Comments on: Gore Defends Live Earth Concerts, Self

Says Participating Performers Aren't Hypocritical, And He's Not Using Event To Further Presidential Aspirations

Add a Comment See all 154 Comments
by huskerarmy July 6, 2007 8:28 PM EDT
Unless Al Gore has the political juice to get China, India or even Brazil to play along, all he will have done is become a concert promoter.
Posted by trouble1985

Assuming that you are smarter than the vast majority of the worlds scientists and that somehow you are right and we can do whatever we want with the earth's environment without consequence, why do you suppose that your argument not appeal to the worlds scientists and most other rational people? And likewise if one also believes the world will never be free and democratic, there is no point in starting it here. I mean, unless we have the political juice to get China to play along... we should all just give up. Or perhaps we could use our imaginations...
Reply to this comment
by brianp55 July 6, 2007 8:22 PM EDT
Trouble:

Basically, I agree with you but FYI, Brazil is not a good example to use because they power their cars almost exclusively with ethanol. Hence, they are "carbon-neutral" with respect to automobiles. Conversely, I go to China three times a year and believe me, those Sinopec stations are humming.
Reply to this comment
by huskerarmy July 6, 2007 8:17 PM EDT
If republicans are consistantly wrong on everything...does that mean that you are for Bush and the Iraq war??
Posted by GrammaWhamma
I certainly understood J-whitman's post to mean Republicans as a whole, the majority. The fact that some are now coming to their senses and opposing the war does in fact lend credibility to the proposition that the majority was wrong.
Reply to this comment
by russ1985 July 6, 2007 8:16 PM EDT
Gore has been championing this cause at least on paper for about 7 years now. Frankly, I think that there are two things that work against this idea. And it's not Bush and the Republicans.

One is we're basing this whole global warming theory on a little better than 130 years of recorded temperature data. We didn't record this data that long and we are extrapolating that data across hundreds of years and saying that this will happen. In fact since 1945 we've actually lost a whole degree using those same records so, we don't know whether the data is fatally flawed.

Second, assuming that somehow the data is found to be empirically accurate, putting these new restraints Solely on the US, when the bulk of the world's manufacturing facilities are based in China, Brazil and India, where they thumb their noses at things like the Kyoto protocols and therefore produce more C02 than we do here is fruitless. The actions we take will be like bandaging a deep cut on an arm while leaving a sucking chest wound open to the air.

Unless Al Gore has the political juice to get China, India or even Brazil to play along, all he will have done is become a concert promoter.
Reply to this comment
by russ1985 July 6, 2007 8:13 PM EDT
Republicans have no credibility arguing about Global Warming --
- They've been consistantly wrong for over 6 years on everything. ---
- More republicans today say Bush is Wrong on Iraq & pull the troops out.
Posted by j-whitman at 04:11 PM : Jul 06, 2007

So are Republicans wrong for wanting the troops out or are they wrong because they criticize Bush? The trouble with blanket statements is that they are so hard to back up and when they fall apart, make you look like an idiot.
Reply to this comment
by grammawhamma July 6, 2007 8:03 PM EDT
j-whitman....regarding your 4:11 post. You say that republicans have consistantly been wrong for over 6 years on "everything". Next line you write is More republicans today say Bush is wrong on Iraq and pull the troops out. So which is it?? If republicans are consistantly wrong on everything...does that mean that you are for Bush and the Iraq war??
Reply to this comment
by brianp55 July 6, 2007 8:02 PM EDT
Al Gore strikes me as a man desperate to find a cause that will allow him to leave his mark. Had he not been screwed out of the Presidency (by Clinton as much as anyone else), I doubt he would exhibit the same apparent passion for this issue. Unfortunately, it is always a bit difficult to listen to a wealthy individual preach to us concerning the appropriateness of our practices.
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 6, 2007 7:41 PM EDT
nickdaytona said: "the earth has managed temperatures perfectly for millions of years..."

Yeah. Half of the U.S. was under a mile of ice at one time. Ocean levels were 80 feet higher than they are now at another time. But, by and large, the earth 'manages' its temperature very well. About as well as our President has handled the federal debt. LOL.
Reply to this comment
by aaabee-2009 July 6, 2007 7:36 PM EDT
Global warming (the idea) is only important to those lemmings that need a dooms-day Armageddon myth to go along with their fair tale Utopian religions." Posted by nickdaytona at 04:26 PM : Jul 06, 2007

Not disrespecting you, but it is the dooms-day Armageddon Utopian religious neocon lemmings who are fighting global warming.


Reply to this comment
by bill1fj July 6, 2007 7:34 PM EDT
Al talks but he doesn't do.
He uses more energy for his mansion, and other properties, in one year than most people use in a life time.
Also he needs to slow down on how much he eats. He could cut what he eats in half, feed the other half to someone that needs it, and still have plenty.
Just another professional politician that talks but doesn't do.
Reply to this comment
by nickdaytona July 6, 2007 7:26 PM EDT
Global warming is not a fact, it%u2019s an idea based on a computer model%u2014importantly, the models used to support global warming do not include %u201Cprecipitation data%u201D. Precipitation is the mechanism that stabilizes Earth%u2019s climate. Of course temperatures fluctuate %u2013 but increases and irrevocable damage (caused by emissions) are not plausible. There%u2019s just too much water on the planet%u2014it%u2019s an imaginably large volume, and a limitless supply. After all, the earth has managed temperatures perfectly for millions of years, despite constant emissions from volcanoes. In fact, when you consider the role that volcanoes play in emission of so-called greenhouse gases, we as humans are quiet tiny contributors to the volumes. Global warming (the idea) is only important to those lemmings that need a dooms-day Armageddon myth to go along with their fair tale Utopian religions.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman July 6, 2007 7:11 PM EDT
Republicans have no credibility arguing about Global Warming --
- They've been consistantly wrong for over 6 years on everything. ---
- More republicans today say Bush is Wrong on Iraq & pull the troops out.
- National High School Graduation Rate is 67%
- National Security "Gravely Damaged"
- Health Care & Education costs, through the roof
- Inflation
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 6, 2007 6:56 PM EDT
AaaBee said: "we could if Bush and Co hadn't zero'd the federal geothermal budget."
Hey! That money was needed for Halliburtons no-bid contract to operate Iraqi orphanages!
Reply to this comment
by aaabee-2009 July 6, 2007 6:53 PM EDT
http://geothermal.marin.org/GEOpresentation/sld057.htm

Geothermal is the way to go. Iceland used to be 99% dependent on fossil fuels, like us. That country decided to make a change. In the year 2006, 26.5 % of electricity generation in Iceland came from geothermal energy, 73.4 % from hydro power, and 0.1 % from fossil fuels.

The engineers at Imperial Valley say the US is equally able to get high numbers from geothermal.

Or we could if Bush and Co hadn't zero'd the federal geothermal budget.

Oh well.
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 6, 2007 6:50 PM EDT
PART 2:
" We now have a pretty good idea of why ice sheets collapse. The buttresses that prevent them from sliding into the sea break up; meltwater trickles down to their base, causing them suddenly to slip; and pools of water form on the surface, making the ice darker so that it absorbs more heat. These processes are ALREADY taking place in Greenland and West Antarctica.

Rather than taking thousands of years to melt, as the IPCC predicts, Hansen and his team find it "implausible" that the expected warming before 2100 "would permit a West Antarctic ice sheet of present size to survive even for a century." As well as drowning most of the world's centers of population, a sudden disintegration could lead to much higher rises in global temperature, because less ice means less heat reflected back into space. The new paper suggests that the temperature could therefore be twice as sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than the IPCC assumes. "

Don't buy real estate near sea level...
Reply to this comment
by jsilver2th July 6, 2007 6:49 PM EDT
Posted by lars008 "a theory is still only a theory and not a fact"

Theories are alway theories.
They may become accepted as fact but they are still theories.

If the fire is rushing towards your home it is only a theory that your house will burn but do you wait to call the fire fighters until you test the theory and the house burns? You could wait until 10% burns but even then it is only a theory that the other 90% will burn.

If our climate is destroyed a law or political rant won't save us. We can't breath propaganda.

Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 6, 2007 6:48 PM EDT
This is from another article. Its reports like these that make me believe sea level will be the most important Global Warming effect this century. Its virtually unstoppable because the ocean temperature is an 800lb Gorilla that we would be pushing on with an 80lb weakling, the atmosphere, and polar ice responds primarily to ocean temperature, not atmospheric temps:

PART 1
" A recent paper published by a team led by James Hansen at NASA suggests that the grim reports issued by the IPCC could be absurdly optimistic.

The IPCC predicts that sea levels could rise by as much as 59cm this century. Hansen's paper argues that the slow melting of ice sheets the panel expects doesn't fit the data. The geological record suggests that ice at the poles does not melt in a gradual and linear fashion, but flips suddenly from one state to another. When temperatures increased to 2-3 degrees above today's level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59cm but by 25 METERS. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature."
Reply to this comment
by jtmichalec July 6, 2007 6:47 PM EDT
cornax wrote:

Seven continent concert? So where in Antartica is Algore staging a concert? I am sure the penguins will get a real kick out of it.

I don't know about Antartica but a group called Nunatak (an amateur group of British Scientists) will be playing live from Antarctica in support of Live Earth.
Reply to this comment
by lars008-2009 July 6, 2007 6:44 PM EDT
global change is a fact... the erath has gone through many global warmings and colling without our influence... and the majority of its life it had no permanent ise... those are facts...

what ended the last iceage or any of the many iceages jihad j???

what started the iceages???

have they dug up any ancient cars that caused them???

hahahahahahaha
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman July 6, 2007 6:41 PM EDT
Lars008,,,, The Bible isn't a fact --- Global Warming is a science & proven.
Reply to this comment
See all 154 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

  • MOST POPULAR
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: