Cool News
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Transcript Of A Q&A With Director Davis Guggenheim!!
Thor’s Stone sent in a nice transcript from Sunday’s screening of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
After the screening, Davis Guggenheim (the film’s director) stuck around for a Q&A, and provided some rather interesting insight about his approach to the film - and how he perceives its challenging issues now that the project is completed.
There’s a lot of material here, so I’ll step out of the way and make room for Thor’s Stone…
This last Sunday, my wife and I caught An Inconvenient Truth at the 4-Plex
in Santa Monica. After the show Davis Guggenheim, the film's director, stuck
around for a Q&A.
Guggenheim is the son of four-time Academy Award winning
documentary filmmaker Charles Guggenheim. He's married to Elisabeth Shue and
has directed episodes of "ER" "Deadwood" "The Shield" "Alias" and "24."
If you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth I would suggest you do so when it
comes to your area. The film possesses a depth of both scientific rigor and
artistic merit that any documentary lover will admire. At its core, the film
is essentially, "Al Gore's slideshow" but also represents so much more.
Intercut amidst Gore's impressive multimedia stage presentation are more
personal vignettes of the former VP as a boy, young man, father and husband.
Some critics may see this addition of personal material as grandstanding
ego-inflation on the part of a man that many of us already suspect thinks
quite highly of himself.
In fact, the brief personal interludes serve to
highlight the argument that this is not an issue to be solved by yet another
big-government bureaucracy, but by single-minded and passionate citizens
taking action in the way they best know how.
One thing is for sure: Gore has done his research and has anticipated many
of the objections to the severity of the global warming issue. The argument
that I had always heard, and partially subscribe to is that global warming
is simply a part of the natural cycles of the earth. Temperatures naturally
rise and fall, ice ages come and go and we really have nothing to fear. This
objection is obliterated early in the film and what follows is a nuanced,
scientifically literate and entertaining discussion of the issue. In the
film, Gore addresses not only the environmental catastrophe that could very
well be looming in our lifetime, but also the economic, cultural and moral
issues that our denial of such a global crisis raises.
If Gore is wrong, then this is still a film with great cultural relevance, and no time will be
wasted by seeing it. If he is right, then we really do have a moral
obligation to remove our collective head from the sand and do something
about it. An Inconvenient Truth may well be the catalyst for great changes
in our society, and the way we as American citizens relate to the world,
both today and in the future.
Following is a transcript from the Q&A with Davis Guggenhiem, director of An
Inconvenient Truth:
Moderator: I want to start out by saying that this film has caused quite a
stir with the people who see it, its really an emotional issue, and I think
probably a lot of you would agree having watched it. That this guy would make
a pretty good leader. What do you guys think?
Audience Applauds
Guggenheim: You know all the press has been speculating on whether he's
going to run or not. And, actually, I think it's a big distraction, because I
think he is so motivated. I spent most of the last year with him. He's so
focused. For every day that I work, and I work pretty long days, he work's
two days, and his singular focus is in bringing an awareness to this issue.
That's what he is focused on, there is no secret alternate plan. Before we
did the movie he was just on the road with his suitcase and his laptop. If a
group in Detroit wants him to give his presentation that's what he does. Its
pretty inspiring and pretty incredible.
We thought if we made a movie he wouldn't have to. More people could see it.
I'm thrilled that you guys are here tonight, it blows my mind.
Moderator: Do you get the sense that someone who runs for political office
has to make so many compromises that they are actually more effective as a
lone-ranger, doing work privately, like this film? A person like Gore, is he
actually more successful doing this than trying to please an unknown
electorate?
G: I think this summer we'll find out. Hopefully this movie and what he's
doing will gain some momentum. I hope so. The truth is that until there is
an American electorate that is demanding big changes on this issue then it
will be hard for any politician to push it through. There are just as many
Democrats that are not making this a priority as republicans. That's what we
are hoping is that people like those here tonight will go home and demand
that this is the most important issue of our time and we have to do
something about it.
M: This film asks people to do more than just change a light bulb to more
energy efficient light bulb or to buy a hybrid car, you are looking for some
type of political commitment. How do you get people to do that?
G: I'm not an environmentalist, I wasn't before I made the movie, I was more
concerned as a parent, and I had read about certain environmental changes
and it worried me. I'm not a Greenpeace guy. I'm just not that focused on it.
The producers Laurie David and Lawrence Bender dragged me to one of his
slide-shows at the Beverly Hilton here, and it just blew my mind.
And I
still don't feel like an environmentalist, but I feel like this film far
surpasses how you define an environmentalist. I've known environmentalists,
and I think they are on the forefront of making big changes. But I think we
as parents and workers and teachers need to stand up and demand big change,
because what one of these NASA scientists have said recently: we have ten
years to figure this out. We have ten years to make substantial changes
before we pass a point of no return.
And that's terrifying to me. It's
terrifying on an environmental level, on a political level on a human level,
and that's why when Al talks about it being a moral issue, it's really
starting to land on me. Yes, politics is a tool to get stuff done, but there
is a moral issue for all of us to wake up like when I did when I saw this
slideshow and to start, not just changing light bulbs but making real
substantial changes on a local level and on the global level.
M: Tell us about getting involved in the film, you told us about seeing the
slideshow...at what point did you come in. What was your first meeting with
Al Gore like when you sat down and said "Okay, we'll plot out this movie?"
G: The first meeting we basically begged him to let us do the movie. And his
big concern was the science that he had worked on it for thirty years, that
that would be carefully handled. And I gave him that security. And the other
thing was that I felt it was critical to add the personal narrative in the
film, and he was not so sure about that.
I mean, he wasn't sure why we would
need to go back and talk about his son's accident and how he learned from
it, and I thought it was a critical element for people to hook in to the
movie. The feeling was that if the audience invested in him, in his journey
to tell the story and trying to ring this alarm bell, that if we did that,
then audiences would hook in emotionally to what is a very abstract and
scientific issue.
M: The film has a lot of science in it, but it also has a lot of drama and a
lot of momentum, humor, some frightening images. You directed a lot of TV
shows: Alias and 24 and Deadwood. Did your experiences working on those
factor into making this movie in any way?
G: My father made documentary films and I grew up at his knee making
documentary films. And he always felt. He made many films that were issue
oriented. But he always felt that the issue was important and should be
served, but that when you make a film that people will invest in people.
When they watch a film, people will hook into a person and invest in that
person.
Whether it's Deadwood or not. Whether they are a good buy or a bad
guy, a villain or a hero. You go, yeah you're dealing with the muddy streets
and the horses and everything like that, but you hook into people. So when I
go from documentary to television, and some of the television goes from
pretty mainstream to pretty extreme, to me its about a compelling character,
and usually the most compelling characters are the ones that Joseph Campbell
talked about. They confront great obstacles and they find a way of achieving
great things.
And so in this case, I see this guy Al Gore, who had this
terrible tragic blow in the 2000 election. And imagine him on the dais,
watching George W. Bush being sworn in, with Bill Clinton there and Hillary
there, but also Chief Justice Rehnquist who ruled against him. And Rehnquist
offers his hand for Gore to shake, and what does he do?
And you land on Al
Gore after 24 years of political service, after winning the popular vote and
knowing in his bones that he is right on so many positions. To me the choice
of not living in anger, and not being bitter and not selling out. I mean the
guy could be going to Detroit to make good cash money, speaking to a lot a
businessmen just to cash in. But instead his choice to do this, to drag his
bag and go from city to city for no money, to me that's a compelling
character, to me that's one of the most fascinating, compelling characters
I've ever been apart of. And as a director you live to serve and to describe
and to love those characters and so to me there is no difference between
that and really good television or really good movie.
The difference is this
is true and helping to change the history of the world. So that has an extra
benefit.
M: You mentioned your father, Charles Guggenheim. He won three Oscars?
G: Four.
M: Tell us more about the impact he had on this film.
G: I am always thinking of him on nights like this. He was nominated for
twelve Academy Awards, he won four and he always felt that the best films he
made were never recognized. He made a film before he died called Berga,
about American soldiers who were put into Nazi death camps. He made hundreds
of movies and he lived a very quiet life. He biked. He lived in Washington
and he biked to his office in Georgetown. His grandson and granddaughter are
here tonight. He was just this remarkable man who believed in documentaries
helping to change the world. In think tonight this film will gross, if not
surpass two million dollars it will get close to two million dollars, and
that's something he could never contemplate.
