BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:40 PM

The point, Guest, is that initiatives have to be taken at the top level to change anything in this society...and the top level is generally composed of the rich and powerful, isn't it? If the normal game of most of the rich and powerful is simply to make more money...which it is...then why would anything be done to change the way things are now?

Ask yourself that.

I have watched society deteriorate badly in the 57 years I have lived. Why? Because of 2 things, basically:

1. rapid population growth
2. the pursuit of money, to the detriment of all other considerations

We now have a decaying civil infrastructure, more poor and homeless than before, a shrinking middle class, a widening gulf between rich and poor, a society that is tremendously in debt (both on a private and on a national basis), an ever-shrinking natural environment, less clean water, less clean air, less fertile soil, fewer animal species...

All of this has happened because the planet is infested with one deluded creature (homo sapiens) that is overpopulating to the point of squeezing itself and every other living thing into a tighter and tighter fatal trap. And because it's all done....for MONEY!!!!!

We invented money. It isn't a real thing at all. It's an artificial concept, a totally arbitrary and made-up thing that has no real intrinsic value whatsoever, but everyone serves it like it was a God.

That's tragic. And it's insane.   

Al Gore's movie is drawing attention to one important aspect of the problem... Just one. And you'd rather not hear about it, would you?

You'd rather just go on being a dumb, satisfied fuck who is out to earn all the unreal money he can and buy a wall-sized TV and pretend that everything is "just fine" out there in the world of Nature.

Well, the consumer industry loves dumb fucks like that, and it would prefer that everyone stayed that way so that it can sell them more product.

This dollar-crazed civilization of ours will be mourned by no one when it finally and miserably dies. It will be remembered like the last corrupt days of the Roman Empire at its very worst. It is ignoble, it is deluded, it is devoid of any real purpose, it is the sound of an insane animal bellowing into an empty void of his own creation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Tippa
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:40 PM

That's no Guest Tia.
It is a baby flamer Troll in Training *see Rove Thread*
Best to only feed Baby Flamer Trolls with an average or above IQ. This little WannaBe Troll just does not meet required standards.
Bye Bye Troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 12:54 AM

You know, TIA, what you said to GUEST could be put another way as well:

"Guest, do you have any kids that you give a shit about?"

I really think that right-wingers don't give a thought to the future beyond the next quarterly financial report. What happens a couple of years down the line, or in a few decades, on a century from now--well, what the hell! They won't be around, so why should they care? And they're the ones running the country right now.

Well, their children andgrand children will be around. You think they'd think about that a little, but. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Every other person in the world
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 01:24 AM

I'll be smoking tobaki, sweating next to a warm fire in my log cabin while you hippies are outside freezing, debating about what caused this ice age.

My point is, the science is a no brainer. Yes, burning 146 billion gallons of gas a year will make our environment warmer. Okay, so we will make oil illegal and let some other country have unlimited economic prosperity.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 01:57 AM

That just it, Eopitw, I would rather have a sustainable economy.

There is no such thing as unlimited economic prosperity without a healthy environment.

Being privileged, we should also lead the way in alternate energy choices because we can.

Besides that, whats wrong with other countries having access to economic opportunities?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 04:00 AM

Hawk's got it right as usual.

"the pursuit of money, to the detriment of all other considerations"
All talk of "sustainable resources", "clean nuclear", "clean fossil fuels" are a smokescreen to allow the pursuit of money to continue unabated.

The real problem is that we in the richer countries are all complicit in the game.
Despite what Diana says we DONT want a "sustainable economy"...we are greedy bastards and we want to keep all the short term benefits which we have squeezed from our masters.

We need a new mindset, not new technology!! This is what we should be discussing, not new ways of keeping this stinking, clapped-out machine running...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:54 AM

The "Troll" is back and doesn't fully understand why anyone can get so bothered by comments on a "blog".

Little Hawk, I am perturbed that you see the glass as half empty. Society over all has never been better. The opportunities are there for all.

Ake, while I certainly disagree with you on "Hawk's got it right as usual" - his outlook is overall too pessimistic for me. Yes, I have Children plus Grand Children now in College. (In pursuit of that $$$)
They will also garner information that will continue to improve this Society that "Hawk' seems to feel is self-destructing.

Ake, I do agree that "the pursuit of money" is being done at some risk. I don't think it is as severe as others think. Yes, I have worked with the EPA on situations over the past 25 years and find it difficult at times to get things accomplished.

What I read "between the lines" in Mudcat are those that complain, gripe and attack others while saying we are "going to Hell in a handbasket" are in an economic situation that prevents them from even buying the handbasket.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:58 AM

One more thing, "Troll" says 'Good Morning' to Tippa.
And I mean that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 09:53 AM

Gore's lobbyist contributors reap access

By Walter V. Robinson and John Aloysius Farrell, Globe Staff, 1/26/2000

WASHINGTON - What's wrong with the government? It's in the vise-like grip of monied special interests and their influential lobbyists who corrupt decision-making, to hear some presidential candidates tell it. Vice President Al Gore, however, has largely abstained from joining that chorus.

A closer look at Gore's political and personal retinue may help explain why: Many of the vice president's close friends, former aides, and senior campaign advisers work as lobbyists and strategists for corporate clients who often get access to the White House and Gore's office - and sometimes get profitable results from regulators who operate under Gore's oversight.

Gore raised $28 million for his presidential campaign last year. That's less than half the $67 million that Texas Governor George W. Bush raised. But Gore, not Bush, is the favorite of Washington lobbyists. They gave Gore more than $600,000 in 1999, and their clients donated millions more to his campaign and the Democratic Party.

To be sure, Washington lobbyists curry favor with both parties, more often to the benefit of Republicans. But Democrats close to Gore have carved out a special, growing niche: representing new-tech and high-tech firms whose prospects often depend on regulatory decisions. And on technology issues, Gore is the administration's gatekeeper.

In two cases, major contributors, with help from lobbyists with close ties to Gore, walked off with windfall decisions from regulators. In 1997, Teligent Inc. was awarded additional microwave bandwidth that by some estimates was worth close to $1 billion. In 1998 and 1999, Teligent contributed more than $200,000 to Democratic Party committees, and officials of the company have raised tens of thousands of dollars for Gore's campaign.

And then there's Network Solutions Inc., which had exclusive rights from the government to award Internet domain names. When other companies demanded that the monopoly be ended, the firm hired Gore's former domestic policy adviser, Greg Simon, as its lobbyist. In a decision worth untold millions to NSI, regulators initially opted for the status quo, leaving NSI in control of domain names. Even a decision last year to open the domain business to competition was shaped to preserve NSI's preeminence.

There is no evidence that Gore himself was involved in either decision. But it is clear that the web of relationships among lobbyists, their clients, the White House and the Gore campaign is mutually beneficial: Friends of Gore are earning millions in fees to represent clients who want access to the White House, or to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Communications Commission, where Gore has a hand in appointments and policy. And critical to Gore's political success, these friends and their clients have raised millions of dollars for Gore's presidential campaign and Democratic Party committees.

A spokesman for Gore, Chris Lehane, asserted yesterday that the vice president has never made a decision that was not based on the country's best interests. Sometimes, Lehane noted, Gore's decisions work against the interests represented by his friends.

As for the substantial contributions from both Teligent and Network Solutions, Lehane said, ''Al Gore has more than 120,000 contributors, who are proud to support him because of his leadership.''

Gore's official actions and decisions do, as Lehane suggests, sometimes disappoint lobbyists who know him. But that would seem inevitable. On many telecommunications and technology issues nowadays, lobbyists who trace their political lineage to Gore's office can be found representing opposing sides.

Lower-tech industries, some considered untouchable by some lobbyists, have also steered business to Gore's friends. Masterminding Gore's campaign strategy are a longtime friend, Carter Eskew, and a pollster, Harrison Hickman, who had pivotal roles crafting the tobacco industry's $40 million ad campaign against antitobacco legislation. Among Gore's largest campaign donors are Washington lobbying firms that earn millions representing tobacco interests and companies that have pollution issues before the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lehane deflected questions about Eskew's tobacco industry work. ''Carter Eskew is now helping to promote the vice president's antitobacco agenda,'' he said, adding that Eskew is not unlike someone who played for the New York Yankees and then was traded to the Red Sox. ''Now, he's playing for the Red Sox,'' the spokesman said.

Eskew and Hickman did not return telephone calls.

The fact that money buys ''access'' in Washington is nothing new, though the system is now so awash in corporate donations that some candidates, and even some corporate leaders, are crying for change.

Bush, for example, has raised millions of dollars from the industrial, professional, and corporate interests that are regulated by the Texas state government. Senator John McCain, who has elevated the campaign finance reform issue to first-rank status, seeks donations from industries he oversees as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and in one recent case interceded with regulators in a way that benefited a major contributor. And Gore himself has attacked former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley for acting in the Senate on behalf of home state pharmaceutical companies.

''Money follows power. When a company needs someone in a position of power to help them out, it's a very good time for them to take out the checkbook and make a political donation. That's the way Washington works,'' said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Committee for Responsive Politics, which maintains a Web site (www.opensecrets.org), where donations and lobbying revenues can be tracked and compared.

The evident intersection between Gore's fund-raising, lobbying, and the companies queuing up to hire his friends is all the more surprising after the buffeting he took in the 1996 campaign fund-raising scandal.

Back then, Gore was known as the ''solicitor in chief'' for his zealous pursuit of donations from special interest groups targeted by the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. Along with Clinton, Gore hosted White House coffees that were followed by substantial contributions. He used his own office to solicit campaign donations. And for months, he maintained that he didn't know that an event he attended at a Buddhist temple in California was a fundraiser. Investigators later discovered that the event was used to move cash from Asia into the campaign.

This time around, Gore's contributions are carefully vetted. Nonetheless, much of the money he has raised come from officers of companies whose interests coincide with Gore's areas of official responsibility.

What's more, lobbying reports examined by the Globe show that Gore's office is often listed as a lobbying stop for Gore's friends, on issues that include telecommunications, computer technology, tax credits, biotechnology, drug company concerns, and environmental quality disputes. Since 1996, the television networks alone have spent several million dollars on lobbyists on issues like the ''V'' chip, which limits access to violent TV programming, with Gore's office getting much of the lobbying attention.

Of the 19 companies whose executives have donated the most in individual contributions to Gore's campaign, seven are Washington lobbying firms. Moreover, lobbying and campaign finance records show that 15 of the 19 firms have also made unrestricted ''soft money'' contributions to Democratic Party committees during Clinton's second term of office. The total: $3,376,690.

One highly successful lobbyist, Tony Podesta, even has a Web site that invites readers to conclude that he wields considerable influence at the White House - which friends say he does, sometimes aggressively and often effectively. On the site, Podesta's firm boasts how he ''gained the ear'' of the White House on a key tax issue and arranged meetings with Clinton for broadcast executives and sessions with ''key policy makers.'' The site also includes a trade publication news article describing Podesta's late-night role helping the White House plot anti-impeachment strategy.

Podesta's brother, John, has been White House chief of staff since November 1998. Podesta.com, the company where John and Tony once toiled together, has 53 lobbying clients, and revenues of about $8 million last year, up from about $6 million in 1998.

In an interview, Tony Podesta said he sometimes does not go near the White House for weeks at a time. But there have been times, he said, when he spends every day in a given week at the White House. But, he said, ''I've gotten no client into the White House who the White House didn't want there.'' And Podesta said he never contacts his brother on behalf of any client.

''It's not like we helped elect Bill Clinton and Al Gore and then hung out a shingle,'' Tony Podesta said. ''We started this business when George Bush was president, and we'll still be here if his son becomes president.''

Gore did not invent the Internet, as he once claimed. But the industries driving the new economy often treat him as if he had. And with good reason: No one in government, arguably not even President Clinton, has more influence than Gore over the direction of the technology revolution. And some of Gore's friends have his ear on those issues, even as they earn millions for advising companies eager to affect those decisions.

For example, Roy Neel, a close friend and former chief of staff to Gore, is president of the US Telephone Association, which represents the interests of the Bell operating companies in Washington. In 1998, Neel was paid $1.2 million by USTA, according to a survey by the National Journal.

USTA, in turn, retains another former chief of staff to Gore, Peter Knight, as its lobbyist, for $200,000 a year. Knight, who has long been Gore's most prodigious - and controversial - fund-raiser, is also Bell Atlantic's chief lobbyist, at another $280,000 a year. Two months ago, Knight took a leave from his lobbying firm as a way to mute criticism of his multiple roles.

One member of a lobbying firm, speaking on condition that neither she nor her firm be identified, said she was troubled by overtures to potential high-technology clients.

Often, she said, some of those with Gore connections present themselves as advisers to the president and vice president, note that they frequently attend White House meetings, and even say that they can get Gore to appear at client company events. Even if they cannot affect the outcome, she said, Gore's friends can claim access to inside information from the White House staff. ''That in itself is very valuable to clients,'' she said.

Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a public interest law firm that specializes in technology issues, said he is troubled by what he calls the ''monetarization of politics,'' but said he sees no evidence that the outcome is tipped in cases involving Gore's friends.

Part of the reason: Both sides in any major telecommunications dispute are often represented by lobbyists with ties to the vice president. ''They nullify each other,'' Schwartzman said.

Gore, Schwartzman concluded, ''makes his own decisions. But the vice president wants to see his friends be successful and wealthy. And he wants them to contribute to his campaign.''

Two recent issues, perhaps more than any others, illustrate how easily political money fuels the perception that special interests exert undue influence on policy.

