Customer Review

13 of 17 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Will we take the time to be informed?, January 9, 2007
This review is from: An Inconvenient Truth (DVD)
The environmental movement as it was previously known has been placed in the out of sight out of mind mentality. This film needs to be seen by all who want to be open minded enough to view the evidence and see for oneself what is or is not occuring. It is irresponsible to comment on global warming with conviction unless this film is included in ones basis of knowledge about the subject. Decide for yourself, see this side of history and you will be informed and make the choice that you feel is best!!!!! I am confident it will empower you to make the judgement of what will be our future.

Please put aside any previous notions about Al Gore/politics/activists and see the film for your information to decide what choices you will make about your future?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 9, 2007 10:38:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 10, 2007 3:55:36 PM PST
E. Keech says:
So, you think "It is irresponsible to comment on global warming with conviction unless this film is included in ones basis of knowledge about the subject."

When the "knowledge" has more political propaganda than scientific truth in it, that is another matter.

The fear that Al Gore stirs by showing results of 10 foot to 20 foot sea level rises is totally unfounded. No PhD-level climate scientist believes that yarn from science novice and professional politician Al Gore.

There's a few more things that Mr. Gore found too "inconvenient" to tell you, also.

Al Gore's movie makes it look like we have no choice but to shut down our economy by limiting our emissions of CO2 per the Kyoto Treaty. However, the Kyoto treaty is no answer, because IT CANNOT COOL THE WORLD AT ALL BY 2100!

The reason for this is simple. China has been ramping up its program of industrialization for more than a decade before the Kyoto treaty was even completed in 1997! This makes a mockery of the Kyoto's exemption of China from restrictions on CO2 emissions, since it has been dramatically increasing them ever since 1997.

http://www.sandia.gov/gaia/igaia/China/greengas.html

"China's total carbon dioxide emissions increase from 2,629 million metric tons (MmtCO2) in 1995 (12% of the total 1995 world emissions of 22,048 MmtCO2) to 12,435 MmtCO2 in 2025 (a factor of 4.7 or 370%). By 2025, China will generate carbon dioxide in an amount that is more than half that of the 1995 worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, indicating a potential difficulty in effectively limiting future worldwide emissions without Chinese cooperation."

This source plainly shows that China, all by itself, threatens to overcome all other nations' reductions in CO2 emissions. China has plans for building hundreds of new coal-fired generating plants to electrify all of China as soon as they can get them built. Obviously, at the rate they are expanding emissions, continued through 2050, they will more than wipe out the measly 0.07 degree C "cooling" projected for Kyoto by 2050. Beyond that, the continued expansion in China, with its immense area and overwhelmingly large population in the billions, will output enough CO2 long before 2100 to make the Kyoto treaty a joke, and the earth will continue warming by 2100 instead of being cooled by fruitless Kyoto limits.

Thus, Al Gore "forgot" to tell us about how impossible it would be for Kyoto to do any real diminishing of all his projected global warming from CO2 emissions. Even if his alternates would eventually be able to replace over 50% of the nation's CO2-emitting energy uses, THAT STILL WOULD NOT DIMINISH ANY SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING BY 2100! Clearly, the escallating expansion of China's emissions will outdo any saving that all the rest of the nations can make, and the earth will warm somewhat anyway.

In the meantime, what about all those alternates that Al Gore promotes so glowingly? Will they get established nationwide soon enough to even make it possible to cut down our CO2 emissions drastically by 2050? Not likely!

Windmills are already getting rejection from citizen's groups which protest their ugly defacing of pristine countrysides. Even environmentalist Sen. Kennedy signed a bill preventing windmill farms on eastern areas that he wanted to keep free of their unsightly appearance.

First and foremost, there can be no reduction in CO2 emissions from all the aircraft of our nation, wherever they may fly around the world. All of Gore's alternate energy sources are too heavy, bulky, or weak to be useful in aircraft. Thus, all jet fuel and aircraft-grade gasoline has to be kept immune from Kyoto restrictions to keep from strangling our nation's airlines and private aircraft, not to mention our military aircraft.

Al Gore's other alternates don't fare too well, either. His recommended "saving" of power used for heating and cooling by making them more efficient is unrealistic. That's in my area of electronic engineering, and I've followed reports such as Honeywell's use of computer-controlled redistribution of thermal energy in large buildings which reduce the total power to maintain comfortable temperatures. Thus, the efficiency in that area is already close to its maximum, and there is just not that much more that can be done to reduce inefficiencies to save any significant amount of energy needed for that use.

Al Gore's recommendation for solar cells is also limited, and only works during daylight hours [obviously!]. Thus, it is a part solution at best, and requires substantial energy to manufacuture, as well as being quite costly. Solar cells won't be able to take much of the load of the electric power grid anytime soon, and certainly not enough to reduce emitting sources by very substantial amounts.

So, what do we have left? Fuel cell cars? That's another alternate that requires energy to produce the hydrogen to run them. Furthermore, we just now have a handful of fuel cell cars running experimentally on leases to individuals to test them out, after two whole decades of working to get that far! Total range is still limited to less than 300 miles, and the handling of hydrogen involves dangers. Thus, to get the cars finished in prototype testing, refined for mass manufacture, produced, sold and distributed across the nation will take at least a couple of decades more at present rates of development. There is still the huge problem of setting up the entire nationwide infrastructure of both refueling stations and repair facilities. That is still not to mention reducing their cost sufficiently to induce Americans to trade off their capable gas-powered cars for the new and possibly too-high-priced technology with quite limited range.

Bottom line: NO WAY CAN WE FOLLOW AL GORE'S "ROAD MAP!" IT ONLY LEADS TO ECONOMIC RUIN, MASS UNEMPLOYMENT, AND NO SIGNIFICANT COOLING OF EARTH'S FUTURE WARMING!

A much better plan is to stop interfering with the honest investigations of dissenting scientists like Richard Lindzen, PhD. They need to be funded to continue their research to check out Dr. Lindzen's "Iris effect" of high altitude clouds that limit CO2 warming like a thermostat. If that turns out to be authenticated by further research, it could save us all from the destructive experimentation with severely limiting our economy to try a Kyoto treaty that cannot solve warming.

Posted on Jan 9, 2007 10:38:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 9, 2007 11:15:03 AM PST
E. Keech says:
OOPs! A duplicate post. Sorry about that, so I removed it. EK

Posted on Jan 28, 2012 5:39:49 AM PST
D. REEVE says:
i agree with mr.steplyk . mr. keech says we can;t do this because of china ? he is wrong , because of china ? it is all the more reason to do something. global warming or not we should go green anyway without hesitation because it is cheaper for us. instead of sending vast amounts to unfriendly arabs. in iraq we were funding both sides of that war.
tim roche

Posted on Feb 17, 2012 1:30:39 PM PST
Leak Reveals How Big Business Funds Climate-Change Deniers
Wednesday 15 February 2012
by: Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report

The climate-change-denying think tank The Heartland Institute pays monthly stipends to vocal global warming skeptics, received $200,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2011 and received a total of $3.4 million from corporations in 2010 and 2011, according to internal documents released last night.

DeSmogBlog released the documents Tuesday night to expose its rival in the global warming debate. The blog received the documents from an anonymous "Heartland Insider." Here's the inside scoop and more on Heartland:

-Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and other think tanks, receives $11,600 per month from Heartland. Idso's study center is funded in part by Exxon Mobile and he recently spoke on the benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the American Legislative Exchange Council's annual meeting, according to SourceWatch.org.

-Australian global warming skeptic Professor Bob Carter receives $1,667 per month, but denied doing the bidding of Heartland in an Australian newspaper on Wednesday.

-Fred Singer of the climate-change-denying Science and Environmental Policy Project receives $5,000 a month from Heartland.

-Singer's group helped establish NIPCC [Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change], which Heartland sponsors to "undermine" the reports by the United Nation's climate change panel, according to Heartland documents. Two anonymous foundations supply the NIPCC funding.

-Heartland has a "key" anonymous donor who gave $1.6 million in 2010 and $979,000 in 2011.

-Heartland's income totaled $4.6 million in 2011.

-The Charles G. Koch Foundation of Koch brother's fame gave Heartland $200,000 in 2011 and promised more money in 2012. The Koch family made much of its riches from fossil fuels and their foundation routinely supports conservative politicians and causes.

-Heartland's proposed 2012 budget includes $75,000 to develop a "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms," as proposed by a government consultant who wants to develop alternative classroom materials. Several states have introduced legislation that would give climate change skepticism a place in the classroom.

-From Heartland's climate strategy: "Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

-Heartland has a right-wing agenda beyond climate change. The group proposed $667,217 in 2012 for its "Free to Choose Medicine" campaign, which wants to give consumers the right to take prescription drugs before they are evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

4.1 out of 5 stars (1,357 customer reviews)
5 star:
 (901)
4 star:
 (142)
3 star:
 (61)
2 star:
 (36)
1 star:
 (217)
 
 
 
$14.99 $12.09
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Reviewer


Location: Chicago, IL USA

Top Reviewer Ranking: 16,991,486