This is something I did NOT hear from the lips of Al Gore during his Dreamworks-produced Eco-thriller An Inconvenient Truth. What we did hear, as he narrated from his private jet and stretch limousine throughout the course of the film, was an attempt to equate human activity with global warming. While he correctly associates a correlation between increased CO2 levels with global warming, the connection isn't as simple as his famous dramatization of the' hockey-stick' graph showing population growth and temperature parallels. What he doesn't explain are things like: why did the earths' temperature DECREASE between 1940-1975, when the earth underwent a huge population and industrial growth spurt? What about accounting for volcanoes, which annually produce more CO2 than all human activity combined? No mention of solar activity? Ocean currents? H2O levels as a "greenhouse" gas? How come throughout history earth has undergone long periods of global warming and ice ages, without the benefit (or detraction) of mankind and all the associated by-products? I'm old enough to recall the 1970's, when the prevailing scientific consensus was alarmed that we might be entering into, or accelerating and contributing to the onset of the next Ice-Age. Oh, and about those suffering Polar bears whose native habitat is being destroyed by mankind? Well, in the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000.
Today it’s 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the
last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife
resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the
population there has increased by 25 percent. If someone is really interested in the topic of climate change, I would highly recommend viewing the following link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
By the way, as far as the famous (or infamous) 'hockey stick' graph Mr. Gore dramatically showed with the assist of an electrical scissor-lift? The actual data measured, compiled since the movie was made, as compared to his projections are, well, a bit inconvenient.
While this isn't the end-all of the discussion, I don't believe this contradictory information regarding man-made global warming to be as obviously politically motivated or fear-based in it's analysis as Inconvenient Truth. I think a lot of compelling information is presented by a lot of people smarter than I am on the subject, from NASA folks, chief meteorologists, and even the co-founder of Greenpeace. I don't think anyone who was involved in the documentary has made anywhere near $100 million from its' advocacy, or stands to make a lot more perpetuating a singular, narrow viewpoint. I don't think that anyone involved in its' production just bought their fourth mansion, a $9 million dollar 1-1/2 acre ocean-front beauty with 9 bathrooms and fountains in the San Francisco Bay (in the direct floodplain of the proposed ocean expansion from the impending polar meltdown resulting from global warming).
But then again, I may me wrong. I frequently am. Let's examine the facts.
Great post...well written and thoughtful...if you were a movie star, you would be commended on your writing ability. However, you have the same problem as most bloggers...it's tough to find readers. If you want to write in the political arena and get readers you will have to jump on the Obama band wagon and tell everyone how bad the the hard working people are.
ReplyDelete