Katie: Gore Warms Up Hollywood
(CBS)
But as the throngs of celebrities greeted Al Gore as a secular saint, I wondered if this might usher in a backlash against environmentalists. It wasn’t too long ago, afterall, that environmentalists were decried as tree-huggers, and former President Bush railed against them — trying to say it was the spotted owl against logging interests and jobs in the West.
Gore has repeatedly said the environment is not a Democratic or Republican issue; it’s a moral issue. But now that Hollywood has so completely embraced the former vice president, one wonders if this issue will be associated only with liberal causes. The Oscars may give Gore's critics ammunition to reject a school of thought that’s been validated by countless scientists worldwide. Some people I know latched on to a recent Gore global warming conference that was cancelled because of a snowstorm.
And yet, after a period of time of not conceding global warming even exists, President Bush used the term "climate change" for the first time and has talked about a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It seems like we’re reaching critical mass when it comes to this issue. And all the experts agree. Well, almost every expert. (There are a handful of scientists — many of them on the payroll of big oil companies — who wonder if global warming is a reality.)
But my fervent hope is that Hollywood’s embrace of Al Gore doesn’t give people an excuse to condemn and mock the effort — and oppose taking steps that we as a society need to take to deal with the issue of climate change. Some people find anything trendy repugnant, but this is a trend that’s really important.
Senator Barbara Boxer, the new chairman of the Environment Committee, told us that "global warming is not just a warm day in January, it is a threat to the delicate balance of the planet." And many conservatives, too, share this view. Conservatives like Brent Scowcroft, the former Bush national security adviser, Lee Thomas, Ronald Reagan’s EPA Administrator, and Theodore Roosevelt IV. All of them — and many others — would say exactly what Gore says.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 162 CommentsHopefully, we get the facts straight first. Shame on us if we ignore an important issue that deserves our attention. By that same token, shame on us if we waste billions of dollars on something that turns out to not be an issue at all. Again, let's get our facts straight first.
We are all responsible for what has happened to the environment. We love our SUVs, our cheap gasoline (yes, it is cheap. Look and see what the Europeans have been paying for decades), our cheap coal electricity and we love our not two, but three, four, and five cars in the driveway. Republican, Democrat, Independent or Anarchist, all have had a part in this debacle.
The United States has been exerting its "Manifest Destiny" on natural resources since its founding. We shudder when a 1 billion plus nation like China wants to do the same with its resources. Katie, it is a shame that the rest of the world (that may have little part in this situation) has to partake of our foolishness with global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer.
It is happening. The evidence is in. We must stop the use of fossil fuels or we will destroy the very home of our children and grandchildren. Who cares if it is Al Gore or Groucho Marx who leads the call for change?
Eric
Have I told you i now 'tune into' CBS because of you?Call me a crazed fan or an adorable deranged guy- i dig you!I miss you from the -u know- other morning network! I continued watching it after your shocking departure, trying to convince myself maybe i like Matt or the whole Package.( i do actually like matt & the entire cool- first exlusive celebrinterview')But i finally stopped watching-- not actually processing that it is YOU i miss.I like your hard-hyper cool way of mannerism.You are cynical in a good healthy way, cool in a much regulated style,gracefull yet forceful in your interviews.Basically i am saying -- I thoroughly MISS YOU!!!!!!
Bashir Abdi Minneapolis Mn!
Posted by dan2098 at 07:30 PM : Feb 26, 2007
...... I second this opinion......and let's make sure that poor people don't suffer through increased prices of normal daily commodities...like energy, food .....etc...
Between NASA and other research done on the biome, these events are new to us, but rather mundane in the overall look of the climate and Earth's past. no problem in the long term. Earth abides.
Hysteria does nothing for the end goal. But it looks good in the big home, the Lexus, and the cost of running mansions.
Behold such emotional pap.
Robert
Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC .
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
www.behold-the-rage.com
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel
In a way, I understand your concern about Gore being associated with celebrities affecting the important work Mr. Gore is doing. However, let's face it ... It's free publicity for a cause that sorely needs it.
The media has been doing a lousy job at prioritizing this story. And some of what I've seen in just the last month on CBS (and the others) soft pedals the crisis as though it is still a theory. The world has come together and finally understood it is fact! It truly makes me wonder how much oil money is keeping the media so quiet?
Our time frame for meaningful intervention, to have any affect on slowing the process, is extremely short! When are we going to see the specials on mainstream TV that address not only the fact the problem is for real, but things everyone can do in their day to day life to make a difference.
One thing I've done is change all my Incandescent light bulbs to Fluorescent. Not only lowering the amount of CO2, but lowering my electric bill at the same time ... a "win win". I've also purchased my own copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" to share with coworkers and friends who haven't seen the movie yet. I think everyone should see it.
As for Gore running for President. I voted for him before and I'd vote for him again. Can you imagine how different the last several years would have played-out if Gore were at the wheel instead of nut behind it now?
Thanks for your time!
David
How can you give any credibility to the alarmists citing 'global warming' as a threat when a Google search of "Newsweek April 28 1975" will reveal evidence in support of 'global cooling' accumulating "so massively that meteorologists [were] hard pressed to keep up with it"?
While I agree our dependence on foreign oil is a disservice to our nation, a 180 degree switch in position in a mere 30 years hardly meets any scientific test of 'proof' that global warming exists.
With kind regard,
Charlie on the Pennsylvania Turnpike
I think it is a safe bet many people said the same thing 30 years ago about the Newsweek article.
Now, would you care to address the science stated in the article, or would you prefer to continue to cast aspersions at those who disagree with you?
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_102512.asp
Now - Ms. Coric - tell us what YOU are doing to cut back on your carbon footprint.
Oh and for those who are so wrapped around the axel about CO2 - I assume you realize that it currently constitutes less than 0.7% of the total atmospheric gasses and the change is CO2 has yet to be understood as a cause, a consequence or an irrelevant statistic related to global warming.
If you want to know about another %u201Cscience that everybody%u201D understood you should check into eugenics. Harvard had an active lab until the 1940s. FDR, Churchill and dozens of respected scientist all believed that is was our duty to cull the human herd of inferior specimens and prevent them from passing on their bad genes. So %u2013 like global warming %u2013 we took action without understanding and sterilized God knows how many people against their will simply because %u201Ceverybody knows%u201D was the fashionable quasi science trend of the day.
Ms Coric - please spend a few minutes checking your facts with real authorities rather than your close cadre of like minded friends.
Really? Where are the citations for that claim? I know, I know, Oil = Haliburton = Cheney = Bush = BAD...
P.S. I do not work for a big bad oil comapny. I just would like to know why anyone who has a "question" about Global Warming is quickly dismissed as someone with a connection to oil or are just plain stupid.
Really? Where are the citations for that claim? I know, I know, Oil = Haliburton = Cheney = Bush = BAD...
P.S. I do not work for a big bad oil comapny. I just would like to know why anyone who has a "question" about Global Warming is quickly dismissed as someone with a connection to oil or are just plain stupid.
Ms. Couric, your opinions on fashion are probably more close to correct, you may want to try sticking to those and stay away from promoting fear over poor results gotten from poor research.
Gore is a joke We know this; Heck, I thought he and Leo were going to Spoon Sunday night Weren't they cute together? Fools
Clip and Save this latest fad of Global Warming
Soon to be replaced by saving the baby seals or the spotted owl once again
My favorite is when a lunatic like Ms Hannah climbs a tree and sits there for a week only to see it come crushing down soon after the cameras leave. Anyone seen a Penn movie lately? Why?
like weather.gov noaa.gov and peer-reviewed journal articles. There's data back over 600, 000 years with ice cores, and yes we're warming and the overwhelming evidence is greenhouse gases. Cigarrettes kill and the earth isn't flat.
And Richard Lindzen is tied to commerical interests:
--
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [3]
Not all scientists agree on the causes or significance of items that alarmists (and the sheep that follow them) find so distressing. Many of the dire predictions of melting ice caps and rising sea levels, made before Mr. Gore's movie was filmed, have not come true to any degree. Many real scientists with a sincere interest in the subject haves stated that the computer models and data used in these models does not provide any degree of verifiable accuracy. Not all of the disagreeing scientists are paid by oil companies, but even if they were it would not make them any more susceptible to the influences of their paymasters than are scientists paid by environmental groups and others who have their own agenda to pursue.
A modicum of objectivity and a little background research(beyond simply reading a news item prepared by someone else) might allow a better perspective from which to more accurately assess the situation and prevent simply parroting patently inaccurate information.
1) Gore%u2019s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
He also has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family%u2019s carbon footprint %u2014 a concept the right-wing fails to understand.
What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore%u2019s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
It%u2019s the latest in a series of desperate attacks (by Matt Drudge) to attack Gore.
As for the IPCC not being in the news, ummmmmm, what news do you watch? And by the way, the IPCC is among the leading voices noting climate changes and the overwhelming evidence man is to blame (in the form of greenhouse gases).
Finally, there are NOT any scientists left on the other side disputing climate change. That is what is so hilarious. Science is science. The principle tenet is falsifiability, not political loyalties.
Do ANY of you understand even the most basic evidence? Ice cores? Sea sediments? Anything, anything at all?
I wonder who's profiting from the new scare.
When the government fabricated "scientific evidence" to ban marijuana, it was to keep special interest groups happy. Same with the anti-smoking crusade.
None of these are really about health.
So who's going to benefit from the latest global warming propaganda? I know Al Gore is one of them, but there must be a powerful group that pulls the strings. Who are they and what do they really want?
If someone wants to do something good for the planet they should go for the root of the problem: overpopulation. Everything else is just a side effect. Of course it would not be popular with religious folks, so we never even mention it.
If you want to save the planet, don't save it for your kids, save it from them.
You make a good point. We should not disregard Al Gore simply because of a Hollywood embrace. Although it is hard to not laugh when some people think that Hollywood in general is an authority on anything except lascivious living, we should judge Al Gore on his own merits. He fails as a hypocrite. We should also judge Global Warming on its own merits. There is excellent evidence that global warming runs a natural cycle. So although we should do what we can to clean up the environment--no, there is no concensus that man has caused nearly irreversible global warming that must be stopped now. To shut those of us out of the debate who don't believe Global Warming is man-caused is as bad as Torquemada at the Spanish Inquisition.
Frank Staheli
Simple Utah Mormon Politics (economicspolitics.blogspot.com)
Even less long ago Katie, there was, in the WH, a Clinton and sidekick Al Gore who were catching a lot of grief from those very same enviros for not protecting those very same owls. Why in the world do you skip all the way back to the admin 8 years before that, when it was your "saints" that turned their backs on you.
Here is how the enviros (from "Nature & Politics") saw it:
%u201CThen along came Bill Clinton and Al Gore , who vowed in a 1992 campaign stop in Portland, to "end the standoff" over the fate of the Northwest forests once and for all..
Within days of taking office, the Clinton/Gore team set its sights on getting the injunction lifted and the big logs rolling back to the mills. The scheme was pure Clinton. Convene a staged "town hall" style meeting, put out a pre-fabricated plan, and induce your liberal friends to sign off on it. This shadow play was the April 1993 Forest Summit, a ridiculous display of consensus-mongering that saw enviros play footsie with executives from Weyerhaeuser. ..
...By 1998, the evidence was clear. The Clinton plan was driving the owl to extinction must faster than the old cutting plans of the Bush era that Dwyer had swatted down as illegal.%u201D
Katie. Get your owls straight, OK?
What happened to the ice age that was coming in the early 80's?
What happened to acid rain?
How did the earth warm from the original ice age?
This is nothing more than you and the other Communists attempt to get rid of Capitalism and promote your agenda.
When you Libs turn off all the extra lights in Time Square and NYC, then I'll drive a Prius...
Yes, as a matter of fact some of us do understand! It appears that you may not however but luckily you could educate yourself and stop spreading unfounded fear.
BTW how does purchasing carbon offsets (give me a break) do anything to reduce the amount of carbon that Mr. Gore and family are generating? I know, it feels good. Hey! Plant a tree, that will feel good too. Of course when the tree dies (no doubt due to the evil efforts of a non Gore-religion beleiver) it will release back all of the carbon that it collected but don't let that stop you from feeling good!
Educate yourself, it feels good. I know it did for me.
Not sure when you "first" heard Bush acknowledge climate change, but the first time I could find was March of 2001:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html
I think the issue is what we can do about it.
OH, SUDDENLY NOW I DON'T SEE THE SAME ALLEGIANCE TO SCIENCE!
The news today - that Gore's home uses some 20 X's the average home's energy - did not include in his gross use of energy his personal business travels, (private jets, etc). It was his opulent home.
I'd have to say, that until Al Gore fully converts his entire home and office, etc., to alternative energy (solar, etc.) then he really should just shut up and stop being one of the world's biggest hypocrites. He has the resources and the connections to do it. Why has he not?
And for Katie Couric - for goodness sake, why do you not become a jounralists and pound on him for being such a hypocrite?
What we still don't know is how much of a factor is pollution and, more importantly, is there anything we can do about it.
You said, "Finally, there are NOT any scientists left on the other side disputing climate change."
That is patently untrue!!
Would you care to give us YOUR science credentials? I have degrees in science, have taught science and physics, and have a degree in Aerospace Engineering (yes, the proverbial 'rocket scientist' which is way overrated) and worked on the American space program.
What are YOUR credentials!
The science is NOT settled!
Since you love the IPCC, tell us what they meant when they said that even if we took the most drastic measures immediately, the "climate would continue to warm for the next two CENTURIES"!!!
And while you are at it, explain to all of us uneducated people who don't "understand anything..anything at all", what CAUSED the warming from the last ice age? And all the other warming trends throughout history?
Educate us on those!
When you can do that, then MAYBE we will believe that you have a CLUE of what is going on now!
Until then, keep deluding yourself with your POLITICAL agenda and your false belief that the science is settled!
WOW!~
You asked, "I mean, should Gore live in a tent just because he's promoting progressive living?"
Maybe he SHOULD if the problem is as serious as he says!
THAT would be leadership!
But he is a typical liberal, he thinks that the rules of what YOU should do should not apply to him as a liberal!
How typical!!!
Yes, I suppose you could say that SEVENTEEN THOUSAND scientists that have reviewed the data and signed a petition saying Global Warming is not linked to human activity "a handful".
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
"The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized."
God Bless.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 162 Comments