Immigration bill? Who cares. Global warming? We'll talk about that later. War on Terror? We've got better things to think about. We just want to see Barry Bonds hit another home run, we want to listen to the latest Nelly Furtado album, we want to read about David and Victoria Beckham's adjustment to life in L.A., we want to watch Survivor, The Apprentice, Big Brother or whatever noxious reality-TV show floats our boat, we want to eat KFC and drink Pepsi and pretend that it's good for us (and subsequently blame our 300-pound butts on anyone but ourselves), we want to pray for poor little Britney Spears and most of all, we've got to rescue Paris Hilton from the indignity of jail. These are the things that matter most to your average person. Sad, but true.
So, Mr. Gore, I very much share your frustration with the fairy-tale priorities that the majority of people seem to have. You're well within your rights to be enraged over that. People daydream between the pages of OK! and People far too much and that is a big reason why the world may never change for the better. I don't blame you one bit for hating the reality of this thoughtless, sound bite-addicted, fast-food culture.
But please also realize that the doomsday scenario that you're peddling us might be a fairy tale too. You may very well find that you yourself have become part of this lazy "culture" who'll vote for the Greens if you say it's hip but are too busy stuffing their faces with "food" in polystyrene take-out containers to care what it all really means.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jeff
Read Mr. Gore's books before you criticize him so thoroughly. Many of your opinions only validate Mr. Gore's central thesis that 30-second TV clips may not be the best way to "learn" of someone's true opinions. Mr. Gore frequently reminds concerned citizens that change begins with them by encouraging everyone to recycle, conserve, and cut down on their consumption (of both energy and material goods). He often cites specific examples like using compact fluorescent light bulbs, employing a rain barrel, buying energy star appliances, cutting back on wasteful water usage, and using public transportation whenever possible. These are exactly the kind of small steps we need to accomplish before we, as a planet, take on global warming. For it will be impossible to salvage any vestige of our current climate if the wasteful, greedy, and selfish behavior on which you cling to continues to flourish, unchecked. You are certainly free to criticize Mr. Gore, but do so only when facts warrant the criticism.
2 - Clavos
"You are certainly free to criticize Mr. Gore, but do so only when facts warrant the criticism."
OK how's this for justifiable criticism?
Gore urges us all, as you said, to cut down on our energy consumption, but lives in a house that consumes as much energy as 20 average middle class houses.
Yes, he buys "carbon offsets" to ameliorate the damage, but the whole carbon offset idea smacks of a shell game or Ponzi scheme. And, In Gore's case, he's buying his offsets from a company he owns!
In the words of Dana Carvey's Church Lady, "How conveeeenyunt!"
3 - Danielle
Stopping the Iraq war is hard. Facing the reality of our collective contribution to the state of our environment and our future is hard. Solving problems, inventing new technologies is hard. Creating the change we wish to see is hard.
Should we just give up because it is HARD?
Should we lie down and succumb to the ridiculous realty of the world because it is HARD?
Should we sit back and say the world is going to hell in a handbasket and I'm saving my seat in the front because any other alternative is too HARD to even imagine let alone achieve?
4 - sr
How simple can this be. Albert Gore is a fucking loser and a nut case. He can take his book's and shove it up Tipper Gore and Elizabeth Edward's fat ass. That will stop that cancer. As for global warming keep the Hilldabeast from farting all day. Stinken bitch. MAY GOD BLESS YOUR DAY.
5 - zingzing
clavos, you know as well as everybody that gore's house is also his office and there are upwards of 20 people working there. you yourself (i believe) have admitted that the big ol house is more bad p.r. than it is a real issue. the buying offsets from his own company has been discussed before. the money is funnelled into other pro-environment endevours.
if you're going to criticize gore, you ought to at least bring up points that haven't been taken apart so easily several times before. it's just too easy.
6 - Dr Dreadful
In a single succinct comment, sr demonstrates his masterly grasp of logic, politics, publishing, proctology, oncology, envirnonmental science and theology.
But not punctuation or spelling, unfortunately.
Way to go, monkey shooter. BTW, how are those suppositories working out for you?
7 - sr
I have invented a PBGF vehicle which should stop global warming.
8 - sr
Dear Doc, never sure If Im playing in our sandbox with you. Sounds like maybe your spending to much time playing in the cat litter box and snacking on to many Toosie Rolls. As for logic, politics, publishing, proctology, oncdogy, envirormental science, theology or dipshitology I dont have a clue nor do I give a dam Scarlett. Punctuation. That I know. Your a punk Doc. Did I get ir WR-G;ATE? In truth Doc your not a punk, just a liberal that makes this conservative laugh. Not at your views. I enjoy reading them. Even when you slam me you do a great job with your sense of humor. No hugs please. Yes I shoot fucking monkeys. Would love to go to Africa and shoot a bunch of those frecking baboons. Ever see the ass on those pricks. Great target. As for suppositories I still have a watermelon up my ass. Did you receive my 50lb pumpkin? Have a great day Doc and as Jet would say: NUKE THE UNBORN GAY BABOONS.
9 - Clavos
"you yourself (i believe) have admitted that the big ol house is more bad p.r. than it is a real issue."
Not what I said, zing. I said it was stupid pr, true, but did not say it was not a real issue. Office or no office, the place is using an inordinate amount of energy; far more than would be used by more modest digs plus an office in a business building.
I also said I have no objection to anyone using all the energy they can afford to pay for, since I don't believe there's anything wrong with doing so.
I DO object to that sanctimonious SOB preaching to all of us that we are using too much and must cut back while he uses as much as twenty families in just one of several houses.
Carbon offsets save NO energy and keep no carbon out of the atmosphere; they just make big users like gore feel better about being energy hogs.
Every phony "reason" the gore gang gives to excuse their energy use just emphasizes their hypocrisy.
"Do as we say, not as we do."
I haven't seen these points taken apart yet.
meh.
10 - RJ
Sigh.
The Earth has been warming and cooling periodically since before the Industrial Revolution, or even before the earliest "humans" walked the Earth. We've had ice ages and warm periods and everything in between on this planet. In fact, the only thing about the global climate that remains the same is that it is constantly changing!
There was a cooling period between the 1940s and the 1970s. During this time, environmentalists often spoke of nightmare scenarios in which human activity was going to cause another Ice Age and lead to a planetary disaster. But then the Earth began warming for a few decades...and now these same people are telling us it's "the end of the world" and "we're all going to die" from "global warming" unless we act, like, right fucking now!
The theory of "global warming" is based upon the theory of "the greenhouse effect." And the theory of "the greenhouse effect" is based upon the idea that increased amounts of certain gases in our atmosphere can cause more solar heat to be trapped at the surface, leading to higher temperatures.
Now, there are many "greenhouse gases." One of them is Carbon Dioxide, which we hear so much about. And Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been increasing, and this increase is probably largely due to human activity. But we don't hear nearly as much about water vapor, which is about 50-100 times more abundant in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide. I mean, you could literally triple the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it would still be spit in the bucket compared to H2O and the other "greenhouse gases" that these people rarely bother to mention.
So, human activity is most likely causing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. But CO2 is only a very minor "greenhouse gas" in terms of atmospheric concentration. And anyway, remember that temperatures were DECREASING during the 1940s-1970s, despite the fact that human development was increasing exponentially, as was the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!
Another point: Al Gore's Oscar-winning "documentary" about "global warming" cited ice-core samples from Antarctica as supporting evidence. These samples showed a correlation between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and temperature, over hundreds of thousands of years. Al Gore called this relationship "complicated," and then moved on to other
propagandapoints. Let me try to explain this "complication" to you.Al Gore's unexplained "complication" was that the increases in atmospheric CO2 followed the increases in temperature. In other words, in complete contradiction to the theory of "the greenhouse effect," it appears from the data that temperature increases caused increases in CO2, and not the other way around!
(Please repeat after me: Correlation does not mean causation...)
In order for a theory to be considered valid, it must make logical sense, it must be backed up by hard data, and the presumed consequences must FOLLOW the presumed causes. According to the "complicated" data that Al Gore kinda-sorta cites in his award-winning "documentary," this theory clearly fails the final test, if not the first and second.
So, you ask, if it's not "the greenhouse effect" that's causing global temperatures to rise over the last few decades, than what is? I don;t know for sure, but I do have an idea.
You see, there's this little thing call The Sun. You know, that giant flaming ball in the sky with the constant nuclear fission reactions? The thing that rises in the East every morning and sets in the West every evening? That thing that causes our days to be warmer than our nights, and our summers to be warmer than our winters?
Yeah, it seems that this thing has been sending more solar radiation to us over the last few decades than it had been in the recent past.
In fact, Mars is experiencing "global warming," as well. And so are several other planets and satellites that are within The Sun's "sphere of influence," so to speak.
So, are we to conclude that Martians are driving SUVs? Or is The Sun the culprit? I'll let you decide...
11 - Heloise
Actually Gore is repeating the first chapter of his book, a sentiment he probably got from Heloise about how people are more concerned about the famous or recognize them more often than one of the presidents.
I pointed out that Gore is the greatest of hypocrites because he does not address a wealth of global situations that don't fit the jet-set agenda.
Not only is he part of the set but he is part of the Washington in-crowd! He is by way of high-political connections and in-law connections related to the Kennnedys by way of Jackie Kennedy.
Her mother remarried a close relative of Gore Vidal who is related to Al Gore. Gore Vidal had a serious crush on JFK because he "has a cute butt" and his auto is full of JFK photos.
Gore's dad of course was a sentator. No dearth of politics for this guy. He was weaned in Washington :)
That is why Bill Clinton, who famously shook JFK's hand at the White House, chose Gore in the first place. He has Camelot dust on him. Get it? Oh boy.
Heloise
12 - Clavos
Great comment (#10), RJ:
Only point you make that I would question at all you refute yourself, without saying so.
Sources I've read (Unstoppable Global Warming, by Singer & Avery, among others) confirm what you said about levels of CO2 historically following the initial rises in temperatures during the warming periods.
Those same sources say that, (as you mentioned) since the rise in CO2 predates the Industrial Revolution, there is little reason to believe that the current levels of CO2 are attributable to anthropogenic sources to any meaningful degree.
The most recent warming period, which was during the Middle Ages (the Medieval Warming), triggered a significant spurt in agricultural yields, thus helping to improve diets and longevity. Today's theory postulates that the rise in temperatures will harm agriculture and reduce crop yields.
13 - zingzing
look. we don't know whether or not the world is going down the shitter or not. it's guess work either way. the world's either going to heat up or it's not, and if it's our doing, it's going to get nasty. what we do have is a choice of whether or not to do something.
so, if we do something, and the world isn't heating up because of us, well then we've probably run up a bit of a tab for nothing. we lose out on a shitload of money and there's very likely some economic problems that arise. maybe even a worldwide depression. (of course, we could also find new industries and free ourselves of fossil fuels, which would be cool.)
if we do nothing, however, and it really is our fault and the climate goes completely out of control... cities disappear, there's worldwide famine and pandemic diseases, the political structures of the world fall to bits, THE VERY SAME ECONOMIC COLLAPSE (probably worse) occurs, and we're left wringing our hands at our stupidty and hubris.
so, we can take a chance, be wrong and pay the economic consequences; or we can sit on our hands and, if we are wrong, watch the world (as we know it) disappear.
it's our choice, and those of you that say "nothing to worry about!" may just be the reason that civilization falls to bits.
i guess you have to ask yourself a couple of questions:
1. is the probability of a worldwide economic depression scary enough that the possiblity of disease, famine, destruction, war AND economic depression sounds like a risk worth taking?
2. how lucky do you feel?
14 - sr
SIMPLE LOGIC. SUN COMES UP AND ROOSTER CROWS. FARMERS WIFE HEADS TO HEN HOUSE, PICKS UP EGGS WHILE THE FARMER BLOWS THE HEAD OFF THE FRECKING ROOSTER WITH HIS SHOTGUN FOR WAKEING HIM UP AT 5AM. 9AM FARMER AND WIFE EAT FRIED CHICKEN WITH EGGS OVER EASY. JUST ANOTHER DAY ON THE FARM. MUST GO AND PICK THE CORN AND ONIONS.
15 - Dr Dreadful
OK, reality check, people. What's more likely:
1. That extensive industrial activity by humans and resultant emission of billions of tons of pollutants over the past 200 years has produced greenhouse gases and exacerbated global warming;
2. That extensive industrial activity by humans and resultant emission of billions of tons of pollutants over the past 200 years has had absolutely no effect - none, whatsoever - on global climate trends?
As a wise man once said, "Sigh."
16 - Clavos
I'll take answer #2, Doc, if you'll allow me to change "no effect" to "no significant effect."
So far, there haven't been any significant changes in global climate trends that haven't been occurring for many millenia.
As for the "projections:" The atmosphere and its workings are incredibly complex; even the scientists admit that, in order to construct their computer models, a LOT of assumptions had to be made and plugged into the models.
I'm just not convinced; and the more dissenting scientists I read, the less convinced I become. I've done quite a lot of reading, and have been interested in, and studied, meteorology since I was a kid, which at my advanced age is almost back to the Medieval Warming.
Too much reliance on "computer models" and not enough on historical data; too many government reps (from a number of governments, all with axes to grind) involved in the presentation of the conclusions; especially in the case of the IPCC Report/projections.
17 - troll
imo we need to view carbon as a crop to be harvested from the atmosphere rather than as a pollutant
18 - Clavos
troll,
Interesting idea. The oceans already remove enormous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere (and release it back, as well).
19 - Dr Dreadful
Clav,
Indeed, it's hard to say for sure to what degree human activity is affecting the atmosphere as opposed to natural climatic cycles, simply because we only have reliable meteorological records for the last 100-150 years or so (depending on where in the world you're looking at).
Of course there are views that dissent from the general scientific consensus, but in considering these you must be careful to remember that they are relying on the same limited data to reach their conclusions. In other words, you cannot be certain that human activity is not largely responsible for the climate changes we are witnessing.
Also, I trust that you are not reading only dissenting viewpoints. Were that so, your opinions would naturally be colored.
As for discounting the possibility that human activity is not having a significant effect: a rather reckless conclusion, if I may say so. The trillions of tons of crap that our industrial society has spewed out over the last couple of centuries is not inert. To draw a parallel: we would not be here discussing this if it were not for the profound effect living organisms had on the atmosphere billions of years ago, excreting the oxygen on which all modern animals depend.
20 - moonraven
More than anything else, I believe the tone and frivolity of the comments indicate that you folks are simply envious of Al Gore because after being the victim of what was for all purposes a COUP in 2000, instead of living in this victim story and therefore not making anyone uncomfortable, he chose NOT to live in victimland with you guys and instead, lives on the planet and addresses its problems.
In short, he has a life and is trying to live it responsibily so you jokers nip at his heels like a pack of jackals in the Negev Desert.
Get a life.
21 - Mark Edward Manning
Dr Dreadful: I don't deny that carbon emissions may likely have had some effect on climate change, and perhaps climate change is accelerating faster than it normally would be without them. But this is something that scientists seem baffled by. No-one can state with any authority that there aren't other, natural forces, Earthly or solar in origin, that also aren't contributing to climate change? Scientists seem divided between the natural reasons vs mankind did it! arguments. I don't know who to trust. So I keep an open mind about this matter and support efforts to cut carbon emissions. I never said I was against such measures. But the earth will likely continue to warm up anyway despite our best efforts. And as for Al Gore, I cannot trust him for the exact same reason Heloise stated: If it's an issue that doesn't revolve around his jet-set lifestyle, then Gore conveniently ignores it. Flying around the world to preach the mantra of global warming doom-mongering. That's our Al Gore!
22 - moonraven
You just made my point!
23 - zingzing
clavos feels very lucky. well, he's an older man... does he have children? i dunno. still, he feels very, very lucky.
24 - Clavos
I think you looked at the wrong question #2 in my answer, zing.
I was referring to DD's comment #15.
25 - zingzing
i know you were. i wasn't referring back to my comment which you very conveniently ignored.
still, unless you want to pony up a considered response to my (i think) very logical conclusions, i think you've answered my question #2, which pretty much says you're going to just hope for the best.
best of luck! i hope you're right!