An Inconvenient Truth & Other Horror Stories

by alphamonkey on June 6, 2006 · 75 comments

in Uncategorized

Speaking of the end of the world, I saw Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth last week, and I have to say it’s the best film to come out this year, hands down.  It’s fascinating enough just to see the return of the pre-VP Al Gore (charming, funny, engaging, and passionate as hell), but more importantly it’s an amazing and illuminating film which would be required viewing in every school in the world if I had my way.  No matter your feelings about Al Gore, you have to admit this guy knows what the hell he’s talking about when it comes to climate change and global warming. 

Watch the trailer here, or you can learn more about the film (and what you can do about Global Warming) via it’s website.  With all seriousness, I can’t recommend this film strongly enough. If nothing else, go just to make yourself feel bad that we got stuck with Stumbles McDumbass delivering the State of the Union address, when we could (should) have had ‘em delivered by a literate, intelligent, and reasonable human being.  Way to go, Florida.  Next time try to not pick the guy who’ll gut your hurricane relief over the guy who was part of the administration that made FEMA an effective organization.

I’d also recommend keeping an eye out for Who Killed the Electric Car? (watch the trailer or visit the movie site), which asks why currently available technology is being kept from the public, and why GM and Ford recalled and destroyed their highly popular electric cars after only a token appearance on the market. 

  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • Drewfus

    Thank-you very much for posting such strong, poignant environmental material front and center on your sight. The world is a worse place to live because too much of this information is being withheld from the public or left in a dark closet with so many other skeletons the human race has chosen to try and forget.


  • Busymm

    *sigh* remind we again why Gore isn’t prez…

  • BADD

    I have much to say upon this.  It wouldn’t be right for me to post it all here.

    Follow me to the forums!!

  • Boss Robot

    Well these clips really got my environmental motors going. Even though earth friendly alternatives actually save people money it requires effort. And here in America, Effort is just oh so rare these days. What with Inconvience dominating the social scene.

    But wait! How are we gonna find all that electricity needed?

  • .alphamonkey.

    If you go to, you’ll see that we posess 100% of the technology needed to reverse global warming and our ridiculously high CO2 levels within the next 15 years.  While individual effort is certainly helpful, the most important ingredient is political will.

  • BADD

    You know what?  I am going to leave this alone.

    Perhaps one day I will be able to share my thoughts here, but right now I am way to jacked up from work, and I don’t want to explode this forum with my thoughts on this matter.

    I will say this.  Al Gore is a politician.  He said in the preview that this is not a political issue.  Why then would you have a politician present all your findings on our climate crisis?

    I think you guys need to grow some more scepticism before you dive feet first into support for Mr. Gore.  He has been known to stretch the truth.

  • Azbat7

    Save me your bleeding heart liberal crap.  Wow, Al Gore is such a wonderful environmentalist and hero! Until Al Gore agrees to never fly on a private jet again, I won’t be lectured by him, or any liberal for that matter.  The last thing you’ll ever find is a liberal leading by example.  Instead of blindly praising a one sided film, why don’t you look up some facts about the emission levels of all those private jets that Al Gore and all those other “environmentalist” politicians fly around in.  Why don’t you look up the facts of what Clinton and Gore did for the environment during their eight years…. I’ll give you a clue, it’s not very much!

  • .alphamonkey.

    Wow.  I love uninformed people.

  • Azbat7

    The only uninformed person is you.  You’re impressionable and easily persuaded by biased facts.  I simply gave one reason on why your hero, Al Gore is a hypocrite and all you can do is make a tiny smart ass remark while choosing to ignore the reasons I gave you on why Gore cannot be taken seriously.  But I suppose it doesn’t matter… there is a reason that the left is not in power any more and you, alphamonkey, are the perfect example of that brainless mindset.

  • .alphamonkey.

    I can do a lot more than make a smart ass remark, but frankly I’m much inclined to believe someone whose been looking at the issue since the late 60s over some random soul crying ‘bias’. 

    Furthermore, I fail to see how crusading against global warming means you can never use the existing modes of transportation.  That’s a weak ass argument for hypocriticism, especially considering that the Clinton administration’s record on environmental issues far outshines any Republican administration from the last 25 years.

    But answer me this: If Gore’s facts are so biased, why is it that not a single credible, peer reviewed scientific paper argues against global warming? If you’ve got one squirrled away some where, I’d love to read it.

  • BADD

    Wow.  I got this feeling up my spine that if I said my thoughts against this, some crackpot with a bug up his ass would start mouthing off and totally take away any validity my points would have had.

    Thankfully I went with my gut feeling.

    For your information Azbat, AM has proven to me to be a well informed and reasonable person.  We have very different outlooks on life yet we have managed to find common ground in this website. 

    I will at some point make my thoughts clear on this, but I think it best to let the smoke clear, and do some research.

    THe only thing I ask is that we step away from the propaganda sites and look for *real* information.  Sites like are very biased and have ulterior motives (selling books).  Carefull who you trust.

    For example.  A part of the web site is called “the science”.  I clicked the link and was shown some paragraphs on what could happen.  What I don’t understand is where “the science” is.  Who are these scientists who have agreed that global warming is caused by us, and will cause the world great harm?  Where is the data to back up their claims? 

    A synopsis of what some scientist think will happen without even naming them doesn’t hold water with me.  Sorry guys no sale.

    BTW, I have read extensively the debates about the climate crisis.  Here are a couple places to check.  I must warn you that they are a blend of political and scientific jargon.  If you are not ready to either be confussed or learn things that are raw data with no spin attached than I wouldn’t click on them. audit

    Real climate

    THese sites have been the most informative for me, but also the most confusing.  This issue is NOT as cut and dry as some politicians want us to think *cough*Al Gore*cough* *hack*.

    Excuse me.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Explain this to me:  Why would ANYONE argue against exploring cleaner, more advanced fuel technology, or raising the emissions and fuel economy standards of automobiles so that they match the rest of the world .  Don’t we want to be able to export our goods to other countries?  Or are we just all cool with the staggering trade imbalance we’ve got going on now?

    Secondly, can anyone explain to me why it would be bad for companies to research innovation rather than simply rely on wasteful methods which are predicated on a resource that’s caused a goodly chunk of our modern ills?

