TheRealBoxster

If you haven't seen it - get off your behinds and go rent it. Very very good.

cherryBox

i have to agree. i was a little reluctant at first, because politics make me sick. i was pleasantly surprised at the humanity with which the movie was narrated.

the movie basically breaks down the science behind 'the day after tomorrow', and provides scientific fact to back it up. I was amazed to find that the only 'disagreement' among scientists is traceable to a campaign by the american government to discredit these people.

if we do not change the way we live, sea level globally will rise 40 feet in the next 50 years. that puts ground zero under water, as well as the homes of 100 million people worldwide. if we thought it was crazy when several thousand katrina evacuees were displaced, what are we going to do with 100 million?

i'm wondering what a worse threat is... terrorists or US?

jakedudeta

I would urge anyone to look with skepticism on a film made by a politician, whose political party of choice happens to campaign on like issues. Sure, he is probably more correct than not, but remember that something like this has to be sensational to sell, and these political "Michael Moore" esque crock-u-mentaries are designed as political rhetoric littered with small facts and some stretches in actual truth. Either way, it never hurts to take care of the environment as much as you can on an individual basis. Yall had better put those catalytic converters back on and stop pouring your used motor oil down into the local sewer.

cherryBox

I have to admit i was skeptical, but i have found truth in the message.

cherryBox

I would urge anyone to look with skepticism when listening to 'scientific' findings produced by government agencies, especially those governments whose policies are in direct conflict with the scientific truth.

check out this article in the new york times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/sc...us&oref=slogin

jakedudeta

Science, study and academia once thought that the world was flat, so what. I was a student of rhetoric for 5 years and looking back one can see many parallels with the global warming debate. Sure there are many "inconvenient truths" about the phenomenon that may be global warming, and sure it will be bad, and finally it never hurts to conserve, but taking any piece of work from those politically interested as de-facto proof is just ignorant. I have seen alternate cause/effect relationships having nothing to do at all with humans. The UN just released a statement following a study that shows that cows are the number 1 cause of global warming and their impact is greater than all other contributing factors combined. I have also seen commentary that tends to show that the phenom is entirely natural and we are in a hot cycle of the planet. Now, if you want to take Al Gore at his word and just tow the chain then go right ahead, but remember that he campaigns for and gets money from interest groups that shill this kind of message, just like other politicians get money from the oil/gas business. If you want information I would go to another source, rather than a movie. Finally, I dont know how effective your message will fall on a car blog where every octane junkie on here is in a sense taking pride in driving, hence polluting, and so forth.

cherryBox

are you talking to me??? I don't recall saying that i took the MOVIE to be fact, nor do i recall saying that I accepted this politically driven work to be de-facto proof. I have in fact done a little homework.

I have no doubt that you may have seen alternate hypotheses, as they do exist, but the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and NOT a natural occurrence.(1) The evidence is overwhelming.

Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
--- The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.(2)
--- Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level. (3)
--- The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.(4)
--- At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.(5)

If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
--- Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.(6)
--- Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.(7)
--- Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
--- Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
--- The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050. [8]
--- More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.(9)


Regarding methane output from cows - please check your facts. Did you read the entire 400 page report from the UN, or a reader's digest version parsed by a dubious source? It seems that you could be guilty of the same sort of blind acceptance that you accuse me of. From the report: ''The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."...''The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.'' (10). This report is available here: http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/libr...d/A0701E00.htm

1 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate."
2 Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
3 World Health Organization
4 Krabill, W., E. Hanna, P. Huybrechts, W. Abdalati, J. Cappelen, B. Csatho, E. Frefick, S. Manizade, C. Martin, J, Sonntag, R. Swift, R. Thomas and J. Yungel. 2004. Greenland Ice Sheet: Increased coastal thinning. Geophysical Research Letters 31.
5 Nature.
6 World Health Organization
7 Washington Post, "Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change," Juliet Eilperin, January 29, 2006, Page A1.
8 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Also quoted in Time Magazine, Vicious Cycles, Missy Adams, March 26, 2006.
9 Time Magazine, Feeling the Heat, David Bjerklie, March 26, 2006.
10 Livestock's Long Shadow, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, November 2006

stankubrick

But that's exactly the problem: we can't get everyone to that. Unfortunately, the only answer is more govt. regulation. It is the govts responsibility to protect our citizens anyways. This really shouldn't even be a political issue.

jakedudeta

"But thats the problem that we cant get everyone to do that." You seem to say this like it is a problem that we cannot coerce action out of individuals. Frankly I find it hard to stomach when people start telling me what to do for the benefit of everyone else. I (like everyone else) partake in activities that do not in any way benefit others. If you want to coerce environmentally friendly behavior where do we draw the line. Its not entirely a slippery slope when compared to what government has done for us in the past.

