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

Mon Jun 5 00:54:25 PDT 2006

--- Steven <NoSpam03 at comcast.net> wrote:

> ???
> I read it that he agreed with most all of what
> I said. 

Long ago Steven I gave up trying to understand
what you say or read. My experience is that it
isn't possible. Every once in a while you make
sense, but it's rare. I don't know if you are
unable to write clearly or if you're just a can
short of a pack. I really don't. There's a
problem somewhere, that's for sure.

> I thought this list
> was pretty much All Skate. Did the rules change
> to liberals only? Or is it
> just trash steves day?

For me the tone changed with Steve's post. No one
controls your send button. I'm all for
inclusiveness. I just really liked the way Chris
responded to your post. His information was
accurate. If you missed the difference I'm not
surprised.

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