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.

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

ditto!

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

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

This is an honor, not a burden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not the official anything...

Jerry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there, you see...

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

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

"Mudcat is a liberal forum."

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

Don Firth

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

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

And I kid you not.

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

Is Al Gore still alive ?

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

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




    Ivor

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

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

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

Cool, Hilda, great post!

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

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

We can do it!
ttr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having a Doo Wop Memorial Day up here..

Jerry

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

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

Graham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas & McGrath, thanks for your postings, too.

kat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can convert goal into Oil...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presumably that was your own opinion, Richard...

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Just a thought.

Hubby

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

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

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

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

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

Save me a seat, Hubby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You'd be bitching about someone else instead.

So take your cheap shot and sit on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.