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 Documentaries, more foten than not, don't provide sources and they're not peer-reviewed, which means they can omit whatever data that doesn't work for their agenda we the viewer will never be the wiser.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.
Pages: 1, 
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