<p>This film is going to make it impossible for anyone to say they don’t know enough about global warming to make judgements about its existence.
If you have any doubts that we are facing a climate crisis in the next 50 years, see this movie. If you know we have a problem and want to know what you can do about it, see this movie. If you think that global warming is over-hyped and not something we can or should do anything about, see this movie. I thought I knew a fair amount about this issue, but I learned a lot. The evidence is compelling.
The film ends on a hopeful note - we have the know-how, and a short window of time, to do what needs to be done to maintain our civilization as we know it. What we don’t have is the political will and leadership. The scientific community has spoken. We need to join the rest of the world and take on this challenge.
It’s a great film to see with your family!</p>
<p>No thanks. I prefer not to see this political non scientific movie. Just curious, does he claim he invented global warming also?</p>
<p>Living in a cold climate, I am kinda hope that there is some global warming. We are in June and it has been too cold to be outside all day without a jacket or sweatshirt.</p>
<p>Hey, you guys are both in the movie! I hope you were handsomely
rewarded!</p>
<p>For those of you who think that global warming is just some sort of political fabrication, why do think someone would just make it up? What would those people gain?</p>
<p>The bulk of the scientific community believes it has/is occurring? What do they hope to gain by fabricating it?</p>
<p>The insurance industry is taking this very seriously. This industry is one of the cornerstones of our capitalistic system (i.e., without the insurance industry to spread the risk, very little investment would occur).</p>
<p>Why would people make something like global warning up??? For many reasons — to be able to influence legislation for various laws and regulations.</p>
<p>There are a whole bunch of people making their living doing research, writing articles and making movies about global warming.</p>
<p>“To be able to influence legislation for various laws and regulations” - are you assuming there is a political agenda here? Wouldn’t there have been an easier way to go about it than forming a worldwide conspiracy of top insurance company executives and scientists?</p>
<p>Dadguy:
Far leaning conservatives in general deny almost all science. It is just one of the similarities to fascism - anti-intellectualism, repudiation of rationalism and reason, and general denial of all things scientific. By denying intellectualism the masses become more reliant on “strong leaders” and authoritarianism (do what we tell you, we know best, you know nothing). </p>
<p>The other alignment with fascism is the bend towards the corporate, rather than the democratic state, which is clearly implicated in the denial of global warning (and any corporate responsibility).</p>
<p>It’s really sort of creepy.</p>
<p>There are a lot of people doing research and writing articles about cancer. Does that, by itslef, mean that cancer is a hoax?</p>
<p>Weenie, its convinient for you to label people. Global warming is not science. Its simple politics. In the 70s people were worrying about global cooling. There is absolutely no evidence that man influences weather through burning hydrocarbons. What is creepy is that you are so brainwashed its almost hilarious…although not quite.</p>
<p>A.S.A.P. you might consider yourself to be much more witty than you are.</p>
<p>There are people making their living researching global warming.</p>
<p>There are also people making their living selling oil.</p>
<p>Which ones do you think make bigger livings? Which would be more motivated to bend the truth?</p>
<p>Its not about truth kitty, its about control. Most ‘scientists’ who support global warming do it for political grants, clout, influence, political axe to grind, etc.</p>
<p>But lets just apply your logic kitty, say, to the moon landing. Moonlanding conspiracy theorists make a lot less money than NASA. That means that the moon landing is a hoax, right? Armstrong and Aldrin were more motivated to ‘bend the truth’, right?</p>
<p>
You are certainly right. Only it also applies to far leaning liberals as well. Don’t make me laugh by bringing up reason; neither you conservatives nor you liberals have an iota of reason.</p>
<p>
Consensus means nothing in science. The bulk of the scientific community also believed that malaria was caused by bad air, they believed that Pasteur’s theory of germs was garbage, they believed in eugenics, they believed in nuclear winter, they believed in left brain-right brain split, they believed in the four humours. Just to show you that consensus means jack ****.</p>
<p>For anyone who is interested in this topic, look and see what the insurance industry does in the next few years. These people are hard businessmen (and ladies) and will not be coerced into acting against their interests by people on the right or the left. If they make some moves to limit or eliminate coverage in areas likely to be impacted by global warming (if it exists or not), move to higher ground, at the very least.</p>
<p>
Industry can be fooled. Vanderbilt, Carnegie were all great capitalists who supported eugenics. Enough said.</p>
<p>Chuck, do you believe that most scientists sincerely beleive that human activitiy contributes to global warming and are simply mistaken or do you believe most scientists really know there is no connection and are stating otherwise for either political and/or monetary gain?</p>
<p>
That’s the difference, isn’t it? There’s not doubt about it- Earth IS warming up. If you’re not familiar with how we can measure that, here’s one way- oxygen has two stable isotopes (O-16 and O-18). Depending on temperature, the ocean (H2O) will have more of one isotope than the other. O-16 is preferentially evaporated and frozen, so O-18 is strongly present in periods of cool temperatures and less evident in periods of warm temperatures. Using the foraminifera record (and other CaCO3-based samples) obtained from ocean drilling, we can get an accurate measure (to within a few degrees) of what temperatures were like for the past several million years. The last major ice age was about 10,000 years ago, and the planet has been warming up ever since (at an unprecedented rate). This is all documented and well-established. What IS debatable, however, is whether humans have caused this temperature spike, merely influenced it, or have nothing to do with it at all. What’s also up for debate is what will happen to us- will temperatures level off, shrivel up the planet in intense heat, or turn into another “snowball Earth” scenario (which has happened before)? </p>
<p>Oh, well. I figure we’ll manage to blow ourselves up or die of pollution before that happens. :D</p>
<p>How many people believe in global warming? Tens of millions</p>
<p>From those millions, how many are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices? Thousands, if not hundreds. </p>
<p>How many members of CC would be prepared to sell their SUV, or accept to pay 5 bucks a gallon for gas with the extra proceeds going to providing commercial incentives to developers alternative energy? Heck no! Let’s all complain about 3 dollars a gallon ! </p>
<p>I’d venture guessing that that number is ONE. Our global warming problems won’t be solved by bleeding heart liberals, or pompous lying buffoons like Gore. It will be solved by our willingness to pay the correct price for our excesses, and correctly compensate the companies that invest in our future. Movies and documentaries are nice, but they won’t do much to help shed our hypocrisy. Our viw -in the US- is that the solution ought to come from denying the rest of the world the same standard of living we want for ourselves. As usual, someone else should do something… the perfect liberal motto. Always someone else.</p>