Recent Movie Reviews - are there still any idiots out there that belive global warming is true?

are there still any idiots out there that belive global warming is true?

Questions for Al Gore By Dr. Roy Spencer 25 May 2006 Gore's Inconvenient Truth.... Dear Mr. Gore: I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done. As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie. 1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right? 2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now? 3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner. 4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views? 5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India , your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China ? 6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too? 7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe . 8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view? Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy. I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue. Your "Good Friend," Dr. Roy W. Spencer Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville , Alabama . ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

Public Comments

Hush.
Global warming IS true. It's a fact that the earth IS warming up. No one questions whether or not global warming exists. It's the CAUSES of global warming that have everyone in an uproar.
Dude! Cool your jets because Global Warming is true!
excellent. let's hope Al sees it, not that it will change his mind or anything...
no way im gonna read all that! really dont care enough! thanks for the points :)
Yes. You're reading one's answer. Its nice to see the letter, but its true. Science proves it
i believe its true. the cause of it is up for debate.
I admit Gore is not the brighest...hell...he's not bright but are you going to argue with the thousands and thousands of scientist on this? Actually...Global warming is happening already. The ice caps are melting at a faster rate. For those who think Global warmning is going to warm up the earth...think again. We will have a short period of warmth then it's the ice age again. Everyone has their opinions...but this is facts. Go read what other scientist are writing.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who still do believe that global warming is man made. (I'm NOT one of them) It is a HUGE money making machine and the people riding this wave of deceit want us to believe this crap so the money keeps rolling in. I'm really sorry, and I hope you continue to spread awareness.
Thank you, someone else was smart enough to realize his move was nothing more than propaganda. Also Mr. Gore why do you drive as "gas guzzler" and have such a high electricity bill if it can cause your so called global warming.
There are many.
what do you mean by "is there people who STILL believe its true" ??? are there any idiots (ahem..yourself) who STILL believe its not true..
YES
global warming is very much true sir.
Global warming is real. However, attributing all of it to man is nothing but hog wash. The science behind an "Inconvenient Truth" pointing out its causes is seriously flawed . This is what is in dispute these days and many renowned scientists are now questioning Mr. Gore's research.
This letter does not appear to suggest global warming is not true, but does question humanities role in it. Great letter. Maybe we should listen to scientists debate global warming instead of politicians....
Wow. I actually plan on attending UAH in the fall as a freshman, but I must say "rants" like this don't reflect very positively on the school. Sure, you presented many good points which were both thought provoking and insightful. However, leading off by calling the masses that do believe in Mankind's effect on global warming "idiots" portrays you as a prejudiced man unwilling to keep an open mind. Perhaps if you had led off with your credentials rather than just throwing them in at the end in a third-person way I would have been more receptive to the ideas presented. Just a thought. Whoops. Just realized the Dr. didn't post this, so I guess I'll still go to UAH. The Dr. presented many great points in his letter and I look forward to meeting him and discussing such things further. Sorry, Dr. Spencer. You, on the other hand BOB, are still a prejudiced person unwilling to keep an open mind.
Dude you can't ask a question that calls people idiots, that's rude. Learn some respect. You can't demand respect if you give none.
Yes, Gore's movie was an extremely slanted and scientifically inaccurate movie designed to create propaganda and attention to Gore, which he hopes will eventually aid his political career. Global warming does have many causes, most of which are natural causes, and it IS a recurring cycle. We've had one just before every major ice age. But mans pollutants are not helping matters. While much of the movie gave people an over-simplistic doomsday image of a natural cyclical change, it did boost people into taking notice of the damage that they do to their own environments that can be avoided. By avoiding this damage we make the air we breathe healthier. Who really wants to live in a world of concrete and steel, choking on smog filled air while they walk everywhere because they can't afford the $23 per gallon of gas to fuel their car? Without some effort to reduce our need for petroleum products and our personal additions to polluted air, water and earth, that is where mankind is headed. While "Global Warming" has been drastically overblown, human over-population and pollution IS damaging the environment we live in, and just like all other natural creatures, once our habitat can no longer support our lives, we (as of yet) have no where else to go, and we will die. Living in balance with human technology and nature makes for a better world for all of us, AND for our descendants.
Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, conservation is a very good idea, definitely finding alternatives to fossil fuels is a good idea. I would love it if this country was energy independent. It would make us so much less vulnerable in today's political environment.
Okay, you've confused me.... you ask if there are any idiots who still believe if global warming is true. Your friend Roy starts out challenging the theory that the planet is warming up. Then he admits that it is, but challenges whether it's man-made, and finally, he basically admits that he thinks it's man-made because he doubts that Kyoto and conservation will stop global warming. You know, as much as I challenge the idea that man is entirely to blame for the recent increase in surface temperatures, I really wouldn't put this letter forth as a good argument against global warming: with so much flip-flopping, it's almost an argument for anthropic global warming.
It is unfortunate, but I am afraid that there are untold numbers of people that will believe almost anything. They will not take the time to do even remedial research. As for myself, NO.
I really wish people would get over the whole "is global warming man made or not" The fact is pollution IS man made and no one can deny that and pollution, acid rain, smog, lung cancer, other related health issues are all bad things. All of these things can be helped by living a "greener" lifestyle. Why cant people just wise up and conserve energy and use green technologies? Its lowers your energy cost and pays itself off very quickly in almost any situation. So, quit arguing about GW and just be good to the earth and to your pocketbook. .....rant over....
The trouble with me is that I am not a climatologist and lack the scientific background in this particular area of knowledge. I cannot make up my mind whether global warming is just a "swindle" or a scientific reality. I am not in a position to make any scientific judgments. I admit I depend on the judgments of scientists and when they disagree, then I am naturally confused. I am surprised that the many skeptics of global warming do not debated their points with the scientists of the IPCC, instead of venting their objections in the public domain with people who are not climatologists. It seems to be a battle for winning the hearts of people for political reasons. This is what happens when universities have lost their credibility as independent institutions of science and knowledge. Most research in universities is now funded by either governments or private corporations, so we have a lack of independent scientists or what used to be called academia. Now most scientists are either employed and paid for by governments or private corporations, hence it can be said that we cannot anymore rely on what objective science is according to the rules of scientific method. The other point that casts some doubt on the debate is the use of personal attacks on participants in the debate. The use of such words as "idiots" in the question is a sign of personal bias. It shows than in these debates there is a plethora of emotionally charged words that tend to deflect from rational thinking. This is also related to the use of "ad hominem" arguments (Attacking the proponent of an argument), which usually indicates a person's prejudices. The arguments seem to revolve around the motives behind the scientists debating, instead of the science. They either represent governments or private corporations, each with their own agenda of promoting their economic or political point of view. In the absence of objective science we have to be on our guard whenever people use emotive terms or personal attacks on writers if we really want to understand the issues around global warming.
Good. In fact excellent rebut to algorey. You get a brightly shining star and put on the Honor Roll of Truth! Isn't it appalling how many people have been dupted by so called 'global warming" bulloney? They all had better wake up to the REAL problems facing earth, like Islam destroying the world!
One skeptic asking questions - that's supposed to be proof that global warming doesn't exist. I often go through questions like this sentence by sentence and present the facts not the fiction but in your case it would be futile as your mind is made up and you simply disregard anything you don't like and accept as fact, without question, anything that validates your stance.
wow ,i dont think you want an answer form us.
Being that your profile show's that you believe "Pro Wrestling" is real...it's a bit difficult to side with your position. Nice work with "copy and paste" though.
Could it be that global warming is the flavour of the month ? Al Gore didn't get the big gig, so it's only natural for his ego to get on the Suzuki train. There's a lot of currency tied up in pushing an agenda, so why not global warming. At least it gives a scientist some notoriety. We have seen it all. The starving Africans and fundraising,the Mother Teresa caring and sharing, tree hugging etc, etc. I have noticed that when elite sports people can no longer make the cut, they turn to, you guessed it, environmental stuff. Suprise Suprise.
Haven't seen the film, not going to. Truth in the movies ? You must be joking. The jury may still be out on Global warming but hey, shouldn't we be doing something ? Who cares if it's true or not, we should still be trying to conserve energy. Funnily enough, Al Gore's house was shown to be using about 20 times more power than the average American house ! He has been shamed into doing something about it, going solar etc.
Gore may have left some detail out of the movie since it would not be possible to fit all the pertinent info into a few hours, but Dr. Spencer here, leaves alot of crucial details out of his rant as well. There is alot more to the issue than a movie clip or a terse reply can adequitly explain. In short, yes, we do believe in anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
ME! I think you make good points, sort of, but you don't get the idea of it all. For example, yes, hurricanes and tornadoes happened before, but never three times in the same year!! never so strong! Whatever. I know I can't convince you cuz you're probably a Republican (ew), but you should really watch the movie and try to understanding better. You're missing the entire arguments. I know it's kinda boring, and if you slept through most of it, I can't really blame you. But if you made the arguments you just made in a professional science forum, people would laugh at you. It's you, the weather expert, against thousands of top scientists and a former candidate for presidency. If global warming is fake, so is the fact that you can't poop as easily if you eat lots of nuts.
The letter was nicely written and obviously well thought out. Too bad everything in it was just standard contrarian rubbish.
Yes, sorry to say that 1/3 of the population will believe anything that Gore says, they voted for the looser!
I SAY LETS LET ALL THE VERY PRETTY ASS FINE BODY AND BEAUTIFUL GIRLS GO OUT WITH ASIAN PEOPLE!!!! AND ? HAVE SEX WITH THEM!!!! COME ON!!! LET ALL ASIAN PEOPLE BE GODS! they ARE UNIQUE! and uniquely looking too
Unfortunately, yes. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070524163721AAKnGXP&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiTRWU83mujIIsPuHjHPZzpFR3HOnUtv9oA--&paid=answered#HIJoGnjIMHVqTtrvKt98
I think you should get a life or something to amuse you, so that we dont have dickheads like you, in this world
I think this is hilarious. It took Gore being a VP then running for president for everyone to hear him out. He has been trying to get this out for years but never had the "sources" to do so. NOW...everyone thinks it's a crock of sh*t & don't want to listen. Did you notice the part in the Bible where it says the 2 end of the world would end not in water but in fire...Just thought I would point that out. Think about this for a sec. What do you think the ozone layer is for....to protect sun rays from frying the earth. All the pollution here on earth is causing the ozone layer to deteriorate, therefore heat will continue to fry our earth...It really doesn't take a scientist to figure this one out. Sure they may have went to school for all of this crap but it just takes common sense to know what is happening. Watch a little CNN or headline news or even discovery channel & you will learn a little about what is going on. So I suggest to those ,who don't know or are in denial about what's going on, to shut up, sit down & listen for a change rather than running your mouth about something you have NO CLUE about!!!