BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned

Subject: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM

well, in one school district, anyway...and some folks wonder why religious fervor in general gets some of us upset. Dictating to schools what they 'approve' for education is just one example.


"FEDERAL WAY, Wash., Jan. 24 -- Frosty E. Hardiman is neither impressed nor surprised that "An Inconvenient Truth," the global-warming movie narrated by former vice president Al Gore, received an Oscar nomination this week for best documentary.

"Liberal left is all over Hollywood," he grumbled a few hours after the nomination was announced.

Hardiman, a parent of seven here in the southern suburbs of Seattle, has himself roiled the global-warming waters. It happened early this month when he learned that one of his daughters would be watching "An Inconvenient Truth" in her seventh-grade science class.

"No you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming," Hardiman wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board. The 43-year-old computer consultant is an evangelical Christian who says he believes that a warming planet is "one of the signs" of Jesus Christ's imminent return for Judgment Day.



more here

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM

I wouldn't advise him to look forward to Judgement Day with any great confidence of a favourable outcomem to the hearing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 01:50 PM

Might be such a "sign" but ain't nobody agrees if The Elect are gonna be taken up before, during, or after -- or at all.

Me, I opt for the last.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 02:36 PM

Washington State, particularly western Washington, is a pretty progressive area (hence the epithet of some years back, "the forty-nine states and the Soviet of Washington"). But there are a few areas, such as a small town near the Canadian border and a couple of pockets northeast of Lake Washington, where the Dark Ages are still in force. I wasn't aware that Federal Way (between Seattle and Tacoma) was one of these until I heard this story on the local news.

The would-be American Taliban strikes again!.

Red alert! Shields up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:02 PM

That's some fucked-up shit. Where's Spencer Tracy when you need him?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:23 PM

Maybe they will experience their own "inconvenient truth" when their Rapture occurs!

Sign me, Disgusted,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:33 PM

A computer consultant? Hmmm....not someone I'd trust to work out the logic of a large system, anyway. I can see the block diagram now. All the little sub-routines and sub-assemblies tie in to one large uber-box labeled "FM Process occurs here".

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bee
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:28 PM

Why people think that their religion should be allowed to dictate their version of reality to the rest of us is beyond me. It seems much worse in the US than in Canada, but perhaps that's just perception.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Naemanson
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:50 PM

I tried to tell my Japanese wife about the "debate" between religion and reality. I had been reading in Archaeology Magazine about a Gallup Poll asking Americans about science. It seems that 49% of Americans do not believe in evolution and 51% of Americans believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

She was incredulous. She asked me how they could be considered 'educated'. She wanted to know what the vaunted American education system was good for.

So then I explained to her that the President of the United States does not believe in evolution, that he was one of those in that 49%. This floored her.

It seems that, in Japan, ignorance is considered shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM

God must love flaming arseholes- he's made so many of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:50 PM

No, Greg. They made themselves. Whether or not God exists... they made themselves. Trust me on this.

And then too, government, church, and school propaganda helped make them what they are. God is not behind any of that, as far as I'm concerned. People are responsible for every last iota of it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Hrothgar
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:30 PM

Maybe God made them - and they provided their own polish.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:32 PM

Well, God made the sandbox.

Whoever put the cat turds in there is up for grabs, though.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM

"Maybe they will experience their own "inconvenient truth" when their Rapture occurs!"

or doesn't...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:18 PM

" All the little sub-routines and sub-assemblies tie in to one large uber-box labeled "FM Process occurs here"."

... with no code, but the comment

Must really write something useful here...

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,Truther
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 09:48 PM

Al Gore's a pro rassler who took a dive in the 2000 election and now shills for the big-money "fix-it" corporations that are going to tax you til you bleed to fix a non-existent problem. What a whore. His movie is bad science, he's a bad actor, he's a GOOD whore though, and he's not worth any more effort from these digits.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:41 PM

Then I suggest you return them to your dark passages where at least they make somebody more comfortable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:48 PM

*grin* they DO crawl out from the woodwork, don't they? You s'pose roach powder in the cracks would help?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:58 PM

GUEST,Truther, you do realize Stephen Colbert is a put-on, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:34 AM

"It seems that, in Japan, ignorance is considered shameful."

Your wife is right, Naemanson. Ignorance, particularly of this magnitude, is shameful.

And it would appear that GUEST,"Truther" wallows in ignorance as well. Some folks just love a good wallow.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:48 PM

Last I heard (this morning's news), it looks like the Federal Way school board is backing down from the religious pressure and will allow the film to be shown after all. But the battle is still going on.

An interesting side note is that, in the Federal Way area, all the movie rental places are out of copies of "An Inconvienient Truth" because a lot of parents are renting it and showing it to their kids at home. One father said that after watching the movie, his daughter (eighth-grade) dashed around the house turning off all the lights that weren't being used and said that she wants to enter politics so she can do something about environmental pollution and global warming. She's motivated! Surprised the hell out of her father!

In any case, it would appear that Frosty E. Hardiman's crusade to stop the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in the Federal Way schools may have backfired on him. It's stirred up a lot of interest and people want to see the movie so they know what all the fuss is about.

Ya know what, Frosty? The Lord works in mysterious ways!

(snicker snicker snicker)

Don Firth

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

It shouldn't be shown in a science class. Political science, maybe (I guess that would be "Social Studies" at the junior high level).

Same arguement that has been thrown about here as regards teaching "creation" of any kind in public schools. Science classes should be that -- the study of science. "An Inconvenient Truth" contains way more than science.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Kim C
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:10 PM

With all this global warming going on, seems like Frosty ought to change his name.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:18 PM

"Melty"?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:18 PM

I think Berle has a trademark thing on "Uncle Melty".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:25 PM

"It shouldn't be shown in a science class." ????

John...it is ABOUT science! It is a scientific theory. It is not about Al Gore's politics. Scientific theories are meant to be tested and examined...and this one has been for years now. More & more data and computer models are saying that it IS an accurate prediction and that we should pay attention. Does that make it 100%? Of course not....they 'predict' that the Sun will burn out in 12-15 billion years, we can't be sure.. but that is not a current concern.

The point is, anyone who does NOT agree with the prediction can do MORE tests, analysis and 'choose' to put their head in the sand and ignore what a majority of respected scientists tell us...but if the prediction is "danger" by most experts, it makes sense to bahave as if they are correct and change our habits!

Those to whom this evidence is "Inconvenient" had better get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:27 PM

John Hardly, I would be interested in hearing you explicate on the film. What part(s) do you find objectioanble or questionable or on shaky scientific ground?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 04:25 PM

I have not yet seen "An Inconvenient Truth," but I've just put it at the top of my NetFlix list and it should be here in a few days. But I have been following this matter for decades.

The vast majority of scientists say—and have been saying for some time now—that the evidence for global warming and climate change is verifiable and incontrovertible.

Although there may be other factors involved (periodic natural variations in climate and minute fluctuations in the sun's radiation), the major contributor to the current increase in the earth's mean temperature is man-cause atmospheric pollution. Those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo ("Screw the future—all that matters is the Quarterly Financial Report!") point to these natural fluctuations and try to claim that that's all there is to it and there is no cause for concern. But that is not a knowledgeable scientifically based opinion, nor, for that matter is it even a defendable political opinion. It's pure self-induced blindness.

It is the intellectual—and moral—equivalent of refusal to acknowledge that they are enjoying their picnic between the railroad tracks while the train is rushing toward them.

Those who try to debunk the idea of global warming, or claim that it is a political issue, not a scientific issue, simple do not understand—do not want to understand—what they are really dealing with.

It is possible, and the way we're going, it is very likely, that in a much shorter time that anybody (except scientists, particularly meteorologists and planetologists) think possible, we could reach a tipping-point, and set off an irreversible runaway green-house effect, and within a frighteningly short period of time—a few very short and agonizing years, not a few centuries, or even a few decades—this planet will be rendered uninhabitable. Once we hit that tipping-point, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it.

