I care and like many others who care I won't be having kids for my own reasons - and that's alright.

Reply

↓↑report

I believe that global warming (climate change... whatever) is real. now something that isn't mentioned in the movie is what do we do about it? I drive a TDI, try to use biodiesel when I can. and my house has had 15W spiral bulbs for years. what else do you want from us?

Reply

↓↑report

A problem when I discuss global warming with people is that more often than not they repeat the "these things go in cycles naturally, like the ice ages". I explain to them that this myth is debunked in the film "An Inconvenient Truth" and ask why they haven't seen it. Usually they tell me they can't stand Al Gore and feel he's using the issue to gain acclaim and political power.

My own mom started to watch the film and turned if off part-way through because she felt it was a self-important story about Al Gore (she can't stand him), what with the shots of him torturedly pondering our future while working on his Mac laptop, rather than global climate change.

Cassandra Complex.

She told me that she thinks problems like people not having any respect for each other anymore and kids staying in the house playing video games rather than going out and experiencing life are bigger problems than global warming.

I just don't get it. How can people not see this problem means the imminent end of the world? Do people naturally want to stick their heads in the sand and figure someone else will solve the problem if it gets bad enough? Why is Iraq getting so much more press than the coming end of the world?

Then again, I freaked everyone in my family out with the whole Y2K scare, so hopefully I'm wrong on the global warming thing too... :-)

Reply

↓↑report

Brian: you're being facetious, right? Did you stick around and watch the credits at the end of the film? That's where they say what you can do about it.

Also, if you buy the DVD (or rent it or steal it or whatever...) you'll see that there's a special features section with more info.

Reply

↓↑report

See how bad or good you are and see what you can do about it.

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/

There are a few sites that do the same as the above, I just posted the first one that came up.

Reply

↓↑report

"...what else do you want from us?"

There's always more we can do...(save water/rainwater, start a compose heap, buy green energy, bike to work, etc. etc.) and perhaps the final sacrifice is to be buried and recycled... ^_^

Honestly, we can't do it all, but it's better for personal morale if we just do what we can at our own pace. I've been bringing my own bags to grocery shopping and I know it's not fashionable, but that's just what it means to stick with what you can do. Now that I finally have my own home, I'm working on a rain capture system. I really would like to jump into solar power, but I can't afford it right now (plus newer technologies are on the horizon), so my focus right now is what's within my budget.


In my opinion, the eco-movement is, and probably always will be, somewhat emotionally cyclical to the general public. It was real hip to "save the trees" then it's crazy to "save the owls", then it's smart to RECYCLE, but it's too much trouble to separate. Maybe, FINALLY, more people will accept Climate Change, but in another few year, the opinions will probably shift again.

We shouldn't expect everyone to be model GREEN citizen overnight, but rather just do what you can and stick with it. When you're ready to do more, add another project, but keep on doing all the other things you've been doing before.

Reply

↓↑report

One thing is a sure thing. The climate changes, it always has. The difference is the scientists/activists behind the data in the movie want you to believe man is responsible. Laurie David likes to say the debate is over. She is right, it is over and her side is wrong. Al Gore wants you to believe that any scientific opposition to his movie are all a result of oil company conspiracies. Here are some facts.

The planet is warming and has been for 10+ yrs. or so. It is mainly because of the sun. Who says so? NASA, that's who. They have made this conclusion based on intensive study of the sun itself. They have also observed ice cap shrinkage on Mars which would suggest the sun is the main culprit. They also think this hotter solar cycle is nearing it's end. Yes, there is a scientist from NASA who backs Al Gore. He also has an extensive political background supporting liberals and the vast majority of his colleagues at NASA don't support his views.

They said it is the warmest it has been in 1,000 years. Not true. There was a time near the end of the medieval period that was a full 5 degrees warmer than the most dire predictions given currently for the future temp. increase. This has also been backed up by archeological evidence found on Greenland of Vikings growing grapes. This is something that would be impossible to do today outside of a greenhouse. It was found under several feet of ice that has existed ever since.
An in depth 15 yr. study on ice flows on Antartica says that the ice isn't retreating, it's expanding. Some ice flows on one side of the world are retreating while on the other side they are expanding. Go and figure, but it doesn't exactly back up the man-induced ice melt theory.

Satellite data experts have concluded that the data used to support man-made warming theories is flawed because they didn't account for orbital degredation. I didn't totally understand this myself. Check it out on co2science.com (as you can most of this data). Another group of scientists say the stratosphere has more effect on temp. change than originally realized.

It's also important to realize that although a thousand yrs. seems like along time to us, it is but a blink in time. There have been many periods when it has been much hotter. Antartica was covered in fir tree forests 5 million yrs. ago. It's streams and ponds harbored the ancient ancestor of today's whales. The biggest threat was a prolonged frost during the dark periods of winter. The time of the dinosaurs saw temps. 15+ degrees hotter than today, yet today's deserts were swampland and jungle. These are but a fraction of the examples of major climate change occuring long before man. How can they be so sure of man causing climate change? It is like saying I can predict the stock market 20 yrs. from now based on the last 5 minutes.

Every hotter period (with the exception of one) has caused wetter conditions where as the colder periods have caused drought. This is contradictory to what most environmentalists say will happen. It is true some say we will have massive coastal flooding, but it wasn't that long ago it was said we're in for a severe drought. Don't forget most of them said not 25 yrs. ago that we were causing global cooling.

Here's something I learned a few years back. Environmentalists loved to emphasize that man emitted somewhere around 8 billion cubic tons of emissions per year, I think the figure is something like 10-12 billion now. Sounds like alot, until you find out the earth emits roughly 250 billion cubic tons on it's own. A Harvard physicist at the time stated that given these figures, it's astronomically impossible for man to be causing the climate change that has been claimed. I seriously doubt an extra 4 billion cubic tons has effected that assessment.

"therefore man must be..." "the only logical conclusion is the man-made emissions are..." These are assumptions and something I like to call conclusionary science. Earliest of which would be the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. All valid scientific assumptions at the time. Most recent of which (besides man made global warming) was man's extinction of the wooly mammoth and man causing the ozone hole.

It was determined that since the extinction of the wooly mammoth (and the sabre tooth tiger) coincided with the arrival of man on this continent, that man "must be" the culprit. No one stopped to think about the absurdity of this idea at the time. Men with stone tipped spears being responsible for not just killing mammoths or tigers, but causing their extinction. Hunters today use very large caliber rifles or pistols to shoot bear or elephants because anything smaller is liable to only accomplish making them angry. Archeologists now know that man's main diet was small animals caught from trapping. They have also determined that the climate change at the end of the ice age was most likely responsible for the extinction of these animals among many others. Yes, there are findings of man hunting opportunistically the larger game, but no where near on the level required to cause an extinction. We also know that man came to this side of the world much earlier than originally thought. Yet there are those who cling to the "man's fault" theory and refuse to let go.

Scientists, through the use of satellites found the ozone hole in the early to mid 80's. About the same time there was an experiment in a laboratory that demonstrated CFC's are capable of destroying ozone. Therefore it was concluded that man "must be" the reason.

They told us that the hole is expanding. They failed to mention that it expands in some years and not so much during others. They failed to mention that it seemed to expand in summer, but contracted again in winter.

Scientists who have now studied this phenomena for years know that the tropical areas of the planet refurbish ozone via the jet stream. Sometimes it flows normally, sometimes it doesn't. It has also been determined that upper atmosphere literally freezes ozone. Didn't understand that one either. Have to check out a book called "EcoScam" (Ronald Bailey/St. Martin Press). It's also a fact that it takes something like 50 yrs. for manmade CFCs to reach those altitudes and since CFCs haven't been around long enough to effect ozone (as has been claimed), it is impossible for man to have caused the ozone hole. It has probably been around for thousands of yrs.. The result of this was to cost the refrigeration industry billions (which they passed on the consumer) and caused a black market for R12.

Consider wind power:

It's not free power via the cost of contruction, materials, maintenance, etc.

They occupy a tremendous amount of real estate. 13,000 acres of land for 16,000 wind generators. Wind power advocates claim that only 1% of land would be needed to power the country. I find this to be absurd but even if it was true, you are talking about an area the size of West Virginia!

They are a nominal source of power at best. 16,000 windmills generate less then 1/3 the power produced by one clean burning natural gas power plant occupying 10 acres of land. 10 ACRES! 40,000 wind generators are being constructed off the Gulf Coast. They will provide power for 325,000 homes. That's approximately a quarter of the population of a small city, and how much does it cost to build and maintain 40,000 generators vs. a 10 acre facility powering three times as many dwellings?

They are killing birds at an alarming rate. Especially the migratory birds that fly at night, many of which are endangered species. Many naturalists claim that the giant whirling wonders are running off the wildlife. When thousands of acres are involved, where are the wildlife supposed to go?

This is a clear negative impact resulting from the man-made global warming movement. So is auto safety. It is clear that fuel economy has taken a back seat to safety as dictated by the government (i.e. CAFE). Many hi-tech safety devices have been invented but they don't compsensate for mass. You can't deny physics. I can't count how many vehicles I've seen involved in 40-50mph crashes that you can't even tell what they were.

I was at an auto show where they had a new electric vehicle that had plastic doors that I could flex inward with my hand considerably. I asked if this vehicle was legal for street use and of course it was, point proven.

Sorry this is so long but this is a very important issue.

Reply

↓↑report

so carbonfootprint tells me to go and spend money to stick a windmill up... this is going to stop me from burning diesel how? My electric bill (here in TX, which is worse $$ wise than CA) is only about $75/month. I have three people in my house, and one car. I walk to work everyday (no need for a bicycle, it's a block away). I don't have much of an impact on the environment, but they still want me to pay some company I have never heard of to add power to the grid. Give me something else I can do, and I'm there. Collecting rainwater??? I hope you're boiling it... and I wonder where that energy is coming from... electric, or natural gas.

So now tell me how a non environmentalist is supposed to become "carbon neutral" by adding electricity to the already cleaner than my car electric grid. It's a wonder why they don't ask how many trees are in my yard.

Reply

↓↑report

Doug R:

Yes, I've read it all before, and I do not want to waste your time arguing about it. I only find it interesting that we have been arguing about Climate Change for YEARS and the movement is toward an AGREEMENT that is it caused by man. It took decades before we all can finally agree that smoking cause Cancer, and I wonder how long we will all going round and round about this...

As for your comment about wind energy (which I really don't have time to go point to point with you) is a lot of cherry-picking on the negatives, but how about the negatives for other sources of energy? The truth is that there are many positives about wind energy that makes it superior to other sources, but it is NOT the magic bullet for ALL cases.

The thing is, people who have an agenda against "environmentalism" would twist the data to ensure that their data is the only thing that's right. Hey, maybe there is a big scary eco-nazi conspiracy going on and these shadowy forces are just clasping their hands and laughing that evil environmental laugh right now!

It's quite ok to sow the seeds of doubt into Climate Change, because globally, we will do so little to make a difference, until it gets a lot worse. Why save money for a rainy day when we had years and years of good times? Who cares about fuel economy if there are plenty of oil? Who cares about safety if I have the biggest vehicle on the road?

Since we are in a forum about automobiles, then less talk about safety versus fuel economy. Race cars are light and yet they have great safety features. Weight and mass ALONE does NOT, I repeat, NOT equate safety. That's just like saying FAT people will stop a bullet better.

If we are only talking similar vehicles crashes, vehicle flip overs, or vehicle to stationary object crashes, then LIGHT vehicles with good safety feature will do just fine, if not BETTER than heavier vehicles. Safety has more to do with vehicle height mismatch (which bypasses the safety features), number of safety features included (where smaller, cheaper cars often have fewer to save cost), the ability to control the vehicle in an emergency, etc. Mass contributes, but does nothing to address passenger safety.

The electric car you saw was probably limited to below 25-mph travel. That is really the only way for a small company to produce vehicles that doesn't take millions of dollar in crash testing. Whatever skin a vehicle is irrelevant when you're traveling under 25-mph.

Perhaps when non-commercial vehicles will all range within similar mass and weight, then we won't have to waste time talking about weight as the ONLY factor in automotive safety anymore.

Reply

↓↑report

Brain Hague:

Obviously you're only interested in criticizing the topic, because again, you're just nitpicking on little things and twist it into silly arguments.

Tell me, do you drink every drop that comes out of your tap? Since you live in Texas, if you have a yard, you could be using upwards of 10,000+ gallons a month. Geez, I guess you'd want to BOIL every drop of that?

If people's intent is to shame everyone who doesn't see things their way, then please do not bother to read about environmental efforts, cause I'm sure the creative energy used to endlessly criticizing others could be better used elsewhere.

Reply

↓↑report

Charles S,

well... thanks for calling me Brain...

How about if we have potable and non potable water on tap?

I'm interested in solutions, and as you hypocritically accused me of arguing... hot water works really well on the lawn thank you very much...

again, I asked in my original post... what else can I do? everyone I know of uses spiral bulbs unless they need a reading lamp... oh wait... maybe we can switch to a luxeon LED... I don't think that anyone here is giving any good answers to my question. Conservation can only go so far.

I think I'm at my limits without going to a horse and carriage (with methane recycling to power my home's heater). The debate on global warming is over, only neophytes are in the debate on global warming.

Now how about some real solutions!

The C02 is already there... what can absorb it?
How can we reduce the amount produced?

That is how you get a discussion going, if you keep criticizing, you will find opposition.

Reply

↓↑report

Doug R. You have obviously put a lot of effort into trying to convince others of the fallacy of global warming. You also make a lot of unsubstantiated claims. I don't have the time to go over everything but here are a few.

Oil companys have engaged in conspiracies in an attempt to supress information about global warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html


NASA has found that solar radiation does have an effect on global warming but you misrepresent the findings. In reality the study clarifies that humans could indeed be a cause.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=9279


Another study says increased solar output could be responsible for only 10-30% of global warming.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html


Yes the ice is thickening on parts of antarctica. Warming will cause more moisture to evaporate from oceans causing more precipitation in some places.
However, as a whole Antarctica is losing ice.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060302_antarctic_ice.html


The evidence of human effect on climate is there.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html

The ozone layer does expand and contract on a seasonal basis, but the long term trend has been one of expansion.
Nasa does say that man made gasses are a cause of it.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html

And:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006101923415.html

Greenland ice sheet melting:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006101923416.html


Quote from Doug R:

"I was at an auto show where they had a new electric vehicle that had plastic doors that I could flex inward with my hand considerably. I asked if this vehicle was legal for street use and of course it was, point proven."

You didn't flex the door, you flexed the outer skin.
Weather it's made of metal or plastic the outer cladding of a car contributes little to its crashworthyness.
The inner structure does.
You haven't proven anything.

Reply

↓↑report

Oh and I forgot to add that co2science.com is entirely funded by the oil industry.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1993

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

Reply

↓↑report

"well... thanks for calling me Brain..."

I swear I just did a cut+paste, so why it was changed, it's a mystery to me...

In any case, your answer to my water questions is still dodging the main issues. Your critical comments about saving rainwater is to imply that conserving water is not a "...real solution..." but yet you still asked about what MORE you can do. Conserving water, especially during a drought period in Texas, is certainly a GOOD thing to do!

Just in case we are going to spiral this water thing out of control, let's at least dissect it a bit. Potable/Non-Potable taps is a great idea. However, as I have already mentioned in my first post, we do what we can, and I don't expect people to pay thousands and start tearing down drywalls. 5-minute showers, low-flush toilets, smart-water-wise appliances, etc. these are good starts to reduce water consumption, which then when people can afford it, look toward solutions such as integrating rainwater into internal plumbing.

For lawn and foundation watering, a low-cost project such as recycled food barrels, turned into rain barrels, attached with soaker hoses, would be more efficient than sprinkler systems. I am also looking into converting my sprinkler heads into drip systems.

The above is a list of things that any motivated individual can do. I certainly think it's just as "REAL" as another other solutions. Perhaps people are looking for some grand, world-changing ideas, and I’m all for it! But that should not belittle the small things and people can do daily that is quite effective, once it’s applied in a large scale.

Reply

↓↑report

You folks live in your own reality. You see what you want and ignore the rest. I researched this arguement because I truly wanted to know one way or the other. You people don't care one way or the other. It's only your way. Don't hear anyone refuting the evidence on co2science.com. Just that you think it's funded by big oil and that's enough for you. Of course Al Gore or any other sources you have mentioned would never mislead you. Somehow because some one doesn't believe man is causing it that means they don't believe global warming is happening at all, something I never said. I believe I have acknowledged that the climate is always changing and always has. Something your movement refuses to accept.

How many times have the predictions been made over the years that "in 10 years the planet will be....". Three, Four times now? Have they been remotely close? No, and you keep waving the flag. But then you guys know so much more than I.

Brian, you like to quote NASA when they agree with you and other sources when they don't (i.e. solar output). There are activists at NASA whom most of their other colleagues don't agree with, especially the guy who supports Al Gore and his movie. You have completely ignored the astronomical, mathematical impossibilty that our level of emissions (compare to that of the earth) are capable of creating the change that is being claimed. Accept it or not, the earth isn't even close to a teeter totter existence. We had a severe climate change 300+ million yrs. ago that massively dwarfs the one we are experiencing now. The reason we are here to play "chicken little, the sky is falling" is because of an asteriod that nearly wiped out all life, but didn't.

The little econo-boxes are just like race cars. They have tubular chassis, roll cages and 4 point harnesses don't they? Great comparison.

I was there, I know what I flexed and the inner and outer skin may as well been the same thing. I wouldn't want to be hit by anything at any speed in that glorified golf cart.

Years ago I drove a 1973 Chrysler Newport. I was rear-ended by a 1982 Mustang GT. My car barely moved and his front end was destroyed. I wiped paint from the safety bumbers. That's all.

According to some of you folk's technical analysis of safety, I should have been seriously injured. I was not. The driver of the Mustang however, hit his head on the steering wheel pretty hard. This is the reality of car safety you refuse to acknowledge all for the sake of gas mileage. You completely ignore physics in order to feel comfortable with this view.

"Like vehicles" is the only way you can justify your arguement. Even if you people were to accomplish having SUVs and large cars banned from the roadways, you still have delivery trucks, work vehicles, and mass transit vehicles to think about. Until we are able to "beam me up scotty" to and from work and have what we need at home, this will never happen.

You people are living in a pipe dream, insisting on the absence of reality. I've never claimed to be right about everything, but the way you stumble over yourselves and strain to make all your beliefs valid speaks volumes.

Reply

↓↑report

I had a kid just last night, it was delicious!

Reply

↓↑report

Brian, you show a website that documents a total of 2 grants totalling $100,000 during a 3 year period of it's 9 year existence. Couldn't find the exact number but I'm pretty sure the total worth of the center is in the millions. And this means in your mind that co2science.org is entirely funded by the oil industry? What a wonderful example of unbiased thinking Brian! Al Gore would be proud!

In the media information section of c02science.org it says and I quote: "The Center was incorporated in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona in January 1998 as a non-profit public charity dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the climate and the biosphere." They sure sound like evil oil lackeys to me dude! So big oil has taken over a major non-profit public charity. Got any proof of that?

Now I don't know everything about this subject or the sources I get, so I wasn't sure about your claims. Since I don't know everything like you, I checked it out. So how many of your sources are you sure of Brian? So far you have proven my point about how many environmentalists such as yourself seeing only what you want to see.

Reply

↓↑report

Oh gee! I forgot about the $65,000 from Exxon Mobil. My mistake! That changes everything doesn't it? Do you scrutinize who invested what in any of your environmental.orgs that intensely? I seriously doubt it.

Reply

↓↑report

Oh, I forgot. Exxon-Mobil gave $65,000 over the whole 9 year existence of the center. That sure sews it up doesn't it? Yep, they're ENTIRELY funded by big oil, no doubt about it Brian.

Reply

↓↑report

Wow Doug, you really don't like being proven wrong do you?

Co2science.org has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

$100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1993
The Sarah Scaife Foundation is controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. He is heir to the Mellon oil fortune and finacially supports various right wing causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

Quote:
"Couldn't find the exact number but I'm pretty sure the total worth of the center is in the millions."
Why do you assume this? According to their own web page they have a staff of four people. All members of the same family (strange in itself).

Craig and Keith Idso have both done work for the Western fuels association in the past.
The center they run likely recieves funding from the Western fuels association.


The center has collaborted with the Greening earth society. A front group for the western fuels association.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html

Reply

↓↑report