So now that Al Gore can add “Nobel Prize” winner to his resume, is he going to reconsider a run at the White House?
I’m still convinced that Hillary is unelectable, but I don’t think the slate that the GOP is offering is anything special. Al Gore, on the other hand, already won the popular vote once, and that was when he was doing everything wrong. Nothing teaches the way experience does. I have to think that the older, wiser Gore could take the White House in a walk. The only question is whether it’s a walk he wants to take. Because he’d be taking a hëll of a chance: Right now he’s a respected elder statesman with major cred toward getting the job done in terms of reversing global warming. If he runs and loses, then it’s not only a step back personally, but it’s a step back for the interests of the world environmental situation because he’ll be just another failed presidential candidate.
Personally I hope he goes for it, but then again, that’s easy for me to say.
PAD
• 
Only if Gore stays out. If he jumps in maybe as late as December, the primaries will offer voters the choice between healthcare reform and a president who will takes steps to prevent the US breaking out in a civil war over water. That, plus Gore as a candidate again will offer voters a retaliation against George Bush in the form of a preview before his presidency even ends of how poorly history will view him. The media will make it a field day.
Lotta names here i never saw before, all attacking (pick one or more) Gore, the Peace Prize, Hillary and “socialists”.
Hmmm. Wonder if somen is googling or maybe the Other Side is posting lists of blogers that need to be “corrected”…
Can’t recall if i’ve ever seen Jimmie J here before, but…
Posted by Jimmie J
Actually, at least one scenario that sounds plausible to me is that global warming causes ice ages – it’s cyclic.
That is, global warming (however caused) increases the average amount of water vapour in the air, which increase cloud cover, which increases the amount of energy reflected back into space, which allows the polar caps to grow, which leads to the ice age.
Like any feedback process, at some point you hit a tipping point, beyond which the process is irreversible.
No-one who has studied climatological history – hëll, glanced casually at it with an open mind – denies that, yes, such cycles are natural.
What appears verey probable, however, is that humanity’s actions are both accelerating the process, and possibly driving it so far that, in electronic terms, it latches up at one extreme.
I have to admit to bursting out laughing at C.Schwehr’s “Democrat/socialist” construction since you don’t have anything in the US that looks remotely like socialism to the rest of the word. To us you have a right wing party – the Democrats – and a far-right party – the Republicans. The idea that Hillary Clinton is any sort of socialist is utterly risible. If she was a British politician the party where she would fit most comfortably is our Conservative party.
I think that people who suggest that Gore would be a formidible addition to the democratic field are forgetting one thing–this is Al Gore. It isn’t so much that he has changed his ways as that he has changed his venue. He is not a great debater–beating Ross Perot like a rented mule was fine but he did not exactly blow GW out of the water and many would suggest his performance there might have lost him the election (Of course, in an election that close ANYTHING you did wrong costs you the election).
He has been very careful to avoid debate with global warming critics or even those who just don’t buy his gloomier assesments of the situation. He will not have that luxury in any debate with the other Democratic candidates, who will all be coming after him with long knives.
“A familiar refrain, but one which really doesn’t make sense. Lots of people I know are fed up with picking what they perceive as the lesser of two (or more) evils come election day. Just because they don’t wish to vote for someone they don’t like – presumably to prevent someone they really loathe from getting in power – doesn’t mean they haven’t the right to bìŧçh about the sad state of electoral affairs.”
That’s absolutely untrue. If any potential voter isn’t contributing to the process, then one is simply abdicating their primary responsibilities as a voter. There’s no middle ground here.
“Two evenings ago I voted in the Ontario Provincial election. I voted for the Green Party (I’m fed up with the antics/incompetence of the Big Three old-time parties) but saw my vote wasted as the party failed to see even ONE member elected, in spite of getting about 10% of the popular vote thanks to our screwed up, first-past-the-post system. If I hadn’t voted, how would my criticism be any less valid?”
The answer: if you didn’t vote, then you wouldn’t have contributed to the voice of opposition. Democracy still works best when it’s on a TWO-WAY street.
Or to paraphrase one mindset of followers of ‘King George’, “Do you REALLY want the terrorists to win?” The only way to eventually instigate change is to KEEP ON PUSHING for reforms, and keep tossing road blocks in the way of those currently in power.
One debates to establish credibility for one’s self or one’s position. He walks into any debate now with a Nobel win on an environmental issue. Yes, he could throw away his advantage, but he doesn’t have to.
Chris: “I would love to give Hillary a try as President just for the social aspect of things. We have had a bunch of rich white straight men running this country for over 200 years, lets see what happens when we put a woman behind the wheel.”
A rich, white, straight woman.
Though I don’t think it would be fair to pretend that all Presidents come from affluent backgrounds. Plenty of them–Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton–including many who most left their imprint on this country (whether for good or ill) were from distinctly middle-class or working-class backgrounds.
Anyone that doubts that Hillary will win should read http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/13/hillary/?source=whitelist
Shameless manipulation? Well, yeah, but that’s what works. She’s doing what the others are either too dopey to know they need to do or just aren’t very good at doing it.
So far this has been like watching kids taking on a grownup. She hasn’t even had to bring out the big guns yet. This could change–Obama winning Iowa would require the Clintons to get a little bit of figurative blood on their hands and they will have to be careful not to overdo it–but having done everything so right so far it’s hard to imagine her suddenly blowing it all.
My whole gripe with a big section of the Global Warming alarmists is that they twist the truth or lie outright. The most fanatical want a world with no industry (impossible) and zero emmissions (theoretically possible, but not economically feasible on a large scale).
Any scientist who says that he/she knows all the cause and effect variables that result in global warming and cooling cycles is a liar. Likewise, any scientist who definitively says man IS or IS NOT responsible for the current warming trend is also a liar.
The fact is, we don’t know for sure why we seem to be entering a warming trend. Man could be responsible, based on increases in carbon dioxide over the past 500,000 years, but it’s no “slam dunk.” Hëll, it’s not even a layup.
Because we don’t know how the warming trend is occurring, no one, I repeat no one, can be sure if anything we do can temper the “problem,” let alone reverse it.
I hate the disingenuous news articles that cite how this or that effect is “the worst in 500 years.” As any paleoclimatologist can tell you, we went through a significant warming cycle only about 800 years ago long before there was any global industry. This warming trend allowed the Vikings to briefly settle in places along the Northern Atlantic rim that just a few hundred years later became uninhabitable again.
And the whole “rising sea level” flap is just as disingenuous. Due to slow glacial/ice cap melt-off, the sea level has steadily risen more than 300 feet — that’s right, about the height of a 30-story office building — in the past 20,000 years. During that time period, can you imagine how many coastal areas inhabited by man have already been swallowed by the sea?
Frankly, I find disgusting the arrogance of those who think they have all the answers and can actually control Mother Nature. If every factory shut down tomorrow, there’s no guarantee the climate would change at all. Not only that, one super volcano explosion, or one good smack from a big enough chunk of space rock, and our puny little efforts at controlling our environment would come to a crashing halt.
I’m all for a continuous effort to try and clean up our atmosphere and environment to give us a more healthy place to live, but don’t, for one second, try to sell me on the “we can control global weather” snake oil. For, while we MAY be affecting the climate, we certainly cannot control it.
PAD: “I still think Clinton is too polarizing a figure for a considerable number of Democrats to get behind, while the GOP will be able to use that hatred of her as a rallying point to strengthen their own candidate: “Yeah, our guy isn’t great, but do you really want Hillary Clinton in power?””
Yeah, and that strategy worked so well for the Democrats and Kerry in ’04.
Gore is not going to run. Had the Nobel not landed in his lap, it might be a different story. But now? No, he has everything to lose and really nothing to win. You can look at this from two different viewpoints.
1) Lets say that Gore really is a passionate environmentalist who’s decided that his calling is finally being fulfilled. He has his crusade and he’s just been elevated to a level that, for his mission, the presidency can’t touch. If he were to become president, he inherits so many distractions and issues that would divert his time and attention from his goal that it would be worthless to him. He would be taken away from his passion for four to eight years to do “mundane” things that really wouldn’t help his cause in the least. Yeah, you can say that he’d try to use the office to effect change, but he might see greater himself having effectiveness as the leader of of a movement rather then being part of a government system that, more often then not, eats its own to the point of getting nothing done.
2) Lets say that Gore is just a failed politician and an egotist. He’s just been given a massive ego stroke. Now he gets to decide how best to polish his new and improved ego. He could set himself up pretty nice as the elder spokesman of the cause. He gets to advise world leaders and criticize those he disapproves of from his own pulpit without actually having to debate anyone or being forced into entering into any damaging public confrontations. If he becomes president, every failure will be magnified a thousand fold. He’ll inherit the war, he’ll inherit the blame for whatever happens for the next four to eight years because of this war, he’ll lose fights with congress, he’ll be blamed, likely both rightly and wrongly, whatever ails the nation in 2012, etc. He becomes an average man who was an average president rather then being the new messiah of the environmental movement. He takes a step down to become a, likely, twice failed politician. And that’s only if he wins. He’s even more screwed if he becomes a two time (depending on who’s counting) loser.
Even if you take the middle ground between the two, I think that Gore would end up weighing the options and keep his hat far away from this race.
As to Hillary… Same old song, different week. She was too unelectable to win the Senate. She was going to get destroyed by the Republican machine. Her opponent was going to etc, etc, etc. And hey, I’ll admit that I was iffy on her this time last year, but she’s far and away looking like the front runner now. It’s fast becoming her race to lose and not the others’ race to win. And I think she’s become to savvy to make any major missteps in between now and November 2008.
Right now, and I do realize that this could change by Monday, Giuliani seems to be Republican front runner. In a contest between Giuliani and Clinton, I don’t think that the negatives against Clinton will be as great a factor as many suggest. Hëll, right now, Thompson may seem to be the best candidate to take advantage of Hillary’s negatives, but that will change the more Thompson is forced to show that he’s all hype and no substance. But Giuliani? I know a lot of Republicans and Conservatives that are pinning their hopes on Rudy, but it’ll likely turn out like her “unwinnable” first run for her senate seat. She’ll likely eat Rudy alive.
I don’t even think that the GOP hauling out every old lie about the Clintons, as some have already started to do, will be that big of a deal. It’s not sticking to the walls this time because it’s old, debunked news to everybody but the most ardent Clinton haters. Well, they’re not voting for Hillary anyhow.
C. Schwehr,
Wow… Just…. Wow. No anger/ignorance issues there.
dave w.: “the Peace Prize is a joke. Carter won it (for what????). And didn’t arafat win it???????”
Carter won it for decades of humanitarian efforts after leaving the White House. And Arafat won it jointly with SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel and YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel because it looked as though they were all finally ready to broker a peace. As many others have pointed out, it was an optimistic nomination that should have been held off until there were signs that their efforts would actually do something.
Other winners who you may want to irrationally disparage were DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES), JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE, JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE, NELSON MANDELA and FREDRIK WILLEM DE KLERK, THE 14TH DALAI LAMA (TENZIN GYATSO), THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. and MOTHER TERESA to name a few. Yeah, it’s such a worthless honor given to soooo many scumbags.
dave w.: “But Reagan (who ended the Cold War) didn’t.”
Turn Rush and Hannity off and sing a new song already.
Bill Mulligan: “Shameless manipulation? Well, yeah, but that’s what works. She’s doing what the others are either too dopey to know they need to do or just aren’t very good at doing it.”
And who hasn’t engaged in that in their political career? Shameless manipulation is usually around half of any given politician’s arsenal. She’s better at it then some and she still comes off looking more presidential in the debated then just about all of her opponents in her party and the other side.
Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won’t end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down.
R. Maheras: “For, while we MAY be affecting the climate, we certainly cannot control it. “
We don’t really need to contribute to the problem or accelerate it any further either. The very nature of man’s technology says that we will be to some degree, but the very nature of our ingenuity when faced with a problem shows that we can create better technology that does not contribute to the problem to the level we might.
Look at it like this…
You can’t change the fact that you’re growing older and you’re going to die. But, you now what? You can change how you grow older and how you die. You may even change when die. But you have to act to do so. You have to decide that your lifestyle choices are going to be healthy (or at least healthier.) If you just decide that you can’t stop your inevitable death and there’s no point in trying to live well, then you will create greater problems for yourself down the road. Same here.
Even if you want to argue whether or not man can greatly effect the global environment, you have to admit that we can effect the local environment. We’ve caused rivers to burn, water to kill and air to be almost unbreathable in some urban environments. The more we move towards technology that’s friendly to the global environment, the farther we move away from these other things. You also have to realize that, if you acknowledge the damage we’ve done locally, you admit that we can effect the global environment. If, as our numbers increase, enough small but growing pockets of mankind damage their local environments, then it will eventually effect the larger environments. The more we alter the little things, the more our ability to alter the larger things.
One tiny flame does nothing. A roaring fire can heat a room. Same thing here.
And the whole “rising sea level” flap is just as disingenuous. Due to slow glacial/ice cap melt-off, the sea level has steadily risen more than 300 feet — that’s right, about the height of a 30-story office building — in the past 20,000 years. During that time period, can you imagine how many coastal areas inhabited by man have already been swallowed by the sea?
Given that that works out to an average of 0.015 feet per year (.18 inches, or 1 foot over the course of an average human lifespan), I daresay they were able to see it coming and do something about it. Especially because for the majority of that 20,000 years human settlements weren’t permanent and hard to move, as they tend to be nowadays. But I’m sure people who live in areas that are at or below sea level, like the Netherlands or New Orleans, appreciate the reassurance that they have nothing to worry about…unless the process were to happen more quickly than over 200 centuries, or something.
“the Peace Prize is a joke. Carter won it (for what????). And didn’t arafat win it???????
But Reagan (who ended the Cold War) didn’t.”
Well If the Camp David Acords were not enough to win I humbely submit the following link…
http://www.cartercenter.org
Jimmy Carter is the living embodiment of the single worst thing that can ever be said about America…. “You can be to good of man to be president”
While I can not guess if another ex-president might win the Nobel Peace Prize in the future I can almost guarentee it will not be a republican ex-president to do it. (even my republican friends agree with me on this)
Mike wrote: “Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won’t end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down.”
Protectionist sniveling? No, Mike — just reality talking. I have no stake in business — I’m just tired of people who twist the truth — liberal or conservative — to push their own agendas.
If you were honest, you’d acknowledge that such a “race” has been going on for at least 40 years now, and there have been some great advances in cleaning up the environment.
Apparently, however, there are some who don’t believe this “race” has been run fast enough, so they resort to disingenuous reporting, misinformation, or outright lies.
When I was younger, I fell victim to the mindset that lies and disinformation were OK if it was “for a good cause.” After all, I rationalized, the “bad guys” do it.
But I don’t subscribe to that way of thinking anymore. I have a saying now that I try to live by: “Hyperbole is the primary weapon of those with the weakest argument.”
In other words, if one has to resort to hyperbole, than you know what? They just might be wrong.
Al Gore’s film uses hyperbole to make his point — to alarm people — to, as you put it, spark a “race to reduce emmissions.” That does nothing but erode his credibility, in my opinion.
Tell me the truth, and I’ll support you. Exaggerate or lie to me, and you’ll get nothing from me but contempt.
Doug wrote: “But I’m sure people who live in areas that are at or below sea level, like the Netherlands or New Orleans, appreciate the reassurance that they have nothing to worry about…unless the process were to happen more quickly than over 200 centuries, or something.”
In the case of New Orleans and the Neatherlands, I’m afraid it’s a case of “dead man walking” unless we head back into another Ice Age.
Since you’re giving instruction on honesty: name a government program that’s taken bids to assemble a zero-emissions technology, as the government took bids in the space race.
Oh, you mean like a hydrogen-powered car? Argonne National Laboratory is doing such research on that as we speak — I know because I toured their alternate fuels R&D section.
And NASA was at the forefront of the very successful effort to develop commercial wind turbine to make wind power a reality.
And just in the news the other day was a Pentagon proposal to generate power in space and beam it back to Earth — a process that would not cause environmental problems like coal-fired power generation plants.
There are plenty more examples — what’s your point?
“Had the Nobel not landed in his lap, it might be a different story.
Darn it, Chandler, I read that and had a whole reasoned, intelligent response going and then you ruined it by saying the same things. Jerk. Just for that, I am going to send you the movie to punish you. Especially after that visual of Rush and Hannity singing together. Give me nightmares for weeks, why don’tcha?
As for the “can’t change the fact that you’re getting older” thing, I just heard about research being done by someone whose name escapes me at the moment, I’ll have to check around to see if I can find it, but by activating certain sections of genetics, they’ve been able to double the lifespan of test animals. It has to do with the structures in DNA that govern the factors that make babies be born young. I’ll see if I can find out where it is to let you guys know.
“Just for that, I am going to send you the movie to punish you.”
You’re going to send me Planet terror? Ok… I take back everything I said.
Bill Mulligan: “Shameless manipulation? Well, yeah, but that’s what works. She’s doing what the others are either too dopey to know they need to do or just aren’t very good at doing it.”
And who hasn’t engaged in that in their political career? Shameless manipulation is usually around half of any given politician’s arsenal. She’s better at it then some and she still comes off looking more presidential in the debated then just about all of her opponents in her party and the other side.
Didn’t mean to give the impression that I disagree with anything you say re Hillary because I don’t. Except maybe the part about eating Giulliani alive. While he starts at a disadvantage he does occasionally show flashes of a genuine “happy warrior” stylee of politics that reagan and Bill Clinton had, one that could compare favorably to the way Hillary tends to come across.
The only weakness i can see in Hillary is that she has things so planned that she could–could–have trouble when things go off the expected track. Elections are naturally chaotic. Then again, this has not stopped her from success so far so maybe she has a better gift for spontaneity than her reputation suggests.
Given that that works out to an average of 0.015 feet per year (.18 inches, or 1 foot over the course of an average human lifespan), I daresay they were able to see it coming and do something about it. Especially because for the majority of that 20,000 years human settlements weren’t permanent and hard to move, as they tend to be nowadays. But I’m sure people who live in areas that are at or below sea level, like the Netherlands or New Orleans, appreciate the reassurance that they have nothing to worry about…unless the process were to happen more quickly than over 200 centuries, or something.
Doug, even if it doesn’t accelerate, even if global warming ends up being overstated, the folks in New Orleans need to worry. When you are A-below sea level and B-next to the sea, you have worries. The only solution would be to wait until some natural disaster destroys the place and rebuild in somewhere else. Which, clearly, is not a solution anyone really is willing to contemplate.
As for the “can’t change the fact that you’re getting older” thing, I just heard about research being done by someone whose name escapes me at the moment, I’ll have to check around to see if I can find it, but by activating certain sections of genetics, they’ve been able to double the lifespan of test animals. It has to do with the structures in DNA that govern the factors that make babies be born young. I’ll see if I can find out where it is to let you guys know.
While I’m all for research into lifespan extension (and, oddly, I seem to be for it more and more as I get older), I’ll bet that it’s going to be very difficult to beat this one. If mortality were something that could be easily improved with a few genetic tweaks shouldn’t we have seen a few mutation in that direction by now? It has a clear evolutionary advantage. Aging and death seem to be a hardwired requirement of life (or at least sexually reproducing lifeforms. I suppose one could argue that all amoeba are essentially the original amoeba, forever and ever, amoeba without end, amen).
Peter David: “‘Yeah, our guy isn’t great, but do you really want Hillary Clinton in power?'”
Yes, they can attack Hilary in that fashion. In return, she can bring up the poorly planned and executed war in Iraq, the bungled war on terror, the slowing economy, and a whole host of other thing that happened during the Republicans’ watch.
At one time, I’d’ve agreed with you that Hilary was unelectable. But times change, and I think you’re dead wrong on this one.
