(no subject)
just finished watching "An Inconvenient truth" (by Al Gore) and also a british documentry called "the great global warming swindle"
The Gore movie thingy was intresting, but the emotional side of it I really hated. Gore talks about his losing of the presidental election etc and I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know you lost, but what has that to do with the enviroment.."
Gore is definalty a good speaker, but there was also a few things that anouyed me with his presenting. He continually referred to his sources as "My good friend" which, comming from a uni background makes it sound like he's just talking to his mates... not good referencing at all. But the information he presented was very intresting, and while some of it was very dubious or miss leading (he showed pictures of mount kilomunjaro over the last 20 years with the snow/glaciers retreating and said it was due to temp increase, which is not true. The snow is retreating due to moisture changes. The temp is still MUCH colder up there then needed for snow..) but he did bring up a lot of intresting points.
The second show was produced as a kind of rebuff to the Gore piece. What was intresting was that they took some of the info gore used (and even parts of his talk..) and pointed out the floors in it. The major one was the link between CO2 and temp. As gore says there does apear to be a link between CO2 and temp, but if you look at the graph, the increase in temp actually proceeds the increase in CO2. Also the Gore graphs didn't include many scales, so the lead time doesn't look very much, but it's actually 800 years. Eg the temp rises, and 800 years later the CO2 levels increase (we're talking the ice cores here..)
Anyway, what was most intresting was the two sides of the story. I really recommend people watch both shows, since it demonstrates the issue is still up for discussion, and the more informed people are the better. (let me know if you want to watch a copy of them..)
The Gore movie thingy was intresting, but the emotional side of it I really hated. Gore talks about his losing of the presidental election etc and I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know you lost, but what has that to do with the enviroment.."
Gore is definalty a good speaker, but there was also a few things that anouyed me with his presenting. He continually referred to his sources as "My good friend" which, comming from a uni background makes it sound like he's just talking to his mates... not good referencing at all. But the information he presented was very intresting, and while some of it was very dubious or miss leading (he showed pictures of mount kilomunjaro over the last 20 years with the snow/glaciers retreating and said it was due to temp increase, which is not true. The snow is retreating due to moisture changes. The temp is still MUCH colder up there then needed for snow..) but he did bring up a lot of intresting points.
The second show was produced as a kind of rebuff to the Gore piece. What was intresting was that they took some of the info gore used (and even parts of his talk..) and pointed out the floors in it. The major one was the link between CO2 and temp. As gore says there does apear to be a link between CO2 and temp, but if you look at the graph, the increase in temp actually proceeds the increase in CO2. Also the Gore graphs didn't include many scales, so the lead time doesn't look very much, but it's actually 800 years. Eg the temp rises, and 800 years later the CO2 levels increase (we're talking the ice cores here..)
Anyway, what was most intresting was the two sides of the story. I really recommend people watch both shows, since it demonstrates the issue is still up for discussion, and the more informed people are the better. (let me know if you want to watch a copy of them..)