Al Gore has written a powerful and insightful essay about global warming in the New York Times, wherein he says:
"...changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of
newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in
This one's worth downloading and passing around. Where would the US be today if Al Gore had been given the office that he unquestionably won? No war in Iraq, for one thing--and thus Iran kept in regional check.
"Al Gore" is a name I hear thrown out with derision and contempt every time it snows or gets cold. Whatever relevant points he has to make are lost on people by the mere mention of his name. Too many people are caught up on the emotional politics of "Gore" and "going green", that even some smart people have become wholly unreasonable.
It would be nice to have a mulligan for 2000. As Jeff stated above, we would still have our fair share of problems, but I am almost certain that Iraq would not have been one of them. At least not to anywhere near the degree it has been and will continue to be.
Back in 2000 I thought Al Gore would be a great president! I would still support him before anyone else. I knew that Bush was an unmitigated disaster, initially, way before he unequivocally proved it to the thinking world. Being Stupid, ruthless, a liar, an idiolog, and an establishment (of religion) freak are not the characteristics that I look for in a Presidential candidate. Bush was the "perfect storm" of those traits. The election (sort of) of Bush was the worst thing to befall this country likely to occur in any of our lifetimes. The other tragedy of Bush's election (sort of) is that the other choice was a brilliant and honorable man who I think would have been one of our great presidents! The difference to our past, present and future? - We'll never fully realize how great!
The other tragedy of Bush's election (sort of) is that the other choice was a brilliant and honorable man who I think would have been one of our great presidents! The difference to our past, present and future? - We'll never fully realize how great!
That's right. No way we can ever know. But this country was certainly robbed of its far nobler and abler elected leadership at a crucial time in its history by a transparently politicized Supreme Court. I have to say, however, that in my mind the ultimate blame must go to Bill Clinton and his Achilles' dick, because if not for Monica, Al would have won the presidency handily--since an unblemished Bill would have been able to campaign for him. Sad.
While Climate change is a reality Gore is not a good source of information due to his political leanings. he has manipulated information before and is a laughing stock of the scientific community. his early scare tactics were terribly flawed and biased.
As far as I can tell, Al Gore's politics have little, if anything, to do with whether his information is good or reliable. On what exactly do you base such an assertion? What information has Al Gore "manipulated"?
To allege that Gore is the "laughing stock of the scientific community," is just flat-out wrong. In fact, the scientific community, by and large, holds him in very high regard, particularly with respect to the climate change issue, because he has done a great deal to present such a complex global problem accurately and persuasively before people who would otherwise lack a comprehensive, digestible analysis of the challenges we face. His NY Times article, which is a very strong piece, is the latest example of Gore's forceful and forthright efforts to communicate fact-based information to great numbers of people in this country and around the world.
If you can cite any evidence at all, Jesse, of where Gore's tactics might have been "terribly flawed and biased," this is the place to do it. Indeed, such insulting and frankly doubtful claims require evidential support.
I looked back over the research and realized that early in Gore's talks and his release of information was based off an incomplete model of the changes in our world. I had not read much on Gore in the recent years and found all his later information. Nature released an article in Jan 2010 called The Real Holes in Climate Science hat covers the issue's with current climate change models.
It seems to me that sounding the alarm as early as possible was a good idea.
I agree. We do very poorly at being proactive about something as slow moving and subtle (for humans) as climate change. The change is like a slow moving freight train that no one feels threatened by because their shack hasn't been run over yet and the train is quite a ways away. Most people don't realize that the breaks have to be applied a mile away in order to stop it in time.
The worst part about this is that the nations that need to adapt the most are the same ones that will likely be affected last. Affected, at least, in ways that will spurn the major changes needed. It is a perfect recipe for a slow catastrophe.
I don't know who Hawkins is but he hit the nail on the head with his comparison between climate change deniers and creationists.
Well, while I'm sure there's plenty of overlap--creationists, of course, are already very accomplished deniers (they're naturals)--the climate change deniers also comprise many less retrograde intellects who are actually pretty familiar with popular science and who don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis. They relish acting like hardline skeptics and scoff artists.