Sat
Jun 17 2006
05:36 pm
I saw President Gore's movie today, and all I can say is SEE IT. PLEASE.

He explains in very clear terms that the Earth as we know it, and life as we like it, is in extreme danger. He also outlines steps that each of us can take to turn this around.

But, most important, the move makes it clear that the real President is still here and that a pretender is on the "throne." I had a "Return of the King" moment. It is very clear when you see this that we were HAD in both of the last two elections. And, that we need to splash cold water on our faces and get off our asses. Everything is at stake.

Please see this movie and take your children and parents and friends.

Topics:
Anonymous's picture

Oh please! You act as if all

Oh please! You act as if all the changes that supposedly are causing this mythical global warming took place solely during the last 5 years, all at Bush's behest and that he is behind some evil plot to destroy the world.

What did Clinton and Gore do to address global warming during their administration?

 And there you go again with the election fraud allusions ... still this is harped upon, even though the only ones found to be fiddling with the vote counts have been Democrats. Please, save the diatribe for the koolaid crowd.

Gore is a fool and has toed up really close to treason in some of the things he has said and done. I would be very cautious in aligning with such a shady and unstable character. The company you keep ... and all that.

Rachel's picture

The company you keep ... and

The company you keep ... and all that.

I'll take Gore's company over someone who flings anonymous insults any day.

Look, you can disagree with Gore (and about 80 gazillion scientists) if you like, but calling him a fool is just, well, foolish.  Even most of his critics would tell you he's a really smart guy.

Paul Herrmann's picture

you have got to bias, full of Bush hatred

How can you say , You have got to see this load of garbage, when you are clearly bias about Presdient Bush "on  the throne" and the real President is Gore.

Listen, how about using some of your brain cells,HHmmm, AlGore is flying, driving all over the fricking world, using all that jet fuel, gasoline and your actually going to tell me you don't see the hypocrisy?

Wake up!

Scott1202's picture

Is the movie showing

Is the movie showing anywhere here in town?

WhitesCreek's picture

Isn't it interesting to see

Isn't it interesting to see the responses? Not one single fact, but lots of rant and name calling.

Where's the movie playing? I plan to see it as soon as possible.

Steve

Bbeanster's picture

Downtown WestDon't know how

Downtown West.
Don't know how long it'll be on, but I'm planning on going w/in the next couple days, myself, and now that I see how much it bothers these fulminating, grammar-impaired trolls, I'll try and take some folks with me.

WhitesCreek's picture

Hey Beanster, I wouldn't

Hey Beanster, I wouldn't mind making it a Bubbafest at the West...Let us know when you are thinking of going. Might join you. Umm, isn't there a margarita joint really close to there?

 Steve

Bbeanster's picture

Yahoo! Sounds excellent!Not

Yahoo!
Sounds excellent!Not sure how long it'll be on, but I'll check with Regal tomorrow.

Les Jones's picture

Where was Gore in 1998?

The Kyoto Protocol came open for signatures in 1998. Clinton was president, Gore was vice-president. They never took Kyoto before Congress for ratification.

The reason, of course, is that they damn well knew Congress wouldn't pass it. The Senate had already passed the  Byrd-Hagel Resolution, (link...) :

the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

Byrd-Hagel passed in the Senate unanimously, 95-0. John Kerry didn't vote in favor of Kyoto. Neither did Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or any other Senator, Democrat or Republican.

If you're looking for Democrats to save the world from global warming, I think you're going to be disappointed. Global warming advocates, like marriage-minded gays and small government conservatives, are a constituency unrepresented by a current political party.


Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Factchecker's picture

Wingnuts argue against

Wingnuts argue against global warming by smearing Gore's character.  They also argue that Kyoto would be ineffective and then offer that lack of Democratic support for Kyoto is the reason why Dems aren't saving us from the problem that they say doesn't exist.

I remember in his 1980's released book, Gore called for working toward a hydrogen economy before the problem got out of hand.  He was greeted by every absurd extremist accusation imaginable from the right: "He wants to take our cars away!," etc.  Now, almost 20 years later, Junior says hydrogen and other such technologies will be our tickets for survival. 

Gore pays offsets to make his family carbon neutral, but The War Decider's political use of Air Force One gets a pass from the right. 

It's only wingnuts, right-wing think tanks, and polluters like ExxonMobil who make these increasingly shrill and illogical arguments.  The argument over global warming and its causes in the real, peer-reviewed scientific community is long over. 

Just who's looking foolish?

_________________________________

Never has the left been so right.

Les Jones's picture

Not so fast

"Gore pays offsets to make his family carbon neutral, but The War Decider's political use of Air Force One gets a pass from the right."

The offsets smack of Papal indulgences - if you're rich enough you can write a check and be forgiven in the eyes of Mother Nature. Has anyone asked if Gore was doing this before he went on his world tour? Will he do it after he quits?

"The argument over global warming and its causes in the real, peer-reviewed scientific community is long over."

It's true that we're pretty darned positive there was an increase in average global temperatures in the past 100 years. It's much less clear to me that the warming trend will continue. Even if greenhouse gases caused the previous temperature increases, who's to say the increases will continue unabated with further increases in greenhouse gases? There may be a saturation point beyond which warming is decreased or non-existent.

The arguments are far from over. For instance, what percentage, if any, of global warming is caused by greenhouse gases vs. solar inputs? A group of Russian scientists has a bet with a bunch of U.S. scientists. The Russians think that in 20 years we'll see global warming primarily as a solar issue. A  study ((link...)) published study in Geophysical Research Letters ((link...)) suggests that 10 to 30% of global warming is caused by solar inputs. 


Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Factchecker's picture

You're just smearing again

Has anyone asked if Gore was doing this before he went on his world tour? Will he do it after he quits?

You're just smearing again.  What does this have to do with Gore's message?

 

It's much less clear to me...who's to say...

You're just trying to perpetuate doubt.  One of Gore's slides points out that:

...of 900-plus peer-reviewed studies in recognized journals, not one has challenged the idea of global warming, whereas more than 53 percent of articles in the mainstream media have presented it as a theory or been careful to include the demurrals of a tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for scientists or politicians.

Nice job, Les.  So much for the liberal MSM.

 

...A group of Russian scientists has a bet with a bunch of U.S. scientists...

This reminds me of the e-mail joke that starts with the U.S. workforce of tens of millions and parses it down through qualifiers to just you and me, and "... I ain't doin' all the work myself, bud!"  

I'm not saying you can't find real scientists on the fringe who don't believe the science.  I'm saying they're on the fringe, just as there are some fringe scientists on the left.  The vast majority, and when the science is presented for legitimate peer-review, do not dispute the findings.  There are, too, a few quibbles in Gore's film that are debatable, but they do not detract from its overwhelming conclusions.

_________________________________

Never has the left been so right.

Les Jones's picture

"You're just smearing

"You're just smearing again.  What does this have to do with Gore's message?"

 What does Bush's use of Air Force One have to do with it. You started it.

 "...of 900-plus peer-reviewed studies in recognized journals, not one has challenged the idea of global warming, whereas more than 53 percent of articles in the mainstream media have presented it as a theory or been careful to include the demurrals of a tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for scientists or politicians."

And what did the 901st study say? Look, when you say those studies didn't challenge the idea of global warming, that may be perfectly correct as far as it goes, but does that mean 900 studies reported that global warming is 100% due to human activity? Like I said, warming has occurred in the past century. That does not mean the warming has necessarily been due to human activity, or that the warming will continue to increase with increased CO2 inputs.


Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Factchecker's picture

The same thing.

And what did the 901st study say?

The same thing.  After you've been whupped 900-0, how many more does it take to convince you? 

Look, when you say those studies didn't challenge the idea of global warming, that may be perfectly correct as far as it goes, but does that mean 900 studies reported that global warming is 100% due to human activity?

No, but the consensus reflects that it is.  How many times has The Small Minded Bully asked the most respected science bodies in this country, the National Acadamies, NOAA, NASA, EPA, at. al., to re-examine these questions and report back?   And every time there's more certainty in their responses, both re warming's existence and its likely causes.

 Like I said, warming has occurred in the past century. That does not mean the warming has necessarily been due to human activity, or that the warming will continue to increase with increased CO2 inputs.

