A must see documentary.
National Geographic has made Before the Flood, available for a limited time (until Nov. 8th) on YouTube.
Before the Flood - Full Movie | National Geographic (FREE UNTIL 8/11)
2120
onlyletters on 02/11/2016 - 21:41 youtube.com (3353 clicks)
Last edited 11/11/2016 - 07:34 by 2 other users
Last edited 11/11/2016 - 07:34 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
I thought we already established that climate change is a Chinese hoax?
Geez, if you guys do not understand the joke there is no need to downvote.
He is referring to Donald Trump that tweeted "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
You mean the sausage-fingered child-brained golden-wrecking-bally orangutan-looking Don the Orange Groepenfuhrer ?
i think you may have triggered a heart attack to the far right conservatives.
Interesting, during former president Hu's regime China's political tone is that "The concept of global warming was created by and for the U.S. in order to make China's manufacturing non-competitive."
It's changed in Xi's regime. Xi is keen on addressing climate change. When a dictator like him makes a better choice than democratic leaders, it's a dilemma to support him or not.
the answer is always "not"
Already downloadable for free when you think about it off YouTube.
How to download it?
Thank you for sharing. Been waiting for this movie to come out.
Ask yourself why it's free
Because of DiCaprio?
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environm…He donated USD30m to tackle environmental issues. Even if he is wrong, he puts his money where his mouth is.
Yep, I did. It's free so the lowest common denominator of society (I.e. typically the dumbest and poorest) may be swayed to watch it.
why?
In deep American voice: "If you only see one documentary about hors d'oeuvres this year, make sure it's 'Before the Food'."
Oh, it says 'Flood!'…
Haha, I literally just saw the screenshot as a gif.
Mocking them is not going to win anyone over.
Nothing wins a conservative over. Has anyone ever met a converted conservative before? Even science won't convince them!
I'm a converted conservative. I was once a (profanity) Lefty, but then I grew up. And I am with the science all the way, just not with the faux science of a discredited hypothesis.
Faux science of a discredited hypothesis? Discredited by whom? Fox News?
Simply saying something is discredited doesn't make it so. Please backup your statement with sources.
@Gershom: Not sure who the heck you're referring to when you say that it's been discredited, but it's a near unanimous agreement in the scientific community that climate change is a thing, that it's caused by us, and that it's bad, and that if we don't do something about it soon, we are going to be up sh*t creek without a paddle. The world's scientists don't have anything to gain by saying we should head down a path towards clean energy. On the flipside, the denialists have generally got a stake in fossil fuels, or suffer from a lack of education that means they agree with those stakeholders. Any reasonably intelligent person only has to look at the world temperature record, to see that each new year is the hottest on record.
That's the point of wilful ignorance (conservatism) - it would never matter.
Conservatives remind me of the Dunning Kruger effect:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effectIn a blunt nutshell, stupid people are typically arrogant, intelligent people are typically humble.
stupid people are typically arrogant
Here's a mirror.
With that zealot attitude, maybe you outta get out of that echo chamber.
Quick get this guy a safe space
More like
ATTENTION WILFULLY IGNORANT LEFTIES!
See this movie so you can continue life inside your echo chamber…..If only electoral voting was weighted by IQ score & education, then we would never get conservative governments.
Thanks for that pearl of wisdom Exhibit A.
The original posting inspired me to reread up on AGW. there is a lot of misinformation and rock throwing. One article I liked was on Wikipedia,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGWIt has some excellent headings.
Anthropogenic global warming; see the following:
Attribution of recent climate change
Human impact on the environment
Climate change
Global warming
Global warming controversyThe last heading had this to say.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy"there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4][5][6][7] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view"
There is excellent discussion on relevant points including plenty often controversy about what needs to be done.
I am cautious. I don't buy knee jerk reactions. I'm not convinced we have a way forward. I ignore rock throwers as the least helpful on this whole topic. I respect the deniers much more (when they tell the truth) because they keep everyone on their toes.
"knee jerk reactions" - anthropogenic global warming was hypothesised 120 years ago.
