sure, it is true - Clinton/Gore did not move the climate agenda forward enough [please note that they had an adversary Congress to work 'with' for 75% of their time in office; that might make it hard to change things/set forth bold policy]. and, i too know Gore wastes a lot of energy in his TN home.
how does that change the pile of evidence that says humans are impacting the atmosphere and climate? the messenger may be flawed, but no one has poked sufficient holes in the body of evidence to deflate the 100+ yr old hypothesis/message. neil On Jun 9, 5:23 am, "Mike Leonard" <[email protected]> wrote: > Neil, > > Al Gore is the ultimate hypocrite. When he was VP he and Clinton did > nothing about reducing fossil fuel use. They had no energy policy. In > fact in 2000 when gas prices spiked about 20 cents/gallon he advocated > releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce prices to > help him in the election. Clinton and Gore also had chances to mandate > improved gas mileage for new cars but they wanted to keep Michigan in > the Dem column so they acquiesced to the SUV lobby. > I could also mention the failure to stop the Rwandan genocide or > supporting the illegal Balkan Wars or not killing bin Laden when they > had the chance but sorry I digressed. > Yes there are lots of reasons to despise Al Gore including his latest > cashing in big time on the climate change issue while living in his > palatial estate. > > Mike > > Steve, > > Al Gore is not a climate scientist, but I have no problem with that > because he did not create the data or conduct any of the experiments. > He is the 'student' of many of the scientists performing state-of-the- > art research. When he was VP and post-VP, I know that he often > consulted with the top climate scientists [he would consult with folks > at my institution somewhat regularly]. I've seen the data he presents > presented by the scientists who performed the investigations. There > are only a couple of places in that part of the data where I would > quibble, but I am actually pretty comfortable with the climate science > portion of the movie. > > Not much has been discredited by the science community. Some [a lot?] > has likely been replaced since the movie was made. Science is a moving > target like that; actually, some of the data he presented was somewhat > old. In fact, he stated that in the movie that in 50 or so years the > Arctic Pole would be free of ice. Within a yr of the release of the > movie, scientists had cut that estimate by 60%. Recent research > suggests that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer in 12-20 yrs. > So, some of that movie is out of date. > > The real problem with the movie is that many people do not like Al > Gore. They cannot separate the personality/politician from a very > nice, data-driven presentation that is based upon the work of > hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists. In no way am I confusing > him for a science researcher. He is simply the person who presented > the information, a person who has the ability to get such a movie made > and to get many people to watch it. If any of the scientists wanted to > do this, they would have trouble getting it made and then have trouble > getting more than a few thousand people to see it. So, in that sense, > Al was quite successful. > > So, as much as I did not think I would like the movie [and I waited > more than a yr to see it], I did. Al Gore did a decent job in > presenting the data. I have problems with some of the ecology he > presents and much of the invasive issue connection to warming - that > is actually a pretty poor connection. But, for the climate science, it > is pretty true to the data. > > neil --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
