After reading Guy Sinclair's letter (May 2), I had to wonder if he remained awake for the entire viewing of "An Inconvenient Truth." A tragic movie, indeed. A washed-up politician? I disagree. When Al Gore, former U.S. senator and two-term vice president, ran for president, he won the popular vote. I won't even delve into the Florida scandal. Today, Democrats across the nation and the current crop of presidential candidates are holding their breath, waiting to see if Gore tosses his hat into the ring.
As for Gore trying to "stay in the spotlight," Sinclair either forgot or did not know that Al Gore has been documenting and raising awareness of environmental issues for decades. Al Gore's book, "Earth In The Balance" (1992), would be a good starting point for Sinclair if he wishes to further his education.
I would encourage Sinclair, as "a current student at one of our fine local colleges," to take advantage of the many courses and materials available that may help him fully comprehend the looming tragedy presented by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth."
Lyn Turner
High Point


Comments (34)
Did anyone remain awake for the entire thing?
Posted by brian444
|
May 15, 2007 4:26 AM
"Today, Democrats across the nation and the current crop of presidential candidates are holding their breath, waiting to see if Gore tosses his hat into the ring."
So are the rest of us. I would love to see algore & Hillary go at each other. Algore has the problem of being a one issue candidate, not to mention my kitchen broom has more personality.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 7:33 AM
I would love to see Al throw his hat in the ring. Compared to all of the lightweights in the contest right now he would be a breath of fresh air.
Posted by Rufus_T.Firefly
|
May 15, 2007 7:56 AM
I don't know 100% for sure if global warming will have the catastrophic effects that scientists claim that it will. However, anyone who has reviewed the scientific evidence, and does not see a pattern of warming trends must not be very good with pattern recognition.
Will global warming have the effects on Earth that scientists claim? I don't know, nobody does for that matter. Many people in Rene Descartes time felt that philosophy went against God's teachings.
The conundrum here is that Descartes successfully argued that when faced with a choice of believing in God vs not believing in God, the safe bet was to believe in God. Am I saying that Al Gore is God; certainly NOT.
What I am saying is, there is far more concrete evidence to suggest that global warming exists than does God, and more politicians believe in God than global warming in this country. I don't know about you, but it sounds like these folks need a philosophy class so they can see that the safe bet is on global warming.
Posted by Bishop
|
May 15, 2007 11:19 AM
Rufus,
"lightweights"? Referring to Gore's girth, are you! :)
Why do right wingers refer to Al Gore as
algore? Juvenile at best.
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE
|
May 15, 2007 11:22 AM
TLC,
I was being generous to the wingnuts by giving them an obvious opening. Kinda disappointed that they didn't take me up on it.
Posted by Rufus_T.Firefly
|
May 15, 2007 11:38 AM
A very common-sense approach to a highly debated issue, Bishop. Unfortunately, it has been my experience, few people have a gift for common-sense. There are many ultra-smart folks in this world. However, being a brainiac is not the same as having common sense.
You have presented a good case for believing in global warming.
Posted by Yvonne
|
May 15, 2007 12:30 PM
Bishop, most people including myself are not denying that global warming exists. It is warming. The earth has warmed and cooled over it's history. There was a Medieval warming period in which the temps were hotter than they are now. (BTW, no SUVs around back then). That was followed by a Little Ice Age. Now it's warming up again.
What I reject is the notion that ALL global warming is due to mankind, particularly the US & Europe. Much more CO2 is released by natural causes than burning fossil fuels.
I also reject the doomsday scenarios of catastrophe if we don't do something right now.
And, I find it hypocritical that people like algore live in huge mansions and fly around in private jets while telling us we need to buy hybrids and turn off the AC.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 1:06 PM
Bishop, Rufus, & Yvonne,
Great posts about a serious subject. It is quite ironic that our President is now concerned about "Climate Change" after only a few years ago, dismissing it. Most likely catalyst is a war gone bad, and continually sinking poll numbers.
Bishop,
Your post is extremely thought provoking and has great credence, especially the last part. Doubt many of the ones who deny man made climate change even "get it".
****************************************
"And, I find it hypocritical that people like algore live in huge mansions and fly around in private jets while telling us we need to buy hybrids and turn off the AC."
Well Dan, While Gore may be the global warming guru, you have "hands on" experience with being a HYPOCRITE! As the old saying goes, "it takes one to know one". :)
Have a "Blessed Day".
********************
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE
|
May 15, 2007 2:49 PM
I don't know algore, nor do I want to. Whoever wants to swallow the kool aid about Orlando becoming beach front property in 20 years, more power to you.
Since Bush was mentioned, see who is walking the walk as far as homes go:
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH HOUSE BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
So whose house is gentler on the environment?
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 4:00 PM
BTW, I'm all for energy conservation, glad to see people driving hybrids. My in laws bought a Prius, I drove it to Charlotte. Not bad, but a bit too small for my tastes. If they make an SUV hybrid that will haul my family and my boat I might buy one.
I'm even for raising CAFE standards, alternative fuels and wind power. Go for it.
My motivation isn't to save the planet from certain destruction in 50 years as predicted by the "experts", it's to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. Add Venezuela to the list for that matter.
I wonder how these "experts" can predict the weather 50 years from now when we don't have the technology to accurately predict the weather 10 days from now.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 4:12 PM
Good cut and paste, and thanks for the trite comparison of Gore's much older, inefficient home to Bush's relatively newer one.
Too funny how just two years ago, Bush was denying global warming----NOW, pushed against the wall with corruption, hollowed out military, and mass administration defections, he changes his tune:
Two years ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-06-14-our-view_x.htm
2007:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0131/p01s04-uspo.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/20/climate_change_meddling/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070319/na-gen-us-scientists-warming
Amazing what an unpopular war, corruption, and defections will do for a failed administration--The Truth Shall Set them Free!
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE
|
May 15, 2007 4:37 PM
If I were the high priest of the church of environmentalism and my primary gospel was the the evils of human CO2 emissions from energy consumption and its ensuing doom and gloom, the LAST thing I would do is live in an energy hogging house and fly around the world on private jets preaching my message.
So what if Gore's house is older? A call to a realtor and a newer, SMALLER (read: John Edwards, another global warming hypocrite) energy efficient house will do the trick. Flying on Southwest Airlines cattle cars might set a better example too.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 6:31 PM
Dan, by chance did you READ any of the links above?
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE
|
May 15, 2007 7:12 PM
I'd like to get in on that 'carbon credit' scam. I read somewhere it costs $5 a ton. If I buy a ton now and "o-u-r--l-i-t-t-l-e--p-l-a-n-e-t--t-h-a-t--h-a-s--a--f-e-v-e-r--" warms up in the future like algore predicts, will it bring more that 5 bucks? I mean, is it like the hotter it gets, the more the carbon credit is worth? How does that work? If I decide I want to dump a jug of used motor oil in the river, how many credits will that set me back? How much will it cost to toss an aluminum can into the trash? Or flush after only a number one visit?
hmmm...
Posted by neocon
|
May 15, 2007 8:45 PM
Yeah I read your links Demon Deacon. Bush is buying into the global warming BS too, what else does he have to do?
Welcome back Neo, our friend has been busy today. Check out the abortion thread.
I heard algore owns the company to which he pays carbon credits. Nice......
Travelocity will sell you carbon credits when you book a flight or rental car. All to make you feeeeeeeeeelllll good when you travel.
Corporations are banking on the gullibility of the public while promoting themselves as being "green". Can't blame them but it's pathetic.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 8:51 PM
Carbon credits...George Tenet's book...there's a sucker born every minute.
I did check out the 'murder of the mute' thread. Hideous what these pro-murder "Doctors" will do for a buck.
My niece is 7 weeks pregnant and she visited the Dr. (a real Dr.) yesterday and listened to the heartbeat in that "clump of cells". 7 WEEKS!
Posted by neocon
|
May 15, 2007 9:19 PM
Congrats Neo!! I hope our neice does well with her pregnancy. I have six and four year old "clumps of cells". Just put them to bed.
As for algore and his carbon credits:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
This guy is a joke.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 9:39 PM
Oh, the link provides a nice pic of algore's mansion, you know the one that uses 20X electricity per month than my mansion.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 9:41 PM
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/al_gores_house.php
$30K in electric bills for 2006 algore. What gives? Damn, I only pay $13K annually for my mortgage, and probably around $2500/year for electricity, including heat/air/hot water/dishwasher,etc. I don't have natural gas.
I need to sell algore some carbon credits.
Posted by Dan
|
May 15, 2007 10:25 PM
Dan,
Your four and six year old children evolved from a "clump of cells" or you would not be putting them to bed. To call an embryo a child is to call a tadpole a frog. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it so. Time, as in like nine months, changes that embryo into a child.
I am happy for your children to have such a loving dad and to be wanted. Not all children are so lucky. Do you ever stop to think of all the children that are born to mothers and fathers who do not want them. Do you ever stop to think of the torture, the pain, the lack of love these children experience AFTER they are born? Do a little research on child abuse/neglect and get back to me.
Your only goal seems to be to force women to have the baby once she is pregnant. It also seems you really do not care about the consequences of women having children they do not want.
Posted by Yvonne
|
May 16, 2007 5:48 AM
Lighten up Yvonne. It was a joke.
Posted by Dan
|
May 16, 2007 6:24 AM
"Al Gore's book, "Earth In The Balance" (1992), would be a good starting point for Sinclair if he wishes to further his education."
What are algore's credentials on this topic that qualifies him to "further" someone's education? A Hollywood oscar? Being born the son of a career politician? Being raised in the lap of comfort and never having to hold down a real job? Failed presidential candidate?
"Generation Investment Management"...
I wonder if they sell skyhooks too?
Posted by neocon
|
May 16, 2007 7:03 AM
Neo...maybe you should read the book before making such statements.
Dan...what can I say, maybe Yvonne isn't the only one who needs to lighten up.
Failed presidential candidate who won the popular vote, don't forget. Only shady politics in Florida kept him out of office.
At least Gore is trying to raise awareness, not just throwing stones and assigning labels.
You may not like the messenger, but the topic is serious.
You all are making my head hurt.
Posted by lynturn
|
May 16, 2007 2:02 PM
"Do you ever stop to think of all the children that are born to mothers and fathers who do not want them. Do you ever stop to think of the torture, the pain, the lack of love these children experience AFTER they are born? Do a little research on child abuse/neglect..."
I think about that quite a bit. In fact, I've done enough research in this area to last a lifetime. Firsthand experience is a great teacher. I lived through the "torture, the pain, the lack of love these children experience AFTER" I was born. Even so, my thoughts on pro-choice have not changed.
My life is far from perfect, but it's all mine. Life was rough for me in the beginning. My biological parents could have decided to abort me. However, in all my years on this earth, and continuing to deal with the horrible memories of being beaten daily... given the choice to have been aborted or live. I'd still choose to live.
Posted by Bishop
|
May 16, 2007 2:04 PM
Bishop,
Problem is, the righties would have you believe you were actually thinking, and making plans as a six week old fetus. To quote 'Porgy and Bess', "It ain't necessarily so".
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE
|
May 16, 2007 2:39 PM
The problem is the "righties" always want to tell you what to do - it's a bit of a power trip. "Do as I say, cause I'm right". "Do not let G-men interfere [unless it's a matter righties decide SHOULD have g-men interference]".
It's like EEEVVIILLL Corporations - the hand of g-men is all over Corporations - hell you can't BE a Corporation without g-men intervention - but that's OK .. it's something THEY want (although I swear I do not understand why - ignorance and brainwashing is all I can figure).
G-men give corporations the power to take from the people, and that's OK .. but when people push back, righties scream the LIEberals want g-men to solve all problems. Jeeze.
Certainly the LIEberals are not without fault, but Rightie positions are sacrosanct.
Posted by James D. Rockefeller
|
May 16, 2007 5:43 PM
Bishop,
My heart hurts for what you had to endure. Although I got my share of "whippings", I was not abused. I think I probably deserved those spankings/switchings. I'm sorry you were mistreated and abused. A child deserves better.
Posted by Yvonne
|
May 16, 2007 6:36 PM
"Even so, my thoughts on pro-choice have not changed."
"However, in all my years on this earth, and continuing to deal with the horrible memories of being beaten daily... given the choice to have been aborted or live. I'd still choose to live."
Posted by Bishop [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 16, 2007 2:04 PM
Help me out please Bishop. You would "choose to live". You didn't choose to live, your mother chose for you to live. Apparently your parents were less than stellar to put it nicely, yet you are alive and I'm glad you are.
Your statement about "thoughts on pro-choice have not changed" is unclear.
Does that mean your thoughts are for or against pro-choice?
Posted by Dan
|
May 16, 2007 9:21 PM
Dan - I think Bishop is saying that being beaten as child is tolerable, however had she been an extrauterine pregnancy fetus, a good ol' abortion would have been preferred to the beatings.
Posted by James D. Rockefeller
|
May 17, 2007 10:24 AM
Maybe from a commie site, but might also help explain the high rate of "choices" being made:
"About one of every 50 pregnancies results in a tubal pregnancy. Unfortunately, no one has yet figured how to transplant the embryo from the fallopian tube to the uterus, so unfortunately the pregnancy needs to be terminated."
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/tubal_pregnancy.html
Wikipedia says one of every 100, and it says "If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment. These are the tubal abortions."
So are those "tubal abortions", which are "resolve without treatment" included in the count?
hmmmm
Posted by James D. Rockefeller
|
May 17, 2007 10:37 AM
James,
According to the logic put forth, anyone who is Pro-Choice, has an abortion, knows someone who has had an abortion, knows doctors that perform abortion--should all be put to death!
Maybe we should do the "Catholic Thing" and just move the physicians who perform abortions, from town to town. That satisfied them about pedophiles, so it might work for the pro-choice crowd!
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE
|
May 17, 2007 4:38 PM
"According to the logic put forth, anyone who is Pro-Choice, has an abortion, knows someone who has had an abortion, knows doctors that perform abortion--should all be put to death!"
Tripe. With exception of a few nutcases like Eric Rudolph and James Kopp, please provide some further info about anti-abortion people murdering abortionists. As a lifelong Catholic I have never heard any priest or any other Catholic for the matter calling for murdering abortionists.
I do not condone murdering abortionists, they will find a much worse fate with God after they die a natural death.
Posted by Dan
|
May 17, 2007 4:49 PM
Correction, Rudolph didn't murder an abortionist, he murdered one person at Olympic Park in Atlanta and a security guard at an Alabama abortion clinic.
That of course doesn't make the crime any less or more horrific. Just clarifying my previous post.
Posted by Dan
|
May 17, 2007 5:09 PM