EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Al Gore's Climate 'Reality' Campaign Kicks Off
WASHINGTON — An Internet campaign spearheaded by former US vice president Al Gore to raise awareness about climate change began airing its day-long broadcast around the world on Thursday.
The project, called "24 Hours of Reality," features a multimedia presentation viewable online that showcases how extreme weather events like floods, fires and storms are linked to climate change.
By 1300 GMT, the live-streamed broadcasts delivered in 13 languages, viewable at climaterealityproject.org, had drawn more than three million views, organizers said.
Live Video app for Facebook by Ustream
The hourly broadcasts are scheduled in various locations around the world, including Beijing, New Delhi, Jakarta, London, Dubai, Istanbul, Seoul and Rio de Janeiro.
They also aim to reveal how money motivates those who deny that human-driven pollution is contributing to climate change.
"Around the world, we are still subjected to polluter-financed misinformation and propaganda designed to mislead people about the dangers we face from the unfolding climate crisis," Gore said in a statement.
Celebrity actresses Renee Zellweger and Fran Drescher were added to the roster of appearances for Thursday beginning at 1600 GMT.
The campaign ends with the final presentation by Gore starting at 7:00 pm (2300 GMT) in New York.
Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on climate change.
A slideshow presented by Gore about the dangers of climate change was the basis of the popular 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," which grossed 49 million dollars worldwide.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
74 Comments so far
Show AllFolks, PLEASE spend some time watching the live stream, if for nothing else, to catch a glimpse of some of the people who are part of the movement having a chat, and spread the word. Don't worry, for now, about how effective all of this is going to be.
Perhaps I've missed something, but when are the environmentalists, especially those passionately preaching about the dangers of climate change (for which I applaud them), going to summon the moral courage and intellectual honesty to at least *mention* the elephant in this rapidly-warming living room (pun intended), to wit: The single greatest cause of global warming is the ANIMAL INDUSTRY, dwarfing all other sources combined. Whether you're talking about factory farming or "happy meat" that charges you a premium because it's supposedly "grass-fed", "organic" or "free-range" - the animal industry is essentially a global network of concentration camps engaged in systematic torture on a scale that is almost beyond comprehension; but even if you don't buy the ethical argument, the toxicity to the planet has been well-documented, albeit little-discussed, which is precisely my issue with most of my fellow environmentalists. (See the United Nations report: "Livestock's Long Shadow" to name but one example.) As the bumper sticker says, "Real Environmentalists Don't Eat Meat." (Nor, I would add, do "real" environmentalists eat dairy, which is just as damaging to us and the planet - and arguably entails even more cruelty - than meat does.) I am finding it increasingly difficult to take the climate change activists seriously when virtually none of them are discussing this most salient, burning (yes, again, pun intended) issue. Go to Professor Gary Francione's website (www.abolitionistapproach.org) for a consistent environmental ethic, one that respects other sentient beings as equally deserving of life and liberty as we are. Using non-human animals for our own profit, entertainment and/or simple palate pleasure can simply no longer be justified by any humane, sane standard. One last thing - I understand that much of Mr. Gore's family fortune came from the cattle industry. I hate to sound cynical, but could that be at least part of the reason that "Inconvenient Truth" did not even mention the profound impact going vegan would have on global climate change? As Francione says, go vegan: it's easy, it's better for you, it's better for the planet, and most importantly, it's the right thing to do. And for Gaia's sake, my fellow eco-warriors, let's have the cojones to stop the hypocrisy and bring this issue out into the open. Yes, it's controversial - so were the original abolitionists. "It tastes good" no longer cuts it. Neither does the lame "Our ancestors ate meat" - they also owned slaves. The real "inconvenient truth"? The cow actually *is* sacred - and so is every other sentient being. Can they "reason?" Who cares? The more important question is, "Can they suffer?" We sadly know the answer to that question; if you're not sure, take a deep breath and watch a slaughterhouse video or two. I guarantee 95% of you will go vegan on the spot. Let's get honest: Speciesism is just as morally indefensible as is sexism or racism - and to add "injury to insult" - it's killing us *and* our planet, not just the animals. As Da Vinci, wrote: "Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds them."
GREAT post, cecelialexandra! You are right about the deafening silence from most environmentalists on the impact of meat production. My suspicion is that even those who are personally vegan are afraid to talk about it in public, and if they do, they make it as part of a "list" of things to do.
As someone who has cited the report "Livestock's Long Shadow" here before, I'm glad to see it being mentioned here. But it shouldn't take a report to convince us that eating higher up the food chain, at the very least, has got to be extremely inefficient. And producing beef has got to be by far the most inefficient way of producing "food", considering that a cow cannot be slaughtered until it's almost 2 1/2 years old and it can yield only one calf a year (just like humans) at the most, with a gestation period of 9 months (just like humans). Most of the food it eats goes to simply keeping it alive (for keeping the body warm - just like in humans), much of it excreted, and for building up non-edible parts such as the bones, skin, etc. Only a small fraction of the feed goes into producing the flesh that's eaten.
You are right about dairy: it is just as bad, because a large-scale dairy industry cannot exist without a meat industry to slaughter the cows when they stop producing milk and to slaughter pretty much all of the male calves and bulls, except the few retained for insemination purposes - once again, only up to a point.
Another book I would recommend is "Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture" by Jeremy Rifkin, for a historical take on the enormous effect of beef consumption on not just the environment, but its role in the conquest and brutal colonization of the "New World" as well. And today, thanks to this conquest, much of the rest of the world can eat lots of meat as well. Without the conquest of the Americas and Australia, there is no way in hell that people in so many countries can eat meat on a daily basis, because the land area is simply not enough there.
The ecological footprint (and carbon footprint) of meat production is so huge that the only way that so many people can eat so much meat is by using up such enormous tracts of land in the Americas and Australia for not just grazing, but to grow animal feed, and even that's not enough. So lots of rainforest - about which Al Gore spoke passionately in his documentary - is cleared to cater to the demand for meat and lots of petroleum is used to produce the fertilizer to grow soy and corn for animal feed. None of this is natural. Such a diet CANNOT be prevalent without the conquest and coloniization of the New World and without using up so much water and without all kinds of subsidies to the ranchers and meat industry. Speaking of subsidies, I would also recommend the book "Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West", parts of which may be available for browsing online.
Yes, it is indeed the elephant in the room and I sincerely hope that more and more people take notice of it. Like you said, this is truly within the power of the individual and the family to take a stand and to make a difference. And we are not even talking about the personal benefits that a switch to vegan diet would bring.
Better yet ask how their travelling? I bet it's not by sailing ship and horseback.. Last I saw AlGore and his crew we're sportin Humvees,, to and from their charted 707 (the dirtiest plane ever to fly) Show how its done, use the internet, do net meetings in schools and movis theaters, Don't packup like the rolling stones!! >^^<
~~cecelialexandra~~ wrote,,,("I am finding it increasingly difficult to take the climate change activists seriously when virtually none of them are discussing this most salient, burning (yes, again, pun intended) issue.")>> unquote.
WOW!!! __ The most serious problem humanity has ever faced in our recorded history can be so easily solved! __ Where on Earth have you been hiding ~~cecelialexandra~~?
Why didn't I and 10,000+ scientists realize,,, that to stop global warming, stop excess Co2 and Ch4 from getting into the atmosphere,,, stop acidification of our oceans from burning coal, which is rapidly killing our vital for all life coral reef,,, is for all humans on Earth to (stop eating meat), go veggie and everything will be alright.
You may be awarded a Nobel Prize cecelialexandra, this is Earth shattering informaton.
Going veggie is actually a good idea.. I love peanut butter and mayo sandwiches with a big slice of onion and a dill pickle,,, and boiled cabbage, carrots and onions with a dash of cider vinegar is one of my favorites... Butttt; stop burning coal is a heck of a lot better plan if we intend to save the planet for the next generation.
Hey, have you ever seen a Dzo? It is a hy-bred animal, a cross between a domesticate yak and a water buffalo... Great Scrabble word too, but Dzo isn't in Websters, have to look it up on the Internet... It's also called a Heterosis.
WayneWR, please!!! Do yourself a favor. Please look up the UN FAO report "Livestock's Long Shadow". Then please look up the definition and more info on "ecological footprint" and "carbon footprint". Then please look up "water footprint". I wish I had some references handy, because judging by your responses to cecelialexandra's posts, you have obviously taken this personally. Well, I can only say this: not being able to give up meat (because of addiction, tradition or whatever!) is one thing. But there is no way in hell one can argue about its impact on global climate change. NO WAY!!!
Don't take this personally, but it will come down to numbers that CANNOT be challenged. For the kind of numbers we are talking about, please check out this sample calculation: "The Cheeseburger Footprint":
http://openthefuture.com/cheeseburger_CF.html
And this is the estimate from this calculation:
>>"...the greenhouse gas emissions arising every year from the production and consumption of cheeseburgers (in the US) is roughly the amount emitted by 6.5 million to 19.6 million SUVs. There are now approximately 16 million SUVs currently on the road in the US."<<
Giving up meat and dairy, or drastically cutting down, is perhaps the single biggest action an individual and a family can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, driving less, flying less, using public transportation, closing down coal burning will all have major impacts too. But these are not exactly within the individual's control, unlike switching to a vegan, or even largely vegan, diet. That's not to say those steps can be ignored. No. We are talking about things an individual can do - today, this week, this month!!!
~~Alcyon~~ I do not take your reply to me personally, or as insulting, I fully appreciate your comments here at CD... I fully understand the hazards of animal husbandry and how it adversely effects the environment. It is not near the (most) serious issue or cause of GW was my objection.
My point is, it was not a subject to be discussed on this thread, (*especially so*) on the top of page one comments... Looooong one paragrahp comments that only detracted from the issue, which is a typical ploy of GW deniers... Then you rightfully replied with long replies. The main issue here is burning fossil fuels, especially COAL, (not) eating meat... There is a time and a place for everything.
Then the comment ("I find it difficult to take climate change activists serioiusly") probably should have rung a bell with you.
If there were an article here about how animal husbandry and killing animals to eat them, etc, was very harmful for the environment, and I jumped in at the top of the comments with a long disartation of how termite farts are one of the most serious causes of atmospheric Co2 (which is a fact btw), and I went on and on about that termite subject, it would be distracting, ignorant and rude. Hope you understand my point and reason for why I have replied to the detracting commenter as I have.
All right WayneWR, since you object to talking about this at the top of the thread, let me reply to you further below. How's that? Please check out "Alcyon - Sep 16 2011 - 9:07pm" :).
>>The main issue here is burning fossil fuels, especially COAL, (not) eating meat... There is a time and a place for everything.<<
How much fossil fuel is burned to produce one pound of meat? This question is not easily answered, because there are so many factors to consider. We would need to factor in, for example, the amount of fuel burned in creating tools for farming meat including fuel burned producing food for the animals, fuel burned in production of fertilizers used in production of food for the animals, fuel burned in transporting supplies used for farming meat, fuel burned in transporting animals to slaughter houses, fuel burned in creating tools and machinery used to build and operate slaughter houses, fuel burned in transporting meat from slaughter houses to stores, fuel burned by slaughter house employees on their way to and from work, fuel burned by employees on their way to and from work at retail meat sellers... it just goes on and on and on when you attempt to factor in all the resources using fossil fuel getting that meat to your dinner table. Yes, coal burning is bad. Oil burning is bad. Gas burning is bad. So is production of meat.
Posted by cecelialexandra
Sep 15 2011 - 10:03pm.
Posted by Alcyon
Sep 15 2011 - 11:07pm.
Many thanks to the above posters for opening my eyes on this subject. Shamefully, I admit that I had no idea. For a long time I've been meaning to order The Moosewood Cookbook, produced by the Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca, NY. I will order it today. It is going to be difficult for me to give up as much meat as possible, not to mention dairy (I love adding milk to my tomato soup), but I'm sure it will be easier as time goes on. This is, after all, something I CAN control here in my own little corner of existence. Thank you both again. Thank you.
PS -- One way to create paragraph breaks, if one is so inclined is this. Consider the following character string: < b r > < b r > Take note of all the embedded spaces between the first < character and the last > character. If you remove all the embedded spaces you will create a paragraph break. There are other ways, but this is the one I know of.
Thanks again.
dkshaw, a quick note to wish you the best as you embark on this adventure! :) I have heard good things about The Moosewood Cookbook, though never read it. I've also heard of another book by Mollie Katzen (same author) recommended - maybe you should compare both, if possible: "The Vegetable Dishes I Can't Live Without":
Again, I must say *AMEN* to Alcyon's air-tight truth-telling. How utterly refreshing, and hope-inspiring.
If I may elaborate on Alycon's spot-on observations: Over the past decade as the discussion on global warming has heated up - again please excuse the pun - I continue to be deeply disappointed that virtually all of these brilliant (and I am not being sarcastic!) scientists and environmental activists keep avoiding this crucially important part of the equation - whether consciously or not. It’s truly maddening, to the point that I ultimately had to make a rather painful but nonetheless *conscious* decision to simply *stop* giving my hard-earned extra money (paltry as it may be) to these presumable well-intentioned organizations, to *let* my membership(s) expire; indeed, I am more than ready to support – if I could only find one! - an environmental organization which has the guts to present the *whole* picture, not just the parts they think the meat-loving public can stomach. Maybe I’ll end up willing my meager assets to the laudable educational efforts of Professor Gary Francione, a modern-day prophet in the tradition of Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, who does not hesitate to “speak truth to power” despite enduring suffering both personally and professionally for it. Alas, as Mr. Gore continues to remind us, just because the truth may be “inconvenient” doesn’t mean it isn’t true. In terms of solutions, I confess to loving the simplicity of Francione’s approach, which is nonetheless profound in its implications, and which he essentially boils down to “creative, non-violent vegan education.”
Although I realize it is not the primary focus of this thread, who wouldn’t actually be interested to know that consuming meat has been conclusively linked to all the major diseases of the western world? Societies which consume a plant-based diet are virtually free from heart disease, stroke, cancer, type-2 diabetes, and even MS! And even if animal products actually *were* healthy, a ridiculous *lie* which the ANIMAL INDUSTRY spends countless billions every year attempting (and, sadly, largely succeeding) to brainwash the public into believing, I still fail to see how the ANIMAL INDUSTRY can realistically be viewed as anything but ethically bankrupt - i.e., why should we have the right to exploit other sentient beings? Arguing that we need to eat or wear animal products to survive in the 21st century is laughable at best; it is at the very least environmentally irresponsible.
Dare I say that, foremost among the many important issues facing us, we in the environmental movement need to work and pray for the day when the concept of eating and using animal products for food, clothing and/or entertainment will have come to be universally viewed as completely morally repugnant and reprehensible as the concept of slavery, sexism or racism is today. And yes, that means we need to *be* that “change we wish to see in the world. “ If we are to have a consistent ethic as environmentalists, we simply cannot “have our cake - read: meat & dairy - and eat it too.” In light of the present realities, that is nothing more than hypocristy, plain and simple.
But please forgive my digression: The salient issue here is the fact that the vast majority of the public is truly not *aware* of the connection between global warming and the ANIMAL INDUSTRY, not to mention the immensity of the suffering involved; if they were, I have no doubt that the number of vegans would multiply astronomically overnight. Unforunately, the bottomless pockets of the ANIMAL INDUSTRY and the many government organizations as well as NGO’s they are in bed with - read: Whole Foods, PETA, the USDA, the FDA, and even the American Humane Society, to name but a few of these unlikely but nonetheless increasingly comfy bedfellows - ensure that this blissful (and dangerous) ignorance will continue, unless we who consider ourselves to be environmentalists take a freaking *stand* which acknowledges the “truth, the *whole* truth, and nothing but the truth” (emphasis added)! If you’re lucky enough to find a copy of Kathy Freston’s best-selling Veganist, at the very *least* check out the sixth chapter, or what she entitles “Promise 6: You Will Radically Reduce Your Carbon Footprint and Do the Single Best Thing You Can for the Environment.” It’s simply brilliant, as the unadorned truth usually is.
I will say that Chapter 8 of Veganist is particularly harrowing; in Freston’s words, “This chapter will be hard to read. It was also the hardest for [her] to write. The reality is ugly, and not only is there no way to sugarcoat it, but it would be terribly irrresponsible. . . to avoid the subject or gloss over it.” How succinctly she captures the issue here! (If only I could manage to be so succinct!)
In response to WayneWR’s question, “Have you ever seen a Dzo?” At the risk of appearing humorless, I prefer to respond with another question: “Have you ever seen a slaughterhouse video?” As Albert Schweitzer said, “Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.” There is a *reason* news crews are not welcomed into factory farms and slaughterhouses, a *reason* most of the available footage has had to be obtained covertly.
As we must know, there is all manner of Gore (can’t seem to stop punning!) and violence available on the internet, but if you have not done so already, please go to a *reputable* site, such as http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/video/ and *force* yourself to actually watch. If you can get through even one without sobbing for your race, you’re a stronger animal than I. :(
If you prefer less visceral documentation, I recommend either “Skinny Bitch” or “Skinny Bastard” by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, two books which, despite the provocative titles, actually contain a whopping 557 scholarly footnotes on everything from Steinman’s "Diet for a Poisoned Planet" to C. David Coates’ "Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm" (which I referenced in my initial post), while at the same time somehow managing to be an entertaining, informative and – mostly - hilarious read.
Lastly, if you have a more historical and spiritual bent, the reprint from Freston’s website (please see: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/30/2197) is also absolutely superb.
FWIW, I was already vegan when I witnessed (inadvertently) my first slaughterhouse footage, and, beyond the personal sense of horror, sorrow and revulsion it provoked, the brutality I witnessed honestly made me feel ashamed to be human. And this is not just about having “warm fuzzy feelings” for a cute baby cows, pigs, and chickens. Again, everything is connected. Why should it surprise us that the industry which is doing the most damage in the area of global warming is also harming our personal health and affecting our very psyches? Alas, Tolstoy said it so very well: “As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.” :(
"Isn’t man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife—birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes—by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative—and fatal—health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out cards praying for Peace on Earth.” ~Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm, by C. David Coates
~~cecelialexandra~~ yoo hoo.. Burning coal kills lots more people than eating cheezeburgers and deep fried hot dogs does, lots, lots, many more.
My great grand parents down to my parents on both sides, ate lots of beef, cheeze, milk, pork chops, chickens, even liver and onions, kidney pies,scrapple, pickeled pig's feet and ox tail soup and they all except my dad's dad lived past 97 years of age.
Three lived past a 100. Dad's dad died at age 62, he was an alcaholic, smoked cigars, sniffed snuff and was sort of crazy. He died in bed with his housekeeper.
The most important thing however is,,, we must stop burning COAL, world wide..I'm sure you would agree to that obvious fact... Once we get that problem fixed, we can kill off all of the meat animals and grow soybeans and broccali. Oh and peanuts and pickels.. Need eggs and milk for mayo though.. Dang it, no mao, guess we'll have to use mustard. .
P.S. And then I promise to shut up for the rest of the evening:
I urge you, my fellow tree-huggers: Let’s EVOLVE. There is no single individual act which will have a more profound effect on global warming as one person (you) simply choosing not to participate in the environmental disaster and moral catastrophe which is the Animal Industry. The cumulative effect of thousands and then hundreds of thousands and then hundreds and hundreds of thousands of these individual acts can and will change history. If you doubt the impact non-violent resistance can have, please Google Gandhi, or perhaps the Civil Rights Movement. It’s in our hands (and on our plates). All our ditzying about hybrid cars and compact florescents are such a pitiful drop of water when we need a tsunami to stop this pressure cooker from exploding. For the sake of the all of the animals, non-human as well as human, and for Mother Earth, we truly have no other choice.
>>cecelialexandra wrote: "P.S. And then I promise to shut up for the rest of the evening:..."<<
Maybe for the rest of the evening, but cecelialexandra, I truly hope you won't shut up on this topic in the days to come. Please keep pointing out. This is really within the power of the individual and the family on which to take a stand and to make a difference.
~~cecelialexandra~~ Do you have any opinions on the rapidly thawing Arctic Ice? Or does your distain for climate change "activists" turn you off on that important issue?
My next posted comment was originaly number two here, before ~cecelialexandra~ jumped in with a few long winded, off topic, comments and disrupted the thread's primary topic ...That actually is a professional GW denier's trick.. It is, and just sayin. .
Excellent comments ~~Alcyon~~ Thanks.
Please let any who post commebts on this thread remember that Al Gore derives his scientific information from some of the best scientific minds on the planet and how he lives his personal life has nothing to do with the facts of the current global warming and the resulting dramatic world wide climate changes that result.
I hope we do not see a repeat of "Gore bashing" as was the case here on a thread a few days ago, which only helps the coal and oil barons by detracting from the issue of burning fossil fuels, which (is the issue).
>>how he lives his personal life has nothing to do with the facts of the current global warming and the resulting dramatic world wide climate changes that result.<<
Nonetheless I find his hypocrisy hard to swallow.
I too would prefer a St. Francis,. But, sadly, he is not available at this time.
jclientelle, you've said what I wanted to say, but using fewer words.
"Nonetheless I find his hypocrisy hard to swallow."
Try swallowing a Gulf of Texaco/BP cocktail, a few open shell oysters with some polar bear liver pate'. I knew we'd have a long list of Gore bashing here... The coal barons love it.
I missed that thread but I'll say this - his extreme hypocrisy on this and everything else severely undermines the average person taking the issue seriously. If it's coming from Al Gore they figure it must be a lie, which honestly is not a route of logic that's all that flawed.
"helps the coal and oil barons"
Gore's family has held hunderds of thousands of dollars in Occidental Petroleum stock for decades. They also owned a tobacco fam while Gore was criticizing the tobacco industry. It's all like a bad joke.
In the '70s and '80s in Congress Gore was a huge supporter of all things nuke war, funneling money to Oak Ridge in TN. That this twerp won a Nobel Peace Prize for trying to "save the Earth" makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
~~actualleftist~~ ("I missed that thread but I'll say this - his extreme hypocrisy on this and everything else severely,")..... In other words, you believe the average person is stupid.
The (issues) are; excess atmospheric Co2/Ch4 and acidification of our oceans from burning coal, which has altered the ocean waters' Ph and is rapidly killing our vital for ALL life coral reefs... The rapid loss of perennial sea ice and permafrost from the Arctic, which is allowing billions of tons, then in the near future trillions of tons of Ch4 to enter our atmosphere and kill almost all life on Earth, life which includes you, me, our families and Al Gore.
Those are the issues, not Al Gore's manner of conducting his personal business... Rich people aren't like the average person, for one thing, they have lots more money... Nevertheless; Gore is correct about GW, so pay attention... And if it pleases you to bash him and detract from the important issues, knock yourself out... If any Gore bashers here are overweight, bashing your head against a brick wall for thirty minutes will burn off 150 calories.
Amazing how these so-educated mens of science, whats amazing is what they don't know! Like the FACT that our planet is in a varible orbit, and every thousand years we get closer to the sun, then further from the sun! Also the enviromentalist can't understand that the Whole Solar system has more to do with the fact weather or not we get warmer or colder than any puny human ever could!! We get dust between the sun and us as we orbit the galactic center for a few years it will get much colder, and don't forget the sun is expected to go mostly cooler for the next 11yrs. That will also cause gobal temperatures to drop!! AlGore and his religous wackos are so deluded as to care more for the number of his followers than any care or concern for nature!! If you don't belive just look at how he lives!! LOOK!!! at how he travels, He's as much and enviromental criminal as anyor those he points fingets at!! >^^<
~~RichardsCatz~~wrote...("Like the FACT that our planet is in a varible orbit, and every thousand years we get closer to the sun,").
Yeah Catz, but it has been lot's more than a thousand years since we have had a (serious) global warming episode, more like 55 million years... If you are correct with your opinion, we'd have a global warming period every 1,000 years and that hasn't happened. Try again, think up another funny one, check with Anthony Watts.. Thanks.
Your extrapolation of data is based on temperature measurements, which were gathered from Patterson Boxes placed in inappropriate locations. Oh, I forgot, Algore said the debate has been settled. So why are you so quick to attack scientific data, when it is paid for by private industry? Surely you realized that you would hire the best and brightest for your own company.
We know how reliable the United Nations. They have no agenda... right. They are incorruptible and the UN intergovernmental agency on climate change has said the discussion is over.
Anthropogenic causes are indeed miniscule compared to solar eruptions and Mt. Saint Helens. What human arrogance from people following the inventor of the internet.
You mean CH4, Ch4 doesn't mean anything. Confusing.
Never allow a typo or minor misspelled letter to confuse you too much John, You apparently knew what I meant... Thank you for the correctioon. CH4,,is methane gas.
Wayne and Alcyon - I endorse your comments. We need all kinds of voices to speak up for the environment.
I agree. However, the use of expressions such as "right-wing Dicta Licker" is counter-productive. Doubters of which there are many must be educated by us and that cannot be done with insults. Please leave character assassinations to fascists. Also, concern about the consequences of "greening" for the poor among us must not be summarily swept aside as the German policy with regards to solar power shows. If you are the owner of a roof in Germany you can place solar panels on it, produce more electricity than you need and sell the remainder at a government-guaranteed higher price to a power company per kwh than you pay for buying the same amount from that company and thereby make a handy profit. The price you get is guaranteed by the German Federal Government for twenty years. If you do not own a roof you're out of luck. I do not object to making a profit. I object to a Government guaranteed profit for the wealthier class. Such mistakes must be avoided here.
From ~~Crowsnest~ "If you are the owner of a roof in Germany you can place solar panels on it, produce more electricity than you need and sell the remainder at a government-guaranteed higher price to a power company per kwh".
Yeah, the Germans learned that trick from the United States. We do the same and pay nothing for electricty. We heat and cool our house with solar electricity,,, and our guest house. Haven't had a power outage for two years, ever since we installed it. It's fully guaranteed for 30 years.
Pity AlGore has no character to attack, He and his Buddy Mondul are a couple of the most colorless, humarless. people on the planet! Listen to his Religelious nonsense at your own risk!!! Hope you don't end up wearing purple sneekers and drinkin the kool-aid so's to help you catch the mothership! >^^<
Could you please list those scientists and their experiments that demonstrate it? I always hear its "the best scientific minds" but no one is ever very specific.
I do that scientists at climate change institutes have been gagged for doing experiments that suggest that global warming is actually caused by the sun. (http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/165340.html) I also read up on "climategate" and the panel that cleared the scientists were full of shit. What they wrote was not taken of context, it was pretty blatent. I also know that Al Gore owns oil companies that drill in the ocean and the amazon. He also owns the carbon exchange that these cap and trade carbon credits will be exchanged on. So I dont think its "Gore bashing" to suggest this guy has a clear conflict of interest. And he deserves to be bashed for his wasteful mansions and his use of jet planes for travel. Why doesn't he drive a prius around the country for traveling like the rest of us?
I used to be a believer until I realized that I had never actually seen any evidence or studied the methods of experimentation. That goes all the way back to the greenhouse gas effect. So if someone wants to provide that I'd really appreciate it. I want to be well informed before I make a decision. And please refrain from bashing me as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists because I immediately don't buy this.
>>I also know that Al Gore owns oil companies that drill in the ocean and the amazon. He also owns the carbon exchange that these cap and trade carbon credits will be exchanged on. ... And he deserves to be bashed for his wasteful mansions and his use of jet planes for travel. Why doesn't he drive a prius around the country for traveling like the rest of us? <<
I happen to believe that AGW is real. Al Gore's hypocrisy is stunning.
You seem to have had no problem locating all the specious crap designed to refute the evidence. I would suggest if you find the evidence so elusive, you actually have no desire to find it.
I would recommend that you just keep your head securely planted wherever it is and not worry if the planet is experiencing anthropomorphic warming, as that is clearly your intent in any case.
And another one keeps it classy! No evidence just superficial insults.
I used to think the right wingers were the ones who would just attack and insult you if you disagreed with them and that "the left" was into reasoned debate.
cpotts18, I really think that was an appropriate response by pwayne - I'm talking about his first paragraph. Your vehemence on this topic indicates that you are not exactly looking for information on climate change to make up your mind - which seems to have been made up. It's also obvious that you have done a bit of reading - but primarily to suit a certain point of view.
There is plenty of evidence, and above all, there is this thing called the precautionary principle. There are conspiracies and then there is bullshit on climate change packaged together along with information on other, more plausible conspiracies. I really think if you truly wanted to read up on scientific information from people with a great deal of credibility, there is plenty of it out there, and that is why I think pwayne's response to you is appropriate - again, I'm talking about his first paragraph.
cpotts18, I would really recommend that you read "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity", by James Hansen. Seriously! I'm not saying that's the best book on the topic or something, but it's very readable, persuasive and coming from a person of great integrity (IMO).
Then, as for decision-making, I would highly recommend this series of YouTube videos by an Oregon science teacher, Greg Craven: "How It All Ends":
http://youtu.be/mF_anaVcCXg
Greg Craven has also come out with a book subsequently: "What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate". Craven's work is more on decision-making in the face of an apparent debate (totally manufactured, IMO).
There's lots more info, and I cannot believe it could be hard for anyone truly concerned about this matter to find it. What could be, and would be, hard is to let go of some conviction and to let go of a position in which one has invested so much time and effort into convincing oneself and others as the right one. But if you have the courage to reexamine your position and if you think that the precautionary principle should form the basis of decision-making on such a vital matter, you will find spending time on reading and watching the material I cited truly worthwhile. I hope to run into you in these forums in the future and would like to hear back from you. Remember: courage to reexamine our position on something where we have invested a great deal of time doesn't come easy, but it's absolutely essential.
cpotts, don't confuse these posters with the real "left." If you want a real left wing dialog on AGW go to alethonews.wordpress.com. You might get a civil response there. If anyone wants to read up on climate gate from a liberal perspective, I would suggest "Climategate:...... by Tom Fuller and Steve Mosher. Fuller is a hard core liberal (Mosher isn't). It details the effort by Mann, etc. to hide evidence that the warming is no where near as large as the IPCC figure. It details their effort to fudge the fit of the ground station data to the satellite data in order to exaggerate the temperature trend.It is obvious that they knew the hocky stick was nonsense when it was published. But what I find most reprehensible was there effort to suppress evidence that there was man made climate change but it wasn't from CO2. This isn't about helping the environment, this is about skewing the research so it benefits certain solutions.
>>pwayne wrote: "You seem to have had no problem locating all the specious crap designed to refute the evidence. I would suggest if you find the evidence so elusive, you actually have no desire to find it."<<
Well said, pwayne.
~~cpotts18~~ (Why doesn't he drive a prius around the country for traveling like the rest of us?").
Ha ha haaa,,, during the past several months I have seen exactly one Prius on the road... Was that you cpotts18? __ You just babble away... What do you think about the thawing Arctic, our dying oceans? __Btw a Chevie Cruz with 42 mpg is cleaner running than a Prius or Chevie Volt.... You don't charge batteries for free.
cpotts18, Sep 15 2011 - 12:22pm, in a pretty poorly written posting, asks for evidence, but where's his (or her) evidence?
Yeah, always the same strategy from the deniers: demand evidence, but supply none yourself.
(Incidentally, I am one of the people who complained about Gore in the thread to last week's article.)
Our overall opinion about Al Gore is IRRELEVANT here. Anyone who brings up Gore's name **as part of climate change-denial** or as a reason to reject scientists' warnings is either someone who works for the denial industry or has bought into a package-deal of conspiracies peddled by some people. As someone who reads up on conspiracies, I know the importance of being extra alert to watch for total BS packaged along with other, more plausible, information on other conspiracies and behind-scene manipulations. Unfortunately there are many who are not so discerning and end up swallowing the whole deal peddled.
For the record, I have serious, serious complaints about Al Gore's track record when he was VP and his total failure to fight for the Kyoto Protocol (which was only the first step back then, towards collective action on climate change, and it only required modest adjustments to bring down emissions by only 5-6% below 1990 levels by 2012!). But, like I said, it is irrelevant, or at the most, secondary to the real issue at hand here.
>>Our overall opinion about Al Gore is IRRELEVANT here. <<
No, it is not. Now go and do as I say, not as I do. If we can get the proletariat to conserve, that leaves a lot more for the rest of us filthy rich.
And, let's not forget his part in handing the 2000 election to George Bush after winning the popular vote. He wouldn't raise one of his own little fingers to fight for what was right. This rose to the level of the complicit in putting Bush into office. I'm still pissed at him for that, for giving American Fascism such a big boost.
I said above that I believe AGW is real. But Gore? What a hypocrite.
>>dkshaw wrote: "If we can get the proletariat to conserve, that leaves a lot more for the rest of us filthy rich."<<
That maybe THEIR thinking. But why should that influence our decision-making on climate change? At best, it is something to keep in mind, so as to coordinate action on climate change with other movements for social justice and economic equity and ecological sustainability. Getting hung up over what THEY may have in mind and repeating it ad nauseam, with the unintended (or maybe even intended by some people) consequence of derailing or diluting action on climate change does not appear too wise to me.
My own policy is to NOT let my irritation with Al Gore over his lifestyle, his late (actually very late) admission about the effect of meat production on climate, his investment record, etc., to cloud my judgement. Do I wish that it was someone with a more impeccable record doing the things that Gore is doing? Sure. Am I going to let that stop me from paying attention to or even participating in some form of action, however small? No, because that doesn't sound very smart. Where I may protest is when someone holds up Al Gore as some kind of messiah or a role model and especially when some still blame Nader for 2000. But getting hung up over Al Gore's failures and hypocrisy to such an extent that would make someone turn away from action on climate change or to even question the importance of events such as the 24h reality presentation today would be stupid, to say the least.
My view of global warming and climate change is totally independent of what Mr. Gore does, owns, writes, or says. However, anyone with claims to be a "leader" in this field had better remember the saying about the wife of Caesar.
I watched a couple of hours last night. Very good, educational and also entertaining.
~~JJW~~,,, The best comment along with the first one posted here so far.