    And lastly, why oh, why should we not want C02 amounts lowered to the level that the planet considers acceptable?  Even taking into account the historical climate changes unaffected by man, does anyone really believe that the industrial age (and all it’s waste and pollution) hasn’t had even the slightest effect on our quality of life?

  • BADD


    You want data that is against the supposed global warming trend read

    There are tons of references and posts about other findings about global warming.

    Have you researched this topic?  Do you know who and what study has brought this whole debate to the forfront?

    About your second post.  I am not sure it is directed at me, but I will respond anyway.

    I have no problem with anything yuo say that we *should* do to create better and more efficient modes of transport, and ways to clean up our wastefull ways.  Where do I say in my post I am against any of that?

    What I am against is using false and vague information to *scare* people.  Al Gore is a propagandist.  I don’t trust him.  I don’t trust any politician.

    The CO2 amounts we produce world wide account for 5% of the CO2 emmited overall.  Not much is it?  Nature is emmiting 95% more CO2 than us.  We are emmiting CO2 everytime we breath.  In some parts of the world CO2 is naturally being expelled from the earth.  Should we stop all of that too?  When does the panic stop and real science and understanding begin?

    Remember when I said I wanted to be a plains indian?  Well that is what I think of the industrial age.  I don’t like it any more than you do.

    I also don’t like liars.  You can choose to believe what Al is dishing out without checking his score card, but I will not.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Again with the assumptions that I haven’t done any reading into the research on my own, and that I’m blindly accepting what’s being presented.  Beautiful.

    As for not accepting the messege because of the messenger: that’s simply ridiculous. I fail to see what it is he stands to gain on a personal level if this country heeds his words and embarks on a more sound and sustainable ecological policy.  Is the Sierra Club going to deposit billions in a numbered account?  Will Dow Chemicals say ‘Oh, gee, you’re right: We are bastards’ and then transfer all their profits to him? 

    I’ll tell you what he stands to gain:  the same damn thing as everyone else on the planet.  A cleaner, healthier world for ourselves and for our descendents.  Yah, he’s a world-class asshole, all right.

  • BADD

    Book and movie profits and possibly a presidencial seat.  Yep, nothing to gain there.

    I do appologize for making it seem I assumed you are not informed.  I do believe you have done some research, but I don’t KNOW how far you have delved.  I just want to show that all that glitters is not gold.  I guess I was a bit to pushy in my post.

  • .alphamonkey.

    So, what you’re saying is that Al Gore is morally, spiritually, and physically incapable of producing this material for any altruistic purpose whatsoever? That this is merely a powerplay and means with which to fund his elaborate jet-set lifestyle?

    I mean, yah.  God forbid Gore make any money with which to continuing doing his lecture series (which he’s been doing for a couple of decades now), or write books that can illuminate and educate people. Seriously.  That shit should be passed out like free candy, right?  We all know that Al Gore requires no substanence, shelter, or comfort, nor has he any need to provide for his family. 

  • BADD

    Ok, well if you are just going to take my points and exagerate them than I will drop this here.  I don’t want to make this an arguement of misunderstanding.  Don’t expect another reply.

    My points are simple.

    Al Gore is using misleading and inacurate information to scare people to join his cause. 

    Climate information is and has always been readily available to those who wished to see it. Mostly for free.  There is no scientific concensus on matters of our environment.

    Though it is wise for our nation and others to find more efficient and less wastefull ways to function, there is no definitive proof we are causing the environment any irreversible or unbalancable damage.

    We can educate our society of the importance of this topic without lieing to them or using scare tactics.

    I have my personal opinion of Mr. Gore, but I do not know what he thinks in his head.  He may be thinking he is doing this for the good of our world, or he could be doing this because there is a presidencial election in a year and a half and he wants to be nominated.

    Maybe he just has really good timing?  I don’t know.

  • Thundarr

    Okay a couple points.

    Politicians are human beings and yes they have their own agendas for the action and activities that take a part of their time.  And while I applaud you for not blindly accepting what comes out of a politician’s mouth I find fallacy in your logic that all politicians lie and cheat and don’t have any respect for the best living conditions for all Americans.  I would remind you that ever once in awhile there is an issue (like the hole in the ozone layer – which many people believed couldn’t be proven to be the effect of the harmful chemicals used, good thing we didn’t wait too long there!) where an issue is so important that those empowered to lead and teach have a responsibility to stand up and tell us what they have leaned and the consequences of failing to listen.

    You keep saying that Gore is using “misleading and inaccurate information.” Really?  Have you read his book and seen the movie?  Have you gone back to examine the over 900 scientific articles that support what he discusses (and no I’m not counting looking at Republican spin machine’s hired guns attacking the issue on television or in newspapers – I’m talking about 100% of scientists agreeing in published scientific journals – this is a problem that needs to be addressed).  Gore is very careful to show step by step where the information comes from and how it relates and causes problems for us today (Hurricane Katrina) and will effect us in the future.  Attacking him because all that information isn’t readily available on a single website is petty.  Do a little research man!  He’s not trying to scare anyone, in fact the film is very informative, scientifically based, and although the problems he exposes are emmense he offers countless solutions and hope that these events can be changed.

    There are several, and I mean several, instances based on scientific fact that back his claims.  To say “there is no definitive proof we are causing the environment any irreversible or unbalancable damage” is a downright lie as we can see the rise in temperature, climate change, the melting of ice-caps and many other easily-observable results.  To blindly say there is “no definite proof” is a flat out like and comes off as very uniformed.  That is the work of propaganda, to attack what you don’t understand or can’t accept as a lie.  To inform people of a real problem and step-by-step go through the information isn’t anything close.  If you need help understanding the term I can send you the link to

    You state we can educate without using scare tactics.  I don’t think Gore is out to scare people but to jolt them into realizing that this issue isn’t going away and waiting until we’ve melted all the ice off the planet is probably not the right time to finally start acting.

    You state you have a personal opinion of Al Gore that is obviously coloring your opinion.  Ask yourself this, if it was a REPUBLICAN politician giving the same scientifically backed message would you still have the same misgivings?  Your answer to that question says more about yourself than about Gore.

