Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

[Galen Sevinne]

How many times does Gore have to explain to carbon burning proponents that he doesn't make profit off of his advocacy for green energy? Out of all the conservative platforms, I just can't understand why anyone would be so ideological against clean burning, renewable energy.

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2419912

[jonboy79]

How many times does Gore have to explain to carbon burning proponents that he doesn't make profit off of his advocacy for green energy? Out of all the conservative platforms, I just can't understand why anyone would be so ideological against clean burning, renewable energy.

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2419912

Not against it, per se, but not overly concerned. Climate change was NEVER more hten a minority scientific opinion that was propoghanda--style pushed as fact when it is far from it. This is not like Evolution being pushed despite being proven, at least that has been a majority scientific opinion for decades. Manmade Climate change has ALWAYS been a minority Scientific opinion.

Connies are more interested in Nuclear Power as it would dramattically reduce our dependance on foreign oil in short order.

[4G63]

This is a pretty good article about the absurdities in Gore's "Documentary"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

[Galen Sevinne]

I agree that there is no proof for either side in this debate. Climate change is a theory...man-made climate change more a theory. That being said, a theory can be true. I am not sure how you could actually prove it. It would be hard to prove evolution but I don't think that diminishes the liklihoood of the theory being true.

I am one who believes in climate change, have read a zillion links and know a couple people who i trust with their backgrounds who feel pretty confident in man-made climate change. We had a really good debate about it on this board last year with many good links.

So my point isn't to any longer debate climate change or man-made climate change but to question what is the purpose of so admantly denying it? If we can all agree that it is a theory and woul dbe very hard to prove either way, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that something in the climate has at least changed. Huge chucks of antartica keep breaking off, increase in wildfires, increase in intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Just backpacking in Glacier Nat. Park a couple years ago, they have photos of the Glaciers 50-100 years ago and many are competely gone while others are greatly diminshed. Yes that can be a natural cycling and it could man-made.

People on the right are so adamant to disprove climate change but why? What negative comes from erring on the side of caution? Someone answer that question while I answer what positve comes from going with the idea of man-made climate change;

1. A competely new energy economy...new jobs...new technology...the chance to create and build something tangible which we need.

2. Move away from a finite source of energy which the world will have to someday anyway...that is inevitable. Maybe not in our lifetime but our children or grandchildren's lifetime.

3. Stop paying the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela etc for their oil.

4. Preserve our National Parks and coastlines.

5. Lower pollution and haze.

6. lower carcinogens in the environment

7. And if there is a link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, we need not worry anymore.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

So now the arguments for assuming that climate change is bunk and its all about Al Gore getting rich;

1. Exxon, Mobil, et al. will not have to look for alternative products to sell

2. The Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation can continue to push their conservative agendas through funding by the big oil companies.

3. Al Gore will have to find a new hobby.


Comparing these lists I feel confident that without clear proof in either direction that promoting the idea of man-made climate change is the socially conscious way to go. When I see individuals like you see in the video above trying to suggest that Al Gore has some ulterior motive in his work seems so odd...unless of course there is some payment coming her way by objecting to his stance. I don't get it.

[Greg]

Climate Change

All I need to note is these two words.

On the first earth day we were warned the earth would have cooled 10 degrees by 2000. Then we got global warming. Now, climate change.

LOL.

Yes, the climate is changing, and it has been since the world has existed.

[jonboy79]

I agree that there is no proof for either side in this debate. Climate change is a theory...man-made climate change more a theory. That being said, a theory can be true. I am not sure how you could actually prove it. It would be hard to prove evolution but I don't think that diminishes the liklihoood of the theory being true.

I am one who believes in climate change, have read a zillion links and know a couple people who i trust with their backgrounds who feel pretty confident in man-made climate change. We had a really good debate about it on this board last year with many good links.

