Al Gore To Tell Bangkok The Truth

[Spee]

Gore is far more educated on the matter than any of us in this forum and he is making a difference...

Really? What education might that be?

I find it amusing that you people doing the griping can stomach going out in the pollution here every day ........ The health of the planet is most certainly worth of our attention.

Localized man-made pollution and variations in climate are completely and utterly unrelated. You make it sound as if one must abhore both in order to be "fully aware." Nothing could be further from the truth.

[think_too_mut]

Just checked, the Kyoto Protocol was open for signatures in March 1998. Al Gore was US Vice President then, the US refused to sign it. What was his explanation?

[Scott]

I don't recall the exact time line, but Clinton was president (Al Gore--VP). Gore actually went to Kyoto because the protocol was faltering and likely not be signed by anyone, he was able to assist in it's resurrection. Clinton left office before it could be put to a vote for ratification. George Bush became president and that was the end of that.

Others may have a more accurate time line and listing of events, but the big problem was George Bush becoming president.

[pattyboy]

Why would Al Gore start telling the truth now? An inconvenient Truth was full of convenient lies, misinformation and manipulation of facts. I'll probably get jumped on by several people about saying that and accused of being a planet hater, but I don't hate Earth and don't think it's good to pollute. I believe everyone should do their part to keep the planet healthy, but I don't like it when people like AL Gore use their influence to sell us a load of BS.

Well one thing is certain. Gore is far more educated on the matter than any of us in this forum and he is making a difference...which is far more than most everyone can say. People can spew hate all they want, it won't change the fact that he is a far better man than those uneducated people in this thread doing the hate mongering.

I find it amusing that you people doing the griping can stomach going out in the pollution here every day and not wonder about the ill effects it is having on your lives, regardless of whether you believe gore or not, he is supporting a good cause. The health of the planet is most certainly worth of our attention.

At the very least he has everyone talking about it. Good comes from such things. For the global awareness alone, that he has generated by sheer will and hard work, he deserves the Nobel.

yumiko

"Spew hate...hate mongering"??? Where do you see this in my post? (Do you realize that making such extreme and unfounded statements damages your credibility?)

Then you go on to point out that "the health of the planet is worth (sic) of our attention" as if I oppose such an obvious conclusion when, in fact, I said something very similar in my post.

Now, let's continue with the subject of Al Gore's education. You say that "Gore is far more educated on the matter than any of us in this forum". However, the man has no degree in any area of science. I really can't see how that qualifies him as a expert on environmental studies or one who is mentally prepared to understand the abundance of complicated data (true and untrue) that has been made available. And by the way, finishing in the bottom 5th of his class during his first 2 years of university isn't exactly stellar performance. So, here's your "qualified" spokesperson with a bachelor's degree unrelated to the sciences and an unfinished law degree (see below). Perhaps you can now see that his education is not terribly impressive and typical of thousands of other Americans.

From the internet (but I don't think the moderators allow me to say which site):

In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and found a passion for government and graduated with honors from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt and then entered the university's law school. He left Vanderbilt without a degree to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District in 1976.

[Doza]

I dont think you will find Gore is doing the scientific work. He is not claiming to be a scientist. He is merely raising the evidence scientists have uncovered and bringing to the world.

To disregard him because he isn't a scientist is stupid.

The vast majority of credible scientist concur man made GHG emissions are effecting our climate and accelerating the greenhouse effect. There is a small but vocal lot that argue otherwise or that we can't be sure. If we wait till we are sure, it could be too late. How stupid of us. If there was still a large consensus that there is not enough evidence to make this claim, countries like the US and companies like Exxon, would never have made the turnaround thay have by admitting such. They have.

Gore was a climate activist long before he was VP. He has a huge amount of credibilty, to argue otherwise is just funny.

[think_too_mut]

The vast majority of credible scientist concur man made GHG emissions are effecting our climate and accelerating the greenhouse effect. There is a small but vocal lot that argue otherwise or that we can't be sure. If we wait till we are sure, it could be too late. How stupid of us. If there was still a large consensus that there is not enough evidence to make this claim, countries like the US and companies like Exxon, would never have made the turnaround thay have by admitting such. They have.

Gore was a climate activist long before he was VP. He has a huge amount of credibilty, to argue otherwise is just funny.

Funny? What is funny? That is was under his Vice presidency that US have not signed the Kyoto protocol? From such a dolldrum he propelled to be a Nobel Prize winner in 9 years on exactly the same issue. CNN is really stupidity enabler.

Other activists, like Tim Flannery in Australia, mumble when you ask what had caused sea level rise that filled up the valleys known today as Sydney harbour 10,000 years ago. Then, there were only Aboriginies and their bone fires.

[Yumiko]

haters...not worth sharing conversation with. I will just ignore you guys from now on. Same type of people who say that global warming isn't happening, that man made pollutants are not causing changes in the climate etc...were saying the earth was flat and the sun was the center of the universe not that long ago.

congrats to gore for winning the prize and for making a far greater difference on such a globally important topic than any other political leader in the world. the award is cleary deserved as those making the choices are also far more capable of making such a decision than the haters in this forum.

i do imagine the world would be a far greater place had bush not won the election on a technicality and the problems in florida in 2000. the US would not be in iraq, kyoto would be signed, and america would be far less hated by half of the planet. may peace and wisdom come to the usa with the new election and change in power.

Y

Edited October 16, 2007 by Yumiko

[think_too_mut]

From today's The Economist (last part of the article):

Besides Mr Gore, however, no plausible candidate of either party favours a carbon tax, the most efficient way to tackle emissions. (Chris Dodd, a Democrat, does, but he surely won't win.) Voters prefer solutions that are either cheap or that they think will be paid for by someone else. A poll for the New Scientist magazine in June tried to quantify this, with sobering results. Only half of Americans would favour rules to force power companies to emit less if that raised their monthly electricity bill from $85 (the average in 2005) to $155 (an estimate of the hike needed to lower American emissions by 5% by 2020). And only 37% could stomach a tax that raised petrol (gasoline) prices to $4 a gallon. That would be an unprecedented hardship for Americans but barely half what the stuff now costs in Britain.

This is why Mr Gore talks more bluntly now than he ever did on the campaign trail, and why no serious presidential contender echoes him. You cannot win the White House by telling Americans that they must pay more to drive, or by telling Midwestern coalminers that their industry must clean up or die. But if candidates do not prepare America for the cost of tackling climate change, the next president will have no mandate to impose it. Now that's an inconvenient truth.

[Spee]

From today's The Economist (last part of the article):

But if candidates do not prepare America for the cost of tackling climate change, the next president will have no mandate to impose it. Now that's an inconvenient truth.

Mind-numbing hokey bs from a socialist European rag. This closing statement is particularly ridiculous.

"... prepare America for the cost of tackling climate change ..."

What the heck does this actually mean? Who is going to pay? What are they going to pay for? In the most brutally frank words, what this actually means is bigger government extracting more taxes from the population they serve and using that tax revenue to serve a political agenda rather than the citizens.

I already see a sh*tload of government sponsored tree-hugging, global warming government propaganda plastered all over the place and all over the media here in the UK. As a taxpayer, it makes me sick that the government using my tax money to promote some meaningless political agenda.

I saw this same kind of bs in my home state when the government first considered authorizing a state run lottery which, let's face it, is another way for the government to get the poor man to pay taxes. The proponents said all the revenue would go to the state school system. Yet here we are 30 years later and less than 15% of all total revenue ever found its way to the classroom. The rest went to serve other political agendas.

Lesson number 1 from the great political satirist PJ O'Rourke: "A little luck and a little government are both necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either one of them."

Most governments can't even "tie their own shoelaces." Yet by raising taxes they feel they can solve some ficticious man-made effect on mother nature. The whole proposition is completely preposterous. Man-made effects on the climate are in the minutae when compared to the forces of nature (you know, the sun, the oceans, the winds, the geography). Yet the government feels they can fix something that they have no control over. A bigger combination of stupid arrogant mythology being hoisted upon the citizenry cannot be found anywhere throughout all of history.

" ... the next president will have no mandate to impose it ..."

This is yet more misguided misinformed socialist blithering demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of how the system of checks and balances works. In America, the President has no right or authority to impose anything on anyone except for the military, of which he is Commander-in-Chief. This is something that the socialist queen Hillary Clinton will realize all too quickly if the American people are collectively stupid enough to vote her in. It is the Congress who passes all the ridiculous laws to impose their will on the people rather, than try to serve them. Fortunately the President has veto power and Congressional votes are often so partisan and outlandish so as to not carry enough votes to override a veto.

There's nothing wrong with being an active environmentalist, promoting green agendas, trying to halt out of control pollution and so on. But it's completely ridiculous and arrogant of mankind to think that we are so powerful and controlling so as to change and control the effects of the sun, atmosphere, geology and oceans, which are more infinitely powerful and climate influencing than anything mankind can ever do. To understand the power of mother nature is to create respect and awe. To think that one can control it is to promote arrogance and ignorance, and intimidation by some men unto others. Jeez, people gotta wake the eff up.

[Doza]

But it's completely ridiculous and arrogant of mankind to think that we are so powerful and controlling so as to change and control the effects of the sun, atmosphere, geology and oceans, which are more infinitely powerful and climate influencing than anything mankind can ever do.

Riiiiiiiiight. So CFCs and GHGs have no effect on the ozone layer and the very simple concept of the greenhouse effect? So an infinite amount of man made GHGs will have no heat trapping effect? None?

There must be a lot of dumb scientist out there. Idiots from the world's top institutions are getting it all wrong. They are all crazy people and the world is flat.

Oh, you are right, there is no cost to climate change (man made or natural) - this idiots are mistaken. An increase in frequency and level of hurricanes doesn't cost anything in damage bills, rising sea levels won't effect islands and low lying countries so they won't have to build costly sea walls and other mitigation solutions (Maldives / Netherlands etc). More droughts also don't cost farmers and industries anything either lets not forget that.

You are a genuis. Climate expert and economist. Its all a conspiracy this climate change thing.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Doza

[backflip]

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" contains many convenient untruths. Unfortunately, he knew about the untruths before the movie was released, and refused to make any changes. According to Al, there is a cure for polio. That's not true. Althuogh there is a vaccine for polio, there is no cure. According to Al, 2005 was the hottest year on record. That's not true: 2005 does not even make it to the top ten.

Coincidentally, the day Bill Clinton was elected as president of the US, I broke my hand in a fistfight. Did Bill Clinton cause my hand to get broken? No. Did my breaking of my hand cause Bill Clinton to get elected? No. Unfortunately, many of the "scientists", Al Gore, and TV posters have that level of intellectual curiosity. Lots of coincidences, but nary any scientific evidence.

Check out www.junkscience.com - it analyzes Al's film frame by frame.

[Doza]

Al Gores film is not the be all and end all of climate science. He is one man who is trying to raise the issue.

There are thousands of climate scientists from esteemed institutions such as the Royal Society, UN, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, et al who can show you more than coincidences and plenty of evidence. Junkscience dot com I am sure is an esteemed institution but I have never heard of it before.

But wait, they are all part of a new world order climate conspiracy to further their own agendas right?

[Doza]

Even oil companies these days realise the need to reduce emissions and acknowledge the link (some link at least) between CO2 emissions and rising temps and the need to do SOMETHING because the possible impacts of doing nothing could be catastrophic. We might not be 100% sure, but if we wait till we are, it could be too late. Why wait?

From the old baddy of climate science, Exxonmobil:

The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

[backflip]

Thirty years ago, the grave concern of the environmentalists and the "scientists" was global COOLING.

Gore favors a carbon tax for everyone except himself. Despite using limos, private jets, and owning a home that consumes a dozen times more resources than an average home, Gore claims that he is living a "carbon neutral lifestyle"....because he contributes money to environmental groups that plants trees. Al is like your father who smokes, and doesn't want you to start because it's bad for you. It's just another case of "do as I say", not as I do".

"We might not be 100% sure, but if we wait till we are, it could be too late. Why wait?"

You are confusing "activity" with "progress".