Al Gore in person; movie: An Inconvenient Truth

Bob Allen · May 4, 2006

We went to see Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I was impressed. He was there in person, along with our governor, Christine Gregoire, our Mayor, Greg Nichols and the King County Executive, Ron Sims. The movie is riveting. I expected it to be depressing, but it's not. It's a very sobering look at human interaction with the planet and the looming environmental crisis. A definite must see movie. Al was very personable and funny, along with just being very inspiring. His passion for this stuff is contagious.

I feel fortunate to live in a part of the country (Seattle) that is both very liberal and environmentally progressive. It helps cushion my soul against the dead weight of Bush's criminal inaction on global climate change. The scariest part of the movie is the animation showing what a 20 rise in sea level will do to various parts of the world. If Greenland melts, and/or the Artic Ice Sheet melts, we can expect 20 foot increase in sea level. No point wondering what to do with the Trade Center Memorial in NYC; it will be underwater, as will about half of Florida, the major Gulf Coast cities, a third of the Bay Area, most of San Diego, good parts of Seattle, Calcutta, Bejing........

Gore has produced a slide show which he has presented over 1000 times all over the world. He was encouraged to make the show into a movie, which some critics might say shows too much Al Gore. I didn't think that was the case; the movie is him presenting his material, along with sections of personal reflections tht compliment the global nature of the crisis. The facts are startling; the satellite and aerial photography are scary and the conclusion so obvious that even some very conservative Republicans have been converted. I highly recommend this movie.

According to strong scientific consensus, we have about 10 years to initiate huge changes / reductions in carbon emissions (not necessarily solve the problem itself) before we go into irreversible climate change.
Given that the next 2.5 years under Bush will likely see NO serious government effort, that gives the next administration only 8 years to do the environmental equivalent of putting a man on the moon and simultaneously winning WW2. Gore's optimism is encouraging, as is his sense that changes are afoot.
144 cities in the US have agreed to the Kyoto Treaty. Those cities represent a greater number of people than in any other Kyoto ratifying country.

Bob
My big question is why wasn't he this charismatic in 2000? The contrast between Al and George couldn't be more dramatic or appalling.

Subversive · May 4, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ May 4 2006, 01:02 AM) [snapback]249548[/snapback]</div>

My big question is why wasn't he this charismatic in 2000? The contrast between Al and George couldn't be more dramatic or appalling.
[/b]
Click to expand...

It's a mystery to me. He was more charismatic in this largely unseen mini-documentary too (click to view). If he can continue to find a way to express his passion without sounding smarmy, then perhaps he will do better in 2008.

ghostofjk · May 4, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Subversive @ May 3 2006, 10:19 PM) [snapback]249552[/snapback]</div>

It's a mystery to me. He was more charismatic in this largely unseen mini-documentary too (click to view). If he can continue to find a way to express his passion without sounding smarmy, then perhaps he will do better in 2008.
[/b]
Click to expand...

This is an odd time and place to say it, but I would support Gore without reservation in '08. My second choice would be John Kerry. I see no other Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who I like more.

TonyPSchaefer · May 4, 2006

I would vote for Al Gore's head.

larkinmj · May 4, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ May 4 2006, 03:12 AM) [snapback]249573[/snapback]</div>

This is an odd time and place to say it, but I would support Gore without reservation in '08. My second choice would be John Kerry. I see no other Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who I like more.
[/b]
Click to expand...

It is a mystery, but I think the answer is partially because the Democratic party is controlled by the DNC and their misguided political consultants. As a result, two people (Gore and Kerry) that I believe, despite their flaws, are intelligent, capable and have America's best interests at heart were turned into miserable campaigners. Gore has been the greatest advocate among leading politicians on environment issues, particularly global warming- yet he didn't even say a word about it in 2000.
I would vote for Gore if he runs again, but I doubt he will. I'm hoping that Feingold runs.

dbermanmd · May 4, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ May 4 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]249623[/snapback]</div>

I would vote for Al Gore's head.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I think the world should have ended 30 years ago according to some hysterical talking heads - but here we are.
Interesting article on how the ozone layer is repairing itself in the NY Times today. I could stand a little global warming seeing how colds its been in the NE this winter. And if water levels rise a few feet, well then my house would be beachfront

Still wondering why the glaciers melted 1,000,000 years ago? Why T Rex is just a fossil now? Why life expectancy has and continues to move toward 100 years? How the planet is still supporting all this life and our numbers continue to grow?

Well if we only have a few years left I must plan on how I will spend them. But then again there is nothing Gore touched or thought on that he ended up being correct on. I sure would love to see how he Photoshopped those rising water levels though.

We survived the Cold War with nearly 100,000 nukes on the planet. We are still alive on a billion year old rock.

Question, if we worry more about the talking heads on global warming and lose the War on Terror - does it really matter how hot the planet is anyway - oh, forgot, they want to move time back a thousand years or so anyway so it makes no difference - their used to hot arid lands and no economy. Or, would that be the best way to fight them - raise water levels to high as to flood their homelands??

finman · May 4, 2006

Thank you Bob Allen for the insightful post. I still can't believe people ignore all that is going on around them. What will it take? The obvious is right in front of us, unfolding, as we continue to pollute and consume like the party just got started. Thanks to people like Al Gore the reality is being exposed, like it or not. The material out there is just too compelling. We can do something about our destructive ways or we can choose to ignore all the data. The latter being something Mr. Bush and his pack have done for far too long, even changing it to fit their awful agenda.

Keep up the fight. I feel the right things will happen if more people can be exposed to the lies of BushCo. It's not ignorance, it's lies. Impeach W now.

eyeguy13 · May 6, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ May 4 2006, 12:02 AM) [snapback]249548[/snapback]</div>

According to strong scientific consensus, we have about 10 years to initiate huge changes / reductions in carbon emissions (not necessarily solve the problem itself) before we go into irreversible climate change.
Given that the next 2.5 years under Bush will likely see NO serious government effort, that gives the next administration only 8 years to do the environmental equivalent of putting a man on the moon and simultaneously winning WW2.
[/b]
Click to expand...

It's going to take people like us and cities like Portland and Seattle to solve this problem. The US Government will be highly ineffective in this due to lobbying pressures. It will be up to individual citizens and local and state governments. Unless......we elect a strong pro-environment Congress in 2006 and a strong pro-environment President in 2008. What, am I nuts????? This isn't Canada or Europe!

OK, we're doomed.....

Begreen · May 6, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Subversive @ May 3 2006, 10:19 PM) [snapback]249552[/snapback]</div>

It's a mystery to me. He was more charismatic in this largely unseen mini-documentary too (click to view). If he can continue to find a way to express his passion without sounding smarmy, then perhaps he will do better in 2008. [/b]
Click to expand...

I'm currently reading Politics Lost, by Joe Klein (The Natural, Primary Colors). Klein sub-titles his book "How American democracy was trivialized by people who think you're stupid". He points out that it was political consultants that kept Gore away from speaking on issues he was passionate about. He came off as stiff an unanimated because he wasn't speaking from the heart. I've caught or viewed a couple of later Gore speeches and left impressed by his knowledge, passion and oratorial skills. Yeah, I'd vote for him, but it may not make that much difference unless we regain control of the voting machines.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

ghostofjk · May 6, 2006

I'm glad to see others are tuned into the Diebold/voting machine issue.

Q: How is it possible that we're six years into the post-2000 election fiasco period and voting machine issues are still being slugged out on a county-by-county basis (with heavy state involvement in places)?

A: Republicans, mostly.

Insist on a paper-receipt verification of your vote!

hycamguy07 · May 6, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 4 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]249720[/snapback]</div>

I think the world should have ended 30 years ago according to some hysterical talking heads - but here we are.
Interesting article on how the ozone layer is repairing itself in the NY Times today. I could stand a little global warming seeing how colds its been in the NE this winter. And if water levels rise a few feet, well then my house would be beachfront

Still wondering why the glaciers melted 1,000,000 years ago? Why T Rex is just a fossil now? Why life expectancy has and continues to move toward 100 years? How the planet is still supporting all this life and our numbers continue to grow?

Well if we only have a few years left I must plan on how I will spend them. But then again there is nothing Gore touched or thought on that he ended up being correct on. I sure would love to see how he Photoshopped those rising water levels though.

We survived the Cold War with nearly 100,000 nukes on the planet. We are still alive on a billion year old rock.

Question, if we worry more about the talking heads on global warming and lose the War on Terror - does it really matter how hot the planet is anyway - oh, forgot, they want to move time back a thousand years or so anyway so it makes no difference - their used to hot arid lands and no economy. Or, would that be the best way to fight them - raise water levels to high as to flood their homelands??
[/b]
Click to expand...

Wow Well said........ :mellow:

Bob Allen · May 7, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 5 2006, 12:04 AM) [snapback]249720[/snapback]</div>

I think the world should have ended 30 years ago according to some hysterical talking heads - but here we are.
Interesting article on how the ozone layer is repairing itself in the NY Times today. I could stand a little global warming seeing how colds its been in the NE this winter. And if water levels rise a few feet, well then my house would be beachfront

Still wondering why the glaciers melted 1,000,000 years ago? Why T Rex is just a fossil now? Why life expectancy has and continues to move toward 100 years? How the planet is still supporting all this life and our numbers continue to grow?

Well if we only have a few years left I must plan on how I will spend them. But then again there is nothing Gore touched or thought on that he ended up being correct on. I sure would love to see how he Photoshopped those rising water levels though.

We survived the Cold War with nearly 100,000 nukes on the planet. We are still alive on a billion year old rock.

Question, if we worry more about the talking heads on global warming and lose the War on Terror - does it really matter how hot the planet is anyway - oh, forgot, they want to move time back a thousand years or so anyway so it makes no difference - their used to hot arid lands and no economy. Or, would that be the best way to fight them - raise water levels to high as to flood their homelands??
[/b]
Click to expand...

I would turn your equation around: if we lose the battle on climate change, the whole ship goes down, not just the turbaned headed baddies GWB wants to focus on, and the "War on Terror" will seem pretty ridiculous by comparison. The war on terrorism is about keeping American hegemony intact and Republicans in power, NOT about terrorists. By virtually any definition of terrorist, George Bush is one.
If we were serious about nabbing the guys who did 9/11, we'd never have wasted our resources in Iraq. We had a chance to nab Bin Laden and blew it; while some suspect it was intentional, I'm inclined to credit massive incompetence and delusional megalomania.

The "problem" with climate change as an issue is that it's happening too slowly for the average Joe to grasp the danger, although it's happening at an electrifying speed in geological/meterological terms.

Look at it this way: GWB is going after pickpockets on the Titanic, Al Gore is talking about icebergs, ignored warnings of same, and reckless speed.

larkinmj · May 7, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 4 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]249720[/snapback]</div>

I think the world should have ended 30 years ago according to some hysterical talking heads - but here we are.
Interesting article on how the ozone layer is repairing itself in the NY Times today. I could stand a little global warming seeing how colds its been in the NE this winter. And if water levels rise a few feet, well then my house would be beachfront

Still wondering why the glaciers melted 1,000,000 years ago? Why T Rex is just a fossil now? Why life expectancy has and continues to move toward 100 years? How the planet is still supporting all this life and our numbers continue to grow?

Well if we only have a few years left I must plan on how I will spend them. But then again there is nothing Gore touched or thought on that he ended up being correct on. I sure would love to see how he Photoshopped those rising water levels though.

We survived the Cold War with nearly 100,000 nukes on the planet. We are still alive on a billion year old rock.

Question, if we worry more about the talking heads on global warming and lose the War on Terror - does it really matter how hot the planet is anyway - oh, forgot, they want to move time back a thousand years or so anyway so it makes no difference - their used to hot arid lands and no economy. Or, would that be the best way to fight them - raise water levels to high as to flood their homelands??
[/b]
Click to expand...

If we continue to waste our resources on travesties such as the war in Iraq (which is exacerbating, not combating, terrorism) while ignoring global warming- not to mention other problems such as air and water pollution, poverty, hunger, and disease), we will be left with a world not fighting for.

McShemp · May 7, 2006

Bob, Bob, Bob ... contrary to your belief, the sky isn't falling.

No one would (or should) disagree about pollution and eco damage being bad things. They are. However, this planet has undergone numerous ice ages, climate changes, meteor strikes, and even reversals of the magnetic poles. These things are part of the nature of ... well ... nature.

