Friday, September 29, 2006

See “An Inconvenient Truth” in HMB free this week

Press release posted by Carl May on Sep 29, 2006 at 10:07 pm in
2 comments • Click to email this story

“An Inconvenient Truth” will be shown Monday to Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday this week at the Methodist church in Half Moon Bay.

Paramount Classics has made a gift of 4,000 Inconvenient Truth DVDs to houses of worship all over the country through a faith-based ecological sustainability organization called Interfaith Power and Light (IPL). IPL is a non-partisan ministry that works with congregations to reduce pollution through energy audits, efficient lighting and appliances, supporting the development of clean energy and providing education.

The Social Concerns Prayer Group, a newly formed group at the Methodist Church, are sponsoring the film. What’s the connection between a church and global warming? Global warming is not a political issue; it is a moral issue. People of most faith traditions are called to love one another and to be responsible stewards of God’s creation. As we saw in New Orleans, the ones who suffer most during natural disasters are the poor. We must start planning now to support those who will be affected in our community when the effects of global warming strike. Although the film offers potential solutions for global warming if we act now, it portends extreme disruption of life as we know it.

After each film, there will be a discussion on ways to reduce energy use, prevent carbon dioxide emissions and contribute to the sustainability of the earth.

Groups in the community who are committed to these goals may contact Shari Deghi at 726-1340 and reserve table space for written material.

Click for details.

“Today we are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization: a global climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous than anything we have ever faced….At stake is the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth….This is not ultimately about any scientific discussion or political dialogue. It is about who we are as human beings. It is about our capacity to transcend our own limitations….To see with our hearts, as well as our heads, the response that is now called for. This is a moral, ethical and spiritual challenge.” An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore, 2006

Students, parents and teachers are especially invited to attend. We need to give our kids the training they will need to deal with the broken earth we are leaving them. “Imagine we are 17 years into the future and share a brief conversation with our children and grandchildren as they are living their lives in the year 2023. Imagine now that they are asking us: ‘What were you thinking? Didn’t you care about our future? Were you really so self-absorbed that you couldn’t – or wouldn’t—stop the destruction of Earth’s environment?’ What would our answer be? We can answer their questions now by our actions, not merely with our promises. In the process, we can choose a future for which our children will thank us.” An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, 2006.

The views expressed in An Inconvenient Truth do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the members of Community United Methodist Church.

*Tuesday Oct 3 at 7:00 p.m. there will be a discussion of the book by the same name, An Inconvenient Truth at Moon News on Main Street.

What scientists are saying about An Inconvenient Truth:

“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” – Science Academics’ Statement from 11 countries (the G8, China, India, and Brazil): Global Response to Climate Change, 2005

“Delaying action for decades, or even years, is not a serious option.” – Sir David King, Chief Science Advisor to the British government – Science Magazine, Jan. 2004

“AP (Associated Press) contacted more than 100 top climate researchers for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book. But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter, and it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.” – Seth Borenstein, Associated Press June 30, 2006

Showtimes (PG) 95 minutes.

Monday Oct. 2 at 7:30 p.m.

Tuesday Oct. 3 * – special event, see below

Wednesday Oct. 4 at 3:30 p.m.

Friday Oct 6 at 3:30

Friday Oct 6 also at 7:30 p.m.

Saturday Oct 7 at 7:30

Location: Community United Methodist Church, 777 Miramontes St., HMB

To see a trailer and lots more cool information, go to the film’s website: http://www.climatecrisis.net
Cost: FREE

Comments

Comment 1 by Kevin Barron on Mar 6 at 11:49pm • All my comments •

For what it’s worth… thinking it’s now even two more years later since this posting…and Al Gore still won’t debate publicly on anything he lays claim to (nor privately) any politician, scientist, or any lackey that he should be able to slaughter cerebrally (since after all he won the Nobel Prize on the subject). He’s got some good stuff/intentions, but whom better to go head-to-head with proponents. Call me kooky, but something is still awfully awry here.

Few find this odd, also given his senatorship nor presidential candidacy had little/nothing to do with the paramount threat to mankind he’s benefited so much off of.

What’s there to lose Al…? Why is this shown as gospel and fact, when it is yet to be validated nor debated. It’s like the San Mateo County Board pushing through on an coastside agenda, with no opportunity for expert rebuttal.

Comment 2 by Carl May on Mar 7 at 7:36pm • All my comments •

I never cared much for Al Gore—his was a terrible overall campaign for President in 2000. (This led to idiots blaming Ralph Nader—they are still at it—for Gore’s inadequacies, for the failure of the Democratic Party to appeal to a fair number of political independents, and for an election determined by the courts—as if Nader was somehow influencing the judges.) Didn’t vote for Gore then, but do admire his decision now against trying to politically exploit positive recognition for work on a decidedly non-political problem concerning the material world we all share.

Supposedly concerned with environmental problems since his college days, Gore had a lot of redeeming to do in the eyes of many of us. This he most certainly accomplished to a large degree with his well-grounded educational campaign on global climate change—often simplified as “global warming.” It pains many of the uninformed and short-term greedy that he was successful with a revived and determined personal effort—conducted over years and at considerable personal expense with nothing personal to gain—to bring certain scientific concerns home to a larger segment of the public than had ever been reached before—even by some excellent, outspoken scientists like Stephen Schneider.

As a person who has been involved with science education most of his adult life, trust me, this isn’t easy, especially in a weakly-educated country like the U.S. (Ever wonder why countries with better-educated populations, countries that eat our lunch with math and science test scores, have been quicker to recognize and begin to do something about problems like climate change?)

As any environmental threat is studied, more refined knowledge is developed. Why debate know-nothings from the political, economic, or religious arenas when they have no comprehensive background to bring to the table? Why debate those with crude and outdated knowledge who try to sidetrack issues into irrelevant and or unscientific trivia? Why debate people who ignorantly wish to hold scientists to absolutes (where absolutes cannot exist in science)when the questions involving human causes and impacts of climate change are ones of risk? Why debate fringe scientists who have already been answered and countered by the vast bulk of other scientists in the field of study? Why debate people who believe they are off the hook for human stupidity because assurances in their Bible, as they interpret it, have them covered?

My biggest gripe with popularization of the climate-change environmental challenge is that it is purported to be, and many now perceive it to be, the single major, significant environmental challenge of our time. This is undoubtedly due partially to the success of Gore and others, many others, in increasing public awareness; and that’s a good thing. But climate change is only one of a group of huge environmental messes in our face—interrelated, of course, but all compelling on their own. (Furthermore, human overpopulation, from local to global, is the forcing factor in them all, making any improvement on other issues, like climate change, futile over the long haul if not accompanied by reduced population pressure.)

All negative environmental phenomena and trends are continuously challenged by pollyannas, those whose short-term moneymaking is challenged, and those wealthy enough to figure they can insulate themselves from any likely environmental decline on the horizon. Reflect on why, for a moment, Gore and his colleagues chose to include the word “inconvenient” in the title of their film.

Carl May

See “An Inconvenient Truth” in HMB free this week

Comments

Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.