I saw 'an inconvinient truth', and it seemed to make sense. I've heard that 'all the scientists agree', in fact I always hear that exact phrase - but never any leading names or more detail It is plausable, that by joining a venture capital firm, that he can now allign the v capital process to solve a problem, that his ideas can influence capital or vice versa - and that's the problem h-1b issue proved that money affects Gore's hearing does he use low watt reading lights on his private jet? i'm open minded - maybe gw is true and we need to do something about it but we need someone heading it that does not have such an obvious conflict of interest, politically and financially, and does not have a giant house, a cadillac and a private jet
and, what did he really do about it while he was VP? in his film, he says he's known about this since college Chinese & Indian middle class exploded while he was VP, with all the jobs and manufacturing he sent there at the expense of working Americans - he debated Perot in favor of NAFTA Now all this manufacturing is beyond the regulation of USA's EPA Global warming may in fact be real, but Gore's word means nothing to me
Sounds like Gore invented GW during the 1960's while he was in college, about the same time when he invented the internet. That was 10 years before the global cooling scare. Truly ahead of his time as all great thinkers are. He's known about GW since the 1960's, but kept it to himself because the sheeple were not ready to accept it until recently when the time was right in his career.
I don't know, some of the posts make sense here, but the conflict of interest thing I don't know if I totally agree with. I'm not a big fan of Gore, but I did see his movie, and I think there is very likely something to GW. Bill Gates lives in a mansion and has a Jet, and donates a zillion dollars via his private charity, some of it going for environmental concerns, as do a lot of philantropists. I think that making money and working in the public eye is not a bad thing, except maybe for the Britney Spears types, LOL. And, what is so wrong about conserving, recycling, and all the rest? I'm a true Independent, but shouldn't the conservative party want to save money and resources as much as the liberal party? I don't think it has to be a moonbat vs. neocon issue, but somehow it seems everything has to be these days. c
What I want to know is where is the program, where's the plan, where are the solutions to GW other than increased spending, more taxes, and talk. Instead of the GW plop, what about doing something of significance, something real. I want cleaner energy sources. I want clean air. I want health. I want high efficiency. I want to conserve and save money. It's past time for replacing the internal combustion engine. California has spent billion$ on cleaning up the state's air only to measure significant pollution coming from China negating any improvements they have made. There is no talk of any of that. After the so-called GW plan is implemented, they will focus on C02, not decreasing pollution. It's likely pollution and inefficiencies will increase, ethanol for example. Typical of governments, they will make something worse. There will not be the added benefit of cleaner air if they attack CO2. The focus will be on making the planet cooler and CO2, not making it cleaner. They will never bring CO2 levels down until the next cooling cycle of the sun. As the earth warms (as all the other planets are warmer), the oceans release more CO2. The colder the water, the more CO2 it can hold. They will end up doing absolutely nothing about GW other than appearing to do something to justify spending and taxes, which is typical of governments when they scare people about a crisis and then implement feel-good policies.
One simple question - do you think Al Gore provided any leadership on energy conservation while he was VP? 1998 TV ad 'Chevy suburban, the biggest sport utility on the planet' by 1998, the energy conservation ethic started in 1973 had completely gone up in smoke - on his watch and his open borders policies (that both parties share) blew our national energy needs sky high my point is that the '2 party' system is a complete farce
I agree with you two, and yes, we could certainly use a better plan. FTF made one of my points for me, let's do the right things, let's conserve more, recycle more, develop more efficient technologies to replace fossil fuels. This doesn't even have to be done because of GW or lack thereof. It's simply the right thing to do no matter what. What I fear is that because of political rivalry, neither side will get anyhwhere. It can't be AL GORE, and it can't be the Energy driven right, so who then? Science channel had an interesting report on newer types of Lithium Ion batteries that carried EV's 150+ miles on a single overnight charge and ran for about 1 cent per mile. Geo-thermal was presented as well and of course, wind power can certainly help. Doing nothing or fighting improvements simply because we don't want Gore to appear to be standard bearer just makes no sense. I don't care who takes some of the credit, there is plenty of credit to go around, with or without the details of GW. c