Court Finding

[mapsedge]

UK Court Finds that "An Inconvenient Truth" is more accurately "An Inconvenient Ignoring of the Evidence"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

For the record: I don't disagree with global warming.  I disagree with the hubris that suggests that we humans are responsible for it and, indeed, capable of stopping it.  Mother Earth is bigger than us.

Comments

[iarraidh.livejournal.com]

"The ruling stated the film was broadly accurate, but alarmist and exaggerated many effects."

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=65583

So the movie in total was accurate, but there were 9 particular points the court felt veered from the scientific concrete.

That doesn't sound as much as of a rejection of the premise as the Right Wingnut media would declare.

I mean, for god's sake, "NewsBusters - Exposing and Combatting Liberal Media Bias"

THERE's Fair and Balanced for ya.

Spin is spin, whether it's left spin or right spin.

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

My concern is less with the idea that we caused it, so much as we are aggravating a natural process to make it worse, faster than it might normally be. While the earth is a set of complex and large systems, humans do things (even things that would occur in nature) on a scale and in a manner that could certainly influence those systems. Add in the artificial or un-natural things and things get dicey.

We, as a species, don't show much concern for the impact of our actions. Left to our own devices we tend to use up everything around us if it gives us an advantage. This concerns me more insofar as we're less motivated to try to positively influence those things that we might have some influence over.

Since we have some science, some understanding of some things, and an ability to try to mitigate our own impact on those systems, I think we should -- the longer we have to deal with change, the more successful we'll be at it.

All that being said, while I agree with the overall premise of "Inconvenient Truth", one can't deny the fact that it is, in fact, a political work and tends to be alarmist. Nothing political gets done without a sense of urgency or alarm (see also: Patriot Act, War on Terror hysteria, etc.)

- Jeho

[iarraidh.livejournal.com]

Well stated.

My initial reaction was to the source quoted.
It would be like quoting FoxNews in defense of Bill O'Reilly.
Can we at least have a facsimile of impartiality?

I believe much of this is geological cyclical and we can do nothing to stop it.
I do think the amount of polutants we generate, hand in hand with the amount of naturally occurring checks and balances we destroy (rain forests, etc) *does* exacerbate the changes.

The temperate zone for human life is not a big window. I'd like to keep it as wide as possible. Human activity that closes it by mere percentages can cause inordinate suffering and death.

So why the fuck again do we NOT have a gazillion windmills in fucking Kansas, where the trees grow bent to the north?