June 1, 2007
Al Gore, Live Earth Concert, and the Coming Surge of American Optimism (Brent Budowsky)
On July 7, 2007, Al Gore and a galaxy of entertainment superstars, a worldwide army of idealists, and 2 billion concerned
citizens from seven continents will take a stand on global warming that will advance a new political era of optimism and hope.
Sooner than people realize, Americans are going to be astonished and amazed at the rekindling of American optimism and the can-do attitude that good people who care passionately can make a difference.
In recent years American politics, culture and media have been so drenched in negativity, pessimism and civic poison that our institutions of political and media power have lost sight of the classic American spirit of can-do optimism.
On July 7 the Live Earth concert will fire a cannon of hope that will be heard around the world. It will be a moment for generations, a shared communion based on the ancient idea that every generation leaves a better world for the next.
July 7 will be a moment for 2 billion people linking arms, from nations that span the world, speaking languages heard on all the continents with a common voice and a common purpose.
Here in the United States the Live Earth concert will be be broadcast with three hours on prime-time NBC, all 13 hours on the Sundance Channel, a full seven hours on CNBC, and on XM Radio, to name a few places where the event can be shared.
Worldwide broadcasts on television, radio and the Internet will parallel this surge of hope. I expect exciting contributions from Air America, Nova Radio, and leading talk radio hosts and Internet sites that I will be writing about as July 7 approaches.
We live in an age where 70 percent of Americans refuse to offer approval to the president or Congress, to Democrats or Republicans.
We live in an age where Americans of all persuasions hunger and thirst for a new unity, a new spirit, a new optimism and hope that tomorrow can be better than today, that good people can make a difference, that elections matter and that civic life in America should be based on a shared patriotism.
From the entertainment superstars who will carry the banner to the grade-school children who will the carry the torch, July 7 will be a grand moment for action in the service of hope.
Americans want to move beyond a world where smut pollutes our planet and muck pollutes our politics. Americans want to regain that American spirit that has made America America, and made the American idea a true beacon for the world.
Al Gore deserves profound credit for taking a stand that makes him the champion of a Conviction-politics in America, and even more than Al Gore, the credit belongs to the young people like Bobby, a 10-year-old fifth-grader I met at the Sheryl Crow global warming concert recently in Washington.
All over America and the world there are kids and grandkids we can be proud of.
I interviewed young Bobby and asked him what he planned to do about global warming.
This young man has a plan. He is saving his allowance to buy energy-saving light bulbs to give to his friends, and collecting e-mail addresses from his classmates to add them to the Virtual Global Warming March.
Wherever he is on July 7, Bobby and his proud parents will be participating in the Live Earth concert along with idealists and activists from his generation, our generation and all living generations.
These kids are the present, the future and the hope of the world. It is their planet to inherit and our mission to leave a better world for them, and if we have failed too often, we can begin again, which is the message of Live Earth on July 7.
What makes America America is that our America is forever young, with an almost naive idealism, and a can-do spirit where a potential Nobel laureate can lead a great endeavor, where leading entertainers give generously of their time and passion, where 2 billion people can share a cause and 8-year-old kids can develop a plan.
Get ready for a reawakening of American optimism, idealism and hope.
Stay tuned.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 43 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
If what you write is true God help us. First, I predict that by July 2008 the Global Warming movement will have been exposed for the fraud it always has been. Second, if you believe that global warming is man made please provide one reliable scientific study which indicates that mankind is causing global warming. Lastly, you call it a new era of hope? It's not. It's the middle ages all over again when ignorance is passed off as knowledge, and those who don't agree are passed off as heretics.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 1, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Well Brent that was a touching story about young Bobby, but Al Gore should be ashamed of himself for selling such innocent young minds a bill of goods. Global warming to the extent that it exists is due to the changes in the solar activity. The water vapors in the atmosphere dwarf the CO2 effects by an incredible margin. Al Gore should have his concert in the jungles of Guyana and have it sponsored by Kool Aid (sorry, that wasn't the actual drink, but hey we are talking about mythology here).
