http://www.thegreenguide.com/images/issues/114/moviereview/inconvenienttruthLG.jpg
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/trailer/

An Inconvenient Truth Is a Documentary Slideshow hosted by Al Gore. The movie was said to have gotten a lil' Acclaim at the Sundance. I'm sure Taymelo already has his ticket.:D

Synopsis

Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced- a catastrophe of our own making.

If that sounds like a recipe for serious gloom and doom -- think again. From director Davis Guggenheim comes the Sundance Film Festival hit, "An Inconvenient Truth," which offers a passionate and inspirational look at one man's commitment to expose the myths and misconceptions that surround global warming and inspire actions to prevent it. That man is former Vice President Al Gore, who, in the wake of defeat in the 2000 election, re-set the course of his life to focus on an all-out effort to help save the planet from irrevocable change. In this eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his "traveling global warming show," Gore is funny, engaging, open and downright on fire about getting the surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls our "planetary emergency" out to ordinary citizens before it's too late.

With 2005, the worst storm season ever experienced in America just behind us, it seems we may be reaching a tipping point – and Gore pulls no punches in explaining the dire situation. Interspersed with the bracing facts and future predictions is the story of Gore's personal journey: from an idealistic college student who first saw a massive environmental crisis looming; to a young Senator facing a harrowing family tragedy that altered his perspective; to the man who almost became President but instead returned to the most impassioned cause of his life – convinced that there is still time to make a difference.

With wit, smarts and hope, "An Inconvenient Truth" ultimately brings home Gore's persuasive argument that we can no longer afford to view global warming as a political issue – rather, it is the biggest moral challenge facing our global civilization.

Interview with the Director by Comingsoon.net
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/indietopnews.php?id=14646
I thought this part was kinda funny. i'm sure Taymelo will have a field day on it.

CS: Yeah, he was in that episode, it's the one where he talks about his book "Earth in the Balance" and his more popular book "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth." Hilarious.
Guggenheim: That was part of his slideshow when I saw it, and we had to clear it. We had to get FOX to give it to us, they wanted to charge us lots of money, and then we begged and they finally said yes.
Based on the advertising of Global Warning. I'm guessing that the scare you into watching tactic is now shared by Repubics and DemoCons. Either way i liked Al Gore and thought he woulda' made a good president(technically so did a majority of the population). So i'll check it out.

scenes from the Documentary.
http://www.ifctv.com/ifc/img/05222006_inconvenienttruth.jpg
http://deseretnews.com/photos/2598414.jpg
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1160800/photo_07.jpg
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1160800/photo_08.jpg

I never really liked Al Gore. He reminds me way too much of a former boss who was a nice guy, but just not a very good boss. (I doubt Gore would've tried to pressure his people to fly less than a week after 9/11, which caused me to lead the way in getting my ex-boss canned, but I digress...)

That said, I thought Gore would've made a better president than George W. Bush. Bush's first, best destiny would've been as the baseball commish. Of course, I thought a whole lot of people would've been a better choice. I am against the Taliban wing of the Republican Party. The fucked-up neocon and relgious right factions -- W.'s base -- have done us no favors, and Democrats haven't known how to play politics since 9/11.

I voted for McCain in the primaries, because he wanted to pay off debt with the budget surplus of the day and not write out checks for later generations to cash. But we live in a world where tons of people max out their credit cards, and the only choice between the two candidates in 2000 was "where would they piss away the excess money". Folks in their 20s and 30s will be paying for Bush's blank checkbook throughout our lifetime.

Fuck, we still hadn't paid off for Vietnam yet. It took Reagan borrowing a few trillion to make the economic fallout from Vietnam go away. He gambled on easy money policies leading to breakthrough results, and that shit worked in an odd way. The emergence of junk bonds fueled the telco and telco-related industries (dot-com, baby!). Just when there was finally enough to get over the hump and -have- a rainy day fund for things like 9/11 and Afghanistan, we get a big spender wanting another new war to make up for what daddy oopsed on.

There's no way that "energy credit trading", Gore's big scheme, will really do us any good. The fallout from Iraq will guarantee that. Too many countries don't like us for us to drive the sort of consensus that's needed to really think globally here. The money to kickstart initiatives like this won't exist. It's not just fucking inconvenient, but disasterous. As our world shrinks, we have more and more global problems, and we need people who can work globally. I remember when the U.S. President was the leader of the free world. Now we have a dumbass who only thinks insularly, who thinks of the rest of the world as a problem and not a reality or opportunity.

Wow, great post Mxy.

I never really liked Al Gore. He reminds me way too much of a former boss who was a nice guy, but just not a very good boss. (I doubt Gore would've tried to pressure his people to fly less than a week after 9/11, which caused me to lead the way in getting my ex-boss canned, but I digress)....
i actually agree with all of what you said, except the Al Gore coming across one way. Alot of the time i never got that stuff from him. but i had an opinion of him before the media and his rival had a chance to thrash his image. I honestly thought he spoke well and sounded light years ahead of Bush in answering questions in their debates. yet for some things like that became irrelevent. but i wont say much more than that. i posted this more so because the movie looked interesting. If it gives well informed answers with no bs(which i'm sure Pharoah loves), then its definately worth checking out IMO.

I like Gore a lot, I'd love to see him take another shot at the Presidency.

Gore/Obama anybody?

It would be nice to return to the days of governing this country with intellect.

FWIW...

For a lot of people (including me) their initial introduction to Al Gore was through Tipper Gore and the PMRC in the mid-'80s. Al Gore's first impression beyond his Tennessee constituents was as the husband of that lame-brained loudmouth, especially among who'd be his base later on. Now, had they been introduced to Al Gore as "father of those three hip and hot daughters, one of whom is a big Prince fan", I bet the first impression would've been better.

The next time I really had an "opinion" moment with him was over the Internet It wasn't the bogus and wildly-exaggerated "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." stuff -- I can overlook such hype. No, it was initiatives like the Clipper chip, the '90s era "eavesdrop on everybody" initiative that soured me somewhat more. (Bush should be glad he didn't run on a "I won't spy on you the way Gore wanted to" platform.) Gore didn't really "get" the Internet, but certainly he thought he did. People like that scared me more than luddites.

So by the time he was running for President and I had a mostly-lousy boss that -sounded- just like him at the time, I had something of a dim view. I had an even dimmer view of Bush, though, and Nader just isn't a politician to me, I generally supported Gore.

The emergence of junk bonds fueled the telco and telco-related industries (dot-com, baby!). Just when there was finally enough to get over the hump and -have- a rainy day fund for things like 9/11 and Afghanistan, we get a big spender wanting another new war to make up for what daddy oopsed on.

Nice post Mxy but this paragraph has some things I wanted to chime in on, but no biggee, doesn't take away from the post.

Junk bonds was not the reason for the dot-com bubble or the fiber optic boom in teleco's.

Second, for anyone that isn't aware the current "deficit" that is constantly being eluded to is now being adjusted down in future years for all the same reasons that it disappeared in the first place before GWB got here. If you now look at the future predictions for the deficit that have been greatley altered in the past 6 months. These are not the gov't predictions but economists predictions and they have to do with one thing and that is Tax Base. Such an under reported story by the media and it's too bad. I saw a figure where the current deficit would be paid down in the next 15 years based on current assumptions and a reduced but still positive future economic expansion.

A lot of people feel that Bush did something horrendous with his tax and spend policies (I am no Bush economic fan btw), but conisder that when he did it, in the short-term, the stimulus provided by the tax cuts appears to have been necessary for the economy at that time. It could have come in the form of tax cuts or as higher government spending; either way, they would have swelled the deficit. A large chunk of the deficit is the result of lower tax receipts from 3 areas:

-The recession he inherited
- from 9/11 which
-declining stock market from the above 2 which resulted in less of a tax base for the gov't to use to pay down debt or save.

The stock market, economy and low interest rates have been great as a result the tax base is way up add to this the tax base off the corporations that are doing well. I think the deficit is over-blown and has been used as a political tool against those who don't know any better.

When talking about Deficits it only matters how they were created. In this case they were created as a stimulus to the economy. Supply side economics - a Regan legacy.

can you link me to those projections G? I haven't seen any such thing.

Junk bonds was not the reason for the dot-com bubble or the fiber optic boom in teleco's
There's a (part of an) Internet economics talk by Hal Varian:

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/

that I can't find on his site called "How Michael Milken invented the Internet". He gave the at/around the time that Gore's remarks were prominent and back when he was in Michigan, but that doesn't narrow it down enough and I don't have time. He succinctly traced how Milken's activities in particular directed $ toward "risky" tech stuff that led to key infrastructure for today's Internet and telco services. It was easily the memorable part of a deadly-dull talk. I went away with "Damn, he's right, just follow the money".

