Menu Bar
An Inconvenient Truth
The entire cinematic presentation. RT 1:36:38. The film focuses on Al Gore and his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis. Gore says, "I've been trying to tell this story for a long time and I feel as I've failed to get the message across." The film nearly follows a Keynote presentation (dubbed "the slide show") that Gore presented throughout the world. It intersperses Gore's exploration of data and predictions regarding climate change and its potential for disaster with Gore's life story.
Jan 26, 2008 3:12 AM
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
The film's thesis is that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and human-caused. Gore presents specific data that supports the thesis, including:
The Keeling curve, measuring CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory. The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs. A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years. Temperature record since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years. A 2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it. The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore conveyed the science correctly. In contrast, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at the time chaired by Republican Senator Jim Inhofe issued a press release criticizing this article. Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" appears in the film. The majority of climate researchers have rejected Inhofe's views. Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that An Inconvenient Truth "shocked me out of my doubting stance".
The Keeling curve, measuring CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory. The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs. A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years. Temperature record since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years. A 2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it. The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore conveyed the science correctly. In contrast, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at the time chaired by Republican Senator Jim Inhofe issued a press release criticizing this article. Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" appears in the film. The majority of climate researchers have rejected Inhofe's views. Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that An Inconvenient Truth "shocked me out of my doubting stance".
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Speaking as a geology student, (which probably doesn't give me too much credibility since all my understaning is from secondhand expirience,) there isn't a big enough recorded change over a long enough period of time to make any firm statement that there is any difference in the climate. Past average world temperatures are unreliable at best (Not to mention we just resently came out of a "mini ice age".) To make projections based on limited and in some cases inaccurate information is foolish. Just like flood charts and determining 100 year flood levels with only 70 years of records, you cannot make accurate predictions and those predictions (or projections) will change on a yearly basis as more data is collected. Several of my professors have gone off on this whole thing.
Don't get me wrong, we need to take care of our enviroment and cleaning up our emmissions are a big part of that. But according to the geologists I have been around the jury is still out on this one.
This gets 3 stars for making it available. Great find.
Don't get me wrong, we need to take care of our enviroment and cleaning up our emmissions are a big part of that. But according to the geologists I have been around the jury is still out on this one.
This gets 3 stars for making it available. Great find.
By: C_munkie
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I'm not belittling your choice of studies, or your opinion, for that matter. But since geology is a science, I suppose you realize the value of supporting evidence and documentation, right?
Did you ever watch this film and research the validity of facts presented?
Did you ever watch this film and research the validity of facts presented?
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Honestly, human caused climate change, (i.e. global warming,) is such a touchy subject inwhich both sides are so entrenched that its hard to find any unbiased information on it. I did look into this a little over a year ago when it was all the rage, thinking I could use it as a topic for a research paper, but it was way too politically charged. Both sides had their "facts" that supported them. Both sides had their "experts" that supported them. And both sides said you had to be crazy to disagree with them.
Don't take this film to be scripture. Quite frankly, some "facts" are indeed misrepresented in it. In the U.K. it was ruled that this film could only be shown in schools if accompanied by a disclaimer stating this.
I strongly believe that we need to be careful about how we treat the enviroment. But I try to watch out for propaganda.
By the way, one of my roommates is an enviromental chemist. According to him, CO2 is a just a minor greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gas that has the biggest effect on temperature is water vapor.
Don't take this film to be scripture. Quite frankly, some "facts" are indeed misrepresented in it. In the U.K. it was ruled that this film could only be shown in schools if accompanied by a disclaimer stating this.
I strongly believe that we need to be careful about how we treat the enviroment. But I try to watch out for propaganda.
By the way, one of my roommates is an enviromental chemist. According to him, CO2 is a just a minor greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gas that has the biggest effect on temperature is water vapor.
By: C_munkie
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Only one side of this fracas is politically charged, IMHO. Aside from a hired gun or two by ExxonMobil, I've not seen any facts disputing global climate change. Care to cite one?
Water vapor is also a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, practically the complete exhaust of burning hydrogen and released as a part of fermentation (see my many posts on how ethanol is not a long term solution). But so long as your roommate is your informant, we can just ignore CO2 as being a problematic greenhouse gas. Am I correct?
Regarding the nine errors cited by a magistrate in the UK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece), The Times reports that despite the errors, the judge said "many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science." He identified "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC."
