It appears that the truth about Global Warming is indeed far too inconvenient for President Bush. He wants to "quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or natural causes." Not sure how he plans on working towards a solution when he won't acknowledge our role in creating the problem. Recognizing that is essential if Citizen Hunters are going to be spurred to take action. While President Bush continues to ignore the consensus in the scientific community, NASA and even his own EPA, Citizen Hunters must not.
Al Gore's new documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," shows in such an accessible way the implications of global warming. It dispels the myths and shows us what we can do to make a difference.
It's time for us as a nation to look the science behind global warming squarely in the face and stop making excuses.
The World Health Organization estimates that 160,000 people die every year from side effects of global warming ranging from malaria to malnutrition. And what's worse, scientists say those numbers could almost double by 2020, children and the elderly being most at risk. When you think about that, it's easy to see why Al Gore talks about global warming as a moral issue.
And therein lies the solution for a change and the reason why seeing this movie is so important. I know that once Citizen Hunters know the truth they will lead the way. Americans have always shown the capacity to see important issues in their ethical context, even from the very beginning. Slavery was an issue in the Revolutionary War, long before the Civil War tore us apart. It took time for our government to catch up with the moral judgment of the people, but it eventually happened.
But how long will it take for us to see global warming in the same way? We don't have much time, so get started today in doing your part.
Pollution, heat waves, more violent hurricanes, weather patterns, flooding, disease - we already see the effects, and they will only get worse.
The cost of doing nothing now will be far too great to bear.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is a must see movie!
Go watch the trailer, get informed, pledge to see the film, get others to do the same and take action.
UPDATE 6/16: Gore will train 1,000 people to give the slide presentation you see in the film to help stop global warming.
You don't have to be a scientist to see that something screwy is going on with the environment. Just check the weather.
I'm just a layman, but it seems to me that any time you get record weather events in conjunction with each other, there's a chance the environment is being tmpered with.
Along those lines:
Last year's hurricane season broke records that had stood since 1851. Hurricanes are helped by unusually warm ocean water.
Parts of the Sierras got the most snow in their history this past winter.
Biggest hurricane seasons. Most snow. Etc. etc.
Posted by: ChristianD at May 25, 2006 03:44 PMThe Hurricanes of last year and the snow storms that affected the Eastern Sea Board are no coincidence. This is an issue that cannot be ignored. This is a film of great importance that must be seen by as many people as possible. Get the word out!
Posted by: D.J. at May 25, 2006 06:50 PMFrom Lousiana,
They say the levees are ready, a feat of engineering and hard work. I do not know what the future may hold for this city or it's beautiful people. But I smile to know that there are people like you citizens that beleive in the value of every last one of us, those that have the means and those that don't. Like a tribal community awaiting the rainy season, we work together to shelter all families. Not giving up on anyone. That is tribal lot in life, as it is ours. As the storms grow stronger and deadlier as the enviroment changes, we work together in that same spirit of kinship, sounding the warnings of approaching wind and rain. The warning are many and the season approaches. For those who work to shelter others and to sound the warnings: thank you.
From Lousiana and wherever there is work to be done to protect our families.
Posted by: Joe at May 25, 2006 10:16 PMI share your concern re global warming, but not your optimism about the average American. Most of us have grown too complacent; the rest are certain that God will either take care of them or rapture them before the end. Besides, we'd better not tamper with global warming without factoring in global dimming: there is 20 percent less sunlight reaching the earth now than there was 40 years ago, thanks to the amount of reflective particulates, caused by burning fossil fuels, and by volcanic ash in the atmosphere. Cleaning up one without touching the other would create a deadly imbalance. (Thank goodness for public television.) The good news is that after everything we've done to the planet results in total annihilation of all living things, the earth will eventually replenish itself without our help.
Have a nice day.
M.Defarge, let's see what people do now that they have the information. I am willing to stay optimistic since I don't think many Americans took action because, and I speak for myself, they did not know how serious global warming was. Like Flavia said we also had an administration first telling us it wasn't real then that it didn't matter if we were causing it. I also don't think it will fix itself on its own, at least that is what I have read. Interesting about the sunlight did not know that.
ChristianD Didn't know about the snowfall part. Things really are getting out of whack. Your website is great.
Posted by: julie at May 26, 2006 11:10 AMLook up a April 14th, 2003 Philadelphia Inqurier article. It was in the Science section. It mentions that, up to that point, people weren't taking into account the output from the Sun. (Just for the record, the Sun's output varies.)
So before all blame is placed on human activity, we need to admit that there are tons of information we don't have in order to figure out if humans truly are the cause of global warming.
I would suggest reading this Scientific American blog entry which invited comments from global warming skeptics. http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Posted by: Geoff at May 26, 2006 01:26 PMRead State of Fear. And try thinking for yourselves.
Posted by: Jack McCardle at May 26, 2006 01:38 PMAs much as I believe in global warming....why are we not putting pressure on the biggest polluting /wildlife destory country today....that being China!!
Oopps, that's right, the US is to blame for all the global warming today (/sarcasm)
Posted by: phil at May 26, 2006 02:31 PMThe science is irrelevant. Even assuming the scientific community is legitimately conflicted over the precise pace and cause of global warming, or to what extent the reduction of CO2 emissions or other "painful" economic measures will have on global climate change, doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution, beginning with improving CAFE standards?
Americans don't have to wait around for a bunch of Ivy League Nobel prize winners to agree on something to know that pouring CO2 into the atmosphere can't be a good idea, and that Detroit can do a lot better than pumping out SUV's that suck gas at 13 mpg.
Posted by: JSM at May 26, 2006 02:37 PMI will go see the movie. Sounds like I will learn a lot. Has anyone seen it yet? Is it ok for kids to see?
Posted by: Tina at May 26, 2006 03:04 PMTina, I saw it and loved it. It was a real eye-opener for me. It's definitely ok for kids to see, although it might put them to sleep.
Posted by: JSM at May 26, 2006 03:09 PMJust a comment about the Sun. It can fluctuate circa 1% or so, not 20%. Not enough to reverse global warming.
Posted by: Carol A. at May 26, 2006 03:41 PMPlease read "State of Fear".
You will realize "Global Warning" is a joke.
Do not respond if you HAVE NOT read the book.
Thank you, Albert Einstein
Thnaks FLavia, for getting the word out. I wil definitely see the documentary and tell my friends and co-workers about it.
Semper Fi!
The public health ramifications of this are enormous.
Posted by: Glen at May 26, 2006 08:11 PMNot out in Florida yet. I have lived through a few of those more violent hurricanes. I will make sure to go see it when it comes out
Posted by: Maria at May 26, 2006 08:37 PMThe overall global temerature of the earth has risen .5 degrees in the last 100 years. In the US the temperature average has been vuirtually FLAT for that time period.
NASA has shown that the temperature of the sun has never been hotter (Bush's fault Im sure)
This is a ciclical pattern. You talk about 'consensus', but I guess consensus only means those that agree with you. Not thousands of other scientists from crappy colleges like MIT who dont agree that man has as much influence.
One volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than a million Suv's, maybe we should ban volcanoes.
Posted by: Mick at May 26, 2006 08:39 PMIt may not be worth doing something, anything just to err on the side of caution.
If it cost $2 trillion to do something and $1 trillion to just adjust that is $1 trillion you don't have for medical care, clean wells, malaria control, etc.
Posted by: Geoff at May 26, 2006 09:34 PMFunny how deficit lover-science haters change their tune when it doesn't involve war or tax cuts. Who the hell has a trillion dollars, but if where going to fight over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, how about fixing the damn whole in the ozone layer...and a tax cut to Geoff so he can go to the mall and buy a new set of golf clubs.
Posted by: BW at May 27, 2006 07:03 PMBW, ???? Tax cuts, war? Try to stay on topic and actually defend the assertion that global warming is primarily caused by human activity.
First, global warming skeptics (more precisely global warming caused by human activity) are asking for you to actually prove your case using good science. Not to just assume causes and to leave out variables like the Sun.
Second, you seem to be assuming the trillion dollar figure was about government spending. Granted, I was pulling the figure out as a hypothetical. I was considering overall cost to the economy.
Oh, the ozone layer is improving: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/27/0654216
Wow, what a scorching weekend!
Maybe that knucklehead Al Gore is actually on to something.
Naaah, what am I thinking... it musty be the heat messing with my brain. Al Gore? Hee hee heee!
Posted by: Mr. Smith at May 30, 2006 10:11 AMScience-haters, flat-earthers, and other political ostriches:
"A wise son loves correction, but the sensless one heeds no rebuke."
I am always searching the reputable science journals for knowledge. They are overwhelmingly warning us.
You are either for a healthy enviroment or you are against it. I am for it. You oppose the warnings therefore you oppose science.
As for your trillion dollars
..."ahem ahem,well well, I was just pulling the figure out as a hypothetical."
Whatever.
As for your link, I can include a link to the illuminati's weather machine, but I won't because as the Good Book says:
"A wicked messenger brings on disaster, but a trustworthy envoy is a healing remedy."
Its what we want to leave to our kids, for we are taught:
"The good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the just."
Better to leave our children a healthy world in which to live, than a favorites list of worthless websites. No thanks Geoff, keep your "wisdom" to yourself. As for me and my kids, we'll take care of the planet.
I'm out. I have children to raise.
Posted by: BW at May 30, 2006 03:40 PMMost of the posters here could not tell the difference between a statement by Al Gore and the Unabomber.
Al Gore is a classical historical pessimist. They will always be with us. "Society is in decline, and woe is us" is one of the oldest themes in civilization.
Meanwhile, things get better all the time, people get smarter, more people live better, and civilization continues.
BW, the point at hand was that "even if it isn't true it is better to do something than nothing." And the response to that is "not necessarily." If you expend enormous amount of resources to prevent something that benefit may be less than simply adjusting and taking care of malaria, etc. which kill millions.
If you followed the link regarding the ozone, you would find that it points to an article from NASA.
Just take away one point: correlation does not mean causation. If someone can actually come up with real proof, I want to see it. But I want them to take into account the Sun and natural cycles of warming and cooling.
Posted by: Geoff at May 31, 2006 02:01 PMEver put your mouth on a tailpipe of a running car and inhale? Something tells me that burning fossil fuels can't be good for the environment. Not sure, but this type of thinking might be common sense. In any event, prudence (not politics) dictates that, from both an environmental and a security standpoint, the development of alternative energies should be a priority for this country over the next 10 years.
Posted by: jack at May 31, 2006 04:09 PMWell said jack.
Science overwhelmingly supports, enough to argue a causality, that global warming is:
1. occuring
2. catastrophic
3. a direct result of human beings screwing around with, being greedy, and polluting something we were charged by God to take care of.
I'll go one up on jack's comments that not only is developing alternative energies and regulating emissions an environmental and security issue,
it is a MORAL IMPERATIVE.
So let's say for argument that human activities do not contribute to global warming and therefore not an enviromental and security issue. Stewardship of our planet is
still a MORAL IMPERATIVE.
Posted by: BW at May 31, 2006 05:37 PMBW is correct: stewardship of our planet is a true moral imperative. Now I'm going to make a statement that will knock the socks off of most leftists. That imperative is actually a fundamentally conservative duty. It is the duty of the Right to conserve what is good and wholesome, and Nature in all her wonderful splendor and beauty is at the very top of the list.
Posted by: George Tomezsko at June 2, 2006 01:47 PMFor all of you who cite Michael Crichton:
1. "State Of Fear", like any other single source of information, should not and cannot be your single source of information. Especially if you wish to proclaim as if you understand the science, it is important to expose yourself to those who make their life's work to investigate and explore that science.
2. Crichton is a fiction author. He has strong scientific sensibilities, but this should not be equated with the knowhow of true scientists.
With that in mind, there are some great sources to help illuminate the climate crisis from perspectives untainted by A) industry funding and B) desire to dramatize and make a great story.
"The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery. This book is an excellent chronicle of the last 3.5 million years of the Earth's temperature and conditions, with nuanced understanding of the complexities of our atmosphere and the oceans. He delves into energy sources as well, and examines in depth the myriad of ways we can produce energy.
"Field Notes From A Catastrophe" by Elizabeth Kolbert. Kolbert goes on many field trips to the front lines, so to speak, to bring us the changes now unfolding on the face of our planet. It is an illuminating first-hand account of observations that 10,000 Crichton's cannot deny.
Posted by: eric at July 2, 2006 02:51 AMOk wanted to point out one fo the few times I agree with Pat Robertson. even he has been converted to believing in Global Warming! He said so yesterday on the 700 Club. He believes “it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.” Robertson implored, “we really need to do something on fossil fuels.
I have written in the past about how much the evangelical community has done on this issue to help preserve God's creation. robertson was late to the dance, but better late than never!
Someone noted that Crichton shouldn't be taken as gospel on this issue.
But neither should Gore.
Crichton does a very accurate job of pointing out the power of the media in shaping collective thought when it is steered by people acting out an agenda.
Whether this actually IS is true in the area of global warming, I can't say: I really have NOT done the background research to know. BUT... Crichton's book certainly raises some questions that should be seriously considered by anyone wanting to be actively involved in this issue.
I sympathise more than the average person might with Crighton's point of view because I've seen the truth of it in another area: the "knowledge" about Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
Just as with global warming, everyone "knows" that ETS is killing thousands of people... but very, VERY few people take the time to read and think about the scientific studies that knowledge is based upon.
Everyone "knows" that studies are "unanimous and unequivocal" in agreeing that ETS is a major cause of lung cancer, but virtually no one knows that the vast majority of the studies done on it were never able to arrive at even the most basic epidemiological step in causality, that of statistical significance. Even fewer know that some of the studies, including one of the world's largest and most prestigious case-control studies performed by the United Nations itself, actually found a PROTECTIVE effect among children exposed to ETS. ( http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable )
Everyone KNOWS that smoking bans give immediate protection to nonsmokers from heart attacks, but virtually no one knows the primary study cited for this protection actually refused to even analyze the effect on nonsmokers or estimate the effect the ban may have had on them. (Helena Study: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1#55832 )
Everyone KNOWS that being around a smoker for just 30 minutes can give you a heart attack, but virtually no one has bothered to find the pages in the Surgeon General's Report that supposedly back this information up. If they did, they'd know that the two main studies cited in support of the "30 Minute Heart Attack" theory, one by Ryo Otsuka and one by Stefanadis, exposed nonsmokers to levels of smoke respectively 300% and 2,000% as great as that found in the middle of airplane smoking sections on pressurized aircraft in the 1980s! (p. 53 & 54 of the SGR, and the 1989 FAA "Cabin Air Quality" study)
So having seen this kind of "group think" in action in reality, I was quite predisposed toward believing the virtually identical processes as described by Crichton.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
www.Antibrains.com