Comments on Comments - Jan For Gore on Al Gore Speech

I think you have all the right to ask these questions but the topic here is about Mr. Gore recent speech and Jan's Comments on the way The Media should be more alert to air educative and health environmental news to the public at large. Maybe you should open a separate post with your inquiry and invite him or some of his supporters to participate. I am personally a supporter of Mr. Gore and his teaching ideals but I have no knowledge about his private economic investments so I cannot comment on that.

stopnoise: Thank you so much for this. It is encouraging to know there are people who care greatly for important issues. It is our culture of distraction that has brought us to this point, and as Abe Lincoln stated and has been quoted by Mr. Gore, "we must disenthrall ourselves." That doesn't seem to be easy for some, but where the sustainability of our planet is concerned it is now necessary.

Abstract Artist: Then just what have you done to question or formally challenge the companies GIM invests in? And I spoke of this a while ago on my own blog. I personally would like to see more investment in start up companies that provide solar power, and a move away from larger companies like GE. Just because I made comments about the context of his speech doesn't mean I don't know about other facets of his companies.;-)

I agree with you to a point, but also know GIM invests in many other companies that are providing sustainable services. However, that does not detract from the courage it took for him to step out on that stage and challenge the oil and coal industries and challenge our own vision to come up with solutions to the defining crisis of our age as it was basically as usual either ignored or trashed by the MSM which was my point. But yes, I agree on GE, but also am of the opinion that if a company sees the error of its ways and makes the great changes necessary in listening to their shareholders and investors, that that is also what we need to be successful in making progress with the challenges of the future.

It is important to bring those issues up, especially when his avid supporters aren't even aware of the way companies and investment interests of people such as Al Gore affects their stance on issues such as global warming.

It is one thing to hold a company accountable, it is quite another to claim that this is your motive in dealing with them, and then investing heavily in corporations that trample all over your beliefs.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, we can't trust our leaders to make these changes, we need to come together as a global community or at least as Americans and stop this hypocrisy and end the crisis ourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ST0PandL00K&p=r

watch the five videos.

decide which side Jan4Gore comes down on.

and no, i DO oppose war and support alternate energy. i've been driving a prius since april of '04... LONG before it became "politically correct" to do so.

i'm a little harder to figure out than you may think. ah, bad word to use. :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

@AA... "You may second guess me all day long, and I will look into such, but one needs to look into all issues and not jump to a conclusion based on an immediate impact of an idea or concept.
P.S. Global warming is a natural occurence. I do agree that it is being heavily influenced by man but is not completely man made. Take a couple environmental science classes and or geology classes."

read her other writings... analyze, conclude... easy: will never happen... why did i reference her writings in my 40th Law??? http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#40th :))))))))))))

I do agree with plusaf to a certain degree (no pun intended)... I believe that global warming is a natural occurrence, but I definitely believe that our use of oil, coal, and other resources along with the pollution being created by several factors (chemical corps, oil companies, even overpopulation of particular areas that are key locations for earth's ability to withstand adverse effects) are causing a more rapid increase in temperature and a decrease in the earth's ability to recover from such a rapid increase.

Science has disputed global warming at times, but then contradicts itself by stating that there is such a thing as stretching the earth's resources thin. Science will never fully support global warming theories because science depends on it not being completely true.

Science depends on various methods to determine underlying causes of changes in the earth's temperature and atmosphere, however science no matter how accurate it is, cannot give us a specific or completely accurate account, because the tools used to gauge those measurements are based on the manipulation and displacement of different minerals, and the tools used to gauge these changes although accurate are subject to human error and manipulation as well.

For scientists to claim 100% accuracy, they would need to be able to say that the methods used to gauge these changes are 100% infallible. Science itself states that nothing is infallible and that the methods used are theories not facts. So for them to say they are 100% sure this (the current global warming trend) is a natural occurrence is not only a false statement but it is based on theories that lend themselves to the possibility they may not be completely accurate.

We don't know everything there is to know about the earth, far from it. And unless scientists themselves lived during the first global warming trends, there is no way for them to say that the changes the earth is currently undergoing is not harmful. We can only go based on what is currently happening and anyone can see from the current situation, that scientists don't seem to know shit either.

Try making a model microcosm of an ecosystem, introduce a ratio of pollutants and temperature increases that reflect the current trend, and it is easy to see not only is the ecosystem affected, it no longer thrives. I think that is proof enough we need to implement changes that will decrease our carbon output and also scale back the amount of pollution in the environment.

For scientists to say that clearcutting forrests kills entire ecosystems because the plants and animals depend on the trees' existance, but say that the earth is in no way affected by the current mess being made of it, not only makes no sense, but is a convenient argument, since science is the reason many of these pollutants exist and many of these industries (chemical, oil, pharmaceutical, etc) claim to be safe and no threat to our earth, health, or environment.

The majority of scientists agree on the dangers of global warming.

A few pseudo-scientists claim to know more here on current. They attack all environmental posts and accuse the posters and commenters of not knowing science. The attackers posts are ignorant and laughable, but unfortunately distract from the intelligent discussion of the very real climate, environmental and pollution problems we face.

The continual personal attacks on JanforGore are particularly insulting and unwarranted.

The rantings of these pseudo-scientist deniers sounds like the desperate protests of people who know their greedy lifestyles based on the exploitation of people and the planet are destined to be left in the past.

Reminds me of when my daughter and I were in the Senate in October 2007 and saw the absurd spectacle of Senator Inoufe - R- Okla dressed in an expensive suit, address an empty chamber with C-span cameras rolling while he pulled out thousands of dollars worth of visual aids to claim that scientists agree that global warming is a hoax.

Denying reality doesn't make it go away. The irony is that the consequences of not living in balance on this earth will affect everyone, Democrats and Republicans, environmentalists and global warming deniers, alike.

TouchArt - Have you noticed that even though they (global warming deniers in the senate and congress) don't believe in global warming, they are setting it up so that when the change to alternative fuel & energy sources occurs, the corporations will still be able to make an extremely large amount of money from consumers who are willing to make the change now.

The only reason they (government) have stonewalled the changes is because they want to ensure they set up laws and pass legislation that will give the same energy providers and corporations a monopoly on wind, solar, geothermal, natural gas, and other sources (as though they own nature and her resources).

They are also ensuring their (the corporations) profits don't drop by ensuring they receive, in effect, subsidization from the federal government via tax credits and by using tax payer money, as well as allowing them (service providers) to charge more for their current services to bankroll the change to alternative fuel & energy sources.

I also am a bit dissapointed that other companies in other industries (organic foods, cleaning products, clothing, and any other ecofriendly industry) are taking advantage of consumers by charging them large amounts of money (unjustifiably I might add [I've done the math]) for these products. Consumers are willing to make these changes to contribute to curbing global warming, and yet they are being stiffed left and right.

This is giving all of us who want a "greener" future a bad name, and making global warming & pollution seem as ploys in taking further advantage of consumers. I'm sickened by how many different supposedly "well meaning" companies are trying to justify ripping off consumers by claiming because they are walking on new (and apparently hallowed) ground as trailblazers of the "green movement", they must charge an arm and a leg for their products.

Many of these companies are branches of corporations notorious for their pollutants and harmful chemicals. Others are just started by wealthy people looking to maximize profits in the name of "change".

Life should not be scanned by the clock hands or the monotony and repetition of everyday gestures imposed by a culture based on profit at all costs at the expense of the interior
The mankind has lived ever race, running behind rincorsi ideals or by someone else for political reasons or ideological faith different, the arms race the gold rush ... the race of stupid.
Who stops is lost, said an Italian statesman, I say that anyone who stops is unwise

La vita non deve essere scandita dalle lancette dell'orologio o dalla monotonia e ripetitività di gesti quotidiani imposti da una cultura fondata sul profitto ad ogni costo a scapito dell'equilibrio interiore
Il genere umano ha vissuto sempre di corsa, correndo dietro ideali o rincorsi da qualcun'altro per motivi politici ideologici o di fede diversa, la corsa al riarmo la corsa all'oro... la corsa degli stupidi.
Chi si ferma è perduto, diceva uno statista italiano, io dico che chi si ferma è saggio

and every time you use the pejorative "deniers" to try to convince me to shut up or to convince others that, because i disagree with you, my thoughts, conclusions and opinions are lesser than yours or poorly thought-out, you all confirm my 40th Law, over and over again.

plus the law of Debating: when you're losing, attack your opponent, not the issues.

every time you say "deniers" i consider that a win in my column, because you're not providing ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS to deny ANYTHING i've said.

you're just labeling and denouncing, and i don't give a rat's butt if ALL of you think that "consensus" proves that your're right, because it doesn't, no matter WHAT TF you believe!

labeling without facts is a loss on your score card. sorry.

but you can't stop it. you do it over and over and over again.

and all of your claims that "all of the scientists agree" on global warming [or any of your other pet things] is complete BS, because there are documented lists of MANY "just as real scientists" who disagree.

but if anyone quotes THEM, you lable the quoter and the reference as a "denier" and thus, that they have no credibility for anyone.

that is a precise definition/argument for a cult/religion/blind person.

and whether you wish to continue this discussion or find some "current.com" way to silence my speech, it will not, in any way, PROVE that you're right and i'm wrong.

some day, you might GET that.


in the meantime, DON'T listen to me... not, when i said two months ago, that oil prices would be lower by the end of the year, for example... http://www.plusaf.com/gasprice2.htm it's impossible for me to be right about anything, because you don't agree.....

glad that ducking stools and witch-burnings in my state are pretty rare nowadays, and glad your hands aren't on the levers of the ducking stools.

the "logic" is very similar.

Stopnoise you are correct in making this post. This is an example of exactly why I DON'T visit currrent.com very often anymore. While people are free to be buffoons, people are also free go someplace else to have intelligent productive online discussions about important issues. Unfortunately those bloggers that have nothing else to do but flood their self centered (and often intended to be demeaning) opinions have been the norm on this venue recently. Not interested in associating with this type of less than civil behavior. Too bad as current WAS a great place to get information and engage in meaningful conversation. Not so much now.

Thanks for posting this stopnoise and JanforGore for sharing substantive news on environmental and political issues.

The attackers who quickly pop up to attempt to discredit these science and political stories, may or may not be, corporate paid shills, but they do act like them.

I suggest we ignore them and keep posting informative stories that shine a light on corporate greed and destruction of our environment, human rights and freedoms.

And remember, multinational corporations have only two goals - to amass profit and power.

They won't keep selling what we won't buy.
If each person is more conscious about what they buy, potentially millions will boycott products that are harmful, corporations will see a decline in profits, and they will change.

Little changes, multiplied by millions of people, can effect global change.

Yes, and they actually think that voting red on the posts that challenge them the most changes anything about the truth being posted... If anything can be shown by it it is that certain interests are scared that the people are seeing the truth and that global change will take place and put a crimp in their bloated lifestyles. Personally, I can't wait for that day to come. They have been sucking off the poor long enough in this world. It is time we fight back.

Thank you, stopnoise, for finding a clever way to keep vital issues in debate.

Jubals 1st law, don't argue with people who make entire websites of laws to justify and promote their extreme ideas.

CommentstnemmoC

...


Salut et Fraternité