Gore, Al - An Inconvenient Truth

[Dennis M. Scott]

The former USA VP writes about his favorite life theme: Global warming. Unfortunately, this is not fiction. This likely is a fairly good reference book on the subject. I have not seen the movie, which I understand to be rather convincing. Parts of the book are well documented, with material from as recent as 2006. Effective charts and graphs, with vivid photos. One interesting illustration is in the chapter where he compares widespread denial of global warming to earlier denial of the harmful effects of tobacco in the USA. Those industries who stand to lose money strongly deny any problem. Gore admits that his family profitted from growing tobacco, and refused to admit there was a problem until his older sister died from tobacco caused lung cancer. The next year they stopped growing tobacco.
The book also points to what seem to be fairly viable alternatives to present contributions to global warming. It will make more sense to those whose present livelihood is not from oil, gas or coal burning.
Alas, the former Presidential candidate was not able to write this book without taking political potshots at the present administration. He had made his point, and it would have gone farther to have not named the obvious.

[Dave McClung]

The former USA VP writes about his favorite life theme: Global warming. Unfortunately, this is not fiction. This likely is a fairly good reference book on the subject. I have not seen the movie, which I understand to be rather convincing. Parts of the book are well documented, with material from as recent as 2006. Effective charts and graphs, with vivid photos. One interesting illustration is in the chapter where he compares widespread denial of global warming to earlier denial of the harmful effects of tobacco in the USA. Those industries who stand to lose money strongly deny any problem. Gore admits that his family profitted from growing tobacco, and refused to admit there was a problem until his older sister died from tobacco caused lung cancer. The next year they stopped growing tobacco.
The book also points to what seem to be fairly viable alternatives to present contributions to global warming. It will make more sense to those whose present livelihood is not from oil, gas or coal burning.
Alas, the former Presidential candidate was not able to write this book without taking political potshots at the present administration. He had made his point, and it would have gone farther to have not named the obvious.

He may be right about some global warming, but I think he is wrong about what is causing it. My home sits on Puget Sound that was formed by glaciers that covered this area thousands of years ago. Because of long-term warming, the glaciers have melted to the point that the only glaciers are high on mountians. Man certainly didn't cause that warming. What evidence is there that the current warming trend isn't just part of the same trend that caused the glaciers over this part of the world to melt?

Again, it helps to have lived a while. I remember when the predictions were that there would be another ice age. There probably will be, but I don't expect to live long enough to see it either.

My opinion is that it is arrogant of any man to believe that he can have much impact on the overall environment. I am a strong believer in "carry out what you carry in" and "Don't Mess With Texas" types of efforts, but I pay little attention to the alarmist like Al Gore.

[Joel Merrill]

He may be right about some global warming, but I think he is wrong about what is causing it. My home sits on Puget Sound that was formed by glaciers that covered this area thousands of years ago. Because of long-term warming, the glaciers have melted to the point that the only glaciers are high on mountains. Man certainly didn't cause that warming. What evidence is there that the current warming trend isn't just part of the same trend that caused the glaciers over this part of the world to melt?

Again, it helps to have lived a while. I remember when the predictions were that there would be another ice age. There probably will be, but I don't expect to live long enough to see it either.

My opinion is that it is arrogant of any man to believe that he can have much impact on the overall environment. I am a strong believer in "carry out what you carry in" and "Don't Mess With Texas" types of efforts, but I pay little attention to the alarmist like Al Gore.

My feelings exactly :) He reminds me of Chicken Little running around crying, "The sky is falling." I believe in recycling and taking care of the earth. I hate the see the trash and pollution caused by man but I don't think these extremists are being entirely honest with us. They are definitely exaggerating a lot of the time.

Joel

[Hans Deventer]

I wrote an angry reply. And that was wrong. Let's just put one question to all you folks. Can anyone among us be totally sure that there is NO human influence on the climate? I think not. Well, my suggestion is to write here accordingly.

Another thing: the fact that science got things wrong in the past says absolutely nothing about current predictions. They used to say the earth was flat. Now they say it is a globe. Are they wrong again?

There just might be advancement in knowing the truth.

[Dennis M. Scott]

My feelings exactly :) He reminds me of Chicken Little running around crying, "The sky is falling." I believe in recycling and taking care of the earth. I hate the see the trash and pollution caused by man but I don't think these extremists are being entirely honest with us. They are definitely exaggerating a lot of the time.

Joel

Gore credits everything from West Nile Virus to Katrina on global warming. It seemed obvious to me that he didn't blame "Hanging Chads": that's just one of the things he blames on the Republicans. I suspect some of what he's saying is true. Fewer and fewer of the scientific community are lightly dismissing the issue.

I suspect the truth is somewhere near the middle of the two polarities. This book is written by a politician. It isn't like the eleventh commandment.

