Gorebal Warming

[pumpkinpie]

I've been excited to see this movie ever since I read a review about it in the New Yorker two months ago, and I have a free pass to go see it tomorrow night! I'll post my comments here on Thursday.

I'm interested more in the scientific facts than the political spin. I've read that it has only the slightest political bias, and that people on the fence about whether global warming is real were convinced by this film.

Of course, the fact that it is Al Gore introduces a political aspect and will keep many people away. 50% of the country at least! And many here. Let me ask you this--would you go see the same documentary if it wasn't by a politician?

I'll try to be unbiased in my report Thursday, with my goal to convince some of you "No Way-ers" to at least give it a chance! :wink:

[RAF]

I'm interested more in the scientific facts than the political spin.

That's the only "reasonable" decision. Anyone who doesn't see this movie simply because they don't agree with Gore's "politics" is a fool.

This isn't about politics...it's about science.

[Lance]

Yes...

Just because someone is or was a politician doesn't mean they cannot also be passionately concerned about some issue.

[Frogmarch]

are you being ironic? :wink:

[Lance]

I didn't think so. Did I say something dumb?

[Lonewulf]

Yeah!!! How aboot that, GJ? :)

I was born a Republican and I'll die a Republican. My greatgrandfather was Governor of Idaho, Lt. Governor, and appointed Land Commisioner by the Hoover administration. Its in my blood and even if it wasn't, I would still vote for any Republican over a Democrap.

You know, my respect for you has been declining dramatically over the past few months.

You vote thanks to party loyalty over the actual leadership of the appointed, and further insult the other side, not based on actual history or capability but just for being "the other side"?

Or maybe you have some sort of logic to explain it. I don't see any personally.

[Мастер]

Quote on Al Gore from the May 20th North American edition of The Economist, in an article titled An awful warning, with the subtitle, Gordon Brown is in danger of following the strategy that cost Al Gore the White House:

Mr. Gore, it will be remembered, thought that his chances of winning the presidency would be improved if he could convince people that he had nothing to do with his party's most redoubtable election-winner since Franklin Roosevelt.

[teri tait]

Yeah!!! How aboot that, GJ? :)

I was born a Republican and I'll die a Republican. My greatgrandfather was Governor of Idaho, Lt. Governor, and appointed Land Commisioner by the Hoover administration. Its in my blood and even if it wasn't, I would still vote for any Republican over a Democrap.

You know, my respect for you has been declining dramatically over the past few months.

You vote thanks to party loyalty over the actual leadership of the appointed, and further insult the other side, not based on actual history or capability but just for being "the other side"?

Or maybe you have some sort of logic to explain it. I don't see any personally.

I don't give a rats ass about your opinion of me, Lonewulf.
I vote Republican because I agree with their overall political stance and that less government is always better. I also happen to prefer their candidates. Democrats believe in too much hands on government as a political party.
If you enjoy having everything regulated to you, more power to you, I believe more people should hold themseleves to account and not depend on the government to make all the decisions and subsidize everything.

[Мастер]

less government is always better.

So why Republican?

[teri tait]

less government is always better.

So why Republican?

Because I like their views on government sponsored aide to individuals.

[umop ap!sdn]

How do they differ I wonder from Libertarians on that one?

(I agree with you about small government; I consider myself a small-l libertarian. :) )

[Gullible Jones]

Yeah!!! How aboot that, GJ? :)

I was born a Republican and I'll die a Republican. My greatgrandfather was Governor of Idaho, Lt. Governor, and appointed Land Commisioner by the Hoover administration. Its in my blood and even if it wasn't, I would still vote for any Republican over a Democrap.

You know, my respect for you has been declining dramatically over the past few months.

You vote thanks to party loyalty over the actual leadership of the appointed, and further insult the other side, not based on actual history or capability but just for being "the other side"?

Or maybe you have some sort of logic to explain it. I don't see any personally.

I don't give a rats ass about your opinion of me, Lonewulf.
I vote Republican because I agree with their overall political stance and that less government is always better. I also happen to prefer their candidates. Democrats believe in too much hands on government as a political party.
If you enjoy having everything regulated to you, more power to you, I believe more people should hold themseleves to account and not depend on the government to make all the decisions and subsidize everything.

