An Inconvenient Truth

[MoMack]

I'm sure this has been talked about, but I just watched it and wow.

I'm glad he through in the bit about being able to affect change and not going from depression to dispair or whatever because otherwise I'd have quit work and gone on tour.

Really an eye opener. If you haven't seen it then watch it now and push it on others. (its on The Movie Network on Demand right now...)

[headygouda]

I highly suggest everybody check out the movie/doc 'the great global warming swindle' - it discusses the other side of this argument presented in an inconvenient truth. It doesn't dispute the fact that global warming is happening, but that CO2 increases are not the cause, rather, the effect, of global warming. There is a lot of scientific evidence presented in it. You can watch it on youtube or download it.

Quite controversial, but nice to hear the other side of the argument.

[secondtube]

i agree heady...its a great counter arguement....

the only crappy part about it is who funded and produced it....

[nibbler]

I highly suggest everybody check out the movie/doc 'the great global warming swindle' - it discusses the other side of this argument presented in an inconvenient truth. It doesn't dispute the fact that global warming is happening, but that CO2 increases are not the cause, rather, the effect, of global warming. There is a lot of scientific evidence presented in it. You can watch it on youtube or download it.

Quite controversial, but nice to hear the other side of the argument.

The Swindle is controversial because it is not scientific. It is a cherry pick of people and data, spun to create an air of ambiguity around the real scientific study of the problem.

I am not suggesting you don't watch it at all, just be prepared if you do. Know the tangled PR web of mid trickery you are about to expose yourself to...

They really should have opened the film with a Troy McClure style announcer:

[color:brown]~The Great Global Warming Swindle; brought to you by your friends in the oil patch ~ Teaching mother nature who her daddy is, one spill at a time~

The names and faces of the PR men in the film are not new to climate or environmental scientists. Nor are they new to environmentalists who have been following the issue over the yeasrs. The majority of the cast have made their fortunes writing articles and delivering talks on behalf of the Fossil Fuel industry; consistently denying climate change science. Here is some background info on 11 of the 18 interviewed in the film.

Roy Spencer Scientific advisor to the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"; "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development." <-- if that mission statement doesn't scare you then just follow the money. He is also a member of at least two think tanks who are or have been on the payroll of Exxon Mobil.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397

Dr Tim Ball In the direct pay of the oil and gas industry for many years, he runs PR groups controlled (funded) by energy industry lobbyists. He authors many op-eds ads disguised as articles in newspapers and magazines around the world. His writings deny global warming, and support the film, never of course disclosing his intimate ties to the fossil fuel lobby.

http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Ian Clark Sits on the scientific advisory board of a PR group directed by Tim Ball, controlled by the fossil lobby - see above

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1316

Piers Corbyn Claims to have a secret technique for predicting the weather months in advance, but the catch is, you have to buy his forecasts to check their validity, and many who do seem to want their money back; apparently he isn't very good at it.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Piers_Corbyn

Professor Richard Lindzen Has been paid at a rate of $2,500 per day by the oil and gas industry as a consultant. Had trip expenses to testify before a Senate comittee on climate science paid by Western Fuels. Has been paid by OPEC to write an essay entitled: 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus'

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

Patrick Moore In the pay of the Forestry, Fossil fuel and Nuclear Industry. Here's a PR gem he came up with while representing the forestry industry in the past: On the disappearing Amazon rainforest in 2000, Moore said: "They are just about the healthiest forests in the world. This stuff about them vanishing at an alarming rate is a con based on bad science...anyone who has been in the jungle knows that if you want to live there, you'd better take a few machetes." Trust me, you don't want to know what his stance on Nuclear Power is. You really don't. (but if you do, its not hard- just google him)

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore

Professor Patrick Michaels Long time on the fossil fuel payroll, Critics of his work wonder why he consistently leaves out 1996-present data in his discussions, graphs etc, as those last ten or so years are the hottest on record.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1567

Paul K. Driessen Co-editor of Capital PR news, newsletter of the largest chapter of the Public Relations Society of America. His bio indicates working for an unspecified energy trade association

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Driessen

Professor Emeritus Frederick Singer Made a name for himself fighting for the tobacco lobby, arguing that second hand smoke wasn't bad for human health, connected to at least 11 separate organizations on the payroll of Exxon Mobil. Has also authored many op-eds in newspapers around the world supporting the film, without mentioning his role in the film or his ties to the fossil fuel lobby

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478

Paul Reiter Paul sits comfortably on a board of scientific advisors for the 'Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy'. This group was the recipient of $763,500 Exxon Mobil dollars, and used to be funded by the 'National Association of Manufacturers', one of America's largest industry groups

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1279

Thats some background on 10 of the 18 interviewed in the film. More than half of the cast are PR men in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

[color:green]Professor Carl Wunsch was among the 18 people interviewed in the film. Turns out he claims he was swindled into believing the film was to be a balanced study of climate change science. Immediately after the program aired, Professor Wunsch saw it for the first time and immediately publicly denounced his participation in the film, saying that he wouldn't have made the appearance if he knew it was designed as a PR spin supporting the fossil fuel lobby. Read his entire letter to the Television Broadcaster who aired the program, as well as real climate scientists reactions to the Swindle here:

republished letter by Wunsch to the broadcaster

Enjoy getting swindled!

[Kanada Kev]

If Tarantino was involved ... Grindhouse style

[SmoothedShredder]

[Im going home Donny]

Another pretty mind blowing doc out there is 'a crude awakening'. Well done, watchable film about Peak oil.

Makes me feel not so badly as I watch the wallmart doc seeing as they'll be fucked soon enough when cheap oil runs out along with the rest of us. ...wallmart doc still made me cry..

[ollie]

the only crappy part about it is who funded and produced it....

The Democrats?

[larry_llama]

THis looks like it would be good. If anyone knows where to see/get it, let me know... I'd like to watch it

[SaggyBalls]

i find it so amazing that so many lefties are amazed and impressed by movies that support our ideals, while none of them are challenged.

now, that's really my own perspoective, but none of the environmental and political programs and movies have at all been suprising to me.

perhaps well done, but aIT was a well produced seminar - nothing more.

the greenland bit was pretty cool. it's going to be amazing to see this all unfold. definitely a nice head's up but not so challenging. Maybe I just haven't had my head up my ass about these sorts of things - i haven't really studied the topic but I'm expecting the worst.

now - nuclear power - there are 2 sides of every coin. Until we can do something relatively useful with the waste it's not a very viable option, but what's the convenient alternative? fossil fuels?? growing rapeseed and hemp to make fuel for our cars and electricity? flooding forests and wetlands to make way for hydroelectric dams?

wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy are obviously the best alterntives.

We could easily harness the bay of fundy. what would the environmental ramifications of that be anyway?

[AD]

We could easily harness the bay of fundy. what would the environmental ramifications of that be anyway?

There is a power station there already, the Annapolis Tidal Power Plant. It's not "easy" to harness power there. I found this page from the Canadian Encyclopedia that addresses the complications of tidal energy. Here is the article. Seems kinda difficult. Although it's just from one source. Seems reasonable though.

Tidal Energy is a largely untapped, renewable ENERGY source based on lunar gravitation rather than solar radiation. The potential of tidal HYDROELECTRICITY has long been recognized. However, compared to river dams, tidal-power projects are very expensive, since massive structures must be built in a difficult saltwater environment. The relatively low head of water above the turbines restricts the capacity of individual generators to about 25-50 megawatts; therefore, many machines are needed to produce a significant block of power. The machinery also has to withstand the rigours of saltwater operation.

For all this investment, the average electric power output is severely limited by the twice-daily ebb and flow of tides: average output of tidal electricity is less than 40% of the installed generating capacity; production of power from river dams typically averages 70-100% of installed capacity. Finally, the lunar cycle of 24 hours 50 minutes means the raw production of tidal energy moves in and out of phase with the normal, solar-oriented daily pattern of electrical consumption. Unlike the energy from river dams, the daily, monthly and annual availability of tidal energy is fully predictable, but it must be either stored or integrated with other sources of generation that can be adjusted to accommodate the fluctuations of tidal generation.

There are relatively few coastal locations in the world where the tidal range (ie, the difference between high and low tides) is large enough to justify exploitation of the available tidal energy. Not only must there exist a sufficiently high tidal range (at least 5 m) for construction of an economically feasible plant, but the site should also include a natural bay which can store a large volume of seawater at high tide and be so situated within the estuary that the operation of the plant will not significantly change the tidal resonant system (see TIDE).

The world's most powerful tides occur in the upper reaches of the Bay of FUNDY, where tidal ranges up to 17 m are not uncommon. UNGAVA BAY and estuaries along the coast of BC also exhibit fairly high tides. The coasts of Argentina, NW Australia, Brazil, France, India, Korea, the UK, the USSR and the American states of California, Maine and Alaska possess coastal configurations and sufficiently large tidal ranges to provide sites at which potentially large sources of tidal energy may be exploited. The aggregate total capacity of all potential tidal-power sites in the world is currently estimated at about one billion kilowatts, with an expected electrical-energy output of 2-3 trillion kilowatt-hours annually, ie, 10 times Canada's present combined electrical output.

The idea of exploiting the energy of the tides is not new. Tidal mills were built in Britain, France and Spain as early as the 12th century. A mill powered partially by tidal energy was built at PORT-ROYAL, NS, in 1607. These early mills extracted only the equivalent of 20-75 kW, or less than the power available in modern compact cars. A few of the early mills are now preserved as historic sites.

[timouse]

on a smaller scale, they have been doing coastal tidal energy capture...air is pushed by waves in to a tube with a turbine in it. as the waves retreat, air is pulled back through, spinning the turbine in reverse and generating power.

link.

[Blurry]

Was reading the other day that they've confirmed that Mars used to be 1/3 water. Now they're next step is to try and determine if there were any living organims there.

All dried up - hope we're not headed there.