All I really want to argue for is the reality that global warming is not something that we can attribute entirely to a few vice industries or our general way of life, for there are other less sensational alternatives that Al Gore may have left in the "lock box" and not put into his movie.

stankubrick

Coercing action out of individuals is very difficult. It seems even you would not like it.

I see the slippery slope as well, but I didn't mean enforcing public mulching or charges of misdemeanor farting...lol. I meant more in the way of regulating industries to be more environmentally friendly in general or at least try to give self-regulating industries some breaks.

I also understand your skepticism, but all I really want to argue is that it shouldn't be a political issue.

jakedudeta

With gas prices putting people literally out of business I think that further regulation of the energy industry is hardly the answer. Giving green industry a break is a good idea. I think that we need to encourage choice and in so doing give people the option to purchase/use whatever their choice energy source instead of regulating the gas/oil industry into collapse. My undergrad had all of the used cooking oil turned into bio-diesel for use in the public transportation system, not bad, eh?

Like I said, options should be encouraged, not restricted.

My main point about the Gore movie is in essence that such rhetoric and much of the rhetoric comming out of the hard left is this "scare us out of Iraq" thing with global warming and our mid-eastern oil dependency. We are also led to believe that oil companies have bought up all of the patents on the water powered car, ect. Its all just a ploy to put fence riding undecided voters on warning about the right's relative refusal to accept warnings about the environment in preference for business. These competing values merit personal choice; however, not over-regulation and skepticism.

You cannot believe everyghing you see on TV, especially with hot button issues where people bend the facts to fit a pre-determined thesis.

There is no spoon.

konsumer

Spin that baby round and round!

You mean the movie was persuasive? I wonder if they wore lab coats too?

Sorry, I trust Gore about as far as I can throw him.

cherryBox

this is an issue that should not be political, no matter how you slice it. we're trashing the planet like we're parasites.

I wish it weren't Gore bringing the message, but the message is still the same.

jakedudeta

I agree that the issue should not be political, but when you are looking at regulating a trillion dollar industry you cannot seperate the two. Yes, some people are trashing the planet like parasites, and some claim that this will lead to species loss and high tides, but others claim that this phenomenon assuming arguendo that it is happening is entirely natural and beyond human control. We agree that people should care about it, but there is more to a problem than spotting it and moving on; one needs to look at what solutions are avaliable. If regulation forces gas prices up to 7 bucks a gallon (the companies that make gas will never lose money, they just pass the cost down to the consumer) then what have we accomplished?

Its hard to talk to poor and under developed nations whos people are starving about being environmentally friendly, and while the US is certainly a culprit, the blame must be shared.

scionofPCFL

Ok, it's on Showtime this month, so I planned on watching it. I turn it on halfway through the other day, and I couldn't beleive my eyes. Did I really see him bringing up the fricking 2000 election again? Or was that my imagination?

No wonder this thing is dam polarizing. From just the 10 or so min I saw, it looked 7 or 8 of it was about blaming Bush. I'm no fan of Bush, but seriously, he has as much control over global warming as he does the price of tea in China. I saw something about Katrina-Bush link as well. I wasn't listening intently, but the way everything was juxtaposed, it appeared that he was blaming Bush for Katrina, the storm itself, as well.

A better way to have done that would be to have just come out and said, "global warming wasn't a direct cause of the disaster of Katrina. That was literally a time bomb waiting to explode due to many circumstances, and we're lucky it wasn't 100x worse. However, it was only statistical probabiliy that it would happen, and due to global warming, the odds for it happening simply went up. We could expect more of these hurricanes as well...."

But no, they had to go the political route. If he just would have stayed the enviromental route, it would have been much better.

jakedudeta

Here is my advice on the matter. Movies like the Gore movie have a purpose, and that purpose is to facilitate discussion and debate, not something that is to be taken as de facto truth. Gore is a politician true and true, and the movie just speaks the Democratic agenda. Further, the dude uses more power than a family of 5 per year in a month.

scionofPCFL

I do like the fact that the discussion has been opened, but it could have been better.

I'm not that concerned about his power usage. He has a family estate, and I'm sure there's a lot involved in just unloading the estate. Could he do better? Most likely, and it would do a lot for postarity's sake if erected a few windmills, installed some solar panels, and a solar powered water heater.

Frankly, the enviros could have chosen a much greener choice, like Ed Bagley Jr., but Ed doesn't own the grease you need in the political circles. It's arguable whether or not Gore does as well, but the fact remains, the man knows people.

Which does beg the question: How much better could this movie have been recieved if they had someone other than the anti-Bush narrating it, and they kept it strictly scientific? My guess is it would have been much better recieved.

salteen

going to have to check it out. I only got one thing to say about it: good thing I have a jet ski.

jakedudeta

I agree, dont get me wrong, I think Gore if a moron. If you cant walk the walk, then dont make the talk.

I cannot stand these pious environmentalists lecturing from their vast mansions, down to the masses in our crappy apartments.