You could have had a nobel peace prize winner as a president...

Kel Varnsen · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

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.

chromiam · October 2007

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

Kel Varnsen · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

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.

Pacomc79 · October 2007

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

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.

Restless Soul · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

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?

macgyver06 · October 2007

know1 wrote:

Wow - the Nobel Peace Prize really has lost all credibility and become a joke.

What does creating a film based on half-truths and hypotheses have to do with Peace?

ignorant post of the day

chromiam · October 2007

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

Solat13 · October 2007

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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?

Heineken Helen · October 2007

Solat13 wrote:

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?

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

SundaySilence · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

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.

my2hands · October 2007

folks dismissing global warming despite overwhelming evidence remind me of the folks that used to argue the worl was flat

sometimes, the facts are too overwhelming to dismiss folks

Restless Soul · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

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.

Kel Varnsen · October 2007

Solat13 wrote:

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?

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?

chromiam · October 2007

Restless Soul wrote:

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.

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.

Solat13 · October 2007

Restless Soul wrote:

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.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-02-20-kantor_x.htm

Kel Varnsen · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

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".

know1 · October 2007

macgyver06 wrote:

ignorant post of the day

Well hang on then, I'm sure I can top it!

Abuskedti · October 2007

I thank you for all you have done Al Gore.

sweetpotato · October 2007

Restless Soul wrote:

instead you got someone famous for his bushisms...lol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7041082.stm

Well done Al Gore!

too bad they don;t have a nobel war & stupidity prize. then we'd be cheering for president monkey nuts.

stupidcorporatewhore · October 2007

Pacomc79 wrote:

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.

You could have had a nobel peace prize winner as a president...

Comments

Categories