BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM

Sarah was kind of amusing, actually. Definitely stretching the bounds of what might be considered "appropriate" at the moment, but still amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:47 PM

I have every intention of seeing the movie. I'm convinced that there 'could' be a relationship between human releasing of locked up energy into the environment and the weather we've been having lately, but there is 'science' and then there is 'accepted theory'. The two ain't always the same.
I enjoyed Sarah even though she didn't get a laugh on camera. That bum should have applauded when she removed his blanket!

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 05:26 PM

um...........

..........never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 05:06 PM

The most interesting part of that 'cute' little bit was the looks on the faces of her audience. Not a giggle.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 04:45 PM

A Very Convenient Truth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 11:04 PM

Well, that about says it. We can't allow trivialities like a potential world catastrophe to interfere with profits, now can we?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 07:20 PM

Of interest:

an Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby
group
funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major
climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration,
offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a
report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 12:55 PM

I'm all for the awkward-questions squad;it can be necessary work.

Nevertheless ,John,do we have it right that you don't have a response to the latest from the wider scientific community?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 07:29 AM

autolycus,

You seem to mistake me for someone wishing to win an argument. I am not. I am a person who doesn't mind asking the obvious question that is often the stick in the spokes of bicycle moving faster than it should. A bicycle that everyong seems more than tickled to be riding.

cobble,

Thanks for the kind words. I think you dropped this...

'

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: autolycus
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 06:32 AM

As far as I can see,neither John or GUEST Truther have produced a response to the latest statement fom a vast number of scientists in relevent fields that they are 95% certain humans are contributing to climate change.

    Ahhhh,a moment's thought and I got it. The certainty hasn't reached 100%.


    My mistake.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 12:01 AM

Truther:

Unless you can substantiate any of your ridiculous statements, I would say you are full of hot bile, and slandering someone who is not guilty.

You sound venomous, bitter, and as paranoid as a French floozy in a Massachusetts meeting house.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 10:58 PM

We already suffer punitive taxation, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 10:24 PM

Give you three guesses: Think Truther is in politics? Bet he doesn't like himself either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 09:45 PM

". . . and I don't like anybody very much!"
         --They are Rioting In Africa, recorded by the Kingston Trio.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 09:02 PM

Al Gore isn't the issue here. His lies are. He's shilling for the industry that controls petroleum, among other things. A hundred years ago a group of men began buying up oil reserves and buying up competing alternative energy sources. They've forced the world onto petroleum as a power source, by and large, and now they're fighting wars for control of even more reserves (the Iraq war started when one of their boys decided to start accepting Euro dollars for oil, which wasn't allowed at the time). So these petro-bankers have us all hooked on oil, and now they want to force us all into debt slavery, and they'll do it by 1) limiting the flow of the endless supplies of oil, 2) not building new refineries, and 3) convincing the more gullible among us that people and their cars are somehow killing the planet. To combat #3, we need punitive taxation. What crap. Al Gore is what he is, a whore, same as the Clintons and Bushes and Blairs of the world. And hatred doesn't mar perception as much as adulation does.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Cobble
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 08:54 PM

The ice is melting but the bigger danger is the biggest store of methane on this planet, held stable by the icy waters, if this goes kiss your ass goodbye. Do a search and learn. And Hardly your a mindless fart.

             Cobble.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 06:45 PM

So if you made a movie about the ice caps melting would it have an Artic Thieme?



A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 06:32 PM

Yes, I built a Revell model of the Nautilus sometime in the early 60's. The sub's navigation under the polar ice was commented on quite a bit at that time.

The Revell model wasn't much of one. As I recall, it had about 10 pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 06:26 PM

Artic Garfunkle is a cold, cold man.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 06:01 PM

The first submarine to travel under the Arctic ice cap was the USS Nautilus, the first American nuclear submarine. The journey was not exactly a piece of cake.

Information about the Nautilus and its voyages, including a description of its epic journey under the Arctic Ocean, HERE.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 05:37 PM

'Scuse me....not "Artic"..."Arctic".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 05:34 PM

In an effort to avoid typing even more words than I already did, John, I did not bother to mention specifically about the Artic section of ice, much of which, as you say, is sitting on the ocean. Yes, I know that. I am not ignorant of that fact. I know about the submarines going under it too.

My point was that a great deal of ice is now sitting on land, is sitting above sea level, and that the melting of that ice would necessarily raise sea levels as it ran off in the form of water.

Do we agree on that? If so, we agree...period. It is the ice on Greenland, the South Pole, and a whole lot of other land areas kindly listed by Don Firth which I was alluding to.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 01:36 PM

True indeed, much of the northern ice cap floats on the Arctic Ocean, but one should not forget that there are vast ice sheets covering Banks Island, Victoria Island, the Queen Elizabeth Islands, Resolute Island, Elllesmere Island, Baffin Island. Greenland, of course, Svalbard, Franz Josef Land, Novaya Zemlya, Severnay Zemlya, New Siberian Islands, not to mention the snow and ice covered coastlines of the continents, from the Bering Strait, across Alaska and Canada, the islands north of Canada which I have already listed, along with Greenland, then Northern Europe from Norway's North Cape, across Russia and Siberia and back to the Bering Strait again. And I've listed only the larger islands. There many smaller ones, also covered with snow and ice.

That's one helluva lot of frozen water!

In this morning's news:

"Scientists and government officials from 113 countries issue a new report on climate change that blames humans for rising global temperatures. The report predicts changes in temperature, precipitation patterns and sea level over the next 100 years.

Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist and co-chair of the meeting in Paris, speaks with Steve Inskeep about the report."

To hear the report, go HERE and click on the "Listen" button at the top of the page.

Full text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report HERE. PDF document.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 07:01 AM

"The ice at the poles is not floating down in the water like an iceberg. It's sitting on solid ground for the most part"

Better check your geography, LH. The water at the pole (South) is sitting on solid ground (a continent) for the most part. The water at the pole (North) is "floating" like an iceberg. Submarines have gone entirely under the N. pole icecap.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 01:05 AM

Truther - I guess you figure you know better than the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lets just hope the rest of the world isn't quite as ignorant as you are.

google global warming sometime tomorrow for the full report.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=ah28ExCCdmm8&refer=europe

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 12:42 AM

Thanks for the above Amos. The ancient navigators of the South Pacific & now todays navigators know that the changes in water temp & salinity are causes for weather changes on the ocean surfaces, which also has a neg effect on the undersides of ice shelves it comes in contact with further causing the decline in salinity.
When we start getting into the vicious cycling we may create our own whirlpool into a world of shit, spiriling down & out of control.

But what the hell do any of the scientists know. The government fires those that worked for them when they didn't agree anyway. So who knows best, the ones who still have their jobs, the ones that work for the other world agencies that are just trying to scare us, the now other concerned nations or our US politcians? That's right, the politcial leaders, they alway know what's best.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 11:56 PM

I don't follow your reasoning about water and ice in the least, Truther. ;-) I think your hatred of Al Gore is clouding your understanding of the problem.

The ice at the poles is not floating down in the water like an iceberg. It's sitting on solid ground for the most part or extending itself in a thin coastal shelf on the surface. If it were all floating deep in the water in the form of icebergs, of course then it would displace a lot of water, but it's not. It's mostly sitting on the ground in various places. A little of it is floating (and melting) in the form of icebergs. If it mostly melts, the ground under it will gradually be exposed and the sea level worldwide will rise.

Are you not aware that ice expands in a certain temperature range? If you completely fill a glass bottle with water, then freeze it, the ice will break the bottle, because it expands enough to do that. Is that hard for you to understand? Why not put it to the test then? I have no idea what you think the volume of ice as compared to the volume of water has to do with proving or disproving global warming as a theory.

It has nothing to do with it.

If the poles melt, the sea rises, because that ice was mostly above the existing sea water before it melted. Another thing that happens is this: the ocean currents become affected by a decrease in salinity where the melt flows in and they change, and that causes climatic change in certain regions. It could trigger a new ice age in northwestern Europe and northeastern Canada/USA...for example.

We live in a flexible and ever-changing environment, and there are many different factors involved. Some of them are due to human civilization, some are not. We can do something about some of them, and nothing about others.

Just because you already hate Al Gore (for whatever reason) is a very poor reason for deciding that if he's for anything, it must be a lie, and you should therefore be against it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 11:50 PM

Still love the old saying "the more we learn the less we know"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 11:34 PM

Now I'm really confused. Water occupies less space than ice? And they're saying sea levels will RISE when polar ice melts. I must've stepped in something going from step A to B. Sure smells.

Anyway, I just came back here to see the celebration over Al Gore being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but where's the PARTY?!

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/D8N0SUK80.html

I mean, here's this guy, just an aw-shucks trustworty former senator/vice-president who helped destroy Yugoslavia, then took a dive so GWBush could get into office...son of another diabolical globalist senator...and Junior's out shilling for British Petroleum and other corporations with his bogus film, when he goes and gets himself a Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

And I bet he wins it. It'll help pave the way for a global tax on the "bad countries" that have "harmed mother earth."

What a crock.

Solar activity is thawing the moons in the outer rim of the solar system for possibly the first time ever, so why don't we just blow up the sun because of what it's doing to the earth? Cattle and other animals produce more methane, so just kill them all. One volcanic eruption produces more "greenhouse gas" than all of automotive history, so let's cork the volcanoes. Man. Some people can be sold anything.

You're being flim-flammed on the environment, and Al Gore has found his new role in life as head snake-oil pitchman. And maybe soon he'll be able to use the Nobel Seal of Approval to lube the tube.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 12:59 AM

Ice when it melts occupies less space than frozen ice because of the re-arranging of the molecules between 2 degrees C and 0 degrees C, or thereabouts. This peculiarity of water is one of the reasons there is life on the planet.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 12:18 AM

Ah, but ice does expand, my friend. Ice expands within a certain range of temperature change. That's why it buckles sidewalks and heaves shallow foundations when they get moisture under them before a deep freeze.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 11:44 PM

Glad I checked back in here for the science update. I learned I can quit worrying about bottles exploding in my freezer. Liquid doesn't expand. Al Gore is a genius. He's changed the laws of physics (in the minds of some here).

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:18 PM

Ah, but it is far from proven. It remains another interesting theory. There are other possibilities. Probably many.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:39 PM

The chances are very good that they did hide out in trees a lot prior to about 65M years ago. Then, after things warmed up a good deal from the after effects of the Yucatan impact and its nuclear winter, those that survived found it a lot safer than it had been to walk about in daylight. The difference was that a lot of the prior hierarchy of food-chain entities were gone, including the big meat-eater dinosaurs. So the current theory goes, anyway.

It is fairly certain that we have, at least, a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos.

And they spend a lot of time messing about in trees.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:01 PM

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that oft-repeated cliche about our ancestors "coming down out of the trees" has utterly no foundation in fact whatsoever. I bet we NEVER had ancestors who lived in trees, although I'm sure they took refuge in them now and then to get away from a large bear or similar carnivore. After all, we still do that if we have to.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 05:59 PM

>>LOL! How convenient. Just shrug off human progress because it goes against your argument.<<

It all depends on what you call progress.

>>I admit there were very negative side effects of each of those points I made. In crossing this country the "civilized" races destroyed a series of complex and highly developed cultures that got in their way. The same type of argument dribbles down through your entire post.<<

Right. And the Panama Canal was built virtually with slave labor and countless men were killed or maimed in the process.

>>But the point is... we don't KNOW what we can do until we try. You apparently don't even want to do that.<<

I know when to pick my battles. But Mother Nature always wins.

>>I detect the heavy sigh of regret in your post. I seem to hear the tapping of hammers as you start to construct your tomb.<<

Seems to me as good a time as any to get started. I'm like Queequeg and his coffin.

>>But is that what we really want to do, give up and roll into our graves?<<

That's not our choice to make. Global warming is going to run its course and when it's done, the earth will have been transformed. But we'll be like old growth forests--we need to be struck down so that new life may grow. Maybe earth really is an organism in its own right and maybe we're like a virus ravaging her body. But now her system is starting to fight back--eradicate the virus.

>>A few million years ago our ancestors had the choice of leaving the trees for the far more dangerous ground. Where would we be if they all said, "It's no use. We might as well stay here."?<<

If they saw what was coming, they just might have.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Naemanson
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 05:22 PM

LOL! How convenient. Just shrug off human progress because it goes against your argument.

I admit there were very negative side effects of each of those points I made. In crossing this country the "civilized" races destroyed a series of complex and highly developed cultures that got in their way. The same type of argument dribbles down through your entire post.

But the point is... we don't KNOW what we can do until we try. You apparently don't even want to do that. I detect the heavy sigh of regret in your post. I seem to hear the tapping of hammers as you start to construct your tomb. But is that what we really want to do, give up and roll into our graves? A few million years ago our ancestors had the choice of leaving the trees for the far more dangerous ground. Where would we be if they all said, "It's no use. We might as well stay here."?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 04:58 PM

LOL! Now there's a refreshing point of view on a few different subjects. You tell 'em, 282! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 04:50 PM

>>So, let me get this straight. We COULD have done something years ago but didn't. Now we SHOULDN'T even try because it's too late.<<

I said no such thing. You can try anything you like. It just won't do any good. Far be it from me to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. Just don't say in the end that no one told you the truth.

>>Now that's the good old American get up and go that we all know and love. Why, with that kind of enthusiasm we shouldn't have tried any large projects at all. Why build a canal through Panama?<<

I don't know. why?

>>Ships can go around the Horn.<<

Fine with me.

>>Why build a railroad all the way across America?<<

To ruin the Indians' hunting grounds?

>>We have ships going around the Horn and stagecoaches to do the in-between work.<<

And if they'd stuck with that, we probably wouldn't be crying big crocodile tears over global warming, would we?

>>And going to the Moon is a ridiculous idea! Why bother? It's too much work.<<

I could care less that we ever went to the moon. What's that to me? So what?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: fumblefingers
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 01:20 PM

John Hardly,

What do you reckon the temperature of the earth is down 5000 feet? Way above freezing you can bet.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 11:50 AM

I watched the hearing on C-Span last night. Republican buttheads were still pushing the real scientists to admit that the scientific consensus is not unanimous, and not 100% certain. The scientists, of course, admit this freely because NOTHING in science is ever 100% certain. EVERYTHING is always open to doubt and critical testing and possible revision. That is how science works fer crissakes. These R-jerks are playing upon (and fostering) public misunderstanding of science so they can keep the big oil campaign contributions rolling in. They are selling out my (and yours, and everyones') kids' future for bags of silver.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 11:05 AM

Today's Times reports:

PARIS, Jan. 29 — Scientists from across the world gathered Monday to hammer out the final details of an authoritative report on climate change that is expected to project centuries of rising temperatures and sea levels unless there are curbs in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

Scientists involved in writing or reviewing the report say it is nearly certain to conclude that there is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main factor in warming since 1950. The report is the fourth since 1990 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is overseen by the United Nations.

The report, several of the authors said, will describe a growing body of evidence that warming is likely to cause a profound transformation of the planet.

Three large sections of the report will be forthcoming during the year. The first will be a summary for policy makers and information on basic climate science, which is expected to be issued on Friday.

Among the findings in recent drafts:

¶The Arctic Ocean could largely be devoid of sea ice during summer later in the century.

¶Europe's Mediterranean shores could become barely habitable in summers, while the Alps could shift from snowy winter destinations to summer havens from the heat.

¶Growing seasons in temperate regions will expand, while droughts are likely to ravage further the semiarid regions of Africa and southern Asia.

"Concerns about climate change and public awareness on the subject are at an all-time high," the chairman of the panel, Rajendra Pachauri, told delegates on Monday.

But scientists involved in the effort warned that squabbling among teams and government representatives from more than 100 countries — over how to portray the probable amount of sea-level rise during the 21st century — could distract from the basic finding that a warming world will be one in which shrinking coastlines are the new normal for centuries to come.

...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 10:59 AM

And a little more...why am I not surprised:

US CLIMATE scientists have accused the White House of deliberately censoring their research and politically pressuring them into downplaying the threat of global warming.

Two private groups representing government scientists made the explosive claims of interference by the Bush Administration during a Congressional hearing yesterday.

A survey of 279 American climate scientists responded to a questionnaire showing two out of five of them believed their work had been edited to change its meaning.

Nearly half of those surveyed by the Union of Concerned Scientists also said that at some point they had been asked by the Bush Administration to remove references to global warming or climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 03:32 AM

From the same article:

"Meanwhile, in Washington, Mr Bush has signed a directive that will give him greater control over government policy statements on public health, the environment and civil rights."

When everything is going wrong for Bush, he just tightens the controls.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Naemanson
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 03:28 AM

From 282RA: "No, I'm saying we have long ignored it and hence it has already begun to happen and nothing can now reverse it. Nothing we can do anyway."

So, let me get this straight. We COULD have done something years ago but didn't. Now we SHOULDN'T even try because it's too late. Now that's the good old American get up and go that we all know and love. Why, with that kind of enthusiasm we shouldn't have tried any large projects at all. Why build a canal through Panama? Ships can go around the Horn. Why build a railroad all the way across America? We have ships going around the Horn and stagecoaches to do the in-between work. And going to the Moon is a ridiculous idea! Why bother? It's too much work.

We'll leave it to the Europeans and the Red Chinese to solve this one for us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM

I saw that on the news tonight, Amos, and felt like cheering LOUD.

From Bush's perspective he must feel like *everything* is going wrong. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM

"Bush accused of distorting evidence on climate change
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 31 January 2007

From here

... The Bush administration has been accused of routinely misleading the public over the threat of global warming and of orchestrating efforts to try to suppress scientific findings that highlight the reality of climate change.

The chairman of a Congressional committee investigating the administration's actions said yesterday that government officials had sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming". Democrat Henry Waxman also said the government was refusing to make public documents that would expose its behaviour.

Meanwhile, two pressure groups provided survey findings to the committee that suggested almost half of federal climate scientists who responded said they had experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change" or "global warming" from their writings. One third said they had experienced officials at their agencies making public statements that misrepresented their findings.

There have long been accusations that Mr Bush's government has interfered with scientific findings for ideological and political reasons. In the field of reproductive health, it has discredited the effectiveness of condoms for preventing sexually transmitted diseases and refused to authorise emergency contraception. In oncology it has sought to show a link between breast cancer and abortions.

But nowhere has the government's efforts been more focused than in the field of global warming - something Mr Bush has only recently been willing to publicly accept has a link to human activity. Despite the belated acknowledgement, he remains adamantly opposed to an enforced reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Waxman said his committee had sought documents from the White House that would reveal its strategy but the government had not been forthcoming. He added: "We know the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimise the potential danger."

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 01:03 PM

>>So, 282RA, you're saying it's such a big problem that we should just ignore it until it happens?<<

No, I'm saying we have long ignored it and hence it has already begun to happen and nothing can now reverse it. Nothing we can do anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 11:00 AM

Why, Brett...what a way with words you have.. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:54 PM

So, 282RA, you're saying it's such a big problem that we should just ignore it until it happens?