All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Over the last few years I've pretty much accepted that global warming and other eco problems have mainly been caused by man made pollution. Now it seems that sceptics are starting to question the validity of the evidence put forward by some of the alarmists. I noticed that the film 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' has been released on DVD and it pretty much slams a lot of the claims made by the alarmists, specifically the claim that global warming is caused by man. They say that man only accounts for about 20% of C02 emissions and the rest is caused by volcanos and plants, amongst other things.
I honestly don't think we should look to documentaries for education on stuff like this. Documentaries, more foten than not, don't provide sources and they're not peer-reviewed, which means they can omit whatever data that doesn't work for their agenda we the viewer will never be the wiser.
Same goes for An Inconvinient Truth which I suppose is why it was banned from educational purposes in Britain because of its biased nature.
It has to do with the format of the documentary, I think. Because no matter how you look at it, the documentary is a piece of cinema and thus expected to entertain, which means there are time contrains and structure issues.
I would argue we should probably peer reviewed books and articles before we form an opinion. And even then it seems impossible with so much conflicting information out there.
I suggest you start with the wikipedia page on it to figure out who the players are and what they disagree on, and then read their arguments on external sites or in books. Or if you have access to databases like JSTOR or Blackwell.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Kind of interesting though that there are people who are saying Global Warming is just a myth. But then again I remember reading somewhere that an alarming number of American adults don't believe the Holocaust actually happened as well. Don't think the Jews would agree with it, but that's another day and another post.
Whether it's all actually happening at the rate Al Gore won an Oscar for saying it is, I don't know. I'm not the biggest expert on climate change and the like. Manmade or not, the world is in quite a state. Either makind is causing all this and we're bascailly commiting long, slow suicide (like so many of the world's smokers) or mother nature is causing all this and trying to end the the world before we get a chance to. Kind of a take us out before we take her out deal. Either way, Earth wants us dead. We're basically screwed.
“This whole global warming thing — I’m not convinced. I’m a little skeptical. I’m thinking that the problem isn’t global warming, but “global humidity.” Bruce Willis
I would argue we should probably peer reviewed books and articles...and even then it seems impossible with so much conflicting information out there.
This is not entirely true, DM. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature there is not a great deal of conflict.
There is debate about how concerned we should be -- and the possible consequences -- but little debate about the phenomenon itself.
But most people do not know where to look -- or how to slog through the scientific minutia and extract the salient facts -- or even how to access the journals at all, really. It is not like they are available at Borders.
If you look deep enough, you will generally find that the most vehement naysayers have a concealed agenda.
This is not entirely true, DM. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature there is not a great deal of conflict.
There is debate about how concerned we should be -- and the possible consequences -- but little debate about the phenomenon itself.
But most people do not know where to look -- or how to slog through the scientific minutia and extract the salient facts -- or even how to access the journals at all, really. It is not like they are available at Borders.
If you look deep enough, you will generally find that the most vehement naysayers have a concealed agenda.
I didn't mean that there's scientific debate on whether or not global warming is happening, or whether or not not most of it is man-made, but that different stats and solutions are thrown around.
But I think it's important to remember that some of the most fervent proponents of global warming also have an agenda. Funding for instance.
I happen to agree with Bjørn Lomborg when he says that global warming is happening, but it's not happening the way Al Gore says it is, and it's not our most pressing problem. It makes sense to me that if we can fix or greatly reduce stuff like poverty, mal-nutrition, lack of education, malaria and AIDS for about half of what it costs to merely postpone global warming 6 years, we should do that first.
I have watched your fellow Danish scientist in different media. Television on science shows, scientific American, internet and so on. Last time was at some conference or speaking thing he did in Washington state. At the end when question time came around, people in the audience accused him of working for the "naysayers" big corporations and stuff. No one really had too many challenging questions for him. Interesting.
I do believe there's global warming, but I'm not convinced it's solely because of us humans and our activities. If it is something on a larger scale that some scientists believe, like a cosmic reason, then there isn't really a whole lot we can do anyway.
I have watched your fellow Danish scientist in different media. Television on science shows, scientific American, internet and so on. Last time was at some conference or speaking thing he did in Washington state. At the end when question time came around, people in the audience accused him of working for the "naysayers" big corporations and stuff. No one really had too many challenging questions for him. Interesting.
I do believe there's global warming, but I'm not convinced it's solely because of us humans and our activities. If it is something on a larger scale that some scientists believe, like a cosmic reason, then there isn't really a whole lot we can do anyway.
I'm a biology D student myself so all I can do is subscribe to expert opinion and thus far Lomborg has me convinced. He actually teaches at my University so I've seen him a few times and I've never heard anyone successfully debunk his take on global warming and the solution to it.
Most TV-shows usually set it up as if he's skeptical towards whether or not global warming is happening, which of course makes him a convenient antagonist, but to me he seems like he sticks to the UN climate panel reports and avoids sensationalism.
And I truly doubt he's in the pocket of big corporations the way he dresses. Same polo shirt every friggin time!
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Michael Chrichton is another naysayer. He wrote a novel called State of Fear, a few years ago, that was basically anti-environmentalist. It was actually pretty wacky with plot devices ranging from terrorists to cannibals to poisonous octopi to tidal wave producing machines. I mean, it was out there. I'd love to see it made into a film but considering how liberal Hollywood is, I doubt it will ever happen. Thoughts on global warming aside, it was a fun book.
Anyway, I can't really say about global warming, other than it is happening. That's basically indisputable. I personally can't say exactly how urgent it is, considering how much biased media there is out there. My grandfather's an environmental scientist so he's got some thoughts but I don't think global warming's exactly his particular field of environmental science. Whatever the case, I don't see a problem in buying hybrid cars or doing other environmental-friendly things, if one chooses to do so. I think that's a good thing no matter what state the world's in right now. Being smug about it, on the other hand (see South Park), is not cool.
In the seventies, there was all this talk about how we're rapidly heading toward the next ice age. Now we're worried about all the ice caps melting.
The high temperatures that we are presumably dealing with now are supposedly caused by global warming. We had similar weather in the 1880's. After this time, things cooled down for a few decades and it started geting warmer again.
In the seventies, there was all this talk about how we're rapidly heading toward the next ice age. Now we're worried about all the ice caps melting.
The high temperatures that we are presumably dealing with now are supposedly caused by global warming. We had similar weather in the 1880's. After this time, things cooled down for a few decades and it started geting warmer again.
It's all cycles.
Phil
I doubt you'll find science that says we're not experiencing global warming. It's not just temperatures, mind you, it's sea-level, hurricane-frequency, humidity, drought and so on.
And because science was wrong in the 70s doesn't mean science is gonna be wrong forever after. That's not really an argument. That like saying we shouldn't trust medical science because they were wrong about germs in the 1800s.
Saying "It's all cycles" is neat bumpersticker slogan but does the data actually support this? Who's saying this?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Michael Chrichton is another naysayer. He wrote a novel called State of Fear, a few years ago, that was basically anti-environmentalist. It was actually pretty wacky with plot devices ranging from terrorists to cannibals to poisonous octopi to tidal wave producing machines. I mean, it was out there. I'd love to see it made into a film but considering how liberal Hollywood is, I doubt it will ever happen. Thoughts on global warming aside, it was a fun book.
Anyway, I can't really say about global warming, other than it is happening. That's basically indisputable. I personally can't say exactly how urgent it is, considering how much biased media there is out there. My grandfather's an environmental scientist so he's got some thoughts but I don't think global warming's exactly his particular field of environmental science. Whatever the case, I don't see a problem in buying hybrid cars or doing other environmental-friendly things, if one chooses to do so. I think that's a good thing no matter what state the world's in right now. Being smug about it, on the other hand (see South Park), is not cool.
haha so true. But the way I understand it, driving hybrid cars don't do that much to help the environment other than make us feel good about ourselves. What needs to change is how we produce power. A switch from fossil fuels to Solar energy for instance.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
haha so true. But the way I understand it, driving hybrid cars don't do that much to help the environment other than make us feel good about ourselves. What needs to change is how we produce power. A switch from fossil fuels to Solar energy for instance.
It depends. I'm not 100% on how hybrids work (in terms of details), not owning one myself (not owning any car ), but someone who owns a hybrid explained to me that, among other things, a hybrid switches to gas when going uphill. My hometown, Washington D.C., is mostly uphill so owning a hybrid in D.C. doesn't help much. I think the geography is something that comes into play. In any case, I agree with you. Hybrids are a small piece of the puzzle and there's definitely more effective methods of helping the environment.
Hybrid cars are bad for the environment. It takes about 50% more energy to manufacture one compared to a regular car. The batteries are terrible for the environment, not only to produce, but to dispose of as well. Also need specially trained emergency personell to get you out of your car in case you have an accident...yeah, those batteries again. Ditto that for people to work on your car.
James, James....think about this statment for a second....
That is... if you're at the bottom of the hill? Oh boy. How did I miss that? This explanation came from someone else but I guess it sounds just as idiotic repeating it. I better just stop now...
Hybrid cars are cool. I rented a Toytota Prius for business a couple weeks ago. Standard rental agreement, tank is full, bring it back full, basic stuff. It runs on batteries (extremely quiet) and once the batteries run out, the motor kicks on to recharge them...There's a cool little computer graphic on the dashboard that shows whats happening...The best part after driving it for three days? it used $2 worth of gas.
Imagine I'll buy one in the future, but after the yellow Mustang Convertible and the Fat Boy....(who am i kidding? It'll be a used Dodge Caravan with an Ipod plug if I'm lucky)
As far as environmental difference, surrree, you can believe that your electric car is making a difference as it sits next to that smog belchin' Wal-Mart 18 Wheeler and "vintage" 1974 AMC Pacer...
Whether or not Global Warming is real or not, I don't think that anything I do is going to make one dent in the problem, pro or con, so I don't worry about it (I do, however, recycle my beer cans)...
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
I've looked into this a little bit and I came across this interesting article.
