| Author |
Message |
    
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3579
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:21 pm: | 
|
Ethanol could do some postive things politically by helping us get out of OPEC's grasp, but it would do very little to help with global warming issues.
Shift government subsidization from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Let the fossil fuel actually EARN it's way in the world -- that's what the free market is all about, right? Hell, their profits have been absolutely epic anyway. That one move, all by itself, would drastically change the game in a positive way. This is obvious, and the fact that the government has NOT already done this speaks volumes. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 949
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:08 am: |
|
I am shocked that most of you rather intelligent individuals are unable to set aside your politics to realize how creepy this concept is. I find this incredibly distasteful, regardless of whether or not I agree with the the political (or "Moral Message" in Al Gores own words) message being dessiminated in the movie. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 303
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
tom,
I am aware that the government has been heavily involved in the energy industry for decades, but isn't this a major factor in our current predicament?
Throwing a lot of money at alternative energy research doesn't sound promising to me. By all means, let's reduce or eliminate federal support and subsidies for the oil industry. Maybe I'll write my Democratic reps in Congress and ask when they are going to introduce the legislation. Ha-Ha-Ha! Anyway, if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door.
Let's put it this way: What is the constitutional and proper role of the federal government when it comes to developing new technologies and sources of energy? My answer is little, if any. Though I would not be opposed to tax credits for people to convert their cars to run on NG and put compressors in their garages. The NG on the continental shelf is there and might as well be used. It does produce CO2 and NOX, but it is much cleaner than oil or coal, and we don't need to send soldiers halfway around the world to get it.
Cheers |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3790
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:58 am: |
|
It's an engineering message. Why find it creepy? It's about accountablity. Is it creepy to you that your behavior impacts the quality of life for generations to come? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2247
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:03 am: |
|
what's creepy about it? it's not mandatory that anyone go to this screening. you don't like it? keep your kids from attending. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 951
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
Tulip- Al Gore's own words across the country at every speaking opportunity known to man... "it's a Moral Message." Why would debate that? I can post the quotes if you'd like.
Dr Boogie, I take it you are comfortable with Advertising Cigarettes targeting children? If you don't like it, don't let 'em buy 'em?
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2248
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:23 am: |
|
your comparison between seeing a movie on global warming science and smoking is just plain bizarre.
please tell me you're joking. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 952
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:26 am: |
|
Winnie, you threw out the "if you don't like it, don't go" argument, which is a weak argument to make in any situation....that's the adult version of saying "why don't you just shut-up". I was merely demonstrating that point. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2249
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:34 am: |
|
I also asked "what's creepy about it?" and in three posts, you still haven't explained. If you had, maybe I'd have more of a response.
But my point is a pretty good one, and I'm saying more than "shut up." Perhaps I need to be more explicit - how is it "creepy" if it's not mandatory? The Maplewood Theater is a private business, and can promote any film they please. No is required to go, or send their kids. How on earth is that creepy? |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 954
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:53 am: |
|
Pooh-bear, you know exactly what's creepy about it. I'm surprised a man of your higher level of education requires clarification. I'm not going to argue the point that this is a Political Movie or a "Message" movie....it's widely understood and agreed to be so. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the message is not important to me.
Taking such a movie, and then targetting Children with "The Message" by having free viewings for Kids only, is very disturbing to me, whether they are required to go or not.
It's not as if this is a free showing of "Cars" or "Pirates of the Caribean"....I can't, in recent memory, recall ANY free showing of a Childrens Entertainment movie by Maplewood Theater..... |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3793
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:59 am: |
|
Stabbings, sword fights, pirating and other aggressive behaviors are acceptable, but a serious film about the environment is "creepy." Yup. Makes sense. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2250
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
I guess your threshold for creepiness is pretty low. The owners of the Maplewood Theater have obviously seen this movie and think it's worthwhile for kids. That's their right, and they're choosing to screen it at their own expense. If they stand outside the theater and coerce kids to come in off the street, yes that would be creepy. telling parents they can choose to send their kids to the screening free of charge? not creepy, unless you're easily creeped out. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5632
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
It's like saying that the library is creepy, because kids can get books with ideas in them, for free. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 959
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
Let me rephrase that....where do you see any similarities in your Library Analogy, to the situation being discussed? I fail to understand the connection. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2251
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
ok - how about this. the very real possibility exists that public libraries around the country will indeed screen "An Inconvenient Truth" free of charge (for kids!).
is that alright? or is it creepy?
|
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 960
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
Having been completely puzzled by Nohero's analogy, I am making an effort to try and phrase what he was trying to say.......but Dr. did it for me....
Yes and No. If the Library was showing screenings of movies, hosting political discussions/forums at night, having book readings by controversial authors, etc. etc.....all that is welcome, wonderful, and all the elements of a lively/healthy library.
IF, however, the Library started targeting children for such events, than I think it would merit further discussion about what is appropriate and how it was being presented.
This, however, is not a library. This is the town movie theater. It's private. They have every right to show whatever they want to show. They have every right to charge or offer free admission. But offering Free Admission, to children, targetting children, for a Message/Movement Movie, is a specific effort from the proprietors of this theater, to promote their politics/"morals" among our children. I find that to be a deeply disturbing decision. Since you are all obviously in agreement with the "Morals" of this film, you fail to challenge this decision. In fact, you welcome it with applause. If, however, you disagreed with the "Morals" of the film, you would find it equally disturbing.
I find it disturbing whether I agree or disagree with the "Morals" of the film.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2252
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:18 am: |
|
see the movie. then decide if you think it's "disturbing" to show it to children. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 961
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
It appears there is some agreement about this, but that where lines are drawn is what's in question. Allow me to present you with a question, since we seem to be trying to define where those personal lines are drawn:
If you learned that an organization was paying/compensating local theaters to show this film to children, would you find THAT to be creepy?
What if that same organization was paying an above market rate per person, for theaters choosing to do this?
What if that organization was the US Govt? The Church of Latter day Saints? The Republican National Committee? BP/Amoco? Hezbolla? Al Queda? The US ARMY? |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10147
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
And I find it creepy the Bush administration cherry picks what scientists to listen to. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 962
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
Boogie, it's not about whether I disagree with what the Message of the Movie is.....I'm an environmentalist, I don't need to see a movie to re-inforce that. It's the promotion of Message Movies targetting youths. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5634
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
Quote:Having been completely puzzled by Nohero's analogy ...
I was puzzled by the constant references to "targeting children", and being "creepy", as if you were discussing a pedophile ring, not a movie theater.
So, we're even, I guess.  |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 963
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
Nohero, how is offering a Free Screening to Children not considered an effort targetting children? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2253
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:27 am: |
|
Quote:If you learned that an organization was paying/compensating local theaters to show this film to children, would you find THAT to be creepy?
What if that same organization was paying an above market rate per person, for theaters choosing to do this?
What if that organization was the US Govt? The Church of Latter day Saints? Hezbolla? Al Queda? The US ARMY?
easy answer - yes, it's creepy if the theater is being paid to proselytize to children.
But for the Maplewood Theater to present to kids what is essentially a science lesson plus some autobiographical info on Al Gore? No I don't find it creepy. Listen, I can see how some people might object, but you said this:
Quote:I am shocked that most of you rather intelligent individuals are unable to set aside your politics to realize how creepy this concept is.
Your "shock" is pretty over the top, given the content of the film, which is not all that political, except that some people try to make science political.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10148
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
PHONE IN POST FROM SBENOIS:
"I never said the movie theatre is showing it.
A private group paid for the screening (rented the room). Nothing to do with the theatre owners or their political beliefs." |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 964
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
I suspected as much.
Winston....in light of Dave's new post, has your opinion changed? Do we care who this shadowy  private group is? Does it matter? Would you feel differently if you learned this was a national campaign of free viewings? It's not as if we're discussing the NJ Science Museum showing free viewings of the BBC's "Planet Earth" here....I feel we've waded into dangerous water, and I've voiced my opinion.
This has been a fascinating twist of events on this thread. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5917
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
fascinating? hmmm. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:51 am: |
|
its mind control damn-it! I dont want any shadowy group of people showing my children any highly praised documentary for free. I wish everything was like the Bush administration - open and transparent, so we all know the truth about things.
Whats facinating is that Smarty Jones continues to argue that this is some sort of propaganda for a nefarious purpose. In reality it is a documentary about the environment that has been praised by scientists for its ability to explain the science behind the problem to regular people. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10149
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:51 am: |
|
Smarty,
You are welcome to pay for a free screening when Atlas Shrugged comes out. I'll enjoy seeing both free movies. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 965
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hoops, than why is this thread posted in "Soapbox: All politics?" I didn't initiate this thread. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2254
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:55 am: |
|
no my opinion hasn't changed. this is not a case of proselytizing. It's a science lesson. It's not a religion looking for converts, or a political party looking for votes.
I think anyoone would wnat to know the group paying for it before they'd send their kids, though. Anyone funding any such events should make their support transparent. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 966
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
Dave, you either have quite a memory, or that was one heck of a lucky title you selected out of the air. Or the search function works for you.....
I'm not so sure about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie doing this one justice....particularly the ending, which will be challenging enough, so I'll keep my wallet closed for now. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 968
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Winston, what are the odds that this nefarious group is a Political Organization? Hoops, care to take a gander at that one? Or are you going to continue to make-believe it's not a movie with Political undertones (or Overtures)? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5288
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Would you be up in arms if the movie's message was, say, anti-littering; and the presenters were no-names? What if it were a movie about teen abstinence with Patricia Heaton?
I suspect the only people who would find it disagreeable would be those who reject the message; or can't stand messenger. To find it "creepy" is extreme. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5635
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
It could be worse -
There's an upcoming free screening of "An Inconvenient Truth" in Los Angeles, that Bon Jovi is performing at -
http://www6.islandrecords.com/bonjovi/newsarticle.php?country_id=225&news_id=102 101 |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 969
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:30 pm: |
|
tom, reread my earlier posts and you'll find I agree with your first statement, in that people will be selective about whether or not they are comfortable with this, depending upon their agreement with the message. I personally would find any example problematic. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10150
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:36 pm: |
|
As long as the state is not involved in the sponsorship, why not let individual freedom determine who decides to pay for something and who decides to see it? |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 971
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
So Dave, if this was State/Govt Sponsored, you would have an issue with it? Is that where your line is drawn?
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15408
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
BUMP... |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5648
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:13 pm: |
|
I wish he wouldn't do that.
Not the "bump", but that other thing where he fills
the screen up so that we have to shift back and forth
in order to read the rest of the posts.
(Edited to add) Hey, I see you added some line breaks. Cool. Still too wide for my pitiful laptop, though ...
(Edited again to add) Hey, I see that Dave got rid of the extra words in the post above this.
So, I guess that anybody who arrives at this page now will think that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Thanks a lot, Dave.  |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15409
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:16 pm: |
|
If you don't like the service, don't leave a tip. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6022
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:17 pm: |
|
the film's director will be there for a post movie Q&A |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10211
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:21 pm: |
|
fixed |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10212
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:22 pm: |
|
Will the theater be air conditioned? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15410
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:25 pm: |
|
I do believe so.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15411
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:26 pm: |
|
KOA, what the heck is Nohero talking about?
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10214
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:29 pm: |
|
BUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMP
BUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMP
BUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMP
BUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMP
BUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUMPBUM |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15412
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:32 pm: |
|
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5650
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:35 pm: |
|
You guys are the greatest.  |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3622
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
from CNN.com...
Editor's note: Alexandra Paul is an actress best known for her four years starring in the television series "Baywatch". She has been driving electric vehicles since 1990 and is a founding member of Plug in America. Paul can be seen in the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" in theaters this summer.
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- I drive an electric car. Not a hybrid -- a gasoline-powered car that gets some help from an electric motor -- but a full electric vehicle. I plug it in at night and can drive 100 miles the next day and go faster than 80 mph on the highway.
So don't think "golf cart"; these cars have power and pick-up.
While you won't see many electric cars on the road, they've been around longer than you might think.
In 1900, electric cars outsold both gasoline and steam vehicles because electric cars didn't have the vibration, noise and dirtiness associated with gas vehicles. But soon afterward -- with the discovery of Texas crude oil that reduced the price of gasoline, the invention of the electric starter in 1912 that eliminated the need for a hand crank, and the mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford -- the electric vehicle went the way of the horse and buggy.
The energy crisis in the 1960s and 1970s revived interest briefly. There was another push in 1990, when General Motors Corp. unveiled the (ineptly named) Impact, a sporty, aerodynamic electric car prototype.
