he completely disappeared, pgabriel. after 2000, his image wasn't good. among dems or republicans. he looked a helluva lot better after bush sucked. why am i skeptical of him? i'm skeptical of every politician.
i'm not saying he doesn't genuinely care. i was responding to the question of "what does he have to gain?" again, politicians use fear of all sorts of things to assume and maintain power. i understand he hasn't run for office recently. i still consider the man to be a politician.
so what does he have to gain if you agree he's not running for office. what does being an environmentalist gain you?
yeah, he is doing it all out of the goodness of his heart, which is why he also leaves a huge "carbon footprint". He probably does care but everyone wants clean water, air, limited pollution etc. However, sometimes the superficial way to solve a problem creates other environmental concerns. BUt its naive to think he doesnt have some financial gains laying in the back.
this is the problem with the criticism of environmentalist, not only is there no political gain, there's no financial gain. what can you gain financially from being an activist on global warming. this isn't to say one side is right or wrong, its just a baseless criticism. if you want to criticize the logic that's fine.
no, because americans don't want to conserve. its lip service. seriously, name one candidate who got elected on running on the environment
Can't. Seem to. Quit. Posting. Agree, Max. And it is *possible* that this is all chicken-little stuff. We never know for sure. Here is some more data, combining all sorts of studies, including tree bore and ice core data, blah blah: So you can see a slow trend, a la Jorge's point (I mean rhetorical, not his conical cranium), but the recent surge is what worries people. Even with the generous uncertainties (shaded areas), recent years look like the warmest in 2000 years. Time will tell, but not even in our lifetimes. pgab, I guess you can say there is movie and book revenue to gain, and the appearance of a moral highground for an environmental champion. you'll never convince skeptics to trust the intentions of a lifelong politician, I'd say. Not worth trying, in my view, though you did, once again, get Max to say he's totally wrong.
how many times did Al Gore serve as senator? you're telling me that there aren't any districts in this country where running as an environmentalist won't help?
Like anything it's a tradeoff. Do you want to be more efficient or do you want a better environment. Corporations (factories) push for more efficient working and others are pushing to be more enviro friendly. To enviro friendly would cripple our economy and to much efficiency would kill us. The money behind the factory push is obviously higher.
lol. are you serious? ok, what if a person owned a stake in a "green" company that would benefit from a movement of "going green"? You dont think that company, and its backers, would have a vested interest to push the "green" issue even harder? {ring} {ring} it's reality...pick it up.
okay, I should avoid arguing in absolutes, I'm sure there a districts where people vote on the environmental issues. but as far as gore is concerned I'm sure he wasn't elected in tenn because he was a champion for the environment. he also ran on things like banning offensive lyrics from rap music.
example, please edit: I'm sure there are laws that are passed that are backed by environmental friendly companies that benifit their industry. but that really has nothing to do with global warming.
true. ALso, some of the "green" products could actually be worse for the invironment. For example, CFLs. yes they use less energy and last longer, but they also take more production power and resources plus use mercury. (im not saying that CFLs are right or wrong, but people tend to only look at its benefits yet ignore its costs).
I guess I'm the odd person out, but I think the data are a million times more interesting than Mr. Al Gore, his life, his career, and his motivations. He is separate from the scientists, and I think a lot of scientists cringe when they hear his dumb voice saying "Dr. Poopty Poop is a good friend, and we ..." The thread's hyperbolic, slanderous title says people are lying about climate change. What was caught was a fairly minor data analysis mistake, of slight relevance to north america but insignificant globally. The mistake was not only caught but also corrected and publicly relayed. (shrug) Not sure what the big deal is or what the skeptics want here. If only politicians, off all stripes, were that forthcoming with the facts and the data, we'd probably be a lot better off.
