Gore has a new book?
Vitriola — Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:29
I have heard that Al Gore has a new book. I have not seen it and cannot, therefore, comment upon it. However, others have and take issue. (go figure)
They say that there are doctored photos. http://tinyurl.com/y86hfch They call him bad things because of that.
I was wondering if anyone has seen this book. If so, are the photos as the web says they are? If so, does it say that they are artist depictions of things he is describing or are they just presented at face value?
I have no problem with someone drawing a picture to illustrate a point. But wattsupwiththat.com seems to think that he is presenting fiction without saying that it is fiction. So, I just wondered if someone that had access to that book could clarify this point. Does it really look like that and do they say that it is not real but a depiction?
Thanks! :)
Arguing against changing our
garreth — Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:48Arguing against changing our current activities that may or may not be contributing to global warming is like arguing for murder on the basis that hell may or may not exist. Regardless of whether the implication is "real", humans should be moved to improve their actions not based on some ultimate punishment, but by the improvement of life right here, right now.
Not saying you're arguing for either, but it will inevitably be brought up in this thread. Also, by the looks of the picture - especially given the ice sheet retraction and "sinking" of Florida - this looks like it could be a "what if" picture that Gore is using to illustrate a point. Someone could put up a scientific model of plate tectonics 40 million years from now and say "LOL the continents are in wrong places" not realizing the conjecture of the subject matter. I'd like to see it put in context.
I'm not the world's greatest Gore fan, but I appreciate him being a voice counter to the status quo on this subject.
I am not entirely sure what
Vitriola — Fri, 11/20/2009 - 13:24I am not entirely sure what the status quo even is on this subject anymore. It seems to generate far more heat than light. I also see this as an artist's depiction of a "worst case" scenario, which I cannot find fault with, but they seemed to be arguing that it is not identified as such.
I agree that we, individually and collectively, need to behave responsibly, but that is not always clear cut especially when the facts are in dispute. One example that I remember is when they made a to do over DDT and got it banned. Since then, they have seen that people have died in HUGE numbers because of preventable malaria and they are planning to bring DDT back. So, acting without good information can be a bad thing.
I remember a great course on econimics where the main point is that any economic decision should be evaluated for its primary AND secondary results and not the primary ones only. That might be a good rule of thumb for considerations of world ecological effects. e.g. If we increase the cost of gas to many times what it is now with the idea of forcing people to NOT drive around, how expensive will goods become when they still have to be shipped in? How will we work of we cannot drive back and forth? etc, etc.
If you haven't read Silent
garreth — Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:26If you haven't read Silent Spring, you should. The DDT ban was US-only (at first, though countries around the world followed suit). The "planning to bring it back" you mention should actually read "not banning without replacement". DDT is bad, everyone knows its bad, malaria-fighting organizations know its bad, but it's a cheap tool they have to use and they readily admit they want to stop using it as soon as alternatives can be mass-produced at prices non-profits can afford.
Be clear here: malaria organizations fought to keep DDT not because it's "safe and blown out of proportion" but because the consequences of not having it outweighed the risks in very certain, limited situations. DDT was eventually banned globally under the Stockholm Convention in 2004, but an exemption was given to emergency cases in regions during outbreaks.
This is a perfect use-case of human responsibility: DDT had been used wantonly, with no regard for appropriateness or measured response. This is a parallel to our current attitudes about oil, energy, food, pollution, etc. Does Al Gore advocate that we all stop using gas tomorrow? Nope. Does he ask that we consider the certain, limited situations we must use gas? Absolutely.
Remember, the fear of secondary effects should not paralyze humans into inaction. However, humans should be acutely aware of the ramifications of their actions and be prepared to adjust and change. Regardless of whether global warming is "real", I think we can all agree that driving our 5 mpg Suburban through rush hour traffic with the windows down and the AC cranked, day in day out isn't "good" and that stopping (or severely limiting) this behavior has beneficial primary effects. I'm sure we'll see negative secondary effects in some way (GM really collapsing), but, change is change.
An amusing aside for you, G -
Shihli — Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:40An amusing aside for you, G - talking about "green cars" -
If you truly want to be "green", BUY A USED CAR.
Seriously.
The modern "hybrid" cars *DO NOT* get significantly better gas mileage than a typical well-made used car (e.g. most Hondas, most Toyotas, hell most Japanese cars). Furthermore, they have lower acceleration, lower horsepower, less storage room, and in the long run, are more harmful to the environment due to having to dispose of those massive batteries.
But all of that is beside the main reason to buy used cars - it costs an assload of oil to produce a new car.
The Prius generates enough
Dufe — Sat, 11/21/2009 - 17:23The Prius generates enough extra pollution during manufacturing that it takes two years of operation at average usage levels for the improved gas mileage to make up for it. Toyota says, "We're working on it."