Googling around, someone else wrote something about this:

http://www.richmondfed.org/educational_info/academic_competitions/essay_contest/pdfs/milken.pdf

can you link me to those projections G? I haven't seen any such thing.

The economic reports I get daily are not allowed to be disseminated to the public. You wouldn't imagine how heavily regulated we are when it comes to non-NASD approved materials. You might want to see if googling brings up something on Future budget deficit projections".

If I get time this weekend, which is doubtful since me and the fam are headed to out place up north, I might be willing to paraphrase the article I referenced.

A quick google brought this up. (notice how deficits and surpluses graph mimics the stock market performance. Funny how you never hear about something that appears so positive. I guess it's better to just discuss the negative.


The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) new baseline projections indicate that if current laws and policies did not change, the federal budget would run a deficit of $368 billion in 2005 and a smaller deficit, $295 billion, next year. After that, annual deficits would gradually decline, turning into a small surplus by 2012, assuming that various tax increases occurred as scheduled. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit would equal 3.0 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) this year and 2.3 percent of GDP in 2006. By 2015, the end of CBO's 10-year projection period, the baseline surplus would equal 0.7 percent of GDP (see Figure 1-1 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=2#figure1-1)).

Figure 1-1. The Total Deficit or Surplus as a Percentage of GDP, 1967 to 2015
(Percent)



http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/60xx/doc6060/606003.gif

Junk bonds was not the reason for the dot-com bubble or the fiber optic boom in teleco's
There's a (part of an) Internet economics talk by Hal Varian:

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/

that I can't find on his site called "How Michael Milken invented the Internet". He gave the at/around the time that Gore's remarks were prominent and back when he was in Michigan, but that doesn't narrow it down enough and I don't have time. He succinctly traced how Milken's activities in particular directed $ toward "risky" tech stuff that led to key infrastructure for today's Internet and telco services. It was easily the memorable part of a deadly-dull talk. I went away with "Damn, he's right, just follow the money".

Googling around, someone else wrote something about this:

http://www.richmondfed.org/educational_info/academic_competitions/essay_contest/pdfs/milken.pdf

Milliken happened before the tech boom of the late 90's which resulted for other reasons. Most of the dot.com companies never offered junk bonds but I guess one could say that Milliken helped in some way contribute to the boom albeit much earlier and in a not so obvious direct way.

The reasons for the dot com bubble.
1.) Venture capital ( which somewhere in the chain the capital from junk bonds would be found).
2.) Low interest rates
3.) Y2k spending
4.) Advent of internet and terms like "New Economy"
5.) most important human emotion run out of control namely Greed.


I think your main thesis of easy money was more point on.

At the time I heard the talk about Michael Milken inventing the Internet, it was either before or just at the very start of the dot-com era, and no, he certainly wasn't -directly- responsible for that. But, it was amazing just how much tech investment reflecting in the Internet tracked back to him. I always think of him when I think Gore. Oh, and it's Milken, not Milliken... been thinking about our governor in the 70s, by chance? I miss the age of Milliken Republicans.

Viewing debt as a function of GDP can get problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a complex beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet.

Ah, I misinterpreted "paid down" as "paid off".

Ah, I misinterpreted "paid down" as "paid off".

No, there both correct. See that chart 2 posts above, it has this line that starts to head North at 2006 and crosses the 0 line around the year 2012 and then crosses into + territory. In my book this would be defined as both paid down and paid off.

See this quote too from the CBO:
"turning into a small surplus by 2012"

Viewing debt as a function of GDP can get problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a complex beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet.

I have other stuff that shows the debt shrinking in nominal terms and not against GDP. Something to think about too. The debt should shrink even faster than that chart shows due to the recent slide in the dollar. THE CBO assumed those figures against a much higher dolllar so if the dollar remains weak we may have a surplus much sooner than the 2012 prediction the CBO is making.

Just roll with it Mxy. Optimism baby! Things are great.

hmmm global warming?:confused:

hmmm global warming?:confused:

Questions for Al GoreFont Size: http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_up_font.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;)http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_down_font.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;)http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_default_font.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;)http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gifhttp://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gifBy Dr. Roy Spencer : BIO (http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267)| 25 May 2006 http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gifhttp://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_discuss.gif Discuss This Story! (http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdContentType=1&fldTheirID=052506C) (23) http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_mail.gif Email | http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_print.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;) Print (http://javascript<b></b>:;) | http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_bkmrk.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:doBookmark()) Bookmark (http://javascript<b></b>:doBookmark()) | http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_save.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:doSaveAs()) Save (http://javascript<b></b>:doSaveAs())http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gifhttp://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gifhttp://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gifhttp://www.tcsdaily.com/images/Library/None/gore%20environment.jpg

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.