    You think it’s really good timing?  I think Gore would argue it’s about 30 years too late.  It’s only now where the effects of global warming are so impossible to ignore that people are finally starting to wake up to the issue and a larger discussion can begin to take place.  Good timing?  I’d say in the nick of time because if we keep our eyes closed to this issue for another 30 years we may find when we finally wake-up there’s nothing left we can do to stop this cataclysmic effect we are ever-so-slowly impossing on our enviornment.

  • .alphamonkey.
  • Busymm

    I agree thunder, In 30 years time at the rate we are building heat the tundra will be to warm. Along with all that permafrost that is mostly frozen CO2 which will really tip the scales. I know that we are looking at a very large and complex system (IE the world) and right now it doesn’t matter if we are to blame or not. What really matters is can we control or maybe stop the warming.

  • Busymm

    Hey BADD I apreciate your point of view. I mean people shouldn’t just blindly accept information as truth but should always question thier sources. As far as goes I will admit that there is alot of info in it but as of yet have not found the part that says we as humans account for only 5% of the CO2 production. Even if that is true it is most likely that 95% of that 5% is from our wastefull ways. I for one feel that global warming is a very real and dangerous thing. Saddly though I feel that we are aproaching a event horizion.

    And God Forbid if anyone was to use “Scare tatics” to win an election. That would just be a new one on me….

  • .alphamonkey.

    I personally agree that the site and the trailers for the film focus too much on the disaster aspect.  The film is much, much less inflammatory, but actually more frightening for how reasoned and plainly it’s laid out.

    That said, I understand why the scare approach is being used:  Because otherwise no one would pay attention.  You can’t address a topic like this with a ‘Well, the whole world’s a bit buggered, but we’ll wait for you to finish this seasons American Idol’. There should be a sense of urgency.

    Frankly, you’ve yet to state and back up a single instance where Gore is misleading, or using inaccurate information.  You just keep saying that it’s so. I see no reason to treat that as a serious argument.

    Lastly, as to regards to his timing, I’ve stated again and again that this has been Gore’s pricipal cause for nearly 40 years. Look it up.  Is there a mid-term election this November?  Yes, and rather than distrust Gore’s message for fear of his motivation, why not celebrate that someone is trying to steer the political debate into an area of much more importantance to our lives (and to the world as a whole) rather than simply pander to an extremist base with the more blatant scare-mongering of ‘OMG, gays want to get married! It’s the end of civilization!’

    The Democratic party doesn’t want Al Gore as a candidate, and frankly I think he understands that he can do a hell of a lot more good outside the office as an agitator than inside the glass bubble of the White House. Again, I see it as a man using his influence to attempt to right the discourse of our political landscape to issues that actually matters, and applaud the guy for doing so.

  • Azbat7

    Al Gore (along with other leftist) has turned a human issue into a political issue.  During his eight years as Vice President he did next to nothing for environment.  The only significant thing Clinton and Gore did was INCREASE America’s dependency on foreign oil by 38%.  Even worse, when Clinton and Gore took office America did not import any oil from Saddam Hussein’s regime, but by the time they left we were importing more than 600,000 barrels a day from Iraq.  With that knowledge in mind, how can anyone take Gore seriously when he lectures everyone on big SUVs and emission levels.  So when alphamonkey tries to brush off the comments I made earlier about Al Gore traveling in private jets, it’s because that statement truly helps highlight how hypocritical Al Gore really is.  And I say again, if Al Gore really wanted to lead by example he needs to stop traveling in private jets!  Look up the emission levels of those private jets and see what a difference Gore is really making.  I don’t argue against a cleaner environment, I argue against Al Gore and his deceitful message.  I know Global warming consist of much more than emission levels, I‘m just simply highlighting one point he‘s beat to death before in the past.  Al Gore is getting great publicity from his film and all the likeminded liberals are quickly making it their new bible.  Impressionable minded people like alphamonkey see a film that coincide with their political leanings (I could care less what you say, you don’t truly feel a heartfelt passion to save the environment, because if you did, why were the visitors of transbuddha not preached to before about Global Warming, don’t tell me there’s been NOTHING in the film realm that hasn’t highlighted it before) and go out a preach and lecture how we should all be “required” to see this film and if we don’t we need to explain to our grandchildren why we didn’t see it.  Emotional liberal propaganda to help promote a film.  Don’t preach to me with a self righteous attitude… unless of course you a have a hybrid and do all you can to have your home running as eco-friendly as possible.

  • BADD

    Here is the link to the article I read that number in.  THey actually said 4.5%.  I am currently looking for some evidence besides this to show you.


    We are not approaching anything.  We have been effecting the environment since the fist instant a homo sapien sapien stepped foot on this planet.  We will always have an impact on this world.  The only thing we have to be smart about is how big of a foot print we leave.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Seeing as you’ve already said you won’t comment further, this might be a bit moot, but your link goes to the site of a company that books travel packages (which, one would imagine requires transportation).  Would you consider that a pure motive to put out unbiased information?  I can’t find any biographical information on Antonis B. Petropoulos (the owner/director of the company) to determine his academic credentials.

  • BADD

    Jeese guys!  Alright enough. 

    I am not going to write a paper on all the inconsitancies and false claims on that web site.  Just check the facts yourself.  I thought you said you researched this topic?

    Consider this my last post on the subject.  I don’t need to sit here all night and try to defend the obvious.

    We shall see who is correct about Al Gore.  If he takes a nomination I think you will owe me an appology.

  • Boss Robot

    Let’s just say we’ll do what we can to help the environment. Maybe be less wasteful, volley for some reforms and don’t forget! Make sure to cut up those plastic rings on that six pack!

    This post had flame war written all over it! Is that what you wanted alphamonkey? Is it?!?!? well I guess that’s all right if it means a better understanding of the situation. Just cuz it’s it’s right to help the environment doesn’t mean you have to accept everything they tell you. Everything needs to be scrutanized a bit, and yes, that even includes the infinite wisdom of the alphamonkey

  • Thundarr

    I don’t think that’s what we’re doing.  We’re not saying Al Gore is the imbodiment of truth.  What were saying is Gore has raised an important issue that he himself tells people multiple times in the documentary to research further themselves.

    By the way, totally ignoring Gore and the message of the film because he is a Democrat, liberal, or because you don’t like him personally is the only argument I’ve seen presented here against seeing the film.

    Why don’t you go see it, listen with an open mind, and decide if the issue and the scientific facts don’t lead to some very scary future consequences if some changes aren’t made soon.  If you still have questions afterword or you find it impossible to accept that’s one thing, but just refuting it as rubish before examining it doesn’t have anything to do with wisdom.

  • BADD

    Thank you Boss Robot.

  • Sky King

    Wow.  As soon as I scrolled down and saw the image of the movie poster, I knew there would be many posts.  I can’t imagine anyone feeling that innovation and invention are unimportant to making our use of energy more efficient and ecologically responsible, but level heads must prevail.  Consider a few thoughts:

    * What would we be saying about global warming if we were living 10,000 years ago when the glaciers of the “great ice age” (USGS term) were retreating?

    * When will concerned citizens learn that hybrid vehicles are not efficient in every realm?  For example, they do not do well on the highway when compared to cars which simply have efficient engines?

    * Remember that the batteries in hybrids and electric vehicles are fairly toxic waste when they need to be disposed of–they cannot be recycled forever.

    * Our recordkeeping is but a blip in terms of geological history.  Can you watch five minutes of a baseball game and know the history and future of the game from those five minutes?

    * Global warming or not, what’s wrong with harnessing ocean wave energy, wind energy, solar energy while realizing that modern car and aircraft engines are amazingly efficient and clean compared to their power output and enjoying those efficiencies?

    * How about more efficient design?  Builders of houses in the USA could learn a lot from the highly efficient new homes found in some countries like Germany.

    * Don’t forget that the USA is a relatively small part of the world.  After choking on fumes from mopeds, motorcycles, factories, home stoves, cars, trucks, etc., in places like China, Cambodia, India, Thailand, and Mongolia I see that we are hardly to blame for vile emissions.  Have you been reading how Asia’s pollution is drifting across the Pacific and affecting the west coast of the USA?

    I saw it written a number of times, and I have to agree.  Be calm and check the facts. Let’s be proud of all the progress we have made in energy efficiency over the years, and let’s hope we can find the money for better research.  Maybe instead of Simon Cowell producing a show that may very well have a “receiver’s training pole” as the next great American invention, he could throw some money at solar power research.

    Unfortunately, we don’t seem to live in a world where moderation gets top billing, so extreme excitement (Scientology sponsoring a NASCAR car) and extreme doomsaying (Gore) need to be looked at with a critical eye.  It’s not that we should be looking the other way and firing up the Escalade, but the world would not be a better place if we all melted our cars tomorrow.

  • Azbat7

    If we melted our cars, do you have any idea the emission problems that would cause??  It be be worse than what each car would produce over its lifespan!!… im just being facetious, I get the point you were making, very good post.

  • .alphamonkey.

    1st Point: Disinginuous to the utmost, but to bring your point to bear, the ice caps are retreating now at a rate faster than they did at the end of the last ice age.  Shouldn’t that be some cause for concern?

    2nd/3rd point: Define ‘do well on the highway’.  I’m not going to argue that hybrids are a perfect technology.  They’re not, but that’s not reason to not promote them, nor continue to innovate. The more we can move away from the vastly inefficient and polluting combustion engine, the better. For your infomation, there is such a thing as a ‘green’ battery, but you won’t see the automakers putting them to use until they’ve had their feet held to the fire. Which requires political will.

    4th Point: Sure, our record keeping is relatively young, but the Earth’s record keeping is both exhaustive and precise. Thankfully, we know how to use Earth’s built in reference library.  Using ice core samples we can gauge what the temperature was hundreds (if not millions) of years ago.  We can also gauge pollutant levels quite precisely. 

    5th Point:  Why content ourselves with how efficent they are, when we have the technology and know how to make them even moreso?  In fact, the US’s fuel economy, efficency, and emissions standards are so bad (compared to the rest of the industrialized world) that we can’t even export our cars, trucks, and planes to other countries.

    6th Point: You’ll have no argument from me, there.  Anything to kill the McMansion, and better home design is good for everyone involved.

    7th: We out-consume and out-emit every other industrialized country in the world.  China is the only one that comes close to us, and they’re still pretty far behind.  So yes, we should be the leaders in taking responsibility and changing those practices that can be changed.

    I’m not content with what we have done in regards to the enviornment, and I dare say you shouldn’t be either. We do have the money to fund and promote the research and innovation to make this world better, it’s just that there’s no one in power who gives a shit.  Seriously.  Take a look at the enviornmental record of the House and Senate since the GOP took power.  It’s absolutely pathetic, and it caters to those market forces who absolutely don’t want to change their practices for any reason whatsoever.

    And again, if any of you take the time to watch An Inconvienent Truth, you’ll find that Gore is far from a scaremonger.  He states again and again that we have all the necessary means and know how to make a difference in the world and negate our effect on global climate change.  His film is simply trying to muster up attention so that we’ll also have the political will to do so.

  • Busymm

    Also instead of hybrids are just the tip of the iceberg. Cars powered by fuels cells are both very very very clean (main waste is *GASP* common water vapor) and thanks to inproving technology getting much more efficent. Only thing holding them back is goverment funding and research.

  • .alphamonkey.

    I really and truly urge all of you to take a few moments and look through the IPCC’s reports on global climate change, if you are truly interested in the subject.

  • Sky King

    Hmmm…food for thought, but now you’ve raised a few more questions:

    Disingenuous?  Maybe not. I was actually being sincere.  Imagine the headlines back then if such things existed.  While doing research for an article about consumption in general, I came across a pamphlet produced by the US Dept. of Energy back in the 1970s.  The “expert” view according to them was that the world would use up all of the Earth’s oil within 20 years at (then) current consumption rates.  The rates at which things happen are often difficult to gauge.  I don’t dispute our ability to “read” the planet’s geological tell-tales, but we do need to have a large enough data set to be sure about what we speak.

    Since one environmentally conscious goal is to reduce the amount of natural resources we use, a vehicle that gets excellent gas mileage is an honorable conveyance.  You are correct that hybrids are a start, and that we should continue to develop them (I never said otherwise), but let’s remember not to throw the baby out with the bath water, and let’s aim for a hybrid that doesn’t create more disposal problems than the emissions problems it solves.

    Why does the government have any effect on someone developing the “green battery”?  The government’s distrust of aircraft did not prevent the Wright brothers from persuing controlled flight in an aircraft.  The government’s lack of interest in producing television shows did not prevent American Idol from being a runaway success.  If something innovative is out there, someone should be developing it.  Oil company spies are not out there in every laboratory sabotaging new technologies.  Heck, don’t you think that with all their money and resources they are scrambling to get a lock on the next big thing in energy?  Shareholders want profits to keep rolling in.  They don’t care if the energy company makes money by selling oil, green batteries, or wind power.

    Innovation should not wait for the government.  This country succeeds when citizens take matters into their own hands and make things happen. We have to make sure we keep a lid on the government by making our voter turnout equal to or better than what American Idol can achieve.

    I agree that innovation is important in all realms.  I wasn’t sure if you thought I was satisfied with the current state of alternative energy sources–I’m certainly not.  I hated being on a windswept cliff in Hawaii (South Point) looking at dead (modern) windmills because no one bothered to maintain them.

    I wonder how you figure we are the largest polluters on the planet?  Is that by total volume or per capita?  I’ve had the good fortune to be able to travel to many places in the world, and while I see that Americans are wasteful, we seem to be trying harder than many other places to keep things clean.

    As far as car sales go, it’s not the emissions of our cars that prevent them from being sold overseas.  In fact it is often the reverse not only for emissions but also for safety features.  You cannot bring a 1995 Land Rover Defender to the USA from anywhere else in the world because the emissions standards are not as tough as in the US.  We had Defenders here in 1995, but with an engine that had to be modified to pass American emissions standards.

    Here’s another twist to that car thing: the primary reason so many places don’t want our cars has to do with tariff restrictions that other governments impose on US cars as part of the endless haggling over imports/exports between countries.  Have you noticed that Volkswagen and Daimler-Chrysler have stopped selling diesels here?  The reason is that OUR emissions requirements are so strict that the Europeans (who rely much more on diesel) cannot meet our requirements.  Add a point to the people concerned about the environment!

    While we’re on the subject of cars, here’s a funny trivia fact: the EU is outlawing the R134a refrigerant in air conditioning units.  Guess what they are trying to make work in the systems instead?  Good ol’ carbon dioxide!  And a 2,000 psi to boot!  Wow, don’t want to be around when that unit is in a collision!

  • Sky King

    More–I ran into the 5,000 character limit…

    It seems you get the impression that I’m content with how things are–I’m not.  Again, I’m all in favor of improving constantly.  I do a lot to conserve resources of all kinds, and I hope all the attention on the subject gets others doing so as well.  This seems to have become a new religion of sorts, and nobody likes the fire and brimstone extremists, so reactionary missives get fired off.  It’s a shame that everyone doesn’t take to heart what their parents and elementary teachers (hopefully) tried to teach them about responsibility and concern for others.  Democrats and Republicans alike are to blame.  Our environmental woes are not due solely to one party or the other.  Few people in the government at the highest levels has been taken seriously over the years when it comes to the proper care and treatment of the planet.  We’ve been polluting and cleaning up and polluting and cleaning up through many administrations and houses of Congress.  The only place to plant blame is on the citizens.  If they are intelligent enough to demand what is right–en masse–then it will get done.  Our greatest enemy for so many years has been the same: apathy.  It will be interesting to see what the fallout is a year or two from now.  Will we still be talking about this film, or will the next Brangelina be more important?

  • .alphamonkey.

    There’s a world of distinction between inventors and industry, Sky King.  History has shown time and time again that the biggest corporations will not innovate without prompting unless they see an immediate profit.  There is a complete and utter lack of long-term thinking in the modern American automotive industry, and that apathy in the name of shareholder gain won’t stop barring without governmental prodding. (For that matter, neither will the telecomm industry, or have you not noticed that Europe is waaaay ahead of us in the broadband column?) I’m surprised anyone could argue that point.  The fact is that free market capitalism won’t work for the same reasons that communism doesn’t work: They’re predicated on the idea of a populace that isn’t short-sighted, brutish, and selfish.  The so called ‘invisible hand’ is about as reliable as a sasquatch riding a unicorn fighting a yeti.

  • The Good Reverend

    I am almost done with my invention – a 100% heat efficient engine that runs on pollution and spews out antioxidant-rich vanilla soy milk and wheat flour as byproducts.  Pollution and world hunger will be solved in one fell swoop.  This whole argument thread will soon be moot.  Stay tuned…

  • Busymm

    Sign me up for a car powered with that engine Rev.

  • Dhsu

    But does it generate 1.21 Gigawatts?

  • .alphamonkey.

    1.21 gigawatts!? 1.21 gigawatts!? Great Scott!

  • BADD

    Thank you Sky King. You have much better knack for writting this stuff than I.

    I will serve my part by posting links to varying opinions and data.  I don’t like just posting information without backing it up so I will let my sources speak instead.  You can decide what you choose to believe.

    Here is real stats on emissions from a reputable source:

    EIA emissions statistics

    And here is a site brimming with information that suppossedly debunks the myths about the climate crisis:


    TO be fair here is the IPCC reports link.  You can read up on all there findings and make your own conclusions.  Remember that this is one outlook on the issue.  There is no “concensus” on this topic.

    IPCC reports

    I don’t care what Al Gore’s intentions are.  What I care about is honesty.  He is blatantly lieing to you.  We don’t have to lie and scare people to get them to understand things.  We get upset at the media for doing the exact same thing.  What is the difference?

  • .alphamonkey.

    He is blatantly lieing {sic} to you

    That’s a point you’ve yet to prove in the slightest.

    Why not take a look at the peer review study?

  • Thundarr

    Uh…yeah.  Those sites you list, there’s a few problems with ‘em.  Let’s take them one at at time, ok?

    First, the EIA emission statistics link you give only gives information through 2003.  And it is only examining it over a twenty year period rather than how those twenty years compare to the 20, or 100, or 5000 years before.  I find that a little convenient and such cherry picking can hardly be called scientific.  Also the group is designed to track use and prices of different types of energy and is not geared towards, nor does it attempt to, deeply examine the lasting effects of global warming.

    Let’s take that second link ironically named Envirotruth which which is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research which is not a scientific facility but a conservative think-tank with a board of directors that includes Amy Ridenour and was founded by Republican lobbyist and felon Jack_Abramoff.  Also of interest the think-tank recieves funding and support from ExxonMobil (wonder if they might have an interest in promoting the idea that global warming is a myth rather than scientific fact??).

    Let’s move onto your third site, the IPCC.  Again you sited a link that is outdated (2002) but don’t worry I did the extra work for you.  First off let’s look at what the IPCC is as stated on their homepage – “The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.” Well that’s just the type of data Gore used, so let’s see what the have to say shall we?  If you go here you can see they admit to many of the inconvenient truths that Al Gore points out including but not limited to “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system,” “Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate,” and “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” In fact the current chair of the IPCC Rajendra K. Pachauri is on record as stating “The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC clearly states that the risks associated with climate change have the potential to undermine progress towards sustainable development, such as, damages from extreme climate events, water shortage and degraded water quality, food supply disruptions and hunger, land degradation, and diminished human health.” Funny, Gore said something similar too.  Former chair Robert T. Watson agrees, an outspoken advocate of the of halting global warming he believes “that human actions – mainly burning coal and oil – are contributing to global warming and must be changed to avert environmental upheavals.” Yeah, so if the current and former directors of this organization agree with Gore…

    To recap one of your sources was out-of-date and while they might be able to show me the rise in gas production and cost over the past few months they aren’t studying the lasting effects of global warming.  Your second is a conservative think-tank partly funded by the Oil Industry.  And your final one actually AGREES with Gore.

    Didn’t you ask alphamonkey to check his information before he posted it?  Maybe you should heed your own advice.

  • .alphamonkey.

    And that’s why your my pal.

  • BADD

    Did I ay the sources I produced were the gods word?  Nope.

    Did I say I agree with them fully or subscribe to them in any way?  Nope.

    I am simply doing what others here are not willing or afraid to do.  Look up information and post it here to help educate people on this topic.

    As for Al Gore’s lies?  Read the site.

    In 2050 we will have how many deaths caused by global warming?  Please find me the research that backs up that statement.

    He also says that the scientific concensus is that we are causing global warming.  That is also untrue. 

    There are many more inconsistancies and half truths in his statements.

    I am offering information I am simply searching for.  I make no claims of their validity.  I will continue to post as much as I can.  Attack my posts as you see fit.  It will not change those sites or what I am trying to do.

    I will offer both sides.  I can’t say for sure if the info is completely reliable, but if you read enough different things, you will get an immpression of what the truth is.

    PS:  Your argument about the site I posted is paid by Exxon is a classic tactic to undermine the information on sites that oppose the IPCC verdict of global warming and is terribly generic.  The site quotes many different scientist, are they all on the payroll?  Is it truely an evil thing for Exxon to fund research into this matter?  Remember that you can paint anyone with the brush of coruption, but you still get a little on yourself in the proccess.

  • Thundarr

    Damn, this is a joke right?  Who is this?  Is it Tim?  No way anyone is this idiotic.

    First, your whole argument has been that there are other factual scientific theories that refute Al Gore and show him to be a liar.  Then you then post what you feel are arguments that back up your claim.  However on examining that data we find strong objections or reliability issues to 2 of the 3 and find the third actually backs up Gore’s points.

    With no possible leg to stand on you then state that you didn’t think much of those sites to begin with (despite the fact that they were all you had to support your claim).  Now your whole argument seems to be that you can find Internet sites that disagree that Global Warming exists.  Well no shit Sherlock, you can find websites that state millions of theories backed up by NO SINGLE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OR REASON.  This may be painful for you to hear, but NOT everything you read online is absolute truth (and the Tooth Fairy isn’t real either).  Anybody with an hour to kill and a rudimentary knowledge of HTML can create a website that attacks ideas they don’t agree with.  Your “Humans don’t effect Global Warming and it’s not real anyway theory” can be put aside these other internet “theories” – ”The Holocaust was a hoax,” ”aliens landed at roswell,” ”NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings,” and ”George Bush is a good President.”

  • .alphamonkey.

    In 2050 we will have how many deaths caused by global warming?  Please find me the research that backs up that statement.

    Here’s one.Another This discusses the issue.  If there’s anything that’s absolutely not being debated, it’s deaths from Global Warming.  (Be it by dehydration, disease contracted from much higher levels of carrier insects moving into previously clean areas, heat exhaustion, deaths due to more severe rain and drought.).  Where are you getting the information that this aspect is in any way disputed?  The only source I found that argued against that point was put out by the Cato Institute, a far right libertarian group.

    He also says that the scientific concensus is that we are causing global warming.  That is also untrue.

    That’s true, actually. Again, read the peer review study. Of all the papers in the study, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. But contrary to what the noise machine would have you believe, not a single one of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

  • BADD

    Here are some more contrasting reports and ideas.

    These guys are a part of NASA:


    This is what they say about global warming:



    Here is what is said about trends on the EPA site:


    An inconvenient truth for Al Gore.  Sorry couldn’t resist.

    More on the NASA temperature retreiving methods:


    This one seems to over turn some of the ones above.


    Another intersting tid bit from Solcomhouse.

    CO2 rise

    See what this guy thinks.

    Jae Edmonds

    Ok enough for tonight.  If you are wondering what I am doing that produces so many varying websites with equally varying information, I am simply going to a search site and typing in key words.  Some keywords I have been using are *Global Temperature* *Global emissions* *environment* *Climate crisis* and a bunch others.

    I will continue for a few more days.

    For your informaion, I fully intend to read Al Gore’s book, and see the movie.  I am just going to try to do this for free if possible.  The book shold end up in the library soon right?

    Ohhhhh……  Don’t make me go to the library.rasberry

  • Thundarr

    To paraphrase Will Ferrell are you just pointing at websites and saying you love them?

  • .alphamonkey.

    Did you even read the links you posted? 

    The Jae Edmonds site only stats that in a laboratory, under certain conditions (which aren’t stated), the use of market exchange rates (MER) rather than purchasing power parity (PPP) in determining emmissions off of GDP results in a slight upward temperature variance of .6 degrees.  How does that refute anything?

    The Global Hydrology & Climate Center link also does nothing to refute our influenece on global climate change.  All it says is that they are exploring alternative means with which to measure the change.

    Solcom does indeed reflect current scientific thinking, as it’s been consistently updated.

    Seriously, did you read those links? 

    The GHCC link you posted is nearly a decade old, and merely discusses how tropical humidity might play a part in global heat release.  Again, it’s not addressing the facts at hand.

    Greenfacts agrees with Gore.

    The EPA link is disinginuous as it’s a known fact that the Bush Administration has been scubbing it’s public data of any reference to our contribution to climate change.

    The NCPA link is likewise disinginuous as it Gore addresses this fact in his presentation, and shows the data that explains the difference between then and now.  Again, it’s also a right-wing think tank talking, and the other links on the site all showcase a neocon slant of the issues.

    The UCAR link is likewise ten years old, and doesn’t address the data that’s been accumulated since then.

  • Boss Robot

    What are the two sides to this flamewar?

    Pollution is bad! Support alternative energy sources!

  • BADD

    Please point to a post where I flame anyone.  The worst I have said is to suggest someone didn’t do some research.

    I am a BADD person……..

    And an idiot too according to Thundarr…..

    Seems pretty one sided to me.

    Oh wait…. I forgot about that Azbat7 guy.

    Maybe I should have left when I said I was.  I just can’t seem to let this one lie.

  • Busymm

    No worries it’s been a great discussion. Also let’s just say that even if we aren’t the cause of global warming, you have to admit that our actions (as in the human race)sure as heck hindering but rather speeding up the warming trend.

  • Thundarr

    Hypocrite might be a better word.  Your entire argument consists of the fact you think Gore didn’t do his research and lied about Global Warming.  Alphamonkey was also attacked, with other members of this site, for blindly accepting the facts in Gore’s documentary without researching them first.  Yet here you sit randomly posting sites without investigating them at all.  The results of which help PROVE our point.  The only sites you can find to agree with you are out-of-date (yes, there still may have been some discussion 5-10 years ago but scientists who study the phenomenon TODAY agree that Global Warming is real and the level to which it is growing can be traced back to human activity) or they AGREE with Gore’s conclusions.

    You called Gore a liar for stating the following facts:

    1.Global Warming is real

    2.Global Warming is attributable to human activities.

    3.If left unchecked this problem could have disasterous consequences as soon as 50 years from now.

    These aren’t in dispute.  In fact scienists across the world agree on them.  There might be debate at the rate of change or where the effect might first be felt and so on, but the debate about whether Global Warming is real or not is over.

    If you can find RECENT articles from SCIENTISTS (not lobbyists or think-tanks expressing their opinons based on the pay scale of the Oil Companies which have the same problem Tobacco Companies had years ago.  If they admit their products do harm they will have to accpet change such as the move to alternative technologies and fuels, will lose them billions as they will lose the monopoly they currently hold on energy.  I would call that a conflict of interest), when you can find such FACTS to back up your claim then post them and we will discuss them.

    Calling someone a liar who has spent half of his life studying the problem and has access, which he shares in his book and film, to RECENT and OVERWHELMING data that is impossible to ignore ONLY because you don’t like him as a person or politician is idiotic and petty (and so is your unwillingness to admit being wrong with the “proof” you have posted here).  So I stand by original statement.

  • BADD

    Well thankyou Thundarr for berating me for no reason.

    I see now that you are not interested in finding out how complicated this topic really is, and you just want to call me names and claim I had not shown any evidence that Al Gore is misleading people to the severity of the climate crisis.

    Some of the articles I posted links to were from this month.  That isn’t current enough for you?

    My goal was not to prove that Global warming did not exist.  My goal was to expand this debate beyond what the IPCC and Al Gore are saying.  Things are not as immediate or dangerous as they claim.  What they are doing is just like the environmentalists of the 70’s who claimed among other things that if we didn’t do as they said, human life would not survive past the 80’s.

    Sorry to make your ranting flame filled posts moot.

    BTW, You too have not shown any facts or data proving Gore’s arguments.  You have only offered explainations and not a single link to any information.

    Is this recent enough for you?


    You actually believe every scientist on this planet agrees with the IPCC about global warming and it’s causes?  Who is being naive now?

    The consensus of scientists that support the IPCC aganda are mostly a part of the IPCC.  In that respect they can use the word consensus.  My problem arises when they try to use the term consensus in the meaning that all scientists are in general agreement with the validity of their studies.  That is just not true.  I have posted many articles already that support that argument.

    Here is the definition of consensus from webster’s.

    ‘Main Entry: con·sen·sus

    Pronunciation: k&n-’sen(t)-s&s

    Function: noun

    Usage: often attributive

    Etymology: Latin, from consentire

    1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports… from the border—John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

    2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief

    usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so. “

    Now an Al Gore’s quote is “Scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming.”

    That is not true.  Not every scientist believes we are causing global warming.  It is not a general belief in the scientific community, there for making it a lie. 

    Am I wrong?

  • Thundarr

    Yes you are wrong.

    First, Global Warming is agreed upon as a serious problem by the scientists who are studying the phenomenon – i.e. “the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned” is that Global Warming is real and effected by human action.

    Second.  Again, we are looking for SCIENTIFIC research not political arguments of the type which you have presented.  Your last link is another Conservative think-tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis which is funded by the following: ExxonMobil Foundation, the Earhart Foundation (an offshoot of the White Star Oil Company) and Chrysler.  Since alphamonkey already did some real research in looking at that second group of links I’ll not spend time here to discuss those.  We have refuted your “proof” and yet your only response is “Well, I didn’t really believe them anyway, hey here are some others…”

    As for your attempt to attack me for not proving Gore’s points that wasn’t the point of our disagreement nor is the responsibility on my shoulders – I’m not the one who is desperate to PROVE something here, I am more than happy to rely on SCIENTIFIC FACT and let it speak for itself (if you have problems with the data why don’t you do some research to find where Gore’s argument comes from and try to refute it).  My problem with your post is your labeling Gore a liar without the proof to back up your statements.  I think the information given in the book (which is one of the sources I’ve stated and is available) and the movie (which is playing in many cities) is compelling because the work went into finding a CONSENSUS and presented a unified argument for the problems of Global Warming and Aaron has repeatedly posted the data explaining the consensus of scientists during this discussion on this blog.

    Again when we speak of future consequences Gore admits as do I that the exact results can not be 100% predicted.  However he points out and the data backs him up that if the world continues on the same path and increase in CO2 emissions based on the rise in the last few years the end result after a period of time would be catastrophic.  Such increases can be plotted out on a scale.  Is it infalable?  No, but the better the data the more likely the ability to measure and since the data Gore is using is in some cases THOUSANDS of years old that’s pretty good.  We can project such things on a scale – and the scale is based on current and expected increasing in the output of CO2.  Might these be changed due to new technologies and policies?  Yes – that’s what Gore is fighting for.  He’s not saying that this is unavoidable.  In fact what he does argue is we have the means right now to prevent such a cataclysm from occuring just by taking small steps today.  At this point in time the effects of global warming are beginning to rise at an exponential rate which is leading to huge effects such as stronger hurricanes, droughts, flooding, and the melting of the polar icecap.  And if no future action is taken will lead to a disturbing future for humans on this tiny blue speck called Earth.

    You haven’t refuted my comment either – you have yet to prove that Al Gore is a liar because he hasn’t done his homework yet you continue to call him one without supporting your claim with this “proof” you believe is out there – therefore you are behaving in the very behavior you insist on labeling (incorrectly) on Gore.  That my friend is the definition of hypocrasy, and is in itself idiotic, that’s not namecalling that just truth.  No matter how inconvenient it may be for you.

  • BADD


    I took a direct quote from Gore.

    I proved he was misusing a word to describe the situation.

    I have posted websites that refute his findings (who cares who gives them money!).

    I have done my best to be civil.

    You have shown no data other than refer to the book and movie.

    You have claimed that I am attacking you.

    You have no idea what my personal thoughts on this matter are, nor do you care.

    You are using tatics to simply dissuade from my points rather than use actual proof to falsify them.

    You, who support this kind of scare tactics, are always proven wrong in the end, so why am I bothering to argue with you now?

    You know what?  Consider this a win for you.  I am fed up with your tactics and I (for real this time) will not be discussing this topic with you anymore, or should I say stop being berated and accused of attacking you.  Fool me once…..

    Lastly.  I am done with this.  Spin this however you like.

  • .alphamonkey.

    The scientific consensus is indeed that we’re causing the exacerbated effects of this current global warming.  Again, we’ve both pointed to more than a few links that back that statement up.  Had you seen the film, you’d hear the context of Gore’s statement.

  • Sky King

    Well, it’s certainly going to be an interesting day when “Who Killed the Electric Car” hits the theaters….

  • Sky King

    Dang, I keep forgetting to remind all our science-loving friends about Seed Magazine (which has been featured in some Transbuddha articles).

    This may be of some interest as the article discusses anecdotally how global warming has affected some specific locations on the planet.

    Seed has done a great job of getting to the point of many topics in science and not beating around the bush (or Bush?).

  • Boss Robot

    Doesn’t transbuddha have a forum for these kinds of long winded discussions?

  • .alphamonkey.

    Yah, but they’re just as appropriate here.

    I usually keep the forums for off-topic stuff.

  • Azbat7
  • .alphamonkey.

    Counter Link

    But bonus points to you for linking to an article that was written by a policy wonk for a conservative think tank.

  • .alphamonkey.

    By the way, if you’d like a handy resource that gives background on ‘guest columnists’ and those all to pervasive experts, spend some time with Sourcewatch.

  • Azbat7

    Peter Spotts, who wrote your counter article is a big liberal (despite what he anyone claims)… Look up Tom Harris who wrote the article I posted… don’t think he really matches your description of a “policy wonk”….. I may never win this internet argument but I’m completely content with that for the simple fact that I’m more than positive, alphamonkey, that you do not lead by example.  Post as many articles as you want.  Copy and paste as many opinions as you want and pass them off as your own… but in your own personal life, I will bet any amount of money you do nothing significant to help your cause… Holier than thou on the internet.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Oh, I forgot that ‘liberal=evil and misguided’.

    And I don’t care what you’re convinced of.  You don’t know me, nor my life.  If that makes you feel better to believe, than by all means have fun with it.

  • BADD

    *Bad starts loading a revolver with one bullet*

  • .alphamonkey.

    for someone so averse to this topic, you sure seem incapable of not clicking on the comment threads.

  • BADD

    For someone who enjoys sarcasm and humor you sure seem to not appreciate my little joke.

    Guess we are

  • Thundarr

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve read all your comments on this post and I must say that I find them HILARIOUS!  Thanks for playing, and kudos for the great sense of humor!  “I proved Al Gore is a liar,” wow, you just slay me.  FUNNY STUFF DUDE!!

  • BADD

    Awwwwww.  I am getting the feeling you don’t like me……  :_(

    All politicians lie.  It is their job. rasberry

  • starrgzer3

    Wow…. that is pretty much all I can or probably will be able to say on this site without having thereafter to deal with the bickering.

  • Belve

    I sat and read all the comments.. (Yes I was that bored)… Here is a something I noticed

    ~~Here is the definition of consensus from webster’s.

    ‘Main Entry: con·sen·sus

    Pronunciation: k&n-’sen(t)-s&s

    Function: noun

    Usage: often attributive

    Etymology: Latin, from consentire

    1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports… from the border—John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

    2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief

    usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so. “ ~~

    Maybe I’m not to smart but i never knew that consensus means EVERY or ALL.

    But that is a petty way of looking at the subject @ hand.. Basically Gore and those on his side of the topic are saying.. Let’s do more NOW to stop and or reverse this trend.. Are you seriously telling me that WE should all NOT worry about it? That we should not listen to someone that twists the truth so that it favors him??


Previous post:

Next post: