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.