Al Gore: An Inconvienient Truth

[Guns N RockMusic]

The concerns and ideas alot of academics advocate, even if they were practical, are cost prohibitive to most Americans.?

Where are your examples of these?

Obviously de-industrialization is not the answer. The car manufacturers, as an example are taking the steps necessary to get to point X. It is going to take a while and interim solutions are going to be necessary to fill the gap before technology catches up to where X is possible. Right now it may be that biodiesel/hybrid is the best interim step to get to X with a hydrogen or hydrogen/electric being the target. There is not a Step 1, Step 2, and Finish. There are many sub steps that are to be had that are evolutionary that reduce the costs because the costs are built into normal R&D of progressive development.

The same processes will apply for power plants as for automobile power but on a bigger scale, with more variables, and more risks. The risks will be both monetary and environmental. That is where smart people are going to have to make decisions as to which door to pick.

How much are hybrid cars?  How often do batteries need replaced in these vehicles and what are the cost of the batteries?  Those are prime examples right there.  Most working class and poor can't afford a new car anyway, let alone a hybrid.  And to have to replace the battery every several years which cost around 6k if I remember is insane. 

[Bud Fox]

How much are hybrid cars?  How often do batteries need replaced in these vehicles and what are the cost of the batteries?  Those are prime examples right there.  Most working class and poor can't afford a new car anyway, let alone a hybrid.  And to have to replace the battery every several years which cost around 6k if I remember is insane. 

Technology evolves, and the price will drop as it always does. The gas powered car will eventually become extinct. Hybrid vehicles ten years later still may still be a sub step on the way to "X" but it is progress none the less and may very well be affordable. Bud Fox's position is that you do what you can. If we make a mess, we should be responsible to clean it up. Right now [2006] we have to wake up and deal with this. In 2056, there might be some really pissed off people wondering why we did not clean up our mess when we had the chance.

What do you suggest?

[Bud Fox]

It seems to never end and the side without the interest in exercising the Scientific Method, or learning about what the modern tools of science are, seems to be undaunted by their repeated exposure as intellectual frauds. Terry Schiavo was about to wake up and tell us all about how her husband tried to kill her, and, there is no human influence on global warming. That is the extent of thought and data analysis anyone needs to expend to be aligned with the people in power, and they know it because they were told by likes of Rush, O'Reilly and their ilk. What bunch of losers, wake the fuck up.

[Guns N RockMusic]

How much are hybrid cars?? How often do batteries need replaced in these vehicles and what are the cost of the batteries?? Those are prime examples right there.? Most working class and poor can't afford a new car anyway, let alone a hybrid.? And to have to replace the battery every several years which cost around 6k if I remember is insane.?

Technology evolves, and the price will drop as it always does. The gas powered car will eventually become extinct. Hybrid vehicles ten years later still may still be a sub step on the way to "X" but it is progress non the less and may very well be affordable. Bud Fox's position is that you do what you can. If we make a mess, we should be responsible to clean it up. Right now [2006] we have to wake up and deal with this. In 2056, there might be some really pissed off people wondering why we did not clean up our mess when we had the chance.

What do you suggest?

Essentially the argument Milton Friedman provides. ?That pollution is not created by the government or the factory, but the consumer. ?You and I create pollution by demanding and purchasing goods that create pollution asa byproduct. ?We should remove all restrictions on pollution and instead charge companies based on the pollution they emit. ?If company X emits an amount of pollution, he should pay fees for the pollution created. ?Those fees will go to repair damages caused to the environment as well as fund the inspection of each company. ?This would create a market force to cut down on pollution. ?If Company X and Y both sell the same product, but company Y emits more pollution than X, Y will pay more in environment fees and have to increase the cost of their goods. ?This will force company Y to compete with X and lower their pollution output. ?Eventually, the free market would do more for the environment than any international agreement or national restricitions. ?Products that create alot of pollution would become very expsensive and be purchased less often, or would becomes less pollutive. ?Either way it's a win win situation for the environment and consumer.

