Posted on 06/11/2006 8:19:43 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
Dear Readers,
I've received so many messages about my review of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that, frankly, I don't see how the Answer Man can process them. I could print a dozen or a hundred, but that would lead us into an endless loop.
Many are supportive. More are opposed to the movie and just about everything in it, and are written by people who have not seen the movie and will not see it for a variety of reasons, including the theory that it is "liberal propaganda." 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. That is why a great many conservatives have agreed with Gore on this.
When I am told "this is another one you're trying to blame on Bush and Halliburton," all I can say is, somebody is listening to way too much talk radio on which they are told global warming is being blamed on Bush and Halliburton. Actually, Gore blames neither and mentions neither. "It got worse on his watch as vice president." Yes, it did. "He flies around on a jet to warn against it." Yes, one of thousands of jet flights every day.
One person says that when Gore finds a "100 percent agreement" among scientists about global warming, that proves he is wrong, because 100 percent of scientists do not agree on anything. Then they quote scientists who disagree with Gore. What he said was, a random sampling of 935 recent articles published in peer-review scientific journals shows agreement with the basic findings reported in his film.
Many people inform me that they just read a story saying that the South Pole was tropical many eons ago. So it was, as reported in "March of the Penguins." I don't know what they want me to do with this factoid. Applaud our actions to bring that condition around again as quickly as possible?
I cannot get into a scientific discussion here. There will be no end to it. All I can say is, the Gore documentary made a deep impression on me. I urge you to see it. You will not be seeing a "campaign film," or "sour grapes," or "Gore still being bitter." George W. Bush has repeated for six years that global warming "requires more study." If Gore has spent six years studying it, aren't his findings worthy of attention? Yes, I'm "being political." But saying the issue "needs more study" is a political statement when energy groups are among your major supporters and your family is in the oil business.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GENERALINFORMATION/40909004
Or it is happening and then assume that it is caused by man rather than natural processes. Further assume that we can do Anything to reverse the trend.
Roger you really are dumb.. I mean D.U.M.B....
The earth has be warming for thousands of years else the Great Lakes would be frozen to the bottom.. jeeze..
You Rock!
Yet he actually found someone to the left of himself in Richard Roeper!
Which is precisely the problem.
Excellent point. No news about global warming is NOT good news for scientists who want to suck at the government teat.
Actually, I didn't care for E.T.
I know he's on the conservative side of the issue most times, but years back when I first heard him he recommended a movie called Ramblin' Rose. I thought it was a bomb and never bothered to listen to his advice on movies either.
How do you know the light goes off in the refrigerator when you close the door?
oh...the ice is on a switch...? guage?
exactly what's your point?
My point is it's possible to know things we can't see directly.
I don't care much for E.T. now. But, at the age of 7 it was a big deal. ;-)
However, I do condemn the degeration of the established news media, i.e. established before, say, the 1980's, into a propaganda machine, through which its multiple agents and outlets speak as a single voice, and not a voice dedicated to truth for its own sake, but a voice committed to propaganda, and to be more specific, to propaganda designed to promote a specific agenda and viewpoint and to persuede the public to commit to them also.
If an important issue should arise, e.g. if Global Warming should be as great a threat as Al Gore insists, the people could not be blamed for ignoring the warnings of a newsmedia that they have learned to mistrust.
And, he doesn't even do that well.
thanks, but i believe you misunderstand: i don't argue about the existence of glaciers and the evidence of how far they extended..i'm simply saying that the 'fact' theat the ice sheet was 'over a mile thick' is simply hypothesis along with a lot of other deductions made by geologists and evolutionists...if they can pursuade enough of their colleagues of a particular hypothesis, then that is the 'accepted' 'fact of the moment' by the scientific community, readu to change when a 'better' explanation occurrs.....until then though they discuss it as 'fact'.....
I knew what you were getting at.
I think there is physical evidence, not just asusmptions including sea level, geological formations, silt deposits, etc
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/Glacial%20Rebound.htm
The Euro-Socialists have been trying to convince the world they can control the weather for centiruies.
thank you, i appreciate the time you took with this....my position is simply that scientists have hypothesis based upon how they assimilate/interpetate the 'evidence'....you may well be right, and the sheet may actually have been a mile thick...the point is though that much of science is hypothetical....for instance, when i was in grade school (oh...back in the late 60's/70's) the dinosaur 'family' was about 20 or so, there was the tyrannosaur, stegosaurus, brontosaurus...etc, etc,..all in drab grey, now there are literally hundred's of them, and the discover channel has an entire season devoted to 'walking with dinosaurs'...it's neat for kids as a fiction, which is what it is, but the dc makes out what they narrate as fact....and also dinosaurs now are all colors of the rainbow, there's no evidence they are anything but grey, but it makes for good tv.....point of fact is that we make a lot of conjecture, not always on evidence (ie 'lucy', as you probably know), and we preach it as fact, when it's as phoney as a three dollar bill.....
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.