A one, 10, 100, even 1000 year observation is a blink of the eye geologically, and it's not guaranteed to predict anything with certainty. For example, temperature trends for the past 120 years are up while the average temperature worldwide since the late 90s is actually down. Yes, it's cooler now than it was six years ago. So, what does that prove? Nothing really. Just like your, and Gore's, assertions.

Save energy. Reduce pollution and greenhouse gasses. Spread these improvements throughout the underdeveloped third world where their cars spew out 100 times the HC and NO2 emissions. BTW - Look at China and India too. Well over a billion each in population and both fighting to grow their industrial machines with no regard for the consequences. Some regions of China are already industrial cesspools with more to follow. Their air and water don't exactly stop at their borders either.

Begreen · May 8, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ May 7 2006, 05:30 PM) [snapback]251215[/snapback]</div>

A one, 10, 100, even 1000 year observation is a blink of the eye geologically, and it's not guaranteed to predict anything with certainty. For example, temperature trends for the past 120 years are up while the average temperature worldwide since the late 90s is actually down. Yes, it's cooler now than it was six years ago. So, what does that prove? Nothing really. Just like your, and Gore's, assertions.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Could you post the source(s) of this data? Seems to contradict what the National Center for Atmospheric Research is reporting.
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.shtml

McShemp · May 8, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ May 8 2006, 11:07 AM) [snapback]251479[/snapback]</div>

Could you post the source(s) of this data? Seems to contradict what the National Center for Atmospheric Research is reporting.
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.shtml
[/b]
Click to expand...

I probably looked at the same web site you got your plot from. So, look right at your own plot. See the red line peak at 1999 (or 2000, it's difficult to tell from the plot)? Now see it going down? That's called a decrease. Your own plot shows a multi-year decrease. AFAIK, we're still on that downward trend.

Of course, it will go up and it will go down. These "instantaneous" measurements mean little if nothing. The entire 160 year plot may have no significance. The fact is, no one really knows anything about it because there's not enough data on hand. Your plot shows 160 years of recorded temps. That's an extremely small sample considering the age of the planet. Then, there could also be accuracy issues with the older recorded temps.

Yet, there are plenty of people with all of their attention focused on hand wringing. The data for future temps is unknown so they base a lot of their estimates on this small sample. They make assumptions and guesses based upon trends and what they believe ... or wish to believe. The last 160 year trend shows one thing, the last 20 year trend shows another, the last six year trend another. Maybe the last 10,000 year trend shows something completely different ... too bad we don't have that data to look at.

Bob Allen · May 8, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ May 9 2006, 02:35 AM) [snapback]251597[/snapback]</div>

I probably looked at the same web site you got your plot from. So, look right at your own plot. See the red line peak at 1999 (or 2000, it's difficult to tell from the plot)? Now see it going down? That's called a decrease. Your own plot shows a multi-year decrease. AFAIK, we're still on that downward trend.

Of course, it will go up and it will go down. These "instantaneous" measurements mean little if nothing. The entire 160 year plot may have no significance. The fact is, no one really knows anything about it because there's not enough data on hand. Your plot shows 160 years of recorded temps. That's an extremely small sample considering the age of the planet. Then, there could also be accuracy issues with the older recorded temps.

Yet, there are plenty of people with all of their attention focused on hand wringing. The data for future temps is unknown so they base a lot of their estimates on this small sample. They make assumptions and guesses based upon trends and what they believe ... or wish to believe. The last 160 year trend shows one thing, the last 20 year trend shows another, the last six year trend another. Maybe the last 10,000 year trend shows something completely different ... too bad we don't have that data to look at.
[/b]
Click to expand...

We're not talking about 160 years, we're talking about 650,000 years, which is about how far back Antartic ice core samples can provide temperature data and CO2 concentrations (from air bubbles trapped in the ice). AND, the earth is getting (is already) warmer than it has been at any time during that 650k year period. Not only is it getting warmer, it's getting warmer at an accelerating pace. So, indeed, the sky IS falling. Trying to mask the problem by referring to "cycles in the past few hundred years" is dangerous because it lulls people into thinking the problem will wait until our kids invent a solution. In one 36 hour period, an entire Antartic ice shelf melted. This is on satellite video. I'm sorry if I seem "alarmist", but I am very worried about what's happening and very worried about how indifferent people are to the crisis.

George Bush and Co. are going after the pickpockets on the Titanic: Al Gore is talking about icebergs, ignored warnings of same, and excessive speed. Even if Al is wrong, it would be better to err on the side of caution, don't you think, than to trust GWB and Exxon Mobil's predictions??

Begreen · May 8, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ May 8 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]251597[/snapback]</div>

I probably looked at the same web site you got your plot from. So, look right at your own plot. See the red line peak at 1999 (or 2000, it's difficult to tell from the plot)? Now see it going down? That's called a decrease. Your own plot shows a multi-year decrease. AFAIK, we're still on that downward trend.

Of course, it will go up and it will go down. These "instantaneous" measurements mean little if nothing. The entire 160 year plot may have no significance. The fact is, no one really knows anything about it because there's not enough data on hand. Your plot shows 160 years of recorded temps. That's an extremely small sample considering the age of the planet. Then, there could also be accuracy issues with the older recorded temps.

Yet, there are plenty of people with all of their attention focused on hand wringing. The data for future temps is unknown so they base a lot of their estimates on this small sample. They make assumptions and guesses based upon trends and what they believe ... or wish to believe. The last 160 year trend shows one thing, the last 20 year trend shows another, the last six year trend another. Maybe the last 10,000 year trend shows something completely different ... too bad we don't have that data to look at. [/b]
Click to expand...

I agree that by geologic time, we are seeing a blink of the eye, but we appear to be setting a precedent here. The temp graph trend is rapidly upward. Another important graph is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The increase is at the most rapid level known, even when compared to geologic records. This is relatively unknown territory. What is known is that historically, when large changes occur the results can be dramatic. The world was just a little different 10000 yrs ago than today. That is, there weren't cities on coasts and societies that depend on relatively reliable conditions for economic stability, transportation, infrastructure, etc. To scoff at the research and concerns of thousands of scientists is perhaps not that prudent.

Tom_06 · May 8, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ May 8 2006, 02:35 PM) [snapback]251597[/snapback]</div>

<snip> The last 160 year trend shows one thing, the last 20 year trend shows another, the last six year trend another. Maybe the last 10,000 year trend shows something completely different ... too bad we don't have that data to look at.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Tecnical question: how does a global temp from 160 years ago compare with data from the last few decades? We now have satellite measurements that can ignore political boundaries and integrate temperatures from the entire globe 24/7. 160 years ago we had...??... measured where ??? with what instruments??? I don't doubt the thermometer's accuracy, but are we talking about a Royale Society of something collating data sent in by sailing ships from only a limited part of the globe??

- Tom

McShemp · May 8, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom_06 @ May 8 2006, 01:52 PM) [snapback]251604[/snapback]</div>

Tecnical question: how does a global temp from 160 years ago compare with data from the last few decades? We now have satellite measurements that can ignore political boundaries and integrate temperatures from the entire globe 24/7. 160 years ago we had...??... measured where ??? with what instruments??? I don't doubt the thermometer's accuracy, but are we talking about a Royale Society of something collating data sent in by sailing ships from only a limited part of the globe??

- Tom
[/b]
Click to expand...

According to what the plot shows, since 1980 we've been above an average temperature. The amount above that temperature varies. The overall trend is up, but for the last several years it's been "up" less than previously.

Al Gore in person; movie: An Inconvenient Truth

Bob Allen Captainbaba

Subversive New Member

ghostofjk New Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
Staff Member

larkinmj New Member

dbermanmd New Member

finman Senior Member

eyeguy13 Member

Begreen Member

ghostofjk New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

Bob Allen Captainbaba

larkinmj New Member

McShemp New Member

Begreen Member

McShemp New Member

Bob Allen Captainbaba

Begreen Member

Tom_06 Active Member

McShemp New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Al Gore in person; movie: An Inconvenient Truth

Bob Allen Captainbaba

Subversive New Member

ghostofjk New Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator Staff Member

larkinmj New Member

dbermanmd New Member

finman Senior Member

eyeguy13 Member

Begreen Member

ghostofjk New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

Bob Allen Captainbaba

larkinmj New Member

McShemp New Member

Begreen Member

McShemp New Member

Bob Allen Captainbaba

Begreen Member

Tom_06 Active Member

McShemp New Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
Staff Member