Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the event you missed it, Obama offered Al Gore a job in order to get his endorsement
"I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [global warming/homeless polar bear] problem,"
Great... Now obama is selling jobs in exchange for endorsement, and to make it worse, we're offering taxpayers money to help raise the price of fuel even more.
In the event you missed it, Obama offered Al Gore a job in order to get his endorsement
"I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [global warming/homeless polar bear] problem,"
Great... Now obama is selling jobs in exchange for endorsement, and to make it worse, we're offering taxpayers money to help raise the price of fuel even more.
LOL
As if Al Gore NEEDED a job.
Whatever job he takes will pay a WHOLE lot less than he earns doing speaking engagements.
For everyone hating Al Gore, I watched an Inconvenient Truth last night for the first time, and was freaking floored on how we ended up with a simpleton like Bush over an intelligent man like Gore.
For everyone hating Al Gore, I watched an Inconvenient Truth last night for the first time, and was freaking floored on how we ended up with a simpleton like Bush over an intelligent man like Gore.
The scientific community is at odds within itself over whether or not all of his facts are true. Read some commentary on both sides of the debate and you'll see that nothing is cut and dry as Gore would have us believe.
FWIW: I do believe the earth is warming. Whether or not it is ONLY our fault and whether we can reverse/stop it or not is still out for debate in my opinion.
The scientific community is at odds within itself over whether or not all of his facts are true. Read some commentary on both sides of the debate and you'll see that nothing is cut and dry as Gore would have us believe.
FWIW: I do believe the earth is warming. Whether or not it is ONLY our fault and whether we can reverse/stop it or not is still out for debate in my opinion.
I don't think anything is cut and dry and I'm not speaking about the movie specifically. His intelligence, manner of speaking and the way he related to others just stuck me as light years ahead of Bush, global warming notwithstanding.
I actually think the slower rise would have been substantially worse. Then people would have had time to adjust their minds to the higher prices. As it is, it's shocked us into changing things about how we live. I personally believe that temporarily reducing the prices will only make us stop looking at how to change how we live. Simply put, I think if the price skyrocketing cuts out and drops then people go right back to how things were. Wetoo easily get distracted and we will forget about all the things we planned to do to cut our fuel expenses.
The scientific community is at odds within itself over whether or not all of his facts are true. Read some commentary on both sides of the debate and you'll see that nothing is cut and dry as Gore would have us believe.
FWIW: I do believe the earth is warming. Whether or not it is ONLY our fault and whether we can reverse/stop it or not is still out for debate in my opinion.
Actually you have hit the very crux of the issue.
Folks who argue against Global Warming usually use the argument that it's a natural occurance and part of a system of normal cycles. While it's probably true that what we are going through is part of a normal natural cycle, the fact is that even if that is true (which it probably is) that does not mean that man-made Global Warming is not occuring as well. It's NOT an either-or situation.
Evidence that our industially created greenhouse gasses are warming the earth is overwhelming and the vast majority of the scientific community has accepted that as fact. The only REAL questions remaining revolve around HOW MUCH of an impact we are having and HOW FAST the changes will take place. There is MUCH debate over these questions.
Clouding the issue are those various natural climatic changes that the earth undergoes from time to time. It's like the husband and wife who both work and both put their money into the same checking account. Once the money is all mixed up and various sums are spent out of it to cover bills and other expenses, there is no way to determine what the original source was for any particular dollar. Some of the climate change that going on probably comes from natural cycles and some probably comes from man-made sources.
What I find incredulous is the contention that because a natural cycle is involved in raising the temperatures, that somehow we don't need to be concerned. That's totally illogical. If your computer models indicate that a CO2 increase of X percent will increase the global temps by Y degrees then how is it better that this comes ON TOP of the natural increases occuring anyway? To me, it would be MORE of a concern that we are potentially piling one (man-made) wave crest ON TOP of another (naturally occuring) wave crest which means the impacts will be EVEN GREATER than they would be otherwise and therefor may require even faster more drastic action.
In addition, A LOT of the criticisms of the Global Warming theory that I see here on this board and elsewhere on the web reflect a SERIOUS lack of intellect and education.
One poster on this board posted repeatedly that the earth is warming simply because we are spiraling into the sun!!!!! This fact is DEAD wrong and shows incredible ignorance. First of all we are moving AWAY from the sun and secondly the amount of our movement is TINY (something like a centimeter a year).
Another poster claimed that planting more trees added to Global Warming because trees give off CO2 so we should stop planting trees. This is a classic case of "a LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing" as this poster knew JUST ENOUGH to reach a completely wrong conclusion. Yes trees give off CO2, but they also take in CO2 and convert it to oxygen and on balance they take in far more CO2 than they give off.
And then there's my personal favorite - where one poster contended that although the glaciers along Greenlands' coastal areas may be melting, those at the higher elevations would remain intact because it's colder at the higher altitudes - completely ignoring the fact that glaciers FLOW DOWNHILL and the faster the ice melts at the lower elevations, the faster the ice at the higher elevations will flow down to replace it (DUH!!!!!!!). If the ice melts at the bottom faster than it's replaced at the top the glacier gets smaller and smaller until it is gone completely.
In any event, yes there questions about the accuracy of some of the claims of Al Gore's film - mainly because of the issue I mentioned of being unable to effectively distinquish between what is natural and what is man-made. What is pretty certain however, is the BIG PICTURE - and in that regard Al Gore most certainly has it right - and he deserves credit for drawing such attention to the problem.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-17-2008 at 10:36 AM..
For everyone hating Al Gore, I watched an Inconvenient Truth last night for the first time, and was freaking floored on how we ended up with a simpleton like Bush over an intelligent man like Gore.
Gore has fooled many. Especially upon first glance. He won 94%! of the vote in his first run for congress. Later, no one would even run against him for congress in his home state of Tennessee. When he ran for senate his 2nd time he won all 95 Tennessee counties; the only Tennessee politician to ever do so. A highly popular guy!
But. .. . The state must have grown to know him as he became the first presidential candidate to lose his own state since McGovern. And if he would've won it, he'd have won the presidency. Those who knew him best found him lacking. And from a state that went democratic for the previous presidential election.
This is almost unbelievable but think about it; a blue state in 1996 goes red in 2000 when it's own senator runs for president. That is truly shocking!
Gore has fooled many. Especially upon first glance. He won 94%! of the vote in his first run for congress. Later, no one would even run against him for congress in his home state of Tennessee. When he ran for senate his 2nd time he won all 95 Tennessee counties; the only Tennessee politician to ever do so. A highly popular guy!
But. .. . The state must have grown to know him as he became the first presidential candidate to lose his own state since McGovern. And if he would've won it, he'd have won the presidency. Those who knew him best found him lacking. And from a state that went democratic for the previous presidential election.
This is almost unbelievable but think about it; a blue state in 1996 goes red in 2000 when it's own senator runs for president. That is truly shocking!
I think Gore's loss in Tennesse may have had less to do with Gore and more to do with the state in general moving to the right (as in fact the entire country in did in 2000). In 2004 the state also went Republican in regards to it's Presidential choice and McCain currently holds a substantial lead over Obama (as he did against Clinton) in polls today.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