Maybe not, but that's where the science points.  Science doesn't have access to a crystal ball, unfortunately, so there are unavoidable uncertainties.  But the most sophisticated and scientifically accepted estimates (modeling, etc.) are increasingly pessimistic about the extent and causes of GW.  And so far, the realities have tended to prove even worse than the projections.  So yes, things might get better (and monkeys might learn to fly), but they might (and are proving to) be worse.  Much of the discussion has already shifted from "how far out the point of no return is," to "fughettaboutit--it's already too late" (U.S. News and World Report, to name one source).

If we never took action until there's 100% agreement, we'd never do anything.  Why didn't The War preznint wait until all Americans agreed with him to take action in Iraq and he had 100% certainty there were WMDs?  And if you believe your buddies in the admin when they claim that $200M/day off the books for Iraq and another few trillion lost in the treasury since Junior took over is no great shakes to worry over, then what's a few more billion to get us off the stuff that pollutes the planet and funds the terrorists?   

_________________________________

Never has the left been so right.

Bbeanster's picture

Why do Republicans hate

Why do Republicans hate science?
This argument reminds me of the tobacco company presidents lined up like hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil -- all claiming there was no proven connection between smoking and cancer. It wasn't all that long ago, either, because the tobacco industry defenders have been born again as global warming deniers.

Andy Axel's picture

Seems to me that there's a

Seems to me that there's a certain confluence of events here.

Climate change associated with our carbon diet (it's the United States with 5% of the world population and over 1/3 of the annual carbon emission who stands to make the single biggest impact) seems to dovetail with a rather striking security issue that we have been fighting over yonder in the Middle East.

No way should this escape consideration, y'know.

Why not use the imprimatur of national security to start talking about weaning ourselves off of hydrocarbon fuels?

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

Factchecker's picture

DoD has

Why not use the imprimatur of national security to start talking about weaning ourselves off of hydrocarbon fuels?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html 

rikki's picture

Les has a point

Clinton did little to address climate change during his presidency, and it is still true that environmentalists are an interest group without a party. Except for the Green party, of course. Democrats view environmental issues as a marketing wedge, a way to acquire votes with lip service. As with labor interests, Democrats can take their support for granted as long as they adopt policy positions slightly less sucky than the Republicans and resist any and all efforts to open our campaign system to third parties. The bullying and guilt by which many Democrats attempt to handle Greens and Nader (talk about character smears) is testament to both the hollowness of their environmental policy and their fear of political diversity.

Gore as an individual is certainly more environmentally astute than his party, but Gore as a candidate kept quiet about his concerns over air pollution and gluttonous consumption. Gore as a politician was unable to find any way to compromise with or communicate with Nader and the Greens, which did not bode well for his ability to persuade Congress to take positive steps toward resource conservation.

Factchecker's picture

Point taken.  Gore has made

Point taken.  Gore has made a few whopper mistakes as a politician, most notably choosing Joementum as his running mate and not riding the Clinton peace and prosperity record over Incurious George in '00.  But there are some other mitigating points to the argument (Nader's too) that Dems are just as bad as Rupugs.  Does anyone think the environment under President Gore would be as bad as the gutting it's taken under Junior?  Now we have three SCOTUS justices courtesy the Bush oligarchy and yesterday's landmark ruling that legislates from the bench to elevate land owners' and developers' rights over Congress's clean water laws for the first time shows where Alito and Roberts fall: right in line w/ Scalia and Thomas and out of the mainstream that O'Connor represented.  The list of Bush assaults on the environment is nearly endless, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Gore, while having expanded powers for VPs up to that time, didn't have the power that Big Dick exerts and his lack of latitude may be one reason why his relationship w/ Clinton deteriorated.  Moreover, the world market caused oil prices to reach near historic lows during most of Clinton/Gore years.  Can you imagine the response, especially from the Repug congress let alone Limbaugh et. al., to a significant conservation effort during that time?  The hoots and howls would almost approach those we heard when Clinton had the temerity to launch cruise missiles on al Qaida while the GOP was focused on impeaching him over a sex lie! 

With respect to Kyoto, Dems were pragmatic enough not to waste time with a hopeless GOP congress to showboat its ratification Schaivo-style for CNN.  Why not instead blame the voters for keeping the GOP in power?  Or the Dems (or 3rd parties) for not figuring out how to re-frame issues to unseat Repugs?