And I grew up just hoping one
day to do something and to make a film, to make a mark like he did. He was
just the loveliest and most beautiful filmmaker you could ever imagine.
Whenever I go to work everyday, there's not a moment when he's not sitting
on my shoulder saying, "here's what you should do." He's a wonderful spirit
who stays in my life.
Q: The film has so many different elements to it, it has humor, it has
frights, it has cartoons (A clip from Futurama), the only thing it doesn't
have is a musical number. How did you combine all of that, and were any of
those things hard sells for Al Gore?
G: The interesting thing was that Melissa Etheridge saw the presentation and
she wrote a song which is at the end of the movie. This movie has a lot in
it. Its interesting for filmmakers out there: we shot 35mm film, 16mm film,
a lot of the farm sequences I shot on 8mm film, we shot on hi-def, the
cameras that George Lucas uses. We shot on the pro-sumer 24p cameras. We did
four types of animation. We had people in Greenland emailing us pictures of
the melting. We had a couple other formats, we used almost every single
format you could possibly contemplate. We don't have charcoal drawings in
it. And it was a very much a strange anomaly of storytelling devices. It's
like a concert film when he's on stage, but it's also a documentary, but
it's also a political action film.
So it never quite. I can't place this film
in the group of other films, it's a very strange type of form and we never
knew whether it would work. We made it so fast, we made it in less than six
months, and we finished the last reel the day before Sundance and literally
brought it with us to Sundance, and we had no idea. We had only played it for
the small group of people who had worked on it, and we had no idea,
none. Whether anyone would be remotely interested in this film. Some people
said well, only science teachers would like it.
We had no idea. And that's
the really interesting thing for filmmakers here that you really don't ever
know. The times I thought I knew and was certain, I didn't know.
M: A lot of people who have seen this film have commented that Al Gore seems
different than he did six years ago, you have said that you think it's the
people who have changed, tell us more about what you mean.
G: I have been with Al on the press tour for the last three weeks. I've heard
him answer the question, I've answered the question: everyone says: "What
happened?" And he's started to say that one of the things is that he's been
through a lot. The 2000 elections, and I think that's changed him. I think
the venue has changed.
If he'd had a ninety minute movie when he was running
for election I think you would have heard and felt a different man. I think
the light through which we see our political candidates is so distorted. And
also the political context at that time, I think the undiscovered thing, the
unfocused thing is that we've changed.
There were a lot of us who were
seduced by Bush. His quick, simple answers. Well, I didn't vote for him
but. There is also something. The nuanced, Democrat, twelve shades of grey
answer that takes six minutes to answer are frustrating, but I don't find
them frustrating today. I think in the television format, the thirty second
spot. He doesn't necessarily fit in that. I think that we are now as a
general public hungry for more thoughtful, more nuanced, more shaded
answers.
M: What do you think of the anti-An Inconvenient Truth ad that is running
now?
G: I did an interview on CNN the other day and they showed clips form the
movie, but while the anchor was asking me questions, they played in the
background this spot that is sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute. Now when you look at the institute its Exxon Mobile and all these
other interests who do not want the system to be changed. Its in their
interest to keep this controversy alive.
I couldn't believe it when I was
answering this question and they played this footage and there is this
little girl blowing on a dandelion, and they say "CO2, they call it
pollution, we call it life." And I think a lot of us have to take to task
the mainstream press and the shows we watch. If we know the world is round,
and some institute is saying the world is flat does that mean they should
report both sides? That is pretty much what is happening here, and it has
happened for too long.
M: About a week ago a reporter asked President Bush: "Do you plan to see Al
Gore's new movie?" And he responded with: "Doubt it." Then the next day I
saw Al Gore talking to the Associated Press saying "We'll bring him. We'll
show him the movie at any time." Has there been any movement on that?
G: We're not holding our breath. When I was at the Cannes film festival, and
we all had Blackberries all sort of lined up when we first heard that
statement. And I saw Al on the phone with a reporter who had asked him about
it, and Al was excited. He really was so wonderful about this and hopeful
because when we show it to people who are open minded, it's changing minds.
We showed this film to seventy-five evangelical ministers, these are people
who have sided with the Whitehouse forever, and who are very resistant to
other types of social change, and they are supporting this movie and are
setting up showings. I am really proud that this movie is not righteous and
is not throwing stones and going after people. The intention of putting the
word Truth in the title is very carefully done. But the idea was: let's lay
out a very simple thoughtful, balanced issue, well argued and intelligent
people will go to it with an open mind, and both views will see that this is
true. And it's started to happen and I can't believe it.
Question from Audience:
Q: Does the film have national distribution?
G: Last week we were just here and New York, and this weekend we opened
seventy seven theaters in twenty cities, and it's doing very well so far.
The next three or four weeks is really critical.
This is an interesting
thing: how many people saw March of the Penguins? (Most of the audience
raises hand) Now how many people saw it on opening weekend? (Hardly anyone
raises hand) The point being, the reason March of the Penguins played all
summer long. I went with my wife and kids late. We went in August. The people
who come here tonight, if they go home and spread the word and tell people
to go, this theater will keep holding the movie, and it will keep going and
more people's minds will be changed.
So Paramount Classics is supporting
this movie, they're wonderful and I don't have one complaint. If this thing
keeps going and we gain some momentum, it will open wider and wider. We are
hoping that by July 4th to open in four-hundred theaters, and they even have
a pattern where they open it into a thousand theaters, but that's if it
plays in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Dallas and places like that. So please go
home, please email friends and hopefully the movie will continue like March
of the Penguins.
Q: Do you sell bumper stickers to help spread the word of the movie? Do you
have any promotional items available?
G: There's a really wonderful website that I almost failed to mention. Its
called climatecrisis.net, it was shown at the end of the credits. I
encourage you to go. You can go and use a carbon calculator where you can
find out how much carbon your emitting, and how to compensate for that, and
there are ways to take action. I think you can go into a part of the site
and get stickers that say "I've seen the truth." Those are the ones that
I've seen, but I honestly don't know how to get them. But the website is a
nice way to get involved. [climatecrisis.net]
Q: The vote of the black caucus to not ratify the election, has Al Gore told
you what was going through his mind at that time?
G: He's a better person to answer that question than, but I have heard him
answer that before. I think he made his decision, and I think Michael Moore
showing that in his movie is one of those. I enjoyed Fahrenheit 911, because
I agree with the politics of that movie, but I felt dirty after seeing it,
because I felt the film was incredibly manipulative. A lot of people will
disagree with me, it's a longer conversation, but I felt like it hardened a
lot of hearts.
People who agreed with the film still do, the people who
didn't just said, yep these guys are. You know. It gave people permission to
dismiss the true connections between oil and politics and that whole thing.
I think the way he presented that scene in that movie was tremendously
dramatically effective. It effected me, but I'm not sure he played the true
context of that.
The point is, after the Supreme Court ruling, Gore made the
decision to accept it because truly the only choice after that was a coup de
tat. The procedure of the senate was this archaic thing, other senators
couldn't. It's a whole complicated thing. I'm out of my league politically. My
point is that he did make a conscious choice for what was best for America,
to accept the rule of law. Now some of us may not agree with that, but I
respect the decision.
Q: Why did your film focus so much on the problems of global warming and not
the solutions like alternative energies? What do you plan for a sequel?
G: We really struggled with this because there's a whole other movie What
your saying is that this is something that needs to be mobilized; like we
mobilize for war. You think how many films there are about war.
This is a
deep issue with a lot of dimensions to it. We felt like as filmmakers that
we had to focus on: this is the problem, its real, we are the cause of it,
and it's urgent. Now if we did that much and offered the tip of the iceberg
of solutions at the end then maybe we could start something. We wish we could
have added more, but the movie was another kind of thing.
Moderator wraps it up with pleasantries.
G: Thank you. Thank you so much for coming tonight!
Thanks for the write-up, Stone. We appreciate your time and effort…
-
+ Expand All
-
Anyone who can't see that global warming is already upon us is a fucking moron.
-
fighting the losing battle they've been fighting for 50 years.....*yawn*
-
There is no such thing as scientific truth anymore, just political science which only consists of "popular truths". Right wing, left wing, tail feathers, whatever side you're on, don't buy into anything you hear without looking at facts for yourself. At one time, it was accepted scientific proof that the earth was flat, then it was proven wrong. Then it was accepted that the earth was the center of the solar system, which was later proven wrong. Bloodletting was considered a correct way to rid the body of disease or some other malady. That too was proven wrong. At one time, global cooling was supposed to be a threat, now it's global warming? Maybe someone ought to put Al Gore on a flat piece of ground and drain him of his blood while the universe revolves around him.
Honoris Causa...
Silverblade -
Very few people are arguing that global warming isn't taking place. The question is...how much of it is due to human causes, and how much of it is due to the natural cycles of the earth? I'm a conservative, and I think it's probably 50-50. Not as dire as Gore thinks and not as peachy as Rush thinks. But here's the rub...REGARDLESS of the level of damage we are causing by our reckless energy practices and policies, we need to stop them and find alternatives. Any conservative who thinks we should just go on as usual is, as you say, a fucking moron. For me, it boils down to the fact that ANY amount of harm we are causing, no matter how big or small, is too much. If we could turn the tone of the argument away from the "holy shit the planet's gonna explode" extremism that turns the ultra right-wingers off and instead promote the advantages to cleaner, more efficient energy we would win a lot more people over. We should take Kennedy's bold call to reach the moon as an example of the kind of vision we need to give our country. That vision can't be spread by panic-inducing films like this, IMHO.
-
Sorry, hoss, I happen to believe that Brother Gore is right on with his assesment of the comming ecological disaster, even if I don't agree with his current position on Third World domination by the American war/Corporate machine.
That said perhaps this talkback could offer an opporuntiy for a different kind of political discourse. One that does not include personal attacks and name calling, but consist of well reasoned arguments. That is what this film represents. It is no partisan attack on the Bush Administration. It is a call to action for all Americans and world citizens. Inaction would be the worst responce to this film and this crisis. How many people do you know that were killed by terrorist last year? Me either. I do, however, know many people, myself included, who be homeless orworsefollowing the flooding of coastal America. Bush was able to whip the country into a war frenzy...why is it so hard to whip people into a frenzy that might result in the peaceful protection of our earth? What does that simple fact say about us as Americans? I don't believe that the average American is a war monger...I do believe they have been lied to. Many conservatives including Pat Buchannan, John Dean, and William F. Buckley agree that the Bush administration lied to get us into two wars that have done zero to aliviate the problems they were meant to address. If they would lie about the war...why would you think they wouldn't lie about the realenviromental danger. These people are implimenting the worst of Ayn Rand's Moral Egoism philosophies. Today a well meaning kid in one of my classes made the statement that human beings have risen up and out of the food chain. I fear, if we don't change our path soon, we will become more a part of the food chain than any of us ever wanted to be. -
Americans are sheep. Lazy, ignorant sheep. We're all fucked. Sit back and enjoy the show.
-
How anybody can think that all the pollution modern civlization has been dumping into the environment has had no real serious effect is mind boggling. Yes there is a natural cycle in the earth but are you telling me that all the pollution that we have thrown into the equation irrelevant. Isn't it reasonable to think that there are some different factors today than there were a few hundred years ago that cause climate change. We simply are not living in the same world as back then. That whole natural cycle thing drives me crazy.
-
That's right - nothing. Especially my country, the USA. And I hope I live to see the end of humanity, so I can *personally* kick every goddamn conservative's "Global Warming is a Myth" ass from here to hell. Can you imagine Bush surrounded by a million pissed-off people all chanting "You fucking killed the world, assbag!" while they do things to him I can't say because then the Secret Service would investigate me for threatening the President, which I am in no way advocating, just using such an image for illustrative purposes to drive home a satirical point regarding the tensions this debate raises. ***Disclaimer*** I am in no way affiliated with any terrorist organization, sleeper cell, or domestic private militia. I am not affiliated with any organized religion or political party. ***End of disclaimer***
-
Good article/Q%A, I'm interested in seeing this the more I read into it.
-
New ocean floor geological samples from the Arctic Ocean indicate that there were, long before human existence, significant sources of greenhouse gases/atmospheric warming elements that scientists previously weren't aware of. I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in alternate energy and conserve fossil fuels (simply because they're nonrenewable and we depend heavily on them), but this global warming = ecological disaster/ice age/flood of ages Roland Emmerich movie stuff continues to make me skeptical. Why is it that we Americans always need the threat of a big fucking catastrophe in order to be motivated to do the right thing?
