ABC - Global Warming will kill us all!!!

[erisi236]

So who else watched the "Top 10 ways the World will end"? It was "ok" in a "theres nothing else on" kindda way, but I had to frown a bit at the fact that they put Global Warming as the #1 reason we're all doomed.

It wasn't even the fact that they used some funny logic that made me frown, but the fact that they used Al Gore as the guy to explain all this to us whille Elizbeth Vargus looks on somberly was just beyond reproach. Al Gore???

On the plus side I liked the music they used during the end of World parts.

[01101001]

BA Blog: ABC scare-mongering

ABC has been promoting the show online, and their advertising department went out of its way to scare people needlessly.

[Van Rijn]

It wasn't even the fact that they used some funny logic that made me frown, but the fact that they used Al Gore as the guy to explain all this to us whille Elizbeth Vargus looks on somberly was just beyond reproach. Al Gore???

Well, I'm sure he is very willing to stand in front of the camera and he is well-known. Unfortunately, he is not a scientist but is an intensely polarizing public figure. I would have chosen differently, but then, they are looking for ratings.

[Chip]

...I had to frown a bit at the fact that they put Global Warming as the #1 reason we're all doomed. It wasn't even the fact that they used some funny logic that made me frown, but the fact that they used Al Gore as the guy to explain all this to us whille Elizbeth Vargus looks on somberly was just beyond reproach. Al Gore???

Al Gore was included in this show because his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" is about global warming and is well known so it would be silly to exclude global warming from ABC's dooms day script. The BA does not mention Al Gore in the text of his blog. Some posters mention him later in the blog.

Gore's background as summed up in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
“While a Representative, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978-79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s.[14] While a senator working on his book Earth in the Balance, Gore had traveled around the world on numerous fact-finding missions. During Gore's tenure as Vice President, he was a proponent for environmental protection. On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the worldwide GLOBE program, an innovative hands-on, school-based education and science activity that made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment and contribute research data for scientists.
In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[15][16] However, many of these proposals were not enacted by Congress, and/or were not implemented to the satisfaction of critics such as Ralph Nader.[17] In 1998, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia wrote Resolution S. 98 that opposed ratification of the Kyoto treaty, and in turn the Senate voted 95 to 0 against the treaty.” - Wikipedia

Since Gore is also a political figure, mentioning him in context of the topic is likely OK but any praise or criticism of him here will evoke debates which are not allowed on this bulletin board.

[korjik]

welllll..... If you want to get really technical, global warming will destroy the earth. I believe that current theory has the solar flux increase making the earth uninhabitable in about a billion years, and the sun will destroy the earth in 4 billion or so when it goes red giant.

[soylentgreen]

My wife was watching it while I was finishing my lard bust of Dwight Eisenhower, but I could tell just from listening it was garbage. Made just the way everything else has to be presented to Americans...big, dumbed-down, noisy and over-dramatic.

If I had to hear the expression "Billions could die!" one more time I was going to pull a Van Gogh...twice!

Ya know 20/20 used to be a show of some insight. Now...well, actually everything on the major networks is pretty much trash. *sigh*

[erisi236]

My biggest problem with the Global Warming segment was that ABC went out of their way to make it politcal themselves, right wing pundents on one side, left wing on the other and the like, and that was a shame. :P

Also with the other segments they used words like "could" and "might" whille with Global Warming they used "is" and "will".

The Earth getting sucked into a Black Hole was cool tho'

[Lurker]

Hey!! If it was on TV... it must be true!!!

[Chuck]

I'd better change the filter in my air conditioner.

[Maksutov]

My wife was watching it while I was finishing my lard bust of Dwight Eisenhower...

How long do lard busts last, without refrigeration?

[jlhredshift]

When I got to work the next day everyone was asking me if I had seen the show and what did I think. Well, at least I had their attention for a while had an opportunity to encourage them to find out more by pointing them to various sources and there were those that are in the same camp as I am wherein we had several lively discussions. So, some good came out of that poorley done, politicaly biased show, in my opinion.

[Lorne Ipsum]

FYI, for anybody that missed the show (or saw it, and has time to kill), I wrote up a point-by-point critique of it (I know, I have no life):

http://geekcounterpoint.net/files/GC038C.html

I didn't work from a transcript (just typed away while I watched the show), but think I hit most of their major points. I'd be interested in any / all comments.

Thanks,

Lorne

[erisi236]

FYI, for anybody that missed the show (or saw it, and has time to kill), I wrote up a point-by-point critique of it (I know, I have no life):

http://geekcounterpoint.net/files/GC038C.html

I didn't work from a transcript (just typed away while I watched the show), but think I hit most of their major points. I'd be interested in any / all comments.

Thanks,

Lorne

Nice, you put into words alot of the stuff I was thinking whille watching it.

