Al Gore's Movie

Walkinghairball · Post by **Walkinghairball** » Sun May 28, 2006 12:55 pm

ROFLMAO!!!!

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:17 am

Gore in Hay climate change plea
Monday, 29 May 2006
BBC News

Former US vice-president Al Gore owned up to failing to get his climate change message across as a politician when he appeared at the Hay Festival.

In his first UK speech on the subject, Mr Gore promised to devote himself to the task of warning people about the impending "planetary emergency".

He appealed to the audience to act to halt the growing crisis.

"I will own up to shortcomings in my ability to communicate," said Mr Gore, who ran against President Bush in 2000.

"But I'm not through with this yet and I am devoting myself to it".

Mr Gore was the key note speaker of the 19th Hay Festival on the mid-Wales border.

Five years ago Bill Clinton spoke at Hay on his many roles in conflict resolution.

But Mr Gore, fresh from an appearance at the Cannes film festival, delivered a starker message that the world was now facing a "danger which could bring the end of civilisation."

A documentary which premiered at Cannes, An Inconvenient Truth, is based on lectures Mr Gore has been delivering about environmental crisis for many years.

He was asked by a member of the Hay Festival audience to run for president again.

But Mr Gore replied: "I honestly believe that the role I can most usefully play is to try to change the minds of the American people...about what this crisis is about."

He said addressing the issues around climate control were "on the agenda in 2000 but was never seen and heard as an issue worthy of the top rank of consideration".

Mr Gore said global warming was seen as an "arcane" issue with more than half the US media denying there was any problem and his opponent "pledged to regulate CO2 - a pledge not broken until after the inauguration".

Gore said he used to be "the next president of the US"

In a passionate speech, Mr Gore said: "We face a challenge in the conversation of democracy that we must be up to in order to save the climate balance on which our civilisation depends."

He said he believed scientists who said that there may be 10 years remaining to avoid "crossing the point of no return".

"Then does that change you? It should, it's happening on our watch," said the former vice-president.

He said he was "carbon neutral" himself and he tried to offset any plane flight or car journey by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere".

He said the only way to bring about the change was "a sea change in the public's understanding and opinion".

"The only way that political leaders of all parties will find the courage for the bold actions that are needed."

Mr Gore was given a standing ovation by the audience whom he begged "to make the changes in your own life to make your part of the solution (to the problem)".

He said: "There are more than enough people here to really change the world.

"I hope that many of you will accept and act on that - so much is at stake."

Any wagers? Is he going to run for president yet again? Is this movie a clever way for him to campaign without having to be burdened with all the rules and regulations of campaign financing? Or is he just a good guy who wants to prevent the "end of civilization"?

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:00 pm

ElfDude wrote:Any wagers? Is he going to run for president yet again?

Doesn't look like it. Pity really, he's the only prominent politician who seems to see how deep the excrement we're in is.

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:58 pm

Nope Elfdude.....

If I were a gambling man, I'd bet the farm on Billary (Excuse me, H-i-l-l-a-r-y) Clinton

hey, it could happen

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Tue May 30, 2006 3:53 pm

I think he wants to run again, but it is up to the party if they will call him to run for them. Of course, he could run as a non-Dem.

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:30 pm

I think the press wants Al Gore more than Hillary. Check out what they've been up to recently...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... &cset=true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01029.html

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/17073/

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 4973.story

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:21 am

Maybe the press isn't ready for a female president. *wink*

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Wed May 31, 2006 10:09 am

UGH..The Post HAAAARF

Read Washington's PREMIER newspaper--The Washington TIMES!

Okay, sorry for the blatant plug...I noticed all the "turnarounds" Hillary is doing on her policies...if that's not a dead giveaway of a Pres run, I'll eat barbwire!

Besides, EVERYTHING here in the metro area is political....Even the grocery store! It sucks! HAAAAARF

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed May 31, 2006 10:28 am

CygnusX1 wrote:UGH..The Post HAAAARF

Read Washington's PREMIER newspaper--The Washington TIMES!

Okay, sorry for the blatant plug...I noticed all the "turnarounds" Hillary is doing on her policies...if that's not a dead giveaway of a Pres run, I'll eat barbwire!

Besides, EVERYTHING here in the metro area is political....Even the grocery store! It sucks! HAAAAARF

Agreed about the Times. But the point is, the Post actually did a hit piece on Hillary. Who would've expected that?

As to the movie... fun parody here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Wed May 31, 2006 10:37 am

what's up Elfdude?

yeah, I believe you, but you'll find the Post is a Dem-leaning paper to begin with...not that I care mind you...I'm on the fence here dude...

I mean, how many GOOD articles have they (not just the Post, but MANY publishers)put in about Iraq or Afghanistan?

There's good stuff happening there too! It just doesn't SELL PAPERS...

I can assure you, my constituants returning from there have GOOD NEWS that the media DOESN'T want you to know...but hey...that's another thread

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed May 31, 2006 10:44 am

CygnusX1 wrote:what's up Elfdude?

yeah, I believe you, but you'll find the Post is a Dem-leaning paper to begin with...not that I care mind you...

Absolutely! One of the most liberal "mainstream" rags in the country.

CygnusX1 · Post by **CygnusX1** » Wed May 31, 2006 10:50 am

Yeah man.....I read the sports and the metro section of the Post sometimes....the rest of it I use for kindling...hahaha

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:33 pm

Devil's Advocate wrote: Computer models are a lot better now. So are the measurements. There is a marked difference in what the models show depending on whether or not anthropogenic factors are included. And guess which version of the model closely matches the measured temperature graph?

Michael Crichton did a very good job at explaining why the computer models don't alarm me.

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS? None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:39 pm

"Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?"

Yeah, if we can't predict weather for today....

Devil's Advocate · Post by **Devil's Advocate** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:49 pm

I didn't realise just how ignorant Crichton is.

Climate and weather are not the same thing.