Guest essay by Eric Worrall
I watched the new Leonardo DiCaprio climate epic so you don’t have to. The following 5 minute summary will save you an hour and a half of your life which you will otherwise never get back.
Quite apart from DiCaprio racking up an impressive number of air miles, in my opinion the video contained nothing new or exciting. The scariest moment was President Obama insisting that the Paris agreement is only the beginning of the pain, but we kind of knew that anyway.
Dated content, tired rehashed conspiracies. The most likely prognosis is a rapid one way journey to the digital graveyard.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your totally wrong this was an excellent documentary with many new and shocking facts that a majority of the US population doesn’t know and the fact that your telling people to not watch is doing them a disservice. The first step is to get informed and that’s exactly what this film does, additionally it gives you many ways to actually help and make a change.
Robert Burkmar, I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. You (and the entire “hope and change” crowd) seem to think that making a change is automatically good and desirable without at any point saying what exactly you are changing FROM and what you intend to obtain by change.
I’m reminded of the movie “Time Bandits” where the time bandits are pursuing the most desirable object in the world without ever being told what it is.
I hope they paid him enough to keep a straight face with Michael Mann. If he did that for less then 10 thousand, he is a fool.
Thanks for the summary Eric Worrall!
I guess that shows either
a) he is an outstanding actor to portray a serious aspect
b) he is an utter fool and totally buys Mann’s words.
Which is worse?
He was great in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”. Seriously. It’s also the only in which I liked Depp.
I was hoping for more scientific fact to be presented. Instead we get a discredit Climate Change apologist. There are things we can do that do not imperil the economy, such as Geo-Thermal residential systems that rarely get spoken of and do not require huge additional costs. But the bottom line is we could likely spend Trillions and not move the needle more than .5 to 1 degree. Issues like the barrier reefs decaying are alarming, but my question is, won’t these reefs establish themselves in otherwise colder areas that have been uninhabitable previously? Also, we know the earth was much warmer millenia ago, and yet life thrived, so why is the fact that the earth is warming all of a sudden complete doom? Will people be displaced? Sure, but that really is nothing new.
Only 100,000 to 30 million years for reef biodiversity to form, no big deal (sarcasm)
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral04_reefs.html
Sofa King Bueno says “Only 100,000 to 30 million years for reef biodiversity to form, no big deal”
That is pretty much my thinking. It matters to those for whom it matters; for everyone else, not so much.
@michael2
That means over a billion people who rely on the fish of reefs will not have their source of protein for the next 100,000 to 30,000,000 years
Sofa King writes “That means over a billion people who rely on the fish of reefs will not have their source of protein for the next 100,000 to 30,000,000 years”
No worries then. The People of the Left have long asserted that too many people exist.
“So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned”
http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
But of course it depends on who you ask. Some sources say the Earth can support only 2 billion people anyway; some even say less than that.
http://sunhomedesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/carrying-capacity-graphic.jpg
SFK you should learn to read. 100,000 to 30 million years is the time for a reef to form, this has nothing to do with time required for its rebirth should it die, or biodiversity.
Quite the opposite, in fact : Many species only exist just because reefs (forest, river, swamp, …) come and go, live and die.
Places that never change (such boreal forest) are very poor as a matter of biodiversity. But they can nonetheless be very good source of food, you know ?
@Paqyfelyc
What you’re saying doesn’t have much relevance to what is being said.
The real human beings who are going to be affected don’t have boreal forests in their areas and are usually lower developed places. Still real human beings mind you, which seems to be a hard concept to grasp for most of the sociopathic lunatics on this blog
The fish that live in the reef area won’t be there any more because they wont have a habitat, and the habitat grows too slowly to recover
“With growth rates of 0.3 to 2 centimeters per year for massive corals, and up to 10 centimeters per year for branching corals, it can take up to 10,000 years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae (Barnes, 1987).”
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral04_reefs.html
^^so no, the area will not recover, the people with be severely displaced, and in no way what so ever will there be enough fish to support the people in the area
Sofa King writes: “it can take up to 10,000 years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae (Barnes, 1987).”
I’ll file that bit of trivia in my mind. It may become useful some day. If you have a specific point to make, and it is immediately relevant or more sure to be relevant in a human lifetime, now would be a good time to make it.
@Sofa King Bueno
“a billion people”
I don’t believe you. Show me the billion people who are about to lose their coral reefs?
@Nigel
A very simple and basic google search with yield you the data
http://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/why-care-about-reefs/food/
Sofa King,
The opinions on the cited site do not support your statements. There is nothing there to suggest that the coral reefs are falling, or will fail. Just, that there are industries and individuals that rely on them for commerce and enjoyment.
Michael 2, Steve Fraser, what you’re saying contradicts yourselves. Look at what you’ve said and you can see the contradictions.
You don’t need a link to every single idea. It’s almost 2017, just because there isn’t a exact link specifying and laying out an exact fabrication of ones arguement doesn’t make an idealology true or false.
Climate change cannot creditably be denied.
If you have a question, go on the internet and find your answer, this isn’t grade school.
“I don’t know what’s up with that” wrote: “what you’re saying contradicts yourselves.”
It can seem that way.
“You don’t need a link to every single idea.”
Who knew?
“It’s almost 2017”
So it is!
“doesn’t make an idealology true or false.”
Agreed. Ideologies are neither true nor false; they merely exist. Claims made in support of an ideology can be true or false.
“Climate change cannot creditably be denied.”
I hope someday to find someone that denies climate change so I can see what it is like.
“If you have a question, go on the internet and find your answer”
I seek knowledge from many sources. The internet is not a source; rather, it is a communications network by which I can retrieve information of varying but often doubtful credibility. A truth can be told only one way (to fully tell the truth that is); but lies are innumerable. The odds of finding the truth, and knowing it, are rather low using the internet.
“this isn’t grade school.”
Another statement of the obvious. In grade school you are told things, indoctrinated, and expected to believe everything you are told. Here is not grade school and people will judge your words however each prefers. So far you have not contributed much knowledge.
Gosh yes it *is* boring…
Ok lets see investors in a scam make movie urging people to buy into their scam.