Their source is the Daily Mail, which has about the same reputation in the UK, as the National Enquirer in the US. What a joke.
Besides, ask yourself this, why would the UK care about showing a movie that some perceive to have a US partisan slant. They don't care about the political "battles" in this country.
The UK is so far ahead of the US in the environmental arena, that they do realize that this movie only scratches the surface.
But there is the right wing, grasping at straws to discredit Al Gore, again what are you afraid of?
Think, its patriotic (Its a t-shirt I own)
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Besides, ask yourself this, why would the UK care about showing a movie that some perceive to have a US partisan slant. They don't care about the political "battles" in this country.
The UK is so far ahead of the US in the environmental arena, that they do realize that this movie only scratches the surface.
seems they are not a politically PURE as you think they are:
quote:
The schools project was announced in February by the government's education and environment departments. It was planned that the DVD would go to more than 3,500 secondary schools in England as part of a "sustainable schools year of action."
Then-Education Secretary Alan Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long-term public view on the environment
Probably the way Gore like his audiences, young, stupid and impressionable. So that he can “influence” long term thinking.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Besides you want to see a true doomsday possiblity for the human race. Global warming is nothing compared Geomagnetic Reversal
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Certainly it was a little bit of constructive criticism of the link you posted, I thought you might be interested in the validity of your source.
Do we have to explain the political slant of every British film we show our children in the US, or for that matter would most Americans even understand if there was a political slant??
This message has been edited. Last edited by: meljomur,
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
You shouldn't post things you don't understand Looks like an attack to me?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
You shouldn't post things you don't understand Looks like an attack to me?
Gimmie a break!
You guys got thicker skin than that!
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
Sure Bill. I just think that we like to see people live by their standards they want imposed on others.
quote:
This such a crock, Ron. You shouldn't post things you don't understand.
Well instead of trying to disprove the message, Melissa called it "a crock". When proved correct she deflects...
quote:
How is that an attack on the messenger?
Certainly is was a little bit of constructive criticism of the link you posted, I thought you might be interested in the validity of your source.
Do we have to explain the political slant of every British film we show our children in the US, or for that matter would most Americans even understand if there was a political slant??
So attacking the messenger is now framed as "constructive criticism". I think this whole thread is just that. A little constructive criticism of our Bore Leader. Hell it seems that all sources have come under scrutiny of lately (New York Times...). Yes, we should explain the political slant of films to our children when in the supervision of the Nanny State we call prisons schools.
On your last point, LOL. Let me see: a Presidential Candidate uses a Power Point Presentation on an Apple Computer (that he happens to be on the board) to promote ideas that benefits his funds and business dealings with. No, no one could possibly consider there a political slant...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
It doesn't bother me, She was asking a question. Someone had to answer it. But to come by a stick a foot up Ron ass on what is actually a TRUE story. Well...
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Consumption Cartogram here [it makes the thread obese too, if posted to image] There is also a pdf report on usage, and capacity, Canada doing pretty good, too, 'course deficits don't matter to some, as long as you can annex [steal], maybe that was behind nafta too, I don't know. Canada and Sweden running surpluses, yet pursuing recycling, planning eco -efficiency, without even a looming crises [in their own houses, mind you, but in a global perspective, a little more of a problem] green is reserve, red is deficitfootprint
Blaise Pascal Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Pensees
Posts: 2917 | Location: Sverige | Registered: 21 June 2005
Exceeded, How so? 1998, 1999 & 2006 is a shorter interval then 1931,1934,1938,1989. At best they can not reconcile why the 30's were as warm if not warmer the current temps.
Exceeded based on global average temperature anomaly, not just selected years that can be biased by inter-annual fluctuation. There was moderate solar influence in the 30's, with temporary regional effects from ocean-atmosphere heat transport. The 1930's, 40's, and more recent warming (and it ain't done yet) can be viewed here .
quote:
Irrelevant? 5 separate CO2 and Temp spikes in the last 450,000 years of near equal proportions in timeline and it is irrelevant to man contribution in the last 100 years.
If you've done some cursory scientific reading, you know that the "spikes" in the ice cores (already exceeded over the last century) represent glacial recoveries over several thousand years, triggered by orbital forcing. Nothing to do with the current trend.
quote:
I cant see how they free it from contamination, but let say they can. What else happens in the warm waters of Hawaii that doesn't happen in glacial artic regions.
Sampling is done upwind, and protections are in place to monitor for outgassing events and short-term spikes of more than 1 ppm. Differences in oceanic gas exchange may have localized effects (probably not at the altitude of the observatory), but measurements from the Arctic, Antarctica, Australia, and other regions all show the increase. The fact remains that levels have risen much higher than anything in the ancient cores. But what exactly are you trying to argue here? That there's no global spike, or that it isn't man-made (the claim of your link)? You can't argue both. As noted, CO2 tends to be well-mixed (other than a hemispheric lag), and the case for human attribution is strong. Your link is contrary to the chemistry, calculations of fossil carbon output, observations of accumulation, and the fact that the oceans are more sink than source.
quote:
Don’t you find it rather convenient that the "non-synchronous" warming during the MWP theory was first put out by the IPCC report 2001.
And re-affirmed by independent studies included in the latest report.
quote:
A claim that Palaeoclimatologists dispute. Conspiracy?
So now you're a conspiracy theorist? What percentage of paleoclimatologists dispute it? That is, in the reviewed scientific literature rather than just fossil-sponsored commentary.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ryan T,
Posts: 20 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 03 October 2007
Not particularly surprising, given that Gore is a prominent political figure with ideological opponents on this in Britain too. It's one of those hot button issues with both scientific and policy aspects.
Posts: 20 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 03 October 2007
Besides you want to see a true doomsday possiblity for the human race. Global warming is nothing compared Geomagnetic Reversal
Recent studies (like Foukal et al., Lockwood & Frohlich) have affirmed previous research indicating solar isn't nearly enough to explain the trend, and had a negligible role in the last few decades of intensified warming. That includes cosmic ray flux from solar magnetic change (there has been no trend of decreasing GCR). And even assuming geomagnetic reversal can actually cause lasting, far-reaching damage (dubious), that's apparently 1500 or more years away. Probably little we could do about that, particularly if civilization is no longer intact. That doesn't mean we don't do what we can for the sake of the future.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ryan T,
Posts: 20 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 03 October 2007
“If you don’t believe in God, you have no meaning in your life, and you will thus search for meaning, and you will find it anywhere. Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute—apparently unrecognized and not even organized—religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways, just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god...
The global warming people essentially are atheists. You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming. You just can’t. You might run around and say, ‘I don’t want to destroy God’s creation.’ God’s laughing at you. You can’t! He could, but you can’t. You can’t create it; you can’t destroy it.” —Rush Limbaugh
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Originally posted by GG: “If you don’t believe in God, you have no meaning in your life, and you will thus search for meaning, and you will find it anywhere. Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute—apparently unrecognized and not even organized—religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways, just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god...
The global warming people essentially are atheists. You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming. You just can’t. You might run around and say, ‘I don’t want to destroy God’s creation.’ God’s laughing at you. You can’t! He could, but you can’t. You can’t create it; you can’t destroy it.” —Rush Limbaugh
GG, Rush Limbaugh the god like man, gees if he is your example of a "good" religious man, I am proud to be an aethist. I don't want to die and go to the same place which takes people like that...
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Originally posted by GG: “If you don’t believe in God, you have no meaning in your life, and you will thus search for meaning, and you will find it anywhere. Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute—apparently unrecognized and not even organized—religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways, just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god...
The global warming people essentially are atheists. You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming. You just can’t. You might run around and say, ‘I don’t want to destroy God’s creation.’ God’s laughing at you. You can’t! He could, but you can’t. You can’t create it; you can’t destroy it.” —Rush Limbaugh
Nonsense. The issue is that we risk pushing the biosphere toward destructive change, with real consequences for human societies. God did give humans the power of self-determination and free will (including evil for some), right? If so, is that limited to a national scale? Who's to say the planet's systems aren't pre-set within a certain range, allowing us to show either stewardship or disregard? How would it appear if we squandered an opportunity to use our relatively complex brains to avoid a myriad of consequences, from ecosystem disruption to changes in the hydrologic cycle, and try to protect what we have?
As for everyone who believes in human influence being atheists, tell that to Thom Hartmann, and people like these, these, and these.
Posts: 20 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 03 October 2007
damn i forgot all about the enviroment.. Although I see GG been by.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Recent studies (like Foukal et al., Lockwood & Frohlich)
I read it, Didn't mention anything about our weakening magnetic field. Although in conclusion the study say:
quote:
that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.
LOL. I love Scientist. I suppose we can sit around and through studies back an forth till we're blue in the face. But I found these to be of particular interest. The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
quote:
To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted.
Unfortunately, there are sites within the USHCN with poor exposure for air temperature measurements. These sites are not at all representative of their surrounding region. There may be many factors at such sites that could create artificial climate trends, trends that in reality are not being observed over the region as a whole.
This lead me to this graph that brings up an interesting question.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes -- and lays out incontrovertible evidence of the fact that global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. link
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
GG, Rush Limbaugh the god like man, gees if he is your example of a "good" religious man, I am proud to be an aethist. I don't want to die and go to the same place which takes people like that...
Mellisa, maybe you feel that way. But I guess I would rather not be around Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin...
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I read it, Didn't mention anything about our weakening magnetic field. Although in conclusion the study say:
quote:
that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.
"It"? There's more than one. If memory serves, the theory of significant geomagnetic influence hasn't gained much ground, but it suggests a reduction would have a cooling effect via low-level cloud cover. And it's always good to get your quotes whole enough to be an accurate, in-context representation. There may have been an amplifying mechanism involved in the first half of the 20th century, but that's indeed irrelevant if there was negligible solar forcing in the second half and none in the last two decades. Even with the theorized amplification (which presumably could apply to greenhouse forcing too), effects in the early 1900's were still modest on average.
On the rest, some people throw out material until they're "blue in the face" without much thought as to it's actual implication. Global warming isn't based on absolute surface air temperature. It's based on surface temperature anomaly, along with the satellite data, borehole analysis, ocean temperature data, and other physical indicators. Micro-site and urban heat effects (which would have limited influence on the global picture, even if they weren't studied and worked on) are covered here and here.
Posts: 20 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 03 October 2007
Originally posted by GG: In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes -- and lays out incontrovertible evidence of the fact that global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. link
Considering the flawed "stuff" I've seen from Horner (including on glaciers, "global cooling", and warming on Pluto - inferred from one plutonian season following an approach to the sun), I'd need a chunk of salt. He's referred to as a global warming "expert" by at least two political "think tanks", but I've yet to see any credentials in science (apparently he's a lawyer). But feel free to post one or two of his items of "incontrovertible evidence", and we'll see...
Posts: 20 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 03 October 2007
GG, Rush Limbaugh the god like man, gees if he is your example of a "good" religious man, I am proud to be an aethist. I don't want to die and go to the same place which takes people like that...
Mellisa, maybe you feel that way. But I guess I would rather not be around Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin...
Are you assuming Rush won't be in their company? I thought the prevailing belief is that there's only one entity qualified to determine that.
Posts: 20 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 03 October 2007
Read-Only Topic