As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.


1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?


3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?


5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?


6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?


7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view?



Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.


I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.


Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer
(aka 'Phil Jones')

Nothing isn't what it used to be.


Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby recently reviewed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101183.html) Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." He argued that President Bush "refused to let his administration do anything about climate." And last month New York Times columnist Paul Krugman made the same claim: "most governments have done little to curb greenhouse gases, and the Bush administration has done nothing ..."


One is tempted to ask whether they are being Clintonesque, with nothing depending upon their definitions of nothing. But assuming they were being honest, one can only wonder where they gathered their evidence that the Bush administration was doing nothing.


Obviously it was not from reading Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic, who in February last year, wrote: "[T]he notion that Bush has done nothing at all about greenhouse gases can only be sustained if you ignore what he has done."


What has that been? Easterbrook was writing about a program called Methane to Markets, which the Bush administration negotiated among several countries in 2004. He noted that most news outlets didn't report a thing about it. Yet, the program promises a reduction in methane -- a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than the carbon dioxide that is the focus of most news reporting -- equal to the reductions in greenhouse gases from the more heralded Kyoto Protocol.


One of the fruits of the methane to markets program came last week. China, a chief emitter of methane from its coal mines, has signed an agreement to buy 60 methane generators from Caterpillar Inc. for $58 million. The generators will take in the methane from its largest coal mine, reducing explosions and improving safety and health in the mines while providing 120 megawatts of electricity with reduced greenhouse gas emissions.


Neither the Post nor the Times thought that worthy of reporting, nor did most other mainstream media outside of the business press. After all it's a "good news" story -- a kind of win-win-win-win scenario for health, safety, economics and the environment that the mainstream media are loath to report.


And besides, how can you write about the fruit of a program that you've barely acknowledged exists? The Post provided but one brief story about it on its inside pages back in November of 2004, and then gave it mention in a little science brief about a Princeton study that found "reducing emissions of methane ... by 20% from current levels would prevent an estimated 370,000 premature deaths worldwide between 2010 and 2030." And that's nothing compared to The New York Times reporting, which about methane to markets amounted to nothing (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22methane+to+markets%22&date_select=full&srchst=nyt) googleable at all.


All of which may explain the frustration of James Connaughton, President Bush's chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality at a presentation at the American Enterprise Institute the day Mallaby's column appeared. He said he felt like asking the administration's critics such as Mallaby: "What part of 'yes' don't you understand?"


He said there is no longer any debate going on in the administration about the science of climate change nor that there is human contribution to warming. He said there is even consensus among policymakers here and abroad on the scope of action and places where it's needed and the type of arrangements required to help limit that contribution.


Connaughton pointed to 60 federal programs "designed to help reduce emissions by 500 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent (greenhouse gases) through 2012;" voluntary programs, such as Climate VISION, that aim to reduce carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon emissions for a given amount of economic activity -- by 18% by 2012; and federal spending on climate change programs of $26 billion since Bush came into office, about half of which has gone to researching new technology.

Where the administration runs afoul of its critics' demands -- and is considered to be doing nothing -- is in the promotion of caps on carbon emissions. The critics want to force carbon-emitting industries to cap emissions and then allow those who reduce their emissions below their cap to sell credits to those who fail to meet them. But such cap and trade schemes would do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without China and India participating, costly carbon caps will prompt the movement of industrial emissions abroad -- where they will likely be spewed out in greater amounts through dirtier technology.

That is something that the Mallabys and Krugmans and most

environmentalists overlook -- you can't force these countries to do what you want. You have to understand their economic and moral need to lift millions of people out of poverty quickly. They will put this goal ahead of reducing greenhouse emissions any day. And who can blame them? Further, from a political standpoint, you aren't going to get far with significant carbon curbs if they hurt your own economy, a fact that helps to explain why the Clinton administration did less than the Bush administration on climate change, if you look at the record.

What can do something to influence what is going on in China and India? As Connaughton pointed out, you can make a deal with them to provide them cleaner, better, safer, healthier, more advanced technology -- if they agree to protect the intellectual property of those who invent that technology. And you can seek to ensure that you don't wipe out incentives here for the development of the kind of clean technology they might buy -- in particular clean coal. You want coal cleaned up as a source of electricity, so as to pass on the technology to coal-dependent nations such as China and India. But it is unlikely these clean-coal technologies will develop if carbon caps force utilities to switch to natural gas.

What's
more, recent real-world experience with carbon caps undercuts the arguments of the administration's critics. Canada has indicated it won't meet its caps under Kyoto, and Europe is heading toward failure as well.

Meanwhile, Bush's sweet nothings of Methane to Markets, his Asian Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate Change (AP6 (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120705C)), and his promotion of investment in technological development here and its spread through free trade and intellectual property protection abroad are producing measurable gains already with the China-Caterpillar deal.

Of course, don't expect to hear about those gains from Mallaby or Krugman or the rest of mainstream major media. Much like Sergeant Schulz, the guard in Hogan's Heroes who turned a blind eye to the POW's shenanigans, saying, "I know nothing! Nothing!" so he didn't have to report them to Colonel Klink, so they maintain a willful ignorance of the administration's climate activities so as not to complicate their case that the administration is doing nothing -- see nothing positive, hear nothing positive, report nothing positive.

I say Al could answer those questions in....um, 100 words. Very poorly done as I can answer most.

I say Al could answer those questions in....um, 100 words. Very poorly done as I can answer most.

Talk is cheap. You have no intention on answering anything per usual. Don't feel bad that you can't keep up intellectually. We all know our limitations. :)

There are some interesting points made there Geck, but even you will have to find this noteworthy/humorous.

The source of your "Questions for Gore" column is "TCS Daily".

I did a little digging around and found this page: http://www.tcsdaily.com/about.aspx

Which included this disclosure:

TCS is supported by a small group of sponsors: the American Beverage Association, ExxonMobil, Freddie Mac, General Motors Corporation, Gilead Sciences, McDonalds, Merck and PhRMA.

TCS Daily does claim that their sponsors have no influence on their content, but how naive do you have to be to believe that?

Or I could be real sweet and just google something where someone has a lame response. we could go back and forth all day...oh the fun! And so intellectual.

How about you read it and respond at an AP Biology level as to why his arguements are soft. Or why Gore presented his piece without including every nugget that wouldn't lead to his deductions and "had to have a computer generated polar bear".

Lame as per your style geck. I've no use for enviromentalists or this stupid movie, but if you can't bring anything don't bring anything.

bitch. Stole my "intellectual" take on an edit.

How intellectual is google BTW. I mean on a scale of say "Carrot head humor" to Steven Hawking where would you put the ability to type say four words, right click, and paste on a sports themed message board? Can we teach this to Koko the gorilla?

I actually came across the article that was linked in a Forbes article totally unrelated. I am not taking any sides in the global warming debate cause I feel both sides are full of shit.

And yes Hermy, you are really really smart, both you and Al Gore. You have proven that to me time and time again. You're too funny. You hate my politics so where ever I post, there you are! Hermy, so jealous.

. You hate my politics so where ever I post, there you are!

Only the dumb ones. I've commended you several times. Tune down the fox news, turn up the George will.

you posted what somerone else thought then said both sides are full of shit. :confused: As long as that first article is. the responses were kinda cheesy.:(
he makes some request for Gore not to supposedly leave out truths as far as he sees it. but the nuclear energy only option theory was not the only option. this cheap shot also made me question his motive.


5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died.


it was just a devils advocate put there to debate whatever partial hole he could find. i was hoping for something more even keel.

My apologies to hermy for calling into question his intellect. What am I doing fighting in a Global warming thread anyways? I've got bigger battles with you socialites, err socialists. -jk

Seemingly-reasonable people can and do differ on the scope, cause(s), and other aspects of global warming. It's hard to measure and evaluate, and every answer leads to new more-challenging questions. No one's peeling the onion of the hows and whys of climate change, and it's simply a ridiculously complex beast to model. I'm glad it's something we look into, inasmuch as we should explore the environment and how our actions change the environment around us, and do we want those changes. There's only one world and we all have to live in it.

There's only one world and we all have to live in it.

I apologize in advance, I know that I'm getting carried away. I'm going through a little bit of a YouTube phase right now.

Please join me in screaming the Bruce Springsteen part.

ECDCty_qpSE

Bah... I always like the British song from Band Aid that inspired that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzJoOKJbGQI

And if you -really- want to go back to the beginnings of charity rock and get away from Gore-ing each other, check out:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=harrison+bangladesh&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/aninconvenienttruth.html

You can now ask Gore a question. dont know if he's answering them all though.