isn't that invisible anymore and the we're seeing right now who values money over our future environment.

It doesn't happen over one night. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day, but someone has to lay the first brick, innit?

[Namaste]

"Eco footprint built on weak scientific foundations and should not be used in sustainability debates."
http://imv.net.dynamicweb.dk/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fRapporter%2f Verdens+og+Europas+tilstand%2fecological_footprint .pdf
Something a little more recent?

A few criticisms of this article:

Eco-footprinting is an attention grabbing device - Good, people need to have this kind of thing brought to their attention. Every model will have its fault somewhere. The good thing about the eco-footprint is that it is simple and understandable. It has also probably evolved since this was written.

It is not clear whether the concentration of CO2 is a problem yet - People have been arguing climate change for at least a decade. I wonder if this would change now there is new research.

People will be switching to renewables soon - Hopefully, but that doesn't mean that it is any less valid at this time.

Any model can be criticised, it could also be seen as ethnocentric too, but it is widely used and personally I do think that it is a useful tool.

Note: Will read the entire article when I get time.

[CheeseOnToast]

I should really start contributing more to the planet, considering I am that way inclined I am all too lazy when it comes to recycling etc.

Time to pull my finger out I think!

[Disillusioned]

The simple attack on scientists questioning global warming that they're in the pockets of oil companies is in many cases a completely unfounded criticism. And it works both ways, there's scientists on the other side who have a vested interest in pushing the scaremonger theory that we're doomed...

For Al Gore, Greenpeace and co the fact that there is no proof that radically changing our behaviour will stop climate change must be a truly inconvenient truth. Ban every car, ground every aeroplane, completely end the use of fossil fuels - there's little evidence to suggest it would make any difference.

Nobody denies that the climate is changing but anybody who thinks we're doomed unless aeroplanes are banned and everyone is driving around in hybrids is deluded.

Many of the scientists who believe global warming is caused by natural processes are highly respected. (As are many of those who disagree with them). I don't know who is right - I'm guessing time will show much of what we've heard from the latter to be exaggerated.

Fossil fuels are going to run out and become more expensive, they also make us reliant on some unsavoury sources. If the doomsayers are right viable alternative fuels or the simple reality of the oil running out are the only things that will make any real difference. Sticking windmills on houses, banning 4x4s and slapping 'green' taxes on everything that pollutes might make the likes of Al Gore feel good but it won't do much else.

Climate change 'is the norm' - and 'global warming is indeed a scam.' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm)

[Teagan]

The simple attack on scientists questioning global warming that they're in the pockets of oil companies is in many cases a completely unfounded criticism. And it works both ways, there's scientists on the other side who have a vested interest in pushing the scaremonger theory that we're doomed...

The vast majority of scientists are on the side of those who believe global warming is a man made event.

For Al Gore, Greenpeace and co the fact that there is no proof that radically changing our behaviour will stop climate change must be a truly inconvenient truth. Ban every car, ground every aeroplane, completely end the use of fossil fuels - there's little evidence to suggest it would make any difference

So we just stop trying?

Computer forecasting systems show that small changes in our lives will have real impact of the carbon emmisions we produce.

Nobody denies that the climate is changing but anybody who thinks we're doomed unless aeroplanes are banned and everyone is driving around in hybrids is deluded.

I haven't hear anybody go as far as that ...

Many of the scientists who believe global warming is caused by natural processes are highly respected. (As are many of those who disagree with them). I don't know who is right - I'm guessing time will show much of what we've heard from the latter to be exaggerated.

There is plenty of evidence to show that we are going through an unnatural and extended period of global warming - completely unprecedented in history. It's a fact. The three other occurrences within the last 1000 years or so were very short and did NOT reach the temperatures we are experiencing now.

Climate change 'is the norm' - and 'global warming is indeed a scam.' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm)

And this is a different, minority viewpoint which you are fully entitled to believe. But ice samples drawn from the Arctic ice sheets show that what we are going through is a hugely freakish event with nothing remotely similar occurring to this scale for the last 650 000 years. The changes we are experiencing now are so sudden, so dramatic and so prolonged.

It may well be that in time that the above writer of teh article is proved right but until that time, it is best to err on the side of caution. Even if we can maintain current levels of CO2 emissions, it is better than ignoring the situation and finding out that the majority was right when it is too late.

