Al Gore: Climate Change 'Significantly Worse' Than Feared

Source: AFP

Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Published: Thursday January 24, 2008

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.

Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Climate_change_significant...

This is frightening.

I just don't know what to tell my kids when they ask me.

I tell them the Earth will adjust, that many will die but not all, and not us.

I don't know what else to say.

Will my kids be affected then, Dad, they ask?

I just don't know what to say.

recycle, use less water, etc...my pet peeve right now is plastic bags. I sent these out as Christmas gifts....http://www.chicobag.com/

But how do make them feel hope without lying about the situation?

I'm not sure there's a "feel better" answer. I think we tell them that we each do the best job that we can to conserve the earth's resources, and that we talk to our friends and family and peers about how to make changes, and we find out what causes we can support. We cannot guarantee that it will be fixed, but we will each do the best we can. I think that's all you can truthfully say. Our kids, like it or not, are growing up in a (in some ways) much less certain world than we grew up in.

but, maybe you could tell them, that its no accident that we are on this planet, at this time.. we are here for a reason .. it was our choice to be here ... to be part of the solution ... and in a universe with unlimited potential and power to create and re-create, there is no death in the way in which we are taught .. only re-birth. Live in your moment without fear, and give your creative self and your vigilant thought, to holding the image of a healing, loving planet, which will continue to support humanity until we have perfected ourselves, as God intends.

"There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

A thought, in this substance, produces the thing that is imaged by the thought.

Man can form things in his thought, and, by impressing his thought upon formless substance, can cause the things he thinks about to be created." ... Wallace D. Wattles

Faith and gratitude, NOT hope will be the glue that holds things together. I have kids also, and they ask the same questions ... they roll their eyes at first, but in their own way I know hearing this helps ... love them unconditionally all the time!

Peace,
rt

Buddhism is for me, the best and only way to reduce suffering.

children and great grandchildren a positive answer. We must not give up. Then we are doomed for sure. Life as we know it will change but the human race has survived with a lot less than we have now. One of the things we have that should endure is knowledge. If we pass this on to our children and let them know that we plan to survive then they to will persevere.

The earth isn't going to end. People will adjust and there's no need to talk about death. And say what you want to hear yourself. Say everything will be OK because people like you and your kids are taking action all over the world. Give them examples of how people have always adjusted to extreme weather. The Innuit in Alaska, the Bushmen in Africa, the Nomads in the Sahara and the Indians in the Amazon Jungle. Take the time to discuss solutions to problems that will arise. For example ask them what they might think to do to catch rainwater, or to grow some food. Get their minds busy on solutions. No matter how bad things might get there will always be solutions to the problems that will come. Nothing is hopeless.

Take the approach that the glass is half full, not half empty.

http://www.1bagatatime.com . The baggers in the grocery store love them and they're only $1.99 or less, depending how many you buy. I keep them in the trunk of my car at all times.

plastic bags as garbage bags. that way I do not have to buy trash sacks.

Too bad we're seeing it in this context.

...by the almost universal reaction (positive, needless to say) at the checkout to my response to "paper or plastic?"...which is "Neither. I brought my own." At the stores I frequent most, the cashiers don't even ask any more, which heartens me a little further.

OTOH.....is this such an infinitesimal step that it simply doesn't matter? Just how nihilist are we feeling these days?

BTW.... "my own" is a bike pack, which I got into the habit of carrying around with me when I started using a bike as my primary mode of transportation. (I sorta "co-op" a share in a small pickup truck for appropriate situations). My admittedly weird point.....I see why women favour purses, especially LARGE ones. Carrying capacity rules! I grab my pack knowing it already has everything I'm going to need.

assuming you buy enough groceries to fill them, of course.

Many of them also sell cloth shopping bags.

And no one gives me crap about my messenger bag.
It is an old medic bag, and it works fine.

I do get some plastic bags for dog walking and occaisional epoxy work, but I have a bike trailer that I can haul 50lbs of food in.
I shop most of the year at the city market, about 3 miles from my house. It is a great ride, and the food is fresh and mostly local.

Of course, I ride on the dark side, because I ride bent.

Safeway sells the cloth bags for 99 cents. Every time you use one you get a rebate of .05 so in no time they have paid for themselves. Plus they hold more than plastic and have nice comfortable handles, easy to carry.

Many benefits to using the cloth bags besides the environmental ones.

conservatives hate facts

our children have many tough obstacles to overcome but do we really want to saddle our kids with this crap. I don't.

in 2000, but they let BushCo steal it (the MSM, corporate America, repugs). Now climate change will do us all in within our lifetimes. What to tell the kids? I suppose we can lie and say that everything will be OK while we pray that they make it to 30.

growing up in the cold war era, with the missiles ready to be launched and the world ready to be consumed in flame with 15 minutes warning, well, we just didn't discuss it, we hid in somebody's basement who had a basement during the cuban missile crisis without quite discussing why we had to hide

is there any value to talking about this? will talking about it make one damn bit of difference?

if discussing it is helpful and gives them something they can do to feel helpful, okay, fine, but if discussing it is only to make them unhappy without making any change in the world, what's the point

let them raise the topic and otherwise just do the best you can

kids won't miss what they never had, when we were young, we played outdoors all day long and only came in at dark, today, the mother who allowed this would be arrested for child neglect -- and you know what? the kids don't know what they missed, they'll never know, so they're not bothered by it, it only makes us sad and once we're gone, the tigers, the frogs, the wild spaces are gone...it's sad to us because we had those things but it won't be sad to them, to them their own world of closed spacea and computers will be normal, how can they really miss an outdoors they never had?

Yours was the post that helped me.

My wife and family are from a tiny island. The dock comes right up to the houses. There is no room for sea levels to come up. A couple of feet would be devestating, 5 feet ruinous.

What do they do during high tide? Where in the world are they.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ieshima%2C_Hy%C5%8Dgo

I fear that the earth changes to come will be devastating to islands and coasts.

Do you have friends/relatives in an area that would be immune to flooding?

Also start stocking up on supplies. Make sure you and your children know basic first aid and survival skills.

The thing that sucks is, it was going to be the place I went too when the US fell apart...

I am so sorry for you. But it also means you have other places where you sometimes stay. I don't know if any are in the States, but if they are, check out survivability. Personally, I moved to the Ozarks on spiritual guidance and then found that it is considered a place with high survivability. And the nice thing is that people leave you alone.

Looks like that rock caught hell...

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter7...

and it would make high tide that much higher, for one thing.

.

I'm a good mile inland from virtually every seacoast, but still 20 feet above (current) sea level. A significant rise in ocean level would be devastating here, as well. Hell, it would be devastating for the entire planet. Once one has saved their own life from immediate extinction by moving to higher ground... or to what remains of the mainland....then what? It would be like another post-apocalyptic pot-boiler like Lucifer's Hammer or Swan Song, only for real. I'm not even sure I want to survive to experience that. Granted, it won't happen in a cataclysm, but so what?

Honest to God, my son and his girlfriend, both independently before they met, and then mutually agreed-upon after, is that the world is too f'ed up to bring more children into. And, again....honest to God, I can't bring myself to try to talk them out of that. Sure, it's their choice no matter what, but how sad is that?

.

and head in the sand Democrats

Coupled with technocrats and communists in India and China and other places

condemned them to a poisoned world.

Tell them their parents were scared sheep...that didn't dare to revolt and change policies.

nt.

All our priorities will change within about 10 years and the republicans will still be spouting the same conspiracy theories about Al Gore.

I do believe that, in the future, the US will be the one major power that resists doing anything about it. Thats what happens when one of your main political parties is basically a suicide cult (rapture right).

For more than two decades they've been lying to the American public ---
thru various propaganda campaigns and spending tens of millions to keep the
public from understand Global Warming while making huge profits.

Our legislators have also blocked information about Global Warming ---

Though some scientific info has gotten thru -- the Scientists Warning to Humanity in 1992 --
tototally ignored by the press --- corporate-media ---!!!

The Congress should enact retroactive Windfall Profits taxation on the oil industry.

we have a baby boom in America -- !!!

WTF?

If you truly understand Global Warming and the chaotic weather to come, are you still
planning to have children?

Overpopulation, that is. People want to hue and cry about the destruction of the environment, global warming, etc but we're not supposed to discuss the fact that as a species we have sowed the seeds of our own destruction, so to speak, by refusing to curb our runaway population. Which is why the situation really is hopeless. But what we refuse to address Mother Nature will, one way or another.

on the other hand then totally ignore it's reality ---

but the oil industry and those who want labor have also been very successful at using propaganda to lie about the seriousness of both issues --

The last Pope was pleading for Italian women to have more babies about 3 years ago ---
in fact, he went to the Italian Parliament to suggest that they make Italian women
have more children!! And, why? Because labor is needed for business!!!

Certainly there is something wrong with our species -- HU man ... man and womb-man.

Look at the rest of nature . . .
Only so many birds in the sky ---
Only so many ducks on a pond ---

I would say: "What are we going to tell ourselves?"

This should all clear up in a few centuries.

Think of all the people throughout history who lived in a society that didn't change from the day they were born until the day that they died.

Well, that's what I tell myself anyways...

Sigh.

and so much other stuff that has been mentioned on DU and elsewhere.

Type "What to do after Peak Oil?" into Google, which will bring up many of the useful references because Peak Oil and Climate Change are, to us on the ground level, part of the same crisis.

as a child how scared i was. my mom always read magazines like newsweek and i'll never forget the first time i read the words "greenhouse effect" and "global warming" and "deforestation" and "save the rainforest." charts to explain what was going on made sense to me even at 9 or 10 yrs of age.

my mother always recycled. she'd say, "it's up to us, every little bit counts, i'm doing this for you and your future kids." we'd load up the boxes and boxes and boxes and drive across the river to a recycling plant. it was always fun to dump the cans.

mom discouraged plastic bottles, and she NEVER let us buy paper towels like all my friends had at dinner, or paper plates for birthday parties. when we went to the grocery store, i always blushed and cringed when she'd tell the cute bagger boy to please not bag individual items into individual bags, please pile as much as possible into one bag, no bag for milk and other bulky items, and of course he always rolled his eyes. i did not know a single kid with a mom like mine. and there was a time when i was afraid my friends would think she was a weirdo, but my friends ended up worshiping her.

when i first got married 8 years ago (the year i proudly voted in my first presidential election for Gore), my husband bought some paper towels and paper plates, and she gave me a stern lecture.

now it's frightening to me as a parent. frightening that, while things may appear to moving relatively slowly, one little change could cause massive havoc. i don't know what to tell them either, but i know that i took comfort in my mother's recycling efforts. i always respected her, but now, more than EVER i appreciate what she did. i hope i can do the same for my kids. i guess all we can do is educate them and teach them to do the right thing.

Also how to ride a bicycle and grow their own food.

increased CO2 from the developing economies of asia and south asia aren't helping.

There's a 50 year delay in Global Warming ---
We are now only feeling the effects of our activity up to 1958 --- !!!!

Include now A-bomb testing and new cars and population on the roads since then!!!

Plus airline traffic -- etal.

That figure seems fabricated, but I've got an open mind. Certainly an amazing statistic if it's true. AL

Well, it's info that I've picked up along the way ---
there is a delay in GW --
You don't run your car today and then feel the effects today --- *

In fact, more than 100 years ago, they could see the effects of the industrial revolution on nature --- in particularly on trees.

But there is a delay --- at least a 50 year delay --

If I recall correctly, it was in the mid-1950's that the models of GW were showing the problem and the outcome. And by then, not everyone had a car and our population was
smaller.

I think Gore talks about a "delay" -- I don't know if he's specific as to time.

So, as we enter the period of time with ever increasing cars on the road -- and flights in the air --- the impact of GW will become even more severe.



*Naturally, we had a great clue about how unhealthy the gasoline-run car is when
you stand alongside of it on a very hot day and the car's air conditioning is running!
Or the fumes from a bus!!

It took a lot of nonsense and lies to overcome that reality!!!

We feel the ill effects quickly - and now, more quickly than predicted just a couple years ago - but if all man-made influences were eliminated immediately it would take 50 years for the warming to reverse itself, as it would take that long for the changes in atmospheric CO2 and methane to return to natural levels.

"If man-made influences were eliminated immediately" . . .
I've never seen a time estimate on putting this all back together again because there is going to have been tremendous damage done when you heat up the environment --- it leads to very chaotic weather conditions.

In fact, there is some thinking that the planet itself may not keep turning --- may not survive?
I guess we tend to think of nature as indestructible, but really it's not ---
Even if the planet survives, it may be thousands of years before it would be suitable again for live forms to reappear.

Natually, everything is going to start happening faster --- because in the past the activities which create GW were increased rapidly. Additionally, there's no way of knowing how this will all compound--!! For instance, the lake effect with snow --- the Great Lakes used to be frozen, so when the prevailing winds passed over they didn't pick up moisture --- now they do and then they dump snow when they next reach land.

