Gaia: CLIMATE CHANGE - Climate Change Coffee Cooler - An Inconvenient Truth?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://shelivesintheforest.gaia.com — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:15:30 GMT

I love "None"'s brave mud throwing against Al Gore's credibility. I have read junk like this before.

On another blog site, someone was going on about, how can he (Gore) go on about global warming and an energy crisis when he lives in such a big house and has an energy bill twice the size of the average person in (I forget where he lives, somewhere in Tennessee?).

Of course, they don't mention that both Al and Tipper Gore work at home (which most working people do not do) and that, among other things to reduce their carbon footprint, they get their electricity from a green electricity source (which costs extra). When I checked into the half story that was given on the blog site, it also mentioned that the Gore's are planning to add solar panels somewhere on the house.

I don't know how many alternative energy providers there are in the U.S. or other parts of the world, but in Ontario I only know about one, Bull Frog Power, which provides 100% green electricity, but costs me an extra dollar a day to do it. Only people trying to reduce their carbon footprint will pay that extra cost.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:37:24 GMT

Check out Global-mindshift and what they are doing.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:40:14 GMT

The Weather Makers- great peice of work!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:14:28 GMT

he is not a hypocrite, he may not be a "model environmentalist", but he has been fighting for both a cleaner future and to keep biodiversity for quite some time.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://iohel.gaia.com — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:17:46 GMT

I agree with you michael: focusing on "sustainable" technology rather than fightingh should be the approach. It is something that everyone could agree on: safer for the environment, just for society and economically sound.

Climate change is happening! Let's work the "unchange" it.

blessings
Iohel

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://my-head.gaia.com — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:56:34 GMT

Joking apart - as I have said elsewhere - climate change is but one of the issues which need to be addressed - but first and foremost an absolute change in global MIND-SET must take place. This MIND-SET change IS happening NOW - as exemplified by the ever accelerating rate of technological change and as such C4Chaos' perspective should be again re-itterated albeit paraphrased -

another argument, which i think is the Singularitarian perspective , focusing on “sustainable” technology rather than fighting off natural and man-made causes of Climate Change is the more compassionate approach. i think this view makes sense. don't you?

YES YES YES

so what do all you zaadzsters think ?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://my-head.gaia.com — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:41:15 GMT

Perhaps the inconvenient truth is that - the vast majority of Nobel Prize winners live in Geneva & that Al Gore has aspirations to do so as well ?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:03:13 GMT

and yet another stab at Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth...

(via MD)

Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore

In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the only facts and studies considered are those convenient to Gore's scare-them-green agenda. And in many instances, he distorts the evidence he cites. In fact, nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong.

--Marlo Lewis, Jr., Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

In the following book, videos, and Powerpoint presentation, CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr. reveals the inconvenient truths that Al Gore ignored in the book and movie versions of his global warming presentation, An Inconvenient Truth.

Read the book: A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (downloadable by chapters in PDF)

Watch the videos

Download the Powerpoint presentation

On December 5, 2006, Lewis appeared in a brief pre-taped segment on a global warming themed episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show. After the segment, Al Gore responded to Lewis' comments. What follows is Lewis' rebuttal to Gore's response.

Here's the link to the YouTube video.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:43:57 GMT

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

he's a model politician with dignity. A model politician, alright: a hypocrit.

I'm so glad he's raising awareness about this, but it sure takes some gall to pretend to be an environmentalist and make so few sacrifices himself.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://INTERNALLIGHTPILOT.gaia.com — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:16:03 GMT

there's a 2 hour global warming special on the discovery network sunday, 16th- If you miss it, look for rebroadcasts. Were breaking another heat record here in colorado today

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://shadowchaser.gaia.com — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:34:47 GMT

Well if I look at the good side of weather down here, at least it takes only a few minutes to get a tan!!!!!

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:01:19 GMT

hahaha. how true :)

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://FenixRizing.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:04:04 GMT

thought i'd insert a little levity here...

climate change is serious business, but a chuckle every once in a while helps keep the sanity.

fenix

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:59:20 GMT

"I think we need to adopt the Cradle to Cradle approach, regardless if climate change is a crisis or not (and I agree with the majority of scientists who say it is). Cradle to Cradle is Bill McDonnough's approach to business that removes most regulation that requires half-ass piecemeal solutions. He advocates that every production process, product life-cycle should take nature's cue and have a net positive or neutral effect on the environment. Ther's more on this in my design pod. He paints a brilliant vision and I don't think it involves needlessly spending billions of dollars. It also involves much more than climate change."

yep! that makes a lot of sense too! but the hindrance of course if getting "everyone" to adopt it "without" transforming consiousness. for now the approach seems to be "legislation" so that other "unconscious" business follow the rules.

check out this Social Innovation Conversation and that's exacly their topic. very eye-opening :)

Greening the Supply Chain

Randy Harward: Quality Director at Patagonia

Bridging the Gap Conference

In this discussion from Bridging the Gap, the Stanford 2005 Net Impact Conference organized by the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Randy Harward explores the processes that Patagonia has gone through to incorporate organic cotton into their product lines. He guides us through the latest developments in sustainable apparel manufacturing and provides insights about industry collaborations to increase the global demand for organic cotton.

Patagonia is known as one of the great quality companies around the world, recognized for superior products and a strong commitment to grassroots environmental groups. Concentrating mostly on wilderness preservation this company realizes the impact of its own activities and converts whole environmental initiatives into a true Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Read more ...

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:25:04 GMT

While I understand the rationale behind not wanting to waste money if something is really not a problem I doubt that will happen - especially in the U.S. The power of business to over-ride the interests of common people makes it next to impossible that we would to anything that would harm business significantly. On the contrary, new legislation that mandated, for example, better gas mileage, would promote innovation and progress vs. stagnation. In hindsight, lowering cafe standards five years ago might have forced U.S. automakers to innovate earlier, making them healthier now.

Regarding the Singulatarian perspective, I believe that Kurzweil thinks that the singularity will allow us to solve these problems easily because of our technologically enhanced brainpower and the likely creation of nanobots that could change the atmosphere to our liking. I imagine he would suggest even that we could create methods for rebuilding glaciers if that was the best solution.

As far as spending billions to stop climate change, I'm not sure that's an option even if we wanted to, with all the countries that would have to contribute. I don't think it's an either/or situation.

I think we need to adopt the Cradle to Cradle approach, regardless if climate change is a crisis or not (and I agree with the majority of scientists who say it is). Cradle to Cradle is Bill McDonnough's approach to business that removes most regulation that requires half-ass piecemeal solutions. He advocates that every production process, product life-cycle should take nature's cue and have a net positive or neutral effect on the environment. Ther's more on this in my design pod. He paints a brilliant vision and I don't think it involves needlessly spending billions of dollars. It also involves much more than climate change.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://FenixRizing.gaia.com — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:54:36 GMT

indeed... i agree with that last position statement ~C4.

it's clear that we (as individuals and as a country) need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and other practices that are detrimental to the environmental and our own health. So, if creating alternative energy sources and advancing sustainable technology aids in that goal - AND - in the process reduces greenhouse gases/CO2... then where's the bad news?

Is Climate Change the only justifiable reason we have to become stewards of the world we live in? I certainly hope not, but it looks that way... wait until it's a crisis and then (sort of) do something about it (in a parallel to this thinking, reference what has been going on my city with the tragic consequences of cutting corners, corruption, greed... a woman lost her life due to poor workmanship in one of our Big Dig tunnels.)

fenix

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:10:54 GMT

haha. thanks for posting this bro. it's not that i still doubt whether Climate Change is happening or not. yes, there are consensus in scientific circles about this. the real issue is, how accurate are the "doomsday" scenarios? how severe really is Climate Change?

another argument, which i think is the Singularitarian perspective (note: i haven't seen Kurzweil addressing Climate Change yet. if you find something, let me know.), is: assuming Climate Change is real and it would impact us in the next 20-50-100 years, spending billions and billions of money on it is not practical. it's better to spend those money on new technologies that would automatically solve Climate Change (e.g. switching to sustainable energy and fuels). at the rate the technology is going (which is exponential), focusing on "sustainable" technology rather than fighting off natural and man-made causes of Climate Change is the more compassionate approach. i think this view makes sense. don't you?

~C (for Can we even agree on this?)

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:05:28 GMT

After being asked to defend against a barrage of conservative comments, I left some replies over at Graham English's Integral Discussions. His post that started it all was just a link to this movie, which I also highly recommend. The comments were a little harsh on both sides of the issue, and I hope to be a more empathetic and level-headed in discussions here.

Until I make more time to join the flow here, this is a quote from my last comment:

...and all of the other folks who think there’s any doubt about human effects on climate change, please check your sources. Once the politically motivated folks are weeded out, you’ll find that there is a clear consensus on climate change - humans are causing it

That's part of my current viewpoint. Of course, I'm not really taking my own advice by promoting Al Gore's movie, but I can't really understand what the political motivations would be of people who want to bring this to light. I know there's probably plenty of answers here in this pod, so I'll do a little reading to get a better grip on the issue before I comment more.

Thanks for starting this ~C4 (Can't we all just get along?)

Re: An Inconvenient Truth?

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15:57 GMT

Scientists Give Gore Movie Five Stars for Accuracy

By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press
posted: 27 June 2006
04:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,'' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

Read more...

energy and cold fusion solutions solutions

http://sunstar.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:21:00 GMT

I am surprised that no one is mentioning solutions is this "the old ladies rocking chair complaint society" or am I still on Zaadz? Sun http://www.std.com/~mica/cft.html http://www.infinite-energy.com/ http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/ http://freeenergynews.com/ http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Matteran_Energy http://www.photon-magazine.com/ http://www.photon-magazine.com/news_archiv/details.aspx?cat=News_PI&sub=america&pub=4&parent=262 http://www.photon-magazine.com/photon/index.htm http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home