Water vapor is also a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, practically the complete exhaust of burning hydrogen and released as a part of fermentation (see my many posts on how ethanol is not a long term solution). But so long as your roommate is your informant, we can just ignore CO2 as being a problematic greenhouse gas. Am I correct?
Regarding the nine errors cited by a magistrate in the UK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece), The Times reports that despite the errors, the judge said "many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science." He identified "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC."
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Many respectable scientists are stepping forward to question these "hypotheses". None of which are in the pocket of the oil companies. Try "Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming", (http://books.google.com/books?id=8WqYkGxvPlAC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=shattered+consensus+the+true+state+of+global+warming+edited+by+patrick+j+michaels&source=web&ots=veiZG98Mc1&sig=Y5KlFMZB7OekSbXGJNzbMKbCnCo#PPA14,M1). Or how about "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years", (http://books.google.com/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Unstoppable+Global+Warming:+Every+1,500+Years&sig=wgTMs2JnQMzIeW2nc5XHQwrV3bU#PPP1,M1).
Do not be so niave to actually believe that there is only one side to this whole story. Scientists do disagree on if this is happening, and if so why it is happening. Science is about facts and the disscussion of the interpretation of those facts. When people close up a hypothesis to scrutiny or even critical discussion, they take their theory away from science and into the realm of religion. In real science everything is up for scrutiny and debate.
Do not be so niave to actually believe that there is only one side to this whole story. Scientists do disagree on if this is happening, and if so why it is happening. Science is about facts and the disscussion of the interpretation of those facts. When people close up a hypothesis to scrutiny or even critical discussion, they take their theory away from science and into the realm of religion. In real science everything is up for scrutiny and debate.
By: C_munkie
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Oh, so now I am being naive? Thanks. I'll consider the source when stumbling across such commentary.
Concerning the first work that you cite, Patrick J. Michaels just "happens to be" published by the Libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. Coincidence, right? NO AGENDA TO PUSH?
And in the second work? Dennis T. Avery is a fervent supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, industrial farming and free trade. The New York Times wrote about him: "Dennis T. Avery wants organic food to go away. And he doesn't care what it takes." According to critics he is the source of a claim that organic food is more dangerous to eat than food produced using chemical pesticides because of usage of animal manure in organic farming. NO AXE TO GRIND?
And what of Fred Singer, also author of that second work you cite? He is best known as president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax. Singer is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between UV-B radiation and melanoma and between second hand smoke and lung cancer, and proposed that the Martian moon Phobos is a space station built by Martians. NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE? SHOULDN'T HE AT LEAST INTRODUCE US TO THOSE MARTIANS?
So what, in your expert opinion, do you suggest that is the hidden agenda Al Gore might have? You have claimed that he's not quite so altruistic and that this other side is perhaps to promote something else. Come back at your earliest convenience, thank you.
Concerning the first work that you cite, Patrick J. Michaels just "happens to be" published by the Libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. Coincidence, right? NO AGENDA TO PUSH?
And in the second work? Dennis T. Avery is a fervent supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, industrial farming and free trade. The New York Times wrote about him: "Dennis T. Avery wants organic food to go away. And he doesn't care what it takes." According to critics he is the source of a claim that organic food is more dangerous to eat than food produced using chemical pesticides because of usage of animal manure in organic farming. NO AXE TO GRIND?
And what of Fred Singer, also author of that second work you cite? He is best known as president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax. Singer is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between UV-B radiation and melanoma and between second hand smoke and lung cancer, and proposed that the Martian moon Phobos is a space station built by Martians. NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE? SHOULDN'T HE AT LEAST INTRODUCE US TO THOSE MARTIANS?
So what, in your expert opinion, do you suggest that is the hidden agenda Al Gore might have? You have claimed that he's not quite so altruistic and that this other side is perhaps to promote something else. Come back at your earliest convenience, thank you.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I am sorry I even considered questioning he ideals of the religion of the left. Everything they say should be and is considered scripture.To question is to blasphemy. My heretical mind also forgot that Al Gore is an infalliable prophet and not a POLITICIAN.
By: C_munkie
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I tried loading this, but failed. Instead, there's the following link that's much better:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1380408526309643858
Would someone care to implement that link? I've no idea how to do that.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1380408526309643858
Would someone care to implement that link? I've no idea how to do that.
By: White_Wolf
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
The link's a little slow, but let it buffer while you down a cup of coffee and the decent quality will make up for the wait.
By: DRATM
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
If your believing every piece of that film, CONGRADULATIONS! Your a gullable little prick!
By: CyberFox
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
No, I'm a pedantic SOB.
You're
~~~
CongraTulations
~~~
Gullible
~~~
But with that said, why are you so angry? What interest is it of you? Are you a shareholder of energy companies? Do you get your news from more than just FoxNews Channel?
You're
~~~
CongraTulations
~~~
Gullible
~~~
But with that said, why are you so angry? What interest is it of you? Are you a shareholder of energy companies? Do you get your news from more than just FoxNews Channel?
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Glenn Beck exposed the REAL truth about global warming and proved that Al Gore is bullshitting in his film
By: CyberFox
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Oh, Glenn Beck? That bastion of impartiality? C'mon. Why can't you guys provide an unprejudiced source?
Read this whole thread. Those in direct opposition to this posted link have been unnecessarily angry. Why? Have I been uncivil?
I'm afraid you need to learn to separate the facts of the matter from your hormone-induced rage.
Read this whole thread. Those in direct opposition to this posted link have been unnecessarily angry. Why? Have I been uncivil?
I'm afraid you need to learn to separate the facts of the matter from your hormone-induced rage.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Someone brought this around here once, and in the first 15 minutes I was about bored to tears. Being presented to me by a combination of a tree-hugger and Al Bore, counter-videos were my first resort. Well, after sitting through The Global Warming Swindle, BBC's Global Dimming and various other tidbits, my summary came out as man-made warming being a reality. Sometimes you just have to sit detached through the bullshit and hunt the blasted info out through all the push, emotional susceptibilities aside. 8)
By: Jiachi
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
The only constant within climate is change.
I've seen the film, and consider it to be in the same category as Michael Moore's documentaries---very entertaining, very engaging, very thought-provoking, but full to the brim with bias. Because after all, if it isn't jaw-droppingly astonishing enough, it won't sell.
Regardless, thanks for posting, SpamV!
I've seen the film, and consider it to be in the same category as Michael Moore's documentaries---very entertaining, very engaging, very thought-provoking, but full to the brim with bias. Because after all, if it isn't jaw-droppingly astonishing enough, it won't sell.
Regardless, thanks for posting, SpamV!
By: DRATM
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Nah, he's far too smart to discredit that which is based purely on opinion.
By: DRATM
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Actually, I hadn't thought of comparing Gore's effort to Moore's. MM is a better comedian and tells a story far better. But yes, they both have an axe to grind.
I never claimed that this bit of cinema was outright truthful. I just posted an Oscar winner when stumbling upon it.
Those that oppose it seem to be the angry ones. I wonder why that might be.
I never claimed that this bit of cinema was outright truthful. I just posted an Oscar winner when stumbling upon it.
Those that oppose it seem to be the angry ones. I wonder why that might be.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
It's interesting to see how opponents to Global Warming get hysterical when their beliefs are challenged. They're so sensitive. Like little ladies.
As good ol' Sergeant Hulka said in Stripes, "Settle down, Francis."
Global Warming is a theory, yes. You don't have to agree with it. Just like some crazy folks don't agree with the "theory of Gravity." Both are theories backed by solid scientific data but you can choose to deny either one.
Or...you can see how global temps have risen in the last 150 years (yeah. we have this data), you can see how CO2 has increased in the last 60 years... Heck, you can just look at the Polar Ice Cap and see it melting with your own eyes.
In fact, we all know what CO2 does to the Ozone Layer (depletes it), to the temperatures (raises 'em), and what it does to us if we breathe too much (kills us). Now expand this to the macro view...
So why are you so angry with anything or any one that has the audacity to question Your Worldview?
Aaargh! Damn you, Science! ;-)
And for the record, I'm not a traditional Lefty. I'm an Army Vet who served overseas (unlike most of the p*ssies who lamely say they support the Occupation of Iraq but cowardly hide from service).
Pollution and Global Warming are bad things - things we can see. Let's stop bickering like children (or Hillary and Obama) and move forward to improve this...
As good ol' Sergeant Hulka said in Stripes, "Settle down, Francis."
Global Warming is a theory, yes. You don't have to agree with it. Just like some crazy folks don't agree with the "theory of Gravity." Both are theories backed by solid scientific data but you can choose to deny either one.
Or...you can see how global temps have risen in the last 150 years (yeah. we have this data), you can see how CO2 has increased in the last 60 years... Heck, you can just look at the Polar Ice Cap and see it melting with your own eyes.
In fact, we all know what CO2 does to the Ozone Layer (depletes it), to the temperatures (raises 'em), and what it does to us if we breathe too much (kills us). Now expand this to the macro view...
So why are you so angry with anything or any one that has the audacity to question Your Worldview?
Aaargh! Damn you, Science! ;-)
And for the record, I'm not a traditional Lefty. I'm an Army Vet who served overseas (unlike most of the p*ssies who lamely say they support the Occupation of Iraq but cowardly hide from service).
Pollution and Global Warming are bad things - things we can see. Let's stop bickering like children (or Hillary and Obama) and move forward to improve this...
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I happen to agree with you, however :) , it is not fair to compare A theory about how global warming is occurring to THE theory of gravity. The current theory of how warming works changes frequently whereas the theory of gravity (which is a law now btw) has seen no revisions for some time. There are thousands, dare i say millions of theories that exist, many still standing because they are unchallenged, of which global warming is challenged constantly. Not necessarily IF its happening, but WHY and HOW. I only respond because it is a peeve of mine when people misunderstand exactly, scientifically what a theory is and how it pertains to science.
By: Leopoldstotch
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
What is Al Gore propose we do about Global GROWING?
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html
and this:
http://www.continuitystudios.net/guestvid.html
Shows how much we really know about mother nature.
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html
and this:
http://www.continuitystudios.net/guestvid.html
Shows how much we really know about mother nature.
By: poonhound
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I took a peek at both clips, thanQ. Quirky theories and not entirely worth ruling out.
Unlike our friends who wholly discredit the global climate change theory simply because it was brought to most of the public's eye by a Democratic politician.
Unlike our friends who wholly discredit the global climate change theory simply because it was brought to most of the public's eye by a Democratic politician.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
I never entirely understood the reasoning behind denying the possibility of global warming.
Whether it exists or not, we should still take the same measures. I mean, who does it really hurt to say global warming is real? If we act on it, then we'll be cleaning things up, making things much safer and environment-friendly. If we're wrong, and global warming isn't real, who cares? We'll have caused no harm by making this place cleaner. In the end we'll still have a positive effect, it'll still be beneficial to us all.
Whether it exists or not, we should still take the same measures. I mean, who does it really hurt to say global warming is real? If we act on it, then we'll be cleaning things up, making things much safer and environment-friendly. If we're wrong, and global warming isn't real, who cares? We'll have caused no harm by making this place cleaner. In the end we'll still have a positive effect, it'll still be beneficial to us all.
By: AlkalinexFire
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Much more concise than me - and so true.
Yep. What does it hurt to take the same measures?
We clean up, create new green industries (and thus help our sagging dinosaur economy), and make the world a better place.
Win - Win.
Yep. What does it hurt to take the same measures?
We clean up, create new green industries (and thus help our sagging dinosaur economy), and make the world a better place.
Win - Win.
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
In the meantime, as the developing world languishes due to draconian measures to stop the industrial processes that contribute to greenhouse emissions - and the prolonged global recession that follows - millions of people worldwide will continue to suffer the crippling effects of poverty who otherwise wouldn't have if their countries had developed economically over that time.
Lose.
Lose.
By: poonhound
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Well, that made me feel dumb. Not sure why I hadn't thought of that.
By: AlkalinexFire
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
"Lose." Lol...I love it. You definitely need a "Lighten Up, Francis."
Why didn't scientists and economists think of this? Hmm...oh yeah, they did.
They've all rejected the wackpack fringe element argument that somehow reducing pollution = global recession.
Wait, a global recession?! Lol...oh yeah, thanks - we've already got one...
In actuality, economists have been saying for decades that the *massive* long-term costs of pollution and global warming offset any short term gains.
And that's why since the turn of the centry, folks who still cling to the "poonhound" view have been seen as tinfoil hat-wearin' crackpots who deny global warming and its true economic costs.
He's like his fellow crackpots who deny the theory of gravity. Sure they have the right to deny. But do you really want to be "that guy?"
In the meantime, reputable -ists have long been saying that investing in emerging green technologies and industries (and thus jobs for Americans and the planet at large) will help the US reestablish itself as a world leader - both economically and politically.
And this is what we want - the reemergence of our great nation as a world power by staying cutting edge in the fields of technology and energy.
But "poonhound" is a good illustration that even though most Americans want to see our great nation stay strong and competitive, there will always be a few wackpack holdouts like this guy who don't support the US for some reason and want us to continue our 3rd World Slide.
But to end on a positive note, I do appreciate "poonhound's" opposition to Draconian measures. Thus by his statement, he clearly opposes virtually everything Bush has ever done - otherwise "poon" would be a hypocrite with no credibility. So keep up the good work, man!
Why didn't scientists and economists think of this? Hmm...oh yeah, they did.
They've all rejected the wackpack fringe element argument that somehow reducing pollution = global recession.
Wait, a global recession?! Lol...oh yeah, thanks - we've already got one...
In actuality, economists have been saying for decades that the *massive* long-term costs of pollution and global warming offset any short term gains.
And that's why since the turn of the centry, folks who still cling to the "poonhound" view have been seen as tinfoil hat-wearin' crackpots who deny global warming and its true economic costs.
He's like his fellow crackpots who deny the theory of gravity. Sure they have the right to deny. But do you really want to be "that guy?"
In the meantime, reputable -ists have long been saying that investing in emerging green technologies and industries (and thus jobs for Americans and the planet at large) will help the US reestablish itself as a world leader - both economically and politically.
And this is what we want - the reemergence of our great nation as a world power by staying cutting edge in the fields of technology and energy.
But "poonhound" is a good illustration that even though most Americans want to see our great nation stay strong and competitive, there will always be a few wackpack holdouts like this guy who don't support the US for some reason and want us to continue our 3rd World Slide.
But to end on a positive note, I do appreciate "poonhound's" opposition to Draconian measures. Thus by his statement, he clearly opposes virtually everything Bush has ever done - otherwise "poon" would be a hypocrite with no credibility. So keep up the good work, man!
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Easy on the personal attacks big dog. They do not serve to advance an important debate but rather to flare emotions and muddle an intelligent discussion into poo-slinging. Both of you have elements left unconsidered in your statements. Imposing severe carbon limits would drastically affect countries in the second stage of industrialization and knowing the powers that be, that buck would be passed on to the poor, increasing levels of poverty in countries such as montenegro, belarus, and other ex-S.U. nations and dramatically increase starvation in most third world countries. From our posh modern lives it is difficult to imagine the intricacies and detail involved but i assure you, in the third world whenever profits fall slightly, the poor man gets hit hard. On the other end of the argument doing nothing is as equally dangerous as the research has shown something is happening to our atmosphere, exactly why we are causing it is still discussed and adjusted but the verdict is clear something must change. It is better for millions to starve than billions to Die of thirst/freeze. What needs to be done is a massive worldwide effort to gradually yet significantly reduce emissions with economic and financial moneys allocated to relief for countries hit hardest. Unfortunately this is MUCH easier said than done as most do not want to give money away, it is not within the nature of man or money for this to occur. But i digress, keep the discussions intellectually pointed and not personally so, and a billion minds working with each other can form a solution.
By: Leopoldstotch
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Good points all - both intellectually and personally... Though I only wish I were a "big dog." :)
Thanks.
Thanks.
By: buckinghamgreen
Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Easy on the personal attacks big dog. They do not serve to advance an important debate but rather to flare emotions and muddle an intelligent discussion into poo-slinging. Both of you have elements left unconsidered in your statements. Imposing severe carbon limits would drastically affect countries in the second stage of industrialization and knowing the powers that be, that buck would be passed on to the poor, increasing levels of poverty in countries such as montenegro, belarus, and other ex-S.U. nations and dramatically increase starvation in most third world countries. From our posh modern lives it is difficult to imagine the intricacies and detail involved but i assure you, in the third world whenever profits fall slightly, the poor man gets hit hard. On the other end of the argument doing nothing is as equally dangerous as the research has shown something is happening to our atmosphere, exactly why we are causing it is still discussed and adjusted but the verdict is clear something must change. It is better for millions to starve than billions to Die of thirst/freeze. What needs to be done is a massive worldwide effort to gradually yet significantly reduce emissions with economic and financial moneys allocated to relief for countries hit hardest. Unfortunately this is MUCH easier said than done as most do not want to give money away, it is not within the nature of man or money for this to occur. But i digress, keep the discussions intellectually pointed and not personally so, and a billion minds working with each other can form a solution.
By: Leopoldstotch
