Ok, Dan, I will address your statements specifically.
Dan wrote:Finally AP environmental science pays off!
Throughout the year Inconvenient Truth was presented to both informed and ignorant members of society.
I'm not sure what you are aiming at by this statement. Obviously we can expect that the general audience members will have varying skill levels with regards to science, math and other "intelligence" measurements that may be used to determine "informed" versus "ignorant" points of view. However, in essence, this statement is meaningless. It would be like saying the movie was seen by both
men and
women (in no way comparing men with the ignorant, though some may be led to that conclusion by this juxtaposition
).
Dan wrote:The end result was similar for most parties who believe what mr. Gore fed them.
What end result?
Dan wrote:And yes, he is right, Global warming or Global climate change is happening, don't deny it embrace it. But to say that this is the 1st time that this has ever happened is preposterous.
No, Dan,
you are saying this. I do not believe that An Inconvenient Truth makes this statement or even implies that. I believe the "angle" is that the exponentially-increasing human population is having increasingly negative effects on global climate change. To even suggest that humans can affect climate is the basis of this whole argument, and one which people are going to naturally want to resist. This completely ignores the fact that humans are massively deforesting vast areas (indeed, massive logging certainly can not be argued as helping the trees proliferate!).
Dan wrote:My teacher and the book we used
Reference, please? At least for the book.
Dan wrote:stated the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is not significant to global warming. CO2 makes up just .05% of the atmosphere and humans emit less then 1% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Last i checked the atmosphere was 95% water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas!
I'd have to check this claim against what is stated in the movie exactly. There are several major greenhouse gases, and CO2 is just one of them. Water vapor is actually a more significant greenhouse gas, as is methane, but these are also part of the production processes of animals (including humans).
Here is a reference claiming that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are a significant contributor to Global Warming:
US Dept. of Energy:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
In essence, I feel the "bone" that most people pick about whether humans contribute significantly towards global warming can be summarized in the following statement:
Given the natural variability of the Earth’s climate, it is difficult to determine the extent of change that humans cause.
This statement seems to be true at face value, however, because the extent of change is difficult to determine does not mean we should ignore our effects on the climate or conclude that we humans are not affecting climate significantly. If we are wrong, fixing our conspicuous consumption of fossil fuel will have many other lasting benefits (not merely from the decrease in pollution, but also the energy wasted in producing and refining these fossil fuels).
By ignoring the other detrimental effects of gathering, refining, producing, storing and consuming fossil fuels, we may be putting several carts in front of only one horse (and it's a tired old mare, not able to get out of its own way). The MTBE oxygenation problem in California is one major example of a "Love Canal" type of scenario. This chemical has been largely replaced by ethyl alcohol (a much 'cleaner' chemical which we all can drink and often do), which is a "godsend" to the environment. One tablespoon of MTBE in a small swimming pool will render the water unfit to drink. This chemical is at least
toxic, if not
poisonous, and was a major byproduct of the petrochemical industry until very recently.
Dan wrote:The most astonishing thing that we saw when comparing graphs was that CO2 levels actually echoed the rise in temperature. When the industrial revolution boomed the global tempurature was going down until around 1975... WOW how can that be???
I'd like to see these graphs you saw.
Dan wrote:Gore shows us a graph that is stable for the most part then then starts to skyrocket... If you take that same graph and just show the rest of the plotted data from years and years ago, you find a remarkable pattern. It is a almost like a sine wave.
Reference?
Dan wrote:The low points on the graph are ice ages, and then there is a warming period. Deserts used to be lush oceans, Greenland used to be a moderate climate with good farming. This is a pattern that has existed for years and years. We just as humans have never experienced it with an intelligent mind.
I would have said "when humans were not around to accurately record evidence". Even still, humans have minds that are seemingly intelligent enough to "experience" the past by using scientific methods (points on the graph). We might be able to argue we're collectively smarter now, but can't argue humans weren't also aware of this at a much earlier date (though I would agree our understanding of how we affect the environment has grown significantly with both our shared knowledge as well as our increase in population -- so both the total effects and our observance of these have increased significantly).
Dan wrote:This is the icing on the cake.
So far, Dan, I see no cake...maybe a half-eaten cup of pudding.
Dan wrote:Solar activity also comes in waves
No kidding?
Dan wrote:and when plotted against the temperature has a strong correlation.
Show us. We know when the Solar activity flares up, so will the Earth's climate (atmosphere). However, all these forces add up and do not mean the effects of humans are insignificant in comparison.
Dan wrote:Many people argue that this has no significance
Also, many people argue that human effects on climate have no relative significance. The whole argument centers around this understanding (or theory, or concept, idea, statement, etc).
I will argue that the Sun and many other factors have significant effect, as do humans. I think all these forces are in cahoots, but ours have grown the most in recent (last few decades) times.
Dan wrote:and I am always open to new data. The fact that scientists cannot get grants written unless they include ...and its effect on global warming boggles my mind.
For someone to be open to new data but not understand how scientists must justify their research in order to get monetary compensation for their work really doesn't add up on my brain calculator. This should be obvious to someone who's open-minded. How else can we get action if not by alarming or otherwise overtly exposing a signficant belief or theory to prove (or disprove) with scientific research? Otherwise, why bother doing the research if it is not going to help anyone at all? That would hamper a great majority of scientific research. We have to be open-minded enough to warrant further investigation, even if we can't stomach the justification.
