An inconvenient truth
In my quest to try to watch all the oscar nominated movies before oscar night 25:th of february, I today reached An inconvenient truth. This is a movie of Al Gore travelling around the globe making presentations about the global warming. In this movie he presents some of the facts about global warming that are known today.
I wanted to see this movie to expand on my own knowledge about the global warming, which I must confess is rather limited. I thought the scientific community was split up in two camps about this issue, but as Gore shows there is no dispute today. The theory that we are the cause of the current warming of our planet is no longer a theory, it is in fact a fact.
One of the main sceptic arguments is that the rise in CO2 we are seeing today in the atmosphere is just part of natural variations. I also thought this could be the case. But the data, sampled from the ice in anarctica, that shows measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years, indicate that we are way above the natural variations that have occured in these 650,000 years. In fact, it’s quite clear that it is mankind that is the reason for the increase of CO2. We in europe produce 27% of the CO2 worldwide, only America is a bigger producer than us.
This movie is an eye opener. Atleast for me. It could be argued that it is a campaign movie for Al Gore, since it portrays not only the climate, but also personal details from Al Gores life. But I think it’s just a way to make him seem more sympathetic, and thus make people take his words even more seriously. And considering the danger we are facing, I would say that it’s worth it.
I would strongly recommend everyone to see the movie.
The movies website: http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Caroline wrote,
Yup, a real must-see! Can’t say that I think it makes a good Gore campaign though, as he clearly states that he’s out of politics. Seems kind of counter-productive to me.
February 15th 2007 at 00:49 (12:49 am) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.9 on 
Ubuntu Linux
JenEriC wrote,
OK, maybe I have to see it after all. Did it have any practical advices on how to reduce your own “footprint”?
February 15th 2007 at 09:34 (9:34 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Windows XP
Mika Perälä wrote,
Yep, a little
The major part of the movie is focused on the global warming. The end is focused on solutions, and that we can save the planet, if we act now. In the credits there are a lot of suggestions what we can do. Some of them apply to all of us, some to americans. Like ‘write to congress, if they don’t listen, run for congress’. 
February 15th 2007 at 11:38 (11:38 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Windows XP
Modin wrote,
Yes, it was a fascinating movie. A couple of below-the-belt blows at the Bush administration, but they were well deserved…
February 15th 2007 at 12:25 (12:25 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Mac OS X
Mika Perälä wrote,
Hehe, yep, I agree
Now to lower my own CO2 production… I don’t fly so often, nor do I own a car. Hmm. The thing I can do is lower my electric bill. Have to buy a new computer sooner or later. Overall to buy things that don’t use so much electricity. Car - Travelling (esp flying) - Electricity - are things that are listed as heavy contributors to the CO2 emissions.
February 19th 2007 at 13:14 (1:14 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Windows XP
Modin wrote,
I’ve installed low-energy lightbulbs pretty much everywhere at home. They last longer, so it’s kind of convenient. It’s especially convenient next to my bed: it lights up slowly, so you’re not blinded by it when you switch it on in the morning. But after a minute you can still read by it. Plus I try not to keep equipment on stand-by (like the TV).
Of course, I then make up for it by using the car a lot when I don’t need to. But I’m getting there
February 19th 2007 at 21:44 (9:44 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Windows XP
Edward Aschan wrote,
<rant>I have a few of those nasty bulbs as well. Will never buy another one and these darn things won’t break so I can exchange them in good conscience.
That they are slow to light up is ok in the morning but a pain in the butt most other times. They also tint the light so you get poor contrast between dark colours; it is really hard to sort dark blue and black socks after doing the laundry.
Nope, they are to much of a bother - screw the environment for my convenience.</rant>
February 20th 2007 at 21:49 (9:49 pm) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.9 on 
Windows XP
Caroline wrote,
You know Eddy, it might just be that you’ve gotten some Bulbs of Inferior Quality (contrast -5).
February 21st 2007 at 12:51 (12:51 pm) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.9 on 
Ubuntu Linux
Mika Perälä wrote,
Yep
Oh, and the comment about the bulbs beeing poor, and have to stick with poor light would be funny, if that wouldn’t represent the mentality most of us have: “It’s noot good enough for me, so I won’t use it. What harm can be done if just I choose not to change myself to better the environment?” … Problem is that many people think this way. It’s a way of thinking that I myself am very wary of.
When I put my own immediate comfort in controll of my life, I miss the bigger picture. That it’s all the little things we do that add up to the pollution we’re currently doing. Not the bad bad industry or something like that. It’s us, our mentality, or way of life currently, that is the issue. And it is indeed our comfort zone that is at stake. We have to change, and change can be uncomfortable.
Oh, and there are coming diod lights that are better than current low energy bulbs! And they draw a lot less power. Those will be cool
Imagine a whole country lit up by diod lights. It’ll save monumental amounts of energy.
February 21st 2007 at 13:02 (1:02 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Windows XP
Edward Aschan wrote,
Quite the opposite I would say. Image how much energy it would consume to light up an entire country even if you use diods. I mean right no we only light up the inhabited parts and that is done at localized hotspots called homes or streets.
February 21st 2007 at 21:04 (9:04 pm) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.9 on 
Windows XP
Edward Aschan wrote,
What? It didn’t say Bulbs of Inferior Quality on the packaging. Do you mean IKEA tricked me into buying cursed bulbs. Damn!
February 21st 2007 at 21:05 (9:05 pm) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.9 on 
Windows XP
Mika Perälä wrote,
Nono, the entire country! Come on! They’ll be cheap and very energy efficient, and it will look really cool from space!
February 21st 2007 at 21:29 (9:29 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Windows XP
JenEriC wrote,
We already *do* light up the whole country, without the need of any electricity at all! We just do it on average half the time, but hey, with energy savings like that comes with some drawbacks.
February 27th 2007 at 08:41 (8:41 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Mika Perälä wrote,
Well, I do pay my sunlight bill! So it’s not completely free… DAMN! I forgot to pay the gravity bill!
February 27th 2007 at 16:59 (4:59 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Hannes wrote,
Hmm, gravity bill… Guess I am lucky to be quite skinny and don’t have to pay too much then
February 27th 2007 at 18:37 (6:37 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.1 on 
Ubuntu Linux
Edward Aschan wrote,
Actually Hannes I don’t think the gravity bill has anything to do with size or mass. It’s one price fits all. If they told you you got a discount for being tiny they probably cheated you.
February 27th 2007 at 21:52 (9:52 pm) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.10 on 
Windows XP
Mika Perälä wrote,
That’s a monopoly for you. Everyone pays the same, no regards to size or mass. Pfft. If you elect me God, I’ll make sure that there’ll be costs equalling how much you use the natural law. Not a one-price-for-all. I don’t want to pay the gravity bill for people weighing over 200 kg!
February 28th 2007 at 13:17 (1:17 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Caroline wrote,
February 28th 2007 at 17:08 (5:08 pm) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.9 on 
Ubuntu Linux
Modin wrote,
Check out Al Gore’s speech at TED Talks:
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=al_gore
A lot of other good speeches there as well
March 1st 2007 at 00:00 (12:00 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Mika Perälä wrote,
March 1st 2007 at 00:11 (12:11 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Modin wrote,
Yes, he’s hilarious there
March 1st 2007 at 00:15 (12:15 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Mac OS X
Fredrik Persson wrote,
It doesn’t seem very wise to buy into Al Gore’s story hook, line and sinker. For example, I just ran across this interview with Wibjörn Karlén, of Uppsala University:
http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200703/01/20070301172408_Realtid257/20070301172408_Realtid257.dbp.asp
Karlén gives a quite different view from what Gore et.al. is representing.
Personally, I’m very cautius with the global warming issue. It is WAY too much of FUD so far.
March 5th 2007 at 23:46 (11:46 pm) — Using
Firefox 2.0 on 
Ubuntu Linux
Modin wrote,
There’s always a dissenting viewpoint, and journalists always look for ‘the other side’. But to quote Dawkins, “one side can be wrong”. It seems to me like Karlén et al make it too simple, as if global warming is ‘obviously’ not a problem. If it’s so obvious, why is there more or less a scientific consensus? Or does Karlén represent many more scientists? Eventually it starts to sound like a conspiracy theory.
What’s interesting to me is, to what extent are they publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals? This was obviously a news story, which has no scientific value at all.
March 6th 2007 at 00:40 (12:40 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Mika Perälä wrote,
It is very confusing, one of these days I will dig for many days into the scientific scene to discover which side is right. Karlén is sceptical to the reports from IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that seems to be his major point, that the reports are not accurate. But he also says that the glaciers are only in natural variation, but neglects to mention the enormous melting that is happening in antartica, with ice that hasn’t melted for many, many thousands of years. Here’s another article that vows for the IPCC reports
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2708&a=615479
And also, Karlén isn’t a climate researcher. He studies cultural geografy (ehm, Kulturgeograf).
March 6th 2007 at 00:58 (12:58 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Caroline wrote,
The Karlén article is not very convincing at all, I’d say.
First and foremost, the concepts of greenhouse effect (which is mainly a good thing) and global warming (which is mainly a bad thing) are confused to the point that the term “global warming” is not even used, while they don’t seem to be talking about anything else, really.
Second, this is, as someone pointed out, not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal and thus it’s very hard to judge its credibility (although the same could of course be said about the documentary).
Third, they are trying to use his work with a geographical journal to raise his credibility, though the issue is with the climate and not the geography.
Fourth…the entire point of the article is pretty much “look, there’s this guy, he doesn’t agree”. They don’t even try to lay out an argument. There are no facts whatsoever.
Conclusion: stay away from sub-par web-published articles and go read a proper book on the matter instead.
March 6th 2007 at 01:07 (1:07 am) — Using
Firefox 1.5.0.10 on 
Ubuntu Linux
JenEriC wrote,
http://bash.org/?742578
What was he thinking?
March 22nd 2007 at 08:46 (8:46 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.3 on 
Windows XP
Mika Perälä wrote,
Hehe, not so brilliant, eh! It’s like the oscars. Many of the celebrities brag about their environmental involvement, but take big limousines to the Oscars. They’re not so environmental… yet.
March 22nd 2007 at 10:40 (10:40 am) — Using
Firefox 2.0.0.2 on 
Windows XP
Edward Aschan wrote,
This guy makes a compeling argument for taking action against global warming. Worth watching!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
October 21st 2007 at 21:30 (9:30 pm) — Using
Internet Explorer 7.0 on 
Windows Vista