| Author | Message | ||
     sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15315 Registered: 10-2001  |
July 28th 4pm at the Maplewood Theatre. It's for teenagers and kids. The screening is free but please buy some popcorn and junk to support the theatre personnel. (posted here due to the political aspect of the film) | ||
| sylvester the investor Citizen Username: Mummish Post Number: 141 Registered: 6-2004 |
Obviously no one is paying to go see this junk, so you have to give it away to the kids for free so you can try to brainwash them with this propaganda. I don't know what makes me more ill, the movie itself or the fact that it is being played for free for our kids. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider  Post Number: 15031 Registered: 1-2003  |
And you know what junk the movie is from seeing it, right? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5271 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sylvestor must be highly invested in oil company stock. | ||
| Dogbert Citizen Username: Dogbert Post Number: 123 Registered: 1-2006  |
Maybe they could do a double feature with Attack of the 50 Foot Woman and other movies of this genre. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15036 Registered: 1-2003 |
ANYWAY, thank you, sbenois for publicizing this event. It's a nice idea. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 989 Registered: 12-2003 |
Obviously no one is paying to go see this junk, so you have to give it away to the kids for free so you can try to brainwash them with this propaganda. So if something doesn't sell, spending money to give it away is a smart business move? You must be some investor. Needless to say, the film has been incredibly succesful...it's already one of the top 20 grossing documentaries of all time (despite the fact that it's still only playing in paltry 500 theaters across the country) and is nowhere near the end of it's theatrical run. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5625 Registered: 10-1999  |
Obviously, somebody must be paying to see this "junk", since the theater has a print, and is showing it every night. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15321 Registered: 10-2001 |
Dearest Sylvester, Even if one does not like Al Gore or his politics or has some suspicion as to whether Global Warming exists or not, the film is absolutely worth seeing. If you have kids, send them to the free showing. Trust them to think about the issues that the film highlights and feel free to discuss it with them afterwards. You have my permission to act like reponsible adult. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5272 Registered: 5-2001 |
At this point you might as well be arguing that this whole "round earth" thing is propoganda. The only people who won't admit that global warming is real, and caused by humans, are those who are being paid for their trouble or those who are being fooled by them. Why let politics determine your thinking about something that is obviously very important? So you don't like Gore; how does that change any actual facts about the world? If Gore says "don't jump off a bridge" are you going to jump anyway just because it was Al Gore who told you not to? Reality is thoroughly oblivious to your politics, and demands that you address it on its own terms. | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 371 Registered: 11-2005 |
Shame on you, Sylvester. My hero, the Great Decider, recently announced that he believes in global warming. After that, I had no choice but to change my mind about it, too. What are you -- some kinda commie or something? | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2061 Registered: 5-2001 |
I saw the movie this afternoon - it's the first time I've ever wanted to walk out of a movie because the message was so powerful that I almost couldn't bear to keep watching. It's the same reaction I've had when the phone rings and the caller says, "I've got bad some news - are you sitting down?" It's so tempting to hang up and pretend nothing's changed. Sylvester, if you have seen the movie - why did it make you ill? Did you think it was "junk science?" And if you haven't seen the movie, why are you commenting on it? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1657 Registered: 9-2004 |
Lydia, remember the part when Gore goes over the solutions, they seem straigtforward to me. If we do this we will be better off: Things like higher MPG standards for cars and such are needed to keep up with the rest of the international car market. More Solar Cells and Wind. America being Number one should mean we make the best cars. America being Number one should mean we make the best Solar Cells. America being Number one should mean we make the best Wind Trubines. The above three sentences mean jobs for NJ and the country. Where is the leadership to take advantage of the situation? | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2063 Registered: 5-2001 |
Foj -
Yes! Near the end of the film when Gore showed that our cars are worse than China's - CHINA! It's shameful. When I was a child with hippie parents they brought me along to the No Nukes protests - back in the mid-'70's I thought everyone cared about solar panels and windmills. Somewhere along the way, despite hard lessons and scientific evidence, environmentalists were derided as (weak-minded, weak-willed) "tree-huggers." - and wastefulness and bullying behavior is celebrated as practically patriotic. I don't know. I don't get it. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1662 Registered: 9-2004 |
"Truth" now extended... 7th week at Claridge in Montclair. | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 99 Registered: 4-2006  |
There are plenty of respectable scientists, especially the ones who actually deal with climate, who don't think there's real evidence that global warming is man-caused or caused by CO2 emissions. Just today I read an article about University of Pennsylvania geology professor Robert Giegengack. Giegengack called the popular idea of I'm sure I'll hear now that Giegengack must be a paid industry hack, but it seems to me that turning the economy upside down isn't a great idea unless it's really really necessary. I can think of better reasons to decrease our consumption of fossil fuels. | ||
| sylvester the investor Citizen Username: Mummish Post Number: 142 Registered: 6-2004 |
"America being Number one should mean we make the best Wind Trubines. The above three sentences mean jobs for NJ and the country. Where is the leadership to take advantage of the situation?" Why don't you go ask Teddy Kennedy why he won't put wind power off the shores of nantucket!!!!!! | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2065 Registered: 5-2001 |
Larry - Have you seen the movie or are you just Googling? Sylvester - Maybe Ted Kennedy is an out-of-touch career politician more interested in keeping his constituancy happy and complacent than demonstrating political courage and true character. Just a thought. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3574 Registered: 5-2001  |
Sylvestor, your articulate, cogent posts have changed my mind completely. Gore must have no idea what he's talking about. Oh, wait a minute, his movie has had the highest per-screen receipts in theaters all over the country since it opened and the information he presents has been verified as accurate by scientists around the world. Looks like Sylvestor's posts are just more greenhouse gas - specifically methane. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7544 Registered: 10-2001  |
Look at my JEW-FRO! | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3575 Registered: 5-2001 |
 | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15049 Registered: 1-2003 |
Larry, in the movie, Gore debunks the belief that there is a tradeoff between a healthy economy and a healthy ecology. In fact, the development and production of more efficient technology will be a boost for the economy. | ||
| Arnomation Citizen Username: Arnomation Post Number: 642 Registered: 7-2003  |
1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5279 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thank goodness the Bushies aren't distracted by global warming, and are all over these suggestions and problems instead. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1020 Registered: 4-2006 |
Samuelson the economist wrote an article recently finding that if we were to do what is required to prevent global warming we could not sustain our present economy or mode of life. Anyone read it? | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2069 Registered: 5-2001 |
Facts - Have you seen the film? How about: - In 2005 over $100 billion in hurricane damage? - 2005 was the hottest year on record? - In 30 years Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers? And that's just for starters. We may have to (gasp!) make some sacrifices to save our planet. Sacrifice was once a patriotic choice (black-out shades, victory gardens, conservation, etc.) I hope we as Americans figure out that in order to guide the world by example we have to lead with environmentally sensitive choices. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5282 Registered: 5-2001 |
And 150 years ago no one could have predicted that our economy or our way of life would be totally dependent on petroleum. We're going to run out of oil anyway, it's time to figure something else out or we won't need some economist to tell us our economy and way of life are toast. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15331 Registered: 10-2001 |
$100 billion in hurricane damage has very little to do with global warming and a lot to due with the fact that one hurricane had a nearly direct hit on a major American city that is (stupidly) built below sea level. Sorry. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 301 Registered: 1-2006 |
I haven't had a chance to see the film yet, but I hope to get a chance soon. Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post is a pretty middle-of-the-road guy. I posted his July 5 column in a different thread and it sank without a trace. Here are 2 tidbits: No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding. The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless. I agree completely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789. html | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 103 Registered: 4-2006 |
S is right about the stupidity of building New Orleans where and how it's built, but the point is more general: Hurricane damage is much higher nowadays because the areas in which hurricanes hit have higher populations and are much more built up than they were in the past. And we're better at estimating damages. The dollar amount for damage is no indication at all of whether Hurricanes are worse than in the past. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15333 Registered: 10-2001 |
(Exactly) Love the picture BTW. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5284 Registered: 5-2001 |
Also, the geographical barriers that protected it are being depleted, and the city itself is sinking. The latter is a natural phenomena that's somewhat exacerbated by building there; but the former is something humans can and must manage better. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15062 Registered: 1-2003 |
I like that term, an engineering problem. That makes it sound surmountable. A breakthrough is, by definition, a discovery of a way to increase both sides of a tradeoff. Traditionally, we have believed that protecting the environment is at the cost of the economy and growing the economy is at the cost of the environment. We will figure out a way to improve both at once. It is an engineering problem indeed. We have already begun. We will impede progress by looking at as a political or moral debate. And a healthy ecology has to be good for the economy at some point. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2245 Registered: 8-2003  |
I read Samuelson's column and I think he was beating up on a straw man. Neither Gore nor anyone else with any credibility on the subject of GW is looking at the issue as anything other than technological. No one is asking Americans or Europeans to stop traveling, give up their computers and appliances, and go back to the 19th Century. The solution is to find new technologies that are more efficient, and less likely to release carbon into the atmosphere. if anything, massive investment in new technology and infrastructure could be a major spur to the economy. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1031 Registered: 4-2006 |
How do you find new technologies when you have to overtax existing businesses and destroy their incentives to develope them? 3ring- I quite agree. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15079 Registered: 1-2003 |
Can you give an example of overtaxation? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3761 Registered: 3-2004  |
S is right about the stupidity of building New Orleans where and how it's built, but the point is more general: Hurricane damage is much higher nowadays because the areas in which hurricanes hit have higher populations and are much more built up than they were in the past. And we're better at estimating damages. The dollar amount for damage is no indication at all of whether Hurricanes are worse than in the past. Yeah!! We can't spend money to build New Orleans back up. We have to make the rubble bounce in the Middle East!!! | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 302 Registered: 1-2006 |
No politician with a healthy sense of self-preservation wants to tell the American people to give up their toys. The last one who came close was Jimmy Carter with his "moral equivalent of war" speech, and he's made a fine ex-president. I would very much like to see steps taken towards energy independence for America and if there were to be a reduction in greenhouse gases, that would not be a bad thing. So why not research renewable sources of energy, build nuclear plants, tap the natural gas on the continental shelf, etc? Why does this need to be politically orchestrated? Thomas Edison and Bill Gates seemed to do OK without politicians leading from the rear. Edison even did OK without government schooling. I would rather put my trust in an American tradition of innovation and entrepreneurialism than in some government bureaucrat telling me how to live my life. Cheers | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5287 Registered: 5-2001 |
You paint a lovely picture of a natural unfettered business environment, into which we energy alarmists are trying to wantonly introduce <gasp> government incentives. The problem is, it doesn't exist. The fossil fuel industry is supported and subsidized at all levels by the federal government, from preferential tax treatments for mining, drilling and exploration; to highway systems that better allow Americans to use those products; to cheap land leases; to special regulatory treatment for pollutants; to entire armies poised to prop up the supply of raw material for refineries. And that's just in the U.S.; OPEC is the furthest thing from an innovative entrepreneurship you could hope to find. Why do renewable sources of energy need to be politically orchestrated? Because the non-renewable sources are politically orchestrated. There is no even playing field in the energy business. By the way, natural gas off of the continental shelf doesn't qualify as a solution here, just more of the same problem. You burn it, you get CO2. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1034 Registered: 4-2006 |
car companies? ethanol conversion? smaller vehicles? natural gas? end NIMBY on nat gas pipelines? |