Same thing with melting ice bergs ---
The more melting, the faster the melting --- ice deflects sun, but the melted areas will now aborb heat.

Mixture of salt and fresh water from melting iceberg?
The La Nina and El Nino systems which were once in every 1,000 year or once in every 2,000 year events which are now occuring frequently?
Death of species? Polar Bears --- Bees?
The UN has warned in December 2007 of serious food shortages ---

What about nuclear weapons ---
and nuclear weapon testing --- what role did they play in this?
Also, we exploded at least three nuclear weapons in outer space in ...
I think it was late 1950's or early 1960's ---
Meanwhile, it takes 6 months to properly shut down a nuclear power plant ---
We have at least 106 older plants across the nation ---
and there are plans in the works to build something like 30 more?

So, how might this all compound given tornadoes, clyclones -- increasingly forceful
hurricanes and winds?



PS: Because there were UFO sightings again in Texas recently --
a large spaceship more than a mile long and half a mile wide ---
similar to the Phoenix sightings of a few years ago . . .
I'll mention that often people who had these experiences would talk about warnings re our planet -- nuclear weapons, pollution, overpopulation. It's in some of those revelations that a time shift
of about 10,000 years might be necessary before EARTH was again able to support life??????

At least . . . that's some of what I've heard an read ---

i don't have time to look it up but someone else might, but i'm pretty sure 1958 was the International Geophysical Year and this is why many measurements/models start there

better measurements/models of course came when we had a better network of weather satellites in orbit around the other, something not possible at 1958's level of tech

i don't believe the current models are based only on what was in the atmosphere 1958 and earlier but there are probably some baseline models somewhere like this

you will encounter older literature, such as the 1950s isaac asimov essay someone ref'd the other day, concerning what was then called "the green house effect," and you will learn that many scientists did fear that such an effect was coming, even as far back as the 1950s, with a burst of concern in the popular media in the 1970s, again, we didn't have the weather satellite records or computer power to do much about those hypothesis just the good horse sense that came from observation of the "greenhouse effect" on a small scale

but people have known we had a risk of destroying our climate for a long, long time

hence 1958 is not a completely ridiculous year to cite, altho i'm not sure where the poster is getting this particular concept

This is THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IMHO!!!!

I believe the #1 issue is the greedy assholes in charge of governments (especially ours) and in charge of corporations that condone and do so much against nature only to further themselves now without one single care about the future or future generations. Without those assholes the addressing of the problem would be easier. No matter if it is purely from mankind, from mankind and nature, or just from nature it is a real problem and to just ignore it is comparable to ignoring a large cancerous lesion on your back believing it would've been there whether you sunbathed or not so you'll continue to sunbathe and not see a doctor to try and do something about it. i saw a program recently that stated they had found a lake under the antarctica about 2 miles down indicating the fast rate of melt occuring there.
I for one would like to have the punishment fit the crime when all of this shit hits the fan and let them try swimming 25-50 miles to see if they can survive without something solid to swim to like the polar bears have to. Who would be in charge to carry out said punishment is redundant as they won't cast punishment upon themselves let alone admit any wrongdoing. Pelosi can add that crimes against nature is off of the table too.

Onward to a brokered convention and a Gore nomination...

If true.

I don't think Gore wants or needs to clean up the mess left behind by Bush. It would only distract him from his life purpose - saving the planet.

Isn't it too late to file papers then?

I'd love to hear him do it ---
but Gore also has a life long career relationship with the oil industry ---
what was the name of the company which has backed him?

But government backing for Occidental's Colombia proposal runs far deeper than the Gore family's stock portfolio. The Nation has learned, from a government source and the internal memos of an Occidental lobbyist, that the Clinton Administration has been quietly helping the company--a generous donor to the Democrats in recent years--to win support in Colombia for its drilling plans. While Gore has strong ties to Occidental, the Administration's point man on the issue is Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who last year traveled to Cartagena and met with government officials on the company's behalf. Richardson has also hired a former Occidental lobbyist to work in a key international-policy position at the Energy Department.
snip>
Traditionally a Republican firm, Occidental was linked to the Democrats for many years primarily through Gore's father, Senator Al Gore Sr. The elder Gore was such a loyal political ally that Occidental's founder and longtime CEO, Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore "in my back pocket." When Gore Sr. left the Senate in 1970, Hammer gave him a $500,000-a-year job at an Occidental subsidiary and a seat on the company's board of directors. At the time of his death in 1998, Gore the elder's estate included hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of Occidental stock. The Vice President is the executor of the estate, which still includes the stock and whose chief beneficiary is his mother.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/050500-103.htm

we have to understand it's natural links to the war-making industry --- MIIC.

See: "3 Days of the Condor" --- Robt. Redford

See: "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Beijing would not look like this:


Aside from the Constitutional problems with seizing private property without compensation,
it is not clear how putting the government in control of the oil companies would do anything
to solve the problems associated with global warming or peak oil.

What would you have a state-owned petroleum monopoly do?
Are you looking for cheaper fuel by eliminating oil company profits from the equation?
Wouldn't that cause us to use even more?

What you are looking for with HONEST nationalization of the oil industry is returning the public's control over natural resources -- all of them.

We don't have to pound down all of our natural resources --
And, more likely we would have been on a more sane search for alternative energy of
every kind.

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

Stop thinking in terms of "fuel" --

Further, when there are profits involved, we use more --- not less.
Obviously, when we look at MPG, Detroit has been working for the oil industry!!!

Whenever someone puts "honest" in all-caps, it sets off alarm bells. Just so you know that.

Are you proposing the seizure of all private property of any kind?
If so, it is hardly fair to criticize Gore for not joining you on that quest.



There are plenty of ways to accomplish that without having the government seize everything.
If that is not what you had in mind, please clarify.



GM is an easy target. Are you proposing to nationalize them?
They'll be run by the government soon enough in the person of a bankruptcy trustee.
If the government bails them out, they might end up with a controlling interest.
Either way, GM is an easy target, and you could nationalize them without running afoul of the Constitution.
But you were talking about oil.



Your post was about nationalizing oil. I was responding to that.

It seems you want to nationalize everything.



For them to run themselves to the edge of bankruptcy at the behest of the oil companies would imply a level of financial control that ought to be fairly visible.
It would also give the oil companies an incentive to bail the car companies out, which they are not doing.
I think the real problem Detroit has is that they aren't car companies, they're truck companies. They have just about forgotten how to build cars.
Their small cars are awful. Unreliable, uncomfortable, poor fuel economy, not a hybrid among them.
They can't compete with the Japanese companies when it comes to building small cars. They never have been able to do so.

It simply means moving from private to national control. Much like 'eminent domain' - the government pays a fair market price to buy the owners out. Most employees would even retain their same jobs, but be paid by someone else.

What nationalizing would do is keep the company from spending millions in PR to prop up their own product and undercut competitors, like wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal power. The main reason most people think those are unviable options is because of oil company PR TELLING them they are unviable options.

It's not about making it cheaper - it's about utilizing a limited resource more rationally. Will we be better off in a hundred years and there is NO oil left?

Wind picks up the dust and carries it across China over to Japan every year. Sometimes the air here in Japan looks tinged the same color, just not as thick with desert dust.

But I hope he would answer the call in the case of a brokered Convention.

First we have to make sure Hillary doesn't get 2025 delegates in her bag.*

GORE-OBAMA 2008

* But we already know that 50% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be women.

Such a shame his words and warnings have no meaning to you.

to elect him again...

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.

above all else.

There are so many people who just don't get it or refuse to believe it, though. A Bush loving Repug I was talking to just yesterday called it "global warnings". He thought buying American made cars would solve the problem.

and rec

...put all those little red 'sarcasms' there...I was worried.

You could have put yourself into a position to enact some real and binding changes, but you blew it off and now we get to pay for it.

It would have been yours on a silver platter.

Gore gave every indication he was going to run. People walked up to him after speaking engagements and urged him to consider it and he said “I am.” He was coy, he did all the right things for a great winning campaign. But he didn’t have the stomach for a bare knuckle fight which is what it will ALWAYS take regardless of the concerts etc. etc. More is expected of those who can do more. Gore included. He chickened out.

He will not be the nominee. Gore also hasn’t endorsed Edwards even though that is the logical thing. Edwards will not be the nominee.

Hillary will be the nominee and she will lose. Why do you think Murdock loves her so much? Because she’s the power structure’s designated loser. She will drag down Democrats in the Senate and House. Our control of Capitol Hill is in danger if she’s the nominee.

There are only a couple weeks till she breezes through super Tuesday and nobody can stop her in just two weeks. She's way ahead in the state polls of Democrats. If her support dips the touchscreens will save her. The power structure wants her. They want her because they have dossiers on her a mile thick. No one has so much dirt in their resume as Hillary does and the GOP knows it. Her nomination is inevitable, and so is her loss in November. I'm flabbergasted that Gore didn't run. This was his moment. He could have united the party like no one else.

like the ones who selected Hillary and Obama to be the top two candidates in the Dumbocratic primary. Gore showed tremendous restraint and wisdom by not running. Now we have to sleep in the bed the Democrats made by choosing someone without experience and someone with a lot of national ill-will felt toward her. This fucking country is hopeless. Too many morons making moronic decisions, and they're on both sides of the political divide.

stupidist post of the year to date. You had a lot of competition, but by god, you did it!!111!!

maybe you should look up what he is doing and what his organizations are doing to help solve this crisis before making such an ignorant comment.

but he had the PERFECT opportunity to give himself the biggest position against global warming by running for president, and he blew it really really bad. He would have virtually been immune to Billary, because he is a part of their legacy, in every imaginable way. This nomination would have wrapped up, he woulda won every primary, he has it all, change credentials AND experience, and he can run on the Clinton Presidential Legacy without being part of the dynasty Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton progression. And he has already proved his electablility against the toughest opponent George W Bush, who was actually a much harder opponent than ANY current GOP hopeful could ever be because Bush could unite ALL wings of the party. nobody now can. And with Hillary and Obama, we run big risks with the dyansty thing on Hillary AND her Iraq war hypocricy, and Barack Hussein Obama's name, and inexperience.

And got what we deserved.

and i'm referring to getting a good candidate, which we lack right now, we have OK candidates instead in terms of electablility

just to spite al gore are unfit parents who should have their children taken away from them. they are willing, at the very least, to destroy the planet their children will inherit from them. just because their masters who speak in talking points tell them to do so. did i say unfit parents? fuck that. they are unfit human beings.

That's a very frightening sentiment, I really hope you're not that controlling in real life.

There is enough doubt surrounding the causes of climate change (and there are some who have said we are about to enter a period of cooling) that we should hold-off ripping away individual liberty.

Before you say "those that dissent have conflicts of interest", so do those supporting this hysteria. Not only do they want to further their careers by agreeing with popular opinion (something that scientists have done since the beginning of science), they also don't want to be left out of the committees that get to write public policy (imagine the feelings of self importance!).

Liberals are not supposed to fall into the "group-think = good, dissent = bad" trap.

Plus, we should be more worried about carcinogenic emissions, anyways.

That is the msm's take, now that Al Gore has made it clear he's not running.

For the duration of his prize-winning, rock-star status, and while speculation and hope still existed that he'd throw in his hat, this statement might have been covered. In fact, while he was able to keep us all guessing before the primaries, everything he said was seized and taken apart for its "real" meaning. It served to advance his agenda.

Yesterday, he endorsed gay marriage -- a huge issue for any courageous political figure to take up. That and his statement today at Davos remain on the front page at DU for a few hours, then sink like a stone. Without dissing DU, that's hardly the same as scrutiny (even negative scrutiny) in the Washington Post.

Sadly, I believe Al's ship came in and he missed it. Even more sadly, I believe henceforth he's sittin' on the dock, wastin' time.

K&R

when a former vice-president and failed presidential candidate says something...not too many people take notice.

good luck with that movement Al- but "the people" aren't going to be willing to make any changes until the kind of catastrophe that means it's already too late to stop it starts happening.

Sounds kind of like a new KO feature ...

That's the stock answer to all suggestions of driving less, living in smaller houses, living closer to work, shopping locally, keeping the thermostat lower in the winter (I'm at 65°, and it's 4° F outside now, running the air conditioner only when you're actually on the verge of getting sick from the heat (some people in my building run theirs when it's 75° out). People insist that they "need" to drive to work when there's a perfectly good transit system, live in a house twice the size of the one they grew up in, even though they have half the number of children their parents did;live in the exurbs to afford said house, buy the same mountains of mass market junk as everyone else, keep the house warm enough to grow palm trees in the winter and cold enough that they have to wear a sweater indoors in the summer.

I think that too many Americans have unconsciously absorbed the Libertarian variety of selfishness.

I'm sick of the "but I need a big vehicle because I have two kids and a dog" blah, blah, blah. My parents had 7 children and we managed with one regular sized car, a very small house, one bathroom. I don't remember feeling deprived. We learned to share, compromise, work out our differences, do without, be happy with what we had.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy /

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy /

They don't seem to have a real sense of urgency about the greatest threat to humankind, do they? Once in office, they'll care even less.

Why didn't you run, Al?!!!!!

I wrote to anyone who would listen in 2000 saying that we were running out of time on the global warming thing. That if we made drastic changes then, we might be able to head it off. 2009 is too late and whoever wins is still going to be a capitalist president and Congress.

and we aren't going to stop carbon output anytime soon- it's still going UP.

you also have to add in the INCREASED ACTIVITY during those 50 years --

So you're not only feeling the effects of what we did up to 1958 ---
you're going to be feeling the INCREASED ACTIVITY of everything we did after that date!!!

WHICH IS ONE HELL OF A LOT . . . !!!!

... there are already backlashes in Europe over this. Much like the "war on terror", it's used as an excuse to allow the government to control individuals' lives however it wants.

You are obviously not a scientist. Much as the media would like to portray "disagreements" and "conflict" in the scientific community, it just does not exist.

interest.

I posted this somewhere else I think, but:

There is enough doubt surrounding the causes of climate change (and there are some who have said we are about to enter a period of cooling) that we should hold-off ripping away individual liberty.

Before you say "those that dissent have conflicts of interest", so do those supporting this hysteria. Not only do they want to further their careers by agreeing with popular opinion (something that scientists have done since the beginning of science), they also don't want to be left out of the committees that get to write public policy (imagine the feelings of self importance!).

Liberals are not supposed to fall into the "group-think = good, dissent = bad" trap.

Plus, we should be more worried about carcinogenic emissions, anyways.

Feel free to post any and all peer-reviewed scientific articles showing:

1. That levels of atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs are not rising rapidly.
2. That CO2 and other GHGs do not absorb long-wave radiation from the sun.
3. That this rapid increase in GHGs did not coincide with the Industrial Revolution circa 1750.
4. That this increase has not increased even more rapidly since 1958, from which point we have precise year-on-year tracking data.
5. That carbon isotope balances prove that atmospheric CO2 is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels
6. That most glaciers and icefields, especially mountain glaciers in the tropics, are not receding.
7. That the Arctic ice cap is, in fact, growing, rather than shrinking in extent and thickness
8. That oceans are, in fact, growing less acidic, rather than more acidic from the amount of atmospheric carbon they absorb
9. That Arctic ice in the Beaufort Sea is, in fact, not disintegrating right now, in January.
10. That no global average temperature records have been set in the last 30 years.

Come, Water.

Thrill us with your scientific acumen and your access to vast reams of press releases from the American Enterprise Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, the Cato Institute, James Inhofe, Fred Singer and Michael Crichton.

Make us proud to have you with us here at DU.

Thanks, hatrack.

...that temperatures have increased.

What we are trying to prove is:

1. There are other factors (possibly greater than human technology) causing the increase, like the sun (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-... ).
2. Earth might be about to enter a cooling cycle (http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html ), making all of the worrying useless.
3. The money spent to combat global-warming is not cost-effective compared to the damage it has caused, and the money could be better spent reducing carcinogenic emissions. Or, leave the money in the hands of indiduals (the market) and allow it to innovate and create new products, increasing the quality of life much more than human-caused climate change could destroy it.
4. Most of the proposals allow the government too great a control on individuals' lives in the name of "climate security" (the right-wing has the "war on terror", the left- wing has the "war on climate change").
5. Many of the proposals (again, eerily similar to the "war on terror") are recycled from earlier far-left-wing proposals that had nothing to do with climate change. In other words: this presents the perfect opportunity to push their radical programs on the population (and it's always in the name of security).

I have a low tolerance for this kind of propaganda spew anymore

When Bush invaded Iraq I was participating on a discussion board where most of the people supported the invasion and they couldn't figure out why I was out on the streets protesting. The consensus there was that the war would be over quickly. I told them it would drag on for years and years, kill hundreds of thousands people and cost billions and maybe trillions of dollars, and that we would eventually have to withdraw as we did in Viet Nam. I haven't been back to that board for a long time, but maybe I'm waiting for us to cut our losses in Iraq and retreat so I can be entirely prescient about the disaster.

But it sucks to be right about something like this.

If you believe we will be able to increase "...the quality of life much more than human-caused climate change could destroy it" by creating "new products" I believe you are tragically mistaken.

The plane we are all riding in is going to crash. The decisions we make soon -- very soon -- will determine if it is a hard crash landing or a soft one. Either way, a lot of us are going to suffer and die.

I figure in ten years you'll be buckled into your seat with the rest of us watching the ground approach with frightful speed, like Mother Nature's Great Fist of Death. If anyone still believes the magic hand of the marketplace will intervene to set us gently down, they will keep that to themselves.

That I don't need to tell my kids anything, because it would be unfair to bring children into a world like this. They either grasp the way the world works and end up profoundly depressed that rational decisionmaking takes a back seat to deep psychology in pretty much everything we do, or they don't grasp the way the world works and make things worse for those that do.

Sorta like having to choose between being an Alpha or an Epsilon, except this time the Soma is illegal and the stakes are higher.

And that's also without stating the obvious that 6,500,000,000 plus 1 equals too many.

Stop saying crazy stuff. Next thing you know, you'll be saying Bush's wiretapping was illegal or the War on Drugs has caused a massive erosion of the Fourth Amendment. Such anti-dogmatic positions will get you punished by the appropriate authorities. Do not question your masters!

All I know is I'm freezing my you-know-whats off due to this global warming.

Freezing? Warming? Hey, wait a minute...

> All I know is I'm freezing my you-know-whats off due to this global warming.
>
> Freezing? Warming? Hey, wait a minute...

Never heard of them? Me neither (until a few weeks back, when the same shit surfaced elsewhere). From their website (emphasis added):

EDIT

John L. Casey
Director, Space and Science Research Center

Mr. Casey has accumulated over thirty years of professional experience spanning a wide variety of technologies, industries, and international endeavors, to include performing important services as a space policy advisor to the White House, and Congress. He has been a consultant to NASA Headquarters, and conducted satellite launch studies for the Department of Defense. His experience also includes being a former space shuttle engineer, military missile and computer systems officer, advanced rocketry and commercial space developer. He has an extensive executive management background in the start-up and financing of high technology companies. He has a BS degree in Physics and Mathematics and an MA degree in Management. He is active in his community in environmental and conservation activities and was past Chairman of GFSD, an international charity that provided aid to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can contact Mr. Casey directly at mail@spaceandscience.net

His scientific paper, "The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity" also called the "RC Theory," is available at the 'RC Theory" page on this site. It also includes a significant amount of corroborating research references as well as a link to the NASA web site that discusses the current changes in the sun's surface flow that presage the coming of the next climate change according to the SSRC.

EDIT

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html

Goh-lee! Mr. Casey has an undergraduate degree in math and physics! What about his peer-reviewed scientific publications record? Well, funny thing, if he has one, it isn't posted on his website.

Of course, he does now have two new colleagues, who weren't there the last time I checked the site. Dr. Boris Komitov from Bulgaria did have a link to an "important paper", which resulted in a blank PDF when I tried to link to it, but he does at least have (1) a Ph.D and (2) a background in astronomy. Too bad about the paper. There's also Dr. Ernest Njau, currently teaching at the University of Dar es Salaam, with a background in Electronics and Meteorology, including a Ph.D in Radio Communications, whatever that is.

You do understand the concept of "peer reviewed", don't you, Water?

In case it didn't quite sink in the first time, National Geographic and press releases from the "Space And Science Research Center" don't count.

> ... Or, leave the money in the hands of indiduals (the market) and
> allow it to innovate and create new products, increasing the quality
> of life much more than human-caused climate change could destroy it.
(Your bolding)

1) Did you see how "well-managed" the market was earlier this week?
2) Have you seen how much sheer crap has been "innovated" over the last few years?
3) Do you see any signs that the plutocracy is getting less powerful?

And you can still come out with an emphasised quote like that?


> What we are trying to prove is:

Have you got a mouse in your pocket or something?

Strangely enough, all five of your points are recycled right-wing/libertarian
topics that people interested in the environment have seen deniers post time
after time.

Pursuing Casey, found these interesting opinions.

http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/68846-who-ssrc...

Noteably, also googled Casey, and found, for such an important guy, nobody seems to have heard of him. No listings on the first couple pages - not worth searching beyond that.

He's a nobody, a corporate shill for the oil companies.