Al Gore on Conan

mca47

Thoughts?

I've seen him speak about his film many times and the more I hear him the more I respect this man. I'm a bit of an environmentalist, but not quite a freak like many . I have a degree in Biochemistry so I've studied this material for years so I know what he's talking about. The more I hear from this guy the more I respect him. If only in 2000 he had this passion...oh wait he did, but he didn't politicize it.


Oh well...then again Kerry was considered the best environmental candidates of all-time.
Maybe next time...

rightondude

Crap I missed it. I wanted to see that.

All the scientists would tend to agree with him. It is reality. As well instead of dismissing him like a lot of ignorant close minded people do, to be safe I would rather err on the side of mother nature.

Besides....cleaner air and water is highly over rated anyways right? :rolleyes:

Unreal is some peoples attitude towards this man. I saw him on Jon Stewart about a month ago. I was both pleasantly surprised, and shocked. Don't have the exact data but something like 250,000 tons of CO2 shot into the air daily. - that just cannot be good...that's one mega shitload of CO2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no damn way that's not messing with the planet big time.

PaperPlates

Mother nature is resilient.

SundaySilence

PaperPlates wrote:

Mother nature is resilient.

So many extinct species.

mca47

PaperPlates wrote:

Mother nature is resilient.

I think of mother nature like any other woman.
You piss her off and she will make your life a living hell.

sourdough

PaperPlates wrote:

Mother nature is resilient.

To a point, but humans are much more efficient at eliminating than nature is at creating. The extinction to speciation rate isn't even close. Furthermore, the earth works much more slowly than humans. Even if we parked all of our cars and shut down every other CO2 producing machine/factory etc, the earth would still see a rise in temperatures for about a century before it is able to correct itself.

rightondude

PaperPlates wrote:

Mother nature is resilient.

And you are qualified to say that? Also in what context i.e with human life remaining on it or without?

Were you paying attention when we banned CFC's 25 years ago because we blew a hole in the ozone layer?

Ever study what is happening to all the lakes or even seen them first hand for that matter?

You do think right? do you?

Pearl Jam and toast

I actually really like and respect this Al Gore that we're seeing.

And he's right, folks.

And he actually seems to have firmly grasped that he'll do far more good not being president.

I really like this man.

Pearl Jam and toast

rightondude wrote:

And you are qualified to say that? Also in what context i.e with human life remaining on it or without?

Were you paying attention when we banned CFC's 25 years ago because we blew a hole in the ozone layer?

Ever study what is happening to all the lakes or even seen them first hand for that matter?

You do think right? do you?

Mother Nature Is resiliant.

And we're destroying it faster than it can recover.

That's the idea...

We need to dramatically change how we exist or it will lose the resources it needs to recover.

sourdough

How different would this world be if he was president. I admit I wasn't a huge Gore fan during 2000 and I haven't seen his film... yet, but I have purchased his book which is quite good. What I enjoy is that he doesn't rely solely on emotional appeals and shock value but rather basis his analysis on statistics and fact which may not be great entertainment (although his book is very good) as the former. I think his passion is genuine and that is rare in polititions these days.

Pearl Jam and toast

sourdough wrote:

How different would this world be if he was president. I admit I wasn't a huge Gore fan during 2000 and I haven't seen his film... yet, but I have purchased his book which is quite good. What I enjoy is that he doesn't rely solely on emotional appeals and shock value but rather basis his analysis on statistics and fact which may not be great entertainment (although his book is very good) as the former. I think his passion is genuine and that is rare in polititions these days.

yeah.

i never thought i'd say it but i really think i respect Al Gore.

Maybe we should chalk all that bad publicity he had up to the conservative drive-by-media :rolleyes: .

Who knows about him being president..

6 years later i think we can say there's a damn good chance he'd have been better than the alternative..

rightondude

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

Mother Nature Is resiliant.

And we're destroying it faster than it can recover.

That's the idea...

We need to dramatically change how we exist or it will lose the resources it needs to recover.

Yeah, exactly. Not resilient, but how resilient is the question.

I don't think we want to sit around and find out. She'll whoop our asses bad.

Pearl Jam and toast

rightondude wrote:

Yeah, exactly. Not resilient, but how resilient is the question.

I don't think we want to sit around and find out. She'll whoop our asses bad.

ask the dinosaurs, she'll just say "okay, fuck it" and start over.

world

Accoding to Al Gore, we have 9yrs 189days left before the planet is destroyed. This is from a quote he gave at Sundance that we had 10yrs left before the Earth was destroyed.

Be more concerned about Manbearpig then the Earth being destroyed. Im aware that Hollywood and all the MTV "cool" sheeple love to keep saying "It was warmer today then the last few years, we need to save the Earth! Think about the children!"

But, come on guys, try being a little skeptic. Dont belive someone that lost to a joke of a man named "dubya."

sourdough

Actually what I believe he said was that we have a 10 year window where we have to start to change our behaviour. This is what I've heard him said on a number of occasions, and it is based on the amount of CO2 we have put in the air and once you reach a certain tipping point it begins a vicious feedback loop that cannot be reversed. If I am wrong and you want to offer a link or more specific quote than please do.

His failed election (if it did indeed fail) really has nothing to do with discrediting his book which is solid on fact (not opinion but objective numbers and data from scientists, not polititians). This has nothing to do with what is cool and what Cameron Diaz is driving, but a realistic description of what is happening.

If you want to debunk or debate the science, than I'm up for the challenge but just cause some jaded celebrities or Gore's failure to become president does not change the facts about what is happenening.

world

sourdough wrote:

his book which is solid on fact (not opinion but objective numbers and data from scientists, not polititians).

What you mean is "theory." Because not too long ago, it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that the Earth was flat. It was also a "scientific fact from scientists" that leechs removed diseases. Also, in the 1970s it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that we had "Global Cooling," both Newsweek and Time ran cover storys on "Global Cooling."

sourdough

world wrote:

What you mean is "theory." Because not too long ago, it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that the Earth was flat. It was also a "scientific fact from scientists" that leechs removed diseases. Also, in the 1970s it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that we had "Global Cooling," both Newsweek and Time ran cover storys on "Global Cooling."

The term "theory" when applied to science means something completely different in other contexts. "theory" in science is the result of a hypothesis which has been tested by many other scientists from different perspectives and which holds up to experimental tests. There is a a large body of observational evidence to support it and that has come to be accepted by most scientists in the field of study. For example, gravity is a "theory". Care to contest it because it is a "theory"? If it is an educated guess or untested or unclear test, it is a "hypothesis".

Wouldn't you agree that science and the rest of the world has changed in its approach to understanding the world since the time we thought the earth was flat? This is an extremely weak analogy.

Global cooling was not an accepted theory and was not widely researched. Time shouldn't have ran an article based on the ideas of a few scientists whom had not tested nor had been published in a credible scientific magazine or supported by a general consensus of scientists. Also, they did not have a lot of scientific data available to them regarding teh composition of the atmosphere, nor did they have computers to generate models.

mca47

sourdough wrote:

The term "theory" when applied to science means something completely different in other contexts. "theory" in science is the result of a hypothesis which has been tested by many other scientists from different perspectives and which holds up to experimental tests. There is a a large body of observational evidence to support it and that has come to be accepted by most scientists in the field of study. For example, gravity is a "theory". Care to contest it because it is a "theory"? If it is an educated guess or untested or unclear test, it is a "hypothesis".

Wouldn't you agree that science and the rest of the world has changed in its approach to understanding the world? This is an extremely weak analogy.

Global cooling was not an accepted theory and was not widely researched. Time shouldn't have ran an article based on the ideas of a few scientists whom had not tested nor had been published in a credible scientific magazine or supported by a general consensus of scientists. Also, they did not have a lot of scientific data available to them regarding teh composition of the atmosphere, nor did they have computers to generate models.

you're exactly right.
throughout history there have many many "theories" that didn't quite pan out. Hell, i think Time magazine once had a cover saying that cocaine was good for you and how it is a great drug. from time to time scientists will run into data in their research and run with it. it doesn't make it right. but when you get thousands of scientists reseach showing the same thing for years and years then you may have to step back and realize they may be onto something. this is what we are seeing with global warming.

world

I agree with the idea of "Global Warming" that the planet is getting warmer. It is a simple fact that the Earth gets warmer and colder. The planet even had an Ice Age 16,000 years ago. I just dont belive that we are somehow causing this to happen, or that we can destroy the Earth. I think its even more stupid that "Mother Earth" is going to get back at us.

Every one of those scientists that have facts that the Earth is getting warmer also will agree that just one volcano spews more ozone destroying toxins then every car ever produced all running at the same time. One volcano does just an increadible amount of damage that makes our cars and factories look like childs play.

Dont get me wrong, I love our enviornment, im just a little skeptic when I see people blindly follow Hollywood. Its complely idiotic when a small town in the south cant drink its water supply because some factory upstream dumps pollutants in the water and the town cant get any help or a single cent to help fight the company. But, there are thousands of websites and now a major million dollar movie on "global warming" and how its our fault. How about people concentrate on real enviornmental problems that we can fix instead of this giant Global warming boogie man that we cant do anything about.

sourdough

world wrote:

Every one of those scientists that have facts that the Earth is getting warmer also will agree that just one volcano spews more ozone destroying toxins then every car ever produced all running at the same time. One volcano does just an increadible amount of damage that makes our cars and factories look like childs play.

Actually the science doesn't support this. CO2 Levels are rising at the same time volcanic activity is declining. We have a higher level of CO2 now than in 650000 years. There is no dramatic spike in CO2 levels in years with major eruptions (Pinatubo for instance). The majority of gasses that are expelled during eruptions is water vapour.

I am not following Hollywood, in fact I don't think I've ever heard anything credible uttered by the hollywood crowd nor do I even have cable. I get my info from books and scientists who have done in depth analysis and studies, not Access Hollywood.

Pearl Jam and toast

the Greenhouse effect exists.

No denying that, it's a natural function of our ozone.. it's the reason we have any kind of climate at all.

We're pumping an enormous amount of the gases that the greenhouse effect uses into our atmosphere (c02 is a big one), and the global warming theory is just 1+1.. we're accelerating the process to a dangerous degree.

And most importantly..

WHO THE FUCK CARES if the theory is apt or not? (which the science overwhelmingly supports)... We know without a doubt that the shit we're doing to the planet is terrible for it and for us, and ALSO our dependance on fossil fuels is causing even further problems...

why the hell would you try to argue against this? That's fucking suicidal.

polaris

go sourdough!!

have you been gone?? ... well needed here ...

Puck78

world wrote:

Accoding to Al Gore, we have 9yrs 189days left before the planet is destroyed. This is from a quote he gave at Sundance that we had 10yrs left before the Earth was destroyed.

wow, cool, i work on physics of the atmosphere, oceans and climate and i didn't know this... I might have to throw away my studies and leave space to al gore...

sourdough

This was a misquote. He did NOT say that the world would end in 10 years. What he DID say was that we have about 10 years to change our behaviour re: the environment before it may become to late to reverse the consequences. There is a certain tipping point that if you cross it, you begin a feedback loop and may not be able to reverse the damage. This was spun nicely.

Pearl Jam and toast

sourdough wrote:

This was a misquote. He did NOT say that the world would end in 10 years. What he DID say was that we have about 10 years to change our behaviour re: the environment before it may become to late to reverse the consequences. There is a certain tipping point that if you cross it, you begin a feedback loop and may not be able to reverse the damage. This was spun nicely.

Yeah that's what i was thinking..

Puck78

sourdough wrote:

This was a misquote. He did NOT say that the world would end in 10 years. What he DID say was that we have about 10 years to change our behaviour re: the environment before it may become to late to reverse the consequences. There is a certain tipping point that if you cross it, you begin a feedback loop and may not be able to reverse the damage. This was spun nicely.

this is silly as well: we don't know if what we're observing is an oscillation of the climate or if the oscillator is "broken". This means that we don't know if it is already too late or how long we have before to make a permanent damage. Don't believe anyone that has an answer about that, that's propaganda

sourdough

Puck78 wrote:

this is silly as well: we don't know if what we're observing is an oscillation of the climate or if the oscillator is "broken". This means that we don't know if it is already too late or how long we have before to make a permanent damage. Don't believe anyone that has an answer about that, that's propaganda

I think said what he did regarding the CO2 content in the atmosphere. The debate is over whether we are contributing to climate change. Even if climate change can be credited with some of the changes, it is a given that humans DO indeed have a role. You cannot pump out billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without expecting some sort of consequence, at the same time accepting that the greenhouse effect is correct. It is undisptuted that we have some responsibility. I'm not saying I agree with his assertion of 10 years. I would have to see how he got to that number before accepting it or dismissing it, but I've heard similar things from other sources not linked to political parties (ie books, school...).

What we DO know is that we are very close to a point where it will be very difficult to recover from. For instance, if glaciers melt and expose land beneath it, this will exacerbate the situation b/c glaciers reflect insolation back out where as the land will not reflect the insolation but rather absorb much of it therefore more insolation is kept facilitating warmer temperatures which then melts more glaciers. If enough of the glacier cover is gone and too much land is exposed, the glaciers may not be able to recover. This is only one example of how a feedback loop can start.

Melting of the permafrost which is a HUGE carbon sink is not defrosting eliminating a storage system for CO2 but also releasing any that was stored there.

I'm curious as to what people mean when they say environmentalism or climate change is propaganda. What is the goal of the propaganda in this case? Do you see it as a Democrat commercial, a knock on industry, and appeal towards a potential presidential campaign?

Thanks Polaris, I went away to South Africa way back for Christmas and kinda fell out of the loop a bit and life can get busy. Its nice to have a resident climatologist to clean up my mistakes!

Puck78

sourdough wrote:

I think said what he did regarding the CO2 content in the atmosphere. The debate is over whether we are contributing to climate change. Even if climate change can be credited with some of the changes, it is a given that humans DO indeed have a role. You cannot pump out billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without expecting some sort of consequence, at the same time accepting that the greenhouse effect is correct. It is undisptuted that we have some responsibility. I'm not saying I agree with his assertion of 10 years. I would have to see how he got to that number before accepting it or dismissing it, but I've heard similar things from other sources not linked to political parties (ie books, school...).

What we DO know is that we are very close to a point where it will be very difficult to recover from. For instance, if glaciers melt and expose land beneath it, this will exacerbate the situation b/c glaciers reflect insolation back out where as the land will not reflect the insolation but rather absorb much of it therefore more insolation is kept facilitating warmer temperatures which then melts more glaciers. If enough of the glacier cover is gone and too much land is exposed, the glaciers may not be able to recover. This is only one example of how a feedback loop can start.

Melting of the permafrost which is a HUGE carbon sink is not defrosting eliminating a storage system for CO2 but also releasing any that was stored there.

I'm curious as to what people mean when they say environmentalism or climate change is propaganda. What is the goal of the propaganda in this case? Do you see it as a Democrat commercial, a knock on industry, and appeal towards a potential presidential campaign?

I agree with you, expecially about the first paragraph that you wrote. I was simply laughing about the 10 years idea. That's non-scientific.
Al-Gore is a politician, not an activist, i smell propaganda from very far away. I simply don't think he's an environmentalist. A lot of people here have a different idea than me about this, fair enough, but if you consider his resources and money, if he would really care he could start doing a lot of other things, too, about environment and human rights.

sourdough

Puck78 wrote:

I agree with you, expecially about the first paragraph that you wrote. I was simply laughing about the 10 years idea. That's non-scientific.
Al-Gore is a politician, not an activist, i smell propaganda from very far away. I simply don't think he's an environmentalist. A lot of people here have a different idea than me about this, fair enough, but if you consider his resources and money, if he would really care he could start doing a lot of other things, too, about environment and human rights.

I'm not sure about the science behing the 10 years (you could be right and there may not be any at all) but I'll reserve judgement until I can see where he got that estimate. I doubt he meant it as a hard and fast number but probably as a guesstimate. I don't know.

I do believe he is an environmentalist purely because he has studied and appears to understand the science. He's been an advocate since before he was a big name politician and has written book on it previously. profits from the book/movie is going to a non-profit carbon reduction organisation as well. I think you can be rich/famous and still be an activist.

We all could do a lot more for the environment and human rights than we are. Not just him and not just the rich. To the vast majority of the world's population, most of us posting here are rich.

Puck78

sourdough wrote:

I'm not sure about the science behing the 10 years (you could be right and there may not be any at all) but I'll reserve judgement until I can see where he got that estimate. I doubt he meant it as a hard and fast number but probably as a guesstimate. I don't know.

I do believe he is an environmentalist purely because he has studied and appears to understand the science. He's been an advocate since before he was a big name politician and has written book on it previously. profits from the book/movie is going to a non-profit carbon reduction organisation as well. I think you can be rich/famous and still be an activist.

We all could do a lot more for the environment and human rights than we are. Not just him and not just the rich. To the vast majority of the world's population, most of us posting here are rich.

1. if you know about the 10 years thing, please let me know: as i've written i work on the field, as a researcher, and i've never heard a 10 years estimate.
Anyway, it is not that because he studied and understands science that he's an environmentalist: in my department the majority of people are not environmetalists...

mca47

Puck78 wrote:

I agree with you, expecially about the first paragraph that you wrote. I was simply laughing about the 10 years idea. That's non-scientific.
Al-Gore is a politician, not an activist, i smell propaganda from very far away. I simply don't think he's an environmentalist. A lot of people here have a different idea than me about this, fair enough, but if you consider his resources and money, if he would really care he could start doing a lot of other things, too, about environment and human rights.

How is it non-scientific? The information I've heard is what a group of scientists have collaberated on over many years of study. While it may not be 10 years to the day, I'm pretty sure they have it well within the ballpark.

Keep in mind, if you do a little research on Gore's past you may find it startling to find that he was an "environmentalist" before he was ever a politician.

I guess I don't understand your last part about him doing other things with his resources and money. What more can he do to help the environment? Making a film that millions will see where all the money is going to environmental causes, fighting for environmental laws and regualations while he was in office, and being outspoken about environmental issues his entire life...I'd say he's going a pretty good job.