Those who claim that this is a political issue, not a scientific issue simply have no concept of the enormity of what they are playing at.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 04:31 PM

It cherry-picks empirical data and specultes very non-empirical conclusions.

I question the specifics about rises in sea level.

I question the amount of human contribution.

And I question that it is "science" to even draw conclusions about drastic consequences. We don't even know on balance whether warming would be a good or bad thing.

You guys accept it because, for you it is a "Convenient" film. It confirms what you already believe to such an extent that you don't question it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 04:45 PM

And when I say "uninhabitable," I mean take a look at Venus, our nearest neighbor. Its current state (much hotter than a pizza oven) is the result of a naturally occurring runaway greenhouse effect (we assume that it was natural) that took place millions or billions of years ago. Planetologists believe that it started out to be much like earth, but the same volcanic activity that happened on earth in its early stages, combined with its proximity to the sun, precipitated Venus's current state, uninhabitable by any life-form anywhere near similar to life as we understand it.

That could be us sometime in the not too far distant future.

Don't think it could happen here? That's a comforting self-deception. But eco-systems are far more delicately balanced than most people believe. We've been pretty lucky so far. But we could very easily screw up big time!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:15 PM

"It confirms what you already believe to such an extent that you don't question it."

good grief, John! I hope you don't really mean that! That borders on an insult to my/our fairness & even intelligence. I have prided myself on NOT just buying into dire predictions at first glance. As Don Firth says, this has been studied for years in detail by many people who have no hint of bias.

YOU offer no refutation beyond "I question..." Measuring sea-level rise in relation to X amount of melting is just math! We are now SEEING some serious melting...ask the Inuit what THEY think about the changing climate...and ask the polar bears what has happened to the ice where the seals live. Weather bureau statistics SAY something is happening, and the computer modeling says the trend is scary....I hope you aren't accusing the programming of being political!

It's pretty simple...YOU cannot afford to be wrong. If we refuse to accept these studies until the water is up to out knees, it's a bit late to buy hip boots.

Still, if you must continue to be adamant, please confine it to data and real arguments, hmmm? Don't accuse honest people of political bias about such important issues.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:22 PM

"...But eco-systems are far more delicately balanced than most people believe.."

Amen. Read Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything for a quick lesson on how extremely unlikely our even being here is and how thin the thread that holds our continued existence is. Paranoia is too tame a word for the feeling you'll be left with.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:39 PM

Bill,

I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong, but the "Inconvenient Truth" speculation about rising sea levels goes something simply like this:

If all ice on the globe was melted, the seas would rise by X.

But then, nobody is calling for all the ice on the globe to melt.

The movie also implies through its video editing that the rise would be tsunami-like. It does this by showing video of huge breaking waves crashing in on an unprepared land-mass.

But even if I allowed that all the melt would occur and cause the predicted rise -- it would not happen in tsunami-like manner, rushing down and up from the poles instantaneously. The melt would occur (as what has happened so far) over such a period of years that rise would be gradual.

A gradual rise wouldn't have made good, dramatic film footage, nor good propaganda.

Furthermore, the notion that all the ice would melt is not what science is predicting anyway. I don't know any science that has concluded that the warming that is occurring is going to result in ALL the ice to melt -- no cold poles -- summer vactions at the Antarctic beach house.

But even if it did, again, not all of it would rush to the sea -- not even on the Antarctic. Much of the water would still likely remain land-locked much as our glacier-made lakes in N. America.

And you can't have it both ways. If we are the principle cause of global warming, then our contribution will not remain a constant. Our use of hydrocarbon fuels would necessarily decrease with a warming.

But, again, pointing out that probablilty didn't fit the political agenda of the movie.

Bill, which of the scientists is predicting that we will become another Venus as Don suggests? Because unless you agree with Don, I'd like to see some of your outrage directed his way in your demand for "science".

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:47 PM

I have a couple of oceanographer friends who would disagree with you on every point, John.

Even now, at the present rate of melt, most of Florida will be under water within a couple of decades. And New Orleans? Don't buy real estate there if you're smart.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:49 PM

Then it can join the ranks of Atlantis, Ys and Lyonesse.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:51 PM

What? They think that all ice on the planet will melt?

Wow. New Orleans. What a brave prediction. Wasn't it global-warmed-below-sea-level some time around 1850? Kinda like predicting that it will be darker at night than during the day. I gotta go with you to Vegas some day. I bet you're just a terror at roulette.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM

Another ostrich for junk science.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM

The trouble with it isn't the basic science. It's the way it's presented, and some of the specific claims it makes.

The simple truth is scary enough without sexing it up, or heading towards a Hollywood disaster movie. Sea levels will rise an amount, an amount of time. We've only got order of magnitude estimates for height and time.

A 50/50 chance of changes in rainfall and temperature greatly reducing our viable crop-lands is far more dangerous than a one in a billion chance of a runaway greenhouse creating another Venus.

But the day responsibly presented science gets the attention of the general public for a long enough for them to learn something, I shall eat this keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:31 PM

*sigh*...no, giant waves will be intermittant when LARGE chunks of ice break off near population centers. This already happens at times. Most of the sea level rise WOULD be gradual....and there will likely still be polar ice....unless the runaway scenario gets ahold. But *IF the most conservative estimates are correct, Florida and New Orleans will be real problems. Offshore islands in Virginia and N. Carolina already see erosion...and rising waters are only part of the picture. Temperature changes affect vegetation, land use, farming, fishing (already an issue in Alaska and New England), recreation, cities...(you think Phoenix is hot now...), tourism, .......how long a list do you want?

It's hard to win though...if we DO become conservative and beat the worst of it, people like you will say in 30-50-80 years, "see...it wasn't really a problem after all! Let's go back to how we WERE doing it!"

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:36 PM

yup, Bunnahabhain, that's what I'm saying. And you're betting that the dramtics, dubious specific claims, and exaggerated magnitude estimates are to sex it up to gain the attention of the general public...

...and I'm agreeing, but saying that doesn't change the fact that they are dramtics, dubious specific claims, and exaggerated magnitude estimates -- not science.

And yet they are swallowed whole here by the same crowd that would laugh the same kind of dubious science -- offered from an opposing political pov -- right off the mudcat. And has done so often and arrogantly.

I mean, really, if you were discussing the topic on a more scientifically oriented website (not a folk music site) caould you really imagine...

"Planetologists believe that it started out to be much like earth, but the same volcanic activity that happened on earth in its early stages, combined with its proximity to the sun, precipitated Venus's current state, uninhabitable by any life-form anywhere near similar to life as we understand it.

That could be us sometime in the not too far distant future."

...not being laughed off the site? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:39 PM

Oh, yeah, things will get pretty nasty before the earth turns into another Venus. But it's pretty hard to predict just how far it can be pushed before that tipping-point is reached. And there is considerably more than one chance in a billion of it happening, and assuming that it's hardly worth worrying about is a kind of dangerous way of looking at it. That's sort of like figuring that because the number of people who get run over by cars is relatively small, it's statistically perfectly safe to play in the traffic. We do know that it is possible. But we don't know exactly where that point is. If we did, we could deal with it better.

I've talked to planetologists and meteorologists who maintain that even if we stopped pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today, it may already be too late.

Don Firth

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
                           —T. S. Eliot

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:52 PM

". . . not being laughed off the site?"

Really, John?

What I said there is the opinion of a substantial number of scientists, particularly planetologists and meteorologists. It took me a while to be convinced of the possibility, but then I saw the data. I'm not making this up, as you seem to (would like to) think! So stop patronizing me. You might try reading a little scientific rather than political information on the subject for a change.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:59 PM

Don, you could not be patronized by another. Not legally anyway. You have the proprietary rights to the verb, and all usage thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Naemanson
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 07:29 PM

You know, the majority of scientists now agree that global warming is occurring and a sizable proportion of them are coming to agree that humans are in large part to blame. (Source: I read this somewhere. *grin*)

The thing to take from this is that they MIGHT be right. IF they are and we do nothing we are being criminal in our treatment of future generations. If they are NOT right and we act then we are taking sensible precautions and leaving the world cleaner for those future generations. So it's a win-win, right?

Well, yes, but only if you can think beyond next year's profits. As I understand it the people who fight hardest against the idea of global warming are the companies who would have to change their ways. It is possible to make cars that burn cheaper, cleaner fuel but that would require change and change is scary. It is possible to make power using cleaner technology but that would again require change. Plus all this change would require money and the proper use of money is to take it as profit.

I live in the western Pacific Ocean. I have friends who are from some of the smaller islands in Micronesia. They remember their islands being larger. There is evidence all around us of the rise and fall of oceans. I live on the side of a mountain. I think I am safe from all but the highest, roughest ocean hijinks. But my friend Manny comes from Polowat. They are not much higher than sea level there. The people of Yap, Satawal, Palau, Pagan, and all the other little islands have every right to keep their homes but the say the islands keep getting smaller.

Humans MIGHT be to blame this time. They certainly were not in the past. But we MIGHT be this time. Do we really want to take that chance?

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 07:33 PM

Merriam-Webster online dictionary
patronize
def 2 : to adopt an air of condescension

I don't think I'd be laughed off any genuinely scientifically oriented web site for making a statement like that. In fact, a fairly brief google search turned up quite a number of scientific web sites that discussed the matter of global warming and runaway greenhouse effects in some pretty ominous terms. You might try putting "global warming" and "runaway greenhouse effect" into the google "Advanced Search" boxes and see what you come up with.

One site that poo-pooed the idea of global warming being at all detrimental or dangerous to human life mentioned the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect turning the earth into a second Venus. It said that 47% of the scientists interviewed said that they didn't think it was possible.

Very interesting.

What about the other 53%, John? They didn't talk about them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:01 PM

47% agreed that it isn't possible. Of the other 53%, 50% were laughing too hard to answer. The other three percent took off their tin foil helmets, removed the gravity-proof ball point astronaut pens they got with two box-tops off of specially marked boxes of Captain Crunch cereal, and wrote the following proclamation:

"Let any and all who read this know that Don Firth understands the way things are and we appreciate his help in our War of the Worlds"

Signed,

The Venutians"

They HATE it when people call them "Venetians". But they do have a terrific comeback line for it. They always say, "Venetian? ....What are you, blind?!"

God, how those Venutians crack me up

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:03 PM

(was your posting of the dictionary definition of "patronize" some sort of further claim to ownership? I mean, I already allowed as how you own it. Maybe you could tag one of those "TM" thingies to your posts though, in case anyone else doesn't know.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM

Damn. I hate to think it but I strongly suspect that neither John Hardly nor Bunnahabhain has seen the documentary.

I'm disappointed in the both ofcha.

Incidentally, here in southeast Alaska they project that rather than our waters rising we will experience the opposite, that our land will be 17 to 43 inches higher than it is today.

This is because of our glaciers. We are already logging the changes as the glaciers melt. The 'uplift' is already measureable.

They also project that as the land rises we in southeast will note more frequent and stronger earthquakes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 10:57 PM

47% said they didn't think it was possible, but apparently they weren't willing to go on record as making that a firm "impossible," otherwise I'm quite sure the writer on that particular web site would have really made hay out of it.

Of the other 53%, you don't know what they said and are going strictly on your own pie-in-the-sky, everything-is-just-peachy imagination.

The rest of your post is way off base and getting a bit snotty, so I'll simply ignore it and leave it for others to judge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'An Inconvenient Truth'-banned
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM

I don't get exactly how the melt water is going to stay on land??????