-
Christopher3-To answer your question- the film points out that USA actually is one of the biggest contributors. China is more-but is less than per person. In other words- we do just a little bit less polution than china who has a HECK of a lot more people. If the US did reduce their output-it would lower greenhous effect. Also "New ocean floor geological samples from the Arctic Ocean indicate that there were, long before human existence, significant sources of greenhouse gases/atmospheric warming elements that scientists previously weren't aware of" That may be true- but thats not the point. The point is this When ever CO2 Levels rise- so does the globle temperature. We ARE contributing to the rise in temperature...it is our CO2 output that is doing it.
-
I was actually impressed by the way this film avoided hyperbolic scare tactics the likes of which are employed by Time Magazine, US News and World Report and sadly the initial ad campaign for this film. This is not a disaster movie. This is not a pre-apocalyptic horror flick by any means. Just a sober wake up call. One of the most interesting moments in the film came when Gore puts up a slide that shows different countries compare with regards to fuel efficiency standards and the US ranks in the middle below China. Then he shows a slide that shows the falling profits of GM and Ford compared to the rising profits of Toyota and Honda. The Japanese are beating us because the offer better made, fuel efficient vehicles and the American public are finally waking up from their smog induced fugue to realize that SUV
-
"...presentation in box office history"
-
Complete with sacraments, absolute truths, tithing, commandments, salvation, and (of course) heretic and non-believers. For the folks trying to argue data and historical context with the true believers in the great Global Warming (may we find sustainability, praise Kyoto), you might as well walk into the closest fundamentalist Baptist church and argue that Jesus Christ was actually a transexual woman named Louise and that God didn't actually create the universe because He only works on alternate Tuesdays. It is a matter of faith. Some zealots find evidence of Noah's flood and the parting of the sea in the most paltry of empiric evidence; as such, the Global Warming crowd (who, not coincidentally, share an apoclyptic vision of the world with most doomsaying fundamentalists, one where the End Times is always upon us) are always going to accept data that confirms their beliefs and deny data that does not, or even find the most questionable ways to view the data, in order to confirm their pre-ordained. If you wouldn't try to talk a faithful Jew or Christian out of their belief in God, then you probably shouldn't try to argue about global warming with a true believer. This is not about the film (which I have not seen, but probably will, based on the reviews) so much as my personal experience that it is futile to try and reason with folks who are looking forward to the death of humanity by (sorry, I shouldn't snicker at other people's religious beliefs, but: *snicker*) "global warming"! The End is Coming! Haven't you people see "Waterworld"?! And, in many ways it's sad, because people who aren't true believers are turned off by the Global Warming Faithful's zealotry and immunity to contrary data, yet there are good reasons to raise CAFE standards, practice fuel efficiency, invest in hybrid technology, etc (while there are also reasons to abandon local/regional gasoline reformulations, to be skeptical about ethanol as an alternative fuel, to understand fuel efficient gasoline usage is more important and valuable, and will be for a while, than hydrogen cars or fuel cells, based on the expense (monetary and environmental) of producing, instead of just (or rather than) consuming said alternative fuels. Environmentalism and conservation are valuable principles that, when practiced dilligently and advocated rationally, can have tremendous social and economic benefits. Unfortunately, the Religious Environmental movement is generally so zealous in their proselytizing and so enthusiastic in their persecution of heretics (and so prolific in their predictions of doom) that they will tend to "destroy the town to save it". The banning of the useful (and not carcinogenic) pesticide DDT, an act directly responsible for the malarial deaths of millions of 3rd world children, being but on example of the road to Hell being paved with environmentally pure intentions.
-
Water vapor. CO2, on the other hand, is 0.03 percent of the atmosphere, and is not as signficant a greenhouse gas as water vapor. The primary factor in global temperature is . . . the sun. And solar activity can vary in intensity, thus causing more variation in global temperature than we could cause if we all tried together. And such variations are not uncommon, as it is clear for the historic record that the planet gets globally warmer and colder over macrocycles, just as regions get warmer and colder seasonally, and temperature vary from day to day. Now: This has been a demonstration of why it's completely pointless to argue facts with apoclyptic fundamentalist true believers in any religion, including the First Church of the Environmentalist. Thank you for your time and attention.
-
As the only one who brought up "natural cycles," I'm assuming you were responding to me. Did you read my entire post? It doesn't sound like you did...sounds like you got as far as my natural cycles comment and then responded. Please read the whole thing and I hope you'll see that I in no way call our contribution "irrelevant." As far as the whole "natural cycles thing driving you crazy," that's just too bad. There is plenty of data to show that the earth itself contributes plenty to climate change without our help. In a way, I see that as STRENGTHENING the argument that humans need to change our ways, because it means that we are exacerbating a delicate situation. When I hear that the planet already creates these situations, and has for millions of years (and gasp! I believe that...and I'm a Christian, too!), then my response is, "Holy crap we need to stop making it worse."
-
Your wish may come true. http://tinyurl.com/z97ue
-
... Will surely save us from global warming! And gays to boot!
-
I don't know if humans are affecting the climate and I don't know if altering human activity can restore the climate. I think the economy is more important than the environment because with advanced technology we can survive whatever the environment throws at us.
Man has always had to adapt to the environment; It all started with clothing. It will end with space ships and other planets. If we crucify the economy for the sake of the environment we will cripple our ability to adjust our technology so that we can survive. No one knows what the next big environmental obstacle will be. If global warming can not be stopped, then a robust economy with advanced technology will be the answer. If the next environmental obstacle is something else then a robust economy with advanced technology will still be the answer. -
Dude...I know where you are coming from with the third party thing. The only problem I see in holding my nose and voting for Republicans is that the current neo-con variety (I have less of a problem with the Grand Old Party type conservatives) are war criminals, war profiteers, mass murders, and worse. If anyone has a grip on reality it is the neo-cons though. They understand who writes the checks...and they do what they are paid to do.
On a totaly unrelated thing...are you the Luscious who stared in a independent film called "Outerbanks" back in the 90's? -
lifted his entire anti-religion, anti-environmentalist screed from an essay that Michael Chriton has been giving for the last few years and which appears on his website. Humans have an instinctual religious nature. Should it be any surprise that an issue with this many social and emotional ramifications should not give rise to religious feelings. This is our planet we are talking about. The very nature world that more than likely gave rise to our earliest religions in the first place. It is only the most closed minded secularists who believe that not only all organized religion, but also all spirituality or morality or anything that attaches people to something greater than themselves must be bad. Michael Chriton appeared at last weeks Skeptic
-
... If they understand who writes the checks so well, then what is WITH the national debt ballooning up to 9 TRILLION? Is this just another Republican 'Fuck you, I got mines' movement?
-
you silly bastard. Conservatives can have all the technicalities they want. The house, the senate, whatever. What progress has hte COnservative wing of this country actually prevented int he last 50 years? What will they prevent? Gays WILL marry, stem cells WILL be researched, the seperation of church and state WILL be re-enforced as will abortion, art will continue to push the envelope further and further even on television, the environment WILL become a bigger and bigger issue as time goes on and alternative fuel sources will become more prevelant. All these things will occur, conservatives can have all the leadership positions they want but all the fucking conservatives int he world cannot and have not stopped progress. It's impossible. Conservatism stand in opposition to progress and it's a losing battle. Maintaining the status quo is now impossible in a country that has always changed with the times. SO good luck peddling your non-issues, history is against you.
-
I mean that they have pay masters. Of course they don't care what the deficit does. Their out of control spending is basically corporate welfare for oil businesses, pharma companies, the Saudis, and anyone else who will cut them a check.
-
Be careful what you define as progress. Others in history have been just a cavalier in what they called "progress," and look what happened. Not that I disagree with your premise...I think conservatives are afraid of change, and that to the nation's detriment, but we can't just say that everything they stand against is worth pursuing. Tomorrow we may approve stem cell research...but what will then keep us from harvesting embryos for anything and everything? What you describe is a slippery slope.
-
I think COnservatives are a good thing. "There is that famous line in Jurassic Park "You were so busy wondering if you could you didn't stop to think if you should." Conservatives slow progress very often to a level where we have time to stop and think about whether it's a good thing. They very often force introspection onthose issues. Unfortunately sometimes, as in environmental studies, they make us lose precious moments and even illegally (as in oil company cover ups of new technologies) keep progress from happening. It's good and it's bad. I just want them to acknowledge that ultimately they are ont he losing side of history, not that they have no place in it.
-
a hundred years from now, they'll be reading about us and point and laugh at how fucking stupid both sides were.
-
Just like we laugh at all those folks predicting a "second Ice Age" in the 1970's.