[Dennis M. Scott]

He may be right about some global warming, but I think he is wrong about what is causing it. My home sits on Puget Sound that was formed by glaciers that covered this area thousands of years ago. Because of long-term warming, the glaciers have melted to the point that the only glaciers are high on mountians. Man certainly didn't cause that warming. What evidence is there that the current warming trend isn't just part of the same trend that caused the glaciers over this part of the world to melt?

I tend to agree with you here. I thought the nature of glaciers was to melt. Fortunately those that used to cover where we live have melted a while back.

Again, it helps to have lived a while. I remember when the predictions were that there would be another ice age. There probably will be, but I don't expect to live long enough to see it either.
Actually this prediction didn't come from the scientific community: it came from a news magazine, who within a few months tried to retract it, saying it was unfounded.

My opinion is that it is arrogant of any man to believe that he can have much impact on the overall environment. I am a strong believer in "carry out what you carry in" and "Don't Mess With Texas" types of efforts, but I pay little attention to the alarmist like Al Gore.
I appreciate your "middle of the road" stance, but probably suspect that in cases where there is a pretty delicate balance, we'd do well to err on the side of caution. That's different than alarmist, however. Yet I do care about conditions that will outlive me.

[Brad Mercer]

I appreciate your "middle of the road" stance, but probably suspect that in cases where there is a pretty delicate balance, we'd do well to err on the side of caution.

You may be right, but my tendency is to think we should always err on the side of freedom. Erring on the side of caution on the issue of environmentalism usually means seeing economic freedom and growth as the enemy, and increased statist control and restriction of freedom and growth as the solution.

It sounds like "let me kill you now to prevent those evil capitalists from killing you in the distant future."

Brad

[Dennis M. Scott]

I wrote an angry reply. And that was wrong. Let's just put one question to all you folks. Can anyone among us be totally sure that there is NO human influence on the climate? I think not. Well, my suggestion is to write here accordingly.

Another thing: the fact that science got things wrong in the past says absolutely nothing about current predictions. They used to say the earth was flat. Now they say it is a globe. Are they wrong again?

There just might be advancement in knowing the truth.

Hans, I thought of you and your country as I read this book. One of the seemingly outlandish predictions is that if - or when - half of Greenland and Antarctica melted, it wouldl raise the ocean depths worldwide eighteen to twenty feet. What would that do to the Netherlands? Similar effects would take place in Florida, San Francisco, and a host of world areas. You guys better build floating houses!

The Arctic cap is about ten feet thick, and floats. The Anarctic cap is about ten thousand feet think, and rests above land, as does Greenland's ice. Presumably, were they to melt or slide into the sea, the displaced water would raise the ocean that much worldwide.

I think that what we collectively do does effect things worldwide, and I suspect that's part of what the Bible wants us to consider. I also have observed the earth recover from miraculously from mistakes we've made in the past. While I'm convinced that we won't obliterate God's intent without His permission, we have been given stewardship responsibilities. I also suspect He's not revealed everything to me.

[Dave McClung]

I appreciate your "middle of the road" stance, but probably suspect that in cases where there is a pretty delicate balance, we'd do well to err on the side of caution. That's different than alarmist, however. Yet I do care about conditions that will outlive me.

One of the advantages of living a long time is the experience of seeing our mistakes. We have made a lot of mistakes.

Although I reject the proposals of people like Al Gore, I am very thankful for the reasonable regulations that have forced us to address some of the mistakes of the past. One of the largest was the fouling of our waters. I remember as a child seeing thousands of dead fish in the river just below a paper mill. It was not uncommon at all to see the plants release all kinds of pollution into the waters. Stopping those practices was good stewardship.

Since I have lived in Houston and Denver, two of the cities that suffer most from air pollution, I appreciate the reasonable efforts to clean up the air. Reducing the air pollution is good stewardship.

I live in a state that grows a lot of trees. I believe that Old Growth Forests are a resource worthy of preserving for future generations. Regulating the cutting of Old Growth Forests is good stewardship.

My point is simply that on most of the issues, I recognize the validity of the concerns of the environmentalists. Where I differ is in how drastic the cure should be.

When it comes to Global Warming, I think the proper response is to continue monitoring the situation. If sea levels begin to rise, we will adjust (lots of work for Marine Construction Contractors). Measured by the level of Puget Sound in my backyard, there has been no change. The low tides still go as low as they used to and the high tides are the same as they have been.

[Hans Deventer]

You may be right, but my tendency is to think we should always err on the side of freedom. Erring on the side of caution on the issue of environmentalism usually means seeing economic freedom and growth as the enemy, and increased statist control and restriction of freedom and growth as the solution.

It sounds like "let me kill you now to prevent those evil capitalists from killing you in the distant future."

Brad, it is great for the Australians that you go there, and it might not be bad for you either. I have the idea some parts of your thinking don't match your theology yet. And God sometimes uses unexpected sources to bring about change.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I thought of you and your country as I read this book. One of the seemingly outlandish predictions is that if - or when - half of Greenland and Antarctica melted, it wouldl raise the ocean depths worldwide eighteen to twenty feet. What would that do to the Netherlands? Similar effects would take place in Florida, San Francisco, and a host of world areas. You guys better build floating houses!

We'd be in big trouble, for we are a delta area and you cannot keep raising the level of the dikes, water still has to be able to flow into the see. As to 18-20 feet, these are not the predictions I hear in this country, but up to 1 feet in 100-200 years is something they are indeed taking seriously. That would be tough enough to beat!

I think that what we collectively do does effect things worldwide, and I suspect that's part of what the Bible wants us to consider. I also have observed the earth recover from miraculously from mistakes we've made in the past.

Yes, but usually that did take action from our side.

While I'm convinced that we won't obliterate God's intent without His permission

Not His ultimate intent, no. But we surely can change the road towards it. And I also believe we can delay or speed up things.

we have been given stewardship responsibilities. I also suspect He's not revealed everything to me.

I'm even sure about that :basic05 Same here!

[Brad Mercer]

Brad, it is great for the Australians that you go there, and it might not be bad for you either. I have the idea some parts of your thinking don't match your theology yet. And God sometimes uses unexpected sources to bring about change.

I love you. That was very forgivingly and gently phrased. :basic03

And I'm sure you're right.

Brad

[Wanda Van Winkle]

Can anyone among us be totally sure that there is NO human influence on the climate?

Hans, I am glad I did not see your angry reply.

My question is: DID anyone say that there is NO human influence on the climate?

When any side of any issue begins getting angry and defensive, and starts using "NO" or "EVERY" in application to a situation, usually nobody really knows and they are insecure in their beliefs.

I believe that we CAN have an influence on the climate. But I cannot prove it. I also don't necessarily buy into the great destruction of mankind through global warming. Scientists cannot prove it, unfortunately, and it isn't worth my life to worry about tomorrow. And any group with a "cause" can convince a large amount of people that mankind is going to be eliminated by their particular negative event.

On the other hand, I do believe we should be respectful of all God created, whether or not we believe he actually created it, and try to live peacefully with the plants and animals on our homeland--Earth.

My hope is that if a time ever comes that we face destruction, I won't be among either the "I told you so" OR the "woe is me, I should have listened" faction, but will be among the "let me introduce you to the One who can give you peace in the midst of this storm" folks. God willing.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I am glad I did not see your angry reply.

That's because I never posted it :basic03

My question is: DID anyone say that there is NO human influence on the climate?

No, and so I tried to find common ground. Neither of the extremes can be proven (not that there is no influence, nor that all the global warming etc is totally our fault). That being the case, it think the "Chicken Little" might not be the best anology.

My hope is that if a time ever comes that we face destruction, I won't be among either the "I told you so" OR the "woe is me, I should have listened" faction, but will be among the "let me introduce you to the One who can give you peace in the midst of this storm" folks. God willing.

If that time ever comes, you will be in either the "I told you so" OR the "woe is me, I should have listened" faction, because even if you know the One who gives peace in the midst of the storm, it feels pretty bad when you realize the storm is of our own doing. I don't think there logically can be a third group.

[Hans Deventer]

And I'm sure you're right.

I have to be, it's a matter of personal experience. The guy I see in the mirror every morning has the same problem. And that's only about my ideas! We're not even talking about having my life match my theology..........

[Wanda Van Winkle]

If that time ever comes, you will be in either the "I told you so" OR the "woe is me, I should have listened" faction, because even if you know the One who gives peace in the midst of the storm, it feels pretty bad when you realize the storm is of our own doing. I don't think there logically can be a third group.


I did not make my point well, then. Whether it is or is NOT our fault, I can choose God's way over man's way. Man's way wants to say "I told you so." Or man's way wants to whine about his circumstances rather than "being content wherever he finds himself." Seeking God first, we can rise above the rabble of the crowd.

I can relate my idea to the flood in New Orleans. Scientists warned it would happen someday. It did. I'd love to have been Brad Mercer--not standing on the sidelines arguing the "I'm right, you're wrong" or vice versa--but reaching out an arm of rescue. Again, God willing, I'd prefer to be an arm of rescue, in spirit, with peace, regardless of the earthly circumstances.

Perhaps I clarified.

By the way, I notice you and I are reading that the same time. It is 4:50 a.m. right now. I have a night job and am usually winding down to go to sleep around 6 a.m. It's funny to have someone else awake when it's very dark and quiet here.