BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:55 AM

ditto!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:02 AM

Remember, Jerry Rasmussen is not just any 'grownup', he is the official Mudcat Grownup. He is the long-overdue replacement for the late/great Rick Fielding. By the way, second and third place were a virtual tie between Ron Olesko and Mary Garvey.

This is an honor, not a burden.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:18 AM

"Maybe being grown-up is realizing that we don't know everything." - Jerry Rasmussen

I think that DougR usually acts fairly grownup too, aside from the occasional "horse puckey!" outburst. He has a certain amount of dignity. Always good to see.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:21 AM

The official Mudcat Grownup has to be a liberal. Doug R and jimmyt are 'grownups' but are automatically disqualified by their moderate politics.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:29 AM

Thanks, but cut it out, pdq. Nobody will ever be the next Rick Fielding. Nowhere close!!!!!!!!!!! I had the great honor of knowing Rick and he was one of a kind.

I'm not the official anything...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:34 PM

Oh, stop playing the conservative martyrdom role, pdq. I named DougR, he's a conservative, and I am a very liberal radical who is not afraid to point out liberal hypocrisies whenever I see them happening (which is frequently). Live with it.

Everybody out there is not a stereotype of some kind, made to justify somebody else's chip on the shoulder.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:19 PM

Little Hawk - stuff it. Mudcat is a liberal forum and it's official 'grownup' should be a liberal. That should be obvious. Reading anything else into that statement is a reflection of your own baggage, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:24 PM

We're all experts at spotting other people's baggage, pdq. It should not be hard to see that. You're just like me.

Whether you like it or not, I am naming DougR, a conservative, as one of Mudcat's adults, and Jerry Rasmussen as another. I think Wolfgang also qualifies. Then there are a whole bunch of people who virtually never post in the BS section at all. Maybe some of them are conservatives, but we'll never find out, because they are sensible enough to avoid wasting their valuable time on this silly briar patch of arguments here.

Pity I can't say the same of you or me...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:28 PM

I was thinking about Wolfgang as one of the top candidates, so we do agree.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:43 PM

Well, there, you see...

Being objective and observant, and giving things a fair judgement has nothing whatsoever to do with being liberal or conservative. It has to do with being willing to rise above being simply liberal or conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:46 PM

"Mudcat is a liberal forum."

Is that a rule that's written down somewhere? Is that somewhere in the Newcomer's Guide? I don't recall seeing that there. Where, then?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:51 PM

Well, it's a place that has proven signally unwelcome to white supremacists, for example. I know one, and he despises this forum. ;-) His nickname is "Johnny Death". He wants all the non-whites to be deported from North America back to "where they came from". (sigh!) He's never posted here, and I doubt that he ever will. I mean...why would he? ;-P

And I kid you not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 06 - 03:07 AM

Is Al Gore still alive ?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: autolycus
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:15 AM

For what it's worth,I've just compared the posters on this thread with those who posted on the what car do you drive one. Almost nobody from that one as written here.




    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: hilda fish
Date: 28 May 06 - 06:43 AM

Just my sixpence worth - Global warming is part of human consciousness which allows for speculation, possibility, probability and all the other things necessary for the ongoing speculation in order to try and understand our universe; not scientific or inevitable 'fact'. Human consciousness is part of the universe, rather than a mere observer of it, and in that guise it has been argued, it may be able to develop to the extent of altering the future physics of that universe - perhaps even to prevent what at the moment appears to be the inescapable death of our sun and home planet. The scientist Paul Davies, for example, has speculated along precisly those lines about the interaction of consciousness and matter: :..... there is still a sense in which the human mind and society may represent only an intermediate stage on the ladder of organisational progess in the cosmos. To borrow a phrase from Louise Young, the universe is as yet 'unfinished'. We find ourselves living at an epoch only a few billion years after creation. From what can be deduced about astronomical processes, the universe could remain fit for habitation for trillions of years, possibly forever." (Davies, Paul: The Cosmos Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos, Harmondsworth: Penguine, 1995; p.196) An unfinished universe then, still holds out possibilities, and is not necessarily to be regarded as a programme running inexorably and unchangably through to its pre-determined end.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 28 May 06 - 11:55 AM

Cool, Hilda, great post!

...and may I be so bold as to add... that not only is the fate of the Universe undetermined, but that it is also possible for human beings to affect their immediate environment with loving positive change. Carried out to it's extreme, this would extend to the extremeties of the planet earth... and slightly beyond... as a domain in which humans can be logically effectual in cultivating, nurturing, and protecting.

Those who would say that the state of the earth is God's responsibility... and that love in this case is 'letting go' of the only environment we know... seem to be insisting on the exclusive supremicy of petty human drama and territorial skermishes over man's God given responsibility to evolve and cherish and cooperate and care.

We can do it!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 06 - 08:55 PM

"truth in both sides" is indeed the right way to approach most controversies. And discussions should always be carried out in a polite and good-tempered way.

But there are issues where the evidence has added up to a conclusion. The sun doesn't go round the earth. Smoking causes cancer. The Holocaust happened.

That doesn't mean it may not be possible for people to honestly hold contrary opinions, on the basis of distorted facts put out by people with particular undiclosed agendas.

It seems to me that the case that our industrial society is making a serious contribution towards global warming that is liable to have devastating effects is an example of something that now has to be treated as fact rather than speculation.

That doesn't rule out that there are other factors in play, and that some degree of global warming may well have causes beyond our control - but if sop it seems pretty obvious that this merely makes it more important that we don't go on mamking a threatening situation even worse.

When you are in a hole, you stop digging. Even if it's a natural hole.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 May 06 - 09:00 PM

Terror or error: is humanity on the eve of destruction?
James Randerson; Monday May 29, 2006; The Guardian

Humanity has reached a "defining moment" in our dominion over the planet and our ability to destroy it, according to the head of the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution. "The 21st century is the first in the Earth's history where one species has our planet's future in its hands and could jeopardise life's immense potential," Lord Rees told an audience at the Hay festival yesterday.
The eminent physicist, who is Astronomer Royal, said scientific advances had made it much easier for individuals to commit devastating acts of terror on a much greater scale than 9/11, using for example biological weapons...

Politicians should do more to counter the danger posed by climate change, "ravaging" the biosphere. He called for massive investment in technological solutions such as biofuels. "They deserve a priority and commitment from governments akin to that accorded to the Manhattan project to build the first atom bomb or the Apollo moon landing project in the 60s."

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 May 06 - 11:54 AM

A real time persective that illustrates nicely 'a well seasoned' approach to this pressing issue.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 06 - 12:08 PM

As some posters have already indicated, we're not likely anytime soon to have conclusive proof either that global warming is in large part due to human activity--- or that it is not.

If it is not primarily due to human activity and we take steps to try to curtail human contributions to global warming anyway, we have lost little.

If global warming is in fact due primarily to human activity and we take no steps to curtail human contributions to it, we have condemned the world to disaster--which we might have mitigated or even avoided.

Therefore it is clear that the prudent--i.e. conservative--thing to do is to take steps to curtail human contributions to global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 29 May 06 - 01:13 PM

Gee, Ron: I didn't know that you were a conservative. Funny how good words take on bad connotations. I agree completely with you, by the way.

Having a Doo Wop Memorial Day up here..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Grab
Date: 29 May 06 - 01:17 PM

Have to say, I don't believe in any of Hilda and Thomas's theory. But if "loving positive change" results in less people driving Hummers and other SUVs for a couple hundred miles each day's commute, taking long plane trips, and using craploads of electricity, then I guess we're arriving at the same destination... :-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 06 - 06:36 PM

Of course Global warming is a reality and our wasteful lifestyle and suicidal attitude to work as a means of paying for that lifestyle is one of the major contributing factors.

But the real question is, will the people who benefit financially from this crazy state of affairs, (House builders, Travel businesses, Motor manufacturers, Oil companies, and all the market forces who persuade us to buy things we don't need and can't afford) ever be willing to curtail their activities?

And more importantly, do the British and American people really want to to give up all the "indispensible comforts" of modern life?

I think not, its just another subject for the chattering classes and only a handful really care what happens to planet Earth in 20..50..100yrs.
Nothing meaningful will be done till the charade of "democracy" is ended and with it the mandate for the rich and powerful to destroy our world...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 May 06 - 09:34 PM

The problem with that is that, in the meantime, the rich and powerful (which includes us, odd though that may seem, in a junior capacity anyway) are likely to have destroyed our world, or at least done enormous damage and caused appalling suffering, mostly to people who aren't on any reckoning part of the rich and powerful.

Mostly, but not exclusively, fortunately. I think that our best hope is that the people with a stranglehold in our society and our economy will realise that there is more profit and less loss in making changes that avoid killing the golden goose. They are already having to start talking that way, eg oil companies running adverts making out how much they care about the economy, and how committed they are to developming non-polluting akternatives.

At this stage that's mostly bunkum, but even in economic terms stupidity isn't going to pay off long term. It may be true that business thinks short term, but people have to live relatively longterm. All the evidence is that the ecological shit is going to hit the fan well within the lifetimes of the people making the decisions and their children.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 06 - 06:54 PM

I hear what you say McGrath, but as you must be aware the system can never compromise.

Capitalism,either State or private requires people to continue to spend , either on goods or sevices.
The day we stop spending the house of cards collapses.

Those with a "stranglehold on our society" know this very well and are unlikely to change their M.O. for a handful of tree hugging geriatric hippies.

Capitalism requires energy to produce the goods and services it must market to idiots in order to survive.

I don't share your optimistic view of the future (surprise surprise).
I visualise a new axis of evil composed of the most powerful nations...China, America, Russia , Germany,UK.ect who will simply invade oil producing countries and take what they need to keep the machine running.
"Democracy" and the rule of International law will be conveniently fogotten, and they will be allowed to accompish this crime by people like you and I, who will swallow our principles to safeguard our comfortable lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 May 06 - 08:32 PM

I'm not too optinistic about the future. In fact I think I may well be less optimistic than you are, given your remark about how "Nothing meaningful will be done till the charade of 'democracy' is ended", which seems to imply a hope for a post-capitalist world that will be better, within a reasonable timescale.

The point is, there are more ways than one to make money out of people. If people want to stay alive, there's profit to be made from satisfying that need. A slim chance maybe, but possibly the best we've got.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 May 06 - 08:12 PM

Hilda, thanks so much for the info on Davies' book. It will be another useful reference for my brother's book about preventing earthquakes through use of music.

Thomas & McGrath, thanks for your postings, too.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Arkenor
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 01:36 PM

The only way you can be "unbiased" on this subject, is if you are fortunate enough to not be living on Planet Earth.

I can well understand why so many corporations are against us doing anything about global warming. What I never understand is why ordinary people take the same view. The anti-GW scientists are at least getting a fat paycheck. What's in it for you?

If there is a 1% chance that my theoretical grandchildren, due to our actions, might not get to live on a planet that is fit for purpose, thats a chance I am unwilling to take.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 05:42 PM

I think the phenomenon of people who are genuinely unconvinced by the evidence is very much a USA thing.

There's is indeed an inertia elsewhere when it comes to changing lifestyles, and in demanding changes in government policy, but that's a different matter. It's rather like the difference between people who persist in saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and those who carry on smoking because they can't give it up. The former are pretty rare now, a dying species indeed. (Of course the latter are a dying species too, but in a different sense.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 06:23 PM

< i>I don't share your optimistic view of the future (surprise surprise).
I visualise a new axis of evil composed of the most powerful nations...China, America, Russia , Germany,UK.ect who will simply invade oil producing countries and take what they need to keep the machine running.

Ake, All of those countries have Coal. Lots of it. You can convert goal into Oil, or Gas. It's not clean, it's not energy efficient, and it's not that cheap,   but it it would be seen as easier and safer than a war over Oil.

You don't need to worry about the end of the World in a War to end all wars over Oil. The flooding caused by CO2 will cause one sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 07:18 PM

You can convert goal into Oil...

So that's why there's a United States team in the World Cup!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 01:52 PM

When asked by a reporter if he would see Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said, "No, I'm not going to be doing that." (He did see the latest X-Men movie, which he described as "excellent.")

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 03:29 PM

My typos will get me into serious trouble some day....

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 03:47 PM

Why would Gore need to put 'truth' in the title unless he expected people to not recognize it as such.

Old country saying: "I If a man says 'I'm gonna tell ya the truth', it means he's gettin' ready to tell a real whopper".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Richard
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 04:57 PM

WOW so many clever people around here with their own opinions. I suppose the fact they are their own opinions makes it O.K? Some of you are so up yourselves it's unbelieveable.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 06:50 PM

Presumably that was your own opinion, Richard...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 07:05 PM

It might be, PDQ, to emphasize that he expected others to deny it despite its truth. It has been known to happen repeatedly under the current Emperor that truths not supporting the administration have been publicly dismissed as falsehoods, because they were inconvenient to the political jim-crackery of the moment. Granted, that is pretty slippery and slimy politics, but it is well documented. There are several posts to this effect in the recently closed Bush thread.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 08:23 AM

WOW so many clever people around here with their own opinions. I suppose the fact they are their own opinions makes it O.K? Some of you are so up yourselves it's unbelieveable.

Well, if you look at the posts, then you'll notice that most of the statements have a reference. Most of the ones that don't are from people who've done some fairly serious studying in the Earth Sciences.

This is Science. There is a right and wrong answer, and we're not afraid to say so. When it comes to Politics, Yes, No, 17, and 'it depends on the meaning of is' can all be correct at the same time, so being arguementitive and opionated is a vitue, and we're good at it....

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 04:26 PM

I saw the movie, and I suggest that everyone see it. And then take ACTION! (I guess that since everyone else but the US has signed off on the Kyoto accords, that this mostly applies to us. Also, we use proportionately way more energy and resources per capita than anyone else on the planet.)

In the movie, they answer every "argument" that global warming does not exist or that it is cyclical or that it is not the result of decades of human activity. It DOES exist. The current warming is NOT part of the normal cyclical changes the Earth has experienced. And it coincides perfectly with the period of accelerated human activity starting with the industrial revolution, and escalating through today.

See it; believe it; know it. And ACT, just in case it is not already too late! Wremember that 39% of the world's population lives within 100 kilometers of the sea, and that a whole bleedin lot of them would be under water if Greenland and the ice caps melted, nevermind the other humongous results of the warming.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 08:50 PM

Now that it's released--maybe some more opinions. "Saulgoldie" seems to have been persuaded.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 09:12 PM

It's a perfect title for the movie, pdq, and if it was a movie pushing a point of view you favoured, you would think it was a perfect title too. ;-) Your perceptions of reality are twisted out of context by your prejudices, just like everyone else's perceptions.

The one challenge I suspect you will never take on is to challenge those perceptions and take a new look, first at yourself, then at others.

Your attitude toward the movie was predetermined and guaranteed before the movie ever came out, simply because...it's Al Gore's movie.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 06 - 09:23 PM

Today I bought the book. Very interesting format - kind of like a slide show, which indeed is where the idea came from. He shows many photos of various geographical features from throughout the world from 15-20-30 years ago and then abuts today's photos next to them. Very effective.

The text is well done too- although I could wish the font was larger. But that's my problem, not his. The man writes well, and he is clearly convinced of his facts.

I will see the movie when it comes to town, as I assume it will. If the major theatres don't book it, we have an alternative, tiny place that will. (It's where 'March of the Penguins' was shown.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 12:15 PM

I say let's all go get on a huge jet-fuel burning airplane and fly to the east coast to see the movie and then fly on the same jet-fuel burning airplane and fly to the west coast to see the movie again. We'll take unleaded or diesel burning vehicles from the airports to the movie theatres and then back to the airport.
In fact, let's go to every major city and do the same thing.

I mean if it's good enough for Al Gore to repeatedly do while he's promoting the earth's eventual destruction from global warming from the burning of fossil fuels then I say it's probably good enough for us to do also.


Just a thought.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 12:20 PM

Yeah. The normal one. It will top off the fuels used by the military in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 12:22 PM

There is something to read to 'prove' whatever one wants to beieve.

I may have missed it - did anyone discuss the recent mile deep core samples taken at the Pole which shows temperatures were in the 70s to 80s range a few thousand years ago?

Save me a seat, Hubby.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 02:35 PM

"recent mile deep core samples taken at the Pole which shows temperatures were in the 70s to 80s range a few thousand years ago?"

Oh, Guest? Did they take those core samples from ice? And on which pole?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:01 PM

It was from sediment cores from the floor of the Arctic Ocean, and they reveal a period of global warming 45 **million** years ago. Earth's climate has clearly fluctuated greatly throughout geologic time, but at rates far far slower than we see now, and the number of extinct species greatly outnumbers those extant. It may be no big deal. Wanna take the chance?

If 95% (or even 75%) of scientists said that rutabagas raised the risk of cancer in children, would you feed 'em to your kids?

So why the F are we waiting until 100% of scientists, plus the paid-mouthpiece faux-scientists, agree that global warming is bad before we do anything to protect our kids?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:09 PM

Susu's Hubby...how do you want Al Gore to fly across the USA? With a hang glider? How would you wish any of us to do it? You took a cheap shot there, and one that is essentially meaningless, although it might sound good if you want to attack Al Gore.

We are all participating in a huge society that routinely pollutes the atmosphere in ways that we ALL inevitably participate in, just because we have, basically, no other choice the way things are set up now (unless we want to go and live in a hut in the wilderness, grow all our own food, etc...

If Al Gore chose NOT to participate in the 1001 normal things that a person must do in order to function in the mainstream of this society...then he would never have had the wherewithal to make his movie or do anything else he's done, and no one would have heard his message, and you wouldn't have Al Gore to bitch about!

You'd be bitching about someone else instead.

So take your cheap shot and sit on it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:20 PM

Hubby, after reading the last 3 posts, pissing up a rope, as others have said, seems to be a more worthwhile venture.

Global warming, however one defines it, is one thing. Global stupidity as indicated by the previous 3 posts is worse. Let us hope the heats gets us before the 'stupids' do.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:22 PM

Got kids Guest? Got anyone who gives a shit about you?