As Bill Mulligan pointed out, the Democrats went with the “electable” candidate in 2004 and lost. This year, I think they should place their bets on the best candidate. I personally never thought that would be Ms. Clinton, but I believe she has proven me wrong.
Bill Mulligan: “Except maybe the part about eating Giulliani alive.”
Nah, I think she can take out Rudy because he’s being a little to flagrant with his exaggerations about jis record. If he wins the nod and keeps that up against Hillary, he’ll get killed. It’ll be hard enough for the GOP to get people all worked up about the same old claims that they made years ago about Bill and Hillary. How much harder do you think Rudy will make it for them, and himself, if he keeps “exaggerating” his tax cutting records and, even better, facts about his actions during 9/11?
Bill, the two guys in Texas that did the research are Dr. Jerry Shay and Dr. Woody Wright.(I don’t know, would he? Sorry, couldn’t resist.) There are a couple articles(“The Start of Anti-Aging Medicine?” is one, but I’d need a gerontological certificate to get access to it.) There’s a book coming out, Forever and Ever based on their work, and the work of other people in the field.
I don’t know about Clinton eating Giuliani alive. I mean, I think he’d put up at least a significant struggle in that. Figuratively speaking, of course. Still, keep the fava beans and Chianti away from her.
Ooooooooookay…
Forget messing around with genes and playing with the weather. THIS is the future we need to work towards putting a stop to.
And they said that Galaxina was just bad science fiction.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/wid/11915829?GT1=10450
Y’know, now the whole idea of Robert Charles Orin Kilroy getting into the Roboto disguise is just really disturbing. Thanks a LOT, Jerry. Durn song ruiner.
Don’t worry Sean. You’ll always have Queen’s Flash Gordon. We won’t take that one away from you.
Bill Mulligan: I’m all for research into lifespan extension (and, oddly, I seem to be for it more and more as I get older)
Well Bill, aren’t Zombies essentially immortal? Don’t you see where all that genetic research is going? Braaaains…
My point is, for all your examples, you’ve listed no disadvantage to nurturing any of them. The relevant question doesn’t seem to be what my point is, but what your point is.
Reminds me of what George Carlin said
Just a side note, but whenever I see someone quote Carlin online, I feel compelled to check snopes to see if it’s another bogus essay that he really didn’t write. Couldn’t find one that refutes this one though.
Global climate change is a complex issue. Unfortunately, many of the skeptics, as we can see from some of the posts here, are more interested attacking the messenger (ie, labeling every as part of a “socialist agenda”) rather than actually show this mountain of scientific evidence that they claim exists to refute the consensus among about 90% of climatologists that human activity is indeed impacting on the average global temperature.
BTW, as someone who works as environmental scientist, not an activist, I don’t know anyone who is seriously advocating a “zero emissions” or “zero industry” approach. Indeed, we realize that simple reality that the only way to support the 6.6 billion people on this planet already is to continue to develop new technologies to meet their needs.
Now that said, Gore’s movie may have helped to get more people talking about the issues, but it does suffer from exagerations in a few places.
As for Gore running, I don’t think he will. If he does, however, I hope he doesn’t repeat his previous mistake of returing to his previous stiff and technocratic persona where all of his comments are run through focus groups. One of things that make him more attractive as a candidate today is that when he speaks, he appears to be more sincere in what he’s talking about than he did in 2000.
Now on to Hillary: She’s benefiting a lot right now from the media image as the inevitible nominee. Which ticks me off to no end since not a single primary vote has been cast yet. Of course, lots of people thought Dean was going to be the inevitible nominee in 2004 and McCain had a lock in 2000. It’s Hillary’s race to lose, but if she has her “scream” moment, she could still blow it.
Den, Carlin did that bit on an HBO special a few years back. I wish I could remember the name of it, but unfortunately it’s been a long week and it’s after midnight and I’ve been at work now since 9:45 this morning.
David, avoid the zombie conversations, man, avoid them! Its too late for me, but you still have a chance to escape….!
And dude, what good is your insistence the US is running in a zero-emissions race if the US doesn’t demonstrate an interest in reaching the finish?
Den & Sean,
I think it was What Am I Doing in NJ.
Mike wrote: “My point is, for all your examples, you’ve listed no disadvantage to nurturing any of them. The relevant question doesn’t seem to be what my point is, but what your point is.”
What, did you already forget the discussion points? Let me recap. You called me sniveling protectionist because I complained that Gore’s film was full of hyperbole and because I said that the there are environmental alarmists using scare tactics to lie and mislead others about the warming trend we appear to be going through.
You appeared to rationalize those actions by inferring that such subterfuge might generate interest in science in education and spur a race to erase emmissions.
I said we already have such a race going on, which you apparently disagreed with, and you then asked for examples showing how the government is already involved in zero-emmission research. So, I provide you with examples, and now you act like somewhere I was arguing against developing zero emmissions technology at all.
As I said in one of my earlier posts, I’m all for environmental progress (and actually, I have been a strong environmental advocate for more than 30 years), but I will not tolerate those who lie, obfuscate or mislead to achieve those goals.
You don’t seem to be denying the US isn’t interested in ever finishing the burdensome zero-emissions race you claim alarmist scare tactics have coerced us into running over the last 40 years. To me it looks like your fingers won’t unwrap from protectionist sniveling, and you offer us nothing else to imagine what your beef is.
Screw the pollution-apologists. Maybe scientists haven’t nailed down the exact causes of current environmental changes (all for the worse for humankind), but at least THEY ARE LOOKING!
Imagine these moronic right-wingers as doctors…
Apparently, they want to wait for the autopsy report to see what could have been done to save the patient…
If wanting a stable (and health) environment makes me a “socialist,” then by-God so be it.
And since I have no choice but to advance socialism, my first choice is to nationalize the health industry. It’s now a public service like education or police. And next, I will nationalize the energy industry. It, too, is a necessary human service which should not be left to the manipulations of profiteers.
But I leave untouched the entertainment industries. Except for cabals like the RIAA, which is doing more to destroy human creativity than religion ever did.
Well Bill, aren’t Zombies essentially immortal? Don’t you see where all that genetic research is going? Braaaains…
Actually nature has already achieved immortality. It’s called “cancer”.
When Henrietta Lacks died in 1953 of cervical cancer they saved a few of her cells and have used them ever since in bio research. It’s been estimated that if all of her bio-mass were gathered together it would be the largest animal biomass on earth, bigger than a few blue whales put together. (The so called HeLa cells are so prolific that they have been known to contaminate labs like kudzu.).
So immortality is quite possible…but not so great.
Hhmmmm………
Zombies… Cancer… Zombies… Cancer… Zombies…
I wonder… Could an theory be credibly put forward that the virus (if you go that route rather then the supernatural route) that re-animates the dead does so by causing some mutated form of cancer? The cells would attempt to repair themselves rather then multiplying since the living tissue is gone and this would give the corpse a limited “lifespan” after death. The intellect is gone with the soul, but the basic drives of the reptile mind (thus the impulse to feed) would pilot the corpse’s actions.
It would be unique approach, and one that would offer up the idea of a cure. Not, mind you, for the infected, but rather for the ones left alive.
C. Schwehr –
…just so the socialists…
…one of the democratic/socialists…
…as you socialists call it….
Ahh, you’ve gotta love the new right-wing buzzwords being thrown around these days.
What will they think of next?
Mike wrote: “You don’t seem to be denying the US isn’t interested in ever finishing the burdensome zero-emissions race you claim alarmist scare tactics have coerced us into running over the last 40 years. To me it looks like your fingers won’t unwrap from protectionist sniveling, and you offer us nothing else to imagine what your beef is.”
This statement makes no sense, and again stoops to mere name-calling. So much for intelligent discourse.
I found this quite interesting…
ONE of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize “ridiculous” and the product of “people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works”.
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
“We’re brainwashing our children,” said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. “They’re going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It’s ridiculous.”
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: “We have to quickly find a way to change the world’s consciousness about exactly what we’re facing.”
Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures – related to the amount of salt in ocean water – was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
“We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was,” Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
“The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures,” Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
“It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong,” he said. “But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.”
I have literally abstained from name-calling. So much for you giving instruction on honesty.
And for another view on Dr. Gray’s hypothesis:
“For years, perhaps decades, Gray has been ascribing all sorts of climate changes and hurricane cycles to fluctuations in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), an overturning circulation in the Atlantic ocean associated with formation of deep water in the North Atlantic. None of the assertions are based on rigorous statistical associations, oceanographic observations or physically based simulations; it is all seat-of -the-pants stuff of a sort that was common in the early days of climate studies, but which is difficult to evaluate when viewed as a scientific hypothesis.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/#more-295
“If wanting a stable (and health) environment makes me a “socialist,” then by-God so be it.”
Hey, it’s not so bad. At least you can be friends with Wadsworth’s wife.
Mike wrote: “I have literally abstained from name-calling. So much for you giving instruction on honesty.”
Oh, apparently “sniveling protectionist” is a compliment in your lexicon. My bad.
I first said Hillary would be our next president just after Bush’s ’04 re-election. People thought I was crazy (and they still do, but for different reasons) at the time, because “everybody hates her.”
Now I admit that Hillary couldn’t beat an untrained bear in a general election, but the Republicans aren’t nominating a bear. Rudy is the absolute worst. The man couldn’t be less popular if he grew out a Hitler mustache. The evangelical-wing would be more likely to vote for Bin Laden… he’s pretty religious, so he is probably against abortion.
In conclusion, if it is Hillary v. Rudy the former will win in a Reagan v. Carter landslide, if not a Reagan v. Mondale one. If it is Hillary v. McRompson it won’t be quite as bad for the Republicans, but they will still lose.
I wonder… Could an theory be credibly put forward that the virus (if you go that route rather then the supernatural route) that re-animates the dead does so by causing some mutated form of cancer? The cells would attempt to repair themselves rather then multiplying since the living tissue is gone and this would give the corpse a limited “lifespan” after death. The intellect is gone with the soul, but the basic drives of the reptile mind (thus the impulse to feed) would pilot the corpse’s actions.
The sequel script I’m still writing postulates something similar–zombification essentially turns the infected into a kind of colonial organism, similar to a Portuguese man of war, with each cell able to live independently of the others. Thus, damage to any part of the body has little effect.
Now one can wonder how the dead are able to keep going energy-wise. Well, like a crocodile, the loss of endothermic metabolism allows a very long time between meals–something like 90% of our food intake is used to generate body heat, according to valid statistics I just pulled out of my ášš.
Now I admit that Hillary couldn’t beat an untrained bear in a general election, but the Republicans aren’t nominating a bear. Rudy is the absolute worst. The man couldn’t be less popular if he grew out a Hitler mustache. The evangelical-wing would be more likely to vote for Bin Laden… he’s pretty religious, so he is probably against abortion.
I don’t entirely agree with the assessment of Rudy but I would definitely give the edge to Hillary. I mean, just imagine how much fun the press will have when Team Clinton appoints Donna Hanover as spokesman. And if the religious right makes good on their threats to run a third party candidate and they get someone of even the slightest ability to look good…might as well start asking Hillary what color she wants the drapes.
Well, look at you attributing to me a term you introduced into the thread yourself, and you will only find in my posts where I’ve cited something you’ve said. Your bad, indeed.
Posted by: Jimmie J at October 14, 2007 08:47 PM:
“I found this quite interesting…
ONE of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize “ridiculous”
Posted by: Den at October 14, 2007 10:59 PM:
“And for another view on Dr. Gray’s hypothesis:”
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 14, 2007 08:03 PM:
“C. Schwehr –
…just so the socialists…
…one of the democratic/socialists…
…as you socialists call it….
Ahh, you’ve gotta love the new right-wing buzzwords being thrown around these days.”
Micha:
It seems Nowadays each political point of view can havve its own scientists, its own historians, its own military experts, its own news sources, its own internet sites, its own terminology, its own comedians, etc. It makes it very difficult for people who are not experts or ideologically affiliated to form informed opinions.
—————-
R. Maheras, I think you’ve frequented this blog often enough to be familiar with the uniques aspects of interactions with Mike.