That's alright with me... But I just can't help but observe that our government under Mr. Bush is pretty damn hands-on.

[Мастер]

But I just can't help but observe that our government under Mr. Bush is pretty damn hands-on.

That was also my point, although I think perhaps I was a bit too subtle :P

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

The 'less government is always better' approach will ultimately lead to no government.
So that's no good, either.

[Dragon Star]

You think? We wouldn't have a country at all without a government...

[Мастер]

Well, if you just define government as whatever power structure happens to exist, then there's always one. Even Somalia has a government by that definition...

[Dragon Star]

Well, I mean if the government were to instantly fail, there would be none.

[Мастер]

Well, I mean if the government were to instantly fail, there would be none.

Not for long, though :P

[Dragon Star]

Very true. :)

[Мастер]

The 'less government is always better' approach will ultimately lead to no government.
So that's no good, either.

Hmm. Is there such a thing as negative government? :P

[Dragon Star]

Kinda, you can have a government made from anti-matter, does that count? :P

[Lonewulf]

I don't give a rats ass about your opinion of me, Lonewulf.
I vote Republican because I agree with their overall political stance and that less government is always better. I also happen to prefer their candidates. Democrats believe in too much hands on government as a political party.
If you enjoy having everything regulated to you, more power to you, I believe more people should hold themseleves to account and not depend on the government to make all the decisions and subsidize everything.

That's alright with me... But I just can't help but observe that our government under Mr. Bush is pretty damn hands-on.

That was my point entirely. Actual leadership differs from claimed ideals.

You elect a leader based on his ability to lead, not on what "side" he's on. That's my belief.

[Superluminal]

So Lonewolf, you'd vote for someone you thought was a good leader even if he was going to lead in a direction you didn't want to go?

Hitler was a good leader, but he sure took Germany in the wrong direction.

[pumpkinpie]

<mind if I jump back on topic?> :wink:

I saw the movie last night, and it was as good as I expected. Go see this movie. Go see this movie! Forget any political feelings you have toward Gore, and go to be educated about Global Warming. Some of the facts are pretty scary.
--Meltoff from a glacier in the Himalayas, in Nepal, goes into rivers that supply 40% of the world's population with water. That glacier is shrinking. If the glacier disappears completely, that 40% is in serious doo-doo.
--Science magazine did a study on 10% of all articles in peer reviewed journals about global warming. The number studied was 928. The percentage of articles that had *any* skepticism about global warming? Zero!
--Another study on a similar percentage of all media articles in the same period, 623 in all. The percentage with skepticism? 53%!! So if virtually *all* scientists are saying global warming is real, why are the media and the public so skeptical?

I'm not saying any of you here are skeptics about global warming.

Yeah, maybe a lot of us won't be around in 50 years to fact the consequences of our actions today. But it's possible to reduce C02 emissions, and keep them from skyrocketing in the upcoming years. This is something we can control, and I think it's everyone's duty to see this movie. It's the most straightforward presentation of the facts that I've seen.


I will admit that Gore's personal side of the story was a bit annoying, and there was a bit of a political spin. But hell, he's been a politician for so long, how can there not be? But please, try not to let that deter you from seeing this movie.


No, I hope the following comment doesn't offend those of you who don't want to see the movie, and provides another reason for you not to go see it. But I have to say it. My #1 thought during the movie: God DAMN I wish he were president!!!

[Dragon Star]

Ok, subtle rant here.

Of course global warming is real, my 5 year old cousin knows that, but it's not a matter of fact that it's real or not that is the problem, it is the cause that is causing all of the controversy. Global warming is a trend, has been for a VERY long time, nature is not made for us to live here, we are responsible for living in nature. Now, we do cause a percentage of this global warming, but it is certainly NOT the cause of it. And the thing that bugs me the most about global warming is that everyone's reaction is that "OMG the people are going to drown, and die of thirst, OMG". NO, what makes you think that this is an immediate action? People will have a VERY long time to get used to the changes that increased ocean height brings, as well as other effects. They will have time to relocate to places that are better...everyone is making this out to be a damn world wide crisis and it's not.