Religious people & conservatives (typically one & the same), forever holding back societyThe fact that you use a loaded term like "denier" shows your true colours. You can stop pretending.
Great tactic there. Don't refute the evidence you've been provided. Simply attack the person.
How about;
"there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4][5][6][7] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view"
Now rather than just going on about people being biased and "pretending" as you put it, about you provide some information about how you got to your beliefs. I would hazard a guess that you won't though but would love to be proven wrong.
I'm always curious to know why people come to believe what they believe.
YouTube videos are now deals on OzBargain?
If they are usually paid for yes. If you want, wait until 7/11 and watch then ..
Watched today, and it wasn't a bad movie. The best part was the discussion with the guy from NASA at the end.
If you like this, you should also check out "Chasing Ice", which was a brilliant movie.
Yeah I found it 'not bad'. I didn't find it as compelling and a bit disjointed compared to say An Invconvenient Truth
Completely agree with Chasing Ice. A bit slow to begin, but there's nothing like concrete evidence of the changes that are happening.
(Devil/Donalds Advocate: Could be caused by something else. Could be faked. We get it, you want to find a reason…)
I can't wait for Leonardo Dicaprio's Captain Planet movie
"24-hours limit for voting negative on comments is currently capped at 5"
What a shame
You think I care?
When one does not care, they don't bother replying.
@mrdavedave: Flawless logic. Here's another post for you to autistically downvote because I really care.
Its got Leonardo in it! Save it till Feb 14 and sit at home and watch with your date. If you don't know what Feb 14 is - your a Certified OzBargainer!
Watching this movie is important.
Making it free is obviously a commercial move by Ratpac to sell the Revenant and get Leo on board with other future movie projects.
That being said its a powerful movie with a stunning score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Well worth it.
The most moving parts were talking with Obama who looked utterly defeated on the issue and the guy from NASA. Powerful stuff.
Came here to see if Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross got a mention, not disappointed. But I'm disappointed with whoever the scumbag is that gave you a neg…
Grow up.
Ah, so it was you.
Thanks. Will be on my list to watch
very good. well worth it
Good idea to share this here, thanks OP.
I am doing my masters in Environmental Policy, doing my thesis on clean energy. I have watched this and can confirm that this information is mostly accurate. The message however is 100% true, climate change is no longer a topic that needs conversation, but real action. It's crazy to read the comments on YouTube and see that people are willing to risk everything by clinging onto fossil fuels, with only minor economic benefits to gain in the short run. Even if the greater scientific community is somehow miraculously wrong on climate change and CO2 doesn't alter the climate (I wish!), at least we would have switched to renewable energy that doesn't cause conflicts and huge holes in the ground - it's a no brainer.
Many of the facts shown in this documentary/movie have been known for years, but it's great that it's being highly publicised in a regular audience format so well.
Green energy is advancing in leaps and bounds. Let's leave the worrying for the super enthusiastic uni students.
You won't find a bigger supporter of renewables than me, but there is a lot more to it than you are making out.
Renewables could reasonably replace 90%+ of our electricity use, but that is only about a 1/3rd our total energy consumption. Replacing energy used for transport is possibly feasible, but much more costly, and likely not viable for uses like air transport.
Using renewables for the remaining industrial and heating energy consumption is quite a bit trickier because of the intensity of energy required. Not insurmountable, but tricky.So we have a plan to replace nearly all of 1/3rd of our consumption (and the Labor party goal is for 50% by 2030, so still quite a way off - no point asking about the coalition) but no real plan for the other 2/3rds which will be larger in scale and harder to achieve.
And that leaves aside countries like China where we have exported much of our heavy industry and the associated power demands, and the vast populations in the northern hemisphere generally who rely on much more heating energy due to their climate.Disclosure: not a uni student, and not very enthusiastic when I was except for the free beer BBQs.
My thinking is that if the current rate of breakthroughs and advancements continue there's not really much to worry about. Sure powering transport is much more tricky but there's thousands of people from all round the world working 24/7 to solve that very problem. I think people also tend to forget that sometimes it just takes one good idea, some dudes gonna be sitting in a coffee shop tapping on his MacBook one day and boom, he's gonna realise how to bounce microwaves around in a chamber or something.
Well, I guess.
But that requires a fair degree of luck.
If you were driving too fast toward a sharp bend in the road that you knew was planned to be upgraded and straightened, it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and at least check if work had started on the upgrade.
Right now we are hurtling along saying we have plans to do the upgrade, but still haven't had that breakthrough that will deliver it.
So we are pinning all our hopes on an unknown breakthrough, and not even tapping the brakes to give ourselves a little more time.The problem is it's not a technological issue we are facing - it's a social one. We have the technology to do away with fossil fuels - hell, Australia has enough empty land to set up infrastructure to power the entire Earth with alternative energy. But nah - climate change is fake, scientists are big dum dums, I wanna keep driving my manly-sounding diesel Grand Cherokee.
@johnno07: Really is that still the consensus ? I thought everybody had accepted that change needs to happen. Oh well if this helps get the message out then go Leo go !.
@yoyomablue: And conservatism where drastic change is required is a social issue. Not sure that the distinction was necessary.
The strength of conservatism is the repression of knowledge
The freedom to be stupid is the worst form of slavery.
If ever there was an argument against democracy, spend 5 minutes with your average conservative
the climate has changed. don't we feel it? shorter summer last year?
you cannot compare year to year trends. compare decade to decade.
its always about "me me me, now now now"Shorter summer = global warming? Plus, one year's data definitely proves it? Very scientific.
you're saying you don't give a shite about pollution on earth? try to live in countries near equatorial line or africa, then tell me is it nice there? really hot day n nite almost whole years. shorter rain season and hard to get clean water.
global warming perhaps not right word for some, instead climate change is more the correct term.
the nasa guy in that movie has explained why is it colder in some countries (for those who said global warming is a myth, because it's colder atm)am not saying last year summer as the only proof. watch the movie then you see the evident for many many decades before now
I don't get my science from movies. Only a moron would do that.
This is a great film. Watch in HD and it's polarising.
Passive 3D?
Animal agriculture produces more greenhouse emissions than all transport combined. Consumers of animal products talking about climate change - sorta like warmongers talking about world peace.
While I agree with you that people who care about the environment should remove, or at least significantly reduce, meat consumption we also need to be careful about statistics. The report your link is 10 years old and not specific to Australia. Our food consumption, particularly in the case of meat, and its impact on the environment is relevant to Australia. The exception to this is processed meats, such as bacon, most of which is sourced from USA, Canada, etc.
As you can see in this report from the University of Melbourne and Department of Primary Industries, agriculture contributes 16% of greenhouse gasses, with animal production accounting for ~65% of that, or 10% of the total.
http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/pdf_files/Hamilton_Fiel…Like I said, I support your message, but we need to do it with the most relevant facts =)
What you're essentially saying is "We can eat animals, the rest of the world can't - it's their problem, not ours." Talk about a sense of entitlement and privilege. That is the attitude that is currently thwarting progress in mitigating GHG emissions.
like saying it doesnt affect me. who give a shite about others
I said twice that I support your message, I just can't support your delivery. I believe in portraying as accurate information as possible, not exaggerating the facts. The more accurate we can be, the more people are likely to trust our information, and therefore listen to us and hopefully change their ways.
Plenty of people don't think much of EPA in Australia, bit of a toothless tiger, and I'm not sure they are much better in the USA but they greatly disagree with the 2006 report from the FAO, stating that GHG from transportation in the USA in 2014 equates to 26% and all agriculture is just 9%.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis…For a far more reliable source, check out the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report from 2014 where it states that non-CO2 GHG emissions is 10-12% globally. In this case non-CO2 means methane and N2O, the latter is a major factor in crop production also.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar…The FAO, who you originally sourced, is one of 4 major sources used for the above report and their estimates are in most areas the lowest for the various aspects of agriculture GHG.
We win the opposition through building trust, not through scaremongering and being rude.
For the record I don't consume farm animals because of their environmental impact.
We win the opposition through building trust, not through scaremongering and being rude.
Rude for being plain about a set of facts? 70 billion farmed animals per year feel human rudeness as a knife in the neck and the establishment is pretty much silent on animal agriculture's contribution to environmental degradation. Where is this trust?
I see you are into eating insect waffles and drinking cow's milk - just more animal ag. You support my(?) message how?
@thevofa: I'm with you vofa. From someone that never ate fruit and lived on chicken wrapped in bacon for most of my life, I've been vegan for 4 years and will never go back. It's not about what's right and wrong- it's about making a truly informed decision about what you eat and how you live, and then being prepared to live with the consequences. Peace.
@thevofa:
I commend you for being vegan, however, you're now going to the ethical argument of animal production, not the environmental.
Yes, there is a cross against me environmentally and ethically because I consume milk. As soon as the yeast produced milk comes out I'll be the first to buy it and give up the cow milk, I'm really excited by that product actually. I don't consume insects, despite my comment that you looked up, I also don't kill them, not even flies or mosquitoes if you must know.
You give me the impression that you will argue it is not good enough and nothing but being vegan and abstaining from all animal products and by-products is acceptable. I am sure there are environmental and ethical aspects of your life that I wouldn't approve of but no one is perfect, right? Regardless of these things, you're being pedantic if you think I don't support your message just because i'm not 100% committed to it.
97 articles, by REAL scientists, that show the 97% is a complete fraud.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-…
The global warming cultists won't read it, but it's good info for normal people.
EDIT: I've decided to not even enter the debate. The facts are facts. Please look at the temperature record.
John, the reason I know that global warming is nonsense is because I have studied the temperature record for years, not just read an occasional hysteria piece in the papers. I've just given you 97 articles debunking the 97%, and your response is you don't want to talk about it anymore. This is not a grown up response after being so strident. Think about it.
Here is the temperature record for the last 37 years in the southern polar region.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/23/polar-puzzle-now-incl…Notice anything? Like a decline in temperature?
As an environmental scientist, I must agree that global warming is a myth. Climate change, however, is most definitely not. Some places will warm, some will cool. Some will dry, and some will receive increased rain. Excess cold and fresh water will enter the oceans, affecting global climate patterns in all manner of ways (See the young dryas for an example. You say you have studied the temperature record for years, but we have an unprecedented rate of temperature increase, what is your theory of the cause from your years of research?
@wittyusername:
Environmental scientist wittyusername confirms the scandal. Direct quote "As an environmental scientist, I must agree that global warming is a myth."
Come and read the other 97 selective distortions used in an attempt to discredit climate science…@wittyusername: The temperature increase is by no means unprecedented. Vis, the mediaeval warm period, the Roman warm period, etc. Neither is temperature decrease unprecedented, vis the Dalton Minimum, the little ice age, etc. This is all natural climate variation. We have had at least 12 ice ages, and we are currently in an interglacial period before the next one.
People seem to have bought the nonsense that Al Gore made a billion dollars from selling, yet when inconvenient truth was put on trial in the UK, schools were told not to screen it without pointing out 9 major areas of untruths. Earliest have completely ignored this, and so has the media. The madness of crowds.
Wise choice, they will be on the wrong side of history, the people that future generations will ridicule for being so narrow minded and selfish.
Satellite data for temperature..? Wtf?
I rely on temperature readings from weather stations on the ground.
Exhibit A: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
As measured by NASA.. you know, the group that put people on the moon and what not, I'm sure they're pretty good at making reliable measurements.
Why are people so keen to deny the existence of climate change? Gershom, can I ask, what do you stand to lose if Australia reduces its greenhouse gas emissions?
That is so laughable. Ground stations are not accurate. 85% of them are out by 5 degrees! Want proof? Go to Surfacestations.org and study it. But you won't will you? You'll prefer to carry on ranting from a basis of no knowledge. Warmies will be a laughing stock in 20 years from now, it's already started.
I do study it.
- 1
- 2
its all over channel bt