In 1998 the California Air Resources Board decided that if a car company could make such a car, it should, and mandated that 2 percent of vehicles sold in the state in 1998 must be emission-free, with that number rising to 10 percent by 2003.
Since California is a huge market, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Chrysler, Ford and GM started building electric vehicles -- about 5,000 were manufactured. But by 2005 the mandate had been eviscerated because of pressure from those same car companies, and 4,000 perfectly good electric vehicles were crushed.
But did car companies really want electric cars to succeed? The success of electric vehicles would have threatened the status quo and core business models of two of the world's biggest industries -- oil and automobile. It is more expedient for these companies to give lip service to hydrogen in an attempt to appear "green." But hydrogen is a technology that experts say is decades away.
Because the small print in California's mandate allowed for car companies to manufacture only as many cars as there was interest in them, the game became to pretend there was no interest. Virtually no advertising money was spent to let you know electric cars existed, and even if you did find out about them salespeople actively dissuaded you from getting one.
As with any new technology, an electric vehicle was more expensive than its gas counterpart. Also, the limited range scared off customers, even though the average American drives only 34 miles a day and every electric car could go at least twice that far on a full charge.
These cars had great potential, but no media covered their subsequent crushing. It is only with the release this summer of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" that the full story comes out. This film chronicles the rise and fall of the General Motors EV1, an electric car I leased on the day it was released in 1996. Zero to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, a top speed of 140 mph and a range of 120 miles. GM discontinued this car just a few years later. No car company today makes a mass-production electric vehicle.
My current electric vehicle, a Toyota RAV4 EV, also was discontinued a few years ago. This car costs me the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to run. I never need to get a tune-up, change spark plugs or add water to the batteries or oil to the motor. The only maintenance for the first 150,000 miles is to rotate my tires. This car is quiet, fast and emission free. I plug it in every night at home, and it charges on off-peak energy.
Even if it were getting power solely from electricity derived from coal -- a common criticism of electric cars -- my vehicle uses 50 percent less carbon dioxide than a 24 mpg gas car (for a summary of more than 30 studies on the emissions of electric cars, hybrids and plug in hybrids, go to www.sherryboschert.com/FAQ.html). When I have to get new batteries, which I expect I'll will be when my car is 10 years old, the old ones will be over 90 percent recyclable.
The concern I hear most often about electric vehicles is their range. Well, at 100 miles per charge, my electric vehicle fulfills 98 percent of my driving needs, and I live in a city where everything seems to be 40 minutes away.
When I want to go further, I borrow my husband Ian's Toyota Prius. I don't like driving it. Am I supposed to be amazed when a car gets 43 miles per gallon? The average fuel economy mandate for cars in 1985: 27.5 mpg. For 2006: 27.5 mpg. No wonder our expectations are so low. Progress in fuel efficiency has been glacial compared to improvements in computers and cell phones.
There is a solution: The plug-in hybrid. This vehicle will run on pure electric power for up to 60 miles, and then automatically switch to gas (or a biofuel) if you drive farther. Because around 85 percent of Americans travel less than 50 miles a day, this means that most people who charge their cars at home each night would hardly ever dip into their car's gasoline tank.
The infrastructure to charge is already in place (electric outlets are everywhere), and the technology (batteries) has been tested in the field and greatly improved upon for over 15 years. National security experts, including former CIA Director James Woolsey, are advocates for these vehicles because they say these vehicles can help break our dependence on foreign oil. Environmentalists support them because plugging in means getting an average of more than 100 mpg. Consumers like them because they will be saving thousands of dollars in gasoline costs.
Once you have known the quiet smooth speed and the clean efficiency of an electric vehicle, you will never think "golf cart" again. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3619
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Based on emails I have received and the NR article, I believe that the showing is being funded by two local families who were concerned that teenagers were not seeing the movie and wanted to make it more appealing for them to do so. I don't believe that there is any "organization" involved, from what I've heard about it.
If someone has facts to the contrary then certainly they should be posted, but otherwise the information provided to date does not support that assumption. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6756
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Does anyone know why Sylvester hasn't asked the question "have you seen the movie?"
Or why he has disappeared from this thread??
|
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6044
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 7:01 pm: |
|
It is definitely being sponsored by two families...the husband/father in one of the families is a college friend and fraternity brother of mine. He is no "loony lefty", is not some soapbox preacher for "liberal" or "Democratic" causes, but even in school built a reputation as a caring social service chairman (other aspects of his reputation are not noteworthy for this thread). He and his wife and their friends were moved by the movie and thought the message ought to get out to a teen audience and give them the chance to do their own homework and draw their own conclusions. In a manner consistent with the way he has always been, he has been sincere in his interests here and thorough in his approach in getting the word out on this as widely as he possibly can. His own children are kindergarten age and younger so he's not hooked in to the "older kids" scene and is not doing this for facetime for his high school age kids. The director will attend the after movie Q&A...a pizza deal of some sort has been arranged with the Trattoria for ticketholders. I hope and trust enough of the audience these two families targeted will appreciate their effort and gesture and attend. And again, then those who attend can begin to draw their own conclusions and start to do their own homework and maybe be so moved some day to do something similar for a community they live in. That is the motive here I believe. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7594
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Hank may have spent to much time in the sun today.  |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3625
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
More of the wingnuts' strawmen and inaccuracies are laid to rest. In today's NYT...
Cold, Hard Facts
by Peter Doran
IN the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight.
In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.
My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.
Newspaper and television reports focused on this part of the paper. And many news and opinion writers linked our study with another bit of polar research published that month, in Science, showing that part of Antarctica’s ice sheet had been thickening — and erroneously concluded that the earth was not warming at all. “Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming,” said a headline on an editorial in The San Diego Union-Tribune. One conservative commentator wrote, “It’s ironic that two studies suggesting that a new Ice Age may be under way may end the global warming debate.”
In a rebuttal in The Providence Journal, in Rhode Island, the lead author of the Science paper and I explained that our studies offered no evidence that the earth was cooling. But the misinterpretation had already become legend, and in the four and half years since, it has only grown.
Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.
Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?
Also missing from the skeptics’ arguments is the debate over our conclusions. Another group of researchers who took a different approach found no clear cooling trend in Antarctica. We still stand by our results for the period we analyzed, but unbiased reporting would acknowledge differences of scientific opinion.
The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.
In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.
Peter Doran is an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5659
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
Very nice article about this, in today's Star-Ledger:
Quote:Making film convenient for the young
Maplewood theater offers enviro-documentary -- and its director
Thursday, July 27, 2006
BY PHILIP READ
Star-Ledger Staff
The clock was ticking to the 5:15 p.m. showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" at the Maplewood Theater.
Two young people approached the glass-enclosed ticket booth, where Susan Rinaldi, the general manager, was filling in until the late arrival of the summer help.
"Two for 'Lady in the Water,'" says a young man, of M. Night Shyamalan's fable about a sea nymph who dwells in a cave beneath an apartment complex's pool.
Before long, an older theater- goer arrives and plunks down her $9 for "An Inconvenient Truth," the Al Gore global-warming documentary that has made box-office history by managing to stay in the Top 20 in ticket receipts.
"It's about time I saw this movie," the woman says as she hands her ticket to Rinaldi, who was also filling in as the ticket- taker.
The audience demographics are not lost on Rinaldi.
It's the old -- not the young -- who have flocked to see "An Inconvenient Truth." She said as much to Stewart Glickman, a 43-year-old who came to see the movie a few weeks ago with his wife, Sarah, and asked about the turnout.
"I said it was fabulous," she said, "but the wrong people were seeing it. ... You're going to give up your plastic silverware and big SUV?"
Afterward, Rinaldi said, she thought she had chased a customer away, but instead she fanned a fire in Glickman's heart, unlocking a string of events that will culminate tomorrow with a free screening for middle- and high school students and a visit from the film's director, Davis Guggenheim.
"It's apolitical," says Glickman, who has distributed fliers touting the 4 p.m. showing and listing "10 things to do" to curtail the carbon- dioxide emissions contributing to global warming. "Any one person can make a difference."
That, Rinaldi said, is what happened here. "This guy's doing it be cause it's the right thing to do," she said.
The rest of the story is here: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/essex/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1153977694247060.xml& coll=1
Read the rest, and find out the interesting reason why the director of "An Inconvenient Truth", a guy from California, knew where Maplewood is. |
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 497
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
Sylvester is right not to spend moneyon the movie. The money would be better spent on a boat. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page