interview from july 1.

[norecess]

(i spent 30 minutes trying to find those fucker's names asking every girl i knew...a lot goes into my jokes)

have you heard of google?  it's this great invention of the modern world.

Fortunately there still are some places that don't have the facility of internet; Girls are your Google over there. Isn't that so much nicer?

[CaptainPungent]

(i spent 30 minutes trying to find those fucker's names asking every girl i knew...a lot goes into my jokes)

have you heard of google?  it's this great invention of the modern world.

yeah, i tried by typing screamo and afro
that's how vague i was.

[Vcavallo]

Really? Google hey. Please tell us more.

[FartLips]

By the by, he never said so blatantly, "I invented the internet".

[Pringles]

I think Buzz refer to the nuts who believe in the HA.A.R.P project. A device made by the Pentagone to control weather and wage war with it. Stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp

[Kessel]

It is "time for a national oil change," said Al Gore with a sly wink in his voice. "That is apparent to anyone who has looked at our national dipstick."

This was one of the few moments of comedy in what was billed as a "major policy address" Monday by the former veep. In an uncharacteristically formal speech to students, faculty, and a throng of top reporters gathered in a New York University auditorium, Gore -- after a year spent chronicling the climate crisis in lectures, film, and print -- turned to the subject of solutions. He outlined a host of policy proposals both familiar and strikingly new, rarely interjecting quips of the sort that have consistently endeared him to audiences in recent months.

"My purpose is not to present a comprehensive and detailed blueprint [of future climate policy], for that is a task for democracy as a whole," intoned Gore, "but rather to try to shine some light on a pathway through this terra incognita that lies between where we are and where we need to go."

The pathway Gore described began with "immediately freezing [carbon dioxide] emissions and then beginning sharp reductions." Reminiscent of the nuclear freeze of the '70s, Gore's proposed carbon freeze "has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand," he argued. "It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead."

Standing against a stately backdrop of American flags -- gone were the flashy visuals that usually accompany his climate speeches -- Gore projected a decidedly more somber and serious persona than the exuberant, almost giddy character we've seen pumping his fists and cracking jokes as he roared around the world on his climate lecture circuit. It was a persona that, if you squinted just right, seemed almost ...

Yes, presidential. Indeed, Gore's protestations that he has no intention of becoming a 2008 presidential contender have been getting weaker. Add to that the recent news that Gore will be publishing a book next May entitled The Assault on Reason -- a meditation on the ineptitude of political leaders paralyzed by their "unwillingness to let facts drive decisions" -- and it's enough to drive the media to distraction.

Little wonder, then, that rumors have begun to circulate that the White House may announce a major new climate policy in order to steal Gore's gathering thunder. (If Karl Rove can convince Bush to turn on his buddy Michael Crichton, you know the Republican Party senses shifting winds.)

Despite its formality, Gore's speech focused on uplift: "Many Americans are now seeing a bright light shining from the far side of this no-man's land that illuminates not sacrifice and danger," he said, "but instead a vision of a bright future that is better for our country in every way -- a future with better jobs, a cleaner environment, a more secure nation, and a safer world."

Such effulgent optimism is new. The whole lecture, in fact, seemed a response to the most common criticism levied against Gore's climate presentations -- that they are too clouded with doom and gloom, failing to convey a hopeful, can-do message (despite his frequent observation that the climate crisis presents equal parts danger and opportunity).

With the exception of a mention at the outset of yet more evidence of rapidly melting polar ice caps, the speech focused entirely on solutions. In fact, it was an exhaustive laundry list of dozens of such solutions, with no shortage of wonky detail, and peppered with assurances to the tune of, "This is a major source of hope!"

Many we've heard before: so-called stabilization wedges, as outlined by Princeton professors Stephen Pacala and Rob Socolow, which would solve the climate crisis with an array of existing technologies; the "25 x '25" proposal from the agriculture community, which would dramatically expand the use of biofuels and renewable energy; increasingly affordable and effective solar panels, wind turbines, and green architecture; "flex-fuel, plug-in, hybrid vehicles" that can run on gasoline, biofuels, and electricity; and a decentralized electricity grid with smaller generators located closer to the points of use.

Also back, in vaguely retro fashion: Kyoto. Gore argued that the U.S. is obligated to play a lead role in developing a new global treaty on climate change. "Since the [Kyoto] treaty has been so demonized in America's internal debate, it is difficult to imagine the current Senate finding a way to ratify it," he said. "But the United States should immediately join the discussion that is now underway on the new, tougher treaty that will soon be completed. We should plan to accelerate its adoption and phase it in more quickly than is presently planned."

Some unexpected, outside-the-box proposals popped up as well. One he has been advocating "for the last 14 years," he said (to the surprise of many who remember no such proposal in, say, the 2000 campaign), would eliminate all federal payroll taxes -- Social Security and unemployment compensation included -- and replace the revenue with a pollution tax on CO2. "The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same," explained Gore. "It would be, in other words, a revenue-neutral tax swap. But instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage businesses from producing more pollution."

He also proposed a new Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association -- a wonky idea redeemed by a cute nickname, "Connie Mae" -- to help finance more efficient buildings and eventually zero-energy, zero-emission architecture. Builders often bypass efficient features like thicker insulation and better windows, Gore noted, because these investments elevate construction costs on the front end, even though they pay for themselves within a few years. "It should be possible to remove the purchase-price barrier for such improvements through the use of innovative mortgage finance instruments," he said.

Throughout the address, Gore's calls to action were couched in a thick layer of patriotism: "In order for the world to respond urgently to the climate crisis, the United States must lead the way. No other nation can ... Our natural role is to be the pace car in the race to stop global warming."

Could the U.S. shift from obstructionist to leader on global-warming policy? It sounds far-fetched, perhaps, but no more so than the notion that climate change -- once the exclusive obsession of environmentalists and climatologists -- could catapult a man once written off as a historical footnote back into the presidency.

--http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/41910/[/size]]--http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/41910/

Check this website out, it's nice.

[Mad Arab]

It's a dubious philosophy masked in pseudo science. Not much different than eugenics in the late 1800's -early to mid 1900's.  Natural occurances like volcanic eruptions put out more CO2 than we ever did during the Industrial Revolution. We know very little about climate change other than the fact we have 4 seasons. I'm not saying that we should not pursue technological advances, but to think we are headed toward oblivion if we do not drastically change our ways sooner rather than later, is nothing but fear mongering without any basis of reliable records. So the evidence does not convince me that we are the chief cause of it. The ozone hole was only just discovered in 1982. For all we know it could have been there for who knows how long even prior to the Industrial Revolution. 

[ManWithNoName]

True but all those suburban tanks aren't helping either.

I've said it before and i'll say it again unless you live in buttfuck nowhere and have to drive over fucking sanddunes, mountains, dirt roads, mudd, etc to get the work a SUV is fucking unnecessary.

Above all it's just a question of respect and responsability. You don't go over to your friends and throw trash all over the place, right? Then why do it on poor planet earth?

Here's just a few examples of how some people lack respect for the environment and are about as responsible as a 5 year old toddler. I regularly take walks in the woods or fields near my house. Cowards who are too lazy to call the city to ask where they can get rid of their paint, appliances, junk, etc. they just fucking dump it in the woods or in fields. That shit drives me fucking insane. It takes two fucking seconds to pick up a damn phone and talk to someone who'll give you all the information you need. They'll tell you where and when to bring your crap. 

Like joe I don't think we're heading for armageddon or "day after tomorrow" crap but that doesn't mean we can just treat our planet like shit and throw our junk everywhere.

I like my strolls in the woods. Please don't take them away from me.

[Mad Arab]

I agree with all you said, except the SUV part. Most of the people I see driving them have families and they use them for the same purpose as those who have minivans. Just because they are 4 wheel drive, SUV's should not be looked at as being unecessary. Granted there are those who do not have families who buy them for status symbols only and then the question comes up: what right do they have to buy an SUV? Well, it is a free country and if they want to spend all that money on fuel and what it takes to insure the luxury edition SUV's, then they can. Should the federal government stop them from doing that? I don't think the Fed should be allowed to do so nor would it be constitutional to legislate laws that would make that happen.

[Idlehanz]

I own an SUV.  I don't have a family.  I keep it now because I like to go camping.  I can pack all my gear in it, and then some.  I always pack out what I brought in and sometimes more.  Is my SUV a neccesity?  No.  But I like it and I can afford it.  I do what I can to keep from making a mess of this rock we're on, but I'm not going to stop driving my "suburban tank".

[deatheats]

We live in a fairly stable environments which not last long (geologically speaking).  A shift in temperatures by 20-30 degrees f. would be enough to create massive difficulties for the human race.  Don't kid yourselves we are hitching a ride and our time here is quite limited.  That being said we could, if we ever wise the fuck up, stop fighting over resources like some trampled gift shopper looking for the last cabbage patch doll and make something special out of our borrowed time.   I know that petroleum and other non renewable resources allow me to type the message I am writing but we could do it in a more intelligent way (everything on this planet is powered by the sun) which doesn't spawn global wars and leave the atmosphere filled with our leftover crap. 

[Mad Arab]

A shift in temperatures by 20 or 30 degree's would create massive difficulties for the human race? Variations in heat like this happens during seasonal changes. Specifically when comparing summer and winter. I don't know why you think you live on an eggshell but there are no overwhelming verifiable evidences that this world is heading for destruction (geologically or ecologically). I'm all for viable alternative fuels and energy, and I believe America will be the place where they will be created, it's on the horizon. But I hope you are not of the opinion that this would usher in a blissful, happy era that extends all over the world and the human race would be on the brink of an egalitarian golden age.

[Vcavallo]

if the temperature permanently shifted by 20 degrees in either direction the planet would be beyond fucked. 
the temperature change being discussed here is very different than seasonal temperature variations.  by the way, "season" is a relative term. think about equatorial seasons versus extremely far north seasons and you'll see what i mean.

we do live on an eggshell

[Lunica]

far north seasons? we have spring, summer, fall and winter like everyone else or are you talking about the north pole?

[Mad Arab]

You are free to think that. However is there any indication of convincing evidence that this is happening? No, because the 20-30 degree temperature change that deatheats is talking about is an extreme and unrealistic Day After Tomorrow situation. But like I said you are free to think that. I don't think that because the evidence that this is occuring or going to occur in a short period of time like in ten years or something is not there.

And we do not live on an eggshell. I'm not closing my eyes to this. I remain open minded. But I know fear mongering and an attempt of even more government control when I see it and that is what almost all of it is. Now you can have contempt for me if you want because I take this stance but I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. I can't control how you feel about me.