It basically boils down to this: ALWAYS JUDGE PEOPLE BY WHAT THEY DO IN REALITY AND NOT BY WHAT THEY SAY! Words are cheap and ultimately count for bugger all. Reality will always reveal itself in its own time and will always reflect upon a person for better or worse.
it's not that hard to recycle or switch to the new bulbs it blows my mind how stupid people are they cant even grasp acid rain or the greenhouse effect honestly even with the poles melting
Fair point about Al Gore. I feel he really did the Carbon emissions 'lobby' no good and gave alot of ammunition to the Global Warming theories detractors.
Even if, as could very well be true, carbon emissions have no link to climate change I don't think anyone denies that they certainly aren't a plus in terms of our environment. It seems to me that the bulk of the scientific community seems to agree on two points 1)climate is changing 2)we're the cause of it. This doesn't mean they're right. The bulk of the scientific community once thought disease was spread by smell. However it seems we have nothing to lose by working towards energy reform.
Well I certainly agree that all the facts you've mentioned do seem to prove Al Gore a hypocrite . In the end, however, does it really matter? Even if he doesn't live up to his own standards, shameful as that may be, it still doesn't change the science. For me, I see the climate issue in terms rather similar to Pascals' Wager. We really have nothing to lose by working to create a cleaner planet, save perhaps for looking slightly silly if it does prove to be false.
You're making a few assumptions there, a bit like how Pascall's Wager relies on a very big assumption that human carbon emissions cause claimate change.
This is the most important part of the argument and interestingly is the one area where the science is the most uncertain. eg carbon emissions in the last seven years have steadily increased but the earth's temp is dropping.
HOWEVER, i do think that companies, and factories should be force to use and research new eco-friendly technologies, and make them CHEAPER so that consumers can actually but them (emission free cars. ect). Further more, the companies wont do this on there own (GM) because they are greedy for money, and guess what, so is our government (corrupt), so they wont enforce it either. So its a catch 22, and we cant do much about it until someone reliable gets into our government and changes things!
I agree with you, its just that i don't think you can EXPECT people to even do those things because you have to get around some how, if you job is 500km away and it winter then what are you going to do. There are certain things that are just not practical to live without in our society. continued next comment
your point is correct,just one comment...at least if some one says let's do something about it but he doesent..it is possible that other people who hear his message actualy does...if you want to comment on my statement please send me a message or comment on my profile...thanks
Yeah 500 characters sucks, but cheers for making good arguments. A couple of responses:
1. You live in NYC, so it's easy to go without a car (ie it's not really a sacrifice you're making compared to if someone in the suburbs gave up owning a car).
2. Too many people make excuses for Gore on the basis that he changes public opinion. His primary argument is that we have the ability to change, we just need the will. If that is true, then he should be leading by example.
I also believe that even tough Al-Gore flies jets to his conferences and gets paid for it, the product of his works - the rise in public awareness and the shift in public opinion toward seriously considering the threat of global warming more then outweighs the consequences and is one of those important things.. unenlightened people will never change.. and what he is doing is making sure that people ARE enlightened.
I honestly concede that i have no stopped using my computer.. but at least its energy star rated.. and besides could i honestly even be considered a full human being in this modern era if I had just one.
I sign petitions urging alternative energy investment in legislation ( because that is the only way we can, as a nation of people have an effective impact in the positive direction)
I dont watch the tv, or own a blue-ray player
And I pay 10 bucks more to make sure my energy bill funds alternative energy
Yes, there are not many people have made actions about climate change. But those who had actions are those people who believe in and aware of climate change. So "Inconvenient Truth" is just let people see the truth first, then some people actually make some actions! So weather we agree or disagree with Al Gore, many people are inspired by his video, at this point, I think he need to be respected by his hard work.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is just a documentary. It is just some "talk", as people say. However, this is not an easy talk. I see many years of research in the talk; I see heaps of work in it; I see passion and dreams in it Not too long ago, people didn't believe they could fly in the sky? But they did finally, with the invention of the aeroplane. That's what I see from this video; someone does some serious research, speaks it out loud first and makes us think about it first.
I agree, the all talk and no action thing is problematic. I really liked what you said about being hypocrites if we're telling others how to live and then not doing it ourselves. In learning theory they talk a lot about how people learn by modeling after others,it's the same here. It's like the parent who swats the kid for hitting his sibling. Do what I say and not what I do has failed every parent who ever tryed it and it is failing in this arena as well.