And as Dems are the real party with the big tent, there are plenty in the rank and file that are anything but environmentally committed.  But where is the ascension of third parties to do better?  Do we really want the Dems to crash and burn as badly on enviro issues as the GOP, to force voters to turn the Greens or other 3rd party into a major party?  Ain't gonna happen in this or the next decade.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, as Nader did to us in '00.    

_________________________________

Never has the left been so right.

Les Jones's picture

Environmental what now?

"Does anyone think the environment under President Gore would be as bad as the gutting it's taken under Junior?"

  • Emissions continue to decrease under Chimpy McDeath, even as GDP and miles traveled increase. (link...)
  • The Smirkster increased CAFE standards not once but twice. (link...)
  • Bushitlerburton provided $1.2 billion to advance hydrogen-fueled vehicles. (link...)
  • Thanks to the Bogus POTUS and his "War on High Gas Prices and Brown People Who Talk Funny," Iraq's great marshes are being refilled and restored and the Marsh Arabs are returning. (link...)

Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Rex Sexington's picture

The EPA is run by political

  • The EPA is run by political appointees.
  • CAFE standards are, by all conservative standards, bogus.
  • $1.2 billion for hydrogen-vehicles (aka Not-in-a-million-years-while-there-is-oil-under-easily-killed-dark-peoples-feet fantasyland) Query: How much for exurban mass transit?
  • Marshes, Arabs, Iraq: Meanwhile, 2500 US service personnel and uncounted thousands of Iraqis are dead. Tens of thousands are wounded. And that news bite is from 2003.

 

I admire your ability to collate right-wing talking points.

rikki's picture

navigable waters

On the other hand, he appointed two judges to SCOTUS who recently ruled (judicial activism!) in favor of a new interpretation of "navigable waters" that, but for a strange majority dissent from Kennedy (Clinton's corporatist appointee), threatens to remove millions of acres from wetlands and CWA protection. With regressive rulings like that, clean water will increasingly be not a human right nor a natural expectation provided by God to all Her creatures, but a branded commodity delivered in pipes and bottles. Were Democrats really concerned about environmental protection, they would have made it a major issue in the confirmation hearings of both Roberts and Alito.

Under Bush, mining regulation has been relaxed in both interpretation and enforcement. The FWS has issued a startling number of endangered species delistings recently, not based on species having recovered, but based on outlier populations being declared insignificant. He has relaxed air pollution standards for refineries several times and promotes the fiction that it is not nimbyism, but the oh-so-powerful environmentalists you and I agree are without a party who prevent construction of new refineries. He has censored government scientists many times.

rikki's picture

oops

Sorry to be redundant on the CWA ruling, I somehow missed Factchecker's post from yesterday.

Factchecker's picture

Oops 2

Sorry to be redundant...

Same w/ me, Rikki.  I was typing while you just posted.

Factchecker's picture

The improved air quality is

The improved air quality is not thanks to the Bush administration but in spite of its many efforts to gut pollution laws, such as New Source Review.  Thank Clinton/Gore or even Bush 41's best (and maybe only) real environmental move when he signed the Clean Air Act.

Raising CAFE <2 mpg over 4 years, while leaving a loophole for large pickups, is a complete joke.  By its own admission, the measure will only save two weeks worth of oil by 2011!  In fact:

...The proposed standards would not even compensate for the oil lost through fuel economy loopholes in the recent energy bill. ...

There are a lot of other problems with this, such as forbidding states to make their own tighter laws.  The move is just lip service for freepers like you to use as ammo while allowing what-did-you-call-him? to keep hiding from real action.

$1.2B for hydrogen is also a tiny fraction of what is needed for such a long term, pipedream solution.  Claiming to support hydrogen in the long term is another way to claim you care while not budging from petrochemicals for MANY years.

And we now find the real reason for invading Iraq was to restore their wetlands?  This hardly makes a dent in the folly of W's War nor compensates for the environmental damage the war is doing.  There are probably more wetlands in the U.S. that will be developed on thanks to the Chimperor's SCOTUS decision the other day, than all the marshes in Iraq.

I like your name calling, though.  

_________________________________

Never has the left been so right.

rikki's picture

you can't be serious

But where is the ascension of third parties to do better?

The biases in our election system against third parties are second only to the biases in favor of monied interests. I usually have some sort of solution to offer for things I bitch about, but the two-party grip is one that eludes me. 

Factchecker's picture

I just think reforming the

I just think reforming the Dems and winning them the majority is a lot more realistic than replacing both parties with a new majority of present nobodys.  In John Anderson's time, a lot of optimists probably thought a new major party was 10-20 yrs away.  Was that 1980?  (I really can't remember.)

Number9's picture

Hottest weather in 2000

Hottest weather in 2000 years

(link...)

or

Hottest weather in 400 years

(link...)

Current temperature is 87 degrees.

In other news it is reported that four cups of coffee a day will make you live longer.

From the news vault in 1987:

Fours cups of coffee per day will kill you dead.

Now back to our regular programming.

The ice caps are melting and you are going to die.

Rex Sexington's picture

Know-nothing

Weather != Climate.

 
I see your prognostication vis the City's response to Kinsey backing out on the Candy Factory proviso was, as usual, wrong.

Number9's picture

I see your prognostication

I see your prognostication vis the City's response to Kinsey backing out on the Candy Factory proviso was, as usual, wrong.

No. The "prognostication" was that KPA would try to back out like it did on the Market Square deal. That was 100 accurate.

I never know what the City or County will do. Does anyone?

RedDog's picture

seems to me Gore and his

seems to me Gore and his band of scientist are only playing politics. There are other views:

 

(link...)  

Factchecker's picture

Anyone can cherry pick dissent

There are other views...

Other views, yes, but not that withstand peer review.  It doesn't take much Googling to find out about the skeptics in your link.  NASA scientist Roy Spencer makes a hobby/2nd career out of ridiculing environmentalists, even acknowledging getting paid by ExxonMobil to do so, and wrote an eye-opening paper in '91 that asserted the earth is warming more slowly than had been believed.  Problem is it was revealed the authors had errors in their data (that pesky peer review thing!) and were proved wrong about their assertion.

Short on time now.  More later...    

_________________________________

Never has the left been so right.

Factchecker's picture

The other name I Googled

The other name I Googled at random from this was Bob Carter, a guy who's not a climatologist, believes global warming stopped in 1998! (thank you, Clinton/Gore?), and, like the goofy ExxonMobil-sponsored ad, thinks that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  (He should try breathing from a closed plastic bag.)

In fact, the more you look at the Canada Free Press, you see it's no alternative media, but just another echo chamber in the GOP's Mighty Wurlitzer.  Rejects from Drudge, Fauxnews, etc.  Their chief enviro op writer is exec VP for an astroturf org where he wrote a remarkably similar piece that debunks global warming by...wait for it...smearing Al Gore!  How profound.

_________________________________

Never has the left been so right.

Tess's picture

BushCo = Big Oil

I think, quite simply that BushCo is in the pockets of Big Oil and it is not in this administration's interest to work against $$$$$ itself.  Big Oil's greed may work in the favor of the environment, though.  With the cost of gas what it is, people will surely drive less.  Boating traffic seems to be down on the river (just my observation).

One of the points in the documentary is that people can pressure the cities where they live to make changes.  Positive change may have to happen on a community-by-community level.  KUB's green power is one such positive initiative.  The interconnected bike trails are another.  If we could get group (county-wide) discounts on solar panels that would be good, too.

Maybe some countywide focus groups are in order, or may already exist?

Factchecker's picture

Oh yes, and...

P.S.  Here's a review and analysis of the flick by a real climate scientist

(edit: Bio changed for just the one who wrote the piece.  Please visit the RealClimate home page for other excellent posts.)

Factchecker's picture

Apologies in advance...

Apologies in advance for hitting on this again, but I saw this piece last night and thought that, while good, it wouldn't have offered much new, until I read the bio of its author.  When Reagan Republicans have these views (they hadn't quite been transformed into Repugnicants back then), you can see how far the party has gone off the deep end.

Then, those "lib'ruls" (heh) at AP had to go and report this.  Transcribed excerpt:

...all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie [of] more than 100 top climate researchers [contacted] by e-mail and phone for their opinion...those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

style="display:block"
data-ad-format="autorelaxed"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3296520478850753"
data-ad-slot="5999968558">

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives