An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore

[Charles Flynn]

Thursday 14th December 2006 - Film - Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth"

Manx Museum Theatre Douglas - 2 showings @ 6.00pm and 7.45pm -

Admission free - for tickets phone 863106 or e mail info@positiveactiongroup.org

"You owe it to yourself to see this film" - "global warming is a real and present danger"

 

 

W ROGER TOMLINSON

Chair - Positive Action Group

 

Edinburgh International Festival Film review states:

 

The 'truth' the title refers to, is the brute fact of climate change and global warming - the onset of which (and its likely impact upon our civilisation) becomes harder to deny with each passing year. The conscience here - the speaker of this particular truth - is former US vice-president and presidential candidate Al Gore, whose crusade to raise awareness of the situation forms the focus of this impassioned, forceful documentary. It's essentially a record of the lecture which Gore has been touring for a number of years, bolstered with a formidable array of graphics and supporting evidence - not least, that the last five decades alone have wreaked more drastic changes upon the Earth, than any period since the Ice Age

 

Seats now only available for second showing 7.45 p.m.

[Charles Flynn]

POSITIVE ACTION GROUP

 

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUE DATE: 8th December 2006

 

Al Gore film to be shown on Island

The controversial, highly acclaimed, must-see film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

is being screened at the Manx Museum Theatre Thursday 14th December 2006 in a pre-release non-commercial private showing.

 

It is an eye opening and compelling view of the future of our planet that

forcefully delivers the message that global warming is a real and present

danger.

 

Various groups have united to bring the film to the island. They include

Positive Action Group (who are co-coordinating the event),

Friends of the Earth (I O M), One World Centre, Zero Waste Mann and

The Society for thePreservation of the Manx Countryside & Environment, all of whom are sponsoring the two screenings at 6.00pm and 7.45pm.

 

Roger Tomlinson from P A G said “there has already been an overwhelming response to date with pledges from Ministers, MHK’s, CEO’s and ‘Heads of Department promising to attend. In addition, there has been tremendous support and enthusiasm from the IOM Building Employer’s Federation, the Chamber of Commerce, all of the Service Providers and the Business Community in general”.

 

The earlier screening at 6.00pm is aimed particularly at Government Members, Government Departments and the Business Sector. To reserve a seat please contact either Katie @ the One World Centre on 825464 katie@owciom.org or Louise at the IOM Building Employers Federation on 660188 l.furniss@employersfederation.co.im

 

Admission is free and all are welcome.

 

ENDS

Press contact: Roger Tomlinson tel: 863106

[LoneWolf]

POSITIVE ACTION GROUP ...........................

 

Might be a good idea to remove the lady's telephone and e-mail address Charles. Not everyone has the same good intentions as yourself.

[Gladys]

Its a press release LW. Heard the same on MR this evening.

[Albert Tatlock]

COMMONSENSE PRESS RELEASE

 

Or don't waste your time being scaremongered.

 

"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

 

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

 

 

 

_

[LoneWolf]

Its a press release LW. Heard the same on MR this evening.

Fair enough but they might have done better to provide a general number or e-mail for people to contact rather than link it to a female name. [ive seen the result of this stuff before when my sister received a veritable mountain of disgusting e-mails and phone calls].

[Lost Login]

COMMONSENSE PRESS RELEASE

 

Or don't waste your time being scaremongered.

 

"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

 

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

 

 

 

_

[Utah 01]

Just remember that this film has been produced to get over a message in accordance with the sponsors' views. It's in the same mold as Robber Brown commissioning reports; the fiddlers are hardly likely to come out to upset those who call the tunes.

[Lost Login]

You do seem to have an endless supply of links to "factual" links which in fact are purely written by discredited "scientists" sponsored and paid for by the energy lobby and guess what Tim Bell is another. Until at least Sept this year he worked for the High Park Group a lobbyist for the energy companies. He also headed up Friends of Science until that was totally discredited to an extent that they appear to have set up The natural Resources Stewardship Project.

 

I give you that the start of the article is good "Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," but then he goes to ignore that statement itself.

 

I appreciate you have a blinkered mind and may still believe the world is flat as you have probably seen that written by a "scientist" in the national enquirer but it would be nice if occasionally at least you produced something that was not from a lobby group purporting to be somebody else. I am quite happy to discuss and review global change and causes and remedies and read both positions if accurately and factually reported. However what you produce virtually every time would probably be best suited to the brought back Jackanorey.

 

Yet again the article "quotes" about ice caps not disappearing but thickening. I have previously posted the link that which shows that this is a deliberate misquote of some research which actually shows it is disappearing but in one ice field only it is thickening as predicted in the model of global warming. I also added a link whereby the scientist who headed the research and wrote the paper specifically complains how the guys like Tim Bell are deliberately misrepresenting the research. Either you do not read this or decide instead to believe a paid for lobbyist rather than the author of the report. Hint the author of the report might just be a teeny weeny bit more accurate.

 

CBC News did a good report programme on these sort of people and issue. I think it is called The Denial Machine and is in the fifth element slot. I think it can be downloaded from their web site.

 

The attached als0 gives a succinct overview on Tim Bell and the organisation that he heads up.

http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-frie...ardship-project

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris

 

You probably though have absolutely no interest in these as they do not agree with your privately held believes and you prefer for facts not to get in the way of these. I remember reading your poting on the collapse of the Twin Towers.

 

Finally a word of advise if you are not already part of the energy lobby group I would recommend that you apply for a job with them quickly. You have all the pseudo skills that they require.

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMONSENSE PRESS RELEASE - Note Press Release written by Lobbyist not reort from independant journalist

 

Or don't waste your time being scaremongered.

 

"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

 

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

 

 

 

_

[Utah 01]

Please don't preach and like so many 'Greens' adopt the moral high ground. The earth's atmosphere may well be undergoing temporary change - no more or less than the many thousands of similar changes which the earth has undergone throughout its history. It's just that this time 'we' are around to measure the change. To quote a provable and indisputable scientific fact, to every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction so try this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html. And then justify your undoubted rejoinder that it is 'not credible'.

[VinnieK]

Please don't preach and like so many 'Greens' adopt the moral high ground. The earth's atmosphere may well be undergoing temporary change - no more or less than the many thousands of similar changes which the earth has undergone throughout its history. It's just that this time 'we' are around to measure the change. To quote a provable and indisputable scientific fact, to every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction so try this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html. And then justify your undoubted rejoinder that it is 'not credible'.

 

 

That'd be a great link, if it weren't for the fact that the author, Stephen Milloy, is well reknowned for being a paid advocate and ardent defender of Phillip Morris (he's against the accepted theory on second hand smoke as well) and, most relevantly, ExxonMobil, has lied on his website about his scientific experience (claiming he was a judge on an american science competition), and is no more qualified to assess the scientific data than anyone who doesn't have a scientific background.

 

And besides I know a scientist who says global warming is because of us, and he's ten foot tall and can play the banjo, so he must be the rightestmost.

[Lost Login]

VinnieK has already replied re the link you have put. Steve Milloy is as he says a paid obbyist by the energy companies which Junk Science is funded by. By the way he is not a scientist.

 

I am not a green vegetarian etc etc and nor do I intend to adopt the moral high ground but I like to see a bit of neutraility and facts brought to the debate. Unfortunately Albert likes producing links from pseudo scientsts funded by energy lobby groups and presenting them as impartial sources of information. They are not. Nor is the web site you created.

 

I would be equally disparraging of links from "the green" lobby if they were funded by those with a vested interest and quoted half truths or misreprsented published data.

 

By all means argue the case from either side but do so from reputable sources not and from published propaganda whether it be from the for or anti lobby.

 

Please don't preach and like so many 'Greens' adopt the moral high ground. The earth's atmosphere may well be undergoing temporary change - no more or less than the many thousands of similar changes which the earth has undergone throughout its history. It's just that this time 'we' are around to measure the change. To quote a provable and indisputable scientific fact, to every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction so try this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html. And then justify your undoubted rejoinder that it is 'not credible'.

[Utah 01]

My intention was not to accredit any veracity to the link I posted but simply to emphasise that there are two sides to every story. In our increasingly and overtly politically correct nation, those who voice opinions contrary to the accepted (ie accepted by those in positions of authority and endorsed by the State) about global warming or Iraq, homosexuality, capital punishment and any other matter that might cause controversy, are cast as heretics who should unquestioningly accept the 'truth' according to Tony, Dubbya or whoever. The rules and regulations that govern our everyday lives are increasingly being formulated from the agendas of vociferous minority groups who thrive on the principle of 'if you say it long enough and often enough the message will get through' and once that is picked up by those who can see political mileage in the cause then there is no stopping it. The problem is that the message is not always the correct one nor is it shared by the quiet (apathetic?) minority who only wake up when it is too late.

[Lost Login]

I have no problem with questioning or putting an alternative view. I have a problem when those that are doing it are doing so as paid lobbyists for either the pro or anti side and picking or choosing some of the facts and reports to back up their slant and ignoring all others. Worse is where they are deliberately misrepresenting research as backing up there believes when in fact it does the opposite.

 

As I have repeated before the classic example in respect to global warming relates to the ice fields. The paper reported that all where thinning except one in Northen Canada which was thickening in the middle through shrinking at the edges. This thickening in the middle whilst shrinking at the edges was predicted in the model for global warming.

 

However the anti lobby are forever quoting that global warming is a myth as the ice fields are not thinning but thickening based on this research. That is not what the research and the scientific paper reported. The author of the paper has also complained that his views are being delberately misrepresented by the anti lobby as they quote him and his report as evidence that melting ice fields are a myth as they in fact thickening as detailed in his report. In virtually the links Albert posts re global warming there is a reference to Global warming being a myth as ice fields are thickening. All are almost always from lobbyists and press releases paid for by the energy lobby.

 

I have no truck with this equally I have no truck with the Gillian McKeith's of the world and her band of pseudo science and mumbo jumbo. What I want is honest and fairly impartial information not propoganda from either side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My intention was not to accredit any veracity to the link I posted but simply to emphasise that there are two sides to every story. In our increasingly and overtly politically correct nation, those who voice opinions contrary to the accepted (ie accepted by those in positions of authority and endorsed by the State) about global warming or Iraq, homosexuality, capital punishment and any other matter that might cause controversy, are cast as heretics who should unquestioningly accept the 'truth' according to Tony, Dubbya or whoever. The rules and regulations that govern our everyday lives are increasingly being formulated from the agendas of vociferous minority groups who thrive on the principle of 'if you say it long enough and often enough the message will get through' and once that is picked up by those who can see political mileage in the cause then there is no stopping it. The problem is that the message is not always the correct one nor is it shared by the quiet (apathetic?) minority who only wake up when it is too late.

[VinnieK]

What I want is honest and fairly impartial information not propoganda from either side.

 

Exactly. Milloy is, at very best, a hatchet man, and not a very good one at that. Whilst claiming to be running a site about science and how it's used, he does little but celebrate the science that supports a view he holds (or is being paid to hold), without giving any indication or analysis of the quality of the methodologies used (the one researcher he explicitly mentions on the inconvenient truth story is a retired professor of physics who hasn't published a paper in just over ten years, and hasn't published regularly for twenty), whilst lampooning the science he disagrees with (you can tell he disagrees with a scientist because he always adorns the terms research or scientist with sarcastic quotation marks whenever he refers to them). The trouble with using Junkscience as an example of the other side of the argument is that what it represents is certainly not the other side of the scientific debate, but a distortion and a manipulation of a select few facts to suit whoever's commissioned it - it's less an opinion and more a nasty little piece of advertising.

 

The trouble with the environmental debate is that it seems to always be a cipher for tired old anti-establishment sentiments, the actual truth is secondary to sticking it to The Man, be that man the oil and motor companies on one side, or so called nanny state governments on the other. On the subject of accepted opinion, there's usually a very good reason why a particular opinion comes to be prevalent in the scientific community - it's because the vast body of research and observation suggests that opinion is the correct one. There's always room for disagreement, however, and if a particular individual is not taken seriously within the community the likelyhood is not because of their dissent or heresy but because their methods are rubbish and motives questionable.