So my point isn't to any longer debate climate change or man-made climate change but to question what is the purpose of so admantly denying it? If we can all agree that it is a theory and woul dbe very hard to prove either way, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that something in the climate has at least changed. Huge chucks of antartica keep breaking off, increase in wildfires, increase in intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Just backpacking in Glacier Nat. Park a couple years ago, they have photos of the Glaciers 50-100 years ago and many are competely gone while others are greatly diminshed. Yes that can be a natural cycling and it could man-made.

People on the right are so adamant to disprove climate change but why? What negative comes from erring on the side of caution? Someone answer that question while I answer what positve comes from going with the idea of man-made climate change;

1. A competely new energy economy...new jobs...new technology...the chance to create and build something tangible which we need.

2. Move away from a finite source of energy which the world will have to someday anyway...that is inevitable. Maybe not in our lifetime but our children or grandchildren's lifetime.

3. Stop paying the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela etc for their oil.

4. Preserve our National Parks and coastlines.

5. Lower pollution and haze.

6. lower carcinogens in the environment

7. And if there is a link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, we need not worry anymore.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

So now the arguments for assuming that climate change is bunk and its all about Al Gore getting rich;

1. Exxon, Mobil, et al. will not have to look for alternative products to sell

2. The Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation can continue to push their conservative agendas through funding by the big oil companies.

3. Al Gore will have to find a new hobby.


Comparing these lists I feel confident that without clear proof in either direction that promoting the idea of man-made climate change is the socially conscious way to go. When I see individuals like you see in the video above trying to suggest that Al Gore has some ulterior motive in his work seems so odd...unless of course there is some payment coming her way by objecting to his stance. I don't get it.

Climate change itself is not bunk, it's a fact. Our Earth's climate has been very Cyclic in nature, just how it is occurring now.
I also see NO REASON not to exercise conservation, renewable energy sources and pollution reduction. Nothing but good can come, you are correct.

BUT DO NOT frame it under the guise of stopping manmade global warming. Now YOU are the one that should be wearing a tinfoil hat. Our climate can be scientifically proven to be cyclic in nature, and that we are currently at a NOT ABNORMAL peak, on the way back down.

An inconvenient truth, has clearly made your side look bad here. It was clearly a propaghanda piece similar to "Reefer Madness" and the longer your side avoids that truth, the worse you look. IT is FULL of clear cehrry picking of data DESPITE many signs in the other direction.

AT THE VERY LEAST, I'd liek to see Gore stripped of his Peace Prize. I absolutely agree with the people that have turned down the award since. If I were smart enough to win one, I would ABSOLUTELY decline the option while Gore remained in posession of his.

Again, let's be green and EFFICIENT, but I am not going out of my way to be the first in spite of the second. EFFICIENCY is what is lacking in oru society. More government only makes that worse.

I repeat, build as many windmill's as you can, keep refining solar power technology, etc. I'm even not against Ethanol despite its net energy loss at the moment, becuase there is CLEARLY gains to be found in the technology. The moment we can turn stalks and husks into ethanol is the moment we have been happy to have begun the program.
I am very pro Nuke power, though I would imagine you are not. I would liek a FEW DOZEN nuke plants built this decade.

"An inconvenient Truth" was yellow hournalism at best and set the "greenies" back a decade at BEST. It is sort of like PETA. The message is good, but the delivery is so EXTAVAGANTLY POOR, that many ignore hte message. People don't like to be lied to. Talking to peopel responsibly, thruthfully and reasonably will accomplish far more then blatant scare tactics.

[Rochardrik]

"An inconvenient Truth" was yellow hournalism at best and set the "greenies" back a decade at BEST. It is sort of like PETA. The message is good, but the delivery is so EXTAVAGANTLY POOR, that many ignore hte message. People don't like to be lied to. Talking to peopel responsibly, thruthfully and reasonably will accomplish far more then blatant scare tactics.


Blatant scare tactics? Wow, Isn'tthat all we hear these days? especially from the RIGHT?
Seriously, though, the cycles that this earth has gone through for billions of years are, as far as I'm concerned, well documented, and those cycles have not likely been affected by humans.... for the first 4 billon years or so. But for us to say, as most who poo-poo climate change do, that there's nothing humans could do to affect change, I believe that to be at best, naive. We've only been burning fossil fuels for just over 100 years."
Prior to the advent of gasoline engines, the burning of fuels of any kind was limited to cooking, heating the tepee, and for a couple of hundred years, smelting, etc. But our world has changed. In the second half of the 20th century, we burned many THOUSANDS times the amount of fuel as we had in the previous 10,000 years. There MAY NOT be any incontrovertial proof that we are affecting the earth's patterns, but it would seem that the marked change in the amount of fossil fuel burning would cause even the most obstinate person to wonder. Just using simple logic would cause ANY RATIONAL PERSON to believe the idea has merit. WE have burned millions upon millions of gallons of fuel in a hundred years, which is maybe 10,000 times the amount burned in the previous 10,000 years? Without even compiling ANY evidence, the idea seems almost too sane to refute...without real evidence to the contrary
Oh, and we are in a down period in sunspots... which means we SHOULD be experiencing colder weather... which is what was predicted in the '70's... but we're not, it's getting warmer... Doesn't that explain your statement about.... it was supposed to be getting colder, now they say warmer and climate change.. That statement helps support the global warming phenomena, not refute it.
Err on the side of caution, I always say... especially when it is so vital to the survival of our planet, humankind, etc.

[Galen Sevinne]

Again its not whether man-made climate change is occurring or not...its the adamant need that conservatives have to deny it! I don't understand what one gains by denying conservation???

I don't think reefer madness is a good analogy because one can make a case that smoking weed is bad so therefore, albeit grossly exaggerated, there was a degree of purpose in the argument. What is the degree of purpose in denying climate change so adamantly?

A better analogy is god I think. The Right uses god for so many of their arguments...gay marrriage, stem cell research. These are wrong because God says they are wrong. A good analogy would for the Left to adamantly deny god to oppose those arguments.

The Right adamantly denies climate change to deny conservation efforts and support big oil. The Left should adamantly deny god to deny arguments against stem cell, gay marriage and promote science. That is a more apt analogy

but the Left doesn't and no one can explain why the right does.

[jonboy79]

Again its not whether man-made climate change is occurring or not...its the adamant need that conservatives have to deny it! I don't understand what one gains by denying conservation???

I don't think reefer madness is a good analogy because one can make a case that smoking weed is bad so therefore, albeit grossly exaggerated, there was a degree of purpose in the argument. What is the degree of purpose in denying climate change so adamantly?

A better analogy is god I think. The Right uses god for so many of their arguments...gay marrriage, stem cell research. These are wrong because God says they are wrong. A good analogy would for the Left to adamantly deny god to oppose those arguments.

The Right adamantly denies climate change to deny conservation efforts and support big oil. The Left should adamantly deny god to deny arguments against stem cell, gay marriage and promote science. That is a more apt analogy

but the Left doesn't and no one can explain why the right does.

Reefer Madness is DEAD on for "An Inconvenient Truth".
In both instances, they cherry pick information to their own cause, while COMPLETELY OVERLOOKING, the vast ammounts of information that don't fit the agenda.
Similarly, the message that we might be doing bad to the Earth is good, but they so ridiculously exagerrate the point that it makes the whole thing seem campy.
Again, I bring up PETA. Most people agree with the overall message, but Ethical treatment of animals is probably not as effectively spread because the messenger has a screw loose. The extreme and blind nature of the messenger reduces the value of the message.
Manmade Climate Change is essentially disproved. At the very least, it is KNOWN that the Earth's climate has a cyclical nature, and the recent period is not abnormal in the slightest, and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere TRAIL temperature increases.
If you just dropped that whole shtick, and scare tactic, and presented the concepts of conservatism on par with reality, the message will hold more value.
Tell me you think it might be a little bit bad for the planet for us to keep burning fossill fuels. Don't MAKE UP a fairy tail about how burning fossill fuels will put NYC under water within 20 years.
The movie was straight up Propaghanda, and that was KNOWN at the time by the producers of the movie, It was INTENTIONAL misleading of the public for profit. It's despicable.

[Galen Sevinne]

[QUOTE]

Reefer Madness is DEAD on for "An Inconvenient Truth".

Maybe comparing the two movies but I was thinking more to the idea of comparing the two theories. I haven't seen Inconvenient Truth so I can't comment on the movie. I also haven't seen reefer madness but have seen enough references to it to understand where it is coming from. My point was that the theory of climate change can't be compared to the theory behind reefer madness...now comparing the movies...fine. One poorly done movie that came out in the infnacy of a theory doesn't make for a bad theory.

Manmade Climate Change is essentially disproved. At the very least, it is KNOWN that the Earth's climate has a cyclical nature, and the recent period is not abnormal in the slightest, and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere TRAIL temperature increases.

I think you have to be careful about being so sure of these statments. Manmade climate change is far from being disproved. Also the idea of CO2 trailing temperature change has also been debunked. Those numbers come from Spencers work which was heavily criticised until he, Spencer himself, came out and said the date was inaccurate. So that is not true.

If you just dropped that whole shtick, and scare tactic, and presented the concepts of conservatism on par with reality, the message will hold more value.
Tell me you think it might be a little bit bad for the planet for us to keep burning fossill fuels. Don't MAKE UP a fairy tail about how burning fossill fuels will put NYC under water within 20 years.
The movie was straight up Propaghanda, and that was KNOWN at the time by the producers of the movie, It was INTENTIONAL misleading of the public for profit. It's despicable.

I don't disagree with this nor your PETA comparison but even a poorly done sensationalistic movie doesn't then lead to the theory being wrong. I think the theory is evolving. I think many agree that man has an effect on the climate and scientists are trying to now figure out what that effect is. Right now common thought seems to be going in the direction of weather extremes vs. just warming. The Theory of Evolution is a work of 100 years with many twists and turns.

Again I don't think we need to debate climate change as I have my beliefs and you have yours. I am more interested in why the right gets so angry at the idea? Most arguments against climate change if you track them through the people making them you end up with conservative think tanks like Heritage Foundation which receives funding from Exxon. That is a no brainer to me what that means.

At least Al Gore is putting all of his profits from books and movies into green technology. That automatically puts him in a better place than a guy like Spencer who has indirect ties to Exxon as well as Heritage or Cato.

[jonboy79]

Green Technology? Have you seen his electric bill?
Even he doesn't believe the crap out of his mouth.

Tell me straight, and make it benefit me.
ex. Northeastern states have deposits on aluminum cans and glass bottles. That $.05 is enough incentive to ensure that 99%+ of cans and bottles get recycled up there. Schools use bottle drives to fundraise, etc.

Is recycling a good idea at the heart. Sure. But here, it's far EASIER to jsut throw them away, so guess where 99% end up, the TRASH.

You pay the $.05 up front, by returning it you only get your money back, thus it is a costless system.

Do more stuff like this. Less the world is ending nonsense. The planet will get greener.

[Galen Sevinne]

Tell me straight, and make it benefit me.

This is an ideological belief. "make it benefit me" How about what "benefits most". True Liberal/progressive individuals have utilitarian views as in practicing that which benefits the most people. Conservatives want what benefits just themselves. It is better for the world and future generations to practice conservation which includes recycling, diminished carbon burn, renewable energies etc. Conservatives argue against this.

Is recycling a good idea at the heart. Sure. But here, it's far EASIER to jsut throw them away, so guess where 99% end up, the TRASH.

You said it not me. We put out far more recyling than trash at our house. Sure it is a bit more work but it is best for all so that is what we do. One shouldn't need a monetary incentive to do what's right.