Video of the Week: Al Gore An Inconvenient Truth (Complete speech on which the film is based)
This weeks video of the week is a presentation on climate change by Al Gore. The reason i like this is because its slick, he makes his points well while actually looking like its an issue he cares about.The basic science is brought into the picture but the case for action based on economics is also made. If you arent convinced about climate change then watch this video and be convinced, if
you already understand the issue and are trying to spread the word then you could would do well to watch this and learn a thing or two about how to 'pitch' the issue to a general and skeptical audiance.(UPDATE) THE FULL FEATURE FILM CAN BE OBTAINED FOR FREE FROM HERE
(UPDATE 21 March'07) Al GORE'S TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS CAN BE WATCHED HERE
Labels: ecological impacts, poverty and development, science, video
Home
del.icio.us
Digg This!
posted by Calvin Jones @ 7:28 PM
22 comments
22 Comments:
THanks to this link to Al Gore. You know, he does care about it a lot, and he even wrote a book about it. I wish he was president now instead of this imbecile that we have.
Great job Calvin...good stuff!
Namaste
Al
cityhippy.net
I'm super sereal... global warming is going to eat the women and small children if we don't do something about it right now! *stomping foot and shaking fists*
hey City Hippy,
All respect to you, but please don't use words like "Namaste." It's really annoying to most Indians when self-styled hippies "go South Asian."
This does not work on a Mac. It does start Windows Media Player but the format is not recognized.
bobp@marketwriter.com
I just love the republican spinmeisters take on CO2-as if it's a good thing. While it's true that carbon dioxide isn't poisonous, enough of it in your lungs will cause you to suffocate. I learned this in my junior year of high school, in chemistry class. Most high school juniors today don't know their ass from their elbows, and, like their elders, are suckers for the crap being spewed by the repugs at the behest of their corporate overlords.
Thanks for the link. I saw the film last night, it is really terrific. I think Gore could teach us scientists something about communicating climate change to the public.
Thanks for spreading the word :)
Hey! I frapp'd myself on your fullas blog and now I'm not there any more? You got something against us south seas folks? I got an email from Frappr and everything. Nevermind, Al Gore is STILL scaring my pants off! (It's an inoffensive colloquilism - not sure if it's understood north of the equator). All good and you can get some Pacific perspectives on global warming at my news agency weblog.
An impressive list of blogs you have Calvin. And thanks for the comment made over on our blog (or if it wasn't you, it came via your blog!).
We need more Al Gores, preferably in power.
Al Gore, what more can you say, we all know the world would have been a better place if he was president, Al Gore come to Britain, we need a new P.M. you could do the job, the time is right for common sense!
We need to take in what good old Al is trying to point out. We need action or else it's our children's futures that will be destroyed.
mr gore u will go down in history as the man who started the movement to save the world, not as the man who didnt win the election. Your movie changed my life and i cant thank u enough. I pledge my utter ellegence to u and ur cause and will do as u command.
I want to help save the world ur wish is my command.
maybe he's a false prophet!
"We need action..." Don't post comments saying we need action, you are buying into the idea that someone else needs to act. Go round your house right now and turn off everything you can including the tv at the wall. Now go out and buy low energy light bulbs. No don't go in your car, go by bicycle or walk. Yeah?
Chris
Just look at the "Bible" of global warming-- the IPCC report itself. It says two things you need to know. First, that Al Gore's prediction of 20 feet of sea level rise is pure bunk, that the "scientific" estimate is 20 INCHES. The second thing it says is that if we greatly restrict CO2 production now, that in another 200 YEARS tempertures will start down. So, the obvious questions: If we caused this problem in the last 50 years, why can't we "fix" it in 200? Since the total effect of manmade CO2 on the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is something like 0.12%, why is that the piece we're struggling so hard to reduce? What about the other 99.88%?
ust look at the "Bible" of global warming-- the IPCC report itself.
====
Religous insinuations for people talking about climate change are so deeply ironic. The science of climate change is just that, science, based on making a proposition such as 'climate change isn't happening' going out, trying to prove that and then--upon failing learning from that and trying another proposition. So infact, no faith involved! Unlike those of you who decide to ignore the science based on a free market ideology, distaste for regulation, denial in the face of unpleasent reality...etc.
===
It says two things you need to know. First, that Al Gore's prediction of 20 feet of sea level rise is pure bunk, that the "scientific" estimate is 20 INCHES.
===
I don't know why but i`m going to actually assume that you have read the report. Having done so you will realise that the projected sea level rise is frought with uncertainty due to the dynamics of ice collapse being uncertain. However when Al Gore talks of 20ft sea level rise if we don't act on climate change in the next few years he is most likely spot on. It may take hundereds of years, perhaps a thousand...what we do know is that once we have passed a certain concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere the loss of greenland that would lead to this sea level rise is inevitable. Many think we have passed that leve, if not we will soon. The next few years are critical 'lock in' to a longer term effect.
====
The second thing it says is that if we greatly restrict CO2 production now, that in another 200 YEARS tempertures will start down. So, the obvious questions: If we caused this problem in the last 50 years, why can't we "fix" it in 200?
===
Ohh god, it's so painful, you need some basic science lessons, just go and pick up a book! Or read the report. I assume you are taking your facts from an article about the report?
===
Since the total effect of manmade CO2 on the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is something like 0.12%, why is that the piece we're struggling so hard to reduce?
===
There is a difference between flux and addition. The global carbon cycle is huge (great flux) but it is a cycle, inputs and outputs balance. We are digging up oil and releasing it but not taking it down.
Virtually all of the increase in co2 is due to us. This is know due to isotopic analysis.
====
What about the other 99.88%?
The sooner the crisis is precipitated the better. We should all be trying to pump as much carbon dioxide into the air as possible to bring the crisis to a head. Prevention is just prolonging the inevitable.
Al Gore is full of it. The science he spouts is flawed and mere populist speculative hocus pocus. The assumption that carbon is the engine behind climate temperature is nothing more than an ill conceived inference.
The benefit to mankind will be a reduction in pollution from fossil fuels (cleaner cities better air quality). Widescale adoption of nuclear energy would facilitate this, anyone who thinks wind and solar can make up the current energy shortfall (not to mention increased demand from India and China) should go live in a teppee and burn dung.
anonymous:
Al gore is full of it--energy and hope that is.
My god, you used inference, wow, thats a big word for someone who shows no grasp of science.
1. co2 likely to cause warming (1896)
2. most of the co2 accumulation is due to humans (isotopic analysis)
3. co2 levels are at highest level for >800'000 years (ice core data)
Co2 is the primary problem as the IPCC have repeatedly stated in more and more certain terms.
As for Gore's science, respected climate blog RealClimate describes it as largely correct with only minor errors.
Why is it that every nutter who is reluctant to accept climate change loves nuclear power as a solution to the problem that they dont want to accept?
Nuclear is:
1. Expensive without subsidies.
2. A liability for security reasons, e.g Iran.
3. potentially catastropic.
4. Centralised and therefore less robust than local generation in the case of transmission failure, terorist attack, etc, etc.
Solutions:
1. Energy efficicency of appliances, building design, cars, industrial processes.
2. Wind (currently competative), Solar PV (competative for houses within 5 year), Solar thermal, Wave (large wave farm in UK next year), Tidal (developed technology), Biomass (for co-firing), Hydro, Coal with CCS (several large scale projects exist, many more are planned).
3. Stop deforestation.
What can climate policy do for us?
healthier people (clean air, more active transport)better buildings with low energy costs (buildings designed for passive solar gain) more decentralised political power (no enormous oil companies) more sustainable usage of finite resources (recycling) more jobs (reneable energy installation and maintainence keeps more jobs than fossil fuel energy)
Yup, looks like a nightmare.
What did the romans ever do for us?
Here's the problem - warming has been known to be an enormous problem since at least the mid 80s. By now we could have a nuclear/hydrogen/solar infrastructure that would represent a giant stride to a complete solution of the problem. But the environmentalists themselves prevented this from happening with scare-mongering anti-technological rants, based on ingnorance of science and some sort of pastoral daydreaming of a "better world". Therefore I hold MOST OF YOU, who claim to be concerned about the environment, more responsible than the never-ending line of idiots in government who listen to you. It's YOUR fault. The blood of this world will be on YOUR hands because you failed to use the one thing that sets you apart from the polar bears who will soon not exist - your BRAIN.
It is now too late. The situation is much worse than is being told. When the permafrost melts and all that methane is released - the game is over. It's only a matter of time. The world will have been ruined by the very tree-huggers who claimed to love it.
-drl
Just curious, what is the "normal" temperature of the Earth? If we are causing it to warm by running our light bulbs, what should the temperature actually be?
Post a Comment
<< Home