-
Where did you get the "Michael Chriton appeared at last weeks Skeptic
-
I think one of the big obstacles to getting the citizenry to adopt some personal responsibility on this issue is all the hypocrisy, especially on the left. Seems to me like most politicians want everyone else to change, but dont want to change themselves. Too few members of congress have traded in their SUV's for better gas mileage vehicles. Laura David gives fake tickets to SUV owners, but refuses to fly coach so she goes back and forth across the country in private jets that consume ridiculous amounts of fuel.
If more of our leaders led by example, I think more people would get on board.
-
They're called the Republican 'moderates' that claim to be conservatives. There is no such thing as a Republican majority with folks like McCain running around.
-
Exactly! All emotion and fear...no cool reasoned thinking. It's not that I don't believe global warming isn't happening...it obviously is. But that mankind... in the last paltry ONE HUNDRED years or so is capable of threatening the planet?? Please. George Carlin used to have a rant in which he scoffed about our ability to either "threaten" OR "save" the planet. How the earth experienced countless epochs of MULTIPLE ice ages, cataclysms, extinctions, tectonic upheavals, repeated over and over and over and over...LONG before we ever took our thumbs out of our butts and climbed down out of the trees. THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN THROW AT THE PLANET THAT IT HASN"T ENDURED A THOUSAND TIMES OVER. When the planet is done with us, it will "...shake us off like a bad case of fleas" he said. Classic bit. And so very true. AL Gore thinks the internal combustion engine is the "single greatest threat to mankind". BAH! The arrogance. If the earth is THAT fragile, we might as well pack it all in right now.
-
Back in the 1970's they predicted (among other things)that by now, the earth would be crippled with over population...mass famine, water shortage blah blah blah. I bet Al Gore still has THAT book on his shelf. In fact, population is dropping like a rock in Europe and China. The middle east and parts of Africa are booming, but thats about it. In 15 or so years, we'll all be looking back on this and saying "What the hell was THAT all about?"
-
Even through the *rate* of increase of the world's population may be slowing, momentum will carry it forward to somewhere between 9 and 10 billion most likely.
Current projections by the UN's Population Division, based on the 2004 revision of the World Population Prospects database [3], are as follows.////
Year Population (billions)
2010 6.8 / 2020 7.6 / 2030 8.2 / 2040 8.7 / 2050 8.9
Other projections of population growth predict that the world's population will eventually crest, though it is uncertain exactly when or how. In some scenarios, the population will crest as early as the mid-21st century at under 10 billion, due to gradually decreasing birth rates. //// I guess my question is, how well can the Earth cope with 10 billion people, which is where a lot of people think the global population will peak before starting to reduce itself? Well, I guess we'll see since barring accidents, most of us will probably be around to see it.
-
... as in, it'll still be there in 2050. I guess I mean "How well will the 10 billion people cope with each other?"
-
Global warming! No, global cooling! No... GLOBAL WARMING!! Lookit, going green ain't a bad idea. Sure, there's plenty of stuff we could get cleaned up. Few think this is a bad idea. But the thing is, it requires the rest of the world to cooperate. I bet we're WAY greener and cleaner than most other countries. Let's see Gore stop bashing the US during his visits overseas and let's see him talk about their contribution to a cleaner environment when he's over there. All Gore truly wants out of his little film is short-term to re-energize his political aspirations, and long-term more out of our paychecks to increase the size of government. They get half now. Why isn't that enough?
-
It was never accepted accepted scientificly that the earth was flat, or that the earth was the center of the solarsystem that's a lie (or ignorance) or your part.
-
Well, yes, and that's problem isn't it? It's only "them" who have to curtail their lifestyles for the common good never "us". Now, I'm waiting for the director and producers of AIT to reveal the environmental impact of their press tour. Hope they weren't riding too many private jets or gas guzzling SUVs...
-
Doesn't Malthus prove that it keeps growing exponen...exsponen...oh, you know what I mean?
-
No political aspirations here:
http://tinyurl.com/l4nd9
In the end, saving the environment doesn't make anybody any money. Saw both movies this past weekend. This second is a very good look at some very shady recent ongoings in Cali, not to mention the disservice done to the rest of the country as a result of some of the decisions that were made, especially when you think about how much it cost you to fill up your car's gas tank the last time you did. Some of what's broken is broken by choice, plain and simple.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts