?

Log in

People thinking and understanding events, issues,'s Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 4 most recent journal entries recorded in People thinking and understanding events, issues,'s LiveJournal:

Friday, October 12th, 2007
9:16 pm
[joshthejuggla]
Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize
 

I finally checked my Comcast account and saw Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. OK, I heard it on talk radio but there was much more info to be seen reading it.

Here is a link:

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/10/12/786838.html&...

I hear people complain about his documentary calling it junk, fake, farce, lies, BS (I like to keep bad language out) and much more, yet no one has watched it or looked into it. I have been told it was a big lie. Well, I believe him. There is one obvious reason why I do. He says we will lose Manhattan, Venice, Holland, Denmark, New Orleans and Florida. If there is anything Al Gore knows: it's losing Florida. People got to watch and research. No one does. According to anothropology at, last I checked, the U of M, we should not have an ice age for another 500-700 years for the ice caps should melt in about 500 years, than a cooling period happens. the waves shift outside of the UK when there is a warming period and we have seen that. OK. One problem. That cooling period, or ice age, should start in about 50 years. I am not worried that the planet is getting warmer. It happens and has for billions of years (or in the last 5,000 years if you take the bible or religion literally). The planet does it at its own pace. Humans are speeding it up and I am fearful as to how nature will react. I find that messing with nature on an evironmental level is never a good idea.

Back to his documentary. What does it discuss? It tell what is happening and what we can do about it. But I am going to look at the science, and I will provide citation (showing my work to those who cannot figure it out).

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1

The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.2

Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.3

The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.4

At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.5

According to Gore, if the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences such as:

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.6

Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.7

The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.8

More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.9

CITATION TIME!!!!

(Note, "Nature" is based on movements recorded by governments of South America, Africa and Austriallia)

1 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate."
2 Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
3 World Health Organization
4 Krabill, W., E. Hanna, P. Huybrechts, W. Abdalati, J. Cappelen, B. Csatho, E. Frefick, S. Manizade, C. Martin, J, Sonntag, R. Swift, R. Thomas and J. Yungel. 2004. Greenland Ice Sheet: Increased coastal thinning. Geophysical Research Letters 31.
5 Nature.
6 World Health Organization
7 Washington Post, "Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change," Juliet Eilperin, January 29, 2006, Page A1.
8 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Also quoted in Time Magazine, Vicious Cycles, Missy Adams, March 26, 2006.
9 Time Magazine, Feeling the Heat, David Bjerklie, March 26, 2006.

OK, that is some hard evidence. Let us look at this a little deeper. I think there is more. In fact, I know there is. See, I am doing this because I know someone is going to fill another persons head with bunk dismissing the whole thing. I will put the other side as well, don't worry (imagine the research I did with Michael Moore's films, and I don't believe everything he says, even though I like him).

According to Gore, this is what they used.

The Keeling curve, measuring CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory.

The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs (see Retreat of glaciers since 1850).

A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctic presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years.1

Temperature record since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.

A 2004 survey by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, claimed that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.2

The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore conveyed the science correctly.3

In contrast, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at the time chaired by Republican Senator Jim Inhofe issued a press release criticizing this article.4

Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"5 appears in the film.

RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research."6

Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that An Inconvenient Truth "shocked me out of my doubting stance".7

What started Gore on his path? Let us look.

According to Gore, he became intrigued by the topic of global warming when he took a course at Harvard University with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.8

Later, when Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first congressional hearing on the subject, brought in climate scientists and began talking to politicians about the issue.9

What about schools? It's true, it's there.

The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world and is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally, prompting calls for more government action in regard to the climate. Despite its success, some political leaders are less keen on embracing the film as a matter-of-fact necessity. Several colleges and high schools have begun to use the film in science curricula,10 though at least one US school district put temporary restrictions on its use in the classroom.11, 12

Let us look at political responses though.

President Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: "Doubt it." He later stated that "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."13

Gore responded that "The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he [Bush] has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true."13

White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino stated that “The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to certain extent to human activity”.13

In September 2006, Gore traveled to Sydney, Australia to promote the film. Australian Prime Minister, John Howard said he would not meet with Gore or agree to Kyoto because of the movie: "I don't take policy advice from films." Former Opposition Leader Kim Beazley joined Gore for a viewing and other MPs attended a special screening at Parliament House earlier in the week.14

In the United Kingdom, Conservative Leader of the Opposition David Cameron has urged people to see the film in order to understand climate change.15

In Belgium, Margaretha Guidone successfully persuaded the entire Belgian government to see the film.16

In Spain, after a meeting with Gore, prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero said the government will make An Inconvenient Truth available to schools. Gore has received this year's Prince of Asturias Prize for international cooperation.17, 18

Following the issuing of the IPCC report into Climate Change on February 2, 2007, and following on from the The Stern Review into the economic effects to the UK from climate change, the UK Government announced that it would issue a DVD of An Inconvenient Truth together with further reading material to every secondary school in England and Wales to increase educational awareness of the issues raised in the movie.19 This was challenged in the High Court,20 by Stewart Dimmock, on the basis that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues.

On October 10, 2007, London High Court judge Michael Burton ruled that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate", and that the film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC21, but must be shown in schools with "a new Guidance Note ... which the Defendant proposes to include in the pack, and which, to my satisfaction, addresses all of the above 9 'errors', both by drawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error and/or in any event where he deviates from the consensus view "21

Gore responded to the ruling by saying “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.”22

50,000 free copies of the film were offered to the National Science Teachers Association, which declined them. Laurie David, one of the film's producers, said in a Washington Post op-ed piece that the NSTA wrote her in an E-mail that the DVDs would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." Supporters of the NSTA include companies like ExxonMobil.23 In public, the NSTA argued that distributing this film to its members would have been contrary to a long-standing NSTA policy against distributing unsolicited materials to its members.24

After a father had complained that the movie only showed one point of view, the School Board in Federal Way, Washington voted to require an approval by the principal and the superintendent for teachers to show the film to students, and to require teachers to present an approved "opposing view".10 The moratorium was repealed, after broad public condemnation, at the subsequent meeting on January 23. 11

The Environmental Club of Eisenhower High School in Yakima, Washington was prevented from showing the film until it could be reviewed by the school board, teachers, principal, and parents. The school board called the film a "controversial issue".25 This stay was lifted a month later, following the approval by a review panel26

The Halton District School Board in Burlington, Ontario, Canada has made An Inconvenient Truth available at schools and as an educational resource.27

The film will be science curriculum for fourth and sixth-year students in Scotland, as a joint initiative between Learning and Teaching Scotland and ScottishPower.28

Whew, that is a lot of cutting and pasting, I admit. I do check the sources to see if they are summarized well though. I have altered some a little, for I thought they weren't fair. OK, I altered one thing.

Let us look at opposing views though.

Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist at MIT and anthropogenic global warming skeptic, wrote in a June 26, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. 29

Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film, asserting that the Arctic had a similar temperature in the 1930s before the mass emissions of carbon dioxide began.30

Former University of Winnipeg geography professor Dr. Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific cooling period.31

The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK on March 8, 2007, brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the consensus regarding human-caused global warming. Among other claims, the film states that Gore has misrepresented the data in An Inconvenient Truth, and that the actual relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is the other way round (that is, rise in temperature preceded an increase in carbon dioxide in the ice core samples).

Several of The Great Global Warming Swindle's claims have been disputed by scientists and scientific bodies such as John T. Houghton32, the British Antarctic Survey33, Eigil Friis-Christensen and the Royal Society34.

Global warming skeptic Fred Singer wrote that the documentary is "devastating" to Gore's movie: "...The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician."35

However, Fred Singer's independence has been questioned since his not for profit organisation has accepted funds from the oil industry.36

CITATION TIME!!!!

1 Spahni, Renato; Chappellaz, Jérôme; et al. (November 25, 2005). "Atmospheric Methane and Nitrous Oxide of the Late Pleistocene from Antarctic Ice Cores (abstract)". Science 310 (5752): 1317-1321.

2 Oreskes, Naomi (December 3, 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science 306 (5702): 1686.

3 Borenstein, Seth. "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy", Washington Post, June 27, 2006.

4 AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore’s Movie. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (June 27, 2006).

5 Coile, Zachary. "Senator fights the tide, calls warming by humans a hoax", San Francisco Chronicle, October 11, 2006.

6 Eric, Steig (May 10, 2006). Al Gore’s movie. RealClimate.

7 Michael, Shermer. "The Flipping Point: How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip", Scientific American, June 2006.

8 Voynar, Kim. "Sundance: An Inconvenient Truth Q & A - Al Gore on fire! No, really." "Cinematical." January 26, 2006. (Check out Sundance's website to see it)

9 Remnick, David. "The Talk of the Town." New Yorker." April 14, 2006.

10 Libin, Kevin. "Gore's Inconvenient Truth required classroom viewing?", National Post, May 19, 2007.

11 Robert McClure & Lisa Stiffler. "Federal Way schools restrict Gore film", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 11, 2007.

12 Cara Solomon. "Federal Way School Board lifts brief moratorium on Gore film", Seattle Times, January 24, 2007.

13 Bush gives thumbs down to Gore's new movie. Associated Press (2006-05-24).

14 Howard isolated on climate change: Gore. Nine Network (2006-09-11).

15 Full text of David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference, Guardian Unlimited, 4 October 2006, accessed 25 November 2006

16 Spitzenpolitiker sehen Gore-Film. Flanderninfo.be (2006-10-31).

17 http://www.fundacionprincipedeasturias.org/ing/04/premiados/trayectorias/trayectoria815.html

18 Gore climate documentary to be shown in schools, Expatica, 7 February 2007, accessed 11 February 2007

19 Richard Black. "Humans blamed for Climate Change", BBC News, February 02, 2007.

20 "Law challenge to Gore school film", BBC News, May 4, 2007.

21 Mr. Justice Burton (October 10, 2007). England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions. Royal Courts of Justice, London.

22 Michael Nizza. "British Judge Bruises Al Gore’s Movie", The New York Times, October 10, 2007.

23 Laurie David. "Science a la Joe Camel", The Washington Post, November 26, 2006.

24 Gerald Wheeler. "NSTA Statement on November 26 Washington Post Op-ed "Science à la Joe Camel"", National Science Teachers Association, November 28, 2006.

25 KNDO. "School Delays Viewing of Global Warming Documentary", KNDO, January 24, 2007.

26 Wash. high school club cleared to watch Gore film. Associated Press (February 03, 2007).

27 Halton District School Board (2007-04-24). Screening of An Inconvenient Truth set to educate students on climate change. Press release.

28 David Leask. "All secondary schools to see Gore climate film", The Herald, January 17, 2007.

29 Richard S. Lindzen There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming Wall Street Journal, accessed 2007-01-10

30 Questions for Al Gore by Roy Spencer TCS Daily - Questions for Al Gore, 2006-05-25, accessed 2007-03-13

31 http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

32 Houghton, John. The Great Global Warming Swindle. The John Ray Initiative.

33 BAS Statement about Channel 4 programme on Global Warming

34 The Royal Society’s response to the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Royal Society (11 March 2007).

35 Singer, Fred (19 March 2007). The Great Global Warming Swindle. Independent Institute.

36 Factsheet: S. Fred Singer. ExxonSecrets.org.

 

I know, I am anal-retentive. Thought if you read the first article, he is giving the 1.5 million away to help the cause. I don't know. Being the first to bring the issue of global warming to congress, making people aware it is an issue, whether they agree or not, being an active member with his worldwide concert and many donations. I think he deserves the prize. that is why he got it, not by saying any truths, but making people aware of the issue so they can look into it. Good for you Al!!! I think it is funnier that Bush thinks history will look kindly upon him, as if the present doesn't know. I like the fact that they did a colonoscopy and still didn't find his head. Ahh well, what can you do?

I would like to congradulate Mr. Gore.

With this, my LJ community, Current Thought, is reopening! I figured I would put the new post here, as well as there. People on LJ, I posted this on my Yahoo 360 account.

Check out Current Thought at http://community.livejournal.com/currentthought/

Take care.



Current Mood: ecstatic
Friday, November 17th, 2006
1:17 pm
[joshthejuggla]
Gay marriage.
This is a topic that has been in the news. Now I have been asked if it is illegal for same-sex marriage. Yes, it is and it states it plainly. Now, should it be legalized? That is another question. Let us look at the Federal Law concerning marriage definition:

Now this was amended. It was amended by the Defnense of Marriage Act which is as follows:


So, that tells us that it is the states decision but will not be recognized by the federal government. I live in Minnesota. So, I decided to look and see what our state laws said:


So, with all of those in mind, let us examine this. Is it right? I like to go by what my father told me. "Love knows no bounds, it is facelss and genderless, it is itself."  I don't have the answers. I think it should be allowed. This is something to think about though.
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
4:18 am
[joshthejuggla]
Hunting.
In the midwest, it is currently hunting season for deer. Now I want something to be clear, I am not against hunting. We have been hunting for eons. But is this a sport? That is the central question. I plan to break it down.

It takes skill to hunt. You must learn patience. You need to learn about winds, visability, scents, color, camo, breathing and so forth. That takes a lot. One person I knew liked to hunt a lot. One thing I know from his complaining: you need to learn to deal with boredom and the cold. Sitting in a deer stand for hours in the cold is sometimes not fun. But, that is part of it.
So, as in sports, you need to be skilled and practice. So in that sense it is a sport. You need to be skilled.

When I think of sports, each side is skilled on the same objective. Like baseball, both sides know to make home runs. Football, both sides know to make touchdowns. Bowling, both teams know to make strikes. Cricket, it was too boring for me to stay awake during but both teams are going for the same objective. Last I remember, it is like baseball, only in slow motion. Genereally at least.

This is where the difference comes in. Deer are not trying to kill you. They are not trained, nor get practice, nor know that a game has begun. Every sport has objectives and both sides know the rules and are equally matched for the most part. Let us go back to football (to clear it up, I mean American football). Both sides have the same amount of men, with the same gear. Both have the same rules. There are rules in hunting. There are plenty of them. Now, a dear does not know this. I mean, to make hunting a sport, you would need to be hunted as well. Right? Think about it. You have two people. Give them both 30.06 long range rifles, and 200 rounds. Each has the same gear and both have to follow them same rules. Not only is that more fair, but that falls in line with what a sport is. More so than the former.

With that, I do not think hunting is a "sport" but a skill. A hard skill. I am not saying it is easy. I am not saying it is wrong. In fact, I like hunters. They get food. We have to get it somehow. Some places, it is still like that. Not where I live though. I don't think I would call this one-sided killing a sport though. Now if I saw a deer with camo and a rifle, hunting a human, I would make that for cable TV.

To all the hunters out there. I am not downgrading you at all. Lots of luck on the hunt.
Monday, November 13th, 2006
7:39 am
[joshthejuggla]
First entry.
This should show what this group is about so I will put it into perspective. 

I was reading the news this morning like I always do and something struck my attention that was disturbing. I looked at the news and the headline was to this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/tc_nm/singapore_sms_dc_2

The fastest text messanger in the world. Wow, someone is proud of this. Someone took the time to call someone to time them. Not only do I find that kind of sad but the headlines under it, in smaller fonts, were more serious and not displayed as much. Like this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_he_me/pakistan_kidney_bazaar

People in Pakistan are so poor, they are donating organs. This is the point we are to. Donating organs to survive. This seems weird considering to live a healthy life you need your organs. Even with things like kidneys, you should have both. If you donate one you recieve medical attention to live a healthy life with just one. A proper diet, medication if needed, and we have things like clean water (compared to Pakistan), better food, and more access to those things. In the poverty these people are in, they do not have access to these things which pose a huge problem. This shows how little human life is viewed in this world. Money seems to run all. I know people could link the value of human life to abortion, I know this, but these people die painful deaths, with their brain working. Granted, I would never participate in an abortion, but it is not my place to say what a woman does with her body. I will voice my opinion, but not control them.

There is also this to consider:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

More killing in Iraq. Bombs on buses. A hundred people died this weekend. I mean this stuff is disturbing. It appears this war is getting worse and worse. It brings a good point though, and even though I do not like using profanity on blogs too much, sometimes though, it always reminds me of "Killing for peace is like fucking for virginity." Makes you think.

This is how this can go. I mean, you don't need links and such. You can express your personal views. If you dislike the war not because you disagree with the cause, you just don't like the use of violence. Tell us. But this can bring up discussion and thought and I like that and it is healthy. Another thing is you can do this stuff without getting hassled by a teacher or graded by some halfwit.
About LiveJournal.com