BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Subject: BS: 'An Inconvient Truth'
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 25 May 06 - 02:57 PM

I did a search for this, and it came up with nothing--so if I missed something, apologies!

Has anyone seen this? It won't be playing in the small city we live in--they're much more into MI:3, and "The DaVinci Code." We have a limited number of screens here.

Anyway, I've been hearing mixed reviews, both in terms of a "movie," and from the scientific community. Some see it only as a ploy for Gore to run again for Prez...this time not against Dubya. Anyway, anyone who's seen it, what did you think? Good science? Bad? Posturing and demagoguing it? I will most likely wait until it's out for rental on DVD. Just looking for SOME feedback on this, as this forum has the most diverse (and often most intelligent) folks to respond. Thanks!--EL Mouso

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 06 - 03:13 PM

As far as I know, it has not yet come to Juneau Alaska but I'll see it when it does. I hear good things about it.

In the meantime, Annony Mouse, there's al lot written about it. Just put 'An Inconvenient Truth' in Google. (It helps to spell it correctly.)


Here's One

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 25 May 06 - 03:35 PM

Much more interesting reading can be found by Googling "Al Gore, Armand Hammer".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 May 06 - 03:53 PM

pdq, I don't get the relevance to the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Alba
Date: 25 May 06 - 04:13 PM

It's a kill the Messenger kinda post Ebbie.
I mean what is SO important about the Planet self destructing when there is Political venom to be distributed!

There is a website about the Film here: Climate Crisis

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Alba
Date: 25 May 06 - 04:34 PM

Forgot to say..
Gracias EL Mouso:)
J

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 25 May 06 - 08:19 PM

A big "THANKS" to whomever corrected the title of this thread. I only realized after I hit submit, I had screwed it up. As to Googling it--yeah, I could/can do that. I really AM interested in what the Mudcatters think about this. I probably won't be able to see anything but snippets of it until it comes out in DVD. What I HAVE seen is rather...uh...apocalyptic!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 06 - 08:54 PM

It is one of several really huge problems we are facing in the world, and it may well be the biggest one of all.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 25 May 06 - 09:51 PM

LH--you said a mouthful (and headful) there! I have listened while both sides of this environmental coin have waged a rhetorical war for years. Frankly, it is difficult to know who to believe...but I think I'd rather err on the side of those who say it IS a real problem and potential world-wide disaster, than those who don't.

I'm not some "bleeding heart" liberal, or even that much of a Gore fan. But my Dad earned his living manufacturing a fishing lure line ("Red Eye Wiggler"), and got "into" the whole thing of mercury in the waters of the Great Lakes, and water pollution. He was cited by the Sierra Club for his efforts in attempting to raise consciousness of existent and potential problems related to air and water--two things we CANNOT LIVE without! So, at a relatively young age, I was exposed to envronmental concerns, and ecological balances.

That said, from what I understand, the more ice that turns into water not only raises sea/ocean levels, but absorbs more sunlight and thus you get a kind of "Catch 22" effect...which of course, feeds on itself

I'm also no "doomsayer" but this film has me intrigued. I know I can Google myself into a frenzy, but I would rather just watch the thing...and if y'all have seen it, get your input. I really do respect the collective intelligence of this forum, even though some of the B/S stuff can get...uh...bullshitty. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 06 - 10:02 PM

The first I even heard of the film was seeing this thread today.

Are you aware that if the ocean temperature rises a couple of degrees in the North Atlantic, it can cause the Gulf Stream to change and/or lessen its flow? If so, that will deprive the Eastern coasts of North America and most of northwestern Europe to get a whole lot colder in the winter, like a mini-ice age. That could be a catastrophe for hundreds of millions of people. It would be an utter disaster for the UK, for example.

This is a case where a general rise in worldwide temperature leads to shutting down ocean currents which then leads to a drastic cold snap in certain heavily populated areas. Not good.

The rather recent movie "The Day After Tomorrow", based on the Whitley Strieber book, was about that. It was a rather silly movie in some respects, but it had a significant message about rapid climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 25 May 06 - 10:38 PM

Whitely Strieber is worth listening to because he makes people think.

Most of us were introduced to him during years of insomnia and Art Bell.

