D.Zero

See that is the thing that gets me. Global warming, extreme climate shifts or climate crisis is happening all around us and to think otherwise is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all the facts. What it isn't is a partisan political issue....even if Al Gore is leading the charge. It is something that should concern every one of us as people who live on this planet. I just don't get the war on science and reality.
As for ther packaging. Good for the company to put their money where there movie is.

movielib

Some think the global warming alarmists are the ones misusing science and denying reality.

Try reading the link in Post #30 with an open mind.

baracine

Except we now know that those people are actually paid to tell lies that mislead the masses by powerful, behind-the-scenes "think tanks" financed by fossel fuel industries and global eco-rapists.



P.S.: Your link in Post 21 doesn't work, by the way.

movielib

Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before. I'm still waiting for you to refute their points which you never attempted last year during the Cirque de Montreal. Not to mention that you ignored my point that the alarmists get probably hundreds of times more funding from governments and environmental groups than skeptics get from industry and the alarmists' funds would dry up if they stopped alarming. I'm not saying anyone is lying for money but the alarmists have much more at stake and much more motivation for pushing their agenda.

They've changed it.

Now go here:

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm

and click on the links for each chapter.

I recommend that at least people read the Appendix: Summary of Distortions.

ignition

Global warming documentary?

Don't you mean global warming science fiction?

baracine

That's right. They want to save the planet you live on. Whereas the skeptics (who are never scientists) are lying for money.

movielib

Such as these 2660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and evironmental scientists?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm

Or these 5017 chemists, biochemists, biologists, and other life scientists?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm

baracine

Will you stop? If such a monumental, and otherworldly petition exists and is organized by «a small research institute on aging», set on a backroad in Oregon, with mysterious funding, don't you think it sounds a little fishy and stinks to high heavens and that, just possibly, Mr. and Mrs. America can see through such a transparent lie?

Here's the sourcewatch «smear» on that one: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

Fortunately, this kind of «mind pollution» is not the kind that is threatening the planet.

movielib

What would you do without Sourcewatch?

Oh yeah, maybe you'd feel you had to actually answer the skeptics. Which I have never seen you do.

If you're so sure the petition is phony please show us that many of the names were discredited. I do know the enviros tried to discredit it by sending in phony names but they were caught at that and the names were removed. They also ridiculed it for having the name "Perry Mason" on it and he turned out to be a real person, a Ph.D. chemist.

And how many scientists of that type even are there? I don't know and I'll bet you don't either. I do know that there are a fair number of climate scientists among the names because I recognize them. If the discrepancy between 2100 and 2660 is supposed to mean something I would think the 2100 number comes from whenever in 1998 he was asked and the number is now 2660. And of course there are many more physicists than climate scientists. I'm sure that's true of the general population.

I'd like to know how, in any event, your statement that "the skeptics (who are never scientists)" has validity whatsoever.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in rerunning last year's thread. I refer people to that thread:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=446849

baracine

This will be my final entry because you really should go back to that "political" forum. There is no bona fide scientist (zero, nil) who has recently written about the question of climate change who doesn't believe it is happening. The only argument among scientists is the depth of the doodoo we are in. The only nay-sayers, on the other hand, are paid political activists masquerading as experts and working for bogus research institutes installed in a barn in Oregon who further the interests of big oil companies and benighted car manufacturers and other friends of the big-scale polluters. They don't necessarily believe what they say but they at least have the excuse to send their children to college with the money they are being paid in secret slush funds. In your case, I really think you believe that stuff and that is very, very sad.

You should at least watch the DVD. It would déniaiser you, as they say in Somerset Maugham.

Rockmjd23

I never would have guessed a global warming dvd thread would turn into a movielib vs baracine debate.

movielib

OK, one more post.

That's absolutely true. No bona fide scientist says global warming isn't happening. All the skeptics say so. But the questions are, how much global warming is happening (I think not nearly as much as the alarmists think), how much is cause by humans emitting CO2 or other greenhouse gasses (I think no more than 25% of the total warming, possibly much less, particularly if the cosmic ray connection pans out) and what can we do about it (I think because it's mostly natural, very little; plus, limiting emissions will slow economic growth and technological advances, the very thing necessary to fight any real problems that may arise, not to mention that such slowing will hurt everyone and the poorest countries the most).

But your mischaracterizing the skeptics' positions is typical of the alarmists' approach (and journalists even more so). It's much easier to defeat a strawman argument than the real one. I had to correct you on this in last year's thread and I see nothing has changed.

That accusation is ridiculous (Richard Lindzen works at MIT, William Gray at Colorado State, Fred Singer at George Mason University, Sherwood Idso was at Arizona State, Sallie Baliunas is at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Ross McKitrick is at University of Guelph, Ontario, Patrick Michaels (yeah, I know, he made a mistake once) is at the University of Virginia... I could go on but your accusation is destroyed, I don't need overkill). The skeptics are every bit as well credentialed as the alarmists. And the skeptics get much less funding (from all sources) than the alarmists. If they wanted the money to the point of dishonesty, alarmist would be the way to go.

Oh, yeah, but they are being paid "in secret." But if it's a "secret" how is it that you know about it?

I'm perfectly comfortable so it's not necessary for you to condescendingly weep for my benighted beliefs.

baracine

NO, but I know enough not to piss in the wind and to check my sources, unlike some. When I hear that a petition of 15,000 "scientists" has been assembled under false pretenses by a podunk research institute located in a farm house in Oregon in order to contradict generally-accepted CO2 levels findings, a little bell goes off in my head, I smell a rat and I consult an above-ground and reliable outfit like sourcewatch.com whose only reason for existence is to warn the gullible against the ill-intentioned of this world.

Lt Ripley

I'll tell you one thing. We need to put corks in all the volcanoes, pronto!

movielib

nemien, I apologize once again. I know this is not the subject for the DVD Talk Forum. I stayed out until it was derailed again by others.

baracine

bohemian1

I think this dvd is overpriced. It should have been around $12. Global Warming issue is for everybody - not for privileged people who can afford such dvds. Of course, there are other dvds - Global Warming (pbs, Alanis Morissette as narrator) you need to consider.

dvd_luver

I love the cartoon sketches!

BTW, did anyone see a Wal-Mart exclusive boxset with an energy saving light bulb. That has to be the first, a boxset with an eco-friendly movie and DVD and an energy saving light bulb -- with the name WAL-MART written on it. I bought it just to own it! They are selling it for around $20 bucks.

D.Zero

I approach most everything with an open mind. I've looked at evidence in support of both sides and frankly, I don't see how anyone can think the world isn't getting unnaturally warmer. I mean for God's sake, the perma-frost is melting. People unwilling to see what is right in front of their face really are shoving their heads into the sand. And like I said, I don't see this as anything close to a partisan political issue but instead as something that should unite people.

"If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly," - Ronald Reagan, 1982.

movielib

Hey, no problem. I think your talking as if it's a settled issue though (as the alarmists do) is baloney. Believe it or not I think what is right in front of our faces is that this is an extremely overhyped and exaggerated issue and the skeptics are not only not putting their heads in the sand but are right when they say this is an extremely overhyped and exaggerated issue and "solutions" such as Kyoto will do far more harm than good.

The ""unnaturally warmer" world is a whole .6 degrees celsius warmer than it was 100 years ago. Some permafrost is melting, much isn't (I suspect that's always true with the possible exception of ice ages). Sea levels are not drastically rising, coral reefs are not dying off, there is scant evidence that the warming has caused more or stronger hurricanes (it's the unpleasant part in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation that's been acting lately and even so, this year was a big bust (which was good, of course), partly because of a late El Nino but mostly because it simply was a big bust), species are not dropping left and right (the 784 species that have become extinct in the last 500 years, according to the IUCN Red List, has been holding steady for many years), the big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have not been changing much overall (melting at the periphery, building up in the interior for the most part) etc. etc. Probably at least three-fourths of the warming is natural and even more may be natural, especially if the cosmic ray connection pans out (experiments conducted at CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory by dozens of scientists from eighteen prestigious universities and research centers over the next few years should tell us; see http://info.web.cern.ch/Press/PressR.../PR14.06E.html ). Furthermore the effect of CO2 increases is diminishing. Each molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less warming ability than the one before it. That is because CO2 warms by absorbing radiation at particular wavelengths; as those become saturated, they have less effect. It's as if you have a window that you cover with a shade. Let's say the shade blocks out 50% of the light. Then you add another shade which blocks 50% of what's left or another 25%. The next shade blocks a further 12.5% etc. Each shade has less effect than the one before just as each molecule of CO2 has less effect than the one before until there is virtually no further effect. Do you ever see any of this stuff in the mainstream media?

