An Inconvenient Truth (Except for the parts that are lies)
Al Gore is working hard to become the Ghandi of the Western world. Or at least the tree hugging Michael Moore. His first film, "An Inconvenient Truth" basically continues and expounds upon his early political crusades against polluters like factories, big business, automobiles and farting. ABC News has already taken his film to be absolute gospel and now longer says "global warming" but rather "man-made global warming" every chance they get. I must have missed a memo.
The Canadian Free Press just posted an interesting article refuting some of the science in the film. You can read it
here.
I'm certainly not against conservation, cleaner air and such. I also don't care much for Mr. Gore. But I've read a handful of studies on man's horrible effect on the Earth and every scientist has a different opinion. I tend to think the Earth will be able to take care of herself and we're just a nuisance. But, as with any junk science, I could be wrong.
The Canadian Free Press just posted an interesting article refuting some of the science in the film. You can read it
here.
I'm certainly not against conservation, cleaner air and such. I also don't care much for Mr. Gore. But I've read a handful of studies on man's horrible effect on the Earth and every scientist has a different opinion. I tend to think the Earth will be able to take care of herself and we're just a nuisance. But, as with any junk science, I could be wrong.
posted by Mkae at
7:44 PM
6 Comments:
Have you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Even though it is fiction is certainly makes you think about all these environmental issues.
By
Geezerrob, at 7:56 AM
I look at it as a win-win situation. I mean, we're supposed to run out of fossil fuels in about 50 years, right? If we do, that'll put a serious dent in global warming. And if we don't, then we'll still have gas! How great is that?
By
Jason, at 4:45 PM
For the moment, let's just set aside the issue of who in this debate has a larger pool of supporting science (and from more reputable sources). Instead, just consider this:
50 years from now or so, we're going to look be able to look back on this time period, at the debate of "whether humans were causing climate change" or not, in one of two possible ways:
1) "Those stupid tree-huggers actually thought we were making the world end. Man, were we stupid back in those days." And we'll all have a good laugh, just like we do TODAY at all the people who thought all power would fail and airplanes would drop out of the sky at the stroke of midnight on January 1st, 2000. No harm, no foul.
2) "Those ignorant jackasses at the turn of the century could have taken action to prevent us from ending up where we are today, but instead they stuck their heads in the sand and did nothing. And now we're all totally screwed. Those bastards!"
Is there any reason to not hedge your bets and try to do something JUST IN CASE it's #2? I mean after all, it's not like the "stop global warming" advocates are asking for unreasonable things (not the more centrist ones, anyway). And much of what they're advocating would carry OTHER benefits as well. For example, switching from fossil fuels would not only reduce CO2 emissions, but it would make our country more self-sufficient so we wouldn't have to funnel money and manpower overseas to get our oil.
How is that not win-win to anyone not in the oil business?
What do we lose for trying to change? And what do we GAIN by ignoring the problem because it "might not be true?"
By
DrHeimlich, at 5:14 PM
There's no reason not to conserve, I agree. I recycle, drive less, and carpool. I would love to be rid of fossil fuels as well but it's for political reasons moreso than ecological ones. I just don't take people seriously that stand on the street corner holding signs that say "The end is nigh, prepare to meet thy doom". If you want to sell me on your idea, give me a features / benefits breakdown. Don't scream in my face that "we're all gonna die"!
By
Mkae, at 6:59 PM
I've been trying to follow the developments of the M-1 battery, because that looks like a saving grace. It takes less time to charge, holds more charge, experiences less buildup, generates more voltage than a wall socket, weighs up to 80% less than comparable batteries, and may some day be found in lighter, more efficient hybrids. Of course, something has to generate that electricity, and coal isn't exactly clean.
One easy thing to do in your home that hits your wallet a little up front is gradually replacing bulbs with compact flourescent bulbs. One can hope that prices for these alternatives drop.
By
GiromiDe, at 8:41 PM
But what the hell happened to bioplastic? You know, the plastic you could throw in your yard, water, and watch it slowly meld with the grass?
By
GiromiDe, at 8:42 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home