"Moore-esque"...

That's funny.

Granted, Mr. Moore is the bottom of the barrel in terms of pure left-wing propaganda, and I understand the difference between propaganda and biased media. I am simply amazed that YOU see the difference.

I followed the link you provided, and was unable to find a vendor here in the US that had the film, or the trilogy of films, in stock... not even Amazon has it. So my ability to view the program is held up till it is more readily available in the US.

However, there are LOTS of sites dedicated to the piece... and while most of them are calling for a plague of biting flies to descend on the genitalia of the makers of this film, there are some that maintain a rather objective view of the production.

It would seem the greatest strength of the film is that it restates most of MY arguments concerning global warming. Not whether or not it is happening, but what is the cause. The film does not argue the point that man can, and does, effect the environment... even on a global scale... but the effect cannot be measured against such far greater effects happening in the natural world.

Variable cycles with the sun, tiny fluctuations in the orbit of the earth around the sun, geologic events such as volcanoes and changing ocean temperatures all effect the global climate far more than man has, is or will effect the global climate. Even the amount of annual snowfall at the poles can EFFECT the climate as much as BE AN EFFECT of the climate... less fresh snow at the poles means less radiant light (and heat) reflected back into space.

I'm just wondering WHY this has been brought up again? Who in this forum is advocating the advancement of the pseudo-science of "global warming"? Who here is a fan of Gore's "Srgt. Pompous and the Hippy Club Band" movie? I haven't even seen "Inconvenient Truth"... so I can't even say it sucked first hand... I'm certainly not going to defend its position on the climate.

As I said on your patio all those years ago... what got my "goat" was the constant dribble from the ultra-right about how it was "impossible" for human beings to impact the environment... and YOU going so far as to say it was the height of arrogance and conceit to even suggest it. That was simply FALSE, and basing a counter-argument to something as problematic as global warming on a falsehood seemed rather obtuse to me... even coming from a very young and energetic Ryan.

I would simply remind you that I was under the impression that we ALL agreed to recognize the difference (at least within this forum) between "environmentalism" as governmental policy and the global-warming panic mongers that are striving to make governmental policy. The latter is BAD, but the former can be GOOD... even profitable, to those that recognize the need early enough to cash in on the process. Look at Waste Management, Inc. They just posted record earnings for the 11th straight year in a row, and hold more patents on recycling technology than any other company on the planet. THIS company isn't your typical garbage or land-fill pick up group... this is a forward-thinking corporation that sees the need for clean, safe and alternative solutions to environmental concerns... and they are cashing in the GREEN.

The technology to "clean up" our domestic industrial and commercial enterprises exists RIGHT NOW... all I have advocated from the government is an incentive (tax-based or otherwise) to encourage the development and implementation of this technology to hasten its application into society in a cost-effective manner.

Is that so wrong? Does that make me a "tree hugger"?