NASA warming scientist: This is the last chance "We're Toast"

[Sqrl]

superchunk said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

You do realize that movie was actually brought to court and found to have several inconsistancies and outright lies in it, right?

When watching a movie changes your life, you might wanna determine if the movie is biased.

That movie isn't accurate, and you should go to wikipedia to find out some of the inconsistancies cited in the court case.

So 9 potential errors out of tons of factual information given in that movie make in biased and unrealiable. Talk about cherrypicking.

ok, fine, if some of you are too close-minded to think that we are negatively affecting our atmosphere at least you can realize that there are only a finite amount of the materials we use to create energy and by reducing our reliance on these materials and the overall use of them is a very good thing that in reality is a must for the longterm.

Then by using alternative fuels and making everything we can more efficient we also reduce the atmospheric waste.

 

The movie has a lot more than 9 factual errors, and yes I have seen it. The movie isn't what is ultimately important anyways so arguing about it is silly. A movie has no place in a scientific debate, its purpose was to bring more people to his cause which it has. I will note however that Mr. Gore has made substantial money in carbon credits/offsets as a result, the exact amount is undisclosed as far as I know but the speculation I've heard ranges from 50-150 million dollars. I have no idea if it is true but I know he has been asked several times to confirm or deny it and has declined comment in all cases AFAIK.

You are correct on the point about conservation however, and I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea of conserving and using efficient fuels and energy sources. But that doesn't happen over night, and there are economic factors to consider in addition to the environmental. Right now the economic factors matter far more to me, but once we solve the current energy crisis (which is very real and here right now) we can make the reasonable changes.

Now, many people like to claim the debate is over and that there is a scientific consensus, but if the debate is so settled amongst scientist why do 31,072 of them sign this (note these signers have had their sceintific credentials verified individually, over 9,000 are PHDs):

"All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement."

Now I think this idea of a consensus is absolute BS not only because science has nothing to do with forming a large conensus but because obviously there are plenty of scientists who do disagree. So, I will point out that they have a 12 page report compiled detailing the facts supporting their position, and you can view it here. If you would like to find out more about the project you can visit here.

Again I want to stress that the report they have compiled is what matters, the only reason I bring up the "petition" is because its clear evidence that there is no consensus.  I won't be responding to any argument aspousing a consensus because there demonstrably isn't one.