[besson3c]

I'm posting this thread in the regular lounge because I refuse to buy into the notion that this is a political issue. It only is if we decide to let our politicians govern our ways of thinking on this issue due to our political allegiances, IMHO.

I just got back from seeing this movie, and it was pretty impactful. How many of us here have seen it with an open mind and were affected by this movie somehow, someway?


Please dispense with the knee jerk reactions, the gut feelings, and all of the other political jibber jabber. I really don't care whether you think this is a giant liberal hoax, I really don't. My personal perception is that the overall scientific consensus indicates that this is a reality. If you disagree with this notion, fine, please start another thread on this.

With my personal conclusion in mind, again, how do you think this movie has helped? Where do you think we are at? It seems like Gore was really shooting for the thinkers with this movie. At times, it seemed like a little bit of a vanity piece to me, but overall the content seemed solid. If you'd like to discuss the content of this movie, this would also be appreciated. If you really must blow off this scientific work as bogus, at least provide some actual substance to your arguments, I'm getting particularly tired of knee jerk reactions and gut feelings on this issue.

This is an issue I don't know a whole lot about and would like to learn more about, but it has been hard in the past when people toss up links to stories attempting to discredit global warming from unknown random sources. If you would like to enlighten me on this issue, I'll remain open minded, but please do explain to me the credibility of your source before sharing it so that my knowledge isn't tainted by your favorite Exxon funded Rick Santorum fan club site.

I'm hoping that this thread can be productive and can be easily justified as being regular lounge material.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

tooki, where are you tooki

[brassplayersrock²]

c.a.t.s., i know you are young, but all this calling to tooki might get him interested in you.

[Kevin]

besson, grow up.

[KeriVit]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

c.a.t.s., i know you are young, but all this calling to tooki might get him interested in you.

Agreed. CATS, let's let the mods mod, they do just fine.

[KeriVit]

And what are we talking about? Link?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by KeriVit

And what are we talking about? Link?

Have you not heard of this movie of Al Gore's?

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

c.a.t.s., i know you are young, but all this calling to tooki might get him interested in you.

eew

Originally Posted by KeirVit

Agreed. CATS, let's let the mods mod, they do just fine.

Fine

[Dr Reducto]

While I have mixed feelings about global warming itself, I refuse to see the movie because I feel that the choice of "host" only helps politicize the issue and becomes a liberal circle jerk.

Personally, as far as global warming, it's pretty obvious that CO2 and heat go up and down with each other, over long periods of time. However, it's been mentioned that the heat will lag behind the CO2 800-900 years. So I am fairly sure that there must be confounding and lurking variables that influence things. Additionally, if CO2 does directly influence temps, and there is an 8-9 hundred year lag, why would we be getting temp increases now?

[Eug]

[KeriVit]

OK, looked up my own link. Excuse my ignorance. I'm with besson3c, enlighten me w/o preaching.

I understand bias, politics, all that. Skip and what info does anyone have to offer regarding the subject?

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by Eug

[invisibleX]

Who really cares what forum its in? If its in the wrong one the mods will move it.

I also agree that this has nothing to do with politics. Your particular bias, allegiance, and all around voluntary ignorance to reality should not interfere with our understanding of the world around us. Its bad enough that people act like children over it (here mostly).

[loki74]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My personal perception...

Originally Posted by besson3c

With my personal conclusion in mind...

Originally Posted by besson3c

I really don't care whether you think this is a giant liberal hoax, I really don't.

Originally Posted by besson3c

If you disagree with this notion, fine, please start another thread on this.

So you basically want to have a happy thread in which you and all those who agree with you can talk and agree with each other? And then anyone else who disagrees can have their happy thread in which they all talk about how they agree with each other? Come on, where's the fun in that?

Can you link me a knee-jerk reaction about the issue? Granted, I've been visiting the PL a whole lot less, but I don't ever seem to recall this being an especially heated issue...

Oh, and it is political. The (in)correctness of this would imply the necessity for a change in government policy (ie, pass laws to come down on big companies or cars or what have you). In other words, it is political. No matter what you think.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

While I haven't seen it yet, I am in an Earth and Atmospheric Science class where it will be shown this fall. (Incidently, the professor is on leave this week because he's testifying before the US Senate on some issue of climate change. Someone's important, or something.)