                      Whitley Strieber

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 May 06 - 11:08 PM

I have not seen it yet, but have heard that it has been well received, even by "conservative" audiences. Incidentally, the first presidential candidate who belonged to the Sierra Club was Barry Goldwater--

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 May 06 - 11:50 PM

There are discussions about it and a trailer at this site. I don't think it will be here for another 2-3 weeks. I hardly ever go to the movie houses, here, so will probably see it on DVD as soon as it comes out. I, too, am interested in what Mudcatters think of it.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Arne
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:35 AM

pdq:

Not only the "Gore/Armand Hammer" RW slimejob crapola but Whitley Strieber??? pdq, hate to tell you, but Art Belll and his favourite interviewees/correspondedents are waaaaayyyyy out in tinfoil-hat territory. You know, UFOs, Hale-Bopp, chapacubras, and that kind of stuff ... why not jackalopes too?

Tune down the sensitivity of your Bull$**t Detector a notch. Jes' sayin'

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: GUEST,Christian
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:57 AM

Just another ploy by a non-Christian element to discredit Jesus. It won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 May 06 - 12:32 PM

This is the same Whitley Strieber, who was contacted by aliens--right PDQ?

As to "Christian GUEST"--"the Lord helps those who helps themselves", which, in this case means that God gave you a brain, use it--read, and think, before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 06 - 01:27 PM

Little Hawk sed "The rather recent movie 'The Day After Tomorrow", based on the Whitley Strieber book...had a significant message about rapid climate change."

Most of the 'global warming' BS is on a par, scientiically, with UFO abductions.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 01:38 PM

well, let's say, just for argument's sake...that someone, somewhere on this planet in recent times, HAS BEEN contacted by aliens, good sirs!

How the hell would they talk to a pair of know-it-all prats like you about it then?

I guess they could just forget about even trying, right?

How in God's name do you KNOW for a fact that no one on this planet has been contacted by aliens, and what gives you the utter cheek to think you know it?

It's quite possible that some of what appeared on Art Bell's show was true, while other stuff was not. Give that a whirl through your ossified mental prejudice structure. You don't KNOW anymore than anyone else does whether an alien contact or alien abduction story is true or not. You don't. You are simply leaping to the immediate assumption which dovetails with the way you like to think "things are".

That is a reaction of blind prejudice, nothing more. Such reactions are the bulwark of common ignorance regarding anything deemed "unusual".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 06 - 01:51 PM

Maybe we should start a thread (another?) on UFOs. Since the acronym refers only to the unknown quotient, I'd like to postulate the possibility that rather than 'alien' as 'outside our universe', perhaps these beings? anomolies? are from an alternative but simultaneous time that inhabits the same space we do.

I don't know what I think about that- but there appear to have been many glimpses into another dimension reported.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 06 - 01:53 PM

Art Bell is a hero of mine.

Much of what Whitley Strieber says is thought provoking. I put a link to him for that reason.

Art Bell is masterful talker and a good entertainer.

Al Gore is a pathalogical liar with NPD. He also knows nothing about science. I believe nothing he has to say. Period.

Is that more clear, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:05 PM

What is "NPD"?

To say that someone knows nothing about science...even Al Gore...might be overstating it a bit, I think. We all know something about science. ;-) Surely, as a one-time presidential candidate, he would have had easy access to a great many well-informed advisors who know quite a bit about science, wouldn't he?

It looks to me like the main force driving those who want to poo-poo the idea of global warming is the desire to keep making lots of MONEY in the usual fashion and not change the way they are doing anything, because they might lose profits! That does not auger well for them having an honest and unbiased opinion on the matter, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Alba
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:15 PM

"NPD"...National Parks Department, LH of course.

or it could be
Nice Person Disposition:)

George Bush has NPD too but his NPD is different from Al Gore's NPD. GW's is far more serious, the NPD in his case stands for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:19 PM

I will make you a deal , Little Hawk. You name three people who have written about 'global warming' who are truly 'un-biased' and I will read their work.

             names:
                     1)
                     2)
                     3)

Note: this thread is about a movie by Al Gore. Questioning ol' Al's character is perfectly fair and is to be expected. If someone really wants to discuss 'global warming', there are at least three Mudcat threads on that subject.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:31 PM

No, no....(smiling)

I am seriously asking you, pdq, what "NPD" means. I would like to know.

Three people who are truly un-biased???? Well. Oh, my. ;-) To be 100 % serious about this...I don't know of ANYONE with a strong opinion on this or any other matter whom I can honestly say is truly un-biased. Being biased seems to go naturally with having strong opinions, doesn't it? The only people who are unbiased are those with no opinion at all.

My only point is this: A bias that is driven by the desire to change nothing we are doing now and maximize corporate profits is more likely to be a dishonest and very destructive bias to society in general than a bias which is driven by the desire to expose environmental damage and the need to change the way we're doing things now.

Would you agree?

I'm sure you feel Al Gore is using the issue to promote his own career, for his own political advantage, etc....and you may very well be 100% right about that! It would be surprising if that was not a significant factor in what he's doing.

I have no opinion one way or another about the relative merits of Al Gore's character. I really don't. That's why I'm discussing global warming instead of Al Gore. I'm frankly not very interested in Al Gore at this point. I am interested in environmental and social issues.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:55 PM

Are you aware that if the ocean temperature rises a couple of degrees in the North Atlantic, it can cause the Gulf Stream to change and/or lessen its flow? If so, that will deprive the Eastern coasts of North America and most of northwestern Europe to get a whole lot colder in the winter, like a mini-ice age

Actually, Little Hawk, like a full scale ice age. Changes in the Gulf Stream are the marker for changes between glacial and interglacial periods. Trying to untangle cause and effect round it is as hard as seperataing morris dancers from a brewery....

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:59 PM

Yes, that's right, Bunn. I actually underplayed it a bit, just as a minor concession to the "there is no global warming" contingent on this forum, so as to provoke them a wee bit less.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 26 May 06 - 03:24 PM

Obviously, none of us (I don't believe) can assert the premises of this "documentary" on pure science alone. I have read as many "theses" agreeing and disagreeing. Frankly, I am weary of all of this. It seems to have boiled down to who/what/whatever has the "agenda."

From what I've seen of the snippets (granted, only a small sample) there is *something* beyond the "norm" happening. Whether it is dire, or worth some kind of "panic" I couldn't say. Just looking for opinions on THIS film...not necessarily the entire issue (although can you separate the two?).

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 03:28 PM

Haven't seen the film yet. If and when I do, I'll venture an opinion.

As regards the global warming and the dire predictions....if we wait long enough, we'll find out, won't we? I'll tell you one thing, I would not be inclined to go and buy a property on the Gulf Coast or the southern Atlantic coasts of the USA. Nope. Not after what I've seen in the past couple of years.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 06 - 03:33 PM

If people want to get away from Al Gore and this film, here is another thread...

                              BS: Where's the Global Warming?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 03:42 PM

Fine. You refuse to tell me what NPD means? Okay, I will look it up on Google then.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 03:44 PM

Found it...

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Alba
Date: 26 May 06 - 03:52 PM

I am sure by this Thread's title it is pretty evident what the topic is, therefore those that want to "get away" from it will not open it!

Annony, when I see the Film, which I intend to do, Ill let you know what I thought of it. Until then...do I think Global Warming is a real threat to this Planet.

Yes.

Now I want to get...a cup of tea...so
Y'all have a nice, warm, wet, windy, dry, snowy.. whatever the climate is doing in your neck of the woods, Day smile
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 May 06 - 04:11 PM

Who is harmed if we consider the possibility that there is a climate crisis? Not us. Who is harmed if we don't consider it? Us. So what could someone's motivation be for not wanting us to consider the   possibility?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 04:13 PM

Exactly my point.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:49 PM

Paraphrase of a Navajo take on cause and effect:

Hard, hot wind makes flying a rough go, birds get tired. Too many of them land on one tree limb. Limb breaks, falls into a stream, diverts the flow of water, undercuts the bank of the stream, floods the valley which changes the flora, which changes the fauna, and folks who lived off of all of that have to move away.

Simplified, yes, but for someone who believes in the interconnected of all things, it makes sense, imo.

I saw on the weather channel, today, most of the USA, from North to South, from the East Coast to just across the Rockies is *experiencing* high heat for this time of year, 80's and 90's. We've been breaking all kinds of old heat records, here. I will be interested in what the movie may say about that, too.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 May 06 - 07:19 PM

The consensus among indepdendent scientists all over the world that global warming is a very major problem that is liable to cause enormous detsruction and loss of life, and that our way of life, both manufacturing and consuming, are primary factors in bringing it about, is absolutely overwhelming.

