""the science in the film is indisputable"?"

that's a good one . . . based om your opion no doubt ??

Perhaps just a tad pretentious

All those thousands of scientests, including hundreds of nobel laureates, should consult with exxon mobil, bu$h, harper, encana and logjam before foisting their cockamaney "theories" on the impressionable public!
N

Actually the evidence is that it already has changed.

Care to supply a reference for that one.

Any one who has been following the peer-reviewed scientific literature knows that there has been a debate over the last 30 years. But in the last several years the debate has ended – the evidence is just too overwhelming.

But don’t accept my word for it. Go to your local university library and read through the peer-reviewed scientific literature – the consensus is overwhelming.

According to the media it's a smash at the box-office - which baffles me somewhat...

I know the film producer had to use a familiar name for narration but - Al Gore???

His voice alone is/was so imitated in comedy routines (Saturday Night Live) that it would be hard to watch a serious documentary by him without smiling.

What I'd like to see is a movie about the REAL issue: how science has been compromised by being made a slave to politics and ideology.

I agree, which is why I never listen to scientists who are funded by oil companies.

you mean like this

http://www.cbc.ca/north/story/climate-pole.html

One thing that seems to be missed time and time again by the deny-global-warming set is the speed with which the climate is changing. Buzz states "we're talking about a world that has warmed and coolled long before we were pumping anything into the atmosphere". Sure, anyone with a shred of understanding of how this planets works knows and understands this. The question begged is, how long or how fast did these prehistoric climate changes take?

OK, we shouldn't be worrying about the serious temporature changes - but we definitely have to be worried about poisoning our oceans.

Psst! Follow the money! Those who call global warming a fraud are almost always those who stand to gain the most from the fossil fuel industry. And even if the warming of the globe is part of a natural cycle, nobody can claim that our lifestyle is a sustainable one.
Sorry, nobody who is intelligent and aware can claim that our lifestyle is sustainable one.

Recent science claims that the Arctic Ocean, 500 million years ago, was 74 degrees warm.
That's like Florida now.
Mankind didn't exist then.
Weather and climate have taken such huge shifts, before we ever came around, that it leads me to believe mankind's influence on climate change is non-existent.

And way before that it was one glowing mass!

What concerns most people is what the earth will look like say in 25 years?
If it changes very much we are doomed as a species!
Maybe some new sort of life will start? Lifeforms that can exist on the mess we left behind!

And again, maybe that is the best solution, since mankind obviously fail to heed any warnings?
Give way and let a better and perhaps more intelligent species take over!
IAMC, that should make you happy, eh?

I get the feeling that IAMC wouldn't mind an unlivable Earth, if rich people could make money from it.

One could quibble with details about the film but it is great that it was made. We are sorely lacking leadership on all levels on climate crisis. I really admire Gore for taking this on. This is the biggest challenge we have ever face. Hopefully, many others are inspired to take on leadership roles as well. Hey, how about you?

By addressing climate crisis in effective ways, we will not only overcome this problem, but solve many others and create a much better world in the process.

Okay... there's a problem with the "weather has taken huge shifts in the past... ergo there is no real way humans can affect change in the climate" argument. Being complete garbage is most of it.

This is the usual anti-global warming rhetoric to distract from the facts. Yes, currently we are in a natural warming trend. Ten thousand years ago the Pleistocene Ice Age ended and the glaciers retreated... sea levels rose and the Earth heated up signifigantly. But it certainly took a LONG time to do so. Current global warming trends do not match with long-term natural trends (which tend towards warming also... but at not as fast a rate).

The ecological consequences of the environment changing in a relatively short timespan (200 years, I'll remind you, is an excruciatingly short period of time) are more than a little frightening and we're seeing them already.

Prolonged droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa (but when did Westerners give a shit about those poor folks?), heating of ocean air temperatures leading to bigger and more frequent storms (hello record breaking storm season! goodbye New Orleans!), increased solar radiation, migration of diseases carriers (hello West Nile!), shorter winters (curb your enthusiasm Canada) leading to weaker springs...

Gosh... do you have any idea how much shit we're into already... without even worrying about all these things getting worse? We're all affected by global warming in it's present form, even if we don't recognize it as such. What we need to consider about global warming is that all of these things... from pine beetles in BC (the result of short winters not killing them as nature intended) to sunburns on the beach... all these things are going to get much much worse.

On the subject of the movie... It's good and all... but I hope it doesn't bore people to death. That was always Gore's problem.

I don't take seriously the reviewer's complaint that the film is too much like a lecture. Al Gore is an earnest and sincere man with a deadly serious message. He's not a carnival performer. I intend to see the film because of the importance of its message. A lot of others evidently are going to see it for the same reason. Maybe that's a sign that people--Americans in particular--are finally ready to listen to men and women in pubic life who have something intelligent to say. If that truly is the case, then charlatans like Bush and Harper will soon be out on their ear.

Don't expect Harper to be out on his ear anytime soon Gustav.
He is way smarter than his opponents He already knows this climate change is just bunk and is trying desperately to limit the economic damage. that a country like Canada who has the Boreal Forest as well a a land mass that could choke God, with hardly any people living there.
Canada should be payed, big time, for the positive impact of our existence.

Two of the negative aspects of earning a Master of Science in Environmental Management were the knowledge of what we were doing to the Earth, and the profusion of those who would take opposing positions based on what they wanted to believe, usually out of technical ignorance of the topic.

gkam; mankind is not a major influence on the environment as you seem to think. We are only a mere fly on the wall. Having a view, that is privileged. Volcano's are way more dangerous than us.

Really? And what's your source for this pronouncement?

Some good points were brought up in reponse to my little outburst but as usual there was also a hell of a lot of illogical response.

Environmental effects, every single one of them, are irrelevant to this conversation. They are an effect only and so are not relevant to the question of whether man is causing warming or not. If you don't understand this point, you should not be in the discussion. It doesn't mean I care any less for the enviromnment; in fact I would argue that I care MORE because I am looking for the truth, not some ideological blame. Only then can we take the approrpriate response. (Nuclear!? My god.)

The earth is warming. That is not the argument. If you think that the fact that the earth is warming means that man is causing it fullstop then you should not be in this debate.

Logjam, the science is not indisputable. Sorry, it is not a fact. Period. That we are having some influence I think is reasonable but to attribute it all to man is just too big a reach. Recently one of the scientists in the IPCC said that while he believes that man is causing warming, he weighed it at about a 66% chance. He said when he resigning from the IPCC because it was too politicised. This was someone who BELIEVES in man-made gloabl warming. Two out of three? Hardly a fact. Gosh, maybe the oil companies got to him too.

The well-worn tactic by global warming believers to say that all scientists questioning man-made warming are being paid by fossil fuel companies is just propaganda. No doubt some are, some being forced to as they cannot get grants, but how on earth an environmentalist has no preconceived ideas when he enters the debate (ie. Bad naughty man and what he is doing to this earth!)... well, wake up. This noble vision of the scentists as being pure and beyond reproach... my god, are you blind? Do none of you have any knowledge of human nature at all? And doesn't it strike you as strange that the global warming mantra is that you are "either with us or against us"? Ring a bell?

My two main concerns are:
1. The nature of the debate itself and the censorship that is occurring. The idea that it is OK to say whatever you like to get the point of global warming across (ie. the ends justifies the means) is simply not ethical. Most of you are victim to it. The Left has been corrupted by it. Maybe it always was but I was blind.
2. That what may well be a natural occurrence centering around the activities of the sun is being framed by a strictly environmental viewpoint. The debate is being shut down even though we have little to no idea of various solar effects. How can something be certain when we don't even know all the inputs? I mean, what kind of science do you people believe in?

This is not a political debate. It is scientific. Sorry Rob, concensus has nothing to do with reality. If we all agree that the earth is a cube it don't make it so. Either we are having a profound impact on global warming or not. You believe we are and I have no problem with that. It's the way in which this damn debate is being conducted. The trouble is that people can't SEE the bias. It's reverse Macarthyism of the worst sort.

By the way, thanks for the link Colin, and here's another:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5034026.stm

Funny how nobody has mentioned Carl's link. Anybody? Nobody?

Buzz146 is using the same deceptive tactics as the "researchers" did working for cigarette companies, claiming we couldn't prove it caused lung cancer.

Gosh, . . only 66% chance that we're actually destabilizing the climate? Well, that's surely not enough to lose sleep (or profits) over, is it? Apparently, for some, that's the arguement.

What kind of person would take the chance of risking our future on this planet for the sake of corporate profits or because of political prejudice? Oh, . . I know - "conservatives"!

To be cautious about over reacting to a perceived global warming isn't about protecting corporate profits, it's about unnecessarily affecting our standard of living.
As Environmental Minister Rona Ambrose said " we would have to ground every airplane, train, truck and car in order to meet our Kyoto targets " she isn't kidding. Before we make such an economical sacrifice, we should be sure that all the climate change that occurred over hundreds of millions of years, has, in fact, been caused by men travelling around in time machines.
So silly.

Yes, silly is the word. And what are the qualifications of Rona? Is she a conservativer politician?

Yes, there is genuine debate about what part of global climate change is from our significant activities. Does that mean it's okay to continue down the same path? Should we make it happen sooner, more violently?

I have to disagree with the "Environmental Minister", and would welcome a debate based on science, not political prejudice.

By the way, the real danger of global warming is not global warming, but global cooling. Our climate on Earth is due to many factors, a significant one being the ocean current known as the Conveyor. The fast melting ice in Greenland is dumping vast amounts of cold fresh water into the upper Atlantic, slowing down this necessary current, and threatening us with another Ice Age.

Oh, so it's not global warming we should be panicking about, it's global cooling.
This kind of sounds like nature balancing things out. Like the ying and yang.
What a bunch of BS.

There are many other benefits of decreasing fossil feul use besides preventing climate change. We have a lot to gain even if it turns out concerns on GHG emmisions are over blown (which I doubt). It is not our right to to take such a risk that could dramatically decrease the quality of life of future generations.

Lets work together to create better world.

If terrorists were threatening to and were capable of the distruction that might happen as a result of climate change, there would and should be every effort to stop it. Why are we so timid on climate change, where there is a risk of many huge disasters? And quite frankly, if the resources that have been devoted to the "War on Terror" had been devoted to preventing climate change, major progress would have been made.

Richard

iamc

Theres a movie called "Soylent Green" on today at 5 p.m. on TCM.
I suggest you watch it.

Amen. But when you look at the science (not the politics) the evidence is overwhelming.

But this is not about "belief."

It is about
-evidence
-the scientific method
-peer review

Again if you look at the serious peer-review science journals you will find that the debate ended long ago - the evidence is just too overwhelming.

Funny how nobody has mentioned Carl's link. Anybody? Nobody?

Actually a few people did - have you read all the posts?

Both articles acknowledge that the current climate trend is anthropogenic.

As has already been said - man wasn't around during the that warming trend. And there is no evidence that it occured as rapidly as the current one.

And if you think that corporate profits have nothing to do with it, you should not be in this debate!

Big corporations try very hard to not pay more tax than they have to, and likewise prefer to pay fines instead of dealing with all the pollution they cause! (These are fact, try to argue that!)

Everything is about the bottomline!

Talking about grounding airplanes etc. perhaps it is time to stop wasting fuel on car races etc.?
Perhaps if the various armies and airforces would quit their "heroic efforts' there could be transportation for ordinary citizens and still not miss the Kyoto target?

jesterjogger;
There is a recent book out called State of Fear, written by Michael Crichton ( Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain ). It's fiction, but the main story line is global warming/climate change. He's a great researcher and very smart man. This book debunks this subject.
What I find interesting is that an author of his distinction, would take on such an unsexy subject to write about. He rabidly destroys all the BS surrounding this subject.
This subject is used by those that want to destroy the western economy, and has to be fought with verve.
The so called ' bottom line ' will sort this matter out properly.

Well again, some interesting posts but not much in the way of substance.

I have voted Left my entire adult life. So calling me a conservative is ridiculous and just shows that you are politicising this debate.

The very idea that there is a consensus on this debate is nonsense. There are a number of climatologists and astro-physicists who simply are not convinced -- unfortunately they fall prey to character assassination -- you know, the old "they are in the pay of oil" or "they are not qualified" or whatever. It's got to the point where only the most foolhardy would put their careers on the line for something that in the end will do nothing for them. Sad state of affairs.

But the truth is not political. The whole Left philosophy that anything the Right does is evil and only for profit, well, the immaturity of that kind of view is unbelievable.

Yes, there are many out there who put profits ahead of this debate. I'm not doubting that. But everyone who disagrees? If you believe that then you've been brainwashed but you just don't know it yet. No one I know who questions climate change is concerned about profits. Not one. They are concerned about the earth and the decisions that might be made due to ideology.

Equating this debate with the cigarette debate is an oldie but just plain nonsense. CO2 and water vapour are essential for life. They are not pollutants. Without the greenhouse effect life on this planet would be untenable. We generate CO2 through burning fossil fuels, but only a fraction of what the earth itself produces. That is increasing and so the research continues. But the trends of that are little understood as of yet. And last time I took a breath I don't remember the earth pushing nicotine down my lungs.

Rob is a sane voice here, not that I agree with him of course. There are 3 points I would make here:

1. Climate science is in its infancy. To believe that we have any sort of handle on all the inputs is nonsense. We are in a trend that as far as we know has no historical precedent, hence the hysteria. But that's as far as we know. And certainly there are questions about the accuracy of evidence that core ice samples provide (see link below)

2. Research scientists work in very narrow fields, the overall picture is created by others such as the IPCC, which is incredibly politicised, or environmentalists who generally go into this debate with their mind made up (Bad man! Bad!) Also, I would argue that the whole issue of grants becomes an issue in terms of bias. Scientists increasingly have to scrap over money provided to them - I wonder if they will bite the hand that feeds them.

3. To believe that the peer review process is pure and unsullied is also naive. Scientists in the peer-review provess are affected by indoctrination as much as anyone else. As Max Planck said: "Science progresses one funeral at a time." In other words, scientists will go down the road of what they already believe.

We were being told that climate models were dependable five years ago until someone pointed out that they didn't include cloud cover. Hey, nice peer-reviewing!

"As has already been said - man wasn't around during the that warming trend. And there is no evidence that it occured as rapidly as the current one."

Rob, I'm not sure how this backs up your argument one iota. The logic seems to be: the only difference between now and then is that we are putting CO2 into the air so we MUST be the cause.

Check this out:
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

My concern is that we be very careful how much faith we put into the way the science is being framed at the moment.

Yes, IAMC, it's complicated, and not really what you want to believe, so it can't be true, can it?

Go take a good course in ecosicience, one that begins to show the interrelationships of living things and the physical environment. It's a lot more complex than anything else you've put your head to, but you can do it. Of course, you'll just disparage it, because it will lead you to things you don't want to believe.

The movie mentioned above, Soylent Green, is a good start - then go to school.

CO2 is not a pollutant!

Sugar is not a poison!

But if you have too much of it?

IAMC, with so much factual stuff written on this topic, why would you refer to the work of a fiction writer?

I AM Clueless

Crichton's book is FICTION, clueless. That means it's as imaginary as everything you post. Keep fiddling.

ok, lots of very passionate people writing comments about this topic. i am by no means an expert so i won't claim to know the "truth" about any of this. what i will say is this: something is happening... what are we gonna do about it? i'm not asking when we're gonna change our ways or how can science fix it, i am asking, when water levels rise 20 feet, what kind of plan does vancouver have in place? when storms hit the south eastern US again, where are the people gonna go? is FEMA gonna do a better job? when there's no water to drink around much of the world, what's the plan?

for argument sake, if we are the cause, and we stopped using anything polluting, is it too late? and if we're not the cause, is there anything that can happen or change? we're hardly in a position to know what the "right" thing to do is if we're not responsible for the damage in the first place.

one interesting thing about climate change that i learned a while back: in greenland where the ice sheet is melting, the glaciers are going into the ocean faster than expected. why is this? well, it turns out that the water from the melted ice is acting like a kind of lubricant under the ice sheet and helping it move faster. so, climate change or not, that ice will raise sea levels as it melts. it will also have an effect on shipping in the atlantic.

another little tidbit i learned was about polar bears. apparently, polar bears in the north pole are dying more than ever seen before. even inuit have noticed the trend. why? polar bears are drowning! because there is less ice, polar bears are swimming more to get their food rather than just sitting and waiting.

and is this the year that's predicted to be the first that the northern passage isn't frozen over during the winter? i can't remember.

you don't have to believe "science" or "experts" but common sense should be enough to understand that something is happening and maybe we should be paying closer attention to it and exploring what it might mean for our survival rather than arguing whether or not santa claus exists and if he's allowed to drive an SUV.

Great post Chris. It seems to me that there is precious little balanced input in this debate.

We certainly don't need panic and moral blackmail on the one hand nor do we need denial or economic-above-all-else concerns on the other. Somehow a middle ground has to be charted.

For example, those who place absolutely no importance on the economy at all and try to pigeon hole those who mention it as conservatives or lackeys of fossil fuel companies are either forgetting (or don't understand) that the complex society we live in needs a basic level of economic stability in order to function effectively. If the economy fails we have a far more restricted ability to make any changes that are needed. That doesn't mean economy above all but it is a factor. I'd hate to think we lost a chance to help those in need because we wasted our money on something motivated by insubstantiated panic.

As far as sea level rise goes I wouldn't be too concerned. It hasn't risen at all so far, not a fraction of a millimetre. Some of the figures bandied about are at the worst-scenario end (as always). But the jury is out on sea level. No one knows the extent or whether it will happen much at all.

The great dream of course is that they get the bugs out of nuclear fusion. That would not only solve our fossil fuel problem (and climate change? hmmm, maybe not) but would also transform human society as we know it. Imagine, limitless, clean energy with no toxic by-products and an end to the politics of power, including the pulling of the fangs of the Middle East...

Sure, it's just a dream but man, what a dream!

C'mon people. Humanity's load already exceeds the planet's ability to support it by 25%. And this before the tar sands are fully developed.

We're hooped, it's already too friggin' late.

Those who are ignoring the warning of today's global climate change simply by saying it has happened before, are missing the point.

Climate change has never before taken place at such an overwhelmingly rapid rate.

I read recently that if everyone on earth lived the standard of living of the U.S. and Canada, it would take 4 planets (earth-size) to support us.

No, there are several differences
- it is much more rapid
- there is a direct correlation to CO2 increases
- makers in the isotopic concentration of atmospheric carbon point to a manmade source (see details below)

Sorry but if you a quoting from Jaworowski you obviously have a very shallow knowledge of the science here.

His "rant" is full of obvious lies and has no scientific credibility.

For details about the long list of misinformation in your reference see:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Except the hundreds of scientists that accept anthropogenic climate chagne get funding from many sources including government that oppose their ideas. There is not much evidence to support your conspiracy theory.

"makers in the isotopic concentration " - "makers" should be "markers"

At the end of the last ice age, the concentration of CO2 increased by around 100 ppm (parts per million) over around 8,000 years, or around 1.25 ppm per century. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the rate of increase has accelerated markedly: since 1860, the concentration of CO2 has increased by around 80 ppm, just over 50 ppm per century. The rate of CO2 accumulation has continued to increase, and it currently stands at around 150 ppm/century – over 200 times faster than the background rate for the past 15,000 years.

All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].

* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].

* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is extremely unlikely.

I saw it on opening night. It was the best $10 I've spent in a long time... considering how many trash Hollywood movies I've paid to see in the past couple decades. It does take concentration and patience, and oh yeah, a brain; and sadly, the theatre was only half full- but it was half full! Only two people walked out and the woman sitting in front of me appeared to fall asleep... otherwise, I got a bit of a thrill thinking I was sitting among THAT MANY intelligent people.