The scientists I know that have seen it all seem to think the science was presented fairly accurately, if with the embellishments one expects from a modern movie. An ecologist/biologist from California State (my prof's fill-in) noted yesterday that most of the people he's met who have some arguments against the movie generally tend not to do so on the basis of the presented science, but along political/dramatical lines.

Anyways, I'm definitely interesting in seeing what it's all about.

greg

[davesimondotcom]

Any movie that has a trailer that starts with the former Vice President of the United States saying, "My name is Al Gore and I used to be the Next-President of the United States of America" is political. Period.

[spacefreak]

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -- and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 -- years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases -- all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

"The Cooling World": From Newsweek, April 28, 1975.

[suganutz2]

We need to co-exist with all the other creatures on earth to survive. Because we don't, extinction is inevitable.

[besson3c]

Spacefreak: how would the author of this article explain all of the snow missing from mountains that not long ago were snow covered? How about all of the ice that has broken off of the Antarctic? How about the thinning of the ice layer in the Arctic? How about the evaporation and rapidly decreasing water levels of several lakes? How about the conflicting global rise in temperatures being reported?

There is some cooling of deep underwater currents due to ice melting, but the shallow currents remain warm. This is sort of the effect of billions of ice cubes being added to the ocean due to melting of the Arctic caps.

Sorry, the evidence towards warming is undeniable at this point... ummm.. stuff is melting? What more evidence do you want? Even Bush has acknowledged the existence of global warming.

Why the need to disagree with this? This is not a liberal/conversative issue.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Any movie that has a trailer that starts with the former Vice President of the United States saying, "My name is Al Gore and I used to be the Next-President of the United States of America" is political. Period.

That was just one of several moments of personal biographical vanity in there. However, while there was a little focus on the elections, the main focus on this documentary is on non-partisan environmental concern.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug

"Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know."

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

eew

like i said. too young, you totally showed your homophobic side. i didn't mean it the way you perceived. you are to young to be a mod.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by loki74

So you basically want to have a happy thread in which you and all those who agree with you can talk and agree with each other? And then anyone else who disagrees can have their happy thread in which they all talk about how they agree with each other? Come on, where's the fun in that?

Can you link me a knee-jerk reaction about the issue? Granted, I've been visiting the PL a whole lot less, but I don't ever seem to recall this being an especially heated issue...

Oh, and it is political. The (in)correctness of this would imply the necessity for a change in government policy (ie, pass laws to come down on big companies or cars or what have you). In other words, it is political. No matter what you think.

I just want a meaningful thread on this. I'm not exactly sure how to realize this goal, but I was trying to ward off the Spliffdaddy style "global warming is so silly, you gullible liberals are destroying America" rants. How about this: if you want to disagree, fine, but hit us up with some solid evidence and provide your source. Let's keep this thread about science.

You'll have no arguments from me ripping apart Al Gore or the presentation of the documentary. Don't care. Let's focus on the content? (addressing this to my collective audience, whomever is included)

This is not political, I disagree. Of course, politicians can have a huge effect on our future, but this is something we have neglected to do for years dating back into the 1970s... This is something Democrats and Republicans have both dropped the ball on. This is the result of nationwide attitudes and indifference.

Can you believe that China of all places actually has higher emission and economy standards than we do? We are so far behind producing efficient gas vehicles it seems laughable. Why is that? Look at the interests of the oil and auto companies. These interests have existed long before Bush came into office. He's been slow to respond, because frankly his entire science agenda sucks ass, but the blame doesn't rest soley with him. If the people were to become more interested in the issue, he would catch on, because this is what politicians do. Bush has already demonstrated this by flip-flopping on this issue himself, but that's cool... that's just what politicians do.

I think this is more of a people/citizen issue than a political one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

like i said. too young, you totally showed your homophobic side. i didn't mean it the way you perceived. you are to young to be a mod.

How is it that you could spell "too" correctly the first time, yet botch it the second time in exactly the same context?

[Y3a]

Ya gotta ask yourself whether it's a cycle, and part of a natural cycle of change. As the continents drift apart, changes in topography etc, and whether all these changes would have happened whether humans were here or not. Isn't that ONE DEGREE talked about within the margin of error when deriving all the secondary data? could the data be correct, but the conclusions be wrong? The conclusions have already been revised DOWNWARDS by a group of 'experts' just in the last few weeks. Is this the beginning of a 'backpedaling effort' ???

[MinM]

Originally Posted by besson3c

...non-partisan environmental concern.

Oxymoron alert.

You realize, I hope, that the end result of "environmental concern" is a serious increase in state regulation of the economy. How you can say that economic statism is not a partisan or political issue is beyond me.

[brassplayersrock²]

how is it that you have a nick that has the female name bess in it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

how is it that you have a nick that has the female name bess in it?

You call yourself a brass player and you've never heard of a Besson or the Vincent Bach sizing system?

You would be the absolutely last person in this forum I'd expect to miss this reference.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

While I have mixed feelings about global warming itself, I refuse to see the movie because I feel that the choice of "host" only helps politicize the issue and becomes a liberal circle jerk.

I felt the same way before seeing it. I was even tempted to leave the theater while waiting for it to start because of all the hippies around me; that, and I had the sinking feeling that it would not be entertaining at all. I was quite surprised by how informative and entertaining the film was. I really enjoyed it, even more than other good documentaries such as Supersize Me.

You won't be bored at all, if you do see it. It's at the budget theaters here now for $2.

[brassplayersrock²]

lol, i didnae miss that as you assumed. you asked me a question, i ask you a question. that's how the game works

[ink]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

"The Cooling World": From Newsweek, April 28, 1975.

Right on cue.

You can start another thread about Global Cooling from the 1970's if you want to sp.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MinM

Oxymoron alert.

You realize, I hope, that the end result of "environmental concern" is a serious increase in state regulation of the economy. How you can say that economic statism is not a partisan or political issue is beyond me.

Wow... do you watch Stephen Colbert too? You've managed to spin what I said into economic statism. Have you heard of supply and demand? Who controls the demand? The consumers...

This is simply about making old technologies obsolete and replacing them with new ones. We have done this before, and will do it again. Do you still buy CRTs and analog cameras?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm posting this thread in the regular lounge because I refuse to buy into the notion that this is a political issue. It only is if we decide to let our politicians govern our ways of thinking on this issue due to our political allegiances, IMHO.

Problem is, you're asking for a nonpolitical discussion about something that was created to BE POLITICAL. If not for politics, there would be no controversy regarding the whole global warming movement. It's all political.

If global warming from man's actions were true, then it would be a great cause for excitement. It would mean that mankind has the ability to change our environment far beyond anything we could ever envision prior to now. Good or bad, it would indicate that humans can accomplish a lot more against nature than we thought.

Unfortunately, it's a fantasy created by folks who want to redistribute wealth and/or concentrate political power. Politicians need a crisis, so they've invented one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy

Problem is, you're asking for a nonpolitical discussion about something that was created to BE POLITICAL. If not for politics, there would be no controversy regarding the whole global warming movement. It's all political.

What about Spacefreak's global cooling? There seems to have been a fair amount of scientific-based argument around here in the past. Also, wIth Bush acknowledging the problem now, is it still a political issue? It seems like simply about finding the solutions now, at least for those of us that accept this scientific consensus.

If global warming from man's actions were true, then it would be a great cause for excitement. It would mean that mankind has the ability to change our environment far beyond anything we could ever envision prior to now. Good or bad, it would indicate that humans can accomplish a lot more against nature than we thought.

Unfortunately, it's a fantasy created by folks who want to redistribute wealth and/or concentrate political power. Politicians need a crisis, so they've invented one.

There is solid evidence which points to the fact that we warded off the ozone hole problem we had under H. Bush (I believe). While scientists cannot predict climate in the future, they can easily report on past climate, and observe trends. There seems to be a very clear and undeniable trend that the planet is, in fact, warming up. There seems to be a very clear consensus what the cause is. There seems to be a very clear consensus as to how we can reduce CO2 emission. There seems to be a clear consensus that we are contributing to the problem, based on when it started and the unusually fast rate in which it is becoming a problem, unprecedented in the known history of this planet.

What more do you want?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

There seems to be a very clear and undeniable trend that the planet is, in fact, warming up. There seems to be a very clear consensus what the cause is. There seems to be a very clear consensus as to how we can reduce CO2 emission. There seems to be a clear consensus that we are contributing to the problem, based on when it started and the unusually fast rate in which it is becoming a problem, unprecedented in the known history of this planet.

If there were clear agreement of this type, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, the only thing that seems to be in clear consensus is that there is some type of global environmental change taking place. We don't know what the cause is -- but there is some conjecture out there, backed by scientific opinion but also promoted by power-hungry politicians. Beware.

We don't know how to reduce emissions without harming ourselves in other ways, but politicians have proposed transfers of wealth, heretofore unprecedented, to see if they might work. Turns out that the US is the chief offender and also the country with the most wealth to redistribute. What a coincidence!

So, the idea of "consensus" doesn't apply here. The universal appeal of redistributing wealth does, and it's kind of taken over the whole set of issues. Separate that from the "facts" and then the debate can continue, globally or otherwise.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by finboy

If there were clear agreement of this type, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, the only thing that seems to be in clear consensus is that there is some type of global environmental change taking place. We don't know what the cause is -- but there is some conjecture out there, backed by scientific opinion but also promoted by power-hungry politicians. Beware.

We don't know how to reduce emissions without harming ourselves in other ways, but politicians have proposed transfers of wealth, heretofore unprecedented, to see if they might work. Turns out that the US is the chief offender and also the country with the most wealth to redistribute. What a coincidence!

So, the idea of "consensus" doesn't apply here. The universal appeal of redistributing wealth does, and it's kind of taken over the whole set of issues. Separate that from the "facts" and then the debate can continue, globally or otherwise.

What are you talking about this 'transfers of wealth'? Are you talking about carbon trading?

The fact is, there are no prominent scientists in the world who disagree with global warming, or that human activity is causing it. To suggest otherwise is politicizing the issue.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by finboy

If global warming from man's actions were true, then it would be a great cause for excitement. It would mean that mankind has the ability to change our environment far beyond anything we could ever envision prior to now. Good or bad, it would indicate that humans can accomplish a lot more against nature than we thought.

Unfortunately, it's a fantasy created by folks who want to redistribute wealth and/or concentrate political power. Politicians need a crisis, so they've invented one.

I realize you are probably just providing flamebait here but anyway:

Algae blooms aka ‘Red Tides’ are increasing around the world.

Permafrost is melting faster than previously thought

Earth is recording is highest temperatures for the past few thousand years.

Countries are cutting down rainforests around the world at an ever increasing pace.

Most major cities in the world either have fresh water shortages now, or will in the near future.

Desertification is increasing everywhere.

You can go to any spot on the planet and find traces of chemicals that we have released into the environment.

Oh and humans are now creating stronger storms. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Humans 'causing stronger storms'

Of course humans can change the environment, we are part of it.
Its like asking, how could plants have produced enough O2 on earth for billions of years for us to breath? It must have been MAGIC!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by finboy

If global warming from man's actions were true, then it would be a great cause for excitement. It would mean that mankind has the ability to change our environment far beyond anything we could ever envision prior to now. Good or bad, it would indicate that humans can accomplish a lot more against nature than we thought.

Dude, we've split the atom. That is a much bigger accomplishment against nature than adding some gas to the atmosphere.

[mitchell_pgh]

The problem, IMHO, is more fundamental... it's not a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's a human issue. We want "more"... and we really don't consider the consequences.

My question to Mr. Gore would be... why don't you take the first step. Move within walking distance to your work. Sell off all your cars except one for your family. Stop flying anything except for commercial airliners.

The real problem is, we have a generation that would rather point the finger as compared to do anything about pollution. It's the big bad government and big OIL... not all the people creating the demand.

We Apple users should condemn Steve Jobs for owning a private jet! Etc. etc.

[bstone]

wrong forum. try the political lounge

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

We Apple users should condemn Steve Jobs for owning a private jet!

I don't think private jets create an appreciable amount of pollution.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Who really cares what forum its in? If its in the wrong one the mods will move it.

Because besson knows better, and posts here anyhow "just because"

A rebel without a clue.

[ironknee]

give it up kevin, you are going to live a long life and die here on earth not in the clouds.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee

give it up kevin, you are going to live a long life and die here on earth not in the clouds.

What does this have anything to do with the topic or what I said ironknee?

Grow up.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy

If there were clear agreement of this type, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, the only thing that seems to be in clear consensus is that there is some type of global environmental change taking place. We don't know what the cause is -- but there is some conjecture out there, backed by scientific opinion but also promoted by power-hungry politicians. Beware.

We don't know how to reduce emissions without harming ourselves in other ways, but politicians have proposed transfers of wealth, heretofore unprecedented, to see if they might work. Turns out that the US is the chief offender and also the country with the most wealth to redistribute. What a coincidence!

So, the idea of "consensus" doesn't apply here. The universal appeal of redistributing wealth does, and it's kind of taken over the whole set of issues. Separate that from the "facts" and then the debate can continue, globally or otherwise.

WHat do you base your argument on that we don't know how to reduce emissions without harming ourselves in other ways? Do you mean economically speaking? Sure, any sort of transition will always cost, but this seems perfectly justifable and manageable to me.

In fact, when you look at some of these new technologies (such as lightbulb replacements and other more efficient appliances) it actually seems feasible that many of these will actually result in us saving money in the long haul.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

The problem, IMHO, is more fundamental... it's not a liberal vs. conservative issue, it's a human issue. We want "more"... and we really don't consider the consequences.

My question to Mr. Gore would be... why don't you take the first step. Move within walking distance to your work. Sell off all your cars except one for your family. Stop flying anything except for commercial airliners.

The real problem is, we have a generation that would rather point the finger as compared to do anything about pollution. It's the big bad government and big OIL... not all the people creating the demand.

We Apple users should condemn Steve Jobs for owning a private jet! Etc. etc.

Every sort of change requires some sort of change, and in changing, often some form of sacrifice. However, at the same time it isn't fair to point fingers at environmentalists and ask them to make the ultimate sacrifices such as simply not driving anymore.

The bottom line is, nobody is asking us to start living like the Amish or something, just to do what we can. However, it is tremendously helpful when our leaders are setting the pace and guiding us... It makes all of our efforts feel more worthwhile and coordinated.

My solution to the environment is similar to my solution for fighting terrorism, and that is simply for us to simply put in a reasonable effort to do what we can, not to be absolutely hardcore and overcompensate in the process.

[::maroma::]

Its obvious that changing our energy use will cost this nation money. But you can't look at it as a loss. It would actually be an extremely wise investment to be the nation that leads the world in a new form of energy, no matter what that form ends up being. But, if we don't lead and instead follow, we'd probably end up losing money, and making another country rich.

We have a very unique opportunity in history to change the whole world's energy use. And we can end up making huge amounts of money on top of it. It will cost up front, but will payoff in the long run.

But until we stop making this a political issue, and make it a global HUMAN issue, we'll be stuck in debates until we choke ourselves to death.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Its obvious that changing our energy use will cost this nation money. But you can't look at it as a loss. It would actually be an extremely wise investment to be the nation that leads the world in a new form of energy, no matter what that form ends up being. But, if we don't lead and instead follow, we'd probably end up losing money, and making another country rich.

We have a very unique opportunity in history to change the whole world's energy use. And we can end up making huge amounts of money on top of it. It will cost up front, but will payoff in the long run.

But until we stop making this a political issue, and make it a global HUMAN issue, we'll be stuck in debates until we choke ourselves to death.

Exactly. We already have fallen behind. A country with our resources should be leading, just like you said.

[besson3c]

Have any of those most outspoken against Global Warming here actually seen this movie?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Have any of those most outspoken against Global Warming here actually seen this movie?

I haven't seen the movie, I have no plans of seeing the movie. I didn't see Fahrenheit 9/11. Or Bowling for Columbine. I didn't read "Unfit for Command."

All this mix of fact, opinion, and, yes, POLITICS, is too much for me. Conservative, Liberal, I don't give a crap.

It's all propoganda.