There are a small number of people with a lot of money to lose in the short term, if anything effective is done about it, and a number of politicians and "scientists" owned by them who have attempted to suggest that the facts are unclear, and that it is too early to tell and so forth. Apparently in the USA this is actually believed by some people who are neither scientists, politicians, and who do not have particular vested interests at stake.

The trouble is, it's on a par with suggesting that the jury is still out on whether the earth goes round the sun or the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 06 - 07:39 PM

It's so simple...McGrath's wise...listen.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 26 May 06 - 08:16 PM

Having completed two years toward a doctorate in Geology, I seem to remember that there were glacial and inter-glacial periods before Al Gore and Corporate greed. There are reasonable theories about glacial and interglacial periods occurring cyclically. Best I could understand, we were likely to get another glacial period, and because we are currently in an interglacial period, it is very definitely possible that the changes occuring are not within our control. I don't think the issue is a no-brainer, either way. Geologists see changes in thousands of years, not fifteen or twenty.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 06 - 08:22 PM

Jerry Rasmussen deserves another vote for Mudcat Grownup. There has not been one since the passing of Rick Fielding.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: akenaton
Date: 26 May 06 - 08:53 PM

More like the Mudcat "tooth fairy".
The cyclical theory on Global warming is not expounded by many in the scientific community.
Co2 emissions and their effect is now a reality...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 09:20 PM

Any ego normally remains fiercely loyal to its first expressed opinion on a subject, unless something tantamount to a complete and undeniable catastrophe to its stated position occurs... ;-) Even then, it may remain loyal to its first position. Such is the nature of the ego, which fights only to win, which is uninclined to fairness, reason, forgiveness, justice or compromise, which lacks mercy or consideration, which is capable of any obfuscation or evasion or willful blindness in its effort to do one and only one thing....WIN.

We can expect that to be just as true on this thread as it is on numerous others. (And that's why I wonder why I even bother coming here. Masochism? Addiction? Probably mostly the latter.)

Anyway, regardless of whether we are experiencing global warming due to human-created industrial pollution...or just going through another cyclical natural Earth change regardless...would anyone assert that it is a good idea for humanity to keep dumping toxic pollutants into the air, ground, and water at the present rate? Would they? Would they try to divert discussion of it, if their profits depended on continuing to do so?

Yes, they would. And they are.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 May 06 - 10:59 PM

It is not "grownup" to consider the possibility that our large scale burning of fossil fuel, large scale dumping of waste into oceans and waterways, large scale deforestation, and such things has in some way altered the climate--but it is "grown-up" to believe that aliens commune with Whitely Strieber--

Sorry that I missed where you were coming from before, PDQ, but I think I get it now---

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 06 - 11:47 PM

Masterful job of misunderstanding things, M. Ted. You must be trying very hard.

Jerry Rasmussen is 'grownup' because of what he is, not because of what he believes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:03 AM

Rage away, fellers:

All I was saying is that this issue is not a no-brainer. I do believe that our pollution of the atmosphere is dangerous and should have been controlled long ago. I agree that it hasn't been controlled and probably won't be until there's money to be made in it. Cyclical glacial and interglacial periods happened. (Not an appealing bumper sticker, and likely to justify ignoring our environment.) How much of the changes that may come in the future is from events beyond our control (and understanding) and how much is because of how we are polluting the environment is something I don't know. Maybe being grown-up is realizing that we don't know everything. Not that I care to stake a claim on being "grown-up" Trying to grow is about the best any of us can do.

This thread could have been an attempt at a discussion instead of shouting in lower case letters and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. I see a lot of truth in both sides.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:39 AM

hot off the press..

something for global warming skeptics

Those superstitious, alarmist, tree-hugging wankers, the American Geophysical Union have just produced two news releases detailing about-to-be-published studies, one from Europe, one from the U.S. The European study by scientists in the Netherlands, the U.K. and Germany argues that their research plays a new card in the climate-change scenario: that while greenhouse gases contribute to increases in global temperature, the reverse is also true, that higher temperatures exacerbate the release of greenhouse gases. The team focused on what's known as the Little Ice Age, the period from the mid-1500s to the mid-1800s when temperatures in Europe — and around the world — were significantly cooler. At the same time, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fell. Taking these data as the basis for a link between temperature and CO{-2} release, the scientists then try to guess how much the effect of temperature on gas release would be.

It wasn't encouraging. They claim that this positive feedback, the connection between warming and gas release, will raise the stakes significantly. Where previous models of future warming might have predicted an increase of x degrees, they now think it will be x + ?

.. In the views of the astonishingly persistent global warming skeptics, this could be just one more bogus, alarmist piece of unreliable science. Here's something curious though. The American Geophysical Union sends out a second report on the same day, this one authored by scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab in California, the oldest of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Labs. In this case, the scientists analyzed a timeline of Antarctic ice cores spanning 360,000 years and, like the European team, looked closely at the associated swings of temperature and carbon dioxide. Again they found that as the globe warmed from heightened solar radiation, greenhouse gases increased as a result, causing more warming etc., etc...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:44 AM

May 24, 2006, The Age

The world could get six degrees hotter over the next century, scientists have told the (Australian)Federal Government, warning that previous predictions dramatically underestimate the extent to which climate change will raise temperatures. A report for the federal Environment Department said there was a greater risk that global warming could now exceed earlier predictions of a 1.4 to 5.8 degrees rise in temperatures by 2100. "The impacts of a changing climate are beginning to emerge," the report said, adding that evidence of warming, such as more common high temperature extremes, was becoming easier to observe. The report said its findings were based on new research done since the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections in 2001.

The report downgraded the long-term cooling effect of aerosol particles in the atmosphere, and found melting snow and ice would cut the reflectivity of the earth's surface and add to rising temperatures. Some of the most dramatic effects were predicted in the Arctic Ocean, which was now projected to become almost ice-free in summer later this century. At the other end of the globe, the Antarctic peninsula was warming strongly, leading to a rapid loss of ice shelves along the coast and speeding up glaciers.

Meanwhile, US research suggests that existing predictions for temperature rises are inaccurate and will have to be revised upwards by several degrees by the year 3000. New research at UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory suggests that as carbon dioxide emissions heat the globe, hotter oceans and soils will release stored carbon dioxide, raising the thermostat an extra notch. Ecologist John Harte and biogeochemist Margaret Torn predict that if humans double the carbon dioxide level, more carbon dioxide will be released naturally, which in turn will push global temperatures up between 2.9 and 11 degrees.

The flaw came to light during a study of the effects of global surface temperatures on carbon dioxide levels. Scientists have long known that greenhouse gases raise temperatures by insulating the planet. But less well known is that the warmer it gets, the more carbon dioxide is released by soil and oceans.

REUTERS, GUARDIAN, KRT

amazing how alarmist and incomptent these scientists are, isn't it? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:58 AM

Thanks for posting the articles, freda:

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Ruth'
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:28 AM

Every time there is a family get together and Ruth shows up it ends with one or people storming out and yelling "thats it, thats all I can take!". Ruth has acquired egotisosis from some dirty chat rooms and continues to inflict tailor made insults on family and strangers alike.
There is no doubt she has become an inconvenient Ruth.
She too was an Art Bell fan and is currently still in financial recovery from the money she spent and lost to defend against Y2K and various impending asteriod disasters.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:24 AM

While reading this thread a thought popped into my head about what a person can do, to help the environment. It seems a simple idea that has to do with lawns and mowing. Remember those old push lawn mowers? The ones with the rotating blades? Only energy required was from the person pushing them.
I imagine in well populated areas (cement jungles) that people with the small amount of lawns they have, could reduce air pollution and the use of fossil fuel, just by eliminating gas driven mowers.
A blade of grass takes polluting gases and CO2 from the air and returns pure oxygen, so we need lawns to help us. But... the way we care for our lawns is something to think about. The fertilizing, the watering, the mowing, etc..
Even further on this thought(that popped into my head) was don't mow so damn much!
Sorry A-Mouse, I haven't seen the film.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:48 AM

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


YES!!!!! Bravo, Jerry Rasmussen! All debate threads should have that statement flagged in red at the top...and maybe every ten posts... just to remind people.