An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

You watched the movie with Nethercott? A movie made by a Democrat? With Nethercott?

Also - how are you enjoying driving your Smart Car? Ooops - I meant to write Ford Mustang. Start preaching when you stop being such a hypocrite.

State of Fear offers some interesting alternative views that appear to be well backed by evidence. An interesting read to follow up a viewing of An Inconvenient Truth.

“State of Fear is a 2004 novel by Michael Crichton published by HarperCollins on December 7, 2004. Like most of his novels it is a techno-thriller, this time concerning eco-terrorists who threaten the Earth. The book contains many graphs and footnotes as well as two appendices and a twenty page bibliography.

Crichton included a statement of his own views on global climate change at the end of the book, affirming that the world is heating up, but arguing that the causes, consequences and benefits or harms of this change are unknown. He warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicisation of science, and gives a horrifying example of the disastrous combination of pseudo-science and good intentions, in the early 20th-century idea of eugenics. He finishes by endorsing the preservation of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth’s environment.”

I’m offended Andy. How could you even think I would watch a movie by Mr. Personality?

By the way, when did he have time to make a movie? I thought he was still chasing Chads (double-entendre intended) in Florida.

If you want to see the arguements in State of Fear pulled apart visit http://www.realclimate.org/. There you can see honest discussions by real climate scientists as opposed to the writings of a fiction author with no peer reviewed publications on climate change. I guess Crichton earned all his crediability when he was so dead on about Jurassic Park.

Andy, I am a hypocrite. I drive a Mustang in the summer but the rest of the year drive a Corolla. I also moved my office to within 10 minutes of my house because I hate sitting in traffic. The benefit is that I’m contributing less to the pollution in the Big Smoke.

Graham, you might want to rethink your support for Michael Crichton after reading Ryan’s comment.

I can’t wait to see what my skeptical friend has to say when he reads this post. He’s been conspicuously absent from this conversation.

I think Bompippy’s exact words while watching the movie was that if you disagreed with it, “you’re either ignorant or just don’t care”.

Ouch!

(I’m loven this!!)

“Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council… the theory was eugenics.”

Ok Ryan, I’m admittedly in over my head and don’t really know what I’m talking about. Common sense would support looking after the environment - just found the book interesting.

I’d much rather poke fun of Jay for laying 30 foot patches of rubber in his smart car, with a big fat stoggie dangling from his mouth, gawking at the pretty girls wearing shorts in Dec.!!

The arguement presented is a classic straw man. Experts were wrong before so they must be wrong now. No matter that eugenics is unrelated to climate change or that the experts listed are not the experts discussing climate change.

If you want to present an equally useless but counter argument, one that is more recent, we can talk about the dangers of smoking. For how many decades were the health effects of smoking denied and intentionally obfuscated by those with a vested interest in the status quo? Eventually a majority were convinced of what the true experts were telling us all along. We were right then, so we’re right now.

A lawyer would be laughed out the courtroom for employing this type of logic and that is the standard by which we must measure the debate.

First, I want to address Michael Crichton’s book, State of Fear. State of Fear is a piece of garbage. Not only does it take liberties with the information it chooses to publish, it tries to sound intellectual but also it comes off as defensive. Who cares if it has footnotes and quotes research? Anyone can manufacture so-called truth if that is his or her aim. Look at the Bush War in Iraq. The book is a Hollywood film script cum PR stunt.

Anyone claiming that Global Warming is false is denying the irrefutable truth. It’s on par with denying the holocaust.

Reading State of Fear reminds me of countless discussions I’ve had with neo-con Bush supporters who verbally attack with emotion versus saying anything well thought out or supported by fact.

Denying the facts provided in the Inconvenient Truth just because a Democrat is presenting is pathetic. Just go back to watching your NFL football and drinking Budweiser. Rather I should say go back to sticking your head in the ground and wishing for a return to the good ole days back when Bush stole office.

Like Gore says in the film. If you throw, a frog into boiling water, the frog will leap out. However, if you put a frog in warm water and slowly turn the heat up the frog will remain complacent and boil to death. To all those denier’s of the facts and/or truth keep complacent, keep on consuming at the ridiculous rate your already are, focus on your selfishness and keep polluting. What do you care you won’t be alive to live in the world you leave behind.