I agree with you, completely. The only way that people will change is if they're forced to. Raising gas prices in America is FINALLY making people buy mopeds, buy bicycles, cut back on driving...etc. Nobody wants an inconvenience...and MOST people are very hypocritical. Truth is...no matter what we do....there are just too many people on this planet. Most of us will die because of our own ignorance. Best plan of action: stay away from the coastal cities...they're goin' down first.
We don't have to all make individual sacrifices! We have to change the way we produce power. This could create jobs and end up reducing the cost of power in the long run. The costs are likely to go up at first and some people will have to make life-style changes. This could be lessened for poor people through a tax.
I think killing people is wrong, but the fact that I don't personally go to Darfur and stop them doesn't make me a hypocrite.
False analogy. Climate change is promoted as something that your own actions cause, and that you have the power to change. Darfur is neither of those.
Also, more to my point, intervention (ie the solution) in Darfur would be supported by people. But as the UK experience has shown, the moment people actually start having to pay for the solution to climate change, suddenly no one's interested any more. It's making the jump from nice sounding ideas to implementing them that's the problem.
We have to pay collectively for the solutions. In order for that to be politically possible, people need to be educated about the severity of the climate crisis. You are right that there is a falseness in suggesting that your own actions in limiting carbon emissions will create a difference. Only it has the equal falseness of suggesting one's vote counts.
America (land of hypocrisies) it is incredibly hard 2 get a point across like the climate change. I'm a strong believer of seeing to believe. I've traveled extensively in Iceland and N. Canada and Alaska and it is an undeniable fact that the world in reality is getting warmer. And only those who r making money of companies who are the biggest polluters r the ones who don't believe it. I'm doing my part not only changing bulbs but planting 3x as many trees as I cut I'm doing something are you?
fuck off ipods is not realistic. not going to happen. there is definitely a responsibility for individuals to do what they can, but the science shows that the only real solution is to completely change the way we source our energy, not whether or not we use it.
No one can escape some level of responsability.
we either have to demand that our energy sup. comes from renualble sources or generate it ourselves
Unfortunately the hypocrisy even extends to renewable energy; it's so much more expensive and people won't accept higher costs. Look at the savage reaction in the UK to increasing levies on high emissions vehicles. Societies vote for those who SAY they will do something about climate change, but then turn against those who actually TRY to do something because once they realise doing something will actually hurt your way of life or your own hip pocket, people don't want to play along any more.
If we put a cost on carbon emmissions that gradually goes up we will see a blossoming of investment in energy conservation, renewables, nuclear power and new carbon sinks (perhaps algae blooms). A cost for carbon emissions in some form will be a market-driven force that will create great innovation.
I wish I'd made this video about two days later. Contiki has released surveys which say that 54% of respondents wanted to travel carbon neutral, but only 9% had actually done so.
It's always about talking and never about doing when it comes to climate change.
If I take your point as "we need less talk, more action" then I agree. Anyone can talk about doing the right thing, the time has come to do the right thing.
No, not exactly my point. Take your expression "do the right thing" as an example. It's a meaningless catchphrase because it has no detail. What I want is for people to work out what "doing something" actually requires; and when they work that out, will they still be so keen to follow through? The evidence so far suggests clearly that they won't.
It basically boils down to this: ALWAYS JUDGE PEOPLE BY WHAT THEY DO IN REALITY AND NOT BY WHAT THEY SAY! Words are cheap and ultimately count for bugger all. Reality will always reveal itself in its own time and will always reflect upon a person for better or worse.
MegaPostman77 9 months ago
it's not that hard to recycle or switch to the new bulbs it blows my mind how stupid people are they cant even grasp acid rain or the greenhouse effect honestly even with the poles melting
isawanangel2 1 year ago
Good for you for stating your opinion also
PaulBassist1 2 years ago
Fair point about Al Gore. I feel he really did the Carbon emissions 'lobby' no good and gave alot of ammunition to the Global Warming theories detractors.
PaulBassist1 2 years ago
Even if, as could very well be true, carbon emissions have no link to climate change I don't think anyone denies that they certainly aren't a plus in terms of our environment. It seems to me that the bulk of the scientific community seems to agree on two points 1)climate is changing 2)we're the cause of it. This doesn't mean they're right. The bulk of the scientific community once thought disease was spread by smell. However it seems we have nothing to lose by working towards energy reform.
desteen08 2 years ago
Well I certainly agree that all the facts you've mentioned do seem to prove Al Gore a hypocrite . In the end, however, does it really matter? Even if he doesn't live up to his own standards, shameful as that may be, it still doesn't change the science. For me, I see the climate issue in terms rather similar to Pascals' Wager. We really have nothing to lose by working to create a cleaner planet, save perhaps for looking slightly silly if it does prove to be false.
desteen08 2 years ago
You're making a few assumptions there, a bit like how Pascall's Wager relies on a very big assumption that human carbon emissions cause claimate change.
This is the most important part of the argument and interestingly is the one area where the science is the most uncertain. eg carbon emissions in the last seven years have steadily increased but the earth's temp is dropping.
Thanks for commenting.
uniformopinion 2 years ago
HOWEVER, i do think that companies, and factories should be force to use and research new eco-friendly technologies, and make them CHEAPER so that consumers can actually but them (emission free cars. ect). Further more, the companies wont do this on there own (GM) because they are greedy for money, and guess what, so is our government (corrupt), so they wont enforce it either. So its a catch 22, and we cant do much about it until someone reliable gets into our government and changes things!
shorty638 3 years ago
I agree with you, its just that i don't think you can EXPECT people to even do those things because you have to get around some how, if you job is 500km away and it winter then what are you going to do. There are certain things that are just not practical to live without in our society. continued next comment
shorty638 3 years ago
your point is correct,just one comment...at least if some one says let's do something about it but he doesent..it is possible that other people who hear his message actualy does...if you want to comment on my statement please send me a message or comment on my profile...thanks
'cheers
rock29a 3 years ago
sry for so many post but stupid you tube prevents me from posting more then 500 characters.. i mean u did ask for an argument..
KriegMaan 3 years ago
Yeah 500 characters sucks, but cheers for making good arguments. A couple of responses:
1. You live in NYC, so it's easy to go without a car (ie it's not really a sacrifice you're making compared to if someone in the suburbs gave up owning a car).
2. Too many people make excuses for Gore on the basis that he changes public opinion. His primary argument is that we have the ability to change, we just need the will. If that is true, then he should be leading by example.
uniformopinion 3 years ago
I also believe that even tough Al-Gore flies jets to his conferences and gets paid for it, the product of his works - the rise in public awareness and the shift in public opinion toward seriously considering the threat of global warming more then outweighs the consequences and is one of those important things.. unenlightened people will never change.. and what he is doing is making sure that people ARE enlightened.
KriegMaan 3 years ago
I honestly concede that i have no stopped using my computer.. but at least its energy star rated.. and besides could i honestly even be considered a full human being in this modern era if I had just one.
KriegMaan 3 years ago
I have energy efficient light bulbs in my home
I sign petitions urging alternative energy investment in legislation ( because that is the only way we can, as a nation of people have an effective impact in the positive direction)
I dont watch the tv, or own a blue-ray player
And I pay 10 bucks more to make sure my energy bill funds alternative energy
KriegMaan 3 years ago
Ok, i would NEVER buy an SUV or a car (i live in nyc why would i need one?)
I use public transportation: buses trains and i ride my bike.
I dont use car service
I have energy efficient devices in my home
KriegMaan 3 years ago
lol deleting comments which wont fit with your opinion
Rom40 3 years ago
Exactly where did I say I would delete comments I disagreed with? Try debating the issue rather than lazily assuming things I clearly didn't say.
uniformopinion 3 years ago
haha what a freaky dude, you got people on the one side and people and the other side, but this is sooo to superficial!!
Rom40 3 years ago
Yes, there are not many people have made actions about climate change. But those who had actions are those people who believe in and aware of climate change. So "Inconvenient Truth" is just let people see the truth first, then some people actually make some actions! So weather we agree or disagree with Al Gore, many people are inspired by his video, at this point, I think he need to be respected by his hard work.
matilda13579 3 years ago
"An Inconvenient Truth" is just a documentary. It is just some "talk", as people say. However, this is not an easy talk. I see many years of research in the talk; I see heaps of work in it; I see passion and dreams in it Not too long ago, people didn't believe they could fly in the sky? But they did finally, with the invention of the aeroplane. That's what I see from this video; someone does some serious research, speaks it out loud first and makes us think about it first.
matilda13579 3 years ago
I agree. It's like Toby Keith said, "a little less talk and a lot more action."
isisangel0209 3 years ago
I agree, the all talk and no action thing is problematic. I really liked what you said about being hypocrites if we're telling others how to live and then not doing it ourselves. In learning theory they talk a lot about how people learn by modeling after others,it's the same here. It's like the parent who swats the kid for hitting his sibling. Do what I say and not what I do has failed every parent who ever tryed it and it is failing in this arena as well.
vickiinhawaii 3 years ago
I agree with you, completely. The only way that people will change is if they're forced to. Raising gas prices in America is FINALLY making people buy mopeds, buy bicycles, cut back on driving...etc. Nobody wants an inconvenience...and MOST people are very hypocritical. Truth is...no matter what we do....there are just too many people on this planet. Most of us will die because of our own ignorance. Best plan of action: stay away from the coastal cities...they're goin' down first.
theericee 3 years ago
We don't have to all make individual sacrifices! We have to change the way we produce power. This could create jobs and end up reducing the cost of power in the long run. The costs are likely to go up at first and some people will have to make life-style changes. This could be lessened for poor people through a tax.
I think killing people is wrong, but the fact that I don't personally go to Darfur and stop them doesn't make me a hypocrite.
kgacs 3 years ago
False analogy. Climate change is promoted as something that your own actions cause, and that you have the power to change. Darfur is neither of those.
Also, more to my point, intervention (ie the solution) in Darfur would be supported by people. But as the UK experience has shown, the moment people actually start having to pay for the solution to climate change, suddenly no one's interested any more. It's making the jump from nice sounding ideas to implementing them that's the problem.
uniformopinion 3 years ago
We have to pay collectively for the solutions. In order for that to be politically possible, people need to be educated about the severity of the climate crisis. You are right that there is a falseness in suggesting that your own actions in limiting carbon emissions will create a difference. Only it has the equal falseness of suggesting one's vote counts.
kgacs 3 years ago
America (land of hypocrisies) it is incredibly hard 2 get a point across like the climate change. I'm a strong believer of seeing to believe. I've traveled extensively in Iceland and N. Canada and Alaska and it is an undeniable fact that the world in reality is getting warmer. And only those who r making money of companies who are the biggest polluters r the ones who don't believe it. I'm doing my part not only changing bulbs but planting 3x as many trees as I cut I'm doing something are you?
kalulew 3 years ago
Don't have kids. Problem solved.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
That's a far more insightful argument than many would realise.
uniformopinion 3 years ago
It will reduce your carbon footprint a hundred fold times more than recycling will.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
an easy point to make,
but having a neo-primitivist society where we,
fuck off ipods is not realistic. not going to happen. there is definitely a responsibility for individuals to do what they can, but the science shows that the only real solution is to completely change the way we source our energy, not whether or not we use it.
No one can escape some level of responsability.
we either have to demand that our energy sup. comes from renualble sources or generate it ourselves
oliverbutterfield 3 years ago
Unfortunately the hypocrisy even extends to renewable energy; it's so much more expensive and people won't accept higher costs. Look at the savage reaction in the UK to increasing levies on high emissions vehicles. Societies vote for those who SAY they will do something about climate change, but then turn against those who actually TRY to do something because once they realise doing something will actually hurt your way of life or your own hip pocket, people don't want to play along any more.
uniformopinion 3 years ago
If we put a cost on carbon emmissions that gradually goes up we will see a blossoming of investment in energy conservation, renewables, nuclear power and new carbon sinks (perhaps algae blooms). A cost for carbon emissions in some form will be a market-driven force that will create great innovation.
kgacs 3 years ago
I wish I'd made this video about two days later. Contiki has released surveys which say that 54% of respondents wanted to travel carbon neutral, but only 9% had actually done so.
It's always about talking and never about doing when it comes to climate change.
uniformopinion 3 years ago
If I take your point as "we need less talk, more action" then I agree. Anyone can talk about doing the right thing, the time has come to do the right thing.
banjandbob 3 years ago 2
No, not exactly my point. Take your expression "do the right thing" as an example. It's a meaningless catchphrase because it has no detail. What I want is for people to work out what "doing something" actually requires; and when they work that out, will they still be so keen to follow through? The evidence so far suggests clearly that they won't.
uniformopinion 3 years ago