an inconvenient truth

[howard]

I just got done watching this movie from Al Gore, very powerful. First, I would highly recommend that everyone should see this movie. There are so many little ways we can change the course of our climate, as small as walking to the store or switching our light bulbs. But most people think its to small of a thing to do and therefore don't take action. So far I have turned down the heat, switched a few light bulbs to the energy efficient kind and started walking/riding my bike to reasonable destinations.

What can you do or what have you done to help keep our earth alive?

I'm posting this thread as yet another small way to help. And yes it may be small, but if it gets just one person to do one small thing to help than its been worth it. At our population of billions of people in this world, it only takes small gestures from each of us to really change our course dramatically. Please keep that in mind.

[devilot]

There's also this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=194360&highlight=inconvienent+truth) older thread, but it might be old enough that this newer thread would be okay. :o

[EricNau]

The movie was OK, but in my opinion it was lacking.

The movie was too scientific for the average person (i.e. they probably understand what Al Gore told them to do, but don't understand why), and for someone who is well versed in the subject, the movie didn't cover enough. They should have chosen one target audience, rather than picking somewhere between the two.

...But it's still worth watching.

[howard]

The movie was OK, but in my opinion it was lacking.

The movie was too scientific for the average person (i.e. they probably understand what Al Gore told them to do, but don't understand why), and for someone who is well versed in the subject, the movie didn't cover enough. They should have chosen one target audience, rather than picking somewhere between the two.

...But it's still worth watching.

I thought it was pretty straight forward. He really dumbed down a lot of the explanations for why our climate is changing and how it will affect us, both scientifically and in a real world sense.

If anything I would have liked him to focus more on what we can do on both larger and smaller scales. What we can do is only described during the credits and also on the DVD package. He only briefly skimmed over what we can do on a larger scale. That seems to be the most important thing, after all this was made to inspire change.

[Swarmlord]

I'd watch it, but I have yet another foot of snow to shovel.

[it5five]

For all of the smart asses out there like Swarmlord:

Global warming = climate change.

Maybe you should watch the movie.

[Swarmlord]

For all of the smart asses out there like Swarmlord:

Global warming = climate change.

Maybe you should watch the movie.

Climate change has been taking place on this planet for billions of years without man for 99% of it. I'm still waiting for the ice age these same scientists scared us with during the 1970's. I'm also waiting for the description of how mankind armed with only campfires raised the temperature of the Earth from the Ice age to current levels.

Perhaps a little more study of the relationship of the current rising temperature of the Sun to the Earth's increase in temperature would be a bit more enlightening than Al Gore's movie.

[vniow]

I'd watch it, but I have yet another foot of snow to shovel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvienent_Truth#Scientific_basis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[Dont Hurt Me]

Man is simply a innocent bystander :D Perfect guardian to the planet:rolleyes: and master of all he surveys and yadda yadda yadda.

[Motley]

Climate change has been taking place on this planet for billions of years without man for 99% of it. I'm still waiting for the ice age these same scientists scared us with during the 1970's. I'm also waiting for the description of how mankind armed with only campfires raised the temperature of the Earth from the Ice age to current levels.

For the oft repeated global cooling myth. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/)


Perhaps a little more study of the relationship of the current rising temperature of the Sun to the Earth's increase in temperature would be a bit more enlightening than Al Gore's movie.

I never understood why people bring up obvious things and believe that no scientist anywhere had thought of it yet Lots of reading here (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm#L_0713)

[obeygiant]

Without a paradigm shift, humanity will just keep marching forward on its current path. A few 100,000 people changing their light bulbs isnt going to revert the climate back. If there is a warm up caused by man, unless we start pumping millions of cubic feet of clean air into the environment, the warm up will continue.


anyway, wont we all die from an asteroid impact in 2012?

[obeygiant]

For the oft repeated global cooling myth. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/)


Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.

a nice way of saying, "We didnt know what the hell we were talking about then but we may now."

[aquajet]

Perhaps a little more study of the relationship of the current rising temperature of the Sun to the Earth's increase in temperature would be a bit more enlightening than Al Gore's movie.

But apparantly, you haven't seen the movie. So why should anybody give a **** about what you say?

[Swarmlord]

But apparantly, you haven't seen the movie. So why should anybody give a **** about what you say?

You don't have to see a specific movie to have an opinion on global warming.

I do know that my carbon footprint is smaller than Gore, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, Streisand, or any of the other so called messengers of global warming. When they are willing to limit their energy usage to the level of the people they are lecturing I'll be a bit more impressed with their arguments.

Just remember, it's not so much the heat as the humidity. :D

[yojitani]

When it comes to global warming, the things we are supposed to do to slow the process are things we should be doing anyway, aren't they? I mean does anyone actually like breathing exhaust, industrial smoke etc.? does it make any practical sense for one person to drive their giant dodge SUV 2 miles just to get to school/work? Wouldn't you rather recycle than see plastic etc pile up in dumps - or worse, breathing in the fumes from garbage incinerators?

It's weird how the global warming debate is used by one side to give the other side a reason for not being slobs:rolleyes: .

YT

[aquajet]

You don't have to see a specific movie to have an opinion on global warming.

My point is, it's foolish to discount any value in Gore's documentary without actually seeing it first. Just a pet peeve of mine, you know...

I do know that my carbon footprint is smaller than Gore, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, Streisand, or any of the other so called messengers of global warming. When they are willing to limit their energy usage to the level of the people they are lecturing I'll be a bit more impressed with their arguments.

I frankly don't know what Gore's carbon footprint is, but even if he likes to use barrels of oil as tiki torches in his back yard and drives a 747 to the supermarket, that doesn't mean I will dismiss his message as utter nonsense and begin doing the same.

[vniow]

When they are willing to limit their energy usage to the level of the people they are lecturing I'll be a bit more impressed with their arguments.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environment

Gore is a vocal proponent of carbon neutrality, buying a carbon offset each time he travels by aircraft. Gore and his family drive hybrid vehicles.

[pseudobrit]

Climate change has been taking place on this planet for billions of years without man for 99% of it.

Yeah, but this is the first time we've changed it. The other thing about climate change is that it moves at a literally glacial pace. The human-caused variety is moving like a Model T.

[hulugu]

You don't have to see a specific movie to have an opinion on global warming.

I do know that my carbon footprint is smaller than Gore, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, Streisand, or any of the other so called messengers of global warming. When they are willing to limit their energy usage to the level of the people they are lecturing I'll be a bit more impressed with their arguments.

Just remember, it's not so much the heat as the humidity. :D

Climate change has been taking place on this planet for billions of years without man for 99% of it. I'm still waiting for the ice age these same scientists scared us with during the 1970's. I'm also waiting for the description of how mankind armed with only campfires raised the temperature of the Earth from the Ice age to current levels.

Perhaps a little more study of the relationship of the current rising temperature of the Sun to the Earth's increase in temperature would be a bit more enlightening than Al Gore's movie.

First, Global Warming is a short-hand, and inaccurate, term for Anthropogenic Climate Change. In the United States, certain areas will experience dramatic increases in snow-fall and ice-storms while other places, such as Kansas, may become drier. Climate change is complex and not expressly related to heating.
Furthermore, there are other problems related to the massive release of CO2 into the air, such as the sudden accumulation of large amounts of CO2 into the oceans. So much has been absorbed, that the oceans PH level is changing due to an increase of carbonic acid.

So far, Swarmlord, you've dissapointed me. In many other threads you've made some interesting statements, but here you hold to the common bon mots of those who argue against human-caused climate change. First, you mention the oft-cited, if entirely incorrect, estimation that scientists believed in 'global cooling' in the 1970s. Then you attack the messenger, namely Gore and others, with little evidence to support such an attack. Gore, for example, buys carbon credits to offset his usages.
Then, you fall back into pithy remarks about the weather, while still managing to completely miss the point.

You can do better.


When it comes to global warming, the things we are supposed to do to slow the process are things we should be doing anyway, aren't they? I mean does anyone actually like breathing exhaust, industrial smoke etc.? does it make any practical sense for one person to drive their giant dodge SUV 2 miles just to get to school/work? Wouldn't you rather recycle than see plastic etc pile up in dumps - or worse, breathing in the fumes from garbage incinerators?

It's weird how the global warming debate is used by one side to give the other side a reason for not being slobs.

I've often made the point that carbon is just another pollutant, no different than the others that are regulated and taxed.

[iJon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Environment

I loved the movie and thought it had a great message. You say he drives hyrbid cars around but I noticed in his movie he was driving a Cadillac Escalade :). Maybe that ride is just for the farm.

jom

[obeygiant]

So far, Swarmlord, you've dissapointed me. In many other threads you've made some interesting statements, but here you hold to the common bon mots of those who argue against human-caused climate change. First, you mention the oft-cited, if entirely incorrect, estimation that scientists believed in 'global cooling' in the 1970s.

Its cited not just because the report was wrong, but also because its proof of the fact that scientists often think they know whats going on but actually dont. Not that I totally disagree with the report, but no one seems to want to admit that there many other factors that can be causing this change. Such as precession, where the tilting of the earths axis rotating every 26,000 years or so.

[skunk]

Such as procession, where the tilting of the earths axis rotating every 26,000 years or so.Procession is not the same as precession, and neither of them is even slightly relevant to the argument unless you can show a 26,000 year cycle of climate change.

[elfin buddy]

Its cited not just because the report was wrong, but also because its proof of the fact that scientists often think they know whats going on but actually dont. Not that I totally disagree with the report, but no one seems to want to admit that there many other factors that can be causing this change. Such as procession, where the tilting of the earths axis rotating every 26,000 years or so.

I take it you mean precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession)?

Ice ages are periodic (http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050330_earth_tilt.html) as with the precession of the Earth's axis of rotation, but it really doesn't change the temperature too quickly.

Plus, when I see web sites like this (http://www.templeofsolomon.org/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm), I tend to gain a great deal of skepticism towards the subject.

Procession is not the same as precession, and neither of them is even slightly relevant to the argument unless you can show a 26,000 year cycle of climate change.

Ah, beat me to it. My fault for not reloading the page before I typed.

[obeygiant]

oops, im sorry. precession.

[obeygiant]

Procession is not the same as precession, and neither of them is even slightly relevant to the argument unless you can show a 26,000 year cycle of climate change.

thats exactly my point.

[Swarmlord]

Its cited not just because the report was wrong, but also because its proof of the fact that scientists often think they know whats going on but actually dont. Not that I totally disagree with the report, but no one seems to want to admit that there many other factors that can be causing this change. Such as precession, where the tilting of the earths axis rotating every 26,000 years or so.

Exactly. Thanks.

[.Andy]

Its cited not just because the report was wrong, but also because its proof of the fact that scientists often think they know whats going on but actually dont. Not that I totally disagree with the report, but no one seems to want to admit that there many other factors that can be causing this change. Such as precession, where the tilting of the earths axis rotating every 26,000 years or so.
So you're skeptical of the global warming consensus because scientists are often wrong, but you're happy to accept their consensus on axis tilting :confused:?

[®îçhå®?]

This has been added to the Geography UK syllabus so every schoolchild has to watch it. In m opinion, it is good news. The evidence stacks up and it is very powerful and convincing to change the way we live.

[obeygiant]

So you're skeptical of the global warming consensus because scientists are often wrong

yes thats right.

but you're happy to accept their consensus on axis tilting :confused:?

i'd love to hear you dis-prove precession.

[.Andy]

yes thats right.

i'd love to hear you dis-prove precession.

Not surprisingly you completely missed the point of my post.

[thedude110]

Its cited not just because the report was wrong, but also because its proof of the fact that scientists often think they know whats going on but actually dont.

Nothing like hiding your ad hom attack behind a hasty conclusion.

[emw]

So if we make the assumption that this group of scientists is correct, and make efforts to change our ways, and it turns out they were wrong, where does that leave us in the future?

As I see it, it leaves us in a situation where we've cut our use of finite resources like fossil fuels, we've reduced waste and pollution, we've limited our negative impact on other species, and perhaps even developed fundamentally new technologies that allow us to go places or do things we're not even imagining right now. All of these seem to be positive things that we should be aiming for regardless of if we're fundamentally altering the climate of our planet.

Conversely, if we assume that the scientists are full of crap and that we as humans are not responsible for altering the climate and we continue along our current path only to find in 20 years that they were indeed correct, where does that leave us?

My guess is that we've delayed developments of new energy technologies, not reduced pollution significantly, continued to wipe out other species, and will then find ourselves in a situation where reversing what we've done is even more difficult, if not impossible.

In my mind, I'd rather do what needs to be done under the assumption that the scientists are correct, knowing that it ultimately improves things regardless of the true reason for climate change, than do nothing.

[pseudobrit]

I'd watch it, but I have yet another foot of snow to shovel.

You weren't shovelling anything in 70-degree-January, were you?

:rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

So you're skeptical of the global warming consensus because scientists are often wrong, but you're happy to accept their consensus on axis tilting :confused:?

Yes. Science is fallible so let's not believe anything.

[EricNau]

i'd love to hear you dis-prove precession.
I'd like to hear you prove it (no Internet or other resources allowed). Do you really know?



...My point is this: you blindly accept scientific facts everyday - we all do. This is because we accept that some people are smarter than us in certain fields, so we trust their theories and take their advice. So why can't you accept global warming/climate change?

[hulugu]

Its cited not just because the report was wrong, but also because its proof of the fact that scientists often think they know whats going on but actually dont. Not that I totally disagree with the report, but no one seems to want to admit that there many other factors that can be causing this change. Such as precession, where the tilting of the earths axis rotating every 26,000 years or so.

My point was that many people who dispute the possibility of Anthropogenic Climate Change often refer to 'Global Cooling' as a refutation of the new model. First, because even if the entire scientific community had been sure that the world was going to cool, obviously they've learned a few things. Secondly, there was actually a lot of doubt and uncertainty about 'global cooling' but the media ran with the story.

Lastly, while you and Swarm both have pithy responses to 'global warming' I've noticed neither one of you has anything to say about the carbonic acid problem, which is also the result of carbon pollution.

[obeygiant]

Not surprisingly you completely missed the point of my post.

I didnt miss anything. You're comparing two different things.

Precession, like the orbits of planets around the sun or other celestial clockwork, is a finite thing that we can measure again and again and get the same result.

Global warming (or climate change) depends on thousands of variables. Variables that are man-made, like pollution, other variables are natural, like precession, variances in solar radiation and so on.

And finally, if you'd read the entire thread, I'm not totally disputing the findings of the UN, I'm agreeing with Swarmlords skepticism about it.

[Scarlet Fever]

As I see it, it leaves us in a situation where we've cut our use of finite resources like fossil fuels, we've reduced waste and pollution, we've limited our negative impact on other species, and perhaps even developed fundamentally new technologies that allow us to go places or do things we're not even imagining right now. All of these seem to be positive things that we should be aiming for regardless of if we're fundamentally altering the climate of our planet.

Conversely, if we assume that the scientists are full of crap and that we as humans are not responsible for altering the climate and we continue along our current path only to find in 20 years that they were indeed correct, where does that leave us?

that has got to be the best, most balanced post in this thread yet. And i think because of the power and logic of the idea, it won't be beaten.

I reckon the scientists disproving climate change have been paid by governments and oil and coal companies, because if they were to say the earth is changing, they would lose all their money.

And a few 100,000 people changing their globes will make a difference, but each individual might not notice it. Fixing climate change isn't something we can do as 6,000,000,000 individuals; its something we all have to work together to do. Turning off lights when you're not even in the room makes a small difference if one person does it, but if everyone does it, we can cut our emissions dramatically.

[EricNau]

Just thought I'd make something clear: climate change can not be "fixed" and certainly isn't going away anytime soon, no matter what actions we take. Our actions now will just effect the degree of change.

I wish Al Gore would have made this more clear in his movie.

[.Andy]

And finally, if you'd read the entire thread, I'm not totally disputing the findings of the UN, I'm agreeing with Swarmlords skepticism about it.

Climate change has been taking place on this planet for billions of years without man for 99% of it. I'm still waiting for the ice age these same scientists scared us with during the 1970's. I'm also waiting for the description of how mankind armed with only campfires raised the temperature of the Earth from the Ice age to current levels.

That's an ExxonMobil press release. Not skepticism.

[mactastic]

So if we make the assumption that this group of scientists is correct, and make efforts to change our ways, and it turns out they were wrong, where does that leave us in the future?
I think this is the most effective argument really. It's one I've long believed in, although it reminds me of the guy who's philosophy on religion was similar -- ie. if you bet wrong and you live a pious live, nothing lost. If you bet wrong and you've lived a sinful life you go to hell.

I believe it was a Brit with a passion for wagering who came up with that one...

[Swarmlord]

You weren't shovelling anything in 70-degree-January, were you?

:rolleyes:

It wasn't seventy here although it did get up to 50. We normally have our worst winter weather in Feb, Mar and even the first two weeks of April.

Gotta love that snowfall in Katmandu for the first time in 65 years though!

Let's face it people, politicians aren't going to do anything before it reaches crisis proportions and that won't be for hundreds of years even using the worst projections.

I recycle, I burn all of one tank of gas in my car in a month and I keep my thermostat at 65. When it comes to this subject, I can sleep just fine at night.

[emw]

climate change can not be "fixed" and certainly isn't going away anytime soonPart of that might depend on our ability to scrub the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Perhaps impossible, perhaps not. But I'm sure not easy.

Let's face it people, politicians aren't going to do anything before it reaches crisis proportions and that won't be for hundreds of years even using the worst projections.More specifically, politicians won't do anything about it unless they feel there's something in it for them. If the public isn't voting them out of office if they fail to support Climate Change legislation, then they have no incentive.

[Swarmlord]

More specifically, politicians won't do anything about it unless they feel there's something in it for them. If the public isn't voting them out of office if they fail to support Climate Change legislation, then they have no incentive.

That's so low on their list of things to do that it will never be relevant. They have a hard enough time staying focused on things that have to be fixed in our lifetimes.

I know I won't live long enough to see a politician elected or not elected primarily because of his or her plan for global warming. For most people the weather is the weather. Sometimes it's hot and sometimes it's cold. Dress accordingly.

[solvs]

that has got to be the best, most balanced post in this thread yet.

I think this is the most effective argument really.

I agree, that's often been my argument as well. The sort of, "just in case", and "we should do it anyway approach". Plus, looking at the people who are against even researching it and what their ulterior motives are, I can't help but think those scientists talking about it who have pretty much nothing to gain (and know a lot more about it than the rest of us, including most politicians, for and against) may be on to something.

[EricNau]

Let's face it people, politicians aren't going to do anything before it reaches crisis proportions and that won't be for hundreds of years even using the worst projections.
Actually, using the worst projections, we could reach crisis proportions much sooner.

[carbonmotion]

I took a class on global warming at my university, gore's evidence is pretty accurate to the class that I took. Virtually all reputed scientist will tell you that the climate is experiencing unaturally accelerated rise in temperature due to man made wastes filling in to the atmosphere. Mmm, if you have evidence to dispute his graphs, by all means, present them.

I mean, I love the 2007 Range Rover, but I won't drive one.

[srf4real]

If some of you were older and had seen things the way they were 30 - 40 years ago and witnessed the change in human density, the increase in growing industrial nations, the increase in pollution related disasters and consequences, the massive increase in the power of the average hurricane, etc... it might be harder for you to be sceptical about our part in global warming.

The capitalists are fighting it tooth and nail with propaganda and counterfeit science from bribed scientists, because their profits rely on our denial of the truth.

But, hey, I love huge storms- don't get me wrong! Hurricane surf rules.:cool:

And I cried during that movie.:(

[EricNau]

And I cried during that movie.:(
Was it the polar bear?

[Killyp]

Actually, using the worst projections, we could reach crisis proportions much sooner.

But are the worst projections the most accurate?


I agree that maybe something is going on for global warming, I think it's impossible to deny that as some people seem to be trying.

Where I completely disagree with how we're going about cutting global warming is when it comes to things like public transport (which is far less efficient than cars etc...), and using less power.
My view on this is that we'd be far better off producing our energy in a green way than using less of it. If we want other areas of science, technology and society to keep moving along, then we need to do this, however we can also be friendly to the environment at the same time...

[EricNau]

But are the worst projections the most accurate?Perhaps not, but they are still the "worst projections."

[obeygiant]

Not to dig up an old thread, but this was an interesting tidbit.

Gore’s mansion consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year … In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Now I'm glad he won the oscar for best documentary, and I agree that we should all try to minimize our carbon footprint, but this is ridiculous.

USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
Now I'm glad he won the oscar for best documentary, and I agree that we should all try to minimize our carbon footprint, but this is ridiculous.



It's my understanding he DIDN'T get an Oscar for the movie. He was IN an Oscar winning movie. The producer or director actually got the Oscar.

[obeygiant]

It's my understanding he DIDN'T get an Oscar for the movie. He was IN an Oscar winning movie. The producer or director actually got the Oscar.

You're right. He kinda-sorta vicariously won. :)

[srf4real]

I recycle my no-filter ciggarette butts. Also pee in the backyard alot to save water.:cool:

[obeygiant]

I recycle my no-filter ciggarette butts. Also pee in the backyard alot to save water.:cool:

LMAO. Living like a raccoon has its benefits.

[Dont Hurt Me]

thats exactly my point.But what we are seeing isnt a 26,000 year cycle, its happening in hundreds of years. You just cant poor billions of tons of stuff into the atmosphere and think nothing is going to happen unless your Republican. Man is changing our planet in lots of ways from reflected sunlight to particles in the atmosphere to new chemicals in the atmosphere.

[TheDance511]

sorry..i hate republicans..theyre greedy, crooks, and you kno what they make me sick...bastards:mad: .....be loving you greedy @$$ holes...so wut if gay ppl wanna b together..they arent bothering you.. and i think it is kinda funny how you preach your christian values about what would jesus do or do the right thing or be peaceful and love...but you republicans support going to iraq and killing all those innocent people... and our own... and then polluting our planet with co2 and trash and garbage..they are real problems and i think you guys just add fuel to the fire..oh and your boy bush he SUCKS i think i read a poll he is in the 10th lowest presidential rating EVER since this country was founded...anyway...im not rly saying democrats are any better but ya..just my 2 cents

[iJon]

Not to dig up an old thread, but this was an interesting tidbit.



Now I'm glad he won the oscar for best documentary, and I agree that we should all try to minimize our carbon footprint, but this is ridiculous.

USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)

Man, talk about being busted. I made mention earlier in this thread that in his movie he was driving around a Cadillac Escalade. Thought that was humorous.

jon

[pdham]

Not to dig up an old thread, but this was an interesting tidbit.

Now I'm glad he won the oscar for best documentary, and I agree that we should all try to minimize our carbon footprint, but this is ridiculous.

USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)

I feel like statements like this are about as productive as the "well china doesn't conserve so why should we" argument. What Al Gore does in his personal life in no way changes the importance of the message. If I said eating a balanced diet is important to overall health, and then only ate Twinkies myself, my actions don’t reduce the truth of my initial statement.

In closing, what is your point, and why do you keep bring this up?

[obeygiant]

If I said eating a balanced diet is important to overall health, and then only ate Twinkies myself, my actions don’t reduce the truth of my initial statement.

In closing, what is your point, and why do you keep bring this up?

Keep bringing this up? You mean its not important to have all sides of an issue? You can't just listen to things that only confirm preconceived notions.

BTW, if you only ate twinkies while telling everyone how important it is to eat a balanced diet you'd be an instant hypocrite.

[hulugu]

Keep bringing this up? You mean its not important to have all sides of an issue? You can't just listen to things that only confirm preconceived notions.

BTW, if you only ate twinkies while telling everyone how important it is to eat a balanced diet you'd be an instant hypocrite.

Well it's important to have two sides to a debate when both sides are honest.

This does bother me, Gore, more than any celebrity should understand what can be done to make a home 'green' by using PV arrays, solar heating, specific architecture, as well as things like computer controlled heating and cooling and CF bulbs.

However, Gore is just of many people who are making the argument, and Gore's apparent penchant for Cadilliacs does not change the science nor the problem.

[Zwhaler]

Climate change has been taking place on this planet for billions of years without man for 99&#37; of it. I'm still waiting for the ice age these same scientists scared us with during the 1970's. I'm also waiting for the description of how mankind armed with only campfires raised the temperature of the Earth from the Ice age to current levels.

Perhaps a little more study of the relationship of the current rising temperature of the Sun to the Earth's increase in temperature would be a bit more enlightening than Al Gore's movie.

Wow, never heard that one before. :rolleyes: Get a clue dude. Listen, all you republicans.

First, you said "Global warming doesn't exist and is a myth".

Then, it was "Global warming exists a little bit, but it is obviously not man made"

Then that turned into "Global warming exists, but it is not man made"

So on, so fourth "Global warming exists, but most of it happened without man for 99% of it.

Pretty soon, it will be "Global warming not only exists, but is entriely man made because of (largely) pollution by major coorperations and resisdents alike, and we are screwed. Should have listened to Al Gore, who has been on top of this since the 1970's." Just you wait.

[Ugg]

Keep bringing this up? You mean its not important to have all sides of an issue? You can't just listen to things that only confirm preconceived notions.

BTW, if you only ate twinkies while telling everyone how important it is to eat a balanced diet you'd be an instant hypocrite.

It brings up an interesting question. Should the rich be barred from consuming excessive amounts of energy? Should they pay a huge premium to do so? Should mcmansions and faux chateaux be banned from the American landscape? Should all old and historic mansions be torn down in the name of conservation?

Should every commentator be forced to live up to the values that he preaches? rush and his ilk show us that hypcrisy is rampant on both sides of the aisle. Gore should be taken to account but where does it end?

Your need to lambaste any on the left who don't toe some imaginary line that exists mostly in your own head is legendary. Do you practice what you are constantly preaching, or is this all some primal chest thumping exercise?

[Don't panic]

It brings up an interesting question. Should the rich be barred from consuming excessive amounts of energy? Should they pay a huge premium to do so? Should mcmansions and faux chateaux be banned from the American landscape? Should all old and historic mansions be torn down in the name of conservation?


certainly a steep progressive tax scheme for energy consumption in private properties could be considered.

as far as gore's power bill, it's kind of obvious he consumes more than the average household, given the size of the estate, and it is idiotic to even think that a 20 room mansion will consume the same electricity of a two-bedroom apartment.
the real question is how much he consumes compared to similar estates in the same area. if it is not significantly less, he should be ashamed.

[pdham]

Keep bringing this up? You mean its not important to have all sides of an issue? You can't just listen to things that only confirm preconceived notions.


If the issue we are discussing is energy consumption, conservation and future energy and climate predictions (which is what I thought we were), then no I don't see how discussing the energy use of Gore is important or how it is the "other side of the issue." We all know that there is a large portion of society, rich and otherwise, that use far more energy then they need. Whether Gore is in that group or not is irrelevant to the discussion and the solution. That is why I say it doesn't matter.

BTW, if you only ate twinkies while telling everyone how important it is to eat a balanced diet you'd be an instant hypocrite.

Absolutely I would be a hypocrite and Gore may well be also, but again, that doe not change the validity of the claim. They are not related.

[Swarmlord]

certainly a steep progressive tax scheme for energy consumption in private properties could be considered.

as far as gore's power bill, it's kind of obvious he consumes more than the average household, given the size of the estate, and it is idiotic to even think that a 20 room mansion will consume the same electricity of a two-bedroom apartment.
the real question is how much he consumes compared to similar estates in the same area. if it is not significantly less, he should be ashamed.

Why always some progressive tax scheme where the people you want to limit their overuse of something just pay more for it and continue to do what they want. I'm surprised the Left doesn't just want to limit every family to a fixed number of "energy credits" and be done with it. You use up all your credits and you either buy them from someone else or do without. You think that Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, et. al. care what they pay for their life of privilege?

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
Pretty soon, it will be "Global warming not only exists, but is entriely man made because of (largely) pollution by major coorperations and resisdents alike, and we are screwed. Should have listened to Al Gore, who has been on top of this since the 1970's." Just you wait.

Then our descendents will either adapt or die off and the Earth will return to its formerly pristine, untamed self. Believe me. Plant life will not sit back and remain idle if carbon dioxide levels increase significantly.

[pdham]

Why always some progressive tax scheme where the people you want to limit their overuse of something just pay more for it and continue to do what they want. I'm surprised the Left doesn't just want to limit every family to a fixed number of "energy credits" and be done with it. You use up all your credits and you either buy them from someone else or do without. You think that Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, et. al. care what they pay for their life of privilege?

I actually don't think transferable energy credits are such a bad idea. We already use transferable rights for pollution and for development purposes, and in those fields it has proven to be fairly easy to regulate and manage. And the truth of the matter is I don't see the vast majority of this country changing their behavior until they see the real, immediate dangers of their continued consumption, and at that point it will probably be too late.

/Begin Rant/
On a separate note, what bothers, and it is present in this post, is the explicit or implicit attempt to make energy consumption (and its solutions) a political issue, or a left versus right issue. That rhetoric is what is delaying any real progress. This is also why the continued mentions of Al Gore's energy usage bothers me so much. As if saying Al Gore is a hypocrite is some political victory for the right, and thus reduces the importance of his message.
/End Rant/

[Ugg]

Then our descendents will either adapt or die off and the Earth will return to its formerly pristine, untamed self. Believe me. Plant life will not sit back and remain idle if carbon dioxide levels increase significantly.

How do you know that it's not going to affect us? Are you 70+ or just hiding your head in the sand?

[Swarmlord]

How do you know that it's not going to affect us? Are you 70+ or just hiding your head in the sand?

No, even using Al Gore's numbers it will take a long time before Canada gets Phoenix's weather.

Frankly since the Middle East is consists of a lot of desert now it wouldn't bother me a bit to see it go from an uncomfortable 120 F to a blast furnace level of 150+. And to use their oil to get there would be poetic justice.

[Ugg]

No, even using Al Gore's numbers it will take a long time before Canada gets Phoenix's weather.

Frankly since the Middle East is consists of a lot of desert now it wouldn't bother me a bit to see it go from an uncomfortable 120 F to a blast furnace level of 150+. And to use their oil to get there would be poetic justice.

The biggest mistake that pundits make about global warming is that it's only a problem when the most extreme problems occur.

I don't know where you live, but the ME isn't the only place that's going to experience a change in temperature. Are you ready for the changes that are going to affect you and your family?

[wordmunger]

Re: the Gore house thing. I'll just repost what I wrote on my blog today:



So…

Conservatives are jumping all over Al Gore because he has a big house that uses lots of energy. Doesn’t that make Gore a hypocrite? After all, isn’t he telling everyone else to conserve while he lives the high life in a 20-room mansion that costs $1,000 a month just to heat?

I suppose you could call Gore a hypocrite, except

* He pays for “green” electricity that doesn’t generate any greenhouse gases.
* He pays for carbon offsets to compensate for his extensive air travel.
* He invests in companies that make efforts to create sustainable growth.

In short, he’s footing the bill for his impact on the environment, and he’s going beyond that by trying to get others to do the same.

Now let’s take a look at what the other side is doing:

* Publicizing lies and misinformation about global warming.
* Paying off scientists who publish work critical of global warming studies.
* Fighting government efforts to promote conservation and sustainable energy.
* Fighting the Kyoto accords.
* Doing all this because they believe it will make them personally richer.

So who’s the bigger hypocrite — the person who takes responsibility for his impact on the environment and encourages others to do the same, or the people and organizations who deny there’s a problem, who get richer through encouraging inaction, and who are happy to foist whatever problems their sloth and greed cause on helpless future generations?

[zimv20]

No, even using Al Gore's numbers it will take a long time before Canada gets Phoenix's weather.
have we established that you've not seen the film? because you're talking like you haven't.

the greatest injustice done to the Greenhouse Effect (as we called it in the '80s) was to start calling it Global Warming. now a whole bunch of people who don't like winter but like summer shrug and think it means nothing but the sun feeling a degree or two hotter on their skin.

Climate Change is a better name, imo. and the sooner you and others understand the following risks, the better off we'll be:

1. raising the pH levels in the oceans, destroying the food chain
2. turning off the jetstream and putting all of northern europe in a permanent, deep freeze
3. raising sea level so that hundreds of millions or billions of people are displaced

and we're not talking about your kids great-grandkids "migrating" up to canada in 200 years, we're talking about a potential, irreversible tipping point in our lifetime. what do you think will happen when the US eastern seaboard and the west coast give way to the new sea levels? do you think having 100 million US citizens having to relocate is going to be an easy thing to do? just look at new orleans and the state it and its residents are in. now multiply that by 200. you don't think that's going to change a few things?

[pseudobrit]

Plant life will not sit back and remain idle if carbon dioxide levels increase significantly.

When temperatures are too high, plant life does sit back and remain idle. In fact, when plant life is not growing it consumes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide.

It's embarassing to watch you try to argue what you don't know.

[wordmunger]

Man, talk about being busted. I made mention earlier in this thread that in his movie he was driving around a Cadillac Escalade. Thought that was humorous.

jon

I watched that movie a few weeks ago and never saw him driving an Escalade. He was mainly in small limos and station wagons. In fact, I still have it on my TiVo, so I checked it out. The car he drives on the farm is some kind of nondescript station wagon. It's definitely not an Escalade (http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/gallery.jsp?model=escalade&year=2007) -- Escalades have much more vertical lines than whatever he's driving. Plus, they have very prominent Cadillac logos on the steering wheel, and there was no prominent logo on the car Gore drove.

I suspect the rumors that Gore drives an Escalade began because of this Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56631) piece. (In case you're not aware, the Onion is a very funny, very fake newspaper.)

[Ugg]

Conservatives are jumping all over Al Gore because he has a big house that uses lots of energy. Doesn’t that make Gore a hypocrite? After all, isn’t he telling everyone else to conserve while he lives the high life in a 20-room mansion that costs $1,000 a month just to heat?

I suppose you could call Gore a hypocrite, except

* He pays for “green” electricity that doesn’t generate any greenhouse gases.
* He pays for carbon offsets to compensate for his extensive air travel.
* He invests in companies that make efforts to create sustainable growth.

In short, he’s footing the bill for his impact on the environment, and he’s going beyond that by trying to get others to do the same.


I believe that Gore doesn't pay for the offsets himself, rather the film company does.

Sure, he's making a difference but his actions seem to be mostly passive. Why did his electricity usage soar? Surely he's outfitted his houses with low wattage lighting, insulated and turned down the thermostats? If so, why the substantial increase?

Of course, no one is berating rush or cheney or bush or any of the other right wingers for their extravagant homes and extensive travel. The biggest point is that the wealthy if they have large homes and drive SUVs and have private planes are the ones who use the most energy. There's a moral issue at hand here and one that needs to be addressed. While I disagree with the right's attempt to brand Gore as a hypocrite, they have highlighted the fact that faux chateaux are having a massively negative impact on the planet. It's time to address that issue.

[Ugg]

When temperatures are too high, plant life does sit back and remain idle. In fact, when plant life is not growing it consumes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide.

It's embarassing to watch you try to argue what you don't know.

England has faced a massive die off of its oaks and Europe of its beeches. However, the far north has seen an explosion of plant life in the past decade. The problem lies in the fact that temperate climate trees grow bigger while arctic plant life doesn't. The bigger the tree, the more carbon they store and co2 they consume.

All he's doing is regurgitating right wing talking points, to claim that he is doing anything other than copying and pasting is giving him way too much credit.

[wordmunger]

Sure, he's making a difference but his actions seem to be mostly passive. Why did his electricity usage soar? Surely he's outfitted his houses with low wattage lighting, insulated and turned down the thermostats? If so, why the substantial increase?

Did it "soar"? Or is this just normal usage for that house?

Of course, no one is berating rush or cheney or bush or any of the other right wingers for their extravagant homes and extensive travel.

No, I'm berating them for personally profiting from denying global warming. The extravagant homes are just icing on the cake.

The biggest point is that the wealthy if they have large homes and drive SUVs and have private planes are the ones who use the most energy. There's a moral issue at hand here and one that needs to be addressed. While I disagree with the right's attempt to brand Gore as a hypocrite, they have highlighted the fact that faux chateaux are having a massively negative impact on the planet. It's time to address that issue.

I disagree. If we can find a way to effectively offset these luxuries, then I have no problem with luxury per se. But if what they're doing is harming others, then they need to stop.

That said, conservation is the quickest way to slow CO2 emissions and global warming. We could all be doing better, but Bush only began encouraging conservation (in a halfhearted way) about a month ago. Gore's been doing it his whole life.

[Ugg]

Did it "soar"? Or is this just normal usage for that house?

I disagree. If we can find a way to effectively offset these luxuries, then I have no problem with luxury per se. But if what they're doing is harming others, then they need to stop.

That said, conservation is the quickest way to slow CO2 emissions and global warming. We could all be doing better, but Bush only began encouraging conservation (in a halfhearted way) about a month ago. Gore's been doing it his whole life.

What I saw was an increase from 2001 to 2005. Until Gore releases the exact figures on his energy consumption, we'll never know for sure.

I'm troubled by the idea of offsets. Are they all created equally? It's definitely a step in the right direction, but planting trees is a poor substitute for decreasing fossil fuel use. What I want to know is why isn't his house plastered with solar panels or wind generators? Where's the ground pump for heating and cooling? Does he have acres and acres of lawn that are being fertilized with chemicals and mown with 2 stroke lawnmowers?

It's time we address these issues and the best thing Gore can do is allow an energy audit of his home and share the results and then sit down and do something to change his wastefulness. He has the money, does he have the will? Who better to lead than Gore?

Just because Gore has been doing it all his life doesn't mean he's doing the best he can. It's time for a mea culpa from him if for no other reason to stop the whinging from all the right wingers and to inject a little honesty into the situation.

Who do you want to lead this movement? Someone who preaches to a choir while heating a drafty cathedral or someone willing to turn that cathedral into an energy efficient showpiece while imfluencing more than just the choir?

[TheDance511]

When temperatures are too high, plant life does sit back and remain idle. In fact, when plant life is not growing it consumes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide.

It's embarassing to watch you try to argue what you don't know.

Yeah and when it heats up people die..even by just 2 or 3 degrees...its bad...people cant live like that...especially young children and the elderly...:mad:

[Swarmlord]

It's embarassing to watch you try to argue what you don't know.

Not any more than watching non-scientists debate something that even real scientists don't agree on.

[wordmunger]

Not any more than watching non-scientists debate something that even real scientists don't agree on.

Real scientists do agree on it. That's what the IPCC (http://www.ipccfacts.org/index.html) report is -- the consensus of scientists from around the world.

The problem is, oil and coal-backed lobbying organizations pay off unethical "scientists" to dispute the global consensus (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/), instead of trying to help solve the problem.

[pseudobrit]

Not any more than watching non-scientists debate something that even real scientists don't agree on.

You're wrong again. It's getting old.

[wordmunger]

why isn't his house plastered with solar panels or wind generators?

Umm... Because he's been a little busy lately, maybe?

[update: I did a little searching, and it turns out , he is installing (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061127-al-gore.html) solar panels]

That's why he pays the TVA for power generated from windmills on the blue ridge.

The problem is, this technology still isn't where it needs to be. It's not where it needs to be because there's a much cheaper alternative -- burning fossil fuels. Unless the government either offers economic incentives to develop better solar / wind power or disincentives to use fossil fuel, these technologies aren't going to be widely adopted.

[Swarmlord]

Real scientists do agree on it. <snip>

Good thing no one is sponsoring the research of the real scientists then.

Maybe the Earth just needs to warm back up to the point where it was during the Jurassic period or any of the other periods where it was warmer than it is now.

[pseudobrit]

Maybe the Earth just needs to warm back up to the point where it was during the Jurassic period or any of the other periods where it was warmer than it is now.

Do the effects of climate change on the human beings in the world mean anything to you?

What I'm asking is if a village dies of thirst in China because the water source they rely on dries up from lack of snowpack, would you care?

[Ugg]

Umm... Because he's been a little busy lately, maybe?

That's why he pays the TVA for power generated from windmills on the blue ridge.

The problem is, this technology still isn't where it needs to be. It's not where it needs to be because there's a much cheaper alternative -- burning fossil fuels. Unless the government either offers economic incentives to develop better solar / wind power or disincentives to use fossil fuel, these technologies aren't going to be widely adopted.

Yeah, well, I'm busy too but at least I can find the time to switch from incandescent to fluorescent and also manage to turn down the heat.

That's great that he's buying wind power but it still doesn't address the fact that he uses a lot of energy. Isn't the first part of the 3R mantra reduce?

Yeah, and pioneers always pay a premium for new technology. The point of people buying stuff before it's ready for primetime is they help smooth out the kinks, making it more useful and affordable for the late adaptors.

Are you blaming the government for Gore's overconsumption? As I've said, protecting Gore does nobody any good whatsoever. He needs to stand up and say, "Hey, I haven't done as good of a job as I could have. Let's take a look at my energy usage and see how I can improve." I think the world is ready for a green home makeover show, and, I think Gore is the one who people are going to pay attention to. The more he hides behind the walls of his gated mansion, the less his message is going to have an impact.

It's time for him to stand up to the plate and time for apologists to face up to reality.

[Ugg]

Maybe the Earth just needs to warm back up to the point where it was during the Jurassic period or any of the other periods where it was warmer than it is now.

What's your point?

If the world warms up to that level, you're dead. Is that just some armageddonesque attitude that allows you to continue to pollute because "in the end, it really doesn't matter"? I don't know about you, but the use of fossil fuels isn't just about global warming, it's also about the air I breathe and the water I drink. Take your blinders off for a second and stop spouting right wing talking points. It's a serious discussion and deserves more than sound bytes.

[wordmunger]

Yeah, well, I'm busy too but at least I can find the time to switch from incandescent to fluorescent and also manage to turn down the heat.

See my update above. He's doing that. But do you really think everyone in the world is going to voluntarily cut their energy use just because "it's good for the environment"? Isn't the larger point that we need government help to get this going? Sure, I can install CF bulbs (and I have), but i can only turn down the thermostat so far.

Then what? I have to convince others to change, too. If someone has a smaller house than me, then suddenly I'm a hypocrite. And trust me, there's always someone with a smaller house.

Eventually, we need government action to stop global warming. Even if 3/4 of the world steps up and conserves, the result will be cheaper energy prices. Won't the the other 25 percent be tempted to use all that cheap energy? Unless we can all act together through government action and treaties, individual actions won't matter.

[pseudobrit]

What's your point?

If the world warms up to that level, you're dead. Is that just some armageddonesque attitude that allows you to continue to pollute because "in the end, it really doesn't matter"? I don't know about you, but the use of fossil fuels isn't just about global warming, it's also about the air I breathe and the water I drink. Take your blinders off for a second and stop spouting right wing talking points. It's a serious discussion and deserves more than sound bytes.

Krugman wrote something this week about the conservative shift from denial to fatalism. Snippets here:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/02/krugman-on-reducing-energy-consumption.html

[Ugg]

See my update above. He's doing that. But do you really think everyone in the world is going to voluntarily cut their energy use just because "it's good for the environment"? Isn't the larger point that we need government help to get this going? Sure, I can install CF bulbs (and I have), but i can only turn down the thermostat so far.

Then what? I have to convince others to change, too. If someone has a smaller house than me, then suddenly I'm a hypocrite. And trust me, there's always someone with a smaller house.

Eventually, we need government action to stop global warming. Even if 3/4 of the world steps up and conserves, the result will be cheaper energy prices. Won't the the other 25 percent be tempted to use all that cheap energy? Unless we can all act together through government action and treaties, individual actions won't matter.

How do we get governments to act? Isn't a grassroots effort the most effective way? Every grassroots movement needs its leaders and leaders by definition need to act by example. If Gore were to say, mea culpa, and then provide real life examples how we can all save energy, don't you think his message would have more impact? Don't you think that more people would start pressuring their congressmen to do something?

Gore has put himself in the spotlight and he needs to respond to the charges. If he doesn't then his message is going to be viewed as worthless by those in government and those who put them there.

[Ugg]

Krugman wrote something this week about the conservative shift from denial to fatalism. Snippets here:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/02/krugman-on-reducing-energy-consumption.html

It always amazes me that we use so much less energy than the rest of the country. But, it's the little things that do count. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have at least some CF bulbs in their house, solar panels are everywhere and people actually turn their lights off when they arent' using them. California has 13% of the US' population yet buys a quarter of all hybrids sold in the US.

Outside of San Francisco, California also has one of worst public transit systems, but our consumption of gas per capita, is less than that of much of the rest of the US.

It doesn't take heroic measures nor does it take hydrogen power. What it takes is a long term commitment to the little things. Los Angeles imposed most of its controls based on air quality. Health and energy savings go hand in hand.

[wordmunger]

It doesn't take heroic measures nor does it take hydrogen power. What it takes is a long term commitment to the little things. Los Angeles imposed most of its controls based on air quality. Health and energy savings go hand in hand.

I agree -- I think you and I actually have a pretty similar position on all this.

Gore would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if he was more like Ed Begley (http://www.livingwithed.net/), but ultimately, it takes more than a few green-obsessed nuts to effect real change.

[Swarmlord]

I agree -- I think you and I actually have a pretty similar position on all this.

Gore would have a bit more of a leg to stand on if he was more like Ed Begley (http://www.livingwithed.net/), but ultimately, it takes more than a few green-obsessed nuts to effect real change.

I respect Ed Begley. He walks the walk. What he's done is admirable and certainly saves him a lot of money. I'm sure the cash flow from the show he created demonstrating his lifestyle hasn't hurt either.

I also do my part to minimize my impact on the environment although not for the global warming cause. I'm not fatalistic in the way that some posters have indicated. What I do know is that nature abhors a vacuum and that includes civilizations. In case people haven't noticed there is a race to fill up all the habitable areas on this planet and we could save energy to the point of nothing and others will just use and benefit from the energy resources we free up.

I think the whole effort to get Americans to be less energy pigs is quite admirable. No matter how successful the campaign though, it isn't going to stop what's going to happen to the weather.

[Ugg]

I think the whole effort to get Americans to be less energy pigs is quite admirable. No matter how successful the campaign though, it isn't going to stop what's going to happen to the weather.

Ah, how soon we all forget. Remember the fogs of London back in the late 1800s, early 1900s? Seems like that was a solvable problem, so was the smog in Los Angeles.

Believing we can't change the future is extremely fatalistic. Unfortunately, you're correct, population is a huge problem and it hasn't been helped by the Vatican nor by buscho's anti family policies abroad. However, where population has been stable, great strides have been made when it comes to the environment. We've got a long ways to go but it doesn't make it impossible, just a lot of hard work. From your posts on the poverty thread I can't believe you have anything against that, or.....

[EricNau]

have we established that you've not seen the film? because you're talking like you haven't.

the greatest injustice done to the Greenhouse Effect (as we called it in the '80s) was to start calling it Global Warming. now a whole bunch of people who don't like winter but like summer shrug and think it means nothing but the sun feeling a degree or two hotter on their skin.

Climate Change is a better name, imo. and the sooner you and others understand the following risks, the better off we'll be:

1. raising the pH levels in the oceans, destroying the food chain
2. turning off the jetstream and putting all of northern europe in a permanent, deep freeze
3. raising sea level so that hundreds of millions or billions of people are displaced

and we're not talking about your kids great-grandkids "migrating" up to canada in 200 years, we're talking about a potential, irreversible tipping point in our lifetime. what do you think will happen when the US eastern seaboard and the west coast give way to the new sea levels? do you think having 100 million US citizens having to relocate is going to be an easy thing to do? just look at new orleans and the state it and its residents are in. now multiply that by 200. you don't think that's going to change a few things?
I don't think "climate change" does it justice either. "Global Catastrophe" might be better. ;)

[solvs]

This does bother me, Gore, more than any celebrity should understand what can be done to make a home 'green' by using PV arrays, solar heating, specific architecture, as well as things like computer controlled heating and cooling and CF bulbs.

He is. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382210/?GT1=9033) Be sure and watch the Olbermann video on the right. Also here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/28/olbermann-on-gores-energy-use-setting-the-record-straight/).

This is just a smear job, as usual. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Gore, he's a politician, of course he's a hypocrite. But like with Pelosi, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, and whoever else the talking heads on the right decide to attack that week, this isn't one of those valid things. "The Tennessee Center for Policy Research" (where the story originated) isn't as non-partisan as they claim, the info they have is isn't as official as they claim, they ignore the amount of people living on this property (and working, don't forget it's got several offices in it), the extra security, the alternatives that actually cost him more money and make it look like he's using more energy when he's actually paying far more for far less, the offsets, and just so many other things that I wonder why I'm even bothering because it's not like the opposition actually cares about facts or anything.

Also once again, a nice way to destroy the message by attempting to point out the problems with the messenger. Doesn't invalidate the point. Global Climate Change is real, it's happening, deal with it. Al Gore is, some of you are just to blind to see it, thinking a snow storm and what looks like a large electricity bill suddenly means we can ignore the, shall we say, inconvenient truth.

[mactastic]

So if Gore is a hypocrite whose arguments can be ignored due to his hypocrisy, does Bill Bennet have the same credibility problem?

Besides, since when has it been a crime to be rich in this country? Conservatives are just up in arms that Gore lives in such a nice house, like he doesn't deserve to spend his money as he sees fit.

Or are they worried that those who profess religion but don't donate anywhere near what they should to charity might get caught up in this? I wonder if James Dobson has tithed his 10%. He's got a pretty substantial income, and a pretty nice house from what I hear. Shouldn't he be sharing that house and good fortune with the poor? Isn't he a hypocrite for not giving away all his worldly possessions?

[MacNut]

Ever watch MTV cribs, they show rappers with about 10 Escalades in the driveway. I don't think the environment is the first thing on their minds.:rolleyes: There is no problem with being rich but when they spend it on useless stuff that only helps themselves is where I have a problem.

[obeygiant]

there is another solution however...

A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.

Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels, he told the newspaper.

link ("http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto)

I have a feeling this may not work..

[bowens]

I just came across this article on National Geographic. Has anybody read this?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

[solvs]

Ever watch MTV cribs, they show rappers with about 10 Escalades in the driveway. I don't think the environment is the first thing on their minds.:rolleyes: There is no problem with being rich but when they spend it on useless stuff that only helps themselves is where I have a problem.
But I thought rich people who earned their money (and even some who don't) can do whatever the want with it. Isn't that one of the reasons we're so against taxes? Isn't that a core belief of the conservative libertarians?

Not saying I agree with excess, but considering the fact that Gore is using his money to pay for expensive green energy and offsets for one of his home offices, I don't see that as too excessive. Or hypocrisy. If I could afford it, I'd probably do the same thing. Er, the Gore thing, not the rapper thing.

I just came across this article on National Geographic. Has anybody read this?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Also a possibility. We aren't the only cause, the Earth does what it does, as does Mars. But it doesn't change the fact that we are doing damage that we have the possibility of reversing with more positive side effects than negative. I still don't understand the problem.

[obeygiant]

A little tidbit from PETA:

Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux "fried chicken" as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for "Best Documentary"—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report "Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options," the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

link (http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=9579)