I could go on all day.

Have you read any of the stuff in the second above paragraph and, if so, what reasons do you have for dismissing it?

You say you have read both sides but excuse me if I think you may be missing something on the skeptics' side. I think the mainstream media has become an advocate on the alarmist side and 99% of reporting ignores the skeptical side. Several reporters for outlets such as ABC, CBS and CNN have even been quoted as saying they don't have to cover or talk to anyone on the skeptical side. The latest ploy is to call the skeptics "deniers" as if they are in the same class as Holocaust deniers; some have even said there should be Nuremburg type trials to punish the "deniers" for their "sins." It's not exactly easy to get a fair hearing in such an atmosphere (if you'll pardon the pun).

Yet there is a huge wealth of information on the skeptical side; but it can only be found by digging around, mostly on the internet (I'm not talking about just blogs or interested party propaganda - those exist on both sides - but real science by real scientists, reported by outlets not in the mainstream because the mainstream ignores it). Very few people ever see it.

BTW, did you read any of my link in Post #30? Can you say it's got things wrong and Al Gore is right?

We self-deluded ostriches salute your superior, supposedly obvious knowledge.

Ethan VanSciver

As an impartial observer, I declare Movielib the winner.

D.Zero

First off, the Kyoto accord was a terrible treaty and we were correct to pull out of it. I'm not convinced we have come up with a better alternative but getting out made a lot of sense to me. Second, Al Gore is not the be all, end all as far as climate change is concerned but on the whole, the science of An Inconvenient Truth stands up pretty well to scrutiny. Third, climate change, global warming...whatever you want to call it is something I've been following for the better part of 15 years. As someone raised in a conservative household and someone who still considers himself a conservative in the Goldwater mold, I am by nature a skeptic. And after the evidence that started coming out in late 2005 and early this year I think anyone who doesn't acknowledge we have a serious problem that is getting worse is kidding themselves. The question is no longer is global warming happening but can we do anything to slow it down? So yeah, I think Reagan's quote applies. I'm not trying to condescending or smug, it is just how I see the reality of the situation because that is what I'm interested in, pragmatic realism. At the risk of diving into a much bigger can of worms, we need to be more proactive in regulating better mileage on automobiles and we need an energy policy that isn't based on more consumption and more drilling. Bush has totally failed us in the energy arena as did Clinton. It is a failure of energy policy, a failure of security policy and a failure of environmental policy. You see it another way. I think the evidence you are basing your opinions on are questionable but that is what you believe. Clearly nothing I can say or studies I direct you to are going to change your mind.

spawndude

I'm gonna buy everyone in my family a copy.


No way in heck the guy that invented the Internet would be involved if it wasn't true!!! Say it ain't so Al!!!

movielib

I totally disagree with this. That's what my Post #30 link is all about. I think Gore's science is abysmal.


That hasn't been the question for years. Yes, it's happening. The questions are how much is it (I think much less than the alarmists say or imply); how much is caused by humans' CO2 and other emissions (I think not much); and

Not much because most of it is not caused by us in the first place.


I am interested. What is the specific evidence you have seen from late last year and early this year that has convinced you that it is human CO2 and other emissions that is the main culprit?

Duality

I saw an ad for this DVD in my National Geographic last weekend - the new Saturn/planet issue. I hope this boosts viewership of AnInconvenientTruth, would be most appropriate.