[mollyL]

The IPPC? It sounds witty to you, but the big international poobah (the way it is usually spelled, BTW)climate change authority doesn't shed alot of light on what you are talking about. Besides, it whiffs much too strongly of Limbaugh or O'Reilly to me.
Your insistence that Gore wants the vice presidency makes me wonder if you know that Al Gore was vice president already, from 1992-2000.
You also keep going on about numbers being "hyped". Well, chapter and verse, young squire. Let's see your numbers, and remember, no Limbaugh or O' Reilly whiffs, let's have some real facts and figures.

[Roguegal]

What I find really strange about this thread is simply that everybody is putting Al Gore down for a political agenda or how many houses he has or whether he's really environmentally friendly or not. Who gives a sh*t?

Nobody should be worried about why he is doing it or that he has an agenda! He is putting the word out! That is a fact. We should be thanking him for bringing the public's attention to bear on the situation. If this movie gets people to thinking and changes things forget some politicians encourage, why should we worry about the reason he didn't.

We are all worried about our environment now and in the future. If we don't have air to breathe, Al Gore won't need to worry whether or not his agenda worked. Because he won't be able to breathe anymore either!

I think we should all start talking about the movie and whether or not it is working.

[tiberiustibz]

Originally Posted by mollyL

The IPPC? It sounds witty to you, but the big international poobah (the way it is usually spelled, BTW)climate change authority doesn't shed alot of light on what you are talking about. Besides, it whiffs much too strongly of Limbaugh or O'Reilly to me.
Your insistence that Gore wants the vice presidency makes me wonder if you know that Al Gore was vice president already, from 1992-2000.
You also keep going on about numbers being "hyped". Well, chapter and verse, young squire. Let's see your numbers, and remember, no Limbaugh or O' Reilly whiffs, let's have some real facts and figures.

Well excuse me if my spelling ability is lacking. The IPCC, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an international front headed by the United Nations given the task of interpreting the raw data and anazlyzing it, which is generally regarded as the leading source for climate change information. When compared with Al Gore, they had many things quite different. Where did Al Gore get his stats from again?

Ok, here we have "Mr. Michaels, [who] is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia." Note that this lacks the "oil industry connection" that most people seem to find. And here we have an article from an Australian newspaper claiming that the climate is performing self regulation. What may be concluded from this?

As stated in the first article, surface thermometers have indicated this .35 degree per decade rise in temperatures, but the more accurate satellites have indicated no such change. Therefore, one may pick and choose which side they want to support based on which source of raw data they choose.

This aside I still do not believe that this is worth what publicity it has. It is such a politicized issue. If I were a scientist I would look at the trends and see the horror and then say that no artificial acceleration is needed and that nothing to a great extent can be accomplished. However, if I were a politician, I would look at this data, come to the same conclusions, but also realize that if I were able to harness this fear, this common feeling of hopelessness, claim that I will solve this and swing it into my campaign, I can gain many voters.

[tiberiustibz]

Originally Posted by Green-Moo

I think pretty much any presentation where someone is trying to persuade someone else to their point of view uses only the facts and figures which support it.

I've read the hoo-ha about the supposed exaggeration, and it doesn't make a bit of difference to how I view the message.

Ahh, yes the hoo-ha, otherwise known as the London high court directly denouncing this movie as factually incorrect and exaggerated.

I think you're right. But when he comes to replace his SUV he might remember the message & pause for thought. Think the drip, drip effect.

Once again, reducing the C02 emissions only slows the rate of increase of the rate of increase in temperature, and it would take no less than a complete halt of all C02 emissions and a few centuries for the warming to just stabilize.

Corporations are ultimately run by people and financed by shareholders and customers. People equals public.

That's going to be a problem that we will run into. The entire economy is designed around our current, outdated centralized energy and power system, selling gas and electricity centrally. Therefore the system will probably present resistance when moving towards a consumer generation system with PV cells, mini hydro, and wind turbines. They won't profit after the fact.

[ninikins]

I think that you are spot on about that one, we need to rethink so much!

[ecofuse]

My opinion only:

Regardless of how he behaves, Al Gore has done a great job of putting the issue of global warming front and center, more than anyone else out there. I know his message has inspired a few of my friends (and those are just the people I know) to recycle and conserve more.

As far as I'm concerned, he has a voice and a global audience. As long as he continues to spread the message, let him speak.

Regards,

Nick
ecofuse / Published News