| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Things Are Getting Gorey,,, |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Thursday, December 3, 2009 Gore cancels climate conference event Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week. As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack." Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders. "We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. . . . We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company. The ClimateDepot,com, an online news aggregator that tracks global-warming news reports, referred to the situation as "Nopenhagen," and evidence that popular momentum for the Copenhagen conference "is fading." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-c openhagen/ Smart move, Al. That's the only way not to field questions about Climategate.. . . Gore Should Give Back Oscar, Two Academy Members Say Friday, December 4, 2009 1:05 PM Two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have called on the group to take back the Oscar awarded to former Vice President Al Gore for the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd made the request based on the e-mails that a hacker/whistle blower released revealing that so-called scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England systematically falsifying data to support the theory that the earth is heating up and that humans caused it. "An Inconvenient Truth," a film based on a climate-change speech that Gore developed, won the Academy Award for best documentary feature in 2007. (Coincidentally, the next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. ) That same year, the Academy elevated Gore's PowerPoint lecture, helping him to snag a Nobel Peace Prize as well. The academy members' request that Gore return his statue is happening as preparations are under way for next week's United Nations climate change meeting in Copenhagen, where 16,500 people from 192 countries will fly in using private jets, consume 200,000 meals, and produce an estimated 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gore_Oscar_climate/2009/12/04/294502.html |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike finds it worthy of comment that two members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences want Al Gore to give his Oscar back. To me it appears that this is another attempt for Mike to see if he can kick Vice President Gore again and perhaps get a rise out of the Vice President, who has better things to do. Apparently I don't today. It occurs to me that Mike is hoping that nobody will think to inquire how many members the Academy actually has. That way they might measure the importance of Mike's quotation and of the objectivity of his source in judging the new-worthiness of it's articles. There are, according to Wikipedia, 6000 members in the academy. I find it pretty surprising that there weren't more people that couldn't be pressured into making a basically off-the-wall political statement like this. Maybe there's more good sense in the world than I thought. Mike also seemed to miss the article in the same publication that he quotes on Vice President Gore's bruising run-in with one-three thousandth of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. That's the article that says that there may actually seem to be something to that global warming stuff after all. It's a good thing that the magazine doesn't seem to be such hot stuff, or Mike might actually have to figure out what to do here. My money is on trying to call me names or change the subject, but that's only on the basis of past history. http://www.newsmax.com/science/us_climate_2008/2009/12/04/294499.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My money is on trying to call me names You overestimate yourself, Bob. and perhaps get a rise out of the Vice President There you overestimate ME. I'm sure Gore could care less what I think. Have you heard of ANY members of the Academy who have ever called for the return of an Oscar? I can't recall one... ...and the backing out of Copenhagen? Gore has a record of not debating or fielding questions with any specificity in regards to his claims of global warming. Obviously he's laying low, knowing that he would be asked questions he doesn't want to try to answer. I must have been a torturous decision for him, passing up that cash, which he seldom ever does. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Bob, you mentioned Mike's name at least 6 times in your response...it almost sounds like you have a vendetta against him instead of just responding to the articles, that Mike did not write... I don't understand why this always seems to become a verbal personal battle rather than a discussion of the facts or non facts... just my opinion when reading tonight M |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear N.T., No, Mike didn't write the articles. But he did make a choice as to exactly which articles to chose, and which parts of those chosen articles he would select, didn't he? And he hasn't as a rule let a chance to say something unpleasant about former Vice-President Gore or President Clinton go, either. This doesn't mean that I object to hearing critical material about these folks or any folks. I do tend to object to hearing gratuitously abusive or obscene material, however. Despite my feelings for our last President Bush, you won't hear me calling him by nickname. Nor would you hear me calling him some of the things he calls former President Clinton. Mike's reference to "Climategate" suggests that there is some sort of political scandal related to Vice-President Gore's behavior in relationship to this. This is not the sort of treatment that I believe should go unremarked upon. Mike is certainly free to bring up whatever issues he chooses to bring up. At some point, however, the issue can become, Why is this issue significant? except as a way of harping on an ad hominem point of political attack rather than as a discussion of the issue at hand? Two out of six thousand members of the Academy want to get Vice President Gore to give back a two year old Oscar, and now Mike wants to rehash his opinions on why he dislikes Vice-President Gore? Tell me true, N.T., is this a chance to discuss the incredible significance of what one-three-thousandth of The Academy thinks about an old Oscar, or is this a chance for Mike to vent about Vice President Gore again? I don't want to get in Mike's way in talking about Vice President Gore, mind you; I'm in favor of free speech. I simply want some for myself as well. I want to be able to share what I think, about going through this all over again; and about my thrill level in doing so. This isn't a vendetta. I like Mike, I simply find his political method here a bit painful, and I reserve the right to say Ouch. I also like to make sense when I do so, and to let others know exactly what I'm in the middle of ouching about. This is clearly my failure. I'm not sure if I've made myself any more understandable or palatable, but I have tried. If there's anything that I can say that can clear anything that I'm doing or trying to do up any more, I'll be happy to do so. I don't want to be mysterious. Nor do I want to indulge in a personal attack on Mike. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
People can exaggerate Al Gore's mistakes and "Climategate" all they want, but Global Warming will continue to be an issue, because it is also a truth. We either face it the hard way or the hardest way. It is up to us. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I agree. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I wasn't speaking of Gore's "mistakes", Ess. I was referring to his lies. Yes, of course, global warming will continue to be an issue...and governments will continue to salivate while speaking of it. Count on that... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
UN climate conference opens with pressure on US AP Scientists say without such an agreement, the Earth will face the consequences of ever-rising temperatures, leading to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal cities, more extreme weather events, drought and the spread of diseases. The conference opened with video clips of children from around the globe urging delegates to help them grow up without facing catastrophic warming. On the sidelines, climate activists competed for attention to their campaigns on deforestation, clean energy and low-carbon growth. Mohamad Shinaz, an activist from the Maldives, plunged feet-first into a tank with nearly 200 gallons (750 liters) of frigid water to illustrate what rising sea levels were doing to his island nation. "I want people to know that this is happening," Shinaz said as the water reached up to his chest. "We have to stop global warming." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_sc/climate Get used to this tactic - fear-mongering and doomsday predictions with no validity. They can't really prove them because, somehow, all of the original data that they have based their predictions on has somehow disappeared. Shocking.... In another news report today Daimler states that sales of Mercedes vehicles in China has skyrocketed. Good thing China's participation in reducing carbon emissions is not important..  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.” NASA administrator Michael Griffin http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499 I’ve yet to hear a sensible response . . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The US government has declared that greenhouse gases threaten human health. The move could allow the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to order cuts in emissions without the approval of Congress. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency was now "authorised and obligated to make reasonable efforts" to cut greenhouse gases. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400323.stm Interesting to know that the EPA has more power than congress. Folks, I suggest you invest in shares of Vaseline  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Please specify one, and cite your authority for suggesting it was a lie, please. Let's take these one at a time. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, In reference to your 12/7/ posting, after a bit of poking about, I found that Mr, Griffin's quoted statement is only marginally truthful. The bit about not having a programatic concern for planetary climate written into NASA's charter was true when Mr. Griffin said it, but it was true only because he changed that statement from what it had been for at least four years previously. This he did without checking in with any of the NASA employees who might have had something to contribute on the subject, pro or con. I include the reference below. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/04/griffin-nasa-mission/ This sort of thing was somewhat common in the Bush White House. Check Chris Mooney's The Republican War of Science for details of how the Bush folks worked their magic with various forms of science programming. Mr. Mooney also details some Democratic wrongdoing; though it will not be enough to be really satisfying, it does offer a taste of the fact that the prospect of trying to make reality turn out your party's way is not isolated to one side of the aisle. Mr. Griffin's argument does seem a bit specious when you think about it, though. He is an engineer, not a climatologist. He asks us to presuppose that people have had the ability to manipulate earth's climate for the length of time we've been on the planet. And he suggests that the human ability to adapt to a temperature range on the planet isn't something that demands a reasonably narrow range of values. Most of us aren't going to do real well if the temperature swings a hundred degrees at at equator, for example, say from an average of eighty up to a hundred and eighty in the summer and down to minus twenty in the winter. That seems like a fairly narrow range compared with say, the moon, doesn't it? Of course that means that the variation at other places on the planet might be a bit larger. What percentage of the population's going to get through that? Wouldn't you say that we could probably say for sure that the optimum range for humanity would more or less have to be more narrow than that? I would. How come Mr. Griffin is unwilling to make a statement that's even that loose, then, unless he's under some sort of pressure not to? Or unless he's being extraordinarily coy for some reason beyond my ability to fathom? I'd be willing to bet that you'd be willing to take a wild stab at what would be a set of temperatures that would at least be not the optimum temperatures for humans to thrive under on this planet. You probably wouldn't want to buy real estate someplace where the mean temperature doesn't get above zero Fahrenheit, for example, unless you got some serious breaks and incentives. And, you may have noticed, he quietly acknowledges the reality of the warming before he goes on to scatter confusion around his statements. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This sort of thing was somewhat common in the Bush White House. ...and the bleat goes on.... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
This all looks so suspiciously like NEWS... and don't mind me--I'm just popping in to wave "hey"--sorta like that streaker,once----dash!!!!  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "The bit about not having a programatic concern for planetary climate written into NASA's charter was true when Mr. Griffin said it" Where in the quote I offered is this referred to? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The reason, however, that the man is able to say that it is not a problem we must wrestle with — at the time of that particular interview — is because he himself wrote the language saying that we were supposed to care about environmental concerns out of the NASA mission statement within a year prior to having made this statement. From 2002 to 2006, that language was in there. So I guess, John, that it comes in the first sentence, doesn't it? He doesn't see fit to inform you or NPR that he is responsible for making that change, either. I'm told that in the Catholic Church that sort of thing is called lying by omission. Not being Catholic myself, I couldn't say for sure. Having been raised as Catholic, as I believe you've said you were, you might be better equipped to give a quick call on the man's behavior on the matter of truth-telling here, at least in the doctrinal sense. quote: It assumes no such thing. It simply assumes that the situation we have today is one that could get worse, and that it's in our best interests to prevent the climate from either a) getting worse; or b) entering into a period of instability with a large human population to support. It would be nice if people were lining up to talk about some sort of population controls — a reasonable way of limiting population growth that, say, doesn't involve abortion, if abortion is the sticking point. I have noticed that there seems little effort in that direction except in China. If they aren't doing something about the pollution problems, and I think they really really should, at least they're doing something about the population side of the equation. quote: No, it does not. It assumes that to the extent the human intervention has destabilized climate patterns, it would be useful to repair as much as we can so that whatever the normal cycle may be will continue as best it may. More than that may prove impossible. As indeed, even that much may prove impossible at this point, and seems less possible the longer we wait to attempt some sort of correction. To prevent change is, however, an impossibility. The hope is that given the weight of human population, we will not have damaged to amount of available land for food production, the amount of water for drinking, and the amount of air for breathing for that population. We may have altered the mixture of that air enough enough to have thrown off any number of different ecological cycles upon which human life depends. The one that seems most worrisome at this point is that damage to the amount of arable land will make production of enough food impossible to supply the steady needs of a growing population base. This has little to do with whether we can sunbath in Nome, Alaska in December. It does have to do with whether there's enough steady and dependable weather to grow enough wheat for the folks in the United States, and whether there's good enough weather, and warm enough weather to grow corn through the midwest. It will also have to do with who can afford to buy the corn and wheat that is available. We do not need optimal climate. We do need good enough climate to grow food. And our food plants have limits for what they will tolerate. So do our livestock; in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of farm animals die when the temperature and the conditions aren't right. They aren't being uppity, you know, or persnickety about air conditioning, or lazy or any of those things. They just die when the conditions aren't right. Mr. Griffin seems to have forgotten that people do that too. quote: Nobody is trying to judge the best climate for human beings. Mr. Griffin is putting up straw men. Mr. Gore isn't trying to decide what the best climate is for everybody. Mike isn't trying to say what's the best climate for everybody. I'm not trying to say what the best climate is for everybody. I'm suggesting something much simpler. I'm suggesting that we shoot for an effort that will give us our best shot at having a climate that's good enough for most people to survive it. Heck, that less than what our constitution calls for. Our constitution says we have a right to life. I'm saying a right for conditions good enough for life. Mr. Griffin feels this is an arrogant demand. This is one of the reasons I believe Mr. Griffin is a fool. He thinks that the demand for survival as individuals and as a species is arrogant. I think that species that don't make that demand don't get very far out of the starting gate, and I see Mr. Griffin as a man who allies himself with the extinction of the species because, apparently, demanding the basic conditions for survival are arrogant. So here's my sensible response, John. People aren't asking for "the best climate for all other human beings." No one has the least idea what that might be: Mr. Griffin knows that, and so does everybody else. People are asking for a the most survivable climate they can get, or at least a climate that's good enough to survive in for most of us and most of our kids. And Mr. Griffin is doing nothing but muddying the waters on the subject. In the meantime, there are a lot of people working for oil and coal companies getting rich and trying to put off any sort of changes in the current status quo as long as they can. It's a matter of short turn profit and long term death, and Mr. Griffin is putting himself to work in the interest of these goals. You think Vice President Gore may be making money from alternative energy. I doubt it, but you know, it may be possible. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what these gas and oil and coal guys are getting on a daily basis, and are using to choke you and your neighbors to death with, even if what you say about Gore is true. And I don't think it is. But tell me now that you don't think that the gas and coal and oil guys aren't doing what I say they're doing, and that they care one whit whether some poor schmo in Melbourne drops dead from black lung, or whether the global temperature goes up so long as the petrodollars keep rolling in. There's my sensible response. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: You were fine with it while they were doing it at the time. Why be bothered about it now? I should think you'd be proud to admit it. It was your guys doing what you wanted them to do in the way you wanted them to do it, otherwise I would have heard some complaints about it then. I point out what was clear policy, and give a reference with pages and pages worth of notes to back it up, and you reduce facts to "bleats." How about some response to the references and the facts, rather than another ad hominem attack? Being characterized as a sheep does nothing — even a sheep such as I is perfectly capable of telling the truth and making a point. You don't destroy the truth by taking about the weakness of the sheep who conveys it. It is the truth itself that needs to be addressed if you are to salvage your point. I wait in hopes that you will address the point rather than your opinion of my sheeply character. It was, if you recall, about the way science was treated within the Bush Presidency's White House. I made reference to Chris Mooney's Book, The Republican War on Science, and said that there had been in fact a Republican war on science during that administration, and that it was a matter of policy that certain sorts of science were in fact demeaned and attacked. Without even seeking to find out any details, you dismissed this as bleating, if I understand you correctly. I say that by attacking me rather than attempting to question or refute the truth of my statements, you have undermined your point. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You don't destroy the truth by taking about the weakness of the sheep who conveys it. You mean like ignoring facts presented by sources one claims to be conservative or right-winged? Speaking of responses, I'm sill waiting to hear an opinion about why Gore is skipping Copenhagen.....and, btw, what do you think about that video they began the conference with? Would it be out of bounds to call it fear-mongering, in your opinion? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...” former Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management-- a London-based business that sells carbon credits) (in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth) "In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming." Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3) "Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata." Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction ) (in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999) "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia) Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting. (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8) "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4) he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift" "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada recent quote from the Calgary Herald http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: I thought I'd addressed this fairly fully above. Should you wish me to revisit that discussion, I would welcome the chance to do so; but I thought that if you had any objections to any of the points I'd raised, the sources I quoted or the observations I made, you might be willing to state which one it was so I could address it directly, instead of making an unsupported allegation. Briefly, I have no objection to conservative sources or right wing sources so long as they offer facts and references that can be confirmed. I do not see your sources as troublesome because of their political content. I didn't like, for example, The Economist when it supported President Bush and the second Gulf War, but I had to admit they had their facts straight, because they did. I didn't like that, but it was true. We had differences of opinion, there, and we still do. I would never suggest they they falsified a source or tried to mislead their readers, however. While, on the other hand, if FOX news came out in support of President Obama today, I'd be very suspicious of what was going on, both with FOX news and with President Obama. I don't trust them as a source, and it wouldn't matter which political position they took. They are in the business of selling entertainment packaged as news, and they seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to sell advertisements. They also seem to have a Republican bias over here, but I am not certain if that is business or what, since they are very cozy with the Chinese on the mainland as well. They run the satellite service that China gets most of its outside feed from. quote: Sorry about that. I do like to get back on stuff you ask about, even though, as you say, there's no obligation. It just seems to work better for me that way. However you work things is fine, of course. Truth be told, I haven't been following the whole thing. On the more environmentally upset side of things, folks are not feeling hopeful that any sort of real agreement might be reached at Copenhagen in the same way that they were dejected at the Kyoto Protocols. They don't think there's enough in it to create any change or to prevent any sort of actual environmental catastrophe from happening. I'm in agreement. Were I to speculate simply on the matter of internal environmental politics, I'd say that could be a good reason. Basically, that there seems nothing to be gained by going and throwing marshmallows back and forth that nobody intends to toast anyway. I suspect that may be some of the reason for President Obama's waffling on the matter as well, if you see him as being waffling as clearly as I believe I do, that is. I haven't seen the video, so I'll try to have a look at it if you have some reference for it. One of the things that I've learned from working with some of the most crazy people you could imagine is about paranoia. And there is a degree of paranoia to the fears that people have about global catastrophe, it's simply that there's disagreement about exactly how much. The thing about paranoia is that there's always a piece of truth in there someplace, and that if you're going to deal with the person with the paranoia, you have to help find out what that reality is. Like when you have some of the militia types talking about black helicopters and the United Nations taking over the world and the need to get together some sort of resistance, there's at least a piece of reality there having to do with globalization of the economy, right?, and the feeling that control feels like it's slipping out of local hands. There may not be any U.N. Operated black Helicopters trying to subvert the government literally, but there's a grain of something real there, that feeling of powerlessness and anger at least. On the left, some of that paranoia settles on the sense that the whole world is dying from environmental disaster. There's some paranoia there, and some reality. Right wing paranoia is something I'd rather not talk about right now, since I'm not trying to rile you, and it'd be hard to talk about paranoia on the right without it feeling that way. Everybody takes their own paranoia seriously because it seems so real to them, of course, and because there always is that piece of reality to it, which is so often difficult to evaluate. If you can get me the reference to the video, I'll give it a look. It sounds interesting. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Basically, that there seems nothing to be gained by going and throwing marshmallows back and forth that nobody intends to toast anyway. So Gore doesn't feel it's worth going to and Obama does? Let's face it, Bob. Gore would never pass up this opportunity to be center stage as the poster boy for climate control, receiving all of the pats on the back and applause that would go with it. He lives for this sort of thing. The reason he is not going should be obvious to all except the most prejudiced. I will look for the video. Within it there is a young girl standing out in a field or somewhere watching storms and tornadoes tear a city apart. The ground beneath her feet turns to the baked clay of a desert. Then the ocean moves over the desert floor.She grabs the branch of a lone tree and is seen holding on to a tree limb, hanging on desperately while blowing in the wind. Storms and dark clouds are overhead. A raging ocean is beneath her. It ends with a small child begging viewers to save the planet. It is all done in Tom Burton styles, or perhaps Stephen King. It shows that climate control freaks have no shame at all... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Here you go, Bob.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzSuP_TMFtk The comments under it are interesting, too... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer, Did you miss the context of the exaggerated part you mention being the child's dream? Obviously it is meant to exaggerate and get your attention, but the context of it being a dream obviously is not saying "this is what is going to happen". It is meant to express the fear and imagination that comes with hearing about the potential danger of Global Warming, especially the kind of fear and imagination it might cause in a child. I think it is trying to say such things should inspire us at least to do something to try to help the world if we can, instead of doing nothing and denying the issue. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Essorant, with all due respect, I have no response to anyone who does not see this as fear-mongering. Dream, vision...call it whatever fits in with your perception. It is what it is. Actually, having given it more thought, what would inspire a child to dream something like that? Certainly not by experience, not for 6-10 year olds. The answer is what their thoughts have been innumdated with, by adults. It is why An Inconvenient Truth was shown in classrooms. They are targeting children in the same way Hitler created the Youth Corps. They are willing to manipulate young minds for their own purposes. Look on YouTube for all of the videos of "Save the Polar Bears" by children. No one has told them that the polar bear population continues to grow, I suppose. I don't know which is more despicable...poisoning young minds or using them in their propaganda videos. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Al Gore wrote the introduction to "The Silent Spring" which led to the banning of DDT worldwide. The banning of DDT has led to the deaths of millions upon millions of people (primarily children) ranking it as a cause of death right up there with Hitler and Stalin. Science has disproved the claims of "The Silent Spring", but you will not see Al Gore acknowledging this fact as the banning of DDT has little to do with science. It is a political issue. Global warming is now issue that has become politicized to even a greater extent. Al Gore is obviously not a scientist, but a politician. He is the leading spokesperson for global warming. I find it hard to give any credibility to Al Gore. He can keep his oscar though, because there is a strong connection between politics, hollywood, and now climate research. Do I believe the issue of global warming is settled science? No. I like to think I am a fairly rational person and not a complete idiot. Politicians need crisis and disasters to justify their existence. Unfortunately, in todays world, scientists need politicians to exist. When you mix the two, science does not come out on top. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer If you thought more carefully about it you would realize that the children are meant to represent those that come after us. In other words those that will face things to come, including consequences of what we do or don't do in our time. It is also obviously meant to get our attention more sharply because we may think more sensitively from a child's point of view. Therefore, I think you are missing the context again. The children in the video are not especially about getting children's attention, but about getting adults' attention, saying that we adults should be inspired at least to do something and try to prevent it from being worse than it needs to be for those that come after us. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Essorant, the child's point of view IS the adult's point of view. That's where they get them from, until they are old enough and have enough experience to form their own. It DOES give me an idea, though. I could create a video starring children showing American kids living in alleys and caves, scavengering for food scraps - maybe fighting off dogs for bits of mildewed Burger King buns - with the message being, "Mr. Obama, please stop plunging the country farther into a debt we will not be able to repay". That way, according to your way of thinking, perhaps adults will see the damage being caused by such constant spending and want to do something about it. Who knows? I could get an Oscar just like Al!!  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't totally agree, Balladeer. A child would have a response of fear and imagination, by seeing or hearing about such things. That is a rather natural response to a potential danger for most people I think. It is not some forced "view" or "philosophy". What you are mistaking about the child in the video, I think, is actually probably true about where you are in the experience of the issue: the reason you may not have that natural fear and imagination that comes with a sense of danger and needing to do something is probably because your views and weariness have made you insensitive to the issue. But that is probably not the case for the average child. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Then we will agree to disagree, sir. To me is certainly is a forced view when it is spoonfed to young children in schools and songs. I doubt the average 8 year old knows an awful lot about polar bears, for example, except for the false fact that they are dying off, according to their teachers or the videos they are shown in schools. Young minds are easily molded. If you see no fear-mongering in that video then you are either fooling me - or yourself, with all due respect. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The Polar Bears are in hardships from the influence of Global Warming on their habitat, and some are dying (not all). But if the ice they need continues to diminish, then they face more and more hardships and more will die. I don't see why you should think Polar Bears (as a whole) should be dying off, before we do anything. The point is that the Polar Bears are in danger, and that is enough for us to try to help them. No, I don't see "fear-mongering" in the video. I see fear. Believe it or not some people haven't cloyed themselves so much with an arrogance that they don't have it anymore. They sense a danger, and like natural people they have fear and imagination and believe we should at least do something. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The polar bears are in danger, according to whom? I use them as an example because that's the point that got Gore so flustered at a news conference weeks ago that he acted like a complete idiot (again). WHen asked by a reporter if he wished to revise his statement that polar bears were dying when, in fact, their numbers were increasing, Gore attacked the reporter verbally to get away from the question and eventually had the reporter tossed out of the news conference. I guess somebody forgot to tell the polar bears they were in danger, since they keep frolicking and reproducing. Arrogance? Just the opposite, my friend. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that man can make a difference in the face of Mother Nature. We have only been around a few years, while the world has gone on for billions without us. The eruption of Krakatoa spewed more dust and ash in the atmosphere than humans can do in a century, according to reports. It was also reported that, when Hussien set fire to the Kuwait oil fields, the ecological damage would last for decades. Less than five years later, the atmosphere was all cleaned and back to normal. Mother Nature knows exactly how to take care of herself. Arrogance is little humans holding up aerosol cans or driving their SUV's thinking they make the difference. Arrogance is also get-rich quick schemers and world governments believing that people are so stupid that they will believe anything, in order to impose more controls and higher taxes on the population. Of course, they have used that ploy for centuries. That's why virgins were sacrificed to appease the Sun god, along with goats, sheep or what have you, going back to the beginning of man's time on earth. People have always gotten others to believe they must sacrifice something in orfer to appease the gods, Mother nature, or any other supernatural forces. Of course those doing the convincing always seemed to get some benefit from those sacrifices. We are no different than those who came before. Our leaders and charlatans don't require the same sacrifices (not because of a pronounced lack of virgins) but because now we are more "enlightened" and don't believe in cutting sheep necks or sacrificial lambs. No, our leaders now just use restrictions, taxes, fear and guilt trips to get the job done. You see fear in the video? Congrats....you are proof they have done their job well. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think you should look more at the Polar Bear situation. It is not uniform as far as numbers go at all. I never said it it was. But it is generally harder for all because the ice conditions are getting more and more difficult, and some are dying from it. The loss of ice from Global Warming is a danger to them, because if it continues, that what you seem to think should be present already (that all should be dying, and none increasing) to consider it a problem would become an actuality. That is not worth waiting for. We don't need to make ourselves poor, but we shouldn't be loth to make some sacrafices to help sustain those that need help. quote: Maybe not arrogant, but I think that mentality is somewhat ignorant of of the truth. Even in prehistoric times man made major impacts. There is little doubt that man was a major part of the extinction of many of the species at the end of the last ice age including the Sabretooth Cat, Ground Sloths and Mammoths. Man's negative impact in the form of excess hunting and slaughtering on top the Global Warming that was taking place, if not the main cause of the extinction, nevertheless made the situation far more extreme than it had been without man's abuse on top of it. And that abuse had been even worse, obviously, if mass-emissions had been added on top of it all. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Sounds like what's needed is the Chinese solution; one child per couple until there's too few of us to matter to poor Mother Nature, (the Chinese have already asked to be given credit in negotiations for having already started). . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, Tim. The banning of DDT has been called the greatest cause of death in world history. Gore should be very proud. Unfortunately, in todays world, scientists need politicians to exist. When you mix the two, science does not come out on top. Ayn Rand agreed with you, too, as that is one of the most important things she pointed out in Atlas Shrugged. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Gore should be very proud" And why not, since the problem is other people . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You might want to look at this article and this site. The DDT issue is far from being as one-dimensional as you are trying to make it out to be. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
