Seems some actual climate scientists are responding with some "inconvenient truth" as well...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Of particular note:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

and...

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

This is not a comment on the movie which I have yet to view. Instead, I find the skeptics, nay-sayers, and inconclusive scientific research promoters (whew) arguments to be moot. Why? Because, so what if our output of pollutants is not causing the planet to warm up. Isn’t the public interest in preserving resources and protecting the natural function of our environment enough justification to limit those things?? I can see the Gore bashers jumping on the movie claiming liberal propaganda and misuse of fear for political traction in the coming mid-term elections. (Sorta like W’s WMD propaganda.) Except no one dies from an overreaction to global warming we just make humanity’s impact a bit less drastic. What the hell’s so bad about that? Just an appetizer for thought.

On the Sierra Club reference, I have to interject. Two weeks ago, I received a mammoth-sized direct mail piece from them and nearly spit out my coffee. It was glossier, more wasteful and extravagant than the random NRA pieces I receive. It was gawdy in its girth and production. I fully expect the sierra club to waste some paper now and then, but this amount would make a timber exec blush. Who are they trying to gain by this, limo liberals?

I also received junk mail from Greenpeace yesterday that nearly rivaled the Sierra Club's. What's the freakin' deal?

The Sierra Club should not be the first reference point for people who want to get involved in combating global warming. People don't think of the Sierra Club when they think of global warming. Other important issues, absolutely. This one, no. Let's make this easy..

Go to www.stopglobalwarming.org for one stop shopping of the best science based resources and easy tools and helpful tips for getting involved.

The Sierra Club is a sponsoring organization among many others.

Oh-- and will all the global warming skeptics please just fall off the flat earth you cling to?

There's something that I don't get about those concerned about global warming. I've met a number of folks lately that are very motivated to do something positive and believe this is the biggest issue of our day. About 50% of them have recently installed air conditioning in their houses. As the housing market is tightening, realtors are putting in central air routinely. I've never heard an environmental activist complain about the businesses that run the AC constantly, often when it's below 80 outside but will speak up against behaviour with far less impact.

I am told that Portland has gone from about 27% of houses having central air in 1995 to 62%, as of last year. Even more amazing, most say they've done it for their children. How about leaving a habitable planet for your children? This is a stupid waste and abuot the most regressive trend I can imagine. Why doesn't this bother anyone else?

And don't get my started on ice cubes.

Personally, I don't think there are any skeptics. I think those that act skeptical want to cause the effect for various reasons. It's time that progressives take a more forceful stance, IMHO. We should figure out how to tell when we're clearly past the point of no return, and if that happens...well, ever considered rendering eco-terrorists for their body fat? Would make a fine source of energy.

TKrueg, that's disappointing about the Sierra mailing. Reinforces what I always say, "Never give money to non-profits with paid staff positions". "What gives" is that since Gore's loss the left has joined the right in the belief that the ends justify the means.

Harold Cade:

How do we prevent anthropogenic climate change?

No ice, no air conditioning, and (truth be told) no cars? It sounds like North Korea, with bumper stickers. And sweaty Hippies.

You might as well be selling ice to the Inuit or saltwater to sailors. Cause they ain't buying, and neither am I.

If you want to encourage all the libbos to ride their bikes to work, or buy a Prius, then go for it. Turn the thermostat up in the summer or down in the Winter. You betcha: less power to the people.

But to actually go with my A/C or ice in my cocktails. Piss off.

"anthropogenic" is exactly the crux of the argument. As long as homo sapiens continues to puruse pre-programmed biological drives blindly, there is no hope. Well, at least not until we drive ourselves to extinction. We have to evolve to take up those issues consciously, replacing biological "imperatives".

To anticipate, the problem with homo sapiens is that they are very dangerous, illogical apes. Gecko seems to be an outstanding examplar of the species.

Overlooked or ignored? I refuse to believe it. Harold, do you think that someone could pump the Colorado and spray it into the air for amusement, air condition the desert, and progressives would come to it and, and ENJOY it? That would be like, well, blogfest!

Don't be so polite, y'all. Gecko wants to destroy the environment because she's sweaty? Don't waste your time on your "positive" actions, you loathsome piece of krapola.

This is certainly interesting. Actually, I don't believe I proposed anything. I asked why this wasn't on the radar screen. I guess the short answer is that it is inconvenient. Guess we've at least demonstrated the validity of the film's title.

So if you want to run down the facts, I tuned into a Radio Program on Carbon 60 on BBC4. I was listening because it was an interesting compilation of facts about carbon and all its peculiarities. At the end they started running down the chemistry of carbon conservation and the compendium of basic facts seemed like something this discussion could use. The feature comes from a show called "In Our Time", which airs weekly on various topics in the history of ideas. Next week is the Spanish Inquisition.

Comes in fine on 56K modem, too.

What is really inconvenient is the failure of this "politico-mentary".

According to href=http://www.boxofficemojo.com>, which tracks the move industry, Incon. Truth has only brought in $6.57 million since its release.

Apparently, most people can smell the odor of a political commercial.

How many of your remember "Winged Migration"?

You should. Almost twice as many people ( $11.6 million) paid to watch this documentary as Incon Truth. Winged Migration was only shown on 202 screens vs. 404 screens for the Al Gore campain warm-up.

It looks like you'll have to try harder to scare the public. Voters are smarter than you Liberals give them credit.

I sure hope he runs. It will be so much fun to watch Gore, Hillary, Kerry & Edwards see who can move the farthest to the left. We conservatives will openly embrace the moderates that feel pushed out of your radical, inconvenient view of America.

The point of the clip was that there is a core issue that needs to be addressed, apart from the spin that right or left want to put on it

The question is, can a primate ever put anything above their own social order, even if it means survival of the species? Can politics ever be anything more than an expression of social dominace?

Knock, knock

Who's there?

Anecdotal evidence?

Anecdoctal evidence who?

Ancecdotal evidence and videos provided by ABC NEWS THAT'S WHO!

Reminds me of the time that Dateline NBC was lighting Chevy pick-ups on fire to demonstrate the risk of "saddle-bag" gas tanks.

I confused; what does ABC or NBC's infomericals have to do with this?

The media frenzy on "global warming" has gotten ahead of the science. If Oprah or Geraldo host a 2-hour global warming special, you can pretty much bet the next ice age is just around the corner.

Science doesn't solicit emails or videoclips of anecdotal observation. The "fact" that somebody's beach house suffered "worse" erosion this year (worse than what?) or the frogs aren't as loud as they used to be doesn't tell us anything about causality.

Perhaps a seawall was installed further up the beach, forcing erosion your direction (or the local government didn't truck in fresh beach sand because of environmentalist's objections). Perhaps the winter temperature was too cool for the frogs, and many of them died. Neither of these "changes" can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. But they can help the networks during sweeps week.