An inconvenient Truth (OT)

Yep, I'm throughly unimpressed when some political or Hollyweird type tells me how to live but they go in living in mansions and riding around in limousines and private jets.

They are saying do as I say, not as I do, and I'm giving them the single fingered salute.

Jeff DeWitt

Lee Aanderud wrote:

More importantly IF the climate is changing, is it the result of anything man does or is it the whim of nature? NOBODY can show it is mans fault, period. Anything else is theory. The growing opinion of true scientist and climatologist is that global climate change (they no longer refer to it a global warming because the average temperature over the past few years is declining) is the result of movement of tectonic plates, the relationship of the sun to the earth as it rotates in it ever changing elliptical orbit around the sun and the EXPANSION of the sun itself and the frequency of sun spots and flairs and changes in the position of the earth axis. ALL of which are far beyond the control of man.

During the 165 million years the dinosaurs roamed the earth the average temperature was an astonishing FOUR degrees higher than today. In the 65 million years since the dinosaurs died off there where literally hundreds of ice ages of varying degrees, the latest long lasting being just 10,000 years ago as well as a mini ice age in the 17th century. When I was in collage in the forties were told we were heading into another ice age because pollution was blocking out the sun. That was what all of the experts were saying well into the seventies as well. Global climate change is the cash cow for those with a vested interest in proving it is happening. The truth is we know it happens and the fact is there is little we can do to effect any change and if we do, will it do more harm than good. In the seventies we were told we should dump carbon black on the ice caps to speed up melting to slow the every dropping temperatures on earth. Do a bit of research outside of the global climate change theorist groups and see for yourself what other scientists and climatologists believe, WBMA

mike hunt

Jerry (I have nothing to say on this subject) Forrester

The simple truth, Karl, is that most pollution isn't the problem. The US produces over 30% of the Carbon Dioxide which is the main culprit in the warming trend. China and other developing markets will catch up one day, but we certainly can't do any harm by reducing our contribution. Too many people believe that if everyone else doesn't do 'their part' then there's no reason we should. My neighbor may like to s*it in his back yard and let it pile up, but that doesn't mean I have to. The other missing piece of the puzzle vis-a-vis this being a 'normal cycle in the earth's ecosystem' is that in my lifetime I've seen the population hit 2.3 billion, now 6.5 billion, if I live to my statistical expected age it is projected to be 9.5 billion. the earth has never had to deal with that kind of population. All of this is food for thought, and as it is something that affects everyone on the planet and their descendants if behooves us all to put aside bickering for a moment and look at both sides. Out of 1000 randomly selected scientific papers dealing with global warming, 100% validated it as true, and yet a random sampling of news stories about it showed over 50% claimed it was 'junk science'. Energy consortiums have devoted lots of time and dollars trying to cast doubt about it, much the same as tobacco companies did 30 years ago. There are two countries on this planet that did not ratify the Kyoto treaty, us and Australia. When our largest, most profitable corporations are in the fossil fuel business, it's not hard to understand why - they have a few trillion barrels of oil to sell before they want to explore alternatives. As Upton Sinclair was quoted in the film:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Interesting story in today's LA Times:

Oh well, we can just let the Chinese worry about it.

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

That's true, there are a LOT of big government types pushing the global warming idea, and it's tough to get grants to do research if you don't follow the PC party line.

Jeff DeWitt

Pat Drnec wrote:

Allstate is cancelling ALL the earthquake insurance they are carrying in the US, as it comes due for renewal.. --Shiva--

nice LONG article in todays paper about that in Greenland.. seems its MELTING REALLY FAST>. and in some spots moving as much as a foot to 3 feet a day..

no loss...lol

BTW, Australia is having a drought.

--Shiva--

That's just the point Lee. "We" are the source of the problem and mother nature will eliminate us along with most of the animals in the world.

That's one scientist compared to the National Academy of Science, which was picked by a Republican congress to do an unbiased report.

Notice how no one responded when you put the facts? Facts are inconvenient things so many people ignore them.

JP/Maryland Studebaker On the Net

Not in my lifetime, let the kids deal with it. I saw a good analogy by Carl Sagan on how unimportant we are in the compared to the age of the universe. Using one year as the age of the universe and the start was at midnight on new years day, the solar system was formed on Sept

Alex Magdaleno wrote:

actually there is some quiet discussion in some areas that 'we arent' the source, but will be eliminated in the restructuring anyway --Shiva--

At any rate, no matter who is to blame (if anyone)... if the human species doesn't kill ourselves off in the next 1000 years there's probably a good chance Mother Nature will. In the nature of things, the human race is nothing more than a parasite of the planet. It won't be our problem, our children's problem, or our grand children's problem... probably be 20 generations away before it gets serious about our extinction and there won't even be traces of dust of our current selves by then... we'll be lucky if our tombstones are still standing.

Mother Nature: "NEXT!!!"

Lee

Gore's first task, like Ellsworth Toohey's, is to make you feel guilty for your own accomplishments. Once he has done that, you are his meat. Presume you are crushing all these Earth-destroyers first thing tomorrow? Would that be "inconvenient"?

Won't be long before the Kalifornia legislature requires it.

Lee

And pray tell, just how does your bon mot address the subject!

I have studiously avoided political comment and blame - I merely suggested that it was a film worth seeing as it was extremely thought provoking.

Others took this immediately political. It isn't.

Glad y'all enjoyed the laugh.

snipped-for-privacy@bex.net wrote:

Maybe I'm just hardheaded but I distrust any government agency (or any group paid by the government) on this. They know who is buttering their bread and don't want to do anything to upset the gravy train.

The company my Father worked for once did a study for the EPA that came out about 180 deg off from what the EPA wanted. The EPA refused to pay for the study until a court ordered them to.

The government plays hardball to get the answers it wants, whether they are the right answers or not.

Jeff DeWitt

John Poulos wrote:

As opposed to the pro global warming crowd who are receiving money from the government.

Follow the money...

Jeff DeWitt

Alex Magdaleno wrote: