Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I have to disagree with Lampman on the AIDS thing. This is Accrington in the year 2007. I know several HIV positive local people, many of whom found out during routine testing and were previously unaware of their diagnosis. HIV is still spreading and thanks to the education that we received in the 80's many of us in the 35-50 age group are not affected. Unfortunately it is now affecting the young, with most cases in this country occurring in 15-25 year olds. This is because safe sex hasn't been rammed down their throats like it was with us. I am grateful for that education.

Lampman says that he doesn't know anyone who is HIV positive. The chances are that he does, but just doesn't know it.... After all, if you are diagnosed with HIV, who do you tell??? It's not something that you go blurting out to all and sundry. Many HIV positive people don't even tell their families.

I haven't seen this Al Gore film yet, but being an avid reader, traveller and nature fanatic, I do believe that environmental factors are responsible for the demise of many a species. I also believe that humans are very selfish when it comes to their own environment and it's a case of 'I'm alright Jack, and sod everything else.' I am one of these people who probably don't need to see the film but will anyway..:rolleyes:

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Happen they should show it for Free or ask for a voluntary contribution.

Might get more people to watch and be educated.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Well it was a charity that was showing it, Prospects Foundation, and they had to hire the room for the evening and buy the cinema licence in order to show it, so they had to charge a fee or else they wouldn't have been able to do it.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

The trouble with Al's flick is that he only shows you want he wants to. A melting glacier here.....but not the ones which are getting larger and deeper, for example. No, that would be an inconvenient truth indeed. This is such a scam, folks. Follow the money. Who is paying for the "research" claiming humans are the prime cause of global warming?

Global warming is natural. Most of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Physical evidence shows 600 warming periods in the earth's last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments and layered cave stalagmites. Earth's temperatures follow variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records and cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. Cosmic rays vary the earth's temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. Global climate models can't accurately register cloud effects.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Which glaciers are getting larger and deeper - if as you say, Al only showed the ones that are melting could you give evidence for the ones that are expanding.

Ten of the hottest years in documented history (probably about 150 years) are in the last 14 years.

The tree ring analogy was used with the ice to show how much carbon has gone into the glaciers in the last 40 years. So yes, they can measure accurately how the increase in CO2 has affected things.

In the most simple terms we're chopping down all the trees and so there aren't enough to process the increased carbon emissions. Even on the most basic level I can see that that makes sense.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Of course, there aren't exactly a large number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support your claims. Could you tell us what reasearch you have done to arrive at your conclusions?

Turnabout being fair play at all times, just who is paying for your reseach?

BTW, if you want to play follow the money, it might be very interesting indeed to look into the extremely deep pockets of the fossil fuel lobby, who have huge amounts of money and a vested interest to protect! It would be hard indeed to any similar special interest group with deeper pockets or as long and deep a track record of environmental abuse.

Given how the greed for oil has perverted US foreign policy over the past decades, I am 100% for development of technology that will dramatically lessen our dependence on oil Not only will the earth's environment be improved, but we can stop sucking up to the despotic Saudi royals and other such regimes. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the influence the perpetually fouled-up Middle East has on world affairs. Now that's a goal worth pursuing!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Billcat,not my views but a counter opinion sourced from a weather site in the USA.
It stated that most weather experts accepted the fact of global warming but couldn't agree on the cause.
As for Y2K now that was over egged panic journalism at its finest! I.T companies made a fortune out of the computer illiterate....such is life and such is business.
Lettie again these were not my words,but a sample of the other side of the argument.......serves me right for Cutting and pasting!!
Bad etiquette eh what?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Oh, of course, it always has to be the evil oil companies! Don't let's be in the least curious about other forces in play here. There are always two sides to every story. The environmental movement, it seems to me, has been hijacked for some nefarious purposes.

Gayle, if you want to check out growing glaciers, check www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm which has a partial worldwide list. I am sure there are other sites as well. I also like to check in on www.climateaudit.org from time to time. It's a site for professionals and it can get quite techno-geeky, however, I find it very interesting.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Have to disagree with you completely about Y2K. While the media certainly did have a field day with the subject, there were many, many computer systems that had to undergo major modifications for Y2K. As the business I work in is totally reliant upon one of the world's most sophisticated computing networks, I had more than a bit of exposure to the reality of Y2K. It is a credit to the firms responsible for these systems that Y2K came and went without serious disruption.

If you are sourcing something from a site, you might seriously consider providing the link.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

P.S. The Wall Street Journal had an article in last Friday's edition regarding Kyoto. You can get it online at http://www.opinionjournal.com Scroll down to Friday, January 26th, Potomac Watch by Kimberly A. Strassel - "Why Our CEO's Are Warming To Kyoto".

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

You see the daft thing about succeeding is that the people who said it wouldn't happen then get to say 'see we told you it wouldn't happen'!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

BTW, here is an interesting article on Y2K. Looks like a lot of those back-up servers installed as part of Y2K were invaluable after the destruction of the World Trade Center!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Folks, don't ever believe for an instant that a deliberately skewed set of scattered instances, such as those mentioned at the first link above, necessarily represent the truth. That would be like looking at the headlline about last week's big lottery winner and making the decision to invest all of your savings in lottery tickets. While you might win, it is far more probable that you will not.

Let's examine some information on what the scientific community is saying, because the truth is that there are virtually zero peer-reviewed articles that refute global warming. Consider this quite from a well-repected scientific site, the publishers of the journal "Science": "Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." (Emphasis added) Here is the link to the full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

"She analyzed 1,000 research papers on climate change selected randomly from those published between 1993 and 2003. The results were surprising: Not a single study explicitly rejected the idea that people are warming the planet." From http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...obewarm11.html

Question - if mankind is not one of the causes of global warming, why is there no body of peer-reviewed scientific papers that attempt to refute the prevailing view?

BTW, here is a really fun link that debunks bullseyebarb's claim that scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Want to debunk more of the usual misleading claims by the folks who wnat to keep their heads in the sand? "Global Warming Sceptic Bingo" :) Just click on the "#' symbol next to your favorite anti-golbal-warming myth! http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/ Hilarious, on target, and funny as well!

Even President Bush, at the most recent G8 meeting, agrees that man is a cause of global warming. But....not our own bullseyebarb, who seems to think that is some secret conspiracy that encompasses virtually the entire peer-reviewed scientific community. Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion!

BTW, bullseyebarb, just who are those "other forces in play" you mention? The Masons? Illuminati? The Warren Commission? Who do you think is leading the mass conspiracy that you allege? I'm really curious!