Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics

[Big Don]

Excerpt:Read Full Article
Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is man-made, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore


--------------------------

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Careful Al, the VP might invite you out hunting with him......

 

[Bigshadow]

As if somehow being in the tiny minority point of view somehow invalidates that point of view or somehow makes it incorrect.

Just because something is favorable to the majority doesn't make it truth or correct.

During a period of time in human history, the majority of people thought the world was flat.

In my opinion that was a poor excuse to discount Cheney's point of view.

 

[MBuzzy]

I think he is about right. The amount of people who no longer believe in global warming is shrinking. Either way, whether you believe that it is completely man made or not, it is impossible to ignore that humans have no influence on the environment. I still fail to see why people fight it so adamantly, believe it or not, what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?

I especially can't understand why national leaders continue to downplay and ignore it, when they are the ones who have the most influence to try to reduce our impact and conserve our resources.

 

[MBuzzy]

As if somehow being in the tiny minority point of view somehow invalidates that point of view or somehow makes it incorrect.

Just because something is favorable to the majority doesn't make it truth or correct.

During a period of time in human history, the majority of people thought the world was flat.

In my opinion that was a poor excuse to discount Cheney's point of view.

So what exactly is Cheney's point of view? I honestly haven't heard him speak on the subject.

 

[Bigshadow]

So what exactly is Cheney's point of view? I honestly haven't heard him speak on the subject.

I don't know and I really don't care, however my point is that just because a point of view is in the minority doesn't mean that it is wrong or right for that matter. Just I was pointing out that Gore was suggesting that it be discounted because it is in such a minority.

 

[Twin Fist]

Call me crazy, but i have found if Al Gore supports something, you can be pretty sure it is wrong.


That said, the percentage of people that deny global warming is real IS shrinking

The percentage that have figured out it is a naturally cycle and is not the fault of 150 years of industrialized America is GROWING

 

[MBuzzy]

I don't know and I really don't care, however my point is that just because a point of view is in the minority doesn't mean that it is wrong or right for that matter. Just I was pointing out that Gore was suggesting that it be discounted because it is in such a minority.

Oh! I get it. That is a good point, that just because a belief is in the minority, it isn't necessarily wrong. Although I'm not too sure about the minority believe in this case. Like I said, I really haven't heard any concrete facts or counter points from the minority opinion. And while some of the global warming claims may be exaggerated, I ALSO don't feel that that is a reason to completely discount that belief.

 

[CoryKS]

Every religion has its heresies.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Al Gore on the environment and Dick Cheney's on hunter safety.

Yup that aabout covers it

 

[Ray]

I think he is about right. The amount of people who no longer believe in global warming is shrinking.

The amount of thinking people also remains small. Evidence in my lifetime suggests it is also shrinking.

Either way, whether you believe that it is completely man made or not, it is impossible to ignore that humans have no influence on the environment.

Termites also have an impact on their environment.

I still fail to see why people fight it so adamantly, believe it or not, what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?

From whence comes the electricity to power your PC and monitor?

 

[Twin Fist]

We wouldnt have this problem if the tree huggers would STFU and let us build nuclear reactors for electricity.

They are safe, clean, and last forever.

And would someone call the eggheads at MIT, I am tired of waiting on my Mr Fusion. I want to be able to toss a banana peel, and a can of Miller High Life into the tank and drive my car for a week.........

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I don't know and I really don't care, however my point is that just because a point of view is in the minority doesn't mean that it is wrong or right for that matter. Just I was pointing out that Gore was suggesting that it be discounted because it is in such a minority.

A "minority" according to Al Gore, no less. *shrug*

 

[CanuckMA]

I still fail to see why people fight it so adamantly, believe it or not, what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?

I especially can't understand why national leaders continue to downplay and ignore it, when they are the ones who have the most influence to try to reduce our impact and conserve our resources.

First of all, I do believe we have an impact on climate change.

OTOH, leaders and the public balk at making changes like the ones outlined in Kyoto because of the very real economic impact on the nations that are NOT the worst offenders. When China and India agree to abide by Kyoto, then let's go for it.

 

[Empty Hands]

...what does it hurt to try to reduce our impact or conserve our natural resources?

$$$

It's always sex or money, right?

 

[Empty Hands]

One of the hallmarks of true skepticism is the willingness to change your mind when confronted with the evidence. The evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming in contrast to the alternatives is mountainous. A scientific consensus has been reached by the researchers involved. Global warming has been established as a fact in the sense as defined by Gould "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Being skeptical of global warming is truly like being skeptical of the Germ Theory of Disease or the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.

That said, most if not all of the "skeptics" have shown themselves to be nothing of the sort. If they truly were, they would change their minds upon honestly examining the evidence instead of making up fairy stories about the perfidy of Al Gore, like this former skeptic. As I indicated, it all comes down to money. Dealing with the problem will have its costs, and cut dramatically into the profits of certain industries, such as oil and gas. Hence, the reason why most of the professional "skeptics" are funded by oil money. You also may note which President and Vice President are heavily invested in that industry. It is funny to note though that even the Bush Admin. has admitted that global warming exists, and is now treading the "can't do anything about it" path. The sad thing is that Useful Enablers like Big Don won't even get a cut of the profits for carrying water for someone else's agenda.

 

[MBuzzy]

The amount of thinking people also remains small. Evidence in my lifetime suggests it is also shrinking.

I would tend to think that there are far more thinking people than there have ever been - which means that there may not be as many people who agree with the majority or those who have differing opinions. In my experience, I find that the people who say that everyone else is an idiot (myself included) are generally talking about those who don't agree with them.

Termites also have an impact on their environment.

I don't think that anyone has ever argued that. Every organism has an effect on their environment. In fact, most of them, if not kept in check by some other natural "balancing factor" will also destroy their environment. Termites have their natural predators, I'm sure...one of which is humans. This keeps their population and impact in balance.

The difference is that humans have the ability to foresee and predict based on experience, scientific evidence and simply logical deduction. TO ME, it seems that if you have a limited amount of a certain resource and you use it without restriction, eventually it will run out. Just like if you are doing something that is harmful to the environment, with enoug time and accumulation, and without restriction, eventually it causes a system failure.

Since humans have the ability to see what we're doing and its consequences, what is the HARM in trying to prevent it - or at least accepting that it is happening?

From whence comes the electricity to power your PC and monitor?

And the gas in my car that I drive to work and the water that I waste while brushing my teeth, and oxygen I breathe......There are certain things that we have grown accustomed to and depend on. There are of course a minority of environmentalists who advocate that we go back to the stone age.....personally, I think that is assinine. But it is possible to reduce and conserve where possible, economical, and practical. No one is going to STOP using their computers to conserve electricity, but how about just turning it off at night? Buying an energy conserving monitor, turning off lights in rooms that you're not in. It not only saves the resource, but SAVES YOU MONEY.

SO - my personal conclusion is that in most cases, conserving resources and energy saves me money and can have some limited effect on environmental conservation....where's the harm?

For an example....at my last base, we installed energy saving light switches, the things that automatically turned off light when no one was in the room and changed out all of the light bulbs with energy efficient ones. In the first year, we saved about $20,000 on our electricity bill for the base. BUT.....since global warming is not caused by man and is a naturally occuring phenomenon, let's switch them all back!!

 

[MBuzzy]

$$$

It's always sex or money, right?

That's true, I've got to say that I've shot down a few energy conservation ideas in facility design in the interest of money.

I think geothermal energy is the wave of the future, but it is also the first thing that I'll cut when money gets tight....that extra 10-15% of the project cost gets a bit steep.

 

[tellner]

Twenty years ago it was pure speculation and science fiction.
Fifteen years ago it was delusional environmentalists.
Ten years ago it was science but not all that well understood.

Today the past's "fastest change" and "worst case" scenarios are today's news. The "I don't wanna know. It's scary!" crew can grab on desperately to the Party Line hoping that comforting lies about how everything is just fine will keep them safe. They are shrinking faster than the West Antarctic Ice Shelf.

Take a look at what's happening right now. The most pessimistic scientists are saying "Well now. I thought that chunk had another ten years."

Or this and that and the other thing. Not to mention the Glacier National Park thingies, the Kashmir whatsis and the Chinese dealy-mi-bob . And the trees in New England or the new Northwest Passage. But only a Commie tree-hugger cares about that stuff.

Unfortunately it's not about Al Gore. It's not about the Commies. It's not about the Scary Negroes. It's not about the prancing, depraved (but oh- so-fascinating) gays. It's not about bluestockings, feminists, liberals, quiche-eaters, George Soros, atheists or wimpy girlie cars that don't make a big "Vroom! Vroom!" sound.

It's about observable facts in the physical world. The universe does not change itself to make us feel all warm and snuggly. It just grinds along according to its own rules. If we get crushed in the gears it doesn't turn aside and change itself for our benefit. It doesn't work that way. And no. Asking the Invisible Sky Wizard really really nicely because you really really want the bad things to all go away will not work. Just ask these sad deluded parents. Here, I can get them for you wholesale. It may be true that the Divine All-in-All answers every prayer. If that's the case the answer might well be "No".

A real skeptic doesn't say "It isn't true because I don't want it to be true. It can't be true as long as I can find someone else who says it isn't true." Real skepticism is based on the evidence and has a profound regard for facts, even unpleasant ones. That's not the case here.

If hiding the facts and preventing them from being published doesn't work they'll predictably attack anyone who says what they don't want to hear. To make it easier they'll identify an entire issue with one person, throw mud at the person and say that that settles the question. It worked with Margaret Sanger, Willie Horton and Hillary Clinton. Why can't it work with Al Gore?

 

[Big Don]

It worked with Margaret Sanger, Willie Horton and Hillary Clinton. Why can't it work with Al Gore?

This Margaret Sanger?
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.[/FONT]
This Willie Horton?
* On June 6, 1986, convicted murderer Willie Horton was released from the Northeastern Correctional Center in Concord. Under state law, he had become eligible for an unguarded, 48-hour furlough. He never came back.
* Horton showed up in Oxon Hill, Maryland, on April 3, 1987. Clifford Barnes, 28, heard footsteps in his house and thought his fiancée had returned early from a wedding party. Suddenly Willie Horton stepped out of the shadows with a gun. For the next seven hours, Horton punched, pistol-whipped, and kicked Barnes - and also cut him 22 times across his midsection.
* When Barnes' fiancée Angela returned that evening, Horton gagged her and savagely raped her twice. Horton then stole Barnes' car, and was later chased by police until captured.
* On October 20, 1987, Horton was sentenced in Maryland to two consecutive life terms plus 85 years. The sentencing judge refused to return Horton to Massachusetts, saying, "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again."
The same Hillary Clinton who lied about Chelsea and 9-11, who lied about sniper attack in Bosnia, whose Rose Law Firm records mysteriously appeared in a White House closet? This Hillary Clinton?

Great role models, a racist, a murderer and Hillary... wonderful.