The first involved the recent Clinton administration decision to reverse course and permit the export of high-end encryption technology. Initially, the White House had agreed with the Justice and Defense departments that US national security interests could be damaged by such exports.

Jack Quinn, a former Gore chief of staff and Clinton legal counsel, was paid at least $680,000 by Americans for Computer Privacy, cobbled together to get the ban lifted.

John Podesta, Clinton's chief of staff, said yesterday that Quinn's lobbying did not affect the decision. What turned the administration around, Podesta said, was a realization that technological breakthroughs had eclipsed longstanding policy.

One industry official with intimate knowledge of the decision supported Podesta's explanation. But the official, who declined to be quoted by name but is sympathetic to Gore, said presidential campaign fund-raising loomed over the discussions of the case.

The computer industry, the official explained, was united on the issue, at a time when Gore was competing mightily with Bush for Silicon Valley political contributions. To have the administration at odds with the industry on the issue, he said, could have transformed more of the high-tech world into Bush supporters.

The other issue involved lobbyist Tom Downey, a onetime Democratic House colleague who is sometimes described as Gore's closest friend - and the only lobbyist who Lehane acknowledged has lobbied Gore personally on issues. Downey clients include the Merck drug company, which according to lobbying records gave Downey an unspecified number of stock options in 1993, the year that Gore took office as vice president.

Starting late in 1996, Merck led a drug industry offensive designed to prevent South Africa from implementing legislation to acquire patented AIDS drugs at below-market cost for the 3.2 million South Africans who are HIV-positive. A day's dosage of the drug cocktail often costs more than a worker there makes in a week.

Records show that Downey lobbied Gore's office and Podesta's firm lobbied the White House, State Department, and the US trade representative for the drug industry.

The Clinton administration, where Gore heads a US-South Africa relations group, backed the drug companies, even imposing trade sanctions on the country, freezing any action for more than two years. A State Department memorandum, although noting that the United States understood the need for the medicine, declared: ''The US government nonetheless made clear that it will defend the legitimate interests and rights of US pharmaceutical firms.''

The drug firms have funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into national Democratic campaign coffers since Clinton became president, noted James Love, the director of the Consumer Project on Technology, which has pressed the administration to take a humanitarian approach to the issue.

Last fall, after US AIDS activists had embarrassed Gore several times by disrupting his campaign events over the issue, the White House altered course, negotiating a settlement that will allow South Africa to acquire the drugs at low cost.

Yesterday, Gore spokesman Lehane cited the issue as one on which Gore took a position counter to the interests of a friend's corporate client. But Love said the lengthy delays prompted by the administration's support for the drug industry have had tragic consequences.

''It's morally repugnant to help campaign contributors in a situation like this,'' Love said. ''How else can you explain why the US would impede access to cheap medicine in Africa, which is in the midst of a health crisis of historic proportions? This is not something that makes you proud to be an American.''

Kathleen Hennrikus of the Globe Staff contributed to this report. Walter Robinson's email address is [e-mail]. John Aloysius Farrell's email address is [e-mail].

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 11:32 AM

"Society overall has never been better."   Whaaaaa...???????

How old are you, Guest? I remember a society that was tremendously happier, freer, less paraniod, less regulated, and more prosperous and hopeful and idealistic in almost every way than today's society! Today's society is a frickin' nightmare in comparison.

Good lord!

But, hey, if the monkey in the cage imagines he's free and thinks his life is great....who am I to tell him he's wrong? LOL! If you think society has never been better...well, great, enjoy yourself, then. Have a blast.

You know, there were a lot of Germans in the late 30's who said "society overall has never been better". From their point of view it made perfect sense.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 05:50 PM

Very interesting article, Woody, but why the tiny font? I had to put "view" on "largest" to be able to read it with comfort. Once I did that it turned out to be well worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:47 PM

Little Hawk, older than you (60+) and things are good now. One of my comparisons is immediate family. Three children with 2 grandchildren each in various areas of high school or college. All have their own autos, helping to pay for them. Very active in school with many outside activities such as Ice skating (say lessons), Gymnastics, high school sports, private hockey club for one, could go on, and all will go to college.

Actually, my own friends have all seen the same. I marvel at my kid's homes that they own, pretty large, very, very nice middle class or above houses with new furnishings periodically. One daughter and her husband are building a new one as we speak. Just an average stone, 4000 square foot on a 6 acre lot. And all have worked hard, stayed in high school (no choice) and on to College which is the reason they have accomplished what they have. Dad did a little guidance but gives mucho credit to them.

I'm sorry, but it is out there - some have neglected to go for it and some were just not motivated enough.

I am finished here, I can't believe anyone would have your attitude but then I do not know you or your past cicumstances.

As was said earlier, home ownership, per capita, at an all time high. More families with a net worth of one million dollars than ever before....

I will stop here, Little Hawk, it is very simple, life is what you make it. If you really feel the way you say you do, then I am sorry and I am sure you don't want my sympathy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:55 PM

"less paraniod" This applies to whom?

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

paranoid

SYLLABICATION:        par·a·noid

ADJECTIVE:
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.

2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.
NOUN:        One affected with paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 09:25 PM

I'm not complaining about my life, Guest. My life, like yours, is good. I have everything I could want. It is what has happened to the cities and the general larger society around me that disturbs me. I see a society that has truly lost its way, morally speaking. Toronto was a clean and beautiful city when I was a kid. You didn't see the trash in the streets like now, the homeless people sleeping on the pavements, the graffiti everywhere on the buildings. You didn't have 50 or more murders a year in Metro Toronto (you might've had 2 or 3), and stupid young men in gangs firing guns on Yonge St and killing innocent people in the crossfire. You didn't have a middle class mostly up to their ears in debt. You didn't have a populace so cynical about elections that most people have little enthusiasm to vote anymore when it comes right down to it, but they still do it, though, with a sense of participating in a sorry farce....because no matter who you elect, the same thing happens: things get worse.

And that's Toronto...and Toronto is still a paradise compared to most American cities its size.

I repeat...MY life is great. I make good money, I live in a nice place out in the country near a nice small town...everything is great. It's what I observe happening more around me that concerns me.

But, hey, if you want to give me your sympathy for my supposed rough lot in life, go right ahead... (grin). I don't mind. And I won't be insulted.

And you're quite right...life IS what you make it. That I agree with 100%. I have friends who've done well with their lives and friends who have ruined their lives...and it was all up to them. Most of them are basically good people, but some had either poor judgement or not much self-discipline, and that can be fatal.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:47 AM

Better understood, LH, and the inner city problem is just that, a problem in cities. In the US, we created a system of temporary help titled 'Welfare' which has caused a large segment of the population to get used to it as we basically turned our backs on them after they started accepting it. We now see the result. I have often wonder what might have happened had we made staying in school a condition for receiving welfare. Possibly more kids getting up in the morning and heading out due to parental urging.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Guest 2
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 09:00 AM

I think the breakdown of society is due to two main factors:

#1 Erosion of family values. Moms that work and/or are unwed. No dad to hang with or he beat feet. Kids don't feel like they have a family anymore so they join a gang for support. Welfare becomes a necessity etc.

#2 Violence being fed to young people from every source by corporations for profit. Radio, TV, music, movies, books, cable, cartoons. This the dangers of drugs, smoking, antisocial behavior, muder, everything parents normally try to theach them are bad.

These are not the only reasons but what I see as the main ones.

By the time people realize what is happening, we will have rasied a gereration of maniacs who will be in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Guest 2
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 10:28 AM

PS:
Mmaybe it has happened already. Maybe we are the maniac generation from watching all the cops and robbers, cowboys and indian shows, war movies and we are raising an even worse generation of maniacs.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 11:24 AM

The rapid changes in society during and after WWII that caused women to leave the home and enter the work force has indeed de-stabilized and trememdously damaged family life, and that's having a very negative effect on society.

It's too much to expect BOTH parents to work fulltime and also expect them to bring up their children responsibly.

On the other hand, I can totally understand why young women would wish to have their full options open to work at what they choose and be just as independent as men are. Understood!

But it isn't working for the children. The children are being brought up by the TV and the video station instead. Not good!

What's the solution? I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 08:38 PM

I just came back from watching this movie.

I recommend it absolutely as required and necessary to the understanding both of the global warming analysis and of who Al Gore really is.

I urge you to go and see it. It is articulate, intelligent, well put together, and a throughly decent piece of work.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 09:02 PM

The Times review states:

"I can't think of another movie in which the display of a graph elicited gasps of horror, but when the red lines showing the increasing rates of carbon-dioxide emissions and the corresponding rise in temperatures come on screen, the effect is jolting and chilling. Photographs of receding ice fields and glaciers — consequences of climate change that have already taken place — are as disturbing as speculative maps of submerged coastlines. The news of increased hurricane activity and warming oceans is all the more alarming for being delivered in Mr. Gore's matter-of-fact, scholarly tone.

He speaks of the need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions as a "moral imperative," and most people who see this movie will do so out of a sense of duty, which seems to me entirely appropriate. Luckily, it happens to be a well-made documentary, edited crisply enough to keep it from feeling like 90 minutes of C-Span and shaped to give Mr. Gore's argument a real sense of drama. As unsettling as it can be, it is also intellectually exhilarating, and, like any good piece of pedagogy, whets the appetite for further study. This is not everything you need to know about global warming: that's the point. But it is a good place to start, and to continue, a process of education that could hardly be more urgent. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a necessary film...."

---

It is an absolutely necessary film, if there ever was one. Or even if there was not. there is now.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 09:20 PM

Thanks for the report, Amos. I figure to see the movie ASAP.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 11:40 PM

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/6/14/193340/225

An inconvenient truth, not adequately addressed by Al Gore in his movie, is that environmentalism makes life complicated. If SUVs are bad and wind power is good, then we must levy a tax on gas-guzzlers and hand out tax credits for windmills. Those in the business of selling windmills are very happy with this arrangement (see story by Naazneen Karmali), but in no time our fears of global warming have caused our economy to become littered with subsidies, credits, deductions, tax surcharges, earmarks and research boondoggles. Here's a way to make life simpler: Chuck out all energy legislation, replacing it with a one-sentence statute that levies a tax on carbon emissions. Let's do it big--30 cents a pound. So that people can adjust, start it at 1 cent and increment the tax by a penny a year from now to 2036.

We're talking a lot of revenue--enough, if the full rate were in place today and no one responded with changes in air-conditioning and driving habits, to replace the personal income tax. It would add $1.65 to the price of a gallon of gasoline. It would triple your electric bill if your utility were entirely coal fired. The purpose, though, would be not just to raise revenue but to change behavior. In 30 years' time, coal utilities would get very imaginative about switching to nuclear or finding some way to stuff carbon dioxide down a well hole. You would have long since retired your Suburban.

Now think of the legislative pollution that could be removed. The guzzler tax (up to $7,700) could be repealed; it is, after all, none of the government's business whether I waste gas by driving a big car or by making unnecessary trips to the pharmacy. Repeal mileage regulations (27.5 miles per gallon for cars, 21.6 for pickups). Get rid of the hybrid tax credit (up to $3,400). Forget George Bush's plan to spend $1.2 billion on hydrogen and $150 million on grass clippings.

We could find other employment for the lobbyists who tell us that ethanol is a winner; now, for the very first time, the chemical would succeed or fail on its own carbon merits. We wouldn't need the $2,000 solar credit or the $150 for qualified water heaters or the $50 for advanced circulating fans. We wouldn't need the tax forms for any of these things.

What about all those bureaucrats at the Department of Energy working on renewable energy and energy conservation? They work so very hard, burning the midnight oil. Think of the oil you could save.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 01:22 AM

Most of the electricity in Washington State—and much of the West coast—comes from power dams (see songs written for the Bonneville Power Administration's power projects in the Thirties by Woody Guthrie). Both Oregon and California buy a lot of electrical power from Washington State.

A couple of decades ago, the Department of Energy commissioned a number of agencies such as the Bonneville Power Administration to find new, less expensive, less polluting sources of electrical energy. After spending vast quantities on money on studies and research, which they redid several times because they didn't like the results they were getting—they had their little hearts set on building a whole bunch of nuclear power plants—were finally dragged, kicking and screaming, to an inescapable conclusion:    the most economical and environmentally friendly new source of energy was—conservation. More efficient use of the electrical energy that was already being produced.

The result of this reluctantly accepted revelation was a widespread program providing subsidies to local public utility districts to promote, and pay for, residential weatherization for any homeowner who wanted to sign up for the program. I became aware of this program when I applied for a job as a technical writer with a company that had a contract with the Bonneville Power Administration. My job was to take large stacks of reports from field inspectors and consolidate them into concise reports for the Bonneville Power Administration. If the newly insulated houses in a given PUD were weatherized up to the BPA's specifications, the BPA would then cut them a check. If not, they had to redo the job until they did. It was a very interesting job! I got a good up-close look at things such as the myriad ways of conserving energy and the search for newer, cheaper ways of utilizing electrical energy that was already being produced.

At the same time, Washington State initiated a similar program for residences that were oil-heated. I worked on that program as well, not as a tech writer, but answering questions about the program on the "Oil Help" program's 800 number and signing people up for the program. There, too, it was found that the cheapest, most environmentally friendly way was through conservation and more efficient use.

The folks that were the most unhappy with the Washington State Oil Help program were the companies that sold home heating oil.

How strange is that!??

We can do one helluva lot better than we're doing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 01:40 AM

Here's an even simpler solution, Woody. Do away with money altogether, and organize society under a completely different set of purposes...such as: doing things that most NEED to be done BECAUSE they need to be done, not because it makes anyone a profit, but because it IMPROVES life for people and benefits the natural world too!

What a revolutionary notion, eh?

Of course, that would mean the end of American civilization as you know it, the end of unemployment, the end of rich and poor, the end of people not being able to afford medical treatment they desperately need, the end of homeless street people, the end of casinos and gambling, the end of the illegal drug trade, the end of organized crime...etc...

Too awful to contemplate, right? ;-)

Never mind. Just go back to what you were talking about, then, and keep spinning your wheels the American way. I'm sure it will all work out in the end...not!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 02:25 AM

I remember the big push for weatherization, Don Firth. It was at about the same time as Oregon power companies offered special rates for an 'all-electric' home.

They did/do have one problem though. The houses were TOO tight and homeowners found themselves having to open a window or two for ventilation. Seems like there are no simple solutions...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:12 AM

Woodie/Old Guy:

Just go see the movie and think on it a bit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:36 AM

GO SEE the damn movie first.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 09:42 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 02:27 PM

It's a pity that politics gets in the way of important information. It is quite certain that our governmental administration will not see Al Gore's documentary- there's really no doubt that if push came to shove they would rather reinvent the wheel than to take advantage of someone's else's research and conclusions. Somehow they find it preferable to ignore or scorn or ridicule the findings of someone on the other side of the aisle.

I get the feeling that some unnamed Mudcatters feel the same. They would rather dispute science than accept anything that is attached to Al Gore's name.

What some may not be aware of is that Al Gore has been vitally interested in environmental impacts on our Mother for a long time. I think his 'Earth in the Balance' was published in 1992, or thereabouts and he was warning us even before then.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 10:11 PM

Ebbie:

I get the feeling that some unnamed Mudcatters feel the same. They would rather dispute science than accept anything that is attached to Al Gore's name.

Quite true. And it's pretty much SOP for the RW shills. Their standard response is to attack the messenger instead of countering the message (to the extent it becomes a bit pathological; the "Hillary hatred" is one example of such ... but strangely enough they salivate over a Hillary candidacy just so they can slake their sliming urges).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 12:14 AM

Al:

That was immoral of you, not to mention highly scurrilous and ...well, I hate to say it, but...stupid.

I suppose you haven't seen the movie.

Here's a decent, straightforward and intelligent man doing an ethical, intelligent thing and you can't come up with anything better than some slob's two-bit scandalrag movie?

Go back under your rock.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,AL
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 02:01 AM

Hee Hee

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 02:26 PM

Okay, I'll say it:

IDIOT!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 03:23 PM

I'm afraid that A1's link may be an indicator of the world at large's take on the crisis. Hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 08:41 PM

So, wot's the answer?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:19 PM

Al:

Go see the goddamned movie.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 09:25 PM

I wonder whether A1 watched this one when he visited the Youtube page...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKJ2fu_Gluo&mode=related&search=

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 03:08 AM

It is amazing how most urban dwellers take their energy sources for granted. If people were forced to live without it for awhile (and it is possible you know) perhaps they would learn to appreciate it and conserve.

To me, switching on lights is a miracle.

Hot running water is a total luxury.

Turning on the gas to cook is absolutely wonderful and I adore my gas heater.

...but I still push the mower and use public transit or walk.

I remember to turn it all off when I'm not using it. Most people are just energy sucks.

Maybe its different in the States and elsewhere but in Canada, kids start learning about the environment and global warming in elementary school.

If you have hope, teach your children to be future problem solvers.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 09:31 AM

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/south_park/videos/season_10/index.jhtml?playVideo=62979

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 01:32 AM

http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/media/top10/century_e.html

Top Weather Events of the 20th Century


1900-1920

* Rogers Pass Avalanche - March 5, 1910. Sixty-two train men and labourers perished 2 km west of Rogers Pass, BC, when their engine was hit by an avalanche and hurtled 500 metres into Bear Creek. Over 600 volunteers used pick axes and shovels to dig through 10 m of snow in the search for survivors.
* World's Worst Iceberg Accident - April 15, 1912. The unsinkable Titanic collided with an iceberg 700 km southeast of Newfoundland, causing the death of 1,500 people and making headlines around the world.
* Deadliest Canadian Tornado - June 30, 1912. A late afternoon tornado slashed through six city blocks in Regina, killing up to 40 people, injuring 300 others, destroying 500 buildings and leaving a quarter of the population homeless. Better known as the "Regina Cyclone", the tornado lasted three minutes but it took 46 years to pay for the damages.
* Black Sunday Storm - November 7-13, 1913. One of the most severe Great Lakes storms on record swept winds of 140 km/h over lakes Erie and Ontario, taking down 34 ships and 270 sailors. Days later, the crew of one ship was found lashed to the mast, frozen to death -- only the ship survived.
* Storm Claims Sealers - April 1, 1914. Seventy-seven sealers froze to death during a violent storm on the ice off the southeast coast of Labrador. At the height of the storm, from March 31 to April 2, the temperature was -23�C with winds from the northwest at 64 km/h.
* Fog Causes Ship Collision - May 29, 1914. Shallow river fog contributed to the collision of two ships -- the CP Liner Empress of Ireland and a Norwegian coal ship, The Storstad -- in the St. Lawrence River, 300 km seaward from Quebec City. The liner sank in 25 minutes, and 1,024 passengers lost their lives.
* Victoria's Snowstorms of the Century - February 2, 1916 and December 28-29, 1996. Huge snowstorms, 80 years apart, clobbered Canada's "snow-free" city with more than 55 cm of snow. The December storm dropped 80 cm of snow in 24 hours, 125 cm in five days with cleanup costs exceeding $200 million (including a record insurance payout for BC of $80 million).
* Killer Lightning - July 29, 1916. Lightning ignited a forest fire which burned down the towns of Cochrane and Matheson, Ontario, killing 233 people.
* Princess Sophia Sinks off BC - October 23, 1918. A Canadian steamship carrying miners from Yukon and Alaska became stranded on Vanderbilt Reef. Rescuers were unable to remove the 268 passengers and 75 crewmen due to a strong northerly gale. The next day, weather conditions worsened and the ship sank killing all on board.

