An Inconvenient Truth...

[Fitswimmer]

I'd also argue that the corrupting nature of the system is an excellent argument for term limits. In conjunction with the ethics reforms you mention, I think those two things would go a long way towards getting people into office who are more concerned with governing than they are with staying in office.

Oh, and one thing I'd add to your ethics proposal: real teeth. Any member of congress caught shilling for a corporate fundraiser should be barred from presenting legislation favorable to that industry, under penalty of impeachment. I would make the ethics committee one of the most powerful in the entire congress, and it would be bipartisan, split right down the middle (don't think for a second that I don't know corruption comes in blue as well as red). It would be headed by a chairman appointed by the majority party, but it would absolutely require a majority to pull the trigger on any major punishments.

What's the most expensive part of a political campaign? I would imagine that it's TV ads. What if the networks had to carry so many ads for each candidate, evenly divided and aired at equal time periods. (No fair running all the ads for the guy you don't like at 3 am. ) That eliminates the cost of TV time. I don't know how to reduce the cost of ad production, but there must be way.
If the candidates didn't need so much money to run, we might get "real person" candidates instead of people who have never had to feed a family of 4 on less than $50,000 a year and have no concept of what even a small tax increase or small tax cut can mean for that family.

 

[Galahad]

Interesting:

Science news
January 31, 2007

ENERGY SOURCES: Drilling can tap heat for electricity

The continental United States rests on vast slabs of blistering granite heated by the Earth's mantle and other geological processes. Using a technology called heat mining, it should be increasingly possible to tap that energy and use it to generate electricity with virtually no pollution.

"What was thought to be impossible 10 years ago is now possible," said Roy Baria, a British geophysical consultant. "The technology has moved significantly."

Last week the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a study concluding that heat mining could generate enough energy by 2050 to replace the coal-fired and nuclear power plants that are likely to be retired over the next several decades.

The MIT study reported that at 4 miles deep, large sections of the West reach about 400 degrees, which is ideal for heat mining. At a little more than 6 miles below the surface, the East has many pockets that exceed 400 degrees. It is possible to drill that deep with today's technology, but it is expensive.

 

[What the Heck]

wvrevy, to be fair there are some groups that politicized it long before this movie came out.

There was one "scientific" group in the 90's that I heard about. It was a really warm time frame (about 10 degrees above average) we were going through. They used that to prove Global Warming. About a week later the temp dropped about 30 degrees (now 20 degrees below average). We were told that this was due to and proved Global Warming by the same group.

That made me a little skeptical about the whole thing.

For me its not that I don't want to watch the movie because of the facts presented, but because I had enough of Al Gore looking down at everyone in 2000. His "holier than thou" attitude is so freaking annoying.

I would like to see how the scientists of today would compare the phenomena of Global Warming of today with the "mini-ice age" of the 1500-1700's (saw a documentary on the History channel about it, it was fascinating). Is this really an anomoly of the weather caused by man or part of a constant change it goes through?

 

[ButchJohnson]

I still agree with me.

 

[wvrevy]

What the Heck - That's the reason why the terminology has started to shift from "global warming" to "climate change"...because uninformed people think that a cold spell means that everything is ok. The fact is that global warming could as easily lead to another ice age - or, at least, the beginnings of one - as it could to an overheated planet and flooded coastlines. It has to do with the salination of the ocean waters...and is complicated enough that I fully admit I don't understand it all.

I highly advise watching the movie, if for no other reason than you will see some FACTS that are, again, without dispute from any credible source. If you can't stand Gore, turn on the closed captioning and mute him, and skip the parts when he's not on stage. But this is an issue that we can not afford to have people confusing the issue with silliness (it's cold out, so no global warming).

Galahad - That's just one aspect of the possibilities of "Geothermal" energy. Unfortunately, like most alternative fuels, it is still very expensive to get any real benefit from it. Eventually, solar, wind, water, and geothermal energy production will be engineered into a more practical form. Hopefully, before anymore permanent damage is done.

Fits - No complaints here. Campaign finance reform is essential to fixing the process. Unfortunately, it's a non-starter with the right, and, frankly, the left ain't all that enthusiastic, either. Besides, procedural things like that just aren't "sexy" issues that will bring in votes. We're stuck in a cycle that I'm not real sure we're ever going to be able to break out of.

 

[Disney-Kim]

I thought it was great. We just watched it. politics shmolitics.

Its our planet and we are destroying it.
I was amazed at the dramatic changes in the last 10-30 yrs compared to the last 1600 yrs.
the pictures of the ice/glaciers really impacted us...

We wanted to go buy a hybrid after watching it. actually that will be our next car....but not for 2-3 more yrs.

 

[Charade]

Fits, I'm afraid you might as well be talking to the wall. You're not going to convince John - someone who has admitted to not bothering to actually watch the documentary - because he doesn't want to listen. John, like Inhofe and others, want to make this a political issue, rather than a simple scientific one. They continue to argue that there are "experts" who disagree with the "theories" about global warming and climate change, all the while ignoring the simple facts of the situation. Facts that are easily attainable and that Gore uses in his film. Facts that are NOT in dispute by ANY reputable scientist.

It has become the republican battle cry..."IT'S NOT OUR FAULT"...

And no, politics and science should NOT mix. Period. Politicians have no business sticking their uneducated noses into things they do not understand. When a consensus has been reached in the scientific community - and make no mistake, there are no serious scientists anywhere in the world that are arguing with the FACTS of global warming - it is not up to politicians to "balance" things out, just because they want to protect their political contributors (Exxon).

Please don't speak for me Eric. Thank you.

While I have not watched the Al Gore movie, I have been paying attention to both sides. Apparently supporters of both camps are convinced their side is correct and have experts, facts and data to back that up. You seem to be ignoring those *facts*. That's why this is such a difficult topic. It's interesting that a lot of people who paid to see this movie (or paid a rental fee) come away with believing it in it's entirety. I have a little more skepticism than those people. I have stated before that I do see the climate *IS* changing, but I'm not convinced that it's entirely or even largely from human influence.

I guess a good question would be "why would I not believe the Al Gore camp"? What's the downside? What's the upside? Same question for those that believe Al Gore's camp.

I do believe that we should do all we can to lessen our impact on the earth while still balancing the need for us to live on it without reverting back to horse and buggies with no electricity.

 

[Charade]

Charade, that article you posted on the 1st page is by someone who consistently lies. He is a paid advocate for companies. Nothing this guy says about science should be taken as true. He is a liar and is in it just for the money.

I didn't know that. Can you substantiate your claim?

 

[schmitty]

I didn't know that. Can you substantiate your claim?

Sure.
http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?id=13581
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/syq70d00
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

 

[TheDoctor]

Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize due to this movie. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/

OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world’s attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

One source thinks that Al Gore may have a good chance of winning. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore_seen_as_contender_for_2007_0201.html

The former US vice president is currently criss-crossing the globe with his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", a hard-hitting rallying cry against global environmental catastrophe.

"This is clearly some of the most import conflict prevention work that is being done. Climate change could lead to enormous waves of refugees, the likes of which the world has never seen before," Heidi Soerensen, a Socialist Left MP who nominated Gore and Watt-Cloutier, told daily Aftenposten on Thursday.

"One hundred million climate refugees, major changes in drinking water supplies and a reduction in biological diversity ... will rapidly become a major security threat," co-nominator Boerge Brende, of the Conservative party, told the paper.

Toennesson said the Nobel committee might choose to honour the fight against climate change.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize due to this movie. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/One source thinks that Al Gore may have a good chance of winning. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore_seen_as_contender_for_2007_0201.html

Since history re-writer Jimmy Carter and terrorist Yassar Arafat got one they're meaningless.

 

[TheDoctor]

While I have not watched the Al Gore movie, I have been paying attention to both sides. Apparently supporters of both camps are convinced their side is correct and have experts, facts and data to back that up. You seem to be ignoring those *facts*.

The facts from one side are manufactured by paid lobbyists for the oil companies and the facts from the other side are from true scientists. A while back, others claimed that the evidence on the dangers of tobacco was was not clear because each side had their experts. Of course, that theory fell apart when the plaintiff lawyers got to cross examine the tobacco industry's experts.

Here is an article on global warming that is interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922234/

PARIS - Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much-awaited report will say that recent global warming was “very likely” caused by human activity — a significant change from an earlier report but less than the “virtually certain” phrase that some had championed.

The officials also approved language that said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 “more likely than not” can be attributed to man-made warming, according to delegates Leonard Fields of Barbados and Cedric Nelom of Surinam. ....

Sources at the talks said the IPCC approved the term “very likely” in Thursday’s sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that humans are aggravating any natural warming by burning fossil fuels, which release carbon into the atmosphere and add to the greenhouse effect around Earth.

The last U.N. report, in 2001, said global warming was “likely” caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to “virtually certain,” which means a 99 percent chance.

The new report is expected to predict that global temperatures could increase between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the year 2100 unless stronger efforts are made to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles, power plants and other industry.

This study beats the made up work from the oil industry lobbyists.

 

[Beca]

Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize due to this movie. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/One source thinks that Al Gore may have a good chance of winning. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore_seen_as_contender_for_2007_0201.html

That's awesome!!! I hope he wins.

 

[JMD]

Here is a graph from the National Climate Data Center. Its pretty self-explanatory.

Last time I checked the NCDC doesn't manufacture data for Oil Lobbyists.

 

[TheDoctor]

A number of scientists were offered money by big oil to manufacture results on global warming. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Also in the Paris report:

PARIS - Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt that recent global warming has been caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will “continue for centuries” no matter how much humans control their carbon emissions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904988/

 

[JMD]

A number of scientists were offered money by big oil to manufacture results on global warming. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

Who pays for the research and manufactured results for the Church of Global Warming? Just wondering why you left that out.

 

[TheDoctor]

Who pays for the research and manufactured results for the Church of Global Warming? Just wondering why you left that out.

You are confused. It is the oil industry who is manufacturing fake studies just as the tobacco companies used to do. The reason that most of the true scientists support the concept that greenhouse gases contribute or cause climate change is that the facts support such conclusion. Your assertion is sily but amusing.

 

[ButchJohnson]

See this is where Big Oil screwed up, everyone knows you can't bribe a scientist for a mere $10,000, paaaleeeesss. It takes at least $100 thousand or more.

I'm still waiting for an answer for all that believe in man-made global warming as to why they insist on still driving their cars and not utilizing bicycles??????

 

[ButchJohnson]

I've also heard that the great environmentalist champion Al Gore is continuing to do his part to thwart global warming by getting rid of his super stretch sized Hummer limosine and is cutting back to a more conventional mini-stretch Cadillac version limo. I also hear he is cutting back his jet setting to only 3 fund raising junkets a week instead of 4.

Doesn't Al Gore also own stock in an oil company or was it a tobacco company?

This is great that he is going to get a Nobel peace prize for being an environmentalist champion. Similar to how Yassar Arafat gets one by organizing suicide bombings in Isreal to blow up thousands of innocent Isreali kids at discos. I really think the Nobel organization makes a lot of sense. Maybe Saddam Hussein should have won one for getting rid of all of his WMD.