Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An 'Inconvenient' statement (ROGER EBERT STILL WHINING ABOUT WEIRD AL)
Chicago Sun-Times - The "Bright" One ^ | June 11, 2006 | Roger Ebert

Posted on 06/11/2006 8:19:43 AM PDT by Chi-townChief

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
As the old Staples Singers number went:

"If you're walking around thinking that the world owes you something 'cause you're here
You're going out the world backward like you did when you first came here.
Keep talking about the president won't stop air pollution.
Put your hand over your mouth when you cough, that'll help the solution."

Not to mention the line they included about democrats like Bobby Byrd and the late Al Gore Sr.:

"You the kind of gentleman that want everything your way
Take the sheet off your face, boy, its a brand new day."


1 posted on 06/11/2006 8:19:45 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice; Augie76; Barnacle; BeAllYouCanBe; BillyBoy; Bismarck; bourbon; ...

CHICAGOLAND PING


2 posted on 06/11/2006 8:20:34 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Ebert is a boring leftist. I did not see his review of An Inconvient Former Candidate, but I am sure he liked Algore more than Harold Stassen?


3 posted on 06/11/2006 8:23:01 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
"liberal propaganda." What I fail to understand is why global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue.

That's why you're just a movie critic.

4 posted on 06/11/2006 8:25:40 AM PDT by Socratic ("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
What I fail to understand is why global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue. It is either happening or is not, and we can either take action to try to slow it, or we cannot.

Or, it is not happening, and so the second proposition becomes spurious. That would be an inconvenient truth, as opposed weird Al's convenient myth.

5 posted on 06/11/2006 8:26:34 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (screw the media. islam. the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
If Gore has spent six years studying it, aren't his findings worthy of attention?

No, because he spent the first 4 of the last 6 years mumbling to himself in a closet made to look like the Oval Office.

6 posted on 06/11/2006 8:27:27 AM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Hello Mr. I'm-an-Economically-Ignorant-crappy-movie-critic. Global warming is a world wide socialist scam to take from rich nations and give to poor ones. This is what happens with idiots have a public platform, they are easily fooled into promoting BS like global warming.


7 posted on 06/11/2006 8:27:35 AM PDT by wvobiwan (If you're not part of the solution, you're obviously a liberal Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
The Farenheit 9/11 of Global Warming

GLOBAL WARMING PRIMER
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/climchng.html
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html



These two figures show former temperatures with major periods of glaciation labeled. The dashed lines are the present global average temperature of about 15° C (59° F). Thus the solid curves show small changes from this average; note that the temperature drops only about 5° C during a glaciation. This has occurred about every 100,000 years, with smaller wiggles in between. That is, there has been a 100,000 year glaciation cycle for the past million years or so, and there may be shorter cycles as well.

The most recent glaciation, 20,000 years ago, is called the Laurentide, and Earth is still recovering from it. This map from the The Illinois State Museum exhibit on ice ages shows the extent of that ice.


The most recent small drop in average temperature caused the Little Ice Age of 1500-1700 AD, which history describes. Mountain glaciers advanced in Europe and rivers like the Thames in England froze solid, which doesn't happen now.


Click image for animation

The growth of the ice sheets began about 120,000 years ago as ice built up on the continents in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Canada and Europe. The largest extent of these ice sheets occurred 18,000 years ago. At that time the largest ice sheets were between 3.5 and 4 km thick. In North America the largest ice sheet was the Laurentide Ice Sheet centered on Hudson Bay with other sheets centered on Greenland and in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. As these ice sheets expanded they grew together, covering Baffin Bay and eventually the Great Lakes and New England. In northwestern Europe the Fennoscandian Ice Sheet began to grow and expand south to cover what is now Norway and Sweden and north to cover the exposed continental shelf. Over time the ice sheet grew to cover Finland and the United Kingdom. This ice sheet extended east to the Ural Mountains where it met the Siberian Ice Sheet. Before the last ice age ice sheets already existed on Antarctica and on Greenland.

Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years. Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?


8 posted on 06/11/2006 8:29:15 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Unfortunately Siskel is dead instead of this liberal loon.


9 posted on 06/11/2006 8:29:42 AM PDT by HonduGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I cannot get into a scientific discussion here.

Thats because you majored in WATCHING MOVIES FOR A LIVING! What kind of mental giant does it take to get that gig? No Ebert, you lack the intellectual ability to get into any discussion beyond how great the lighting and makeup was in the latest Hollywood POS movie or that there's too much butter in your popcorn!

10 posted on 06/11/2006 8:33:12 AM PDT by Bommer (Attention illegals: Why don't you do the jobs we can't do? Like fix your own countries problems!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

What a country! Ebert proves a point... you can make it being fat, ugly... AND stupid.


11 posted on 06/11/2006 8:38:03 AM PDT by johnny7 (“And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda... what's Fonzie like?!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

how is it determned how thick a no longet existent ice sheet was 120,000 years ago?


12 posted on 06/11/2006 8:43:21 AM PDT by Nightrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Ebert like most liberals don't seem to understand that no matter how long someone studies something with the intent to justify wrong conclusions the conclusions will still be wrong regardless how long they spend cutting a pasting facts and trimming the truth to fit those conclusions as is the case with most liberal truths. They are not interested in finding the truth or understanding the dynamic nature of things but instead like Arabs justifying the acts of their suicide brothers find all kinds of circuitous routes and spurious details to support their cause.
13 posted on 06/11/2006 8:44:01 AM PDT by Ma3lst0rm (The truth exists and will make itself known whether we support it or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

I have some suggestions of where he can stick that thumb of his...


14 posted on 06/11/2006 8:45:38 AM PDT by FreedomNeocon (Success is not final; Failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

"An Incoherent Goof"

15 posted on 06/11/2006 8:47:21 AM PDT by HalleysFifth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

If Ebert is fer it, I'm agin it!


16 posted on 06/11/2006 8:47:52 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Gore's movie made an impression. His brain is only a 1/4 inch thick...


17 posted on 06/11/2006 8:51:09 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.

I wonder why people think you are just "being political"
YOU HACK!


18 posted on 06/11/2006 8:53:42 AM PDT by crashthe24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Who is Roger Ebert?


19 posted on 06/11/2006 8:56:00 AM PDT by MrCruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson