One question....How did stupid Bush beat Al Gore for president?
No doubt the human presence pollutes.
But is the cycles of the Sun more responsible ?
Is the cycle of the molten core of earth more responsible ?
I don't care if guys like Gore can't really remove those above possibilities. Guys like Gore exhibit
the tyrannical pressure on any questions on the source of global warming, similar to the Church
squelching questions on what is the center of the universe.
All I care is that we somehow marry business with conservation in an intelligent alliance.
But omigod the heretics even in the science community who wonder if we
have yet developed the metrics to rule out the cycles of the sun and cycles of the earth molten core ??
while allowing some of the worlds worst polluters to keep on spewing, because they are "Developing" Nations.
My only criticism of this movie is that Al Gore should have spent more time talking about global warming and less time talking about Al Gore. It was almost a biography of the guy, which makes me think there was some political motivation...but I could be wrong. If he doesn't run in 2008 then maybe there isn't much motivation there...
In terms of CO2, I think those developing nations are contributing a lot less CO2 than developed nations, so I don't understand your argument.
I couldn't dissagree more, with your review of the movie. It like Gore, lacked substance. Most of all, it, as is the Kyoto accord, based on flawed computer analysis, and project scales. More scientists are leaning away from, what is now being called the "Junk Science", that helped develop the accord in the first place. And that is where Gore got his stats.
Don't get me wrong, I am more then well aware of the impact of humans on the environment. I just fail to see the value in doomsday theories and flawed computer programs, to justify crippling western economy, while allowing some of the worlds worst polluters to keep on spewing, because they are "Developing" Nations.
I think this movie was more politically motivated, then environmently.
My argument is, whether or not a Nation is a "Developing" Nation or not, should be irrelevent. If protecting the econmomy, superceeds the environment for a "Developing" Nation, then not only is that exactly why we should and have opted out of the Kyoto Accord, but it leaves these Nations open to exploitation by huge multinational companies. Even worse is, they can sell the credits they have to large Nations. The whole accord was and is a sham in my opinion. A piece of feel good doctrine, for the political elite to look good, while smiling as they signed it infront of the cameras.
Curiosity
You are typing fairy tales. Cosmic rays? Not pixie dust?
Juan, I thought if anybody would be a sceptic of the "Global warming" craze, it would be you.
Several of the scientists that developed the software used in th eprojection models, have since seen the errors and said so. It is the "doomsday'ers" that cling to it, for their 15 minutes of fame.
So many legitamate scientists have bailed on the protocol, because of it flawed arguement. It is essentially a losing battle.
I agree that global warming is an issue, and it needs to be addressed seriously and now. But to follow the ramblings of a program, that has been proven wrong is assinine. To exempt some countries is wrong, to allow some countries to seel credits is wrong. To cripple or put industry in serious jeapordy is wrong.
Hey I want industry to clean itself up, I want car makers to make cars that run on water(Hey tinhatters, we have a thread to address that in, stay away from here, lol). But lets get real, you drive, you eat, you buy, you are a part of the problem and an enabler like us all. Something should be done, but the Kyoto Protocol, ain't it.
One question....How did stupid Bush beat Al Gore for president?
I don't care about Al Gore, but I can't argue with his facts. This issue should not be passed off as a political fad. Global warming poses a serious threat to our children, and our children's children, and their children.
Juan
You are the one introducing AlBore's little self-promoting, self-discovery film. He has politicized it - Ralph Nadar lives it.
If you want serious discussion on global warming - leave the Borester out of it.
He has nothing to do, no job to speak of except his "environmental movement" which people who feel sorry for him - give him spokesman duties... money to waste on himself, nobody wants to read anything he writes and he is so over.
The guy bought a huge place in San Francisco where the prices are royal, in which he lodges once in a blue moon (like a western White House for Gore).... and this fits in with global warming and excessive use how? Does he bike around places he visits? Of course not - he has an entourage. He is is worst environmental enemy doing damage to the cause he "promotes".
California has a huge environmental movement, studies in universities devoted strictly for that purpose, the people here could be leaders in changing our world.... we live "green" and don't go around spouting off about it... it's a personal thing see. Do what you can and expect the best of others too. If they don't "get it" teach em. California isn't the only state doing this. It happens to be the only one I am familiar with.
