30 Nov 2006 10:17:06
Hans.N
Not really juggling related (sorry)

Yesterday I went to see the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (for those who
don't know, it's Al Gore talking about Global Warming). At the end of the
movie it said that you should encourage as many people as possible to go
and watch it. Just so that more people would acknowledge global warming as
a dangerous problem, perhaps not for our generation, but the generation
that follows. And maybe,just maybe we can start working on a solution,
cause (I'm quoting the movie now) every person helps to cause global
warming, so every person can help to stop it...

I know it's not juggling related and I'm sorry but I just wanted to do
something, and I thought (as a juggler) that if I wanted to reach a bunch
of people, this would be the place to start.

I'm not expecting any replies on this, just wanted to let you guys know...

Keep on juggling!
HanS




--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


30 Nov 2006 13:18:11
popstar_dave
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)

Hans.N wrote:
>
> Yesterday I went to see the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (for those who
> don't know, it's Al Gore talking about Global Warming). At the end of the
> movie it said that you should encourage as many people as possible to go
> and watch it. Just so that more people would acknowledge global warming as
> a dangerous problem, perhaps not for our generation, but the generation
> that follows. And maybe,just maybe we can start working on a solution,
> cause (I'm quoting the movie now) every person helps to cause global
> warming, so every person can help to stop it...
>
> I know it's not juggling related and I'm sorry but I just wanted to do
> something, and I thought (as a juggler) that if I wanted to reach a bunch
> of people, this would be the place to start.
>
> I'm not expecting any replies on this, just wanted to let you guys know...
>
> Keep on juggling!
> HanS

I'm all for caring for the environment, but I'm also for not accepting
points of view simply because they're on a big screen with emotive music
behind them. I will aggree with Hans that this is a great movie to see,
but I also think that it's important to understand that like any argument,
this one has two sides. And I've got a sneaking suspicion that the real
truth lies somewhere in between them.

On that not I just thought I'd share this newspaper article that I came
across in an Australian newspaper. It just outlines a few reasons not to
accept all the information provided in the movie without question. So I'm
not advocating either side of the argument here. I'm simply saying that
it's good to have all the information (or as much as possible).
Cheers,
Dave

....

Al Gore says his hot new film on global warming, An Inconvenient
Truth, should alert us to a threat that risks "ending all human
civilisation." Instead, the hosannahs the former American
vice-president is getting on his visit to spread his ludicrous
scaremongering reveals a more immediate danger.

Is healthy scepticism and fidelity to facts dead in this country?

Are even our scientists too gripped by this end-of-the-world religion
of man-made warming to dare point out Gore's documentary contains
exaggerations, half-truths and falsehoods?

'Fraid so. It's one predictable thing for film critics such as the
ABC's David Stratton to gush that An Inconvenient Truth -- essentially
a film of a lecture I've seen Gore give -- might be "the most
important film you ever see".

Stratton, after all, has his profession's weakness for assuming that
what he sees on the screen must be real. Let's hope he never sees
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

And the Gore-praising journalists must be grudgingly excused, too.
Many tend to be salvation-seeking suckers for any green story that
damns wicked humans and their rich ways.

(In fact, ABC TV was so eager to promote Gore that it ran two big
interviews with him on Monday night, so viewers who dozed off during
one might wake up in the middle of the next without missing a
syllable. But I was banned by Gore's publicists from interviewing him,
not being sufficiently reverential in the ABC way.)

Of course, I make allowances for the fact that to challenge Gore's
claims is to risk being denounced not as wrong but as evil. I sure
found that out when I once pointed out to the holy roller a couple of
flaws in his argument and watched him pop.

Yet how sad that even our scientists are too cowed or too evangelical
to note more than a flicker of concern that Gore in his film tortures
truth to scare the be-Gaia out of our youngsters.

In the United States, scientists as eminent as Richard Lindzen,
professor of atmospheric science at the prestigious Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, have denounced Gore's film as "shrill
alarmism" or simply wrong in critical parts.

But here? The Age, for instance, surveyed seven local scientists who'd
seen the film and all gave it four stars out of five or higher.

"I was really quite moved," declared Dr Penny Whetton, CSIRO's Climate
Change Impact and Risk group leader. "Its scientific basis is very
sound."

In fact, the worst that any said was that there was a "minor quibble"
with Gore claiming all sorts of natural disasters were "due to human
activity".

Oh, is that all? Falsely blaming hurricanes, vanishing glaciers, great
floods and more all on wicked humans is now just a "minor quibble"?

Yes, it is true, the planet warmed until 1940, then cooled until
around 1970 before warming again until 1998 -- producing a net warming
of around 0.6 degrees.

It is also true that carbon dioxide tends to trap heat, and that over
the past half century (since the worst of this warming) we've pumped
out a lot of it. And it's true most climate scientists think this is
one cause -- probably the biggest, say many -- of global warming.

But even on that there is no agreement. And the rest is even more
strongly debated.

Yet from this scientific uncertainty has been constructed a Gospel of
the Green Apocalypse, to doubt which gets you likened to Holocaust
deniers and Big Tobacco shills.

So who dares to point out that Gore is just one of the worst of the
fact-fiddling Green evangelicals, who jet in a cloud of gasses to warn
us that the boogieman is going to eat our children?

Well, here are just 10 of my own "minor quibbles" with Gore's film.
These are my own "inconvenient truths", and judge from them the
credibility of Gore's warnings of the end of all civilisation.

1: Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global
warming showed not one disputed that man's gasses were mostly to blame
for rising global temperatures. Only dumb journalists and bad
scientists in the pay of Big Oil pretended there was any genuine
debate.

In fact, as Dr Benny Peiser, from Liverpool John Moores University has
demonstrated, Gore relies on a bungled survey reported in Science.

Peiser checked again and found just 13 of those 928 papers explicitly
endorsed man-made global warming, and 34 rejected or doubted it. The
debate is real.

2: Gore says the man who first made him realise we were heating up the
earth was his late professor, oceanographer Roger Revelle, who noticed
carbon dioxide levels were increasing.

In fact, Revelle shortly before his death co-authored a paper warning
that "the scientific basis for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain
to justify drastic action at this time". And some warming might even
be good, he added.

3: Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years,
show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in
the air.

In fact, as the University of California's Professor Jeff Severinghaus
and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth
first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of
years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or
vice versa?

4: Gore shows a series of slides of vanishing lakes (like Lake Chad)
and snow fields (like Mt Kilimanjaro's) and blames global warming for
it all.

In fact, Lake Chad is so shallow it nearly dried out as far back as
1908, and again in 1984. So many more people depend on it now that the
water pumped out for irrigation has quadrupled in 25 years. No wonder
it's drying.

And Mt Kilimanjaro was losing its snows more than a century ago, not
because of global warming, but -- says a 2004 study in Nature --
largely because deforestation has cut the moisture in the air.

And that worrying picture Gore shows of vanishing glaciers in the
Himalayas? Newcastle University researchers last month said some
glaciers there are now getting bigger again.

5: Gore shows scary maps of how New York and Shanghai would drown
under 20 feet (600cm) of water if all Greenland's ice melted.

In fact, various studies say Greenland's snow cover -- and
Antarctica's -- is increasing or stable. The scientists of even the
fiercely pro-warming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict
seas will rise (as they have for centuries) not by Gore's 600cm by
2100, but by between 14 and 43cm.

6: Gore claims the seas have already risen so high that New Zealand
has had to take in refugees from drowning Pacific islands.

In fact, the Australian National Tidal Facility at Tuvalu in 2002
reported: "The historical record from 1978 through 199 indicated a sea
level rise of 0.07 mm per year." Or the width of a hair.

Says Auckland University climate scientist Chris de Frietas: "I can
assure Mr Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to
New Zealand because of rising seas."

7: Gore claims global warming has helped cause coral reefs "all around
the world" to bleach.

In fact, new research from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shows the seas rapidly cooled from 2003 to 2005. And
most bleaching is caused by El Nino events.

8: Gore claims hurricanes are getting worse because of global warming,
and he shows pictures from Hurricane Katrina.

In fact, America has this year had fewer hurricanes than usual. And
most hurricane experts agree with Dr Chris Landsea of the US National
Hurricane Centre, who says "there has been no change in the number and
intensity of (the strongest) hurricanes around the world in the last
15 years".

9: Gore claims warming is causing new diseases and allowing malarial
mosquitoes to move to higher altitudes.

In fact, says Professor Paul Reiter, head of the Pasteur Institute's
unit of insects and infectious diseases: "Gore is completely wrong
here." Reiter says "the new altitudes of malaria are lower than those
recorded 100 years ago" and "none of the 30 so-called new diseases
Gore references are attributable to global warming".

10: Gore never even hints at other possible explanations scientists
have given for the warming globe.

And here's just one: increased solar activity. That's a theory
suggested by leading American scientists such as Sallie Baliunas,
Willie Soon, Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, past president of the
National Academy of Sciences.

Some even predict we're about to suffer a new bout of global cooling.
Says Professor Bill Gray, world hurricane authority from Colorado
State University: "My belief is that three, four years from now, the
globe will start to cool again."

Or as Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the Russian of Sciences
astronomical observatory, warned last week: "On the basis of our
(solar emission) research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling
of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century."

I'm sorry to raise these inconvenient truths just when so many of our
scientists seem to prefer the certainties of faith over the
uncertainties of evidence.

But can we please have an adult discussion about global warming
without the usual shrieks of outrage from people who think demanding
this evidence is blasphemous?

We are talking about science, right? But too much of this talk now
sounds far too religious to me.



--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


30 Nov 2006 15:52:21
rdiss
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)

popstar_dave wrote:
>
> Hans.N wrote:
> >


[snip a lot of neat stuff]

>
> 10: Gore never even hints at other possible explanations scientists
> have given for the warming globe.
>
> And here's just one: increased solar activity. That's a theory
> suggested by leading American scientists such as Sallie Baliunas,
> Willie Soon, Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, past president of the
> National Academy of Sciences.
>


The polar ice caps are melting. You can readily measure it. Pits in the
ice -- melted areas -- have expanded over the past few years. It's quite
noticeable.

Oh, yes. This is happening on Mars. Probably because of Marvin's SUV.

See the pictures for yourself.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html

-bd
[p.s. -- I like to juggle. Don't you?]


--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


30 Nov 2006 10:23:09
Andy Dremeaux
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)



On Nov 30, 5:17 am, hansnickm...@gmail.com.nospam.com (Hans.N) wrote:
> I know it's not juggling related and I'm sorry but I just wanted to do
> something, and I thought (as a juggler) that if I wanted to reach a bunch
> of people, this would be the place to start.


If you really want to do something you're going to have to try harder
than preaching to the choir. The people that care about the issue have
alreaedy seen or know plenty about the movie, and those that don't care
also know about the movie and... don't care.

If you really want to make a difference, go do something... buying
compact flourescent lights is a good first step. Drive less, turn off
spare lights in your house, try not to use AC, etc etc. Then you can
march on Washington.

-andy



01 Dec 2006 11:05:34
Little Paul
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)

On 2006-11-30, Andy Dremeaux <adremeaux@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> If you really want to do something you're going to have to try harder
> than preaching to the choir. The people that care about the issue have
> alreaedy seen or know plenty about the movie, and those that don't care
> also know about the movie and... don't care.

I didn't know about the movie, but I'm not about to rush out and see
it.

> If you really want to make a difference, go do something... buying
> compact flourescent lights is a good first step. Drive less, turn off
> spare lights in your house,

Done all that.

There are plenty of other simple steps one can take as well, eg
"turn your heating down by 2 degrees, you won't notice the diference
anyway" [1]

> try not to use AC, etc etc.

If I'm honest, this point is my reason for replying. I'm a little
confused by your sugestion. Are you suggesting that DC (eg from
batteries) is a better choice than AC? Or did you mean that we
should try to cut down on our electricity use?

If you just meant "cut down on electricity use" then I agree.
If you meant "switch to DC" then I'm not sure I can see your
reasoning. I'm willing to admit that I'm not as expert as I
could be in all things green though, so I'd be happy to be
educated!

If you're talking in terms of micro generation, then as far
as I'm aware, it's only solar that *has* to spit out DC and
solar isn't the most appropriate choice for micro generation
as it's really not very efficient, and uses a feck load of
resources to make the pannel in the first place!

It's entirely possible that I'm reading too much into your
comment.

> Then you can march on Washington.

What's Denzel ever done to you?

-Paul
[1] personally, I've turned mine down more than that and
put on a jumper [2]
[2] Ooh! Look at her! Getting all martyr on us!


01 Dec 2006 11:29:42
fakoriginal
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)

Little Paul wrote:
>
> On 2006-11-30, Andy Dremeaux <adremeaux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > try not to use AC, etc etc.
>
> If I'm honest, this point is my reason for replying. I'm a little
> confused by your sugestion. Are you suggesting that DC (eg from
> batteries) is a better choice than AC? Or did you mean that we
> should try to cut down on our electricity use?
>
> If you just meant "cut down on electricity use" then I agree.
> If you meant "switch to DC" then I'm not sure I can see your
> reasoning. I'm willing to admit that I'm not as expert as I
> could be in all things green though, so I'd be happy to be
> educated!
>
> If you're talking in terms of micro generation, then as far
> as I'm aware, it's only solar that *has* to spit out DC and
> solar isn't the most appropriate choice for micro generation
> as it's really not very efficient, and uses a feck load of
> resources to make the pannel in the first place!
>
> It's entirely possible that I'm reading too much into your
> comment.
>
> > Then you can march on Washington.
>
> What's Denzel ever done to you?
>
> -Paul
> [1] personally, I've turned mine down more than that and
> put on a jumper [2]
> [2] Ooh! Look at her! Getting all martyr on us!
>
>
<smacks LP round the side of the head with an Air Conditioning unit and
runs away >

fak - pointing and probably laughing too.


--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


01 Dec 2006 11:31:08
Luke Burrage
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)


>
> > try not to use AC, etc etc.
>
> If I'm honest, this point is my reason for replying. I'm a little
> confused by your sugestion. Are you suggesting that DC (eg from
> batteries) is a better choice than AC? Or did you mean that we
> should try to cut down on our electricity use?

AC = Air Conditioning, a huge energy gobbler.

--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


01 Dec 2006 12:47:47
Andy Dremeaux
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)


fakoriginal wrote:
> Little Paul wrote:
> >
> > On 2006-11-30, Andy Dremeaux <adremeaux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > try not to use AC, etc etc.
> >
> > If I'm honest, this point is my reason for replying. I'm a little
> > confused by your sugestion. Are you suggesting that DC (eg from
> > batteries) is a better choice than AC? Or did you mean that we
> > should try to cut down on our electricity use?
> >
> > If you just meant "cut down on electricity use" then I agree.
> > If you meant "switch to DC" then I'm not sure I can see your
> > reasoning. I'm willing to admit that I'm not as expert as I
> > could be in all things green though, so I'd be happy to be
> > educated!
> >
> > If you're talking in terms of micro generation, then as far
> > as I'm aware, it's only solar that *has* to spit out DC and
> > solar isn't the most appropriate choice for micro generation
> > as it's really not very efficient, and uses a feck load of
> > resources to make the pannel in the first place!
> >
> > It's entirely possible that I'm reading too much into your
> > comment.
> >
> > > Then you can march on Washington.
> >
> > What's Denzel ever done to you?
> >
> > -Paul
> > [1] personally, I've turned mine down more than that and
> > put on a jumper [2]
> > [2] Ooh! Look at her! Getting all martyr on us!
> >
> >
> <smacks LP round the side of the head with an Air Conditioning unit and
> runs away>
>
> fak - pointing and probably laughing too.


bahahahahahaha



02 Dec 2006 12:32:17
Adam Rowney
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)

Andy Dremeaux wrote:
> The people that care about the issue have
> alreaedy seen or know plenty about the movie, and those that don't care
> also know about the movie and... don't care.

well thats not true. people arnt born with views, they learn them from
other sources. Im sure this documentary has changed many peoples views on
the issue.

I havnt seen it myself, but im going to watch it soon...

Adam

--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


02 Dec 2006 14:18:35
Brian Fahs
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)


"rdiss" <rdiss@yahoo.com.nospam.com > wrote in message
news:456efe35$0$627$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> popstar_dave wrote:
>>
>> Hans.N wrote:
>> >
>
>
> [snip a lot of neat stuff]
>
>>
>> 10: Gore never even hints at other possible explanations scientists
>> have given for the warming globe.
>>
>> And here's just one: increased solar activity. That's a theory
>> suggested by leading American scientists such as Sallie Baliunas,
>> Willie Soon, Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, past president of the
>> National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>
>
> The polar ice caps are melting. You can readily measure it. Pits in the
> ice -- melted areas -- have expanded over the past few years. It's quite
> noticeable.
>
> Oh, yes. This is happening on Mars. Probably because of Marvin's SUV.
>
> See the pictures for yourself.
> http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html
>
> -bd
> [p.s. -- I like to juggle. Don't you?]
>


That, is very cool. (Or warm I guess) Thanks for the link




02 Dec 2006 21:09:31
Vince
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)


?????


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+teller


--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


02 Dec 2006 21:49:20
jugglingeek
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)

Hans.N wrote:
>
> Yesterday I went to see the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (for those who
> don't know, it's Al Gore talking about Global Warming). At the end of the
> movie it said that you should encourage as many people as possible to go
> and watch it. Just so that more people would acknowledge global warming as
> a dangerous problem, perhaps not for our generation, but the generation
> that follows. And maybe,just maybe we can start working on a solution,
> cause (I'm quoting the movie now) every person helps to cause global
> warming, so every person can help to stop it...
>
> I know it's not juggling related and I'm sorry but I just wanted to do
> something, and I thought (as a juggler) that if I wanted to reach a bunch
> of people, this would be the place to start.
>
> I'm not expecting any replies on this, just wanted to let you guys know...
>
> Keep on juggling!
> HanS
>
>
>
>

I didn't go see An Inconvenient Truth for a number of reasons. The first
being that I didn't think it deserves my money: It's NOT a film. Al Gore
gives a rousing speach about global warming and I'll watch it on the news;
Al gore makes a documentary about global warming and I'll watch it on
Channel Four; but Al Gore commits a lecture he's been doing for some time
onto celuloid and charges me for the privalage of watching it, no thanks.
I may watch it when it arrives on DVD but I certainly don't think that it
warrents cinema screens.

The week that it was out I chose to see Children Of Men instead and I can
say that any issues reaised about polution in An Inconvenient Truth were
adequatly raised by Alfonso Cuarón in Children Of Men. Difference is that
Children Of Men is a propper film, well put together by a skillful
director. Had it not been for Pan's Labyrinth (on limited release since
Fri 24th November) coming in at the last minute this would have been my
favorite film of the year.

Jugglingeek

top five films of the year:
1. Pan's Labyrinth
2. Children Of Men
3. United 93
4. A Cock And Bull Story
5. Good Night And Good Luck

--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----


02 Dec 2006 15:01:14
Andy Dremeaux
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)


jugglingeek wrote:
> Hans.N wrote:
> >
> > Yesterday I went to see the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (for those who
> > don't know, it's Al Gore talking about Global Warming). At the end of t=
he
> > movie it said that you should encourage as many people as possible to go
> > and watch it. Just so that more people would acknowledge global warming=
as
> > a dangerous problem, perhaps not for our generation, but the generation
> > that follows. And maybe,just maybe we can start working on a solution,
> > cause (I'm quoting the movie now) every person helps to cause global
> > warming, so every person can help to stop it...
> >
> > I know it's not juggling related and I'm sorry but I just wanted to do
> > something, and I thought (as a juggler) that if I wanted to reach a bun=
ch
> > of people, this would be the place to start.
> >
> > I'm not expecting any replies on this, just wanted to let you guys know=
.=2E.
> >
> > Keep on juggling!
> > HanS
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I didn't go see An Inconvenient Truth for a number of reasons. The first
> being that I didn't think it deserves my money: It's NOT a film. Al Gore
> gives a rousing speach about global warming and I'll watch it on the news;
> Al gore makes a documentary about global warming and I'll watch it on
> Channel Four; but Al Gore commits a lecture he's been doing for some time
> onto celuloid and charges me for the privalage of watching it, no thanks.
> I may watch it when it arrives on DVD but I certainly don't think that it
> warrents cinema screens.
>
> The week that it was out I chose to see Children Of Men instead and I can
> say that any issues reaised about polution in An Inconvenient Truth were
> adequatly raised by Alfonso Cuar=F3n in Children Of Men. Difference is th=
at
> Children Of Men is a propper film, well put together by a skillful
> director. Had it not been for Pan's Labyrinth (on limited release since
> Fri 24th November) coming in at the last minute this would have been my
> favorite film of the year.
>
> Jugglingeek
>
> top five films of the year:
> 1. Pan's Labyrinth
> 2. Children Of Men
> 3. United 93
> 4. A Cock And Bull Story
> 5. Good Night And Good Luck


You are missing Little Children.

You are missing others, too, but that is the largest offense ;)

-andy



02 Dec 2006 23:51:47
Schwolop
Re: Not really juggling related (sorry)

ho·san·na also ho·san·nah
interj.
Used to express praise or adoration to God.
n.
1. A cry of "hosanna."
2. A shout of fervent and worshipful praise.popstar_dave wrote:


Just for anyone else who didn't have a clue what that meant...

Tom

--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----