I would say prevention of extinction is a good cause, though others might argue the planet Earth can sustain 15, 20 or even 30 billion people "perfectly fine" without "any lasting or immediate detrimental effects". Tell me this again when someone is holding you at gunpoint for a bite to eat, then we can talk about alarmism used to justify research. I feel it's a
just cause. My mind refused to be boggled.
Dan wrote:There is a shift in media to be "green"
Media only? What about the whole production system? How does this relate to our GDP? I think you're missing a larger bus here. Who pays the bills? Go where the money is to see where the "green" is being (and will be) spent. Just ask Google about their solar-powered energy research facility, or all the GSA buildings that are being converted to "green" technology. I'd say the government led the media by a large margin, and the media is merely a reflection of current trends. To an extent, they can brainwash the weak-minded -- and as people become more ignorant, the media will have greater influence in their lives. Indeed, some only read the Bible and anything else they regard as a work of the Devil. Do you see the media as a negative entity?
Dan wrote:it is just a new market to exploit and to fill us with propaganda.
Any new market can and will be exploited, but the "propaganda" factor varies widely depending on how much money you have (or are seeking to gain). In general (at face value), the "green" movement is a valuable alternative to our current situation. Exploiting this for profit may actually give it some much-needed impetus which otherwise would be squandered by the lazy and conservatives among us (who are reluctant to change, even if they know their SUV gets 10 MPG and is a signifant polluter, they won't care and conservative != conservationist, by any stretch of the imagination.
This is a very negative viewpoint and one that seems handed down from the Neocon "conservative" agenda. Green = exploit. Yeah, sure. I'll buy that for a dollar.
If Green is becoming sexy and the "media bandwagon" jumps on this, perhaps this type of brainwashing will have positive value.
Throwing cigarette butts out the window (lit, even) is not sexy and we don't see much media hype about this issue.
I think riding a bicycle, on the other hand, is extremely sexy. You can equate sexiness with propaganda if you like (ie, "sex sells"). Since you were also talking about exploitation and the market, these are all related.
Dan wrote:Yes it is important that we are efficient and clean. Yes industrial emissions that are concentrated over cities are bad for our respiratory system China as an example.
America as another example. China is repeating the same mistakes we did (and do) and noone seems to care enough to make a difference. The air in Beijing is atrocious, and has already surpassed LA in terms of terrible breathing quality. [As China has surpassed the US recently for carbon emissions.]
As respiratory illnesses and deaths escalate, governments may start to reverse the air pollution trend, but a few are fighting against a massive bulwark of incessant greed and stupidity. It seems like a losing battle.
One ray of hope is that you seem to admit or imply that cities centralize air pollution. This would also suggest that since cities are population concentrations, that one could argue that humans contribute significantly towards pollution. So why not be green if only for the simple reason that it helps the air we breathe become cleaner? Isn't that a good enough reason? Is clean air sexy enough for the Machiavellian mainstream media monopoly?
I will discuss "propaganda" in more depth later since it is somewhat related but will distract from the matter of discussion (which I remind our readers is in the subject line). In essence, I feel that
propaganda is an
attempt by the victors to rewrite history.
Dan wrote:But humans do not have a significant impact on the course of our climate.
I don't believe you have supported this point whatsoever.
Dan wrote:We cannot stop it from getting warmer but when the solar cycle is complete in around 2015 we can start to see our world get cooler again and we will just have to focus on the exponential rate human population growth. that is the real disaster. We will not be able to house humans forever... but ill be dead long before that
First of all, why do we have to wait for this mystical 2015? Why can't we focus on this now? Isn't pollution a massive ecological disaster? The Earth obviously has reached many major limits, and greenhouse effects are in some ways merely the "tip of the proverbial iceberg" when it comes to
humans destroying our only home planet.
Even if the idea that greenhouse gas and global warming is a crock of doo-doo, can we really argue that we should do nothing to combat the scourge of further ecological devastation? Why even need an excuse at all? Why can't we just see the planet in peril and act accordingly? Why is it such a "hard sell" to alter our lifestyles?
I've changed every light bulb in my house, changed my eating habits, changed where I live, where I work, what I wear, my thermostat, insulation and I'm driving a somewhat alternative vehicle that I really only use on a semi-weekly basis (rarely in comparison to my commuting requirements, where I use mass transit). I walk everywhere now.
I don't need a movie to scare me into realizing we have to drastically and fundamentally alter our massive consumption of scarce resources if we're going to have any chance in the next decade or two. In the meantime, the Chinese River Dolphin has become extinct, icebergs the side of Rhode Island have slipped off into the ocean, the alpine areas are notoriously devoid of snow and polar bears are next on the species-to-be-wiped-off-the-planet list. Arguing that they're merely following the lead of the dinosaurs is missing the more urgent point: that we are carefully marching to the brink of disaster and we're splitting hairs over how much we are to blame when we all know we are to blame to varying degrees. We just wonder and argue how much and whether it's worth the effort to change.
We appear to be incredibly reluctant to seek to change even the smallest aspects of our lifestyles.
This inability of humans to see our own faults may be our greatest weakness (perhaps related to our hubris?), and maybe we are appropriately doomed to failure. I try to resist that feeling, but the more I read from my "informed" cohorts, the more I doubt the ability for all humans to learn to survive. I think we miss the mountains, but instead focus on a few specks of sand in our fingernails. When it gets too hot from the ensuing lava flows we're just more likely to turn up the air conditioning.
-Phrazz
P.S.: If you're bored, read a little of each of these. If you're really bored, send me back some of your sources for me to educate myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/habitats/coral3.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/G ... /media.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 25,00.html
And this gets the funniest retort award:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=n ... &tb=1&pb=1