BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Alba
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 08:15 PM

Damn it, sometimes the Truth can be a little inconvenient.
Warmest Temps in 400 Years

Congress asked for this Report by the way.
J

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 01:04 AM

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.

1600
+400
-----
2000

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:00 AM

Yikes. It is cooler now than it was a thousand years ago.

What was the source of the greenhouse gases back then?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:12 AM

The cycle of temperature oscillations of which the Little Ice Age was part is an entirely different cycle, Woody; the current temperatures are breaking out of that cycle by an order ogf magnitude. If you read the original report about the "warmest in 400 years" the particular scientists say AT LEAST 400 years, and possibly much longer. The ice core analysis cited in "An Inconvenient Truth" extrapolate the values over the 6500 years (if memory fails to serve) analyzed and finds a long-term oscillation.

If you and Big Mouth Al would go see the damn film, it would save a lot of stupidity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:15 AM

Yes, but then their raging little egos would have to admit to possibly having been mistaken about something! And that would damage their sense of themselves! It would make them feel like they had "lost" something.

Not going to happen, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jul 06 - 03:34 AM

I saw the film tonight and am very impressed, both by the compelling truths and by the presentation. There isn't much there that we were not aware of already but laid out in front of you it's very graphic and convincing.

The only problem is, as one friend said, it was mostly the choir listening.

Although at the break - changing reels? - this young man in the row behind me said to his friend, Well, it doesn't convince me. And then went on to scoff at Gore's having had a dog and a pony on the farm.

At first I thought he was kidding but after listening a bit I saw that he wasn't. I turned and gave him a direct look. He repeated what he had said.

I said, evenly, I'm going to keep quiet, OK? I'm biting my tongue.

And I turned back to face the front.

I don't know if it was my advanced age or what but he only whispered to his friend after that.

When Gore said some time after that that he tries to find out why and for what reason people don't believe it I hoped that it made the young man start thinking a bit.

In the lobby afterward the young man nodded and said hi to me. I guess it must be my advanced age!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Tom Fenner
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:33 AM

I don't watch propaganda from either the Left, or the Right, so I won't be seeing the movie. However, from the interviews Al has given, i gather that he has ignored the fact that one reason for the one degree rise in temerature in the past hundred years is that the sun is a bit hotter. That just might contribute to global warming.
my problem with the sky is falling crowd, is that they only look at stats that support what they feel is the truth. For instance, we banned an efficient refrigerant because florocarbons destroy the ozone layer. Big help! A few years back, a volcano in Indonesia blew up, and put more florocarbons in the air in twenty-four hours than we have made since we started making them.
We have had several Ice Ages. Humans didn't cause them. what makes people thimk we can stop the next one?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 01:14 AM

Tom Fenner, you'd have a much better idea of what is being shown if you went to see the documentary. It isn't stats, per se. And it is not propaganda if by that you mean an agenda that is meant to profit the people holding and propounding the view.

On the other hand, we ignore its message at our peril.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 09:46 AM

Fenner:

Your characterization of the film as propoganda is badly off the mark. And the difference between historical extremes of temoperature and carbon cycles, and the current trend which is out pacing them by an order of magnitude, is made explicitly clear in the film. I urge you to see it first, and then make up your mind about its merits.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 04:01 PM

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a documentary.

It's only "propaganda" to those who don't like what it says.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: MAG
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:06 PM

OK, I saw it at noon today. It just arrived at our little theater.

He carefully documented every damn thing he said, including why we are currently off the chart from the normal cycle.

Hey, if you don't grok the scientific method, nothing's going to convince you.

The rapture people probably love it, because they can't wait for the end of the world.

His soft southern accent and folksy biblical references probably make it palatable to folks who might not otherwise listen.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: bflat
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:05 PM

I saw this movie with my Mom. I was really impressed with what Al Gore had to say. I've never thought of it but if I compare the current weather to last years' weather it feels like a different planet already. We need to do something to make the world better.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: bflat
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 05:26 PM

The above was written by my 13 yr old grandson. He is very concerned about the future of the planet and well he should be but I don't like him feeling that the end is near, too much apocalyptic information for a youth.

Ellen

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:03 PM

bflat, I agree that these issues can be very upsetting to youngsters. I was 9 years old when WWII ended and for years afterward I worried about the 'end of the world'. My parents and their friends worried incessantly about the atomic bomb and its capabilities, and they didn't tailor their conversations to the sensibilities of a kid.

Along those same lines my brother in his 20s thought it wasn't fair to bring more children into such a dangerous world.

His two children are now 44 and 38 years old.

My point is that, bad as things look at times and bad as they could get, we never know. All we can do is the best we can, which includes doing our best to help others to work for it too.

I think that if my parents had given me a few basic truths it would have reduced my fear a lot. Just talking it out, including the comforting thought that we're all in it together and some of the best minds on the planet are working to counteract some of the worst, would have helped.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Alice
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 09:51 PM

Even if you think it is propaganda, go see the movie. If you really want to criticize something, you first have to be fully informed about the subject of your critique. See the movie and then post your analysis here.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: bflat
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 05:55 PM

Ebbie: Thank you for your sensitivity. I think we ought to shelter children somewhat and not frighten them. It is a delicate balance of information and protection. Hope we all do a reasonable job at it.

Ellen

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Arne
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 06:55 PM

Tom Fenner:

I don't watch propaganda from either the Left, or the Right, so I won't be seeing the movie....

Ahhhh, ignerrence is bliss...

... However, from the interviews Al has given, i gather that he has ignored the fact that one reason for the one degree rise in temerature in the past hundred years is that the sun is a bit hotter....

No. Mainly because it's not a fact. It's RW propaganda.

... That just might contribute to global warming.

Well, if it were true and it did make up a substantial contribution to warming. But the scientists are all in accort (those not on the Exxon-Mobil payroll, that is) that human factors account for a major portion of the warming, and increased solar insolation less. They don't say it doesn't exist, they say the human factors are greater.

.. my problem with the sky is falling crowd, is that they only look at stats that support what they feel is the truth....

Ummm, your evidence for this?: _______________

For instance, we banned an efficient refrigerant because florocarbons destroy the ozone layer....

Has nothing to do with warming (or more strictly, very little). Ozone depletion leads to increases in U/V, which is a different environmental problem that warming (leads to skin cancers, etc.). In addition, we've developed other refrigerants that do the job perfectly adequately. Ozone depletion has been tapering off, thanks to good science and good political and technical responses. The Freon ban is a success story. You need to read more and learm more.

... Big help! A few years back, a volcano in Indonesia blew up, and put more florocarbons in the air in twenty-four hours than we have made since we started making them.

Ummmm, no. Vocanoes don't spew flourocarbons. They spew SO2 (sulphur dioxide), which is one greenhouse gas, but not flourocarbons.

You really need to learn a bit more before before you start ignoring the consensus conclusions of reputable (and knowledgeable) scientists around the world. Based on the garbage you're trotting out here, you have a ways to go.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM

Here's the MOST inconvenient thing about the truth this movie is trying to make more people aware of:

I live in southern Ontario. If I want to see "Pirates of the Caribbean", I can see it in any town in the province, no problem. It's showing in hundreds of theatres in Ontario. If I want to see Al Gore's movie, I have exactly two theatres I can see it at, and they're both about 100 miles away from where I live.

Guess what the $ySStem would rather people watched? Mindless entertainment, that's what...movies that are fun but don't tell you anything, and don't get you asking any disturbing questions of yourself or the powers that be.

And by the way...I love Johnny Deep in his role as Captain Jack Sparrow...but I'd really like to not have to drive 100 miles to see "An Inconvenient Truth".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 01:44 AM

So what are the possible solutions to the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 11:34 AM

That's unconscionable, Little Hawk. Juneau is a small town (30,000) but the film has been held over another week because the small theatre has been packed for two showings every night. Lisle Hebert, bless him, is making some serious money with it.

The big theatres could have carried it.


Al, possible solutions?

At the end of the documentary Gore lists six or seven small(ish) things we can do. This, he says, would bring us to the level of 1970- and from there we can make some real changes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Alice
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 12:05 PM

Woody, until you see the movie and actually address what it contains, your arguments are nothing but hot air aimed at an illusion you want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:29 PM

Ebbie, sadly it's not unconscionable. A couple times now my wife & I have wanted to go out for an evening show to see this & it's a 45 minute drive to find a theather that's playing it. Concord & Portsmout NH & the Boston area. I don't know how it is for other that don't live in cities but here & just 50 minutes north of Boston) we don't get to see these types of movies but we can see any of the less filling shows at any time.

Wish it weren't so.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 05:55 PM

I heard some moron on this thread say that movies are just for "entertainment"! LOL! Boy, that is the way Big Brother WANTS you to think. Yessiree. Just line up like little sheep for the entertainment, and for God's sake don't THINK about anything real while you're doing it...or any other time either. Worry about the hockey scores, don't worry about pollution, war, and poverty!

Pathetic.

Well, Ebbie, Most of the movie theatres in Canada are controlled by a couple of big corporate chains, and they decide what to show and what not to. Guess why "An Inconvenient Truth" is showing in almost no movie theatres in Ontario...

Because it's inconvenient, that's why. ;-) A population that remains ignorant is easily controlled.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 06:58 PM

The little theatre that is showing the film right now seats only about 70 people, I think. It's an old one in an old building, one that's been used for 'FILMS' rather than 'movies' over the years. Since Lisle has owned it, he features a tourist-focused film about Juneau's history that he made a few years ago, called 'Gold Town'.

I don't know how many films he shows each year but he books just about anything that the big theatres aren't interested in.

Would it be that difficult to set up shop in just about any long, narrow room?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 12:25 AM

There used to be little local theatres around here, Ebbie, but they're all gone. They have been shut down and replaced by the modern "multiplex" which has 5-10 different screens, surround sound so loud that it will strip paint off a Volvo, and 20 minutes of f**king ads and previews before the movie you PAID TO SEE even starts!!!!!!!!!!!   It's a goddamn outrage.

All these soulless assembly line multiplexes are owned by one or two big chains...and they only show the standard mass consumption movies...at very inflated prices. I'll say one thing in their favour, though. The seating is good.

The only place you can still find small, privately owned theatres that screen more unusual or informative stuff is the Metro Toronto area, and maybe Ottawa and a few other major cities (like Montreal or Vancouver).

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 06:41 PM

It's not getting a lot of distribution - legal or illegal. Normally a film like this would already be roaming the internet in torrent form, but all the files called An Inconvenient Truth are either porn or a Fox News reply to the film. Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Big Brother
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 07:31 PM

Now, don't pay any attention to that. Mere coincidence. Say! Did you hear about the great new "Rocky" film that's coming out soon with Sylvester Stallone? It's called "Rocky Balboa" and it's gonna be great! You have to see it! Now, THAT's entertainment!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 12:34 PM

The easiest way to enslave a people is to convince them that they are free, and distract them all the while by pandering to their most simple appetites...fast food, light entertainment, drugs, alcohol, stimulants, sexual fantasies, material goods, gossip, and melodrama.

Welcome to the New World Order. Big Brother thanks you for spending.

Need a new credit card to add onto your load of debt? It's in the mail now. Instant gratification is our credo. There are no consequences to total irresponsibility. Believe it, oh "free" one.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 08:17 PM

NEW YORK (AP) -- Who says politics is show business for ugly people?

''An Inconvenient Truth,'' Al Gore's film on the perils of global warming, scored two Oscar nominations Tuesday -- for best documentary feature and best original song.

While he is not technically a nominee -- the film's director, Davis Guggenheim, won the nod, as did singer Melissa Etheridge for the song ''I Need to Wake Up'' -- Gore said he was ''thrilled'' that his movie was honored.

''The film ... has brought awareness of the climate crisis to people in the United States and all over the world,'' Gore said in an e-mail statement. ''I am so grateful to the entire team and pleased that the Academy has recognized their work. This film proves that movies really can make a difference.''

Aides say the former vice president plans to walk the red carpet with Hollywood's beautiful people at the Academy Awards ceremony next month.

Guggenheim said he wasn't expecting a nomination but welcomed the fresh attention from the Academy's recognition. He said he spoke to Gore and asked him, '''Are you ready to go to the show?' I think he's ready. For years he's been in the wilderness on global warming. Now he's ready for his grand walk. Now he's at the Academy Awards. It's a hero's return.''

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: EBarnacle
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:22 AM

Go back to the original definition of propaganda: information

As a statistician, I understand that correlation does not define causation. It can, however, point to causes and effects. If you see a tsunami wave coming your way and say that it might cause damage but you are not absolutely sure that you will be hurt because you have not been hurt before, you are a fool. Precautions are always a good idea.

The freon issue is a good example of a step in the right direction.

After seeing An Inconvenient Truth, I attempted to get hold of Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry's people to discuss the product mentioned below. I was unable to get to any sites except those involved with selling the DVD or raising money for campaigns.

About 15 months ago, a company with which I am affiliated came into existence. They make an engine treatment which reduces friction, improves sealing [valves and rings] in the engine, improves mileage per gallon and improves emissions. It's a pill which goes in your fuel tank and plates out on the cylinders and valve seats. It cuts down on wear during the moments before oil lubricates the cylinders.
The catalytic effect raises the burn temps of gas, gasohol, diesel and biodiesel by 120 Fahrenheit, consuming the impurities and giving the vehicle more power.
The company is now in more than 160 countries and is negotiating with the People's Republic of China. They are interested in it because of the emissions improvements more than the fuel savings. If you would like to check it out, you can read more [and hopefully order some from my website] at: ugotmiles.myffi.biz [I tried to create a link with the clickifier but it did not go through.]

As with freon, it is not the whole answer but it is a step along the way. The product, MPG-Caps, essentially eliminates CO (Cabron Monoxide) and NOx (Nitrous oxides) as well as unburnt carbon from your exhaust.

When I went to get my car inspected, the inspector put his probe into the exhaust pipe and looked at the numbers. He gave me a look, pulled the probe out and reset it. Then he tested it again, got the same results. He jacked the car up and looked for a cutout. When he turned the car back to me, he asked me how I did it.

The stuff reads like snake oil but it works. That's all I know.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: EBarnacle
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:28 AM

I forgot to mention that GW Bush mentioned that we need to reduce our fossil fuel use and emissions by 20%. This product can help.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:28 AM

One of the most interesting points in An Inconvenient Truth, for me, was that virtually all scientific, peer-reviewed articles written in stringently academic science journals were about the reality of global warming, while a majority of popular press articles were dismissive of it.

In other words, respectable scientists who have collected and understood the evidence think we're in an emergency. Tabloid journalists think we're not.

I know who I believe!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:29 AM

By the way, this is worth watching, while we're on YouTube.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:00 AM

EBarnacles product page is here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:18 AM

The whole thing is political, but at least this
guy is funny.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:20 PM

Mention has been made above about the difference between the problems of "the ozone hole" and "global warming." They are, in fact, two disparate problems. The ozone hole appears to be "recovering" although still bears watching.

A "biographical essay" on the principal scientist who first discovered the accepted mechanism for, accurately documented, and produced accurate simulation programs for the ozone hole, Susan Solomon, appears in the February 2007 issue of Smithsonian Magazine. Look (later) for "Ahead in the Clouds."

The January issue is still up as the "current" one at the website, but this article is interesting, low-tech, and may clear up some of the confusion between the two issues for those who need a "consumer friendly" explanation. You'll likely enjoy looking at the January issue if you want to test the link; and it should be the same link for the February issue as soon as it's posted: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/.

Susan Solomon is also co-chair for the pending NATO report on global warming. A "summary article" was to be released this week, with the complete report in four parts (1,600 pages estimated) over the next few months. This report claims direct participation by over 500 scientists and review (and presumed concurrence) by governments of around 150 countries. It's difficult to see how it could not represent a majority opinion but of course we'll have to look it up and see.

(Some additional blather about the NATO report was also posted at the "What do Scientist Think About" thread - if I remember where I was that day.)

Sorry to post a link you have to wait for, but "informed and curious" people should have the mag bookmarked anyway (IMnsHO).

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:26 PM

I think I've mentioned before that I always preview and check links except when I've reallly screwed something up. This dumb site didn't recognize that "herf" meant "href".

The Link above should have shown as:

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/.

John

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:57 PM

Here's another inconvenient truth: Most human dames don't find chimpanzees very attractive! I know it's hard to believe, but it's the truth. I've taken note of it, and there ain't no denyin' what is a cold, hard, and freakin' inconvenient truth! They think we're downright UGLY!

Fortunately, though, if ya got an incredible amount of charm and personal moxy...like yours truly...then you can still beat the odds now and then.

That Jane Goodall...she was an exception to the general rule. Then there was Diane whatzername...I never met her. Too bad.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:25 PM

Diane was smitten with those BIG cousins of yours, Chongo...you'd never have gotten to first base with her.