"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences." WC

[minimi38]

There is plenty of evidence to show that we are going through an unnatural and extended period of global warming - completely unprecedented in history.

unprecedented my arse.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/minimi38/globaltemp.jpg

[Namaste]

unprecedented my arse.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/minimi38/globaltemp.jpg
Where did that picture come from?

Do remember that the creataceous period ended around 65 million years ago. So the scale of the temperature rise is relative to that.

The Pleistocene period lasted just over a million years I think... Look at the scale to which the temerature has changed during the pleistocene period then compare it to how much it has changed so far since 11, 550 years ago.

Unless I'm mistaken, we have only been farming for around 8,000 years, when the weather was suitible. We are still more dependent on agriculture than we think. Also, yes, the planet does go through periods of climate change, but this has been proven to be made a lot worse by human activity. We are causing it to heat quicker than the earth's biodiversity can adapt, essentially we're on our way to killing the planet.

[Namaste]

The simple attack on scientists questioning global warming that they're in the pockets of oil companies is in many cases a completely unfounded criticism. And it works both ways, there's scientists on the other side who have a vested interest in pushing the scaremonger theory that we're doomed...
But why would they have an interest in 'scaremongering'? Why would the UN want to scaremonger?

For Al Gore, Greenpeace and co the fact that there is no proof that radically changing our behaviour will stop climate change must be a truly inconvenient truth. Ban every car, ground every aeroplane, completely end the use of fossil fuels - there's little evidence to suggest it would make any difference.
Says who?

Nobody denies that the climate is changing but anybody who thinks we're doomed unless aeroplanes are banned and everyone is driving around in hybrids is deluded.
Like who?

Many of the scientists who believe global warming is caused by natural processes are highly respected. (As are many of those who disagree with them). I don't know who is right - I'm guessing time will show much of what we've heard from the latter to be exaggerated.
But then could it be too late? That's like saying "I don't know if smoking will give me cancer so I'll keep at it and hope I don't get ill".

Fossil fuels are going to run out and become more expensive, they also make us reliant on some unsavoury sources.
Such as?

If the doomsayers are right viable alternative fuels or the simple reality of the oil running out are the only things that will make any real difference. Sticking windmills on houses, banning 4x4s and slapping 'green' taxes on everything that pollutes might make the likes of Al Gore feel good but it won't do much else.
Why not?

Climate change 'is the norm' - and 'global warming is indeed a scam.' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm)
Got anything more recent?

[minimi38]

-']Where did that picture come from?

Do remember that the creataceous period ended around 65 million years ago. So the scale of the temperature rise is relative to that.

The scale is quite clearly shown by the size of each period's block. Earth has been in one of the longest cold spells in its history.



The Pleistocene period lasted just over a million years I think... Look at the scale to which the temerature has changed during the pleistocene period then compare it to how much it has changed so far since 11, 550 years ago.

eh?


Unless I'm mistaken, we have only been farming for around 8,000 years, when the weather was suitible. We are still more dependent on agriculture than we think. Also, yes, the planet does go through periods of climate change, but this has been proven to be made a lot worse by human activity. We are causing it to heat quicker than the earth's biodiversity can adapt, essentially we're on our way to killing the planet.

The above article showed that the per capita footprint is declining and that earths biodiversity can cope. More efficient use of resources caused by economic growth and third world farmers using their land better (they have the largest land to yield ratio) mean less and less land is needed to sustain the human population.

The article also reviews previous doom and gloom predictions and shows how they all turned out to be nonsense.

[Disillusioned]

-']But why would they have an interest in 'scaremongering'?

Scientists taking the doomsayers line through their frightening guesses of what's to come attract attention from politicians and the media. This translates into wider press coverage, more government funding, UN funding and lucrative junket and summits. And the 'green' groups making up the global warming lobby are pretty wealthy organisations these days. As for the other side, sure, some oil companies have funded a few small think tanks that have raised a few difficult questions but I don't think it matches the scale of benefits for scientists who subscribe to what is fast becoming the establishment opinion on global warming.

-']Says who?

Er, that's just the fact...To put it simply, thinking on global warming so far hasn't got much further than observing the rising temperature and explaining it by human activity. Will changing human activity - i.e. reducing emissions, have an effect? It might do but there is absolutely no evidence that it will. Guesswork about how future behaviour will affect the climate isn't proof.

-']Such as?

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia for a start.

-']Why not?

Because there isn't any evidence to say that sticking windmills on houses and banning 4x4s will stop climate change.

-']Got anything more recent?

Are you not capable of looking for yourself? I found this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm) interesting though.

[Aladdin]

http://www.appleseeds.org/ostrich.gif

[Teagan]

Are you not capable of looking for yourself? I found this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm) interesting though.

But these are minority views. For every ONE article you show me, I can produce dozens. Is it worth hanging on to the fact that the minority MAY be right in the long run? I don't think so - but you seem willing to take that chance. Are you not in the least bit concerned about your descendants and any wrong choices you make today?

[Teagan]

unprecedented my arse.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/minimi38/globaltemp.jpg

So you were around then, were you? In PRE-history? Of course it has been hotter than this before - such as the birth of planet. And the planet was a lot different then with far more volcano activity etc.

I reirterate - there is no period in history where the temperature of the earth has risen so quickly and in such a short time (apart from natural disiaters like comets hitting the earth or abundant volcano activity etc). If it is not humans causing the increase in temperature, please enlighten me?

And wipe your arse while you're at ...

[minimi38]

So you were around then, were you?


were thermometers in existance 200 years ago? 500? 5000?

edit: oh har har

[Teagan]

were thermometers in existance 200 years ago? 500? 5000?


As I said, extractions from the ice at the Poles give scientists a good window on the weather during the last 650 000 years ...

Edit : Har har

[Toadborg]

There is absolutely zero chance of people changing their lifestyles to the degree needed to contain the process of golbal warming.

This is aptly highlighted by the fact that everyone looking at this right now is WASTING ELECTRICITY PISSING AROUND ON THE INTERNET.

If you are interested in 'saving the planet' the TURN YOUR PC OFF NOW AND NEVER TURN IT ON AGAIN.

But no-one will........

We have to hope that technological advances will be made to curb the negative effects else if the predictions are correct then the future generations are going to have a hard time of it.......

[Teagan]

There is absolutely zero chance of people changing their lifestyles to the degree needed to contain the process of golbal warming.

This is aptly highlighted by the fact that everyone looking at this right now is WASTING ELECTRICITY PISSING AROUND ON THE INTERNET.

If you are interested in 'saving the planet' the TURN YOUR PC OFF NOW AND NEVER TURN IT ON AGAIN.

But no-one will........

We have to hope that technological advances will be made to curb the negative effects else if the predictions are correct then the future generations are going to have a hard time of it.......


It's more to do with you turning off the unneeded light on the landing while you dont require it as you piss around on the Internet. You can still live AND be energy concious! ;)

[Toadborg]

You need the internet to live?

The point is that switching out the landing light whilst certainly being helpful and all, will make next to no difference to saving the cutesy wutsey polar bears. The change in lifestyles needed to prevent global warming from causing the predicted havoc is simply too large for all but the most dedicated to even contemplate doing.......

[Teagan]

You need the internet to live? You KNOW that is not what I meant ....

The point is that switching out the landing light whilst certainly being helpful and all, will make next to no difference to saving the cutesy wutsey polar bears. The change in lifestyles needed to prevent global warming from causing the predicted havoc is simply too large for all but the most dedicated to even contemplate doing.......

Well, lets stop giving money to the starving Africans then too. They'll only want more next year. There is nothing we can do about it. The sun comes out, dries up their land - simple. It's the way it is.

It's a shame that those that ARE dedicated will have to share the same rewards as the apathetic.

[Toadborg]

I didn't say there was no point doing anything, I was just saying that i see no hope of people doing what is necessary.

Are you trying to claim that you are dedicated, well you aren't because you are pissing around on the site right now.......

Also the starving African analogy is a very bad one. Emergency aid to Africa would have directly beneficial consequences of the kind not seen by action to tackel global warming. Which is one of the reasons why we won't change our lifestyles sufficiently....

[Teagan]

Are you trying to claim that you are dedicated, well you aren't because you are pissing around on the site right now.......

Well, now you are being just plain silly. I would have expected more of you. Noone is saying that you have no right to entertainment or to live a life. Noone is suggesting slipping back into the stone age. But as I said, turning off that unnecessary light, for instance, goes that little bit towards helping reduce CO2 emissions. And if you told your friend and they told their friend etc that prudent care of electricity usage is helpful to decreasing CO2 emissions, all the better. It may be fanciful of me to presume that many places or people in this world can follow such a lead, but does it mean we stop trying? And what harm is it doing? Certainly far less harm that assuming the worst without at least giving it a try. The human race has thrived on challenges and this is what make us who we are today. We can beat this challenge too if we wake people up to it. Loads of US cities are signing up to the Kyoto agreement against the wishes of Bush - and the more they do so, the more chance there is that we can finally get the biggest polluter on board and that, in itself, would reduce emissions considerably.

Also the starving African analogy is a very bad one. Emergency aid to Africa would have directly beneficial consequences of the kind not seen by action to tackel global warming. Which is one of the reasons why we won't change our lifestyles sufficiently....

My analogy is completely correct. Just because you can see the 'benefit' of your aid going to Africa doesn't mean that the charity operations won't be sending out begging letters out next year as the annual famine kicks in. That's my point of my analogy. We can't make the famine in Africa stop so why not just let nature take its course with those millions of people - we can't make other people change their production of CO2 emissions so why do anything ourselves?

Analogy aside, you are saying that we won't change our lifestyles because we don't see the direct beneficial consequences that feeding the starving in Africa gives us. Er duh? The consequences of global warming is happening right now. No snow in Austria and Switzerland at this time of the year, warmest year in the UK on record, Hurricane Katrina earlier on in the year etc There is every evidence of what the consequences are - just look around you. Surely you can tell the difference between winter when you were a child and now?

Anyhow, we will obviously agree to disagree.

[Namaste]

I didn't say there was no point doing anything, I was just saying that i see no hope of people doing what is necessary.

Are you trying to claim that you are dedicated, well you aren't because you are pissing around on the site right now.......
So you're saying that we should all live in teepees?

You never know, Teagan might go with ecotricity. :)

Renewable electricity sources are available, but in the meantime you can do things to help save energy. It's not about becoming a ludite.

Er, that's just the fact...To put it simply, thinking on global warming so far hasn't got much further than observing the rising temperature and explaining it by human activity. Will changing human activity - i.e. reducing emissions, have an effect? It might do but there is absolutely no evidence that it will. Guesswork about how future behaviour will affect the climate isn't proof.

I really don't see your arguement here. We have put all these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is contrbuting to climate change because of certain properties of the gases... So what you're saying is that if we stop burning fossil fuels there's no proof there'll ever be an change? Therefor we should keep on living our non-sustainable lifestyles?

[Disillusioned]

But these are minority views. For every ONE article you show me, I can produce dozens. Is it worth hanging on to the fact that the minority MAY be right in the long run? I don't think so - but you seem willing to take that chance.

If you think scientific thinking on a particular issue is invalid because it is a minority opinion your position is very flawed. Countless major scientific breakthroughs have came through a minority (or even lone voice) questioning orthodoxies.

Are you not in the least bit concerned about your descendants

Yes, I am.

and any wrong choices you make today?

I just don't see using aeroplanes as a 'wrong choice' that will have any tangible effect.

[Teagan]

If you think scientific thinking on a particular issue is invalid because it is a minority opinion your position is very flawed. Countless major scientific breakthroughs have came through a minority (or even lone voice) questioning orthodoxies.

Where did I say 'minority opinion' was invalid? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? For fucks sake, WHERE??????? The point that is blatantly obvious to all those apart from them that will not see, is that until the minority opinion proves otherwise, for the sake of the planet one should err on the side of caution and the majority opinion. If this is indeed a 'natural' warming cycle, our CO2 emissions are just exacerbating the issue. If we take action now in light of majority opinion, we certainly are not going to harm the planet until the minority opinion proves otherwise ...

Yes, I am.

But obviously not enough to want to even consider affecting your present standard of living. After all, it's unlikely you will ever meet your great grandchildren. Who cares about then, huh? What if the 'minority opinion' you espouse is incorrect?

I just don't see using aeroplanes as a 'wrong choice' that will have any tangible effect.

Remember Concorde apparently destroyed the ozone? Flight obviously can have some effect on the environment. But as other people pointed out in this topic, long haul fights are unavoidable. Fine. Keep them. But do we need to fly between Manchester and London? Personally, I don't think so. Obviously, some internal hops between UK cities may be unavoidable but in general, it's not quicker. Hanging around in airports before and afterwards gives a traveller no real time saving. But you are also missing an obvious point, so it seems. Reduced number of air flights is only one in a number of steps that we can take to reduce CO2 emissions. On their own, you are correct - reducing CO2 emission from aircraft would have little effect.

[Disillusioned]

Remember Concorde apparently destroyed the ozone?

:lol:

[ricdiculous]

good film, good points
however i do worry that all the scenes where Al Gore wasn't in the lecture theatre he was either in an airport on a plane, being driven in a car or on his obviously apple laptop! :chin:
didnt like those bits!

[Teagan]

:lol:

It's no wonder most people on here think you're a twat.

[Jim V]

good film, good points
however i do worry that all the scenes where Al Gore wasn't in the lecture theatre he was either in an airport on a plane, being driven in a car or on his obviously apple laptop! :chin:
didnt like those bits!

Yeah, I was astonished they made that level of a mistake - the bit where he was 'I've given the slideshow hundreds of times' - whilst looking out of a jet? All I could think was - I hope you took a train at least once...

[Teagan]

good film, good points
however i do worry that all the scenes where Al Gore wasn't in the lecture theatre he was either in an airport on a plane, being driven in a car or on his obviously apple laptop! :chin:
didnt like those bits!

I guess that's a good point BUT for one man to travel all those hundreds of thousands of miles (and being in person would have been a big attraction) and educate/awaken people to the potential dangers is acceptable. Now, if he happened to drive a Hummer or similar when he lived his normal life, I would be worried then.

[Aladdin]

Speaking of double standards, it makes me laugh how Arnie has promoted and directed California's "war on car manufacturers" regarding the pollution they give out when only a few years earlier he lobbied and eventually convinced the people who make the Hummer to launch a commercial version for the public.

[ricdiculous]

Yeah, I was astonished they made that level of a mistake - the bit where he was 'I've given the slideshow hundreds of times' - whilst looking out of a jet? All I could think was - I hope you took a train at least once...

poor production really, if they wanted to show that you can reduce carbon but live a normal life then do a scene on solar panels or something

also i was bit bumused about his sisters death, upsetting etc but relevence? also that bit about how his farm has changed because of climate changed but didnt actually show us!
parts it felt like gore's biopic with bits about climate change thrown in! the more i think about it the more the film dissapointed me.


BUT it did raise many really good points

[Namaste]

poor production really, if they wanted to show that you can reduce carbon but live a normal life then do a scene on solar panels or something

Or wind turbines and switching to something like ecotricity...

Which I gotta do actually.

[Disillusioned]

It's no wonder most people on here think you're a twat.

Well the claim that Concorde is responsible for destroying the ozone is pretty funny...

Who? Tbh this is an outlet I use to talk politics, outside this little forum I'm pretty apathetic to the '4x4s are evil' crowd.

[Teagan]

Well the claim that Concorde is responsible for destroying the ozone is pretty funny...

Ok - that did look ambiguous. I did not mean to imply that Concorde was solely responsible for damage to the ozone.

[Teagan]

Who?

Have a look at the usual response to you and your postings ...

[Disillusioned]

Have a look at the usual response to you and your postings ...

Riight.

[Jim V]

Just to point out Teagan - it's good, in fact it's fucking vital that people have different views on issues - otherwise there would be no reason why this debate should even exsist.

If other people treat one member badly - then they are a problem and an unpleasantness - not some kind of defence for you to treat someone badly.

You might also want to bear in mind that someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a twat - but thinking someone shouldn't be allowed to express a different view to you, pretty much does make you sound like a twat.

[Teagan]

Just to point out Teagan - it's good, in fact it's fucking vital that people have different views on issues - otherwise there would be no reason why this debate should even exsist.

If other people treat one member badly - then they are a problem and an unpleasantness - not some kind of defence for you to treat someone badly.

You might also want to bear in mind that someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a twat - but thinking someone shouldn't be allowed to express a different view to you, pretty much does make you sound like a twat.

Well, he is maddening. He puts words into my mouth which I never said ... that isn't debate.