“Is it not true Mr. Gore that only recently, in the 1970s, the scientific community was warning us of a coming Ice Age ?”

You can never put down a classic.

Am I the only person who can’t make head or tail out of that? Tom Hughes — try writing in English. Full stops and commas are normally followed by spaces.

Why exactly would they have to “Hold” him to any such statement? Because as far as this administration is concerned, they’re ready willing and able to do absolutely NOTHING to correct or stave off climate change.

Think about it. If we were to enact legislation that would correct or stave off climate change, then 10 years from now, the more catastrophic theories will (hopefully) not come to pass. Much like the skeptics who will look at an inch of snow in mid-February and say “Heh, don’t look like no global warming to ME,” so too will people actually complain if things DON’T get worse within 10 years

If we WEREN’T to enact such legislation, and then things went to Hell in a handbasket pretty damn fast, everyone’s going to be too busy runing further inland to apologize to Gore for having been right.

Likewise, if we didn’t enact legislation, and things went to Hell sooner than within 10 years, people would be angry at Gore for making them think they had more time.

So why talk about holding Gore to any timetable, unless you absolutely refuse to believe man is affecting the climate, and for further do not believe man can do anything about it? The question is nothing more than an asinine smokescreen. It doesn’t even deserve an intelligent answer. If anything, Gore should get back at the “Gotcha!” crowd with, “Well, I could be off by a Friedman unit or two. I mean what the Earth is definittely going to do or not do isn’t as precise as, oh, say, predicting that we’d be greeted as liberators by a country that traditionally loathes the West.” The same people asking for more time in Iraq are now asking for a definitive expiration date on the planet, so they can start doing something about it 6 weeks or so before that date, rather than right now.

really?

remember california’s electricity crisis? it wasn’t too long ago, and schwarzenegger’s square jaw should be a steady reminder. california’s energy conservation lobbies had successfully stopped the construction of power plants in the state. a new california plant hadn’t been built for more than twenty years (hence low emissions). prices went up, so everybody freaked out and elected an action hero governor.
i ain’t siding with drudge, but to suggest that the rest of america follow california’s example is very silly. and anyway, nuclear power probably is a good idea — unless, of course, y’all are willing to give up your air conditioners.

ours is the finest example of how to deal with this problem–cut use, make use smarter, and you can make an enormous dent. every single thing in your comment was specious and sad–i feel sorry for people who can’t think beyond talking points handed to them by people with an agenda. so from my kids to you, a hearty F. U.

california solved the crisis by cutting back substantially on use. also, we are moving towards solar and wind faster than anyone in the US.

I was part of the most comprehensive energy management and conservation programs in the world in the 1980’s, when governor Brown made us in the utility business create more energy by reducing waste. My particular program saved customers sixteen dollars for every dollar spent, and made them more efficient - a real advantage in a competitive marketplace.

He may also be interested in the fact that we cleaned up our air and water in the SF Bay Area in the late 1970’s, and still have an economy.

Utica must learn that emotions provoked by political prejudice are poor substitutes for education and rational thought. But I’ll be glad to give Utica some intelligence lessons, if they promise to tune out Michael (Weiner) “Savage”, Limbaugh, and the other esteemed scientists of the right wing.

ANSWER: No. ”

Now this is a very difficult question to answer. A simple “no” is probably not a proper response, and yes, would invite the cries of eugenics and forced sterilizations. The best answer would most probably deal with humanity’s social and intellectual inability to even deal with the question. The problem being even if the answer were “yes” it is an unwinnable position to hold. Society can’t seem to form a consenus on oil consumption, even though, through rigorous research and empirical
data, that oil is a finite resource. How do you even approach a potential problem that is magnitudes larger? For those that haven’t I would highly recommend the works of Thomas Malthus, and Daniel Quinn in regards to some the questions posed above.

ANSWER: No. ”

I agree this is a very complex question, but it has a simple answer (and that answer is not “no”).

The current behavior of humans is not sustainable. How that answer translates into “sustainable populations” - (presumably of humans) depends on what humans do in order to make their population sustainable. There is nothing remotely sustainable about the human population on this planet unless one divorces the human animal from its behavior.

You mean that wasn’t an example of going on and on?

Run away!!!!!!

It’s also nice to know that plants don’t provide oxygen. That’s a relief!

The answer is a cop-out all the same.

Which resulted NOT from a lack of power plants, but from GAMING the power grid, by Reliant, ENRON, and other speculators.

“schwarzenegger’s square jaw should be a steady reminder.”

Schwarzenegger stole his election in 2003, using a recall bill that had never been used before in its 80 years of existence (from back before statewide media was available).

“california’s energy conservation lobbies had successfully stopped the construction of power plants in the state”

That is an oft-repeated lie. Subsequent to that lie’s promulgation, evidence
came out that power companies decided in the late 80s they would make more profits by having fewer powerplants.

“a new california plant hadn’t been built for more than twenty years (hence low emissions)”

Low emissions are not a function of the number of powerplants, but of their efficiency.

“and anyway, nuclear power probably is a good idea”

Talk to the people in Toledo, when the Davis-Besse plant was found to have a fist-sized 50 pound chunk of steel missing from the pressure vessel, and the stainless cladding was blowing out the hole like bubblegum (in 2000). Had that cladding failed, the Ohio river valley would be glowing for the next several thousand years. We can do better WITHOUT such dangerous operations and their incompetent operators.

Finally, I’d like to point out that the high-sulfur coal plants which Bush has allowed to continue (illegally) spewing acidic poisons into the air, were slated to be shutdown by now, and yet are still running.

Please read this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0223-25.htm

Oh, and thanks to the clarifications on the Cymatic Grid, I am now successfully transmitting my sacred bodily essences to all other planets in our forty planet system. Do not be alarmed.

It has, but in ways that undermine some of the touted models:
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875