[Grovenet] Roger Ebert (movie reviewer) on Al Gore'sAnInconvenient Truth

Sun Jun 4 21:16:08 PDT 2006

???
I read it that he agreed with most all of what I said. I thought this list
was pretty much All Skate. Did the rules change to liberals only? Or is it
just trash steves day?

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
Behalf Of Eric Canon
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:35 PM
To: chris at genly.us; Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Roger Ebert (movie reviewer) on Al
Gore'sAnInconvenient Truth

Thank you Chris for doing such an excellent job
with this post from Steven. Government and
legislative action can be an excellent tool for
society to respond to a given situation, and
global warming is certainly a prime candidate for
such a response.

--- Chris Genly <chgenly at verizon.net> wrote:

> Steven wrote:
>
> >Well, one thing the movie did was get Ebert to
> wake up.
> >"I did a funny thing when I came home after
> seeing "An Inconvenient Truth."
> >I went around the house turning off the
> lights. "
> >Something I've done for years.
> >Here's a quote from a NY Post review.
> >"Global warming hasn't noticed that we got the
> lead out of our gasoline or
> >that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell
> from 121 in 1977 to zero in
> >2004. All regulations and taxes to date have
> done nothing. Does this hint
> >that pollution isn't the cause? "
> >
> >
> I find this quote horribly ignorant.  He is
> quoting cases that were
> legislative success stories.  Yet he goes on to
> say global warming
> hasn't noticed as if they were connected.
>
> We didn't get the lead out of gasoline because
> of global warming.  We
> did it because it was poisoning us.   Recent
> studies have shown that
> even tiny amounts of lead exposure can result
> in impulse control and
> anger problems.  So there was even more reason
> to get the lead out than
> was realized when the legislation was passed.
>
> Smog is caused by the reaction of combustion
> products, primarily ozone,
> with air under the influence of sunlight.
> Combine this with a thermal
> inversion, that often occurs over cities, and
> you end up trapping SMOG
> in a small area (small on the scale of
> weather).   SMOG was making
> people sick.  Especially people with breathing
> problems like asthma.
>
> Lead and low altitude ozone do not contribute
> to global warming.  The
> primary culprit is carbon dioxide.  The amount
> of carbon dioxide
> produced by burning gasoline is huge compared
> to the amount of ozone
> that was produced with older cars.  The
> cleanest burning carbon fuels,
> like methane, will result in carbon dioxide and
> water vapor as a direct
> result of combustion.  It's not like the tiny
> amount of ozone that was
> produced because of "improper" combustion.
> This makes reduction of
> carbon dioxide emissions a much harder problem
> than SMOG.  SMOG was easy
> to fix in comparison.
>
> Given the success of reducing SMOG, eliminating
> lead, and the reduction
> of the ozone hole I would say environmental
> legislation works very
> well.  We have not yet tackled global warming
> with legislation in this
> country.  And like the ozone hole, many
> countries are going to have to
> tackle this.
>
> >I find it funny to read movie reviewers turned
> political pundits. If one guy
> >has been wasting energy until June 2006 and
> the other doesn't want to
> >realize expanded uses of energy, maybe we
> should remind them to stick to
> >celluloid.
> >
> >
> Lights are a very small part of wasting energy.
>  Turning them off is
> more of a symbolic gesture.  The single most
> wasteful appliance in the
> household is your refrigerator.  Although
> refrigerators have become more
> efficient over the years with the green energy
> campaign, they have a
> long way to go.  People who run off of solar
> panels have a tight energy
> budget, so they buy refrigerators that are very
> efficient.  These
> efficient refrigerators show we can make
> efficient ones.  They are not
> just theoretical.
>
> Turning off lights indicates a raised awareness
> and that is really
> excellent.  More people need to have their
> consciousness raised on this
> issue.
>
> I can't call Ebert a political pundit.  He's
> just a guy that has
> suddenly become aware of a major problem and
> wants to do something about
> it.  I wouldn't tell him to stick to celluloid.
>   I hope many others,
> like him, learn more and take a stand.
>
> >I don't think that WashDC is a solution to
> polution.
> >
> There is no way businesses will move away from
> carbon fuels unless it is
> legislated.  There are pragmatic, technical,
> and social problems to
> solve here.  It is a massive task and it will
> take a society that backs
> the transformation.
>
> >So if the movie will
> >make more folks turn off their lights and
> think green, I'll say thank you
> >Al.
> >
> I hope people will do more than shut off the
> lights.  Shutting off the
> lights is not going to slow global warming.
> If people switch to
> hybrids, or even better electric vehicles, or
> if car manufacturers start
> selling hydrogen cars and people buy them, that
> will make a big
> difference.  We also have to stop burning coal,
> oil and methane.
>
> >Probably the best think he's done since
> inventing the internet. But if
> >it produces dumb legislation with no benefit,
> well yuk.
> >
> >
> His crack about the internet was a real
> blunder.  There is every reason
> to believe legislation will have a direct
> impact on carbon dioxide
> production.
>
> >If the ozone hole was caused by flurocarbons,
> and solved by legislation,
> >look at the lag time. I wonder what the lag
> time is in global warming?
> >
> >
> Good point.  The lag time is much greater.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com
> [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
> >Behalf Of Chris Genly
> >Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:20 PM
> >To: grovenet at rdrop.com
> >Subject: [Grovenet] Roger Ebert (movie
> reviewer) on Al Gore's
> >AnInconvenient Truth
> >
> >
>
>http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/
6
> >0517002
> >
> >Ex-US Vice President Al Gore has a new movie
> out, about his passion,
> >global warming, and what he says is the
> linkage with man made pollution
> >from burning fossil fuels. Ebert has his movie
> review, although this
> >isn't his normal movie review.
> >
> >
> >"In 39 years, I have never written these words
> in a movie review, but
> >here they are: You owe it to yourself to see
> this film. If you do not,
> >and you have grandchildren, you should explain
> to them why you decided
> >not to."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
> >GroveNet mailing list
> >GroveNet at rdrop.com
> >http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet