For my regular visitors, if you find that this blog hasn't been updating much lately, chances are pretty good I've been spending my writing energy on my companion blog. Feel free to pop over to Home is Where the Central Cardio-pulmonary Organ Is, and see what else has been going on.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Looking my misconceptions in the eye

I don't have time to get into another long post to continue my recent theme on global warming and climate change (obligatory reminder to read my disclaimer). I have been using what time I have to do more research, catching up on global warming and climate change in general, as well as statistics, research, media, economics, and so on.

I have to admit that I have been having to look very bluntly at a lot of misconceptions I've had. Quite a few things that I assumed to have been true turn out to not be true at all, or grossly misrepresented. It's been getting difficult with some of the stuff I've been researching, as I have been finding myself feeling quite angered and incensed at how mislead I have been in so many areas.

In the research I've been doing, I am finding myself ever more convinced that the global warming "swindle" is worse than I ever imagined! I am more than ever convinced that our concerns about human caused CO2 causing climate changed are completely off base. I am angered to see just how wildly exaggerated claims about the causes and effects of climate change are, and how the general population is being played by special interested groups, the media, and so-called environmentalists.

You see, I am a firm believer in environmental stewardship. I try my best to follow the three R's - starting with reduce and reuse, then recycling what's left. I support sustainable practices in agriculture and industry. I try to reduce my "footprint" on the environment as much as I can. I had assumed that by doing these things, I might actually be making a difference. It never occurred to me that some of the things I had found encouraging may actually be doing more harm than good. I never thought that some of the reasons behind these practices were actually false.

I did know of some of it, at least a little. I already knew that paper isn't any more biodegradable than styrofoam once it's in a landfill, but I didn't know paper is actually more harmful, particularly in the recycling process, than those foam cups and plates that are supposed to be so harmful to the environment (turns out they really don't do anything at all - they just sit there looking ugly). I'd already clued into the contribution to pollution recycling programs have, just by the need for a second fleet of trucks (together with the garbage trucks) to pick them up. I had assumed, however, that the recycling of all these materials somehow made up for it. Now I'm learning just how poorly these programs are actually working, and the excessive amount of energy being used in the recycling process. I was aware of some unintended consequences well meaning environmental policies have led to - I just didn't realize how widespread and harmful those consequences have actually been.

I am learning some of the success stories, too - they are quite encouraging. In fact, my views that things are actually improving, and that the future holds great things to look forward to, have strengthened. It's just a real discomfort to find how much false information we're being fed about so many things. It's rather painful to look at one's own mistaken beliefs.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Censorship, intimidation and shooting the messenger

It's been a long while since I've posted. A co-worker (a pox on him, I say!) of Dh's gave him a trial version of World of Warcraft. He and Eldest are really liking it. A lot. So when I do get some time on the computer, blogging isn't exactly a priority! *L*

For those who haven't yet, here's a quick reminder to please visit the disclaimer post first. Thanks. :-)

Today, I want to discuss one of the issues that greatly concerns me when it comes to discussions about climate change and global warming. There's an alarming trend towards trying to silence people on both sides of the subject. As an example, someone on a list mentioned things her husband has experienced.

My husband happens to be a government scientist in the area of climate change. husband, if anything, has risked being reprimanded in his job for speaking up about climate change. ...He is not allowed to talk to the media about his opinions. For a while he was not even allowed to use the word "climate change".

There are too many instances like this happening, on both sides of this issue. This sort of thing shouldn't happen. When knowledgeable people wish to share what they know, I want to hear it, even if I disagree with them. Especially if I disagree with them. Granted, I have little patience for people that do little more than parrot things just because they saw it on tv or something, without questioning what they're repeating. Thankfully, they're fairly easy to spot. What bothers me is when those who are most visible or accessible to the public deliberately ignore opposing views, or go out of their way to denigrate those who disagree with them. This is one of the reasons I am so bothered by the "consensus" comments, since the only way there could be consensus on the topic is if one side is being totally ignored or rejected. Worse, is when differing opinions are twisted and insulted.

A couple of examples; in a post I can't find right now, someone rather dismissively wrote that if people wanted to discuss conspiracy theories about global warming, they could just come over to my blog. I was rather startled by that, as no one at any time had suggested any sort of conspiracy! Then, as I read the article reprinted in the comments of an earlier post, I read

In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists no explanations are required. The world's most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a conspiracy of screaming demagogues.

I find these accusations that those who disagree with human-caused global warming to be conspiracy theorists curious, indeed. While I certainly believe there are those taking full advantage of people's fears to make a profit (carbon credit companies come to mind), the thought of some grand, organized conspiracy had simply never occurred to me until I suddenly found myself essentially being called a conspiracy theorist! Why? Apparently, it's because I don't agree on the roles that humans and CO2 play in global warming. These writers, however, simply dismiss all those who disagree as conspiracy theorists.

Other accusations and implications, however, are far more disturbing.

When I kept hearing people say that scientists were 100% behind the idea that humans and CO2 were causing global warming, I went looking. In a very short time, I found a long list of highly qualified scientists and researchers who disagreed. When sending the list, I made a point of saying that none of these people were denying that global warming was happening, and neither was I. What they (and I) were questioning was the cause, and what (if anything) we can or should be doing about it. I then asked, if there was such a consensus in regards to humans causing global warming, why was it so easy for me to find this list? This is the response I got.

It is not too hard to find someone to support any point of view you care to take on any issue under the sun. Just because there are two competing points of view on a subject does not mean that they are equally valid - one has to consider the relative merits of the two positions. There are plenty of  people who claim to have proof that the holocaust never happened. There are still scientists who claim that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer. A few years ago, a book called "The Bell Curve" made the claim that white people are inherently more intelligent than people of colour.  [snip]... Global warming deniers employ a similar tactic - they just keep repeating their claims at every opportunity knowing that they will seep into the public consciousness and by the time they have been refuted it is too late to completely undo the damage.

I found this to be horribly insulting. First, there's the suggestion that for those who disagree, their opinions are not equally valid - so all those credentials were simply ignored because they disagree. Then, despite my emphasizing that *no one* on that list was saying that global warming wasn't happening, the writer (like so many others) dismissed them all as global warming deniers. Worse still, the writer even equates those who dispute the causes of global warming with holocaust deniers and racists!

Reading this response was quite literally like a punch in the gut. I felt sickened to be lumped in the same category as the Zundels of the world. That anyone should even equate questioning the causes of global warming with holocaust deniers and white supremacists disgusts me. Not only is it an insult directed at me, but it cheapens those who suffered the horrifying tragedy of the holocaust. Seriously, if the writer had walked up to me and slapped me in the face, it wouldn't have insulted me as much as what he wrote here.

Now, I don't believe the person who wrote this intended to insult me like this, but I have a hard time understanding how someone could write something so disgusting, and not realize that what they were saying was so completely inappropriate!

The write didn't stop there, however...

The movie you refer to tries to imply that we should not be concerned about Carbon since it makes up such a relatively small proportion of all of the gases in the atmosphere. This is so idiotic an argument as to defy belief. Would you let your kids drink cool-aid that contained only minute amounts of arsenic?

Aside from the continued insulting language, I couldn't help but shake my head at the comparison. Have you ever eating apple seeds by mistake? They contain trace amounts of cyanide. Granted, you'd have to eat a cup full before it would even make you sick, but it's still there. Toxins also accumulate in the peels of apples, as well as in the skins of potatoes. Do you take prescription medications? Many of them are extremely dangerous, and thousands of people die every year because of them. Do you vaccinate your children? Some children react horribly to vaccinations, but until you actually give them one, how would you know if your child is one of them? Do you BBQ? Cooking, particularly over a flame, can increase carcinogens in the food being cooked.

There are so many things we eat and drink every day that are harmless under normal circumstances, but dangerous if ingested improperly or in excessive amounts. Even water will kill you if you drink to much of it. Heck, there are substances we breath every day that are far more harmful to us and the planet than the amount of CO2 in the air, and I'd be much happier if we as a society spent more time, energy and money towards cleaning these known toxins from the air than on reducing CO2!

Up until a few months ago, Stephen Harper was making a similar argument - Carbon is essential for life he said, so how can we have too much of it? By the same token, the residents of New Orleans should have embraced Hurricane Katrina as it brought them so much of that most essential of life's ingredients - water!

Another example of twisting what was said to mean something else. The comparisons are extreme and, quite frankly, I found using the tragedy of New Orleans in this manner to be offensive as well. I suppose it accomplished what it meant to, which I am assuming to be an emotional response. If the writer intended to intimidate or shame me into shutting up, it obviously didn't work.

As for your list of experts, I recognise the very first name on your list, Richard Lindzen. He is one of the leading climate change sceptics and when I did some research on him for a letter to the Journal last year, I found that he has received extensive funding from the Oil, Coal and Gas industries. I would not be surprised to find similar connections between the Fossil Fuel industry and many of the other names on the list.

Once again, the writer ignored the point of my sending the list, which was how easy it was for me to find a significant number of highly qualified experts who disagreed about the causes of global warming. Or perhaps he didn't. He recognized the first name on the list as someone who apparently receives funding from these industries. (Of course, so does the David Suzuki Foundation, but I don't see anyone saying he's in the pockets of Industry.) Because of this one connection he recognized, he dismissed the entire list.

Finally, being a climate change sceptic in Alberta does not exactly make you a radical free-thinker standing alone against the tide of public opinion.

Wow. I never thought of myself as being radical, or that I was standing alone against any tide at all. There are so many who question as I do, it just never occurred to me. Another rather insulting statement to make.

There are other examples I could give, but I've already been at this for far too long. I'm not going to be home much for the next few days, so it might be a while before I can post on the subject again.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

What's wrong with getting old?

Slight detour from topic today.

I was reading a new post at Junkfood Science this morning; Adding Years to Your Life. Yesterday, meanwhile, I discovered the world's oldest rock band on A very cool video! Check it out.

It always amazing me how much people fight the aging process. I can understand wanting to be as healthy, avoiding illness and injury, but getting old? What the heck is wrong with that?

Maybe I'm the one who's weird. *L* I'm going to be 39 this year, and I'm looking forward to celebrating my 40th birthday. And my 50th. And however many more I get out of life. I loved watching the people in The Zimmers video. Their wrinkled faces are so much more expressive and interesting than the plastic looking airbrushed youth gracing so many of our magazines today. I love the "imperfections" of faces.

I remember when I first discovered I had grey hair. I have dark blonde hair, and it was at the top of my head, so I couldn't see it myself. My husband, who's quite a bit taller than me, happened to look down and exclaim, "you've got grey hair!" It turned out I had a small patch of it. I was so excited, I had him pull one out, just so I could see it for myself. *L* Today, the grey has spread enough that I can see it myself, and I love how it shimmers and sparkles. I love my husband's silver hair. He has black hair, and the silver flashing through it is just gorgeous to me.

I guess I just don't understand what it is that people are so afraid of about getting old.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Back to topic

Finally sitting down to respond to various points brought up in the climate change conversations. Here's one quote that had information that made me go, "huh?"

Just for the record. In Al Gore's Movie - An Inconvenient Truth, his take on this is:

They had a research team look at something like 1000 articles on Global Warming from the Scientific articals printed in the literature in recent years and could find ZERO percent of serious scientists in conflict with the idea that Global Warming is a serious issue we need to address now. And on the contrary there has been increasing concern over the years. No real debate among them at all. In other words there is no conflict coming from the leading scientists in the world.

My initial reaction to this was how can it be possible that they found 100% consensus, when I knew there was no such thing? Then I caught the language used...

...ZERO percent of serious scientists...

Ah, but of course - they only looked at "serious" scientists. All those other scientists are dismissed as not being serious scientists (just who is it that gets to define what a "serious" scientist is, anyways?). Or worse, being in the pockets of industry...

Industry and its prostituted servants, whatever their training have a much bigger reason to lie. They seem to get increasingly more clever at covering their tracks.

I have to admit, I'm getting really tired of the knee jerk reactions towards big, bad industry. Yes, some industries could be better. Yes, some companies are unethical. Yes, there are problems that need to be fix, but this blanket demonizing of all "industry," like there's some vast, industrial conspiracy, is not only getting old, but it's highly inaccurate. It's industry, after all, that's leading the way in research and innovation - the very things we need to be able to solve an awful lot of problems in the world, including environmental ones. The list of innovative companies includes those that are the most vilified. Who do you think is designing cleaner burning engines, solar panels, wind turbines, clean burning incinerators, finding better, more efficient ways to use our resources, etc.? It sure as heck isn't the environmentalists.

People are quick to blame "industry" for all sorts of things, when in fact, they turned out not to be the cause (as an example, e. coli and fecal coloform in Lk. Wpg was blamed on the burgeoning hog industry in the Interlake, with loud cries to shut the industry down. It turned out the outbreak was caused by birds feces that, due to unusually high lake levels caused by equally unusually high amounts of rain, that normally remained on the beaches was getting into the lake). There are definite problems within industry that needs to be dealt with, but that's no reason to start blaming them for every evil on the planet, which seems to be quite popular right now.

Another thing to remember when it comes to industry and "big business" is that that's exactly what environmentalism has, unfortunately, become. In the late 1990's, the top 12 US environmental groups alone commanded well over $500 million dollars. In the same time period, Canada had 1800 of these groups - far less than there are in the US. Some groups, like the Sierra Club, have offshoots that do nothing but litigate (and how's this for irony - in the US, if someone sues the government, the government pays their legal fees. That's right; the US government pays people to sue them!).

Make no mistake about it. Many of these "environmental" groups are just as much in it for the money as "big business," and are far less ethical. They are not above fabrications, manipulating data, staging "incidents," violence, terrorism, and more.

Another thing had me shaking my head. I'd mentioned before that I haven't seen all of AIT yet, (I'll borrow it for free from the library when it's available) but I did go online to see what was available there. Imagine my surprise when I saw that the quote above was taken almost verbatim from a portion of the movie. This brings up one of the biggest problems I have with how people are responding to AIT. It's being taken as gospel truth. Al Gore said it in the movie, it must be true. Now that he's won the Oscar and there's hints at the Nobel Peace Prize (heaven forbid!), people will accept anything Saint Gore says without questions. I wish I could say I was making it up, but I've seen quite a few people referring to Gore as both saint and prophet. What a frightening notion!

AIT is, plain and simple, a propaganda movie. So is TGGWS. I know that. The reason why I take TGGWS more seriously is because almost nothing in that movie was new to me - I'd seen pretty much everything pointed out in the movie from other sources. On the other hand, of the clips I've seen of AIT so far, pretty much everything has me going "wait a minute, that doesn't make sense; what about..." and usually at least a couple of examples would come to mind that contradicted what I'd seen in the clip. Perhaps when I see the whole thing, I'll find different. I certainly hope so!

I know I'm missing a lot of things, but it's time to get off the computer and go to bed.


I'm just starting to go back over some old posts and comments I wanted to address re: the global warming and climate change conversations that have been going on, but a more recent topic came up that's sort of distracted me. *L*

On one of the lists I'm one, the subject of clotheslines as a way to combat global warming came up. Co-incidentally, it came up on one of the news and editorial sites I regularly read.

A lot of it was quite nostalgic for me. Reading someone else's memories of doing laundry with Grandma, using the wringer washer and hanging the clothes on the line, reminded me of my own childhood. We used an old wringer washer too, and had no drier. We never found cats in the corners of our fitted sheets, though. *L* Love the image that brings to mind!

While many fond memories were brought up as I read these comments and articles, a tiny voice in my head pointed out that they were really quite romanticized. *L* Doing laundry the old way was a lot of work! The old wringer washers had to be manually filled and drained (though draining, at least, was a lot more convenient). They were also quite dangerous - especially those wringers. As a child, I loved putting the clothes through the wringers, but I also remember the danger warnings from my mother, and her hovering close by as I did it. Looking back through the eyes of a parent, I am wondering just how much I scared my mother with my fearless "helping!" LOL

We had a great set up for lines. My dad designed and built it, even to welding together the various metal posts and cross pieces. It was three lines actually, on pulleys. He'd built a platform we could stand on (and being the practical sort, the space underneath became a dog house). From there, we could load all three lines from the one spot, without having to lug the basket of laundry around the yard. For the most part, it was excellent.

There were, of course, exceptions. Winter was always a problem. We usually had to hang clothes in the basement (we did try hanging them outside at least once - the memory of my parents and older siblings bringing in the sheets and clothes, frozen stiff, is still funny). There wasn't much room in the basement, and they took forever to dry. I remember only too well the discomfort of having to wear damp clothes to school - especially while waiting for the bus! - all too well! *L* Today, my parents now have a modern washer, but they still hang their clothes to dry. They do have a drier. Where they got it from, I have no idea - it's quite ancient, and it's probably a good thing they don't use it!

Before we moved out here, we lived for about 3 years without a drier. For the first year, it worked out quite well. We had only the one line, strung between the house and a huge spruce tree in the back yard. About the only complaint is that ants, attracted to the sap on the tree, would end up on our clothes. When the weather was nice, clothes dried on the line much faster than in a machine. Sure, the towels felt a bit like sandpaper, and things tended to be quite stiff, but we got used to it.

Clothes pins turned out to be an unexpected problem. I didn't remember them being a problem when I was a kid. The wooden ones I'd originally bought began to weather and break apart fairly quickly. I discovered a few too many pieces the hard way - with the lawnmower! I then tried plastic ones. The first type I tried weren't all that strong and would fall apart when used on heavier or thicker items, like jeans. Most pieces to find with the lawnmower. Another type I'd found seemed to work well. They were very strong, and the wide design made them a lot more comfortable to use. I quickly discovered that the sun seemed to weaken the plastic, and they started snapping in my fingers as I was hanging clothes! I ended up going back to wooden ones.

We couldn't use the line in the winter. With how the snow accumulated in our back yard, we just didn't have access to most of it. That and we had to park our car close to the house, under the rest of the line, to plug it in. So we hung our clothes inside. We had a major advantage there. The house we lived in was quite huge, with one big open room that's larger than some houses. Along with a large folding drying rack, I was able to put up 2 lines in one corner and, since they weren't particularly long, a third line that ran the length of the room - about 30-34 feet. That one could be unhooked at one end to get it out of the way when it wasn't being used. We could hang three big loads in there! Pretty much all of it would dry over night, too.

It was the last two summers we were there that things became a problem. These were pretty miserable summers. The first wasn't as bad; I think we used the outside line perhaps half a dozen times. The rest of the time, we had to use the inside lines because of rain. The last summer we were there, however, was one of those summers that didn't happen. I used the outside line 3 times - maybe. It was a summer of near constant rains and flooding all over the province. Many people never got their gardens in that year. I had intended to put one in that summer, but when it still hadn't warmed up enough to plant by June, I gave up on the idea. A lot of farmers were never able to plant that year, either. The fishermen had a great season, though. ;-)

The problem with hanging the clothes inside in the summer, however, was humidity. In the winter, the house got extremely dry (dry enough that a panel in one of our old fashioned wooden doors suddenly cracked with a sound like a gunshot. I discovered the cause of the noise some time later, when I realized I could see sunlight through the door!). The drying laundry helped add a bit of humidity.

We had the opposite problem in the summer. The house was built before the invention of weeping tile. As soon as the ground thawed, water would start puddling in the basement. Some of the cleanest, coldest water I've ever seen, too. It meant our washing machine was raised up on a pallet, while our hot water tank, pressure pump and furnace were kept out of the water with bricks. I'd set up boards to walk on so I could get from the stairs to the washing machine without walking in water. Wood for the furnace had to be kept off the floor, too, and that summer, we needed to use it! The sump pump was sure kept busy.

Add in the unusual amount of rain we had, and the humidity was so high it took three days for clothes to dry with a dehumidifier running 24 hrs a day. Well, almost. Once the tank was full, it would automatically stop. Hopefully, I'd notice the lack of noise fairly quickly and empty it. Sometimes, though, the float hadn't gone into the tank properly when I put it back, and I'd walk in to discover water all over the floor. The tank held about a gallon, and had to be emptied at least once a day - and that was on days without laundry hanging. I remember having to empty that thing twice a day when the laundry was up.

One thing's for sure - we weren't saving any energy by not having a drier that year! *L*

Now, being in an apartment, we've got coin operated laundry and no space to hang things. We do have a large balcony, but it's not usable for something like that. Too many people above us think nothing of throwing lit cigarette butts, matches and other stuff off their balconies, and this stuff frequently blows into ours. It'd be handy to have the choice to hang clothes again. It would sure save us money! I have to admit, though, it's nice to have soft towels again.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Happy Easter!

Have a Happy and Blessed Easter!

In our Swieconka basket:

Butter/Maslo: often shaped into a lamb, known as Baranek Wielkanocny, to remind us to share the goodness of Christ to all things. Seen in our basket in a small bowl marked with a cross in clovers.

Bread/Chleb: a loaf of rye bread, symbolizing Christ as the staff of life.

Eggs/Jajka: representing new life and Christ's resurrection.

Sausage/Kielbasa: a symbol of God's generosity.

Ham/Szynka: representing joy and abundance (also marked with a cross of cloves in our basket).

Salt/Sol: essential to life, and a reminder of Jesus saying "You are the salt of the earth."

Cheese/Ser: a symbol of moderation (we've got 2 - because we really like cheese)

Chocolate: my one concession to commercialized Easter. Because I like chocolate. ;-)

The basket is then covered with a fine cloth and taken for blessing. This year, I chose a linen cloth hand embroidered in cotton with sunny yellow blossoms.

Missing this year: horseradish/Chrzan, symbolic of the passion of Christ. I usually include a section of the root, rather than the sweetened preparation, which would later be served grated fresh onto the eggs. Our local grocery store didn't have any, and I never got a chance to go someplace else to look. Growing up, my mother would dig some out of our own patch. The pieces with some greenery starting to show at the top were not peeled completely, and my mother would share them with friends to plant in their own gardens.

Also traditional:

smoked bacon/slonina, symbolizing God's over abundance and mercy.

holy water, used to bless the home, animals, fields and used in religious rituals all year.

a candle to represent Christ's light to the world.

The basket is often decorated with colorful ribbon and/or sprigs of greenery. Others would include fruit or a bottle of wine. One of my favorite things about getting the baskets blessed is seeing all those other baskets, and the interesting things people put in them.

The basket contents are then included in meals throughout Easter Sunday. Because the food is blessed, remnants such as eggshells are supposed to be burned, not thrown out.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Going back a bit.

In this first of a series of posts I will be making, I am going back a fair ways in the responses I got to sending the video link. Before I begin, however, please pause to read this disclaimer.

Next, I wish to apologize for any typos, grammatical errors or unclear sentences that may creep into this post. I haven't had much sleep in the last while, and my thoughts are not as clear as I'd like them to be when I write. Still, I've been procrastinating with this for far to long, so here goes...

One of the first responses I got to sending the Great Global Warming Swindle video link (GGWS from here on) was from someone that, at first, found the idea of Gore making a movie about the environment laughable. After viewing the movie, her opinion changed. To quote...

Lo and Behold I saw the best researched and well presented discussion of just what this planet faces - now and in our lifetimes. The worst of it will happen in our children's lifetimes. If we don't make a lot more progress than most politicians were committing to in January of this year instead of things being difficult for our children - there will be no hope at all.

1- 3 degrees Celsius may be small in local temperature fluctuations. However that type of fluctuation on average for the entire globe we call home is highly dangerous - not minor. And if
mankind is going to push the limits of our normal temperature fluctuations to an extreme we are not likely to survive it. I will watch the debunking website.
Do you know who they are???

There are several issues that come up in these quotes that I wish to respond to. First, is the assertion that Gore's movie was the best researched and well presented discussion she'd ever seen. That may be true for the writer, but not for me.

First off, I have yet to see Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth (AIT from here on) in its entirety. I refuse to pay money to rent it, and have not yet borrowed it. Unlike the documentary, Gore's movie is not available on the internet for all to see - which in itself raises a few questions in my mind, but that's another issue. Of the portions I *have* seen, I've seen so many fallacies and misleading statements in such a short time, it boggles my mind.

I have, for most of my life, had a keen interest in human history - specifically, my interests were in how every day people lived their every day lives. It didn't take me long to notice that our successes or failures as communities, and the developments of cultures and civilizations are closely tied to geography and climate. It was in pursuing these interests that I happened upon correlating themes in climate and global climate change. If I, by accident while looking in other areas, have been seen evidence contrary to claims made in what little of AIT I have seen, how can it be claimed that this movie was so well researched, or that it represents the truth? It seems to me that AIT took the most extreme, disastrous models and presents them as hard truth and fact. Instead of saying "this is what we think might happen," or "this is what could happen under these circumstances," AIT says that these this "will" happen. At that point, it's not longer science, but politics. (I will talk about the inaccuracies of information in another post.)

There's no question that Gore makes a great presentation. He's personable, entertaining, and clearly passionate about his subject. He's an excellent public speaker, comfortable in front of an audience, well spoken, and entertaining. I should hope so, since it seems to be what he does for a living right now. A great presentation, however, does not mean that the presenter is telling the truth - even if they are telling the truth *as they believe it.*

The very last line I quoted, however, is one I've seen variations of many times, and it's one that makes me want to throw my hands up in frustration every time. The "who" of GGWS was answered in the movie itself, and the credentials of these people were upfront. Do I know who these people are? Nope - no more than I know who the researchers used for AIT are. In fact, I know less about the people in AIT than I do about those in GGWS, since I've encountered what the scientists in GGWS put forward before, from many sources.

In the end, very few of us actually know who "they" are, on either side of the table. We can only come to our own conclusions, hopefully through critical thinking and an open mind, based on what knowledge we already have. I found the GGWS movie more believable than even any of the clips of AIT I've seen because the GGWS matches information I *already* had, most of which I gleaned over many decades, often from seemingly unrelated research.

At this point, I will end my post. Time to get back to the real world. ;-)


When I passed around the link to the Global Warming Swindle documentary, I ruffled a few feathers. Which is fine. Feathers should be ruffled every now and then. If gives a nice, tingly feeling, and keeps the blood flowing. ;-) On one particular email list, however, the discussion as gone on to the point that I feel the need to continue it off list, so I will be posting a series of my responses onto here. Before I begin, however, I wish to post this disclaimer and lay down a few rules of discussion.

  • This is an anonymous blog. For the first time, I am inviting a fairly large number of people who know me IRL (In Real Life) to read it. I am asking these people to please respect my anonymity. Any comments that I find to give too much information about who I am will be removed. I'm already far easier to find on the net than I am comfortable with. *L*

  • I will not tolerate rudeness, name calling and insults. This discussion is for the exchanging of ideas and the debating of issues. I understand that it is a passionate topic and it is sometimes difficult, but please refrain from attacking the people you disagree with. If you have a problem with an issue, confront the issue, not the person. Any posts that cross the line into personal insult will be deleted. (in fact, one of the posts I will be making deals directly with this issue) If someone else feels a post crosses that line and I haven't deleted it, please feel free to call my attention to it. Please read on for possible exceptions...

  • In this next series of posts, I will be quoting and responding to specific topics and comments. I will not, however, in any way identify who made those comments. In fact, I will be avoiding looking at who said what as I wish to respond only to the comments made, not to the person. In many cases, the comments I will be quoting are chosen specifically because I have seen them so often from other sources, not just that individual. Therefore, any time I use personal pronouns in responding, I want it to be clear that I mean it in a generic sense, not aimed at any individual. I put a lot of effort into my writing to make it as clear and understandable as I can, and I find using he/she's and they/them's and other combinations to be convoluted and unnecessarily confusing. When or if I use the term "you" or other person pronoun when responding to a quote, I want to make it clear now that I mean it in a broader sense than the individual who's comment I am quoting. Likewise, I know that for the sake of clarity or simplicity, some responders will also use personal pronouns when they are meant generically. If possible, please re-read your responses before posting them to make sure there is no confusion, or add in a disclaimer if necessary.

The posts to follow will be slow in coming. I put a great deal of effort into my writing at the best of times, but more so when dealing with such an impassioned subject. I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to, either, so things may seem spotty, and I ask your patience.

Thank you.