1921-1940

* August Gale Kills 56 in Newfoundland - August 24-25, 1927. A hurricane swept through Atlantic Canada washing out roads, filling basements, and swamping boats. In Newfoundland, 56 people died at sea.
* Multiple Tornadoes hit Southern Manitoba - June 22, 1922. Hot and humid air led to the development of several tornadoes in the area. Five deaths and hundreds of injuries were attributed to the event which caused $2 million in 1922 dollars.
* Dustbowl Era - 1930s. Between 1933 and 1937, the Prairies experienced only 60% of its normal rainfall. Thousands of livestock were lost to starvation and suffocation, crops withered and 250,000 people across the region abandoned their land to seek better lives elsewhere.
* Great Lakes Freighter Hit by Lightning - June 26, 1930. Lightning struck the bow of the John B. King drillship in the St. Lawrence River, igniting a store of dynamite onboard. The explosion killed 30 people and injured 11 others.
* Ontario's Coldest Day on Record - December 29, 1933. Fourteen sites recorded their coldest-ever temperature, including Ottawa at -38.9�C and Algonquin Park at -45.0�C. Outside Ontario, record cold temperatures were also set in Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia.
* Cold Wave Grips Eastern North America - February 1934. A cold wave engulfed the continent from Manitoba to the Atlantic seaboard and down the east coast to Palm Beach, Florida. Ice trapped fishing vessels off Nova Scotia, hospitals were jammed with frostbite victims and, for only the second time in recorded history, Lake Ontario froze completely over.
* Cold Wave Freezes Victoria and BC's Lower Mainland - January 19-29, 1935. Winter weather gripped Vancouver, with temperatures dipping to -16� and snowfall greater than 40 cm. While the extreme cold caused fuel shortages and frozen water supplies, a quick thaw followed by 267 mm of rain over the next four days added extensive roof damage across the city, including the collapse of the Forum -- the city's main hockey and curling rink.
* The Deadliest Heat Wave in History - July 5-17, 1936. Temperatures exceeding 44�C in Manitoba and Ontario claimed 1,180 Canadians (mostly the elderly and infants) during the longest, deadliest heat wave on record. Four hundred of these deaths were caused by people who drowned seeking refuge from the heat. In fact, the heat was so intense that steel rail lines and bridge girders twisted, sidewalks buckled, crops wilted and fruit baked on trees.
* Hottest Day on Record - July 5, 1937. The highest temperature ever recorded in Canada was reached at Midale and Yellowgrass, Saskatchewan when the mercury soared to 45�C.

1941-1960

* Eastern Ontario's Freezing Rain Storm - December 28-30, 1942. Ice "as thick as a person's wrist" covered telephone wires, trees and railway tracks. In Ottawa, 50,000 workers walked to work for five days. Because of the war, there were few men available to clear the streets and repair lines.
* Toronto's Worst Single-Day Snowfall - December 11, 1944. A severe winter storm dumped 48 cm of snow on Toronto's downtown, while gale-force winds piled the snow into huge drifts. A total of 57.2 cm fell over two days. In all, 21 people died -- 13 from overexertion. Funerals were postponed, expectant mothers walked to hospitals, and there were no home deliveries of milk, ice or fuel. Of major concern, factories producing war ammunitions had to close temporarily.
* Windsor's Killer Tornado - June 17, 1946. The third worst killer tornado in Canadian history reared up across the Detroit River, killing 17 people and demolishing or damaging 400 homes in Windsor and the surrounding county. The tornado also took down 150 barns and farm buildings, and uprooted hundreds of orchard trees and full-grown woodlots.
* Worst Blizzard in Canadian Railway History - January 30 to February 8, 1947. A ten-day blizzard buried towns and trains from Winnipeg to Calgary, causing some Saskatchewan roads and rail lines to remain plugged with snow until spring. Children stepped over power lines to get to school and built tunnels to get to the outhouse. A Moose Jaw farmer had to cut a hole in the roof of his barn to get in to feed his cows.
* Coldest Temperature in North America - February 3, 1947. The temperature in Snag, Yukon dipped to -63�C, establishing Canada's reputation for extreme cold.
* BC's Worst Flood of the Century - May-June 1948. BC's Fraser River overflowed, drowning 10, inundating 22,200 hectares, destroying 2,300 homes and forcing 16,000 to flee. Row boats were the only means of transportation in much of the Fraser Valley, and for three weeks Vancouver had no rail connection with the rest of Canada.
* Red River Flood - Spring 1950. Described as the greatest flood disaster in Canadian history, the Red River crested at 9.2 m above normal near Winnipeg. While 100,000 people were evacuated from Southern Manitoba, miraculously only one drowning was reported. Losses included damage to 5,000 homes and buildings, totaling $550 M in property losses. The Manitoba government decided to construct the Winnipeg Floodway to forestall future flooding.
* First Person on Canadian Television - A Weatherperson! - September 8, 1954. Canadian television made its debut on this day, and meteorologist Percy Saltzman was the first person to appear on screen. Saltzman continued to present television weather for 22 years.
* Hurricane Hazel - October 15, 1954. Leaving a nightmare of destruction , Hazel dumped an estimated 300 million tonnes of rain on Toronto, causing lost streets, washed out bridges and untold personal tragedy. In all, 83 people died -- some bodies washing up on the shores of Lake Ontario in New York State days later.
* Deadly Snowstorm in St. John's - February 16, 1959. A snowstorm with strong winds created 7-metre drifts, blocking main streets and causing six casualties. Another 70,000 Newfoundlanders were left without power, crippled telephone service, and blocked highways, streets and railways. Scores of motorists spent the night at homes along the highways after drifts buried their stalled cars.
* Fishing Fleet Disaster off Esuminac, NB - June 20, 1959. More than 30 fishermen drowned in the worst storm disaster ever to hit the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishing fleet. Twenty-two salmon boats sank by a sudden, smashing north-easterly gale.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 01:34 AM

http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/media/top10/century_e.html

Top Weather Events of the 20th Century

1961-1980

* West Records Single Driest Year - 1961. Many areas in the drought-stricken Prairies received only 45% of normal precipitation. In Regina, every month but May was drier than normal, and for the 12-month crop year the precipitation total was the lowest ever. The duration, severity and size of the area effectively made this drought the worst on record. Losses in wheat production alone were $668 million, 30% more than in the previous worst year, 1936.
* Typhoon Freda Hits BC's Lower Mainland - October 12, 1962. Remnants of Typhoon Freda struck BC's Lower Mainland, causing 7 deaths and damages in excess of $10 million. Twenty percent of Stanley Park was flattened. In Victoria, winds reached sustained speeds of 90 km/h with gusts to 145 km/h.
* Violent Storm Strikes Maritimes - December 1-2, 1964. One of the most violent storms in years struck the Maritime provinces with gales reaching gust speeds of 160 km/h. Three fishing boats, including two large draggers, were lost in the storm accounting for the loss of 23 lives. Halifax and Charlottetown recorded their all-time lowest sea-level pressure ever.
* "Great Blizzard" Lashes Southern Prairies - December 15, 1964. Heavy snows, accompanied by 90 km/h winds and -34�C temperatures, paralyzed the southern Prairies. Three people froze to death and thousands of animals perished.
* Winnipeg's Snowstorm of the Century - March 4, 1966. This winter blizzard dropped 35 cm of snow with winds blowing at 120 km/h, paralyzing the city for two days. Winnipeg's mayor issued a warning for everyone to stay at home. The drifting snow blocked all highways in southern Manitoba and forced the cancellation of all air travel in and out of the Winnipeg airport.
* Blizzards in Southern Alberta - April 17-20 and 27-29, 1967. A series of intense winter storms dropped a record 175 cm of snow on southern Alberta. Thousands of cattle, unable to forage for food in the deep snow, perished on the open range. Army units were dispatched to assist in snow clearing, while food, fuel and feed were airlifted into the province. The good news? The Revenue Minister announced that the income tax deadline for residents of southern Alberta was extended two weeks to May 15.
* Greatest Rainfall in One Day - October 6, 1967. A one-day rainfall of 489.2 mm occurred at Ucluelet Brynnor Mines, BC - a Canadian weather record that still stands.
* Montreal's Snowstorm of the Century - March 4, 1971. Montreal's worst snowstorm killed 17 people and dumped 47 cm of snow on the city with winds of 110 km/h producing second-storey drifts. Winds snapped power poles and felled cables, cutting electricity for up to ten days in some areas. In total, the city hauled away 500,000 truckloads of snow.
* Crater in Quebec Opens During Rainstorm - May 4, 1971. Tragedy struck the village of St-Jean-Vianney, Quebec when heavy rains caused a sinkhole 600 m wide and 30 m deep to appear in a residential area. The crater/mudslide killed 31 people and swallowed up 35 homes, a bus and several cars.
* Hurricane Beth Soaks Nova Scotia - August 15, 1971. Hurricane Beth brought punishing winds and up to 300 mm of rain, causing considerable crop damage and swamping highways and bridges, temporarily isolating communities on the eastern mainland of Nova Scotia. More rain fell during Beth than during Hazel in 1954.
* One Cold Year -1972. The only year on record when all weather-reporting stations in Canada reported temperatures below normal on an annual basis.
* Another Killer Tornado in Windsor - April 3, 1974. Three hundred and twenty three people died when a series of tornadoes struck 11 states in the U.S. and Ontario within an eight-hour period. The tornadoes caused more than $1 billion dollars in damage. In Windsor, one funnel cloud touched down at several locations taking eight lives at the Windsor Curling Club.
* Edmund Fitzgerald Sinks in Great Lakes Storm - November 10, 1975. A severe storm causes the largest Great Lakes bulk ore carrier ever to break up and sink in 20 m-high waves, killing the entire 29-man crew. Canadian musician Gordon Lightfoot later immortalized the ship in a folk song.
* Groundhog Day Storm Batters Bay of Fundy - February 2, 1976. One of the fiercest storms ever in the Maritimes slammed into Saint John, NB. Winds were clocked at 188 km/h, generating 12-m waves and swells as high as 10 m. Everything coated with salt spray for miles inland and huge chunks of coastline eroded.
* Blizzard Isolates Iqaluit - February 8, 1979. Weather with -40�C temperatures, 100 km/h winds and zero visibility in snow kept residents of Iqaluit indoors for 10 days.

1981-1999

* Blizzard Maroons PEI - February 22-26, 1982. A huge snowstorm with up to 60 cm of snow, 100 km/h winds, zero visibility and wind chills of -35�C paralyzed the Island for a week. The storm buried vehicles, snowplows and trains in 5- to 7-metre drifts and cut off all ties with the mainland.
* Ocean Ranger Disaster - February 15, 1982. Bad weather caused the sinking of the largest semi-submersible drilling rig in the world, 300 km east of Newfoundland. In total, 84 people died in the world's second worst disaster involving an offshore drill ship. Winds of 145 km/h, waves of 21 metres and high seas hampered rescue efforts.
* Newfoundland Glaze Storm Cuts Power to 200,000 - April 13, 1984. Residents of the Avalon Peninsula were without electricity for days when cylinders of ice as large as 15 cm in diameter formed on overhead wires. The severe, two-day ice storm covered all of southeastern Newfoundland with 25 mm of glaze.
* Tornadoes in Barrie and Central Ontario - May 31, 1985. Three confirmed tornadoes struck the Ontario communities of Barrie, Grand Valley, Orangeville and Tottenham. The Barrie tornado was the fourth most damaging and had the longest track (200 km) in Canadian history. In all, the family of tornadoes killed 11 people, injured hundreds of others, and destroyed or damaged 1,000 buildings.
* Worst Air Crash in Canada - December 12, 1985. An Arrow Airlines DC-8, after refueling in Gander en route to Kentucky, crashed seconds after take-off, killing 248 members of the US 101st Airborne Division and 8 crew. Just before the crash, freezing drizzle and snow grains were reported. The temperature was -4.2�C and winds were light from the west.
* Black Friday Tornado - July 31, 1987. One of Canada's most intense tornadoes ever struck Edmonton and killed 27 people -- the second worst killer tornado in Canada. Winds reached 400 km/h, cutting a swath of death and destruction 40 km long and as much as 1 km wide. In addition, hail as large as softballs and 40 to 50 mm of flooding rain fell on the city.
* $4 Billion Drought - September 1987-August 1988. Across the southern Prairies, the hottest summer on record, combined with half the normal growing season rainfall and a virtually snow-free previous winter, produced a drought that rivaled the 1930s in terms of intensity and duration of the dry spell. About 10% of farmers and farm workers left agriculture in 1988. Effects of the drought were felt across the country as lower agricultural yields led to higher food and beverage prices for consumers.
* Warmest Winter Olympics - February 1988. The Winter Olympics in Calgary experienced some of the warmest temperatures ever for late February. On February 26, Miami's high temperature of 19.4�C was only a shade warmer than Calgary's maximum of 18.1�C.
* Record Wind Chill - January 28, 1989. It was bad enough when the temperature dropped to -51�C in Pelly Bay, NWT but the wind made the air feel even colder when the wind chill equivalent reached -91�C.
* Hailstorm Strikes Calgary - September 7, 1991. A supper-hour storm lasting 30 minutes dropped 10-cm diameter hail in Calgary subdivisions, splitting trees, breaking windows and siding, and crushing birds. Homeowners filed a record 116,000 insurance claims, with property damage losses exceeding $300 million -- the most destructive hailstorm ever and the second costliest storm in Canada.
* Canada's Only World-Weather Record - September 11, 1995. The QE2 ocean liner was struck by a 30-metre wave during Hurricane Luis off the coast of Newfoundland, marking the largest measured wave height in the world. The massive storm covered almost the entire North Atlantic, almost 2,000 km across.
* Saguenay Flood - July 18-21, 1996. Canada's first billion dollar disaster, this deluge triggered a surge of water, rocks, trees and mud that killed 10 people and forced 12,000 residents to flee their homes. Many roads and bridges in the region disappeared.
* Hailstorm Pounds Calgary and Winnipeg - July 24, 1996. Orange-sized hailstones racked up close to $300 million in property losses. Hail clogged storm sewers, causing extensive flooding in both cities and in Winnipeg, at least a third of the cars damaged had to be written off.
* Red River Flood Levels Highest of Century - April-May, 1997. About 2,000 square km of valley lands were flooded as the Red River rose 12 m above winter levels. Thousands of volunteers and soldiers fought rising waters for days. Damage estimates reached a half a billion dollars.
* Okanagan's $100 million Hailstorm - July 21, 1997. A destructive hail and wind storm ripped through the orchards of the Okanagan. It was the worst storm in memory with nearly 40% of the crop deemed unsuitable for fresh market. The rain and hail was accompanied by winds gusting to 100 km/h that capsized boats in the interior lakes, and caused power outages and traffic accidents.
* Ice Storm of the Century - January 4-9, 1998. One of the most destructive and disruptive storms in Canadian history hit Eastern Canada causing hardship for 4 million people and costing $3 billion. Losses included millions of trees, 130 transmission towers and 120,000 km of power and telephone lines. Power outages lasted from several hours to four weeks.
* A Year-Long Heat Wave - 1998. Canada experienced its second warmest winter and warmest spring, summer and fall on record. Temperatures in 1998 were an average of 2.4 degrees warmer than normal and likely the warmest year this century.
* Costliest Forest Fire Season on Record - 1998. Flames from forest fires destroyed 4.6 million hectares of forests, about 50% more than the normal amount. The 10,560 fires were the greatest number in 10 years.
* Toronto's Snowstorm of the Century - January 2-15, 1999. A series of storms stalked the city, dumping nearly a year's amount of snow in less than two weeks. In all, the city recorded the greatest January snowfall total ever with 118.4 cm and the greatest snow on the ground at any one time with 65 cm. The storms cost the city nearly twice the annual budget in snow removal.
* Greatest Single-Day Snowfall Record - February 11, 1999. Tahtsa Lake, BC, received 145 cm of snow, a new Canadian single-day snowfall record, but well below the world's record of 192 cm at Silver Lake, Colorado on April 15, 1921.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 06:53 AM

Woody, people don't tend to read very long lists, especially if you need to magnify them 300% to actually read them at all. And if it's a deathly dull list of weather events, why bother at all?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:12 AM

Woody's style is like barhing into a coffee shop where folks are having quiet conversations with each other, and reading the Congressional Daily Record through a bullhorn. He never says what point it is he is trying to make, so it seems his whole purpose is to disrupt, distract, annoy, plague, irritate and interrupt.

Something like a small, badly raised child.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:55 AM

http://www.envirotruth.org/news_madhav.cfm

Extreme Weather Events NOT linked to Global Warming
Governments should base decisions on real data,
not shaky computer models

By: Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, environmental consultant and former research scientist with Environment Canada

As a primary justification for allocating a billion dollars towards implementing the Kyoto Accord in Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chretien inexplicably chose to highlight the supposed connection between extreme weather events and climate change. In his mid-August 2003 speech announcing the new funding, the PM confidently told Canadians, "Extreme weather events around the world, and here in Canada, have underscored the harsh reality of climate change. Scientists have sounded the warning. We have no choice but to act. It is our moral responsibility."

In reality, governments have a 'moral responsibility' to properly consider what nature really tells us, even if the data scientists collect doesn't support the rhetoric of political leaders. While it is true that some scientists "have sounded the warning", many have not and the connection between global warming and extreme weather is being seriously questioned in many scientific studies and appears tenuous at best.

Mr. Chretien's belief in a global warming/extreme weather link originates with Environment Canada's senior managers who promote the extreme weather hypothesis despite having done no in-depth analysis of the relevant data. Mirroring Ex-Vice President Al Gore's proclamations (Gore: "Global warming is real and unless we act we can expect more extreme weather in the years ahead."), Mr. Henry Hengeveld and other Environment Canada spokespeople have tried to associate everything from snowstorms to floods to droughts with planetary warming. In my recent contract report to Alberta Environment (Alberta Provincial Government), I concluded that extreme weather events such as heat waves, rainstorms, intense windstorms, thunderstorms/tornadoes, winter blizzards, etc. are NOT increasing anywhere in Canada at this time. I also concluded that the probability of these events increasing in next 25 years remains very small..............

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:02 AM

I would be interested to hear how this "dr." explains the correlations between carbon and temperature Mister Gore displays in his presentation, and how he rebuts the source of that data. Otherwise, your post is just rhetorical arm-waving.   What "factual data" does this gentleman actually bring to bear?

We know what Al Gore bases his comments on because he has the courtesy to say so in plain numbers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:30 AM

http://www.envirotruth.org/big_chill.cfm

.....The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Temperatures rose to the 'Holocene Maximum' of about 5,000 years ago when it was about 3°F higher than now, dropped in the time of Christ, and then rose to the 'Mediaeval Climate Optimum' of about 600 ad to 1100 ad, when temperatures were about 2°F higher than now. This was a golden age for northern European agriculture and led to the rise of Viking civilisation. Greenland, now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony. There were vineyards in the south of England. Then temperatures dropped to 'The Little Ice Age' in the 1600s, when the Thames froze over. And they have been rising slowly ever since, although they are still much lower than 1,000 years ago. We are now living in a rather cool period.

What caused these ups and downs of temperature? We do not know. Temperature changes are a fact of nature, and we have no idea if the postulated 0.5°F heating over the last 100 years is caused by man's activities or is simply part of a natural cycle. What we can say, though, is that if Europe heats up by 2°F it would do it a power of good. We can see this from records of 1,000 years ago. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide makes plants grow more quickly, so improving crops and forests....

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:58 AM

Some truth above, but modern politics is sure to get in the way. It used to be possible for humans to migrate to follow food supplies (and human populations were far smaller). Are we prepared to allow millions and millions of people to move north across international boundaries so they can live and work where we are now? Are we prepared to have those who dwell along coastlines move inland across international boundaries? We should probably prepare for this, but if we can moderate and/or slow climate change shouldn't we do that also?

The course we are on now (thanks to our government) is to ignore the problem, and let our kids and grandkids face the social and economic upheaval (and probable armed conflicts) that will result from mass displacments (whatever the level of human causation of climate change).

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 12:21 PM

All I have to say to the warming denouncers is that reality is what you have whether you believe in it or not. And warming IS that reality.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 12:36 PM

Woody, you ass. I have already pointed out here and elsewhere that the cyclical values you are trotting out are not comparable to the current accelerations in temperature change. The cyclical oscillations repeat over thousands of years in a range, call it one to ten, up and down. The current temperature values break out the top of that range and ramp up toward thirty. The break out is closely associated with the values of carbon in atmosphere measured from ice core data over the last 50-60 thousand years. The relationship (atmospheric carbon to temperature)throughout the period is closely coupled.

Go see the movie, read the book, do your homework.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 12:39 PM

And see this post.


A