What is wrong with you people? I loved the movie and I can honestly say it changed my life alot. But the question I ask you is even if this is all B.S. what harm will it do to you to start living environmentally friendlier? I personally think living on a cleaner planet would be nicer and easier but apparently there are people out there that disagree and enjoy breathing in smog and having to wear sunblock to take a walk around the block. Good luck with that.
Brooke, you need to realize manipulation when you see it. The harm we fear is in the form of people who are hungry for power; the power to affect nations, not the environment; the power to siphon money from your parents through higher taxes and needless "environmental" costs. Maybe when your parents lose their jobs because they work for a "dirty" company and you can't afford to shop at Hollisters anymore it will finally make sense.
I wouldn't believe for one minute that it should cost one job to be environmentally friendly. But it has already cost many lives. What is worth more, and what good will be your gross domestic product when climate change strikes? It didn't do Springfield, Colorado any good in 1931, it didn't do New Orleans any good in 2005.
Nicklebits, Why is it that some people apparently can see manipulation by the AGW believers, but just can't imagine manipulation from the AGW contrarian side? People like that always say "Follow the money." Fine, I followed it. And it almost always leads straight back to fossil fuel companies or conservative think tanks!
I'll grant that scientists getting research money to work on climate change might have a financial motive (if scientists thought that way, which most of them don't; if they did, they wouldn't be scientists). Environmental groups might have a motive to over-hype AGW to gain donations and power (although they have plenty of other causes that will work equally well). Leftist politicians might have a motive if it means extending government regulations (an attitude more prevalent in Europe than here).
But certain parties (and the politicians who work for them) have a pretty obvious motive for denying AGW: good old profit. If anti-GW measures are taken, we'll use lower amounts of fossil fuels, meaning lower profits for the companies selling them. Meaning they have a big-time motive to distort, spin, confuse, and outright lie (all of which I've seen with my own eyes) if it means keeping up the profits for a few more years.
I don't believe that oil companies are behind 100% of the AGW skepticism, but they are the main reason it's so prominent in the media, and they have more reason to manipulate public opinion than anyone.
Yes Ms. Ritter, let's all be so scared that we can't think critically. I no longer place myself at the mercy of fear mongers the way you clearly are.
And Ms. Custodio-as far as corporate agendas go, did you know that BP (rechristened "beyond petroleum) and Shell are the biggest contributors to global warming activism?! Did you also know that environmentalism is a 4 billion dollar industry nationally and an 8 billion dollar industry internationally. So much for the charge that taking this manipulative fear mongering with a grain of salt is being a shill for the oil cos.!
Gloria I just read your post about profit margins of the oil industry....i guess you are unaware of the fact that the government makes more money off of a gallon of gas than the oil company. Do alittle more research.
Daniel Walker, Cite your source please. The government actually spends billions of dollars to subsidize the petroleum industry, and without it gasoline would be much more expensive for consumers than it is(not to mention its environmental cost).
Anastasia, Yes, a few oil companies have finally woken up and are no longer opposing it. Ironically the fact even oil industry CEOS are concerned pretty much debunks your argument that global warming is some kind of hoax perpetrated by environmentalists because hate civilization/the economy/oil/ etc. This hurts your conspiracy theory, instead of the other way around.
However a lot of this supposed environmental spending by large corporations is really greenwashing, which means spending large amounts of money on advertising and public relations while doing little to actually help the problem.
John, the government doesn't "subsidize" anything. The just take less in taxes, while still taking way more than the oil companies make off of a gallon of gas. And of course you assume that oil companies actually pay taxes, which no corporation really does. Every penny of the tax they pay is paid by YOU, the consumer, along with all your other taxes.
What's really unfortunate about this discussion is that it has become a shouting match about who is scaremongering and who is trying to hide the truth. Wouldn't it be better if everybody would quit making a political battle out of this, and figure this out logically? There is ZERO scientific evidence that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. I repeat, ZERO. So what's all the shouting about?
John, what is really funny is that the government "subsidizes" ethanol fuel, aka our farmers. Which, however, has been proven to cause more co2 pollution than gasoline, from the refining process to actual fuel use, not to mention cost is more. The process of producing an ethanol or even hybrid vehicle in turn actually uses more energy and gasoline than making a Hummer. And which, in turn, the Hummer can have a normal life for about 5-10 years (based on driving habits) before the hybrid or ethanol vehicle even comes close to equaling out the co2 emissions of the Hummer. Pretty funny isn't it? One of the so called solutions to gasoline actually uses MORE energy and causes MORE co2 pollution than a normal vehicle. Do some more research before you open your mouth.
If you want to compare CO2 to alcohol, which is not a pollutant, either, and we're being commanded to run our cars on it, then what you're saying is that raising CO2 from 300 parts per MILLION to 600 parts per MILLION (assuming that insignificant humankind can actually do that), is taking an overdose. It's more like the difference between walking briskly straight past a bar and actually turning your head towards it as you do.
Actually human kind is very capable of raising levels past the point of extreme danger, which is now considered to be around 450 ppm. Add to this the compounding effects of positive feedback loops, which we are even now experiencing.
Extreme danger? You mean that the IPCC prediction of raising temperatures to what they were 600 years ago, which we all survived very nicely? Do you mean that the 3 or 4% of CO2 that is human generated will overwhelm the other 96% that occurs naturally? Do you mean the positive feedback loops that cause more cloud cover and thus less warming?
That's a new one. Why wasn't this a concern 600 years ago, when termperatures were warmer than now? How did the plankton survive the Cretaceous, and other prehistoric periods, which were much hotter than now? Doesn't a large amount of CO2 and warm weather make plants grow BETTER, like tropical forests?
Humans who have a certain amount of economic development at their disposal aren't threatened because they can ADAPT. So let's get on with it.
If your refering to the "Medieval Optimum" of 600 years ago, I'd like to see your source in which it says it was warmer then today? Wait, I have one from NOAA that shows and as they state just the opposite of your argument.
"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."
Your argument that the smaller amount of human induced CO2 does not outway natural CO2 emissions misses the notion of balance. Yes, the natural fluxes in and out of the atmosphere are huge, but they were more or less balanced over the holocene until we came along. In the natural process, for roughly the last 10K years until the industrial revolution, every giga tonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.
What I'm refering to as "positive feedback loops" are the additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane released when rising temperatures trigger ecological and chemical responses, such as warmer oceans giving off more carbon dioxide, or warmer soils decomposing faster, liberating ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.
According to the documentary "Global warming or global governance?" and the references, also scientists, used in their documentary there is pretty much evidence to counter Al Gore's essential argument of us humankind actually contributing to much of the greenhouse gas potential. In more detail, mankind is argued to only induce less than 1% of greenhouse gases through causing CO2 which actually is one of the lesser contributors in terms of induction of greenhouse gases. Water vapor constitutes a much more significant contributor in that sense. All according to evidence as looked out for by those scientists. At any rate, it shows that the whole issue around global warming is INDEED HOTLY DEBATED and any suggestion of it not being debated is highly suspicious of having been issued by people who would have us believe things in their interest.