[Guns N RockMusic]

It seems to never end and the side without the interest in exercising the Scientific Method, or learning about what the modern tools of science are, seems to be undaunted by their repeated exposure as intellectual frauds. Terry Schiavo was about to wake up and tell us all about how her husband tried to kill her, and, there is no human influence on global warming. That is the extent of thought and data analysis anyone needs to expend to be aligned with the people in power, and they know it because they were told by likes of Rush, O'Reilly and their ilk. What bunch of losers, wake the fuck up.

I couldn'y have gave a fuck what happened to Terry Schiavo.  I'm not denying that humans contribute to global warming, I only ask to what extent to we contribute.  I am of the opinion that our contributions are negligible and the clear majority of climate change (however slight) is natural and not at the fault of man.

[Bud Fox]

Essentially the argument Milton Friedman provides.  That pollution is not created by the government or the factory, but the consumer.  You and I create pollution by demanding and purchasing goods that create pollution asa byproduct.  We should remove all restrictions on pollution and instead charge companies based on the pollution they emit.  If company X emits an amount of pollution, he should pay fees for the pollution created.  Those fees will go to repair damages caused to the environment as well as fund the inspection of each company.  This would create a market force to cut down on pollution.  If Company X and Y both sell the same product, but company Y emits more pollution than X, Y will pay more in environment fees and have to increase the cost of their goods.  This will force company Y to compete with X and lower their pollution output.  Eventually, the free market would do more for the environment than any international agreement or national restricitions.  Products that create alot of pollution would become very expsensive and be purchased less often, or would becomes less pollutive.  Either way it's a win win situation for the environment and consumer.

Hogwash.

[Edward Rose]

...I'm not saying it can't be true...

(BTW; Not yelling at YOU Jack, just a common phrase heard from so many Americans)

I swear on my mother's life, I just bet myself the 6 digits I have in the bank that you were from America. (I am too) But you know WHY I bet that? Because the media has actually managed to convince Americans that something isn't "Real" that definitely is. I'm not talking about the CAUSE of global warming. Just the reality of it.

As I said, American neighborhoods are GOING UNDER WATER during certain tide cycles. EVERYONE in the world except Americans knows it's real, and have moved on to the more intelligent conversation and debate about what's causing it and what should we do.

My Noah story? We're there NOW. The Noah story is RIGHT NOW, as some areas in America are under water while the current administration has everyone not even thinking it's real. (Equivilent to the people laughing outside of Noah's ark)

MY honest oppinion? The Sun. And you won't hear that theory everywhere. It might BE part of a natural process. But while America is ignoring it for no other reason than coastal Real Estate values, and the fear that fossil fuels will be blamed and threaten the fortunes of old white men and ugly dark-skinned Kings, other countries have moved on to intelligent debate.

We can bitch all day and night about it, but that won't stop lower-Manhattan from being under water a whole lot sooner than 100 years from now.

Oh well, I'll be high on a desert plain where the streets have no name when it all goes to poop... WHAT EVER the reason is it goes to poop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHbdUnd7Nzw

[D]

I started to rent this last night but it was out.

Im gonna give it a look.

People should be careful when watching one sided documentaries though, dont swallow everything as fact.

[The Chad Cometh]

It seems to never end and the side without the interest in exercising the Scientific Method, or learning about what the modern tools of science are, seems to be undaunted by their repeated exposure as intellectual frauds. Terry Schiavo was about to wake up and tell us all about how her husband tried to kill her, and, there is no human influence on global warming. That is the extent of thought and data analysis anyone needs to expend to be aligned with the people in power, and they know it because they were told by likes of Rush, O'Reilly and their ilk. What bunch of losers, wake the fuck up.

I couldn'y have gave a fuck what happened to Terry Schiavo.  I'm not denying that humans contribute to global warming, I only ask to what extent to we contribute.  I am of the opinion that our contributions are negligible and the clear majority of climate change (however slight) is natural and not at the fault of man.

I concur with Flagg (great name btw ... Stephen King all the way) ...

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions about should America / Australia sign Kyoto or not?

[SLCPUNK]

You can be in any income bracket and carpool, or set your thermostat higher, walk instead of drive for two minutes to the local grocery, turn your car of instead of letting it idle, turning off the lights as you leave the room, put your hot water heater on a timer or turn it on ten minutes before you use it and then turn it off, buy a smaller home, rent a smaller home, drive a smaller car etc etc. It all adds up. I do all of the above and more.

People should be careful when watching one sided documentaries though, dont swallow everything as fact.

Talk about conspiracy theories. What do you think Gore's agenda is? Most scientists believe that we contribute to global warming, and even Bush's guys have come around on this one. What else do you want to hear?

[D]

Ill watch and then comment.

I think it will be probably terrifying to watch in a lot of ways.

[Bud Fox]

I concur with Flagg (great name btw ... Stephen King all the way) ...

Bud Fox suggests a subscription to Scientific American rather than "The Limbaugh Letter".

[Bandita]

I concur with Flagg (great name btw ... Stephen King all the way) ...

Bud Fox suggests a subscription to Scientific American rather than "The Limbaugh Letter".

 

I really can't believe people here are arguing over global warming as if it MAY not be true or is a one sided conspiracy.  Open your eyes, folks!

Global warming is not a political agenda, it is fact.  If you don't want to watch a movie by Al Gore set your Tivo to record the other documentaries and shows they have on cable about it, they are on all the time, trust me.

To the person who said we may not be responsible:

Are we also not responsible for doing something about it even if we weren't at fault?  Hello?  We live here!  We should just sit back and watch it happen?

[Bud Fox]

Global warming is not a political agenda, it is fact.  If you don't want to watch a movie by Al Gore set your Tivo to record the other documentaries and shows they have on cable about it, they are on all the time, trust me.

To the person who said we may not be responsible:

Are we also not responsible for doing something about it even if we weren't at fault?  Hello?  We live here!  We should just sit back and watch it happen?

Climate has cycles, gradual changes in overall conditions over time. The changes that are being measured now reflect some cause and effect issues. To deny the relationship between population and the environment seems, well, almost childish. No doubt there are natural changes going on concurrent with man-made environmental disasters, but either way, science is the only tool we have to combat the effects. To deny the plausibility of a scientific theory because of politics is truly arrogant.

[The Chad Cometh]

To the person who said we may not be responsible:

Are we also not responsible for doing something about it even if we weren't at fault?  Hello?  We live here!  We should just sit back and watch it happen?

Who said we shouldn't try to clean up our act? Of course we should try to develop new clean technologies as civilisation advances, to not do so would be stupid. What pisses me off is that according to all these global warming zealots we have to do this now now NOW! NOW! You hear so bloody much about using wind power and solar power instead of coal or nuclear (which is completely preposterous as it just doesn't generate enough power) , but what the hell is wrong with developing ways to clean or store the emmissions from burning coal. Little Johhny Howard is leading the way on this shit, with over a billion dollars invested so far and the results are promising. Advances are being made.
IMO, the whole global warming debate has been completely hijacked by extremist greenies and anti-industrial zealots who are all pushing their own agenda under the guise of protecting the environment.

[Bud Fox]

What is their "agenda"?

You stooges never say what it is.

[The Chad Cometh]

I would have thought anti-industrial zealot sort of spoke for itself, but in case you didn't get it ...

They want to shut down any form of industry that pollutes in any way. It's fucking ridiculous.

I also note your use of the word "theory".

[TAP]

I also note your use of the word "theory".

"Theory" as in "Scientific Theory" means something very different from theory as in "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge". I'm not commenting either way on the content of this thread, but please don't trivialize the scientific method by changing definitions.

[Izzy]

I think its so tragic that in the face of overwhelming evidence people still try and claim we dont need to do anything

Seems like a significant majority of Americans fall into that group, and as they produce more green houses gases than any other country there really is no hope for the world.

'but doing something would put petrol prices up a dollar - i dont care about tommorow only about me me me'

[Izzy]

They want to shut down any form of industry that pollutes in any way. It's fucking ridiculous.

Yes. Thats absolutely right.

Where u born stupid or did high levels of lead in car exhaust cause your behaviour?