Comment by Igor R. — June 1, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Igor. You are on to something. The Kool Aid Kids Concert. Haha. Wish I had thought of it.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Robert and Igor, come on, guys. There is a ton of scientific evidence and a strong majority of leading scientists who fully argue the case that man-made global warming is an urgent problem. Why dont you list the non-industry paid for science to the contrary? BTW a majority of Republicans agree with me, and Gore, and the majority of scientists. Name calling, slogans and oil company spin cannot answer the fact that a strong majority of the world's most reknowned and credible scientists either 100% agree with Gore or 80-90% agree with Gore. Guys, Al Gore is trying to make a better world for your kids and grandkids, you should thank him! He's even trying to make the world better for Republican grandkids!
Comment by Brent Budowsky — June 1, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Brent,
Your post made my blood run cold. It reminds me of pre-Nazi Germany. I can see the Hitler youth marching in the streets.
No, of course I don't think Al Gore would commit murder by the thousands. Not yet.
I smell the suffocating odor of fanaticism in your post and in the July 7th event.
Comment by Henny — June 1, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Yeah, we "can do". We can allow 9/11, we can let the neocons take over our foreign policy, we can invade Iraq for oil. We can never forget. Just yesterday Giuliani was confronted by 9/11 truth people and lied again. Amy something tells me we won't see this on the worthless corporate media 6 oclock news. See http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=22267
Comment by Gary Anderson — June 1, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I realize Brent made the above post. But maybe Amy could put this link above in Tucker why-did-we-go-into-Iraq Carlson's ear.
Comment by Gary Anderson — June 1, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Shouldn't we be worried that the guy on the nuclear trigger is stark raving mad? http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2618
Comment by Gary Anderson — June 1, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Brent, name one scientific study.Don't tell me to prove it isn't true. You stated it, so it's up to you to name one study by scientists, which state unequivocally that it's man made. There isn't one shred one shred of evidence to support it. If there is, name it. And Al Gore is making money off it. If he was a conservative you'd be all over him.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 1, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Brent, I am all for reducing burning fossil fuels just for the heck of it, it can't be good for the environment to burn them. I am for recycling, conservation, all kinds of stuff. I personally recycle every scrap of paper and soda can and refuse to drive an extra time unless it's strictly necessary. I read books on biodiesel and really believe in it, although not in corn-based ethanol. I am now reading a book called "Collapse" that documents multiple cases of civilizations killing themselves by destroying their environment, so I'm not disinterested or clueless.
All of that having been said, Brent, I'm sure you have come across multiple instance of scientists claiming that they've been muzzled for expressing doubts about global warming, in the sense that it's a man-made phenomenon. Perhaps I have come across more of them because I read more conservative publications and listen to more conservative broadcast media sources. I posted on this forum a decent rebuttal by a high school student recently. I don't have time at the moment to do a thoroughly documented response, but the multi-century temperature graph which formed the basis for global warming does not contain the well-documented warming that occured from 900-1300AD, in the historical times, that led among other things to the colonization of Greenland by the Vikings, followed by such a significant cooling that the Vikings there died out due to lack of food production and disease. Yet at that time human-originated CO2 production was obviously not a factor.
Brent, in the seventies, as has been talked about all over the place recently, the concern was global cooling. All of a sudden Al Gore comes out with a movie, and everyone is on the new bandwagon. There's signifincant pressure being applied on the US specifically, and Europe as well, to cut emissions drastically wich will lead to a dramatic effect on the economy. Meanwhile China (and India, to a lesser extent) are building coal-fired electricity plant at the rate of one every few days. This will dwarf anything the US can reasonably do to cut CO2 emissions in the near future yet there is no real pressure on China to stop polluting. I have recently talked to people who came back from China and they speak of polution so gross that in the big cities it's almost impossible to breathe without oxygen masks. Yet it's the US that's being made a villain.
The water vapor situation is real. Cattle being a major source of CO2 compared to fossil fuels is real. The effects of the oceans, ability to absorb CO2 are real. Yet when this last thing started being talked about, a quick scientific study was done that immediately conclude that the oceans are running out of ability to absorb CO2. I decided just for the heck of it to dig into the actual study and discovered a caveat about being able to measure said ability of the oceans that totally destroyed the consclusions of the study.
Glaciers or ice cover receding in certain places achieve a great deal of attention. Yet at the same time there are multiple places in the world where the ice cover is increasing. That's not being talked about. Heat records achieve a great deal of publicity, yet cold records being set in multiple places on Earth just this last winter receive less.
Brent, I haven't done the research myself, but have seen in multiple source that the effect of solar surface temperature and radiation is not being properly considered in global warming studies. All the doomsday predictions are based on computer models that have not for obvious reasons been truly tested, and they are very sophisticated models of very complex phenomena that are starting to be used to set basic economic policy. The ability to gather surface temperatures around the globe properly isn't as great as many people imagine either.
Brent, I see a political crusade that gathered steam with an astonishing speed. I believe, and you of course may disagree, that at the heart of liberalism there is a desire to punish economic success and "living large". I will not go into further details of that, but until I see scientists freely debating the merits of global warming without political pressure, until I see China being forced to cut pollution, until I see a great concern about creating a recession or a depression in the economy of the United States, I will keep calling the global warming debate a political phenomenon, not a scientific one.
Comment by Igor R. — June 1, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
I have one question for the global warming advocates …
if the current "global warming" is manmade, then what caused the ice age to melt millions of years ago?
Obviously, it wasn't man made, which proves that there is something else that causes the earth to become warmer.
Comment by John Simmons — June 1, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Igor and Robert, the world is not flat. Listening to Igoe and Robert, two geniuses, blather about global warming is like listening to Archie Bunker talk about politics. Igor and Robert recently found Rush on the radio and think they've discovered something new. Robert and Igor, 7-11 has six-packs of clues on sale, get you some. THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT
Comment by Chris in NM — June 2, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Chris. Thanks for being a liberal. Instead of debating ideas, you trash individuals who question non scientists like Al Gore, who by the way, has refused to debate scientists on the issue, and that of course is the liberal way. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, it only matters that you are happy living in the aura of elitism. If anyone disagrees with you they are clueless. By the way, I notice that no one including you have offered any scientific evidence that global warming is man made. For your information I run a small side line that promotes solar energy. Not because of global warming, but because it is efficient in the long run. Well, I was going to take a walk but now that Chris has informed us the earth is not flat, that's taken all the fun out of it.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 2, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Mr. Budowsky, your optimism is inspiring, and your response to the predictable Igor/Rosencrans "the scientists are just making it up" ploy cuts to the heart of the matter: All of the people that have been working on this, including Mr. Gore, are trying to improve the lives of ALL our children and grandchildren, including neocons'.
I remember back in the early 90's when this was being brought to people's attention, and how the far right would immediately cry, "It's a hoax!" and turn their backs. Something about that always seemed wrong logically: Why would scientists spend so much time and effort in studying the environment if they were just going to "make up" the results in some conspiracy to hurt big industry? Couldn't American industry benefit from getting ahead of the curve on this anyway, by producing new technology and products?
As the scientific evidence has mounted worldwide over the years, we've heard less and less of that old knee-jerk protest from conservatives (probably out of emberrassment at being compared to flat-earthers as Chris did above), but there are still some that cling to the old 90's denial, and obviously Robert and Igor and such have been living on their websites.
This is a global issue, not a political one confined to the United States. The irony of it is, the very economic concerns that the protesters have will come to pass if the U.S. doesn't get ahead of the curve; already we're seeing products coming from other countries far more advanced and environmentally friendly.
I believe that in reaching out, Mr. Budowsky, you're on the right track. This is something that all Americans can eventually get behind and produce results that we can all be proud of.
Comment by Derek D. — June 2, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Derek: Would you mind giving us some proof that any of it is true? Not one person has responded to that request because there is no credible proof. It is a hoax, and there are plenty of people of all political beliefs who believe global warming is a hoax and swindle. One of the issues that point that this is a classic swindle is that it can't be debated and apparently anyone who questions it is out of touch. How quaint. They used to burn witches under that line of reasoning.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 2, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Chris and Derek, just like Robert said you refuse to offer anything substantive to support the man-made global warming claims. Derek, anytime someone claims they are "doing it for the children" I get very suspicious.
Take a look at these random articles freely available to anyone who looks:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2007-04-09-gray-gore_N.htm?POE=WEAISVA
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," William Gray said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.
Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
http://www.cei.org/pdf/ait/chXIV.pdf
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, a co-founder of RealClimate.Org, was hard pressed to defend Gore’s apocalyptic scenario when asked about it by Salon magazine.6 According to Salon, Schmidt believes a 20-foot rise in sea level is plausible “in the long run—the very long run.” How long, Salon asked? “Maybe 1,000 years,” said Schmidt. “There’s some uncertainty about how quickly that could happen,” he continued, “but Gore was very careful not to say this is something that is going to happen tomorrow.” Nice try. Gore failed to say that a 20-foot sea-level rise would not happen the Day After Tomorrow.7 Worse, Gore implied that a collapse of the ice sheets could happen in our lifetime when he counted up all the millions of people living in Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta, and Bangladesh who would be “displaced, “forced to move,” or “have to be evacuated” (pp. 204-206).
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=292
Global Warming Will Lower Sea Levels
But Will Gore Listen?
These are from the first page of a google search on ocean level rising and Al Gore. Even with in the non-scientific argument about flat earth and consensus you guys would lose because so many scientifically educated people don't believe this crap. This is not creation science, there are all kinds of questions about Al and his minions' exaggerated claims.
Comment by Igor R. — June 2, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
And a quote for you all
Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor in atmospheric science at MIT:
"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect. The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."
Comment by Igor R. — June 2, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
first time to reasd this site. interesting article, but what a bunch of twits I may come back for the articles, but I'll not waste my time again skimming through the moronic comments. god I didn't think this many dumb asses lined up any where
Comment by roger greer — June 2, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
The GW scam is obvious. They had data in the 90s showing CO2 rose with temps. A LOT of people got jobs and grants to study it.
THen in 2000, they were able to get more accurate data from the Vostok ice core, and graph the CO2 and temp information in more detail. This showed that CO2 follows temps. Its obvious CO2 doesnt cause temp increases.
THe people with jobs and grants dont want to lose them, and the politicans are on their side because Carbon Credits will generate a lot of money for a lot of companies. bleh.
Comment by shane — June 3, 2007 @ 9:23 am
Sounds like the flat earth society is trying to pollute Brent's fine article. These flat earthers aren't scientists or engineers and they've never worked on the issue of global warming in any way other than to recycle the lies of the oil companies. Unlike them, my father was an M.I.T. graduate and an engieer and he understood the dangers of global warming and the thrat that it posed more than 30 years ago. Al Gore sounds just like m father Unlike these flat earthers, Al Gore has made a through study of the issue f global warming and has won the respect of scientists from around the world on global warming. These flat earther have no such credientials. I'm sure these same flat earthers who deny the threat of globl warming also believe that cigarette smoking is safe for people. These flat earthers are a classic exampale of lies and propaganda trying to drown out reason and the facs. These flat earthers and their oil company minions are trying to do to global warming what the tobbaco companies and their stoges tried to do to the science that overwhelmingly proves that cigarette smoking is dangerous to peoples health and the science that overwhelmingly proves that the earth is round not flat. The science that proves that global warming threatens the very survival of humanity is overwhelming and is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists from around the world. Hundreds of scientists from around the world have participated in a series of reports by the United Nations warning of the coming catstrophy that global warming is causing. To the boxo who claims that sea levels will shrink, wake up! The melting polar ices caps will cause sea levels to rise 20 feet which will flood coast lines and islands around the world and result in 100 million environmental refugees world wide. That's just the start of the catastrophic damage that global warming will do. It's the small group of global warming deniers who are acting like the Nazis by trying to ignore the facts that erhwlmeingly prove that global warming is a real threat and bully their view over the facts and the majority who believe that global waming is a serious threat. The Nazis only believed wha they wanted to and said to hell with the truth. Al Gore has spent 30 years fighting to warn the world about global warming and to do something to stop it. The Bush election stealers illegal coup d'etat that blocked the counting of many thousands of legally cast votes in Florida in 2000 will go down as one of the great tragedies in the history of our country. Our country would now be well on the way to putting a stop to global warming had all of those legal, uncounted votes been counted as Florida law required because Al Gore would've spent the last 6 years in the White House instead of don't count the votes Bush. Hitler didn't believe in counting votes either. I'm sorry to say that there will be many more stolen elections until the republican election stealers are finally held accountable. The democracts in Congress clearly don't seem to be ready to do that. So long as that's the case, democracy n America will remain dead and nothing will be done about global warming.
Comment by Gore 2008 — June 3, 2007 @ 9:28 am
Consensus? Flat Earth?
You decide:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
Comment by Igor R. — June 3, 2007 @ 11:04 am
No boys, I'm not going to start posting links to all of the scientific studies out there, any more than I would post links to studies on DNA, and I doubt Chris will either. Why should I? The information is well-circulated and available, and you've obviously chosen to ignore it anyway. You can spend all the time you like posting garbage links, but the world is still going to be round.
Try and look past your hatred of Al Gore that the right-wing media has so cleverly manipulated over the years and look at the big picture.
Comment by Derek D. — June 3, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
The right wing may have voted in the 2000 election but the election was Al Gores to lose. Don't blame the right wing because Al Gore couldn't get the left wing together. He lost his own state. As far as the media, over 90% claim to be democrats. Most liberals would rather spin fantasy than deal with reality.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 3, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Derek, you offer nothing, you know nothing, you recirculate what you hear from any left-leaning Democrat without offering any reson. Where are the scientists denying that DNA exists? Where are the scientists claiming that the world is flat? Where is one study that establishes causality between the increase in CO2 and the warming up? Why is Mars warming up? Until you can offer independent thought, you're nothing but a trained parrot taught to speak certain key phrases.
Comment by Igor R. — June 4, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Hey you Gore 2008 genius, your "potent" mixture of Nazi references, "Al Gore is so respected" crap, and the "Election was stolen" ruminations is about as scientific as the creation museum. You think that anyone believes that smoking is safe? No you don't, so cut your crap. You're not capable of logic or are deliberately propagandizing, because your straw man approach of setting up a false connection and then knocking it down is the oldest trick in the book. Just because Exxon is interested in not worrying about global warming doesn't mean that it's real, do you understand that or have all these Gore loss regrets gone to your head? Even the idiot Gore qualified the 20 feet figure by a long time frame, yet you run with it like it's the 11th commandment.
Instead of posting your crap, talk Steve Jobs into updating Al Gore's operating system so that the robot can seem more human. Restrict his calories, get him to propose a credible Iraq plan, and maybe you got yourself a real winner. Perhaps the inventor of the Internet, Global Warming, and AlGore-ithms can win and solve his own non-existing problem so we never hear about it again. But maybe not, something's gotta drive the DVD sales to pay for all his carbon offsets and private plane travel.
Comment by Igor R. — June 4, 2007 @ 12:45 am
This is another resume builder for Brent's attempt to get Gore to Run for president and Brent to get a job as the new Minister of Thought. A position that will obviously be added in a Gore administration that will be bent on mind control. You have to be mind numb to believe Brent's blather. I do have to say that your posts do bring out the spirit in us due to the nature of the deceit. Still waiting for the study to prove "Global Warming" as a human caused phenom???
Comment by Rich — June 4, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Heheh well I think Igor and Robert have proven positively that there are just some people that you can't talk to, Mr. Budowsky, even when you're talking about working together. It was worth a try, but apparently the urge to attack Al Gore is their overriding motivation. No worries, there are still some holdouts that believe the sun goes around the earth, as well, but not very many.
Comment by Derek D. — June 4, 2007 @ 10:00 am
The negativity, pessimism, and civic poison is alive and well with the trolls. Exactly the attitudes that try to reduce numbers of votes in elections. Whiny hatred of Gore is only relevant if he runs for reelection. Or are his policy concerns really troubling to the trolls?
Comment by Greg — June 4, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Wow, Robert and Igor really spent a lot of ink and time in an excellent effort to convince us that there is no scientific consensus on human causality of global warming. They also seem to think that there is no evidence that global warming itself is a real or predictable phenomena. There are reams of studies (actually peer reviewed, and therefore "real" studies) that exist that dissagree with their analysis. I want to post a quote here from a 2004 Study done by Naomi Oreskes who tried to put this "consesus" issue to rest. "Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)". So, Igor and Robert, you may be right in your belief that everything is hunky-dory and global warming is a myth, but please: don't try to pretend your view reflects the view of the legitimate scientific community.
Comment by Bo — June 4, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Bo: Science is not consensus. Shows how much you know.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 4, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Derek. You're overwhelming motivation is to attack other posters. We're not running for anything. What are you afraid of? Like all all liberals you are afraid of the truth.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 4, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Robert: You're right, science is not consensus. However, consensus among a majority (and in this case a vast majority) of scientists who have interpreted the results of experiments conducted within the norms of scientific method is significant. I think, like Gore, that we ignore the opinions of the scientific community in this matter at our peril and the peril of our young. But all of that is fine with you I'm sure. After all, as long as you can get your's and none of this will affect you directly: why should you care? Wouldn't want to do anything to hurt the bottom line in the short term just on the word of some pointy headed scientists now would you?
Comment by Bo — June 4, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Bo, as I said before just because some corporations don't like to deal with "global warming" doesn't mean that it's real. I read the IPCC report and all I see is "our understanding has improved" and "it's very likely" types of explanations. When I see serious sicentists doubting this stuff, I have doubts too. The increase in the sunspot activity in the last 100 years is real. The rise in global temperatures in the last 30 years appears real as well. Why was it falling before that? Not clear,but there were plenty of CO2 generated right after WWII. I'll tell you what Bo: building nuclear power plants in large numbers is the most direct way to reduce CO2 from fossil fuels. Want to go for that, Bo?
Comment by Igor R. — June 4, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Bo: How many scientists exactly are there? If you don't know how do you know a majority support it? You're are also generalizing which isn't surprising. Give us one study by legitimate scientists. It's been four days now and not one supporter can name one. That's because no legitimate scientist would state such a thing. As far as the bottom line, there is no proof, and Al Gore is not a scientist either. Just another used car salesman.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 4, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Al Gore: Shaman-in-chief?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/al_gore_shamaninchief.html
In what is an example of 'technology may evolve, but human nature stays the same', it finally hit me: the Global Warming alarmists have the same anti-scientific mentality of the natives looking to make sacrifices to the gods so the volcano doesn't erupt.
Comment by Igor R. — June 4, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Igor: I like this argument you've put forward. Of course the argument of pure skepticism cannot refuted beyond doubt. And it seems to me this is the corner you are putting me in. Let me answer your argument this way: I am a gambler, I have been a winning poker player for a long time. Poker players have to work with incomplete infomation and therefore are obliged to make decisions based on the probabilities, factoring in risks and rewards. Though I cannot claim that global-warming science is infallable I can wiegh risks vs. rewards and make decisions based on the best (though incomplete and imperfect) information available. For me "It's very likely" statements and the best available computer modeling etc. are adaquete, given the possible catostrophic outcomes, to make me think that we should take what actions, and do what planning, we can to prepare for or alleviate the worst of these possibilities. So, yes we may have doubts, science may be wrong and it may cost us in the short-run to take the measures called for by Gore and others But if the science turns out to be right, which it often is, shouldn't we have done our best to prevent and prepare?
Robert: I have no idea what your talking about.
Comment by Bo — June 4, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
Bo. Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about because I asked you to back up what you said with anything. Obviously you have nothing. That poker analogy doesn't make sense. Under your line of reasoning we should always attempt to fix a problem before one has even been identified. Chicken little.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 5, 2007 @ 8:13 am
Bo, some arguments can be disputed beyond a reasonable doubt: if someone does believe in Flat Earth, you show him a picture from space, or in the old times let him talk to somone who circled the globe and came back. I do undertand your argument, and just like in social sciences in this field you can't really run independent experiments as you do in most branches of physics and chemistry. You do have to admit that when you make conclusions based on incomplete data than the estimates of costs and benefits are open to interpretation. I'm simply making a different cost/benefit analysis than you are. I see a phenomenon that if it does unfold will take many decades. I see that it has a lot of benefits in addition to costs, if it indeed exists. Yet being familiar with the American Liberal mindset I see a rush to punish America while exempting the third world. I see inattention to cows emitting methane all over the world but a great deal of attention to making sure that Americans do their "fair share". I see too much inattention for my taste to the direction of causality between CO2 and warming. I also see evidence that if Americans do take this punishment upon themselves but not China and the rest of the real "cowboys" of no-holds-barred capitalism, America will put itself into a great disadvantage with real costs to the population for very little gain. I have much less faith than you do in quickly cooked up computer models of complex physical phenomena predicting the future well. We can't predict the weather past 5-6 days. The whole cult-like atmosphere surrounding this topic makes me sick, which is neither here not there, but it makes me less predisposed to go along. I also believe that if we were in real trouble a hundred years from now we will be able to do a simulated volcano explosion that will cool the earth quite a bit. I'm a lot more worried about fresh water running out and desolination remaining/becoming too expensive unless nuclear energy is quickly de-demonized. I guess in summary, my cost/benefit analysis leads me to a different conclusion.
Comment by Igor R. — June 5, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706.htm
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 5, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Oh boy, look at all these rediculous neocon commentors (Robert, Igoe, Rich). You're lurking again.
Have you guys gone looney wild? Are you worried of getting kicked out, margenalized, from the GOP after the 2008 election loss?
What will Rush and you ditto-head devotees do when 2008 is a route? Beaten by week-kneed, liberal, pinko, democrats (Hillary)?
Robert, Rich and Igor, start your own Neocon politicl party, the Flat Earth Party, or the Intelligent Design Party. You could piss off the mainstream GOP by fleeing the party and going all rogue on them.
You all could be one happy boat-full of Neocon lunatics, sailing the high seas of the lunatic fringe. Perhaps Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Armatage, and Scooter could join you. I had a dream!
Perhaps you could advocate on behalf of global cooling and species de-diversification. You'd make big bucks. Just look at Rush. He's an idiot, a junkie, a bigot, and he's making millions by being different. So could you. Wink, wink, nedge, nudge. You could be just like him.
Comment by Chris in NM — June 6, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Chris, I don't know why you feel the need to compare denying global warming to denying that the world is round or that natural selection exists. Man-made global warming is a much more recent theory. Einstein went to his deathbed without believing in quantum mechanics and nobody accused him of being a religious nut. The fact that global warming is a cult is illustrated by your inability to process arguments against it.
Comment by Igor R. — June 7, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
There are ways to find out the truth on global warming if you are interested. My preference would be to got to any university website that has a section on climate change and look for information there.
As a backup you might like to look at what businesses are saying. e.g search busines partnership climate change. From a skeptical standpoint this would seem to be a good idea as businesses cant be deluded without endangering there bottom line, if business are serious perhaps you should be to.
I must say the republicans are in danger of making a huge miscalculation on this. There are republican and democratic responses so why are we not seeing some solutions from the right?
This issue is, in my opinion, only going to grow, perhaps some swift thinking is required before the democrats are seen as the only ones with answers.
Comment by Calvin Jones — July 3, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Local, city, county, state and the federal governments should be first to "go green." Politicians should not be elected to public office unless they agree to convert every government building and vehicle to renewable energy. There are at least three reasons why this should be so.
When all levels of government are taken into account, they control 40% of the economy. With that kind of economic incentive anyone who wants to sell to the government will hasten to meet the demands of its largest single buyer. Government will no longer have to pass laws to enforce cafe standards for instance. Rather the Government will simply tell auto companies, we want to replace our fleet of vehicles but will not buy anything that does get at least 50 mpg if it is gasoline based, or it must be a hybrid, or it must be fueled with renewable fuels.
Another reason Government should go green first is national security. Part of every oil dollar paid for Middle Eastern oil goes directly into the pocket of terrorists. If we convert to renewable fuels that we control, we defund terrorism and protect ourselves simultaneously.
Yet another reason to heed Al Gore’s clarion call on global warming is economic security. OPEC can not ruin our economy if we convert to renewable fuels that we control.
And finally, suppose Gore is right? When anyone hypes anything as much as AL Gore hypes global warming, I have my doubts. But I can’t see what is harmed by going green so why not? The military is doing some research on alternative and renewable energy. Whoever is the next president of the United States should institute a “Go Green or Go Home” policy for the military. Those who come up with energy saving devices or methods as well as those who implement alternative or renewable fuels should rise quickly through the ranks. Those who don’t should be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere. As resourceful as marines are, for instance, I would bet they could make surprising advances in fueling everything from jeeps to an entire base through alternative means if left to their own devices. The military has through it’s contractors developed the most effective weapons in the world. If this same level of effort is turned toward greening the military we will be a safer, more secure, and more independent nation. We will create new jobs and industries and the air and water will get cleaner as a benefit.
Comment by Poetry — July 7, 2007 @ 4:45 pm