I remember hearing the "Nucular Winter with 20 blasts" and thinking, "huh?" I was under the impression that Nucular Winter had been disproven, or at least called into question.

[antoniseb]

OK, I saw the ads but didn't see the show, but here's my opinion anyway:

Those of you who indicated that this was an attempt at fear-mongering to get ratings are on the same page with me. Those who said that they chose a few very spectacular looking very low probability candidates, I also agree. Hmm, what is the chance that a passing stellar mass black hole will directly target the Earth before the Sun gets off the main sequence? It's so close to zero I can't measure it. Asteroids? We should be able to identify and handle these things before there's trouble (we need to stay vigilant).

The several good ones, are not going to take us out entirely, but could certainly be much more serious than inconveniences:

- Plague (whether manufactured or natural) could be serious.
- Supervolcanoes. There was one 70,000 years ago that almost killed us off. Humans would survive, but it would be a nasty time for a while. If we're lucky we'll figure out how to defuse these things before too many centuries go by.
- Rise of the machines/grey ooze. Hopefully we'll be clever enough to prevent this.
- Global warming. Again, I think this is serious, but it is true that there is alarmist material out there that looks at the consequences of the worst predicitions. Humans will survive, and maybe be able to reverse it. Coastal cities will face some major challenges. This is true even if there is no 'tipping point' that we are approaching.

I wonder if we could write some 'Must see TV' that sticks to reality?

[Gillianren]

We should be able to identify and handle these things before there's trouble (we need to stay vigilant).

Should be but aren't. In fact, so far as I know, we still don't really have a plan even assuming we do see one heading in our direction.

I wonder if we could write some 'Must see TV' that sticks to reality?

By definition, not on ABC; "must see TV" is a registered trademark of NBC.

[Maha Vailo]

Just out of curiosity, what will the most likely thing that will happen in the next 100 years re: global warming, and how will the world adapt to it? I've been wondering about this for years, and have not gotten a good answer.

Oh, and BTW, I did read the Geek Counterpoint article - very interesting, with a lot of things that even I didn't know about before. I might touch on more of that later.

- Maha "if it's doomsday, then this must be ABC" Vailo

[obscured by clouds]

Well Al Gore DIDinvent Global Warming...............

[soylentgreen]

How long do lard busts last, without refrigeration?

What lard bust?

[Maha Vailo]

What I really want to know is this: If it was warmer than it was now back in the Middle Ages and in Roman times, then where were the famines, wars, plagues, and mass extinctions that the AGW proponents claim will happen during said warming periods? Instead of such things, we hear about vineyards in Britain and Vikings setting areas that are now iced over. What gives?

Don't get me wrong, improving our energy efficiency and cutting back on emissions is a wonderful thing. But let's make sure we do it for all the right reasons. If nothing else, we ought to do it to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, but that's MHO.

- Maha Vailo

[Lorne Ipsum]

What I really want to know is this: If it was warmer than it was now back in the Middle Ages and in Roman times, then where were the famines, wars, plagues, and mass extinctions that the AGW proponents claim will happen during said warming periods? Instead of such things, we hear about vineyards in Britain and Vikings setting areas that are now iced over. What gives?

I think the basic thrust of the global warming argument is that the world is a lot "cozier" now than it was millennia ago (6 billion people vs. about 300 million in Roman times), so there's less tolerance for odd climatic behavior. The population of coastal areas has also increased dramatically in the past century (particularly in asia), so any increase in sea level would have much more impact (w.r.t. mass relocations) than it would have before.

Lorne

[Ronald Brak]

Also the Medieval warm period doesn't appear to have been warmer than it is today and it's possible the warming was confined to Europe.

[jrkeller]

The September issue of Scientific American has many pages devoted to global warming and how to manage it. I found the articles to well balanced.

[Maha Vailo]

The September issue of Scientific American has many pages devoted to global warming and how to manage it. I found the articles to well balanced.

I don't have a copy of it on me right now and I'm afraid I might not have enough money to spare to buy a copy. Can you give a good summary of how people around the world are going to adapt to global warming in the next century and how future technology will work to help fend its effects off?

It's the only thing I don't have that I really need to finish up the background for my story (well, that and something on the future of the Middle East ). So, try to be as thorough as possible.

- Maha Vailo

[jrkeller]

I'm going out of town for a few days. I don't know if I'll be close to a computer or not.

I'll post when I get back. Basically, wind, solar, fission, breader reactors, or fusion are the answers.

[publiusr]

I loved the gamma ray burst sequence. That ABC special had pretty good effects.

[jrkeller]

Thanks for reviving this one. I had forgotten my promise. It has been the end of the Fiscal Year and I was finishing up projects.

[publiusr]

I just got my property tax bill. Yikes.