NationStates Jolt Archive

Al Gore's climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be sent to every secondary school in England, Environment Secretary David Miliband and Education Secretary Alan Johnson announced today.

The film, which will form part of a climate change pack, documents the former US vice president's personal mission to highlight the issues surrounding global warming and inspire actions to prevent it.

“The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over, as demonstrated by the publication of today's report by the IPCC,” said Mr Miliband.

“Our energies should now be channelled into how we respond in an innovative and positive way in moving to a low carbon future.

“I was struck by the visual evidence the film provides, making clear that the changing climate is already having an impact on our world today, from Mount Kilimanjaro to the Himalayan mountains.

“As the film shows, there's no reason to feel helpless in the face of this challenge. Everyone can play a part along with government and business in making a positive contribution in helping to prevent climate change.”

Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public.

“With rising sea temperatures, melting ice caps and frequent reminders about our own ‘carbon footprints', we should all be thinking about what we can do to preserve the planet for future generations. Children are the key to changing society's long term attitudes to the environment. Not only are they passionate about saving the planet but children also have a big influence over their own families lifestyles and behaviour.

“Al Gore's film is a powerful message about the fragility of our planet and I'm delighted that we are able to make sure every secondary school in the country has a copy to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes.”


(Source (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/climate-0202a.htm))

I never thought I'd say this, but... Well done, British government!

well its a step in the right direction....but too little too late perhaps?

I wonder if someone will come out with a "Ice Age" is coming so called documentary soon. I mean most of N America is gripped in a Arctic cold front. Must mean an ice age is coming.

Have you actually seen Gore's film?

He doesn't make a single credible argument anywhere in it. He makes a bunch of apples-to-oranges comparisons, and he shows you incomplete data sets and then encourages you to fill in the gaps with your imagination.

It's a terrible documentary, and it shouldn't persuade anyone of anything except that Al Gore is an idiot.

I wonder if someone will come out with a "Ice Age" is coming so called documentary soon. I mean most of N America is gripped in a Arctic cold front. Must mean an ice age is coming.

Used to be a link to a poster of the cute characters from the Ice Age movie, but instead you got a pissy little "someone's stealing our bandwidth" display. :eek:

Have you actually seen Gore's film?

He doesn't make a single credible argument anywhere in it. He makes a bunch of apples-to-oranges comparisons, and he shows you incomplete data sets and then encourages you to fill in the gaps with your imagination.

It's a terrible documentary, and it shouldn't persuade anyone of anything except that Al Gore is an idiot.

Right, and trees are bad for the environment.

Ice Age? (http://www.geekroar.com/film/archives/ice_age_poster.jpg):eek:

that link is telling me you're a loser :-(

that link is telling me you're a loser :-(

This post tells me you've misplaced your sense of humor.

I take that back, I clicked the link just now. Feh, if they don;t want their images stolen they shouldn't allow Google to find them.

Ice Age? (http://www.geekroar.com/film/archives/ice_age_poster.jpg):eek:
Grrr. The bastards who made that link don't allow hotlinking. :mad:

This post tells me you've misplaced your sense of humor.

I take that back, I clicked the link just now. Feh, if they don;t want their images stolen they shouldn't allow Google to find them.

no worries :). silly site.

Have you actually seen Gore's film?

He doesn't make a single credible argument anywhere in it. He makes a bunch of apples-to-oranges comparisons, and he shows you incomplete data sets and then encourages you to fill in the gaps with your imagination.

It's a terrible documentary, and it shouldn't persuade anyone of anything except that Al Gore is an idiot.

Yes. You, on the other hand, obviously haven't. Which doesn't surprise me, since you think you know more about climatology than actual climatologists.

Yes. You, on the other hand, obviously haven't. Which doesn't surprise me, since you think you know more about climatology than actual climatologists.
I actually paid money and saw it in a theatre.

It's an entertaining film if you're not looking to learn any science.

Oh, and I don't think I know more about climatology that actual climatologists (nice straw man, though), but I do think I know more about climatology than the bureaucrats who write the executive summary of those IPCC reports. Or, at the very least, more interest in presenting true statements about climatology.

I should start a thread about that.

Right, and trees are bad for the environment.
Mature trees are net contributors to GHG levels.

Have you actually seen Gore's film?

He doesn't make a single credible argument anywhere in it. He makes a bunch of apples-to-oranges comparisons, and he shows you incomplete data sets and then encourages you to fill in the gaps with your imagination.

It's a terrible documentary, and it shouldn't persuade anyone of anything except that Al Gore is an idiot.


So he's going to the Michael Moore School of Documentaries? :D

Meanwhile, several school boards in America won't allow the movie to be shown in schools because they think it's a political campaign by Al Gore, despite the fact that he has stubbornly insisted that he isn't running for anything and now all he's trying to do is deal with climate change. Meanwhile, many colleges and even public schools that receive donation money from the energy industry are being pressured into denying or making controversial the issue. 99.9% of the scientific community believes that global warming is real, is a problem, and needs to be solved, and the remaining 0.1% are being paid or coerced to believe otherwise. I think a big part of the problem is the newsmedia, which is still convinced of the iron law that everything must be controversial, and, as a result, still report to a scientific global warming "controversy" that no longer exists in any meaningful sense outside their own reportage. Global warming deniers still get too much respect, when, considering the potentially grave consequences of climate change, they should be lumped together with holocaust deniers and war criminals claiming innocence of their crimes. Climate change is already claiming lives: look at Darfur, which was exacerbated by long-term drought and desertification that has been devastating the Sahel region for the past three decades, the result of weather patterns that have been closely linked to rising ocean temperatures. The real symptoms, the ones that directly and seriously impact human lives, of climate change are appearing everywhere and they do not bode well at all for what is to come. The simple fact is, we are too late to prevent global warming. It's already happening and it will continue to happen even if we halt everything now. However, we can still minimize the damage, weather the worst of it, and give the planet time to recover. This is why it matters that people learn. This is why it makes a difference that people everywhere make choices both in their own lives and in how they pressure their governments to respond. We can get through this alive and stronger than ever, but we have to do it together. One person will not change the world. A few billion might just stand a better chance.

Right, and trees are bad for the environment.Oh, but they are. Reagan wasn't lying in that regard. What he failed to mention is that no trees is infinitely worse.

Oh, and I don't think I know more about climatology that actual climatologists (nice straw man, though), but I do think I know more about climatology than the bureaucrats who write the executive summary of those IPCC reports. Or, at the very least, more interest in presenting true statements about climatology.


Which is why you continually insist that the IPCC reports themselves, written by climatologists, are flawed, and that somehow, those people who have spent their entire lives studying climatology made mistakes that you, someone who knows nothing about climatology whatsoever, can see.

Mature trees are net contributors to GHG levels.

This is where you provide a source or retract that claim.

So he's going to the Michael Moore School of Documentaries? :D
I rather liked Bowling for Columbine right up until the part where he attacked a senile Charlton Heston in his own home.

But aside from that, the film made a very compelling case that gun violence is caused by media fear-mongering, not widespread gun ownership.

But, yeah, the rest of his films are dreadful.

Have you actually seen Gore's film?

He doesn't make a single credible argument anywhere in it. He makes a bunch of apples-to-oranges comparisons, and he shows you incomplete data sets and then encourages you to fill in the gaps with your imagination.

It's a terrible documentary, and it shouldn't persuade anyone of anything except that Al Gore is an idiot.

Oh, and BTW, I've done my homework, and, contrary to what you claim, Gore actually does have his facts straight.

One of the things I've been waiting to hear is for a climate-change skeptic to try to explain why anyone, much less the vast majority of the scientific community, as well as increasing numbers of policy-makers, industry leaders, and everyday people would want to perpetuate such a hoax that would require drastic and difficult changes to the way we live. I'm just curious what kind of mass psychosis or conspiracy theory would make the deniers' claim convincing.

I wonder if someone will come out with a "Ice Age" is coming so called documentary soon. I mean most of N America is gripped in a Arctic cold front. Must mean an ice age is coming.As opposed to the abnormaly mild winter until then? Shorts in December kind of weather in places which although warm shouldn't be having that kind of weather? And then another extreme weather event on top of that?

My goodness, climate change must be a hoax because the weather is going crazy!

Which is why you continually insist that the IPCC reports themselves, written by climatologists, are flawed, and that somehow, those people who have spent their entire lives studying climatology made mistakes that you, someone who knows nothing about climatology whatsoever, can see.
Do I?

No, the popular reporting of the IPCC reports are flawed because they're based on the summaries, which weren't even vetted by scientists. The studies themselves are many thousands of pages long. Chances are fewer than 1000 people worldwide have ever read them.

The mistakes are made by those bureaucrats. The reports themslves are quite open about the uncertainty in the data, and the things they don't and can't measure or model, but the summaries completely ignore all that and make a bunch of bold claims and frightening predictions, which frankly aren't supported by the report.

Oh, and BTW, I've done my homework, and, contrary to what you claim, Gore actually does have his facts straight.

One of the things I've been waiting to hear is for a climate-change skeptic to try to explain why anyone, much less the vast majority of the scientific community, as well as increasing numbers of policy-makers, industry leaders, and everyday people would want to perpetuate such a hoax that would require drastic and difficult changes to the way we live. I'm just curious what kind of mass psychosis or conspiracy theory would make the deniers' claim convincing.

Apparently scientists get billions of dollars to claim that global warming happens.

Oh, and BTW, I've done my homework, and, contrary to what you claim, Gore actually does have his facts straight.

One of the things I've been waiting to hear is for a climate-change skeptic to try to explain why anyone, much less the vast majority of the scientific community, as well as increasing numbers of policy-makers, industry leaders, and everyday people would want to perpetuate such a hoax that would require drastic and difficult changes to the way we live. I'm just curious what kind of mass psychosis or conspiracy theory would make the deniers' claim convincing.
Gore doesn't need to have his facts straight because his film contains remarkably few facts.

At present, there's almost no point in disputing popular opinion on global warming because the fight has been lost. The people widely believe something for which they have no real evidence.

The reports themslves are quite open about the uncertainty in the data, and the things they don't and can't measure or model, but the summaries completely ignore all that and make a bunch of bold claims and frightening predictions, which frankly aren't supported by the report.Care to prove that assumption?

I actually paid money and saw it in a theatre.

It's an entertaining film if you're not looking to learn any science.

Oh, and I don't think I know more about climatology that actual climatologists (nice straw man, though), but I do think I know more about climatology than the bureaucrats who write the executive summary of those IPCC reports. Or, at the very least, more interest in presenting true statements about climatology.

I should start a thread about that.

Why don't you contest one of the claims gore made in his film, so we can actually argue about it.

Here's a few I personally liked:
The correlation between carbon levels and temperature
The melting Ice caps causing the temperature to raise even more
The huge spike in global carbon levels over the last 20 years or so.

If none of those will do, pick something else, please. Let's make this more than just a back and forth argument.

the summaries, which weren't even vetted by scientists.

bullshit




Drafting Authors:
Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan Gregory, Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter Stott, Ronald J. Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt

Draft Contributing Authors:
Julie Arblaster, Guy Brasseur, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Kenneth Denman, David W. Fahey, Piers Forster, Eystein Jansen, Philip D. Jones, Reto Knutti, Hervé Le Treut, Peter Lemke, Gerald Meehl, Philip Mote, David Randall, Dáithí A. Stone, Kevin E. Trenberth, Jürgen Willebrand, Francis Zwiers

a few at random
Neville Nicholls (http://arts.monash.edu.au/ges/who/nicholls.html)
Richard Alley (http://www.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/ralley/index.html)
Francis Zwiers (http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/people/fzwiers.shtml)
Matilde Rusticucci (http://www.df.uba.ar/users/jaliaga/Gabinete_2006/CV_Rusticucci.htm)

There were a few inaccuracies in the movie, largely, I think, because the reality is a bit harder to explain to a bunch of college kids. The best example that comes immediately to mind is the one about how greenhouse gasses actually affect the atmosphere.

The movie presents the suggestion that the contribution to global warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is because they trap infrared radiation from the sun on the earth in an increasing amount than normal. This is, in fact, not true.

The real problem with greenhouse gasses is that they have a tendency to radiate electromagnetic energy in the infrared range on their own. So not only do you have solar radiation coming in (and bouncing off, though some of it does get absorbed by the surface/atmosphere) you also have an increasingly large collection of gas in the upper atmosphere that's just giving off energy, that results in a general increase in global temperature.

Edit: Which is of course a bit harder to explain.

This is where you provide a source or retract that claim.
Do you even know how trees work? This shouldn't even be controversial.

Okay, so a tree is a giant piece of carbon. As long as the tree isn't growing any bigger, it can't be consuming more carbon than it produces, because otherwise where would that carbon go? When the tree was younger it consumed enormous amounts of carbon to make wood, but the mature tree isn't doing that anymore. It makes leaves, but those leaves also fall and rot every year, so the net effect is zero.

And then, at some point, the tree dies. And rots. Thus releasing all of its carbon back into the world.

That is how a mature tree is a net producer of GHGs.

By the gods, learn some botany.

Edit: Which is of course a bit harder to explain.
So he should just lie? Sure, that's a great way to build credibility for his cause.

Care to prove that assumption?
Started a whole other thread for that:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517253

Do you even know how trees work? This shouldn't even be controversial.

Okay, so a tree is a giant piece of carbon. As long as the tree isn't growing any bigger, it can't be consuming more carbon than it produces, because otherwise where would that carbon go? When the tree was younger it consumed enormous amounts of carbon to make wood, but the mature tree isn't doing that anymore. It makes leaves, but those leaves also fall and rot every year, so the net effect is zero.

And then, at some point, the tree dies. And rots. Thus releasing all of its carbon back into the world.

That is how a mature tree is a net producer of GHGs.

By the gods, learn some botany.

That would be a dead tree, then. A mature tree should be CO2 neutral, theoretically.

As opposed to the abnormaly mild winter until then? Shorts in December kind of weather in places which although warm shouldn't be having that kind of weather? And then another extreme weather event on top of that?

My goodness, climate change must be a hoax because the weather is going crazy!
The weather ISN'T going crazy. Even the IPCC says that.

There is no statistically significant evidence that current weather is more extreme than historical weather. See the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

We misrepresent the reality of a situation all the time, especially to people we consider to be lacking the fundamental knowledge needed to grasp the point.

For instance, you probably learned the Rutherford Model of the atom in high school, you know, electron in a shell around the nucleus that spins around and around in circles and every now and then gets some energy and kicks to a higher shell?

Yeah, actually doesn't work that way. But it's impossible to explain it well without at the least elementary calculus, and you can't explain elementary calculus to 9th graders and expect them to understand it all.

Not to mention that to really do justice to it, and the rest of Quantum Mechanics, you need to have much higher math (Probability and Statistics, Differential Equations, etc.)

So yes, he should just lie, because explaining the physics takes too long and will likely not be as effective as telling them a version of it that makes intuitive sense and has the same resulting situation.

Do you even know how trees work? This shouldn't even be controversial.

Okay, so a tree is a giant piece of carbon. As long as the tree isn't growing any bigger, it can't be consuming more carbon than it produces, because otherwise where would that carbon go? When the tree was younger it consumed enormous amounts of carbon to make wood, but the mature tree isn't doing that anymore. It makes leaves, but those leaves also fall and rot every year, so the net effect is zero.

And then, at some point, the tree dies. And rots. Thus releasing all of its carbon back into the world.

That is how a mature tree is a net producer of GHGs.

so a tree takes in x amount of carbon over its lifetime. then it dies and releases x+1 amount of carbon? and this carbon goes into the atmosphere (and not, for example, other plants)?


oh, and btw, trees grow till they die. there are these neat things called tree rings - a tree makes a new one every year.

Great, lets send a movie riddled with politics and teach it as fact.

How about teaching the facts, not politics, behind global warming? You know, greenhouse gases, CO2 emissions, ruling out other causes, etc...you know, SCIENCE.

snip.
Good God, man, do you realise you're talking sense there!
Stop it!
Stop it now, I say!

The weather ISN'T going crazy. Even the IPCC says that.

There is no statistically significant evidence that current weather is more extreme than historical weather. See the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.


yes, let's do that:

• More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the
tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have
contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased
snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. {3.3}
• The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and
observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {3.8, 3.9}
• Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the last 50 years. Cold days, cold
nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more
frequent (see Table SPM-2). {3.8}
• There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since
about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of
increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.
Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations
in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend
in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. {3.8}


http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/4922/weathernd4.jpg

oh yeah, should include this too:

In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result:
Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
Extremely likely > 95%
Very likely > 90%
Likely > 66%
More likely than not > 50%
Unlikely < 33%
Very unlikely < 10%
Extremely unlikely < 5%

Great, lets send a movie riddled with politics and teach it as fact.

How about teaching the facts, not politics, behind global warming? You know, greenhouse gases, CO2 emissions, ruling out other causes, etc...you know, SCIENCE.

the movie is good science. better than you'd get most places at the levels we're talking about. and it contains some of the most compelling visualizations of the data i've ever seen, too. i mean, shit, the co2 concentration graph with the hydraulic lift? fucking brilliant.

the movie is good science. better than you'd get most places at the levels we're talking about. and it contains some of the most compelling visualizations of the data i've ever seen, too. i mean, shit, the co2 concentration graph with the hydraulic lift? fucking brilliant.

what about when he used the classical comparison of the greenhouse effect as being a greenhouse? eg, this (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html) would be a better explanation.

though my favorite part still was the futurama clip. its funny, but does it deserve to be taught in school?

what about when he used the classical comparison of the greenhouse effect as being a greenhouse? eg, this (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html) would be a better explanation.

though my favorite part still was the futurama clip. its funny, but does it deserve to be taught in school?

I believe I addressed that on the previous page and at the top of this page.

99.9% of the scientific community believes that global warming is real, is a problem, and needs to be solved, and the remaining 0.1% are being paid or coerced to believe otherwise. I think a big part of the problem is the newsmedia, which is still convinced of the iron law that everything must be controversial, and, as a result, still report to a scientific global warming "controversy" that no longer exists in any meaningful sense outside their own reportage.


An excellent point.


Climate change is already claiming lives: look at Darfur, which was exacerbated by long-term drought and desertification that has been devastating the Sahel region for the past three decades, the result of weather patterns that have been closely linked to rising ocean temperatures.

Indeed. And so far, I've only heard the root causes of the Darfur crisis linked to climate change once in the media (in this interview (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/talk/Talk-of-Paris-FRANCE-24.html) of French environmentalist Nicolas Hulot).

We misrepresent the reality of a situation all the time, especially to people we consider to be lacking the fundamental knowledge needed to grasp the point.

For instance, you probably learned the Rutherford Model of the atom in high school, you know, electron in a shell around the nucleus that spins around and around in circles and every now and then gets some energy and kicks to a higher shell?

Yeah, actually doesn't work that way. But it's impossible to explain it well without at the least elementary calculus, and you can't explain elementary calculus to 9th graders and expect them to understand it all.

Not to mention that to really do justice to it, and the rest of Quantum Mechanics, you need to have much higher math (Probability and Statistics, Differential Equations, etc.)

So yes, he should just lie, because explaining the physics takes too long and will likely not be as effective as telling them a version of it that makes intuitive sense and has the same resulting situation.
Nothing makes "intuitive sense". Even the phrase is nonsensical.

You can't just lie to people to get them to draw conclusions you like. To teach kids about the atom, I'd tell them every step of the way that the atom I was describing was but an approximation of how the atom actually worked, but the real description was vastly more complicated and they didn't need to know it yet. In fact, that's how science works generally.

the movie is good science. better than you'd get most places at the levels we're talking about. and it contains some of the most compelling visualizations of the data i've ever seen, too. i mean, shit, the co2 concentration graph with the hydraulic lift? fucking brilliant.
On that chart, he had the co2 levels and temperature levels through history, and then he drew that sick co2 spike at the end...

...but why didn't he complete the temperature line? He demonstrated how they move together, and then when he had a chance to show that insane co2 levels cause insane temperatures, he didn't do that. Why?

Because the way he did it tells me NOTHING about what current temperatures are doing. He left me to draw my own conclusion, but I don't have enough information. Maybe the co2 spike was so severe as to break the releationship between co2 and temperature. I don't know, because he specifically chose not to show me.

This is why I hate his movie. This could have been a slam dunk on climate change (so we could all stop arguing about it), but instead it became meaningless pap.

I will not allow people to be convinced by climate change without conclusive evidence, and Gore didn't provide any.

Maybe the co2 spike was so severe as to break the releationship between co2 and temperature.

and what would the mechanism for that be?

No, I think it had to do with the fact that the temperature in the future hasn't been modelled yet, or that it's unreliable and untested so far.

The CO2 is easier to model.

Alright, Word of Power time:

If we cut CO2 emissions, and global warming ends up being a nonthreat or far less severe than we thought, we lose nothing. Our environment's cleaner, our economies are healthier, and the geopolitical situation's a hell of a lot more stable without dependence on fossil fuels.

If we don't, we run the risk of not only economic disaster due to climate change and environmental damage, but also the economic and political costs of continued dependence on fossil fuels for our energy needs.

We lose nothing by regulating emissions. It's that simple.

Alright, Word of Power time:

If we cut CO2 emissions, and global warming ends up being a nonthreat or far less severe than we thought, we lose nothing. Our environment's cleaner, our economies are healthier, and the geopolitical situation's a hell of a lot more stable without dependence on fossil fuels.

If we don't, we run the risk of not only economic disaster due to climate change and environmental damage, but also the economic and political costs of continued dependence on fossil fuels for our energy needs.

We lose nothing by regulating emissions. It's that simple.

Here's the central problem with that: It means we, as a society, actually have to DO something. As opposed to sitting around going "It's not true, it's not true" and waiting for The Rapture.

Sorry, I'm in a slightly bitter, cynical mood.

Here's the central problem with that: It means we, as a society, actually have to DO something. As opposed to sitting around going "It's not true, it's not true" and waiting for The Rapture.

Yeah, you're right. That makes too much sense.

Sorry, I'm in a slightly bitter, cynical mood.

I'm an optimistic cynic...I think we have a tendency to screw up a lot, but not enough to make things permanently worse. And those that don't screw up are constantly making things better, so we have a gradual sense of improvement over time.

Oh this isn't going to be permanent. Even if it does happen and we die out, the world will heal, and life will continue without us.

It'll just suck for us, and all the other species that get pwned by it.

I will not allow people to be convinced by climate change without conclusive evidence, and Gore didn't provide any.

i don't think your idea of conclusive evidence really has any relation to reality

Do you even know how trees work? This shouldn't even be controversial.

Okay, so a tree is a giant piece of carbon. As long as the tree isn't growing any bigger, it can't be consuming more carbon than it produces, because otherwise where would that carbon go? When the tree was younger it consumed enormous amounts of carbon to make wood, but the mature tree isn't doing that anymore. It makes leaves, but those leaves also fall and rot every year, so the net effect is zero.

And then, at some point, the tree dies. And rots. Thus releasing all of its carbon back into the world.

That is how a mature tree is a net producer of GHGs.

By the gods, learn some botany.

Trees never stop growing. The only person who needs to learn botany is you.

Trees never stop growing. The only person who needs to learn botany is you.

the thing i'm wondering is if he's this bad with facts on other topics. 'cause it's pretty fucking atrocious if we just look this one.

blah blah blah climate change is a radical gay socialist atheist plot blah blah blah

(Source (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2007/climate-0202a.htm))

I never thought I'd say this, but... Well done, British government!

In principle, yes. However, in practice, such compulsory topics are invariably tought unenthusiastically by reticent teachers, with manifestly evident bias, and in lessons that fail to inspire.

Were the education system to be remotely competant, and teachers to to be equally so, this new "project" (incidentally, I despise the appropriation of this term by new Labour, it's like defecating on Samuel Johnson's grave) would be of merit. As it is, however, it is little more than a sop to an increasingly "green" electorate, designed equally to attract voters at the expense of the conservative party, and a veil with which the inadequacies of New Labour education can be masked.

Trees never stop growing. The only person who needs to learn botany is you.


Very well said.
I'd just like to take the time to say that mature trees serve to keep carbon locked up somwhere that isn't the atmosphere and this is good. Also when a tree dies not all of its carbon will find its way back into the atmosphere. some will persist in the soil as humus.

In principle, yes. However, in practice, such compulsory topics are invariably tought unenthusiastically by reticent teachers, with manifestly evident bias, and in lessons that fail to inspire.

Were the education system to be remotely competant, and teachers to to be equally so, this new "project" (incidentally, I despise the appropriation of this term by new Labour, it's like defecating on Samuel Johnson's grave) would be of merit. As it is, however, it is little more than a sop to an increasingly "green" electorate, designed equally to attract voters at the expense of the conservative party, and a veil with which the inadequacies of New Labour education can be masked.
Wow, parties try and increase their votes at the expense of others? You don't say...

Wow, parties try and increase their votes at the expense of others? You don't say...

Education should not be exploited in such a populist fashion, given the ramifications it has for future generations.

They should probably avoid teaching them about global warming in the winter, especially during snow storms like the one we've got at the moment. It might not seem all that convincing to them!

Education should not be exploited in such a populist fashion, given the ramifications it has for future generations.
You could argue that about any public service, but it is always going to happen.

Education should not be exploited in such a populist fashion, given the ramifications it has for future generations.

Considering that the guy in this film is not very likely to ever run for any sort of public office in the UK, I fail to see the problem.

On that chart, he had the co2 levels and temperature levels through history, and then he drew that sick co2 spike at the end...

...but why didn't he complete the temperature line? He demonstrated how they move together, and then when he had a chance to show that insane co2 levels cause insane temperatures, he didn't do that. Why?
You ever heard of a delayed reaction? A buffer effect?

I suspect he didn't show the temperature spike because it hasn't happened yet (its beginning to now). Also, as he's linked the CO2 and temp levels along the graph, we can draw our own conclusion as to what happens next.

Very well said.
I'd just like to take the time to say that mature trees serve to keep carbon locked up somwhere that isn't the atmosphere and this is good. Also when a tree dies not all of its carbon will find its way back into the atmosphere. some will persist in the soil as humus.

I would like to point out that during the winter seasons, trees do release SOME CO2 into the air. However the amount of CO2 released, compared to the amount absorbed during the other 75% of the year is fairly small.

And yes, a "mature" tree will continue to grow until it dies of some other cause, like being cut down and turned into paper. Matter of fact, I had the top half of a large tree in my back yard cut to remove the potential hazard that might cause were it to topple. As it can no longer grow vertically, it is branching at about every level of it's height, which, in case you didn't know, continues to increase the amount of CO2 it sucks out of the air.

Elementary Botany: Tree != Green leafy Plants. One is seasonal, and dies in the winter, the other continues to grow and grow and grow and...
So there.

Very well said.
I'd just like to take the time to say that mature trees serve to keep carbon locked up somwhere that isn't the atmosphere and this is good. Also when a tree dies not all of its carbon will find its way back into the atmosphere. some will persist in the soil as humus.

additionally, there will be replacement trees that will also be built out of carbon.