Mad Hatters - Impartial and (mostly) Unbiased opinions on Medicine Hat

By Skeet

I received this from Tina who asked me if I could post this. It is a very important topic, and whether you believe in Global warming or not, it must be discussed.

Hello,

If you are concerned about global warming and want to help solve it, I would like to personally invite you to see Al Gore’s new critically-acclaimed film An Inconvenient Truth playing nightly at 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. at the Monarch Theatre in Medicine Hat (609 - 2 Street S.E.) from Friday, June 23 to Friday, June 30, 2006. We are very fortunate to have the opportunity to see this Paramount Classics documentary here there are very few Canadian theatres who have picked it up yet, but it’s presently having quite an impact all across the U.S. Don’t miss your chance to see the truth!

truth The film lays out the latest, up-to-date, most compelling facts about this unprecedented climate crisis in a forceful presentation. It is filled with startling images and dramatic pictures showing clearly what is happening to our Earth and why global warming is now being called a Planetary Emergency.

Im sending you this because I feel so passionately that we simply do not have any more time to waste, and this is the first film that so thoroughly covers this crisis that is unlike anything we have ever faced.

The debate among scientists is over! According to the experts, the climate crisis could if unchecked literally destroy the habitability of the Earth and bring civilization to a halt.

This really is not a political issue. It is a moral issue! Heres what the Fox News reviewer wrote about the movie: Not to be missed. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative….your mind will be changed in a nanosecond. Roger Ebert said: “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.”

Learning about this crisis is the first step toward solving it. Then, we all have to turn knowledge into action and concern into commitment.

On its opening weekend, the movie broke the all-time per screen record for any documentary movie in history and, incredibly, according to Variety, broke the all-time per-screen record for any movie opening on Memorial Day weekend. (Incidentally, that record was set by The Shining, back in 1980.)

To learn more and see the frightening and intriguing trailer, go to www.StopGlobalWarming.org or the film’s website: www.ClimateCrisis.net.

I sincerely hope you will take the time to see this movie. Thank you.

Tina Regehr
StopGlobalWarming.org Virtual Marcher

P.S. You can get a cool blog icon on www.climatecrisis.net/downloads!!

Skeet>

Here is story on CNN about the movie saying it is fairly accurate:
CNN

And here are the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes

This entry is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Anonymous says:

June 29th, 2006 at 1:46 am

Busted links

Superwilly says:

June 29th, 2006 at 1:49 am

I have a question? If I believe that the earth is only 6,000 to 8,000 years old instead of a million years old, does global warming become WAAAAY less of a concern for me?

Skeet says:

June 29th, 2006 at 2:09 am

Fixed links, thanks!

and superwilly, this is the hottest year in over 400 years. whether it is because of us, or just a natural cycle, it is cause for concern. Its suppose to be 37 today, crazy!

June 29th, 2006 at 2:35 am

I LOVE hot weather / hate winter - I don’t have a problem with that at all. In fact, I think overall I’m a pretty big fan of global warming…

DangerMouse says:

June 29th, 2006 at 3:20 am

I think global warming is the wrong catch phrase for a phenominon best called “climate change”

200,000 people being evacuated from their home today due to flooding - so we are as Al Gore mentions in a time of consequence. I dont think people can any longer pretend that this is distant future problem.

chinpira says:

June 29th, 2006 at 6:00 am

Personally I don’t think global warming as big a deal as they make it out to be. The earth just like everything else in the universe has a natural cycle and it happens to be peaking, just like solar flares and the four seasons. The Earth has been around a lot longer than we have so us trying to win against it is pretty futile.

The other big factor to consider is to take most of the information from lobby organizations with a grain of salt. Unfortunately most of these “conditions” in the world are just used as rallying points for organizations who have a bigger agenda. Most of the environmental and other organizations are used as lobbying tools to consolidate control and broker influence and are all funded by the same people who the organizations supposedly fight againts. All the while the good people who are working and volunteer for them have no idea.

If “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” is such a big issue than why do we hear nothing about the far more serious and proven to be man made problem of “Global Dimming”? It has been scientifically proven to have been the cause the African famine’s and possibly the huge droughts of the worlds as well. A far bigger problem yet the “Global Warming” crowd never say anything about it.

SOL says:

June 29th, 2006 at 6:23 am

That is certainly a different perspective than those mentioned thus far. Some of your points I agree with such as the natural cycle of the universe. But I do question your “Organizations who have a bigger agenda”. To throw a statement like that out there is quite simple, but to consider your opinion, I need more than that. Can you give an example of an agenda that would be bigger than the environment? I can understand when oil companies defend their work for a bigger agenda. That one is pretty obvious, but I can’t seem to think of any reason that you would exploit climate change. Or are you suggesting that they are sensationalizing this to divert the public concern for things such as the current raging wars? I suppose it could be plausible, but still it sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory as opposed to fact.
I haven’t watched the movie, but I did watch the feature presentation on “The Hour” with George interviewing many different people including Mr. Gore. I wouldn’t say it won me over, but it certainly made me question my actions as a global citizen.

Longshot says:

June 29th, 2006 at 8:14 am

There is an excellent section of the cbc.ca website devoted to climate change. It was down at the time of my writing this (as was a bunch of stuff on the ‘net today) but it’s easy to find in their features section. It is very indepth, and the coolest part is that is includes dozens of real and scientifically measurable examples of climate change…right here in our true north strong and free. For example, it was interesting to find out that the ice floes above the artic circle around Baffin Island have been reduced by a startling 75% in the last 30 years! It is creating havoc with the native wildlife like bears, seals, and other marine life in the region. Very interesting stuff.

June 29th, 2006 at 10:07 am

The earth just like everything else in the universe has a natural cycle and it happens to be peaking

You realize that many of the earths “cycles” were inhospitable to human life right?

Your argument is backwards - the only people who “dispute” climate change and the effects of humans releasing CO2 - ARE special interest lobbyiest who give themselves eco friendly names like “the woodland reasearch society” - funded by CONECO or whatever

This argument is so similar to the smoking is bad for you claims of the 50’s-90’s …the only people disputing the claim were the Tobacco companies.

June 30th, 2006 at 3:10 am

I and most people don’t dispute the fact that climate change is real. And I don’t think that following some environmental common sense will hurt us either way but I don’t believe in the hype and I don’t like to be manipulated by the use of sensationalism. I like to know both side before making my decisions based on logic and the truth of it is this world is run by money and power and that is where I put me beliefs into first. To call something a “Conspiracy Theory” sounds like an easy way out to dismiss alternate ideas people don’t want to believe in or to justify the ones that are convenient to their situation or their conscience.

The fact is that no scientists can prove 100% that climate change is due to one thing or another and yet people will take these ideas as fact. These idea’s AREN’T fact they are “Theory”. It sounds to me that the idea of a bunch of people with varying views on a “theory” is the very definition of a “Conspiracy Theory”.

If you want facts than lets look at just a few:

The Kyoto Protocol - Basically it commoditizes emissions. Under the Kyoto Accord companies and nations could buy and sell emission “credits” creating a huge multi-billion dollar business selling credits. Money Talks:) Not to mention the consolidated power and control this will offer to those with credits to barter with and the governing bodies who control this…can we say U.N.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=56

I particularly liked this quote:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” [Quoted in Jonathan Schell, "Our Fragile Earth," Discover, October 1989, p. 47.]

The United Nations - One of the most scary organizations in the world (do your homework and don’t take my word for it). The UN has been using the environmental argument for years to pass treaties that undermine sovereign nations (which most of the public, including us Canadians don’t even know about) and gain control of land and resources all over the world…not to mention their documented use of it as a vehicle for global population control, among other things.
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1417
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-15-99.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819169/posts

These are just a few examples. Take them as you will. But give me a coherent and 100% supported fact about “Climate Change”. Unfortunately in this world of corporate controlled media and deceptive front organizations it is up to each of us to find the reality and decide for ourselves. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, “It is up to each of us to make our own opinions based upon our own understanding and conscience”. All I bring is ideas, it is up to you to make your own decision on what is “fact” to YOU.

June 30th, 2006 at 3:12 am

PS. No one even addressed my comment on “Global Dimming” is this not worthy of discussion?

Jace Anderson says:

June 30th, 2006 at 4:06 am

“Global Dimming”

never heard of it… is this like the earth’s light is getting duller? as in, dim the lights (and chill the ham, but that is another album all together)

/off to google global dimming, hopes it doesn’t offer back a picture of ME

June 30th, 2006 at 5:12 am

I found it!
Here it is….
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/interactive/index.html
and the full site is
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/
Very cool.

Anarchenisis says:

June 30th, 2006 at 5:51 am

“the earth is only 6,000 to 8,000 years old”…

…and the Earth is flat while the sun circles around us.

chelsa says:

June 30th, 2006 at 9:32 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24&eurl=

lets do that again

Ivan says:

July 1st, 2006 at 11:20 am

Chinpira, I’m by no means a strong environmentalist, but you do acknowledge there is far, far more evidence of ‘global warming’ then ‘global dimming’, do you not?

I think the effect of the current climate change will actually be a net positive for Canada, although likely negative for southern Alberta. Here’s why:

a) Upward changes in the temperature will make certain areas (ie southern US, central america) less hospitable, while making the majority of Canada more hospitable. Some areas not even livable now will once again support a large variety of human and animal life.

b) The changing climate will leave fresh water as a far more valuable resource, and we have plenty of it in Canada (not in southern AB though).

c) Less shoveling snow. Need I say more?

Anyway, other then converting the majority of our country to nuclear energy, anyone have any brilliant ideas to stop using so much?? Don`t give me this one tonne challenge crap - ultimately, people need to drive to get to work in a modern economy. How about turning Sask into one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace

July 1st, 2006 at 11:25 am

I just found another way Saskatchewan has shown us that would allow Canada to meet Kyoto Protocol targets. Link: http://www.saskabush.com/2001/0411/sask_hutterite.html

some chick says:

July 4th, 2006 at 5:33 am

Global warming is a lie. You lefties need to get a life. Our world is a great place, partly because of us burning fossil fuels all the time.

It don’t hurt the enviro none, and it keeps us employed.

If you are so damn concerned, stop driving your vehicles and using electricity and natural gas.

Don’t be a hypocrite. Burn fossil fuel with a smile.

July 4th, 2006 at 11:24 am

I guess all those scientists just have been wasting their time these past number of years with those silly little experiments and evidence collecting. Good thing we can all just relax seeing as we’ve got such a qualified opinion from one so full of concrete facts… or something…

July 4th, 2006 at 9:09 pm

Too funny… and coincidently on todays MH News front page (for those that have more faith in fact rather than baseless uneducated opinions…):

“SCIENTISTS WARN OF EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS AS CLIMATE CHANGES”

Source:
http://www.medicinehatnews.com

DENNIS BUECKERT
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA

So the warnings of harsher heat waves, stronger hurricanes and rising seas fail to impress. How about volcanic eruptions in the Arctic, or a
tsunami off the coast of Newfoundland? The latest scientific discipline to enter the fray over global warming is geology. And the forecasts from some quarters are dramatic — not only will the earth shake, it will spit fire.
A number of geologists say glacial melting due to climate change will unleash pent-up pressures in the Earth’s crust, causing extreme geological events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. A cubic metre of ice weighs nearly a tonne and some glaciers are more
than a kilometre thick. When the weight is removed through melting, the suppressed strains and stresses of the underlying rock come to life.

University of Alberta geologist Patrick Wu compares the effect to that of a thumb pressed on a soccer ball — when the pressure of the thumb is removed, the ball springs back to its
original shape. Because the earth is so viscous the rebound happens slowly, and the quakes that occasionally shake Eastern Canada are attributed to ongoing rebound from the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago. Melting of the ice that covers Antarctica or Greenland would have a
similar impact, but the process would be accelerated due to the humaninduced greenhouse effect. “What happens is the weight of this
thick ice puts a lot of stress on the earth,” says Wu. “The weight sort of suppresses the earthquakes but when you melt the ice the earthquakes get triggered.” When a quake happens under water it can cause a tsunami. Wu said melting of the Antarctic ice is already
causing earthquakes and underground landslides although they get little attention. He predicted
climate warming will bring “lots of earthquakes.” When the glaciers melt, the
reliquified water causes sea levels to rise and increases the weight on the ocean floor, which could also have an effect on the grinding tectonic plates deep below the surface. The Earth’s crust is more sensitive than some might think. There are well-documented cases of dams
causing earthquakes when the weight of the water behind a dam fills a reservoir.

Alan Glazner, a volcano specialist at the University of North Carolina, said he was initially incredulous when he found a link between climate and volcanic activity off the coast of California. “But then I went to the library and did some research and found that in
many places around the world especially around the Mediterranean they see similar sorts of correlations.” “When you melt glacial ice, several hundred metres to a kilometre thick . .
. you’ve decreased the load on the crust and so you’ve decreased the pressure holding the volcanic conduits closed. “They’re cracks, that’s how magmas gets to the surface . . . and where they hit the surface, that’s where you get a volcano.”

No one has claimed that the Christmas tsunami of 2004 was triggered by rising sea levels. But that event seems to have sparked new interest in the links between climate and geology.

————————————–

Those that minimalize or dimiss the real potential effects and consequences of “Global Climate Change” through their ignorance and indifference do so at the peril of us all.

July 7th, 2006 at 4:52 am

The fact is that no scientists can prove 100% that climate change is due to one thing or another and yet people will take these ideas as fact. These idea’s AREN’T fact they are “Theory”

I question your understanding of the scientific process by that statement. Why is it the burden of scientists to meet that standard before we as a people are concerned with obvious trends?

Being an accepted scientific “theory” is not the result of speculation, nor does that invalidate something being studied …a guess - is a hypothesis …proving and disproving many hypothesis develops into a theory. but many people attach emotional meaning to the word “theory” as though it has no validity.

A theory is something that stands up to scientific testing. There is argumentitive and scientific weight to a theory that is supported by scientic experimentation. Therefore a “theory” is actually a pretty strong argument for a scientific explaination in most cases. (when it is proven beyong any doubt it is called a law)
Further you are demanding an explaination for the process (still theoretical) before you accept that something is occuing …thats not logical. Let me give you an example of why that is illogical.
No one disputes that we have gravity on this planet …its an occurance that is completly observable and testable. HOW gravity works is something that is still be being researched. In the language you have used I could say - well since sceince cant 100% explain how gravity works we have to remember its just a “theory” - So Does that mean there is no gravity?

Climate change is the same - there is very little dispute that it is occuring …much faster than ever before. Exactly whats causing it isnt 100% certain…though strong evidence supports the CO2 emmissions theory.

/end of scientific process lesson.
Lobby groups use language like this all time to try and cloud what is clear scientific evidence. When someone smokes cigarettes - no one could PROVE that they were bad for you directly The Tobacco lobby called this the “smoking gun” - you have no proof right?

Sure people who smoked died more frequently from cancer, cardio vascular disease, emphasema etc - but tobacco companies and their lobbies continued to deny the link between the two using your same argument that there is no evidence. Your cant definitively PROVE 100% how cigarettes are causing death (so according to them - does that PROVE they are 100% safe I wonder?)

A Dr. tells you smoking is bad for you …should you wait until you get cancer and die before you believe the strong scientific evidence? According to tobacco sponsored scientists…its the only way to be sure.
The Science of Climate change is no different.

There is STRONG evidence to support the fact that mankind is greatly influening and speeding the rate of climate change on earth …asking for a smoking gun ignores all the evidence that shows a strong link. Hell even common sense says putting crap in the atmosphere must be bad at some level.

“An Inconvient Truth” is appropriatly named …Your right that it presents information in an overly simplified way, but the conclusion it draws, though dramatic…is backed by the observations and experimentation of the scientific community all over the world (except say …the Coneco scientists)

The only experiment that can 100% prove the disaterous effects of Co2 emmisions ..is to do nothing, wait until the climate change is complete and measure the disaterous results.

In the health of a person when you start to get signs of heart disease and emphasema it makes sense to quit smoking (if you were foolish enough to ever start) …when mother earth is showing signs of getting sick …maybe we should look at solutions to CO2 emmisions

I think that is just smark science. Dont you?

k says:

July 15th, 2006 at 8:35 am

i dont know why its happening, if it would have happened even without all the fumes being released into the air, but there has definately been a change in the 33 years ive been alive and when i sit and think about it, its a bit scary. some areas may adapt but i worry about things like severe drought, famine, etc for future years. people in our area/way of life really have no clue what it would be like to live like that. sadly, other countries have dealt with it forever but we see programs on tv about the famines in africa, for example, and almost become immune to it because there seems to be no way to help these people… but i cant help but think that one day that could be us. maybe not for several generations, but it could be.

when i was a kid, winter hit in october and lasted til may (very southern alberta). we had snow drifts so high we could sit on top of the swing set like it was a chair. we couldnt open our back door some days because the snow was piled up to the top, not just a foot at the bottom. now, winter doesnt seem to really hit til january, not anywhere near like it used to. im not going to complain about that haha, i hate dragging the kids out in -30 or heavy snow. BUT im very aware of the changes over the years. seems like its happening so fast,,, thats what scares me if i really think about it. i have commented to people that i feel like the whole earth is changing so much that we might end up swapping seasons with australia eventually… our winter could end up being in july and our summer over the xmas holidays. winter has been coming later and later, and lasting longer into the spring. we had snow storms in May when i was a kid, but they were like a freak of nature. now everyone is happy when they go camping may long weekend and there is no snow because for a few years there, it happened all the time. it just seems a bit odd that things could change so much in 30 years and sometimes i wonder about it. is it natural or not? have humans done something to change the atmosphere so much that these changes are UNnatural? i think its certainly possible. its hard for scientests to find proof because this type of technology didnt exist hundreds of years ago, there isnt much data to compare it to.

who knows what is really happening, but i have friends who have lived their whole lives in florida and cannot believe the changes down there either. running from hurricanes several times a year when they only used to have to do that once every few years or so. my friend in texas lives along the coast and had to evacuate from the hurricanes last year and grew up in lousianna/texas and has never had to leave like that til now. over and over again… why? freak of nature or caused by man? natural changes or not?

unbiasedopinions says:

January 10th, 2007 at 9:23 am

Here is the way I look at the climate change issue. We should all be a little cynical of science. I live in New York. On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving 2006, all of the weather forecasts predicted a dry Thanksgiving day. They also said it would rain on Friday (day after Turkey day). Well, guess what. It poured on Thanksgiving and was beautiful on Friday. My point…Most people know that the weather forecasts are wrong a good percentage of the time. Lately, they are good for 24-36 hours in advance, which is better than when I was a kid. However, they are still incorrect a great deal of time. Most people will agree with my take on the weather forecasts. Then why does everyone take so much stock in a 50 year prediction of global warming, when they can’t get a 48 hour prediction right? Remember margerine? (trans fats) When I was younger, I was beaten up for putting butter on my food. Now, it turns out, that butter is better for you. If something is tangible, can be injested, can be tested, and reccomended by the scientific community, then we should all follow their lead. Right? Well it seems they were wrong about Trans Fats and you can see that one. I do not take much stock in theories about the ozone layer which cannot be seen by the human eye and is miles up in the atmosphere. Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that Global warming isn’t happening, I am just pointing out that it’s healthy to question science and foster debate. It seems that there are too many inconclusive, and divided facts, to form an unbiased opinion here. Also, eveyone seems to have a bias here. I do not think this is a healty issue. Divisive issue, at best. Any thoughts?

Marlin Osten says:

September 20th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Erectile dysfunction in young men…

erectile dysfunction vacuum pump …

Daniel Becht says:

September 26th, 2010 at 12:52 pm

Generic abilify 2mg…

buy abilify online qazxswed…

Clifton Kluver says:

September 26th, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Prairie dragonfly table lamp…

Dragonfly table lamp crystal table lamp…