Why The Great Global Warming Swindle is wrong
Dr Raupach responds to the UK television program The Great Global Warming Swindle, airing on ABC television on Thursday 12 July 2007.
The Great Global Warming Swindle has sent a shiver of excitement through those for whom global warming is somewhere between a bad dream and a dangerous plot. Can we breathe a sigh of relief and forget climate change?
To assess this, let's start with what can be called the consensus view.
Through careful evaluation of evidence, most climate scientists have reached three major conclusions:
The concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly, mainly due to human activities. These increases will lead to global warming, rainfall changes, sea-level rises, and damage to ecosystems and human populations. The risks posed by unchecked climate change are so great that emissions of greenhouse gases - particularly CO2 - have to be at least halved over coming decades.
This is where the going gets tough, because the biggest source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy. Hence, these scientists are actually asking for a complete rethink on how human societies do everything involving energy - that is, most things.
The Swindle takes an utterly different view. The program accepts that CO2 concentrations are rising because of human activities, but then diverges radically from most climate science by maintaining that CO2 does not cause global warming, present efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are misplaced and even 'anti-human', and scientists advocating emissions reductions are (to paraphrase) fund-grabbing puppets of a neo-Marxist movement intent on overthrowing western capitalism.
The major scientific claims in the Swindle are either wrong or are true statements so out of context as to create falsehoods. Here are the main assertions, contrasted with the facts.
Swindle: Temperature actually fell between 1940 and 1980 but CO2 concentrations rose, so CO2 cannot cause warming.
Truth: Global average temperatures rose by about 0.3 degrees from 1910 to 1940, stayed approximately constant between 1940 and 1970, and have risen by a further 0.5 degrees since 1970. Three factors have combined to produce this pattern: fluctuations in solar radiation, volcanic activity, and greenhouse gases. Since 1970, the role of greenhouse gases has been dominant as their concentrations have risen sharply.
Swindle: The Medieval Warm Period (from 1000 to 1300 AD) was warmer than today.
Truth: Several recently published climate reconstructions show that there was indeed a warm period back then, but also that temperatures now are warmer than the highest during this period by between 0.5 and 1 degree.
Swindle: Climate models predict that warming occurs faster several kilometres aloft than at the surface, but observations show the reverse; hence the models are wrong.
Truth: Published studies have revealed calibration problems in upper-air temperature data from both balloons and satellites. When these were fixed, the data and the models agreed.
Swindle: Ice cores show that over the last 500,000 years, CO2 rises followed temperature rises by a few hundred years. Hence CO2 can't cause temperature increases.
Truth: The observation is correct but the conclusion is wrong. The observation merely shows that CO2 does not cause the first few hundred years of the warming events that terminate ice ages. This initial warming is due to subtle earth-orbital variations which are too weak to break down the major ice ages alone. The necessary extra leverage is supplied by powerful positive feedbacks including rising atmospheric CO2 as oceans warm, darkening surfaces as ice melts, and increasing water vapour in a warmer atmosphere. All these factors work together to produce glacial cycles. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities now provide a warming trigger different from the one that broke down past ice ages.
Swindle: The current warming is all due to natural variability caused by the sun.
Truth: Solar fluctuations in both gross energy output and cosmic radiation are nowhere near strong enough to cause the rapid warming since 1970, as confirmed by several recent studies including one published just last week.
Swindle: Volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activities; so does the ocean.
Truth: Volcanoes produce only about 1 per cent of current CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The oceans, together with vegetation on land, certainly release vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, but they also take up vast amounts. The current net effect is actually a removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by oceans and land vegetation, of about half of all fossil-fuel emissions each year.
Swindle: Climate models are useless.
Truth: Climate models are based on known laws of physics, and incorporate the effects of greenhouse gases together with many other processes. They do a good job of reproducing and explaining past climates, so their predictions of climate trends over coming decades are worthy of respect.
Why, then, do a handful of scientists torture the evidence to claim that human activities do not induce climate change?
The answer often quoted, that these scientists are in the pockets of oil companies, is probably inadequate (like the counterclaim that most climate scientists are in the pockets of neo-Marxists).
A more fundamental reason may be philosophical: those who attack the links between CO2 and human-induced climate change believe that the planetary machinery is too vast and intrinsically variable to be thrown off course by mere humankind, and that the earth's environment is in no way threatened by human exploitation.
Sound science now shows that this view is dangerously misplaced.
We have the power to alter the workings of the planet, and are already doing so through climate change. The leap we must make in just a few decades is to accept global stewardship of our shared environment. The position taken in The Swindle is a dangerous dead weight as we endeavour to face this entirely new and critical challenge.
Pages: 
Author
Global Warming 
Logged
), but someone who owns a hybrid explained to me that, among other things, a hybrid switches to gas when going uphill. My hometown, Washington D.C., is mostly uphill so owning a hybrid in D.C. doesn't help much. I think the geography is something that comes into play. In any case, I agree with you. Hybrids are a small piece of the puzzle and there's definitely more effective methods of helping the environment.
Locked Board