Patrick Moore is an amusing right-wing mentalist. However that doesn't stop him being right, IMO, about nuclear energy. I think it's our only hope for a worthwhile non-greenhouse-gas-emitting energy source in the near future.
Our kid told me that there isn't even enough land on the planet to grow the crops necessary to make bio-fuels a global, sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.it's very alarming how little critical discourse there is around biofuels, such is the desire for a magic bullet that requires no sacrifice or change in habits. suddenly we have great numbers of "environmentalists" arguing in favour of industrial scale, biotechnologized monoculture which will, in fact, do us in just as readily as carbon, given that we'll need as much plant diversity as we can hold onto if we hope to adapt to globally-warmed mutant ecosystems.
This is pretty unambiguous:
Yes, it may seem unambiguous, except that The Problem, however, is that there INDEED continues to be an active scientific debate on the subject, and the public indeed quickly learns to disavow what knowledge they may have ostensibly acquired on the subject (and not just on climate change: whatever became of the 10m people who took to the streets in February 2003 opposing the invasion of Iraq? Where are they now? Gone back to sleep? Whatever became of the tens of millions who opposed mass poverty in Africa in the 1980s? Where are they now? Too busy shopping and checking their mortgage repayments?).This is pretty unambiguous:
"Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty. Despite the efforts of government and campaigns such as Live Earth to educate the public, the Ipsos Mori poll of over 2,031 people, released this month, found 56% of people thought there was an active scientific debate into the causes of global warming.
A spokesman for the Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific academy, said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."
Channel 4 and Martin Durkin, producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, declined to comment."
This is such a lame form of criticism: "If anyone trying to raise awareness of environmental issues creates even the tiniest bit of pollution in the process, they are a fraud and a hypocrite and shouldn't be listened to".And all this quite apart from the fact that all attempts to counter global warming to date have only served to accentuate it ... Oh look! There goes Al Gore in his new JetStream ...
I've always thought that the best way to teach primary school children the importance of looking after their surroundings is to trash the classroom and chop down the school orchard. Really brings it home.Perhaps we should take a leaf out of Gek's book and push a crypto-environmentalist agenda by chopping down all the remaining rain forests.
Go without what? What is he depriving people of, exactly?Me too actually: millions of ordinary people go without so Al Gore can toss it off on every continent. What a twat.
Well, I thought you meant going without holidays abroad, but obviously it seems as though you've got a wider agenda. What are "perfectly unnecessary resource-intensive luxuries", who decided what they are and don't you think it's a teeny bit hypocritical to expect others to forego the pleasures you enjoy?Go without what? What is he depriving people of, exactly?
Edit: if what you're getting at is that they've gone without perfectly unnecessary, resource-intensive luxuries then I'd call that a good thing. Is that what you mean?
I think foreign holidays might be a good example of P.U.R.-I.L.s. And I haven't had one in yonks.Well, I thought you meant going without holidays abroad, but obviously it seems as though you've got a wider agenda. What are "perfectly unnecessary resource-intensive luxuries", who decided what they are and don't you think it's a teeny bit hypocritical to expect others to forego the pleasures you enjoy?
Some articles that purport to show that there is some debate on climate change do not mean that concern about it is fatuous do they? Or are you saying that the way in which people worry is fatuous? Quite possibly true of some of them I guess but surely not all."Here are two recent contrary reports, which serve to further suggest that much of the West's fatuous 'concern' about climate change will evaporate as quickly as their bubble property prices"
Surely he was trying to accentuate it? The whole purpose of making a film and giving speeches is to identify and raise awareness of global warming."And all this quite apart from the fact that all attempts to counter global warming to date have only served to accentuate it ... Oh look! There goes Al Gore in his new JetStream..."
nb Forego to go before, Forgo to go without."don't you think it's a teeny bit hypocritical to expect others to forego the pleasures you enjoy?"
Congrats - how big is your carbon footprint?I think foreign holidays might be a good example of P.U.R.-I.L.s. And I haven't had one in yonks.
Well, that's very interesting, I think. Mr Gore (like you) can recognise the benefits of (among other carbon emission heavy activities) air travel, so he shouldn't be suprised that others do the same.My point is that it's ridiculous to have a go at people who are actually trying to do something positive about climate change by criticizing them for travelling by plane, for example, when it would be impossible or prohibitively impractical to travel otherwise.
I would like to know:OK, so Al Gore could go and live in the woods in a little hut and live on berries and insects, and he'd certainly be doing his bit for the environment (and producing less CO2 than he is , but it wouldn't really have much impact on anyone else, would it? And yes, Gore is a self-publicist, wannabe-saviour, blah blah blah, but at least he is actually doing something. Unless every person who saw his film just drove home in their gas-guzzling car afterwards and completely forgot about it, which could be the case for all I know.
I couldn't say for sure. Except to say that it's obviously negligible compared to the entire output of the USA, or even the 'excess' amount produced by things people could easily cut down on, e.g. owning low-mileage vehicles or jetting around on holiday.I would like to know:
How much impact is Gore actually having? Can it be measured?
Oh, I don't know. Probably not very. Obviously it's not going to help people take him seriously if they think he's a hypocrite - c.f. 'green' Arnie and his fleet of hummers.And, disregarding his extensive use of cheap flights, which you think is off-set by the good his message does, how "green" is Mr Gore in the rest of his life?
I think he is jumping on the bandwagon, but for whatever reasons he personally has for pushing the environmental agenda (and I'm sure many of them are as selfish as the reasons any politician has for doing anything) that doesn't mean it's not an extremely crucial agenda.Probably you think these are marginal issues, particularly my second point, but it seems to me that Gore is just jumping on a band-wagon ideology (with an accompanying subset of prescribed behaviours) he neither believes nor properly observes in his own life. Fine, if you're already convinced by the message he's sellling. Personally, I think it highlights some notable absurdities.