In theory he could have done a lot more practical measures as president than just produce a movie. lol
In theory I agree, but in reality he still would've had 9/11 to deal with and everything that came with it -even if we don't go to war in Iraq with Gore as president, it seems likely that the environment would've been put on the back burner given the bigger issues of the day - not to mention the Republican congress that I'm sure would've stonewalled any attempt to hinder industry in the name of the environment...
They worked together on it - my god, get your facts straight before making generalized criticisms.
I think the point is that giving the nobel to the whole panel and only the panel would have seemed less ridiculous than sharing it with al gore who makes a very suspect nobel peace prize winner. Whatever his work some people may consider he doesn't deserve himself alone to have his name cited when so many other do as much if not more for peace and/or environment.
They worked together on it - my god, get your facts straight before making generalized criticisms.
You're right. I was wrong about him winning it for the fictional movie he made. Apparently he and the panel for the farce that is the UN won it for pushing that same fictional agenda to others in the world.
And even if it weren't fiction, I still do not know what it has to do with peace.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're right. I was wrong about him winning it for the fictional movie he made. Apparently he and the panel for the farce that is the UN won it for pushing that same fictional agenda to others in the world.
And even if it weren't fiction, I still do not know what it has to do with peace.
One of the major causes of the Darfur conflict is the fact that there is a drought, which means less water and less good farmland. People are fighting over both. I would say that is pretty good indication that climate change leads to war. In turn I would say that reasearching a ways to understand climate change, is a good way to prevent future wars.
One of the major causes of the Darfur conflict is the fact that there is a drought, which means less water and less good farmland. People are fighting over both. I would say that is pretty good indication that climate change leads to war. In turn I would say that reasearching a ways to understand climate change, is a good way to prevent future wars.
But if climate change is a natural occurance (Ice Ages, warm cycles) then how do you stop nature from doing what it has done for millions of years???
Gore wouldn't have won the NPP if he was president, he wouldn't have been able to focus all that time on his environmental causes.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
In theory I agree, but in reality he still would've had 9/11 to deal with and everything that came with it -even if we don't go to war in Iraq with Gore as president, it seems likely that the environment would've been put on the back burner given the bigger issues of the day - not to mention the Republican congress that I'm sure would've stonewalled any attempt to hinder industry in the name of the environment...
Maybe so but there are still measures he could have put in place as they came up, such as Kyoto. His film said that the US is the largest causer of the problem of climate change so at least he would have had an awareness of that and worked things in place, hopefully, despite war issues, congress etc.
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
assuming the "half truths" you're speaking of is the existance of an impending environmental crisis:
hmm, do I take the word of about 100 of the smartest scientists on the planet?
or some yahoo on a message board who ALWAYS seems to take the contrary stance to progressive stance?
If you disagree with al or not on whether we are on the brink of extinction, that's one thing.
dismissing him completely is a mistake. It just makes you look small.
I didn't dismiss him completely. That's why I said "half truths". If I'd dismissed him completely, I'd have said complete lies!
Love it when people put "progressive" in front of the view that they happen to hold. Remember that's an opinion. I've got some labels I could apply. I just take the contrary stance because I believe the other side.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
One of the major causes of the Darfur conflict is the fact that there is a drought, which means less water and less good farmland. People are fighting over both. I would say that is pretty good indication that climate change leads to war. In turn I would say that reasearching a ways to understand climate change, is a good way to prevent future wars.
I thought droughts have always taken place.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
But if climate change is a natural occurance (Ice Ages, warm cycles) then how do you stop nature from doing what it has done for millions of years???
Gore wouldn't have won the NPP if he was president, he wouldn't have been able to focus all that time on his environmental causes.
That is true, but I think if humans are contributing to it (which I believe is true but I said if because I know others don't) I think it is worth researching it. A similar analogy would be that it is true everyone gets less healthy as they get older. But just because that is true it doesn't mean that it is a good idea to smoke and eat junk food all the time.
Whether or not what Al Gore and his group did was the best contribution to peace in the last year, is debatable, but I do think that it is at least worth consideration.
That is true, but I think if humans are contributing to it (which I believe is true but I said if because I know others don't) I think it is worth researching it. A similar analogy would be that it is true everyone gets less healthy as they get older. But just because that is true it doesn't mean that it is a good idea to smoke and eat junk food all the time.
Whether or not what Al Gore and his group did was the best contribution to peace in the last year, is debatable, but I do think that it is at least worth consideration.
Research is one thing but telling people that you have to change the way you do things because you or your children won't have a world to live in is just ridiculous. And oh yeah, its all your fault too because you drive and SUV, or don't conserve energy, or buy foreign made goods.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Research is one thing but telling people that you have to change the way you do things because you or your children won't have a world to live in is just ridiculous. And oh yeah, its all your fault too because you drive and SUV, or don't conserve energy, or buy foreign made goods.
Whether or not you believe in climate change, why is conservation a bad thing? The evidence that air pollution causes health problems is pretty clear. Plus rising fuel and energy prices seem to be good evidence that cheap easily accessible energy sources are decreasing. Shouldn't either of those reasons be good ones to conserve? And on top of that if people did conserve energy and try not to pollute as much, if climate change is proven to their satisfaction, they are already on their way to helping things.
assuming the "half truths" you're speaking of is the existance of an impending environmental crisis:
hmm, do I take the word of about 100 of the smartest scientists on the planet?
or some yahoo on a message board who ALWAYS seems to take the contrary stance to progressive stance?
If you disagree with al or not on whether we are on the brink of extinction, that's one thing.
dismissing him completely is a mistake. It just makes you look small.
Ok, but for the scientists.....we always talk on this board about how horrific it is to have that conflict of interest between politicians and corporations....
consider who pays those scientist salaries...does it not behoove them to come up with or support studies which seem to show what Al Gore and other political figures are preposing are indeed accurate? If one scientist finds a contrary study would they not have thier funding pulled or be chastised? Consider Galileo if you will when he dared challenge the churches teachings with facts after he used a telescope to discover a few things.
numbers are numbers... politics make for strange bedfellows.
I'm very glad that Gore and crew are interested in helping the planet and on finding out exactly what the human effects are on it but I'm not taking everything they say at face value simply because a few people with degrees are backing it. The scientists involved very lively hoods depend on grants they get from politicans. The strides they have made in conservation are huge plusses, I'm not so sure about the carbon neutral movement, but I doubt it hurts anything so good for them trying to do good in the world I just don't take all of thier hypotheses at face value.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Research is one thing but telling people that you have to change the way you do things because you or your children won't have a world to live in is just ridiculous. And oh yeah, its all your fault too because you drive and SUV, or don't conserve energy, or buy foreign made goods.
What's ridiculous about it?
People are telling you to change your behaviour BECAUSE of research. It's research that's thrown up awareness of the problems. It's research that's showing the way to solve the problems. And it IS everyone's fault but everyone can be part of the solution too. Don't you get it?
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
Whether or not you believe in climate change, why is conservation a bad thing? The evidence that air pollution causes health problems is pretty clear. Plus rising fuel and energy prices seem to be good evidence that cheap easily accessible energy sources are decreasing. Shouldn't either of those reasons be good ones to conserve? And on top of that if people did conserve energy and try not to pollute as much, if climate change is proven to their satisfaction, they are already on their way to helping things.
Conservation isn't a bad thing but don't tell me when and what to conserve. Ethanol as a fuel is total garbage and not a feasible alternative and never will be but the gov't and companies are playing it up like its the replacement for oil. As far as pollution, when China and India are forced to clean up their act, then I'll think more about pollution. Those two countries are by far the largest polluters of our environment.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Whether or not you believe in climate change, why is conservation a bad thing? The evidence that air pollution causes health problems is pretty clear. Plus rising fuel and energy prices seem to be good evidence that cheap easily accessible energy sources are decreasing. Shouldn't either of those reasons be good ones to conserve? And on top of that if people did conserve energy and try not to pollute as much, if climate change is proven to their satisfaction, they are already on their way to helping things.
This is my one big thing with global warming:
"What is the perfect temperature for the Earth?" Is it the temperature today, was it the temperature 2 years ago, was it the temperature 20 years ago or even 50 years ago?
If we are to stop "Global Warming", are we to keep the temperature where it is? Are we to try and bring the temperature down a few degrees? Are we to pick some random year hundreds or years ago and say yep, the weather in 1741 was perfect, let's make the Earth that temperature again?
And if we do somehow reach this ideal temperature, are we to combat the Earth when it goes through its own natural heating and cooling cycles that it has been going through for billions of years?
This is my biggest problem with global warming - what exactly are we trying to establish? I'm all for conservation and not deliberating trying to hurt the environment, but I don't believe in global warming is a mainly made caused problem. I mean does Al Gore know what temperature the Earth should be so that everything on Earth would be in a perfect utopia state except for the wars, famines, and droughts that have existed since the dawn of history?
"What is the perfect temperature for the Earth?" Is it the temperature today, was it the temperature 2 years ago, was it the temperature 20 years ago or even 50 years ago?
If we are to stop "Global Warming", are we to keep the temperature where it is? Are we to try and bring the temperature down a few degrees? Are we to pick some random year hundreds or years ago and say yep, the weather in 1741 was perfect, let's make the Earth that temperature again?
And if we do somehow reach this ideal temperature, are we to combat the Earth when it goes through its own natural heating and cooling cycles that it has been going through for billions of years?
This is my biggest problem with global warming - what exactly are we trying to establish? I'm all for conservation and not deliberating trying to hurt the environment, but I don't believe in global warming is a mainly made caused problem. I mean does Al Gore know what temperature the Earth should be so that everything on Earth would be in a perfect utopia state except for the wars, famines, and droughts that have existed since the dawn of history?
it's amazing these days how little has changed since the middle ages... since before the middle ages... since whenever! Ok we may have nicer dwellings and nicer stuff than we had then but what's the difference? We haven't been able to solve any of the problems. The only difference is that now we call ourselves civilised and anyone who embraces the truth about us and reverts back to nature is called weird and selfish and outcast and all that
sorry, carry on, just kinda thinking back to the into the wild argument
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Conservation isn't a bad thing but don't tell me when and what to conserve. Ethanol as a fuel is total garbage and not a feasible alternative and never will be but the gov't and companies are playing it up like its the replacement for oil. As far as pollution, when China and India are forced to clean up their act, then I'll think more about pollution. Those two countries are by far the largest polluters of our environment.
India is fourth. Russia is third. China and the US are about the same. Per person the US is by far the largest polluter.
Conservation isn't a bad thing but don't tell me when and what to conserve. Ethanol as a fuel is total garbage and not a feasible alternative and never will be but the gov't and companies are playing it up like its the replacement for oil. As far as pollution, when China and India are forced to clean up their act, then I'll think more about pollution. Those two countries are by far the largest polluters of our environment.
I'd like to say two things:
1) you seem to have a pretty belligerent attitude towards the climate change issue. Can I ask why that is? Why is Ethanol garbage? So would it be true to say that your only answer would be to continue with burning up fossil fuels despite all the risks it is posing to the planet. Great.
2) India and China might be the potential polluters of the future but at present the US is still the worst offender. I agree that those countries need to start early to make sure their impact is not going to make things worse.
But why should they if the US won't? To be honest I really hate it when people start going on about India and China as the problem when the WEST caused the problem in the first place, what with over 200 years of unthinking unlimited industrialisation. It's a bit of a cheek to expect other countries who are only just starting on the path of development to cut their own emissions (even though I think they should) when a country like the US is still the worst offender by a long shot.
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
"What is the perfect temperature for the Earth?" Is it the temperature today, was it the temperature 2 years ago, was it the temperature 20 years ago or even 50 years ago?
If we are to stop "Global Warming", are we to keep the temperature where it is? Are we to try and bring the temperature down a few degrees? Are we to pick some random year hundreds or years ago and say yep, the weather in 1741 was perfect, let's make the Earth that temperature again?
And if we do somehow reach this ideal temperature, are we to combat the Earth when it goes through its own natural heating and cooling cycles that it has been going through for billions of years?
This is my biggest problem with global warming - what exactly are we trying to establish? I'm all for conservation and not deliberating trying to hurt the environment, but I don't believe in global warming is a mainly made caused problem. I mean does Al Gore know what temperature the Earth should be so that everything on Earth would be in a perfect utopia state except for the wars, famines, and droughts that have existed since the dawn of history?
I don't think the goal is to try and find a constant temperature and stick with that. I think the point is to try and minimize the affects that humans have on the climate. Like my previous post said it is like the human body, you know you are going to get less and less healthy as you get older and older, but why would you want to contribute to that and make it happen faster?
1) you seem to have a pretty belligerent attitude towards the climate change issue. Can I ask why that is? Why is Ethanol garbage? So would it be true to say that your only answer would be to continue with burning up fossil fuels despite all the risks it is posing to the planet. Great.
2) India and China might be the potential polluters of the future but at present the US is still the worst offender. I agree that those countries need to start early to make sure their impact is not going to make things worse.
But why should they if the US won't? To be honest I really hate it when people start going on about India and China as the problem when the WEST caused the problem in the first place, what with over 200 years of unthinking unlimited industrialisation. It's a bit of a cheek to expect other countries who are only just starting on the path of development to cut their own emissions (even though I think they should) when a country like the US is still the worst offender by a long shot.
Not belligerent at all, just realistic I guess. Ethanol is garbage because of the stress it has and will continue to put on world food supplies. Also there are no long term studies on the environmental effects of ethanol use in automobiles. So we have no idea whether this "cure" will make things any better or worse. Also for all the energy put into manufacturing ethanol, the payback just isn't there.
True, India and China may not be #1 yet but we're probably just a few years from it being the case. And yes the US should have better controls on pollution. So why not allow there to be nuclear power used or clean burning coal plants built??? We have a huge supply of coal just waiting to be used.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Why is Ethanol garbage? So would it be true to say that your only answer would be to continue with burning up fossil fuels despite all the risks it is posing to the planet. Great.
Conservation isn't a bad thing but don't tell me when and what to conserve. Ethanol as a fuel is total garbage and not a feasible alternative and never will be but the gov't and companies are playing it up like its the replacement for oil. As far as pollution, when China and India are forced to clean up their act, then I'll think more about pollution. Those two countries are by far the largest polluters of our environment.
Why is it a bad thing for your government to tell you to conserve, if the lack of conservation is going to have adverse affects on the rest of the population? The government already tells people that they can't do things like dump used motor oil down a storm sewer, how is this any different. Hell during WW2 allied government told people they had to conserve resources and it is weird because back then I don't think you had (at least not as many people) saying "screw the government I am going to eat as much food and waste as much metal and oil as I possibly can. Why should the government tell me what to do". Why are people so different now?
As far as China and India go, sure they are also polluters, but do people in other countries have no interest in being the world leaders good things? That to me is like saying "China doesn't have a democracy so why should we have one".
Ok, but for the scientists.....we always talk on this board about how horrific it is to have that conflict of interest between politicians and corporations....
consider who pays those scientist salaries...does it not behoove them to come up with or support studies which seem to show what Al Gore and other political figures are preposing are indeed accurate? If one scientist finds a contrary study would they not have thier funding pulled or be chastised? Consider Galileo if you will when he dared challenge the churches teachings with facts after he used a telescope to discover a few things.
numbers are numbers... politics make for strange bedfellows.
I'm very glad that Gore and crew are interested in helping the planet and on finding out exactly what the human effects are on it but I'm not taking everything they say at face value simply because a few people with degrees are backing it. The scientists involved very lively hoods depend on grants they get from politicans. The strides they have made in conservation are huge plusses, I'm not so sure about the carbon neutral movement, but I doubt it hurts anything so good for them trying to do good in the world I just don't take all of thier hypotheses at face value.
WELL DONE!!
you challenged me in some respects, praised me in others and gave me a well thought out argument with some insight.
and do you know what the best part is?
I have no idea what your political affiliation is!
hey know1 and jiew453534..., you could learn a thing or two from this one.
one other thought
besides trying to sell a book, a movie and a lecture tour what is Al Gore's motivation? pandering to the evil solar industry? give me a break.
I mean, he's as smart as the CEOs who sold out humanity for a couple of bucks.
Comments
In theory I agree, but in reality he still would've had 9/11 to deal with and everything that came with it -even if we don't go to war in Iraq with Gore as president, it seems likely that the environment would've been put on the back burner given the bigger issues of the day - not to mention the Republican congress that I'm sure would've stonewalled any attempt to hinder industry in the name of the environment...
I think the point is that giving the nobel to the whole panel and only the panel would have seemed less ridiculous than sharing it with al gore who makes a very suspect nobel peace prize winner. Whatever his work some people may consider he doesn't deserve himself alone to have his name cited when so many other do as much if not more for peace and/or environment.
You're right. I was wrong about him winning it for the fictional movie he made. Apparently he and the panel for the farce that is the UN won it for pushing that same fictional agenda to others in the world.
And even if it weren't fiction, I still do not know what it has to do with peace.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
assuming the "half truths" you're speaking of is the existance of an impending environmental crisis:
hmm, do I take the word of about 100 of the smartest scientists on the planet?
or some yahoo on a message board who ALWAYS seems to take the contrary stance to progressive stance?
If you disagree with al or not on whether we are on the brink of extinction, that's one thing.
dismissing him completely is a mistake. It just makes you look small.
One of the major causes of the Darfur conflict is the fact that there is a drought, which means less water and less good farmland. People are fighting over both. I would say that is pretty good indication that climate change leads to war. In turn I would say that reasearching a ways to understand climate change, is a good way to prevent future wars.
But if climate change is a natural occurance (Ice Ages, warm cycles) then how do you stop nature from doing what it has done for millions of years???
Gore wouldn't have won the NPP if he was president, he wouldn't have been able to focus all that time on his environmental causes.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Maybe so but there are still measures he could have put in place as they came up, such as Kyoto. His film said that the US is the largest causer of the problem of climate change so at least he would have had an awareness of that and worked things in place, hopefully, despite war issues, congress etc.
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
I didn't dismiss him completely. That's why I said "half truths". If I'd dismissed him completely, I'd have said complete lies!
Love it when people put "progressive" in front of the view that they happen to hold. Remember that's an opinion. I've got some labels I could apply. I just take the contrary stance because I believe the other side.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I thought droughts have always taken place.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The pentagon does:
Military Sharpens Focus on Climate Change
A Decline in Resources Is Projected to Cause Increasing Instability Overseas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401209.html
That is true, but I think if humans are contributing to it (which I believe is true but I said if because I know others don't) I think it is worth researching it. A similar analogy would be that it is true everyone gets less healthy as they get older. But just because that is true it doesn't mean that it is a good idea to smoke and eat junk food all the time.
Whether or not what Al Gore and his group did was the best contribution to peace in the last year, is debatable, but I do think that it is at least worth consideration.
Research is one thing but telling people that you have to change the way you do things because you or your children won't have a world to live in is just ridiculous. And oh yeah, its all your fault too because you drive and SUV, or don't conserve energy, or buy foreign made goods.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Whether or not you believe in climate change, why is conservation a bad thing? The evidence that air pollution causes health problems is pretty clear. Plus rising fuel and energy prices seem to be good evidence that cheap easily accessible energy sources are decreasing. Shouldn't either of those reasons be good ones to conserve? And on top of that if people did conserve energy and try not to pollute as much, if climate change is proven to their satisfaction, they are already on their way to helping things.
Ok, but for the scientists.....we always talk on this board about how horrific it is to have that conflict of interest between politicians and corporations....
consider who pays those scientist salaries...does it not behoove them to come up with or support studies which seem to show what Al Gore and other political figures are preposing are indeed accurate? If one scientist finds a contrary study would they not have thier funding pulled or be chastised? Consider Galileo if you will when he dared challenge the churches teachings with facts after he used a telescope to discover a few things.
numbers are numbers... politics make for strange bedfellows.
I'm very glad that Gore and crew are interested in helping the planet and on finding out exactly what the human effects are on it but I'm not taking everything they say at face value simply because a few people with degrees are backing it. The scientists involved very lively hoods depend on grants they get from politicans. The strides they have made in conservation are huge plusses, I'm not so sure about the carbon neutral movement, but I doubt it hurts anything so good for them trying to do good in the world I just don't take all of thier hypotheses at face value.
What's ridiculous about it?
People are telling you to change your behaviour BECAUSE of research. It's research that's thrown up awareness of the problems. It's research that's showing the way to solve the problems. And it IS everyone's fault but everyone can be part of the solution too. Don't you get it?
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
ignorant post of the day
Conservation isn't a bad thing but don't tell me when and what to conserve. Ethanol as a fuel is total garbage and not a feasible alternative and never will be but the gov't and companies are playing it up like its the replacement for oil. As far as pollution, when China and India are forced to clean up their act, then I'll think more about pollution. Those two countries are by far the largest polluters of our environment.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
This is my one big thing with global warming:
"What is the perfect temperature for the Earth?" Is it the temperature today, was it the temperature 2 years ago, was it the temperature 20 years ago or even 50 years ago?
If we are to stop "Global Warming", are we to keep the temperature where it is? Are we to try and bring the temperature down a few degrees? Are we to pick some random year hundreds or years ago and say yep, the weather in 1741 was perfect, let's make the Earth that temperature again?
And if we do somehow reach this ideal temperature, are we to combat the Earth when it goes through its own natural heating and cooling cycles that it has been going through for billions of years?
This is my biggest problem with global warming - what exactly are we trying to establish? I'm all for conservation and not deliberating trying to hurt the environment, but I don't believe in global warming is a mainly made caused problem. I mean does Al Gore know what temperature the Earth should be so that everything on Earth would be in a perfect utopia state except for the wars, famines, and droughts that have existed since the dawn of history?
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
India is fourth. Russia is third. China and the US are about the same. Per person the US is by far the largest polluter.
sometimes, the facts are too overwhelming to dismiss folks
I'd like to say two things:
1) you seem to have a pretty belligerent attitude towards the climate change issue. Can I ask why that is? Why is Ethanol garbage? So would it be true to say that your only answer would be to continue with burning up fossil fuels despite all the risks it is posing to the planet. Great.
2) India and China might be the potential polluters of the future but at present the US is still the worst offender. I agree that those countries need to start early to make sure their impact is not going to make things worse.
But why should they if the US won't? To be honest I really hate it when people start going on about India and China as the problem when the WEST caused the problem in the first place, what with over 200 years of unthinking unlimited industrialisation. It's a bit of a cheek to expect other countries who are only just starting on the path of development to cut their own emissions (even though I think they should) when a country like the US is still the worst offender by a long shot.
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
I don't think the goal is to try and find a constant temperature and stick with that. I think the point is to try and minimize the affects that humans have on the climate. Like my previous post said it is like the human body, you know you are going to get less and less healthy as you get older and older, but why would you want to contribute to that and make it happen faster?
Not belligerent at all, just realistic I guess. Ethanol is garbage because of the stress it has and will continue to put on world food supplies. Also there are no long term studies on the environmental effects of ethanol use in automobiles. So we have no idea whether this "cure" will make things any better or worse. Also for all the energy put into manufacturing ethanol, the payback just isn't there.
True, India and China may not be #1 yet but we're probably just a few years from it being the case. And yes the US should have better controls on pollution. So why not allow there to be nuclear power used or clean burning coal plants built??? We have a huge supply of coal just waiting to be used.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-02-20-kantor_x.htm
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Why is it a bad thing for your government to tell you to conserve, if the lack of conservation is going to have adverse affects on the rest of the population? The government already tells people that they can't do things like dump used motor oil down a storm sewer, how is this any different. Hell during WW2 allied government told people they had to conserve resources and it is weird because back then I don't think you had (at least not as many people) saying "screw the government I am going to eat as much food and waste as much metal and oil as I possibly can. Why should the government tell me what to do". Why are people so different now?
As far as China and India go, sure they are also polluters, but do people in other countries have no interest in being the world leaders good things? That to me is like saying "China doesn't have a democracy so why should we have one".
Well hang on then, I'm sure I can top it!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
too bad they don;t have a nobel war & stupidity prize. then we'd be cheering for president monkey nuts.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
WELL DONE!!
you challenged me in some respects, praised me in others and gave me a well thought out argument with some insight.
and do you know what the best part is?
I have no idea what your political affiliation is!
hey know1 and jiew453534..., you could learn a thing or two from this one.
one other thought
besides trying to sell a book, a movie and a lecture tour what is Al Gore's motivation? pandering to the evil solar industry? give me a break.
I mean, he's as smart as the CEOs who sold out humanity for a couple of bucks.