Al Gore Hasn't Ruled Out 2008 Run

While campaigning for an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore answered presidential aspiration questions on the Today Show this morning.

"I am not planning to run for president again," Gore said last week, arguing that his focus is raising public awareness about global warming and its dire effects. Then, he added: "I haven't completely ruled it out."

Does he mean it? Is a Gore-Obama ticket in the wings? What would a Gore run mean for Hillary? I continue to believe Obama is going to be a vice-presidential candidate, not the Democrats' nominee for President.

< Tom Tancredo Plans "Trip Abroad" to Miami | Jeff Skilling Gets Last Minute Stay of Prison Sentence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    boy (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    you really believe the nonsense you spout, don't you slado and jim? earth tone suits? now that is substantive, boy howdy! perhaps you two should be reporters for the MSM, talking about how boring gore is, discussing actual issues, instead of stammering incomplete sentences, and never actually answering a straight question, like your boy george.

    gore was right: about climate change, the war in iraq, among other things. last i checked, he had nothing to do with mr. clinton's love life. there is no "shaky science" about global warming jim, unless you're working for exxon. ask australians what they think, as they work on their 5th year of drought.

    all that said, for the very nonsense posted by jim & slado, gore shouldn't run. because, even though it is, in fact, nonsense, the MSM and the republicans will run with it, again. these would be the very same morons that brought us bush, who's been pretty much wrong from day one.

    given bush's history of total failure from birth, we all knew this, but darn, he'd be fun to have a beer with!

    i don't know that i'm particularly enthralled with obama as a v.p.; what's he done? well, um, uh, aside from being him................not much.

    hillary has her baggage, but so does anyone who's been in the public eye for any length of time, it goes with the territory.the question becomes: is that baggage too heavy to carry over the bar.

    i don't agree with every position she's taken, but overall, i'd rate her #1 in the presidential stakes, and i'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

    Believe what? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:32:46 AM EST

    I don't believe the nonsnese that Al Gore spouts.

    He and the fellow GW theorists have put out the theory not me.  The burden of proof is on them not me and so far IMHO they haven't met the smell test.

    I'm a skeptic.  Last time I checked science worked in a pattern of a theory being proven by facts and being able to predict similar results again and again.

    See gravity.

    Here's what we know.  Everytime the global warming crowd makes a prediction...worst Hurricane season, record heat etc, rising sea levels... it either doesn't pan out or doesn't live up to the hysterical predictions.

    I assume the melting ice shelf in 30years will follow suit.

    That non-believers are labled heritics and idiots sounds awfully familiar to "your either with us or against us" and not so much like science.

    See link above, that says it all from the skeptics perspective.


    Good point there slado (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    Everytime the global warming crowd makes a prediction... it either doesn't pan out or doesn't live up to the hysterical predictions.

    British scientist James Lovelock and his warning that catastrophic global climate change is both imminent and unstoppable:
    Within the next decade or two, Lovelock forecasts, Gaia will hike her thermostat by at least 10 degrees. Earth, he predicts, will be hotter than at any time since the Eocene Age 55 million years ago, when crocodiles swam in the Arctic Ocean.

    It would be easy to view this as just another kooky end-of-the-world theory, if it weren't for the history of some of Lovelock's other kooky theories -- like the time in the late '70s when he hypothesized that chlorofluorocarbons wafted high into the stratosphere would eat great big holes in the ozone layer, exposing first the polar regions and then the rest of the earth's surface to increasingly harmful ultraviolet radiation. What a nut.

    We don't need no stinkin' facts around here, right Slado? Or a track record. F*** the kids.

    cpinva... if you (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    you are gonna complain, please be accurate... The "earth tone suits" was a recommendation his campaign manager made because he was looking stiff.. She thought it important, you don't.  But hey, what does she know??

    Someone has to ask (none / 0) (#1)
    by Rick B on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:53:21 PM EST
    What is the possibility of a Gore/Clinton(Hillary) ticket?

    Zero (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:34:05 AM EST
    Gore/Clinton (Bill) on the other hand...

    Gore/Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by mreyn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    there won't be a Gore/Hilary..but Gore/Obama is working as I write.Cbama is doing a JFK circa 56, only this time it will score. Obama knows full well he is not in position to lead the ticket at this time. For lord's sake who's he beaten? Alan Keyes? All he's doing is pumping up the volume.

    Uh... (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:44:58 AM EST
    Eisenhower won in '56.

    What would a Gore run mean for Hillary? (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    IMO a Gore run would provide the best chance of defeating Hillary in the primaries and also would provide the country with a President that has by way of experience, intelligence and respect, the best chance of eradicating the disastrous policies of the Bush administration.

    Re: Gore believes in saving the Earth (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    Gore was prescient. For decades he has maintained that the Earth was teetering in the balance, even when doing so subjected him to ridicule from other politicians and cost him votes. By telling the story of climate change with striking clarity in both his book and movie, Al Gore may have done for global warming what Silent Spring did for pesticides. He will be attacked, but the public will have the information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from short-term special interests.
    Perhaps the country came close to having the leadership it needed to deal with a grave threat to the planet, but did not realize it.

    Jim Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    edger (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:43:34 AM EST
    .....and Gore has said for years that in just ten years the balance will tip and it will be too late..

    The question is, when did the ten year cycle start?

    2000? 1998? 1996?  Opppps

    And how many ten year cycles do we have, Sir Algore?

    And could you please give up flying around in private jets and go commercial like the rest of us?

    Goes to image, dude... Remember those earth tone suits, eh??


    Another insanity plea? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:51:06 AM EST
    Nobody will ever expect you to get this either, Jim.

    Al Gore the snake oil salesman (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:50:31 AM EST
    Whether you accept the argument that our planet is warming due to us or not Al Gore's position is untenible.    He has taken the most extreme position possible in order to get the most attention possible.   He is simply overstating the case and can't be trusted.

    Plus he's a terrible politician and a dolt that can't win a national election.

    Please nominate him because McCain or Gulliani will tear him up during a national election.


    overstating the case (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    Sure he is. Hard to see in the dark is it, slado?

    No ice in 30 years? (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    I'll gladly take that bet Edgar.

    Are you stating that it "will" happen or that it "might" happen and we should do everything possible to make sure it doesn't.

    According to Al Gore it's too late anyway so why bother.

    It's exactly these kinds of hysterical reports that make GW skeptics like myself laugh out loud because I know you don't really think it will happen so why do you link it?


    Go argue (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    with the US Geological Survey, Slado.

    Maybe you can answer the question Jim won't.

    "Why do you do this to yourself, anyway?"


    Do what? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:43:16 AM EST
    If you mean why am I here?  Well I enjoy the sparing and like to challenge my views.  Blogging with a bunch of yes men is boring in my opinion.

    Also it apears that cow flatualance is the main cause of GW.

    In the words of Chick-Fil-A "Eat more chicken"



    Never heard (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:46:45 AM EST
    the whistling sound, huh? ;-)

    You're wrong (none / 0) (#65)
    by rothmatisseko on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:13:01 PM EST
    Gore makes clear every time he speaks that he thinks "it's not too late."  You obviously haven't seen the film or listened to him speak on the many occasions he's made this point.  

    sorry, replied to wrong post, right poster (n/t) (none / 0) (#66)
    by rothmatisseko on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 07:13:45 PM EST
    edger - Following (1.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    men on white horses isn't my cup of tea, and that is exactly where Algore is. Worse, I believe he believes, and that is the most dangerous type of fanatic.

    I have given up trying to point out all of the nonsense Algore and the other climate change nuts spouse, limiting myself to ask questions such as, when did the 10 year cycle start? And are there multiple 10 year starts?

    So we have shaky science, and shakier results. Yet you so desperately want to believe that you jump to sign up.

    You are always chiding me about being "scared" of terrorists, having a "terrorist in my closet."

    It seems to me that you are the one frightened. Frightened of the facts that we must fight the terorists or die, and frightened to think that man can do nothing acceptable to alter the climate.

    And for one supposedly worried about loss of civil rights, you are ready to not just accept a huge loss of rights by letting the UN tell you how to set your theromstat and when you can drive... you are ready to run forward and embrace it.


    Dark horse (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:33:19 AM EST
    Following men on white horses isn't my cup of tea....

    Duh, don't you think we know that already now? You always like the black horse with a Darth Vader type figure on it. Is it the raw evil power that turns you on? Or is it all that glorious death and destruction that you love?

    Those for anti-war greens are way to faggy or "french" to quote a recent euphemism, for you, eh?

    You like the killers, real men, like Rove, Cheney, Bush, don't you.

    Try wearing a dress sometime. It may help you get in touch with all that built up and hateful repression and bloodlust.


    Squeaky's Smear Machine (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    Anti-war greens? Faggy? French? Wear a dress? Anti-gay?

    squeaky, what is your point???

    Are you okay?? Oh wait, I remember.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    In the meantime, you provided no answer to my question regarding the 10 year time frame.

    No surprise there. You don't know. But then true believers never need facts.


    hahaha (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    I love it when you bring up that lovely quote about Rove. It means you have no argument and are pinned in a corner.....something you obviously adore.

     Why else would you bring your wingnut blather to TL?


    Keep it up (none / 0) (#47)
    by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    Every time I see you refer to "Squeaky's smear" I'm going to point out that you are terrified of naked people.  It's about as relevant as your use of the "smear."  

    Yep Jimmie, that's a problem, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    Worse, I believe he believes, and that is the most dangerous type of fanatic.

    And, I was pretty sure Slado couldn't miss a point as badly as you can, too. But I'm not always right....


    Just what is it we're supposed to remember? (none / 0) (#45)
    by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    You even mangle the earth tones into an argument against global warming.  I guess earth tones and earth are kind of similar to you PPJ.

    Wolf flatly denied that she'd ever offered any advice about wardrobe:

    HENNEBERGER: Contradicting reports from within the Gore camp, [Wolf] also said she had not been telling [Gore] how to dress, either: not a single fashion tip, or even so much as a "Nice tie, Mr. Vice President."

    She offered a similar denial on This Week. Gore also denied the point, saying his wife picked out his clothing. According to Wolf, the pleasing tale about those "earth tones" had--alas!--simply been false.

    But Wolf's denial had no effect on the spreading story. The tale that Naomi Wolf told Gore to wear earth tones was being flogged throughout the press. Pundits simply loved the tale, which let them recite a favorite point--Al Gore doesn't know who he is. One pundit after another recited the highly pleasing point. As we'll see, Wolf's denial was almost never mentioned as one "reporter" after another recited the earth tones as fact.

    Indeed, the "earth tones" tale is a brilliant example of the way the modern press creates spin. In fact, there was never any real evidence that Wolf advised Gore to wear earth tones. The story started with a single "speculation"--a "speculation" which never seems to have been confirmed. But so what? Instantly, the "speculation" was accepted as fact, and pundits raced to recite the story, adding pseudo-psychiatric claims about what the unproven "fact" meant. When Wolf denied the pleasing "fact," her denial was almost never noted.

    Daily Howler

    gore, obama, hillary (none / 0) (#6)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    If Gore runs it will give the nomination to obama--gore and hillary will split the votes of people who don't mind candidates with lots of baggage.

    If Obama goes for VP he'll be doing an Al Gore as VP for eight years, and look what happened to Al Gore.

    I guess no one on this site would have voted for Abraham Lincoln of Illinois either--he also had little experience and "never beat anyone".

    re: Lincoln (none / 0) (#7)
    by qwerty on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:11:25 PM EST
    I haven't looked into this comparison at all yet (and I don't have a horse in the race yet), but my first thought is that whatever Lincoln and Obama have in common, it's as important, if not more important, to compare social and political climates in the US during the two elections.  What Americans are looking for and/or drawn to may be very different, or, they may be very much the same.

    And really, I just don't even know that it's possible to compare any election form the 1800's to a modern election, given the impact that the evolution of communication has had on elections-- from the speed with which news travels to the fact that everyone knows what the candidates look like.

    So, I guess I'm going to go do a little research now.


    No mulligans (none / 0) (#9)
    by Hermes on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:28:13 AM EST
    Gore and Kerry both whiffed on Republican election fraud.  Hillary whiffed on health care reform and teamed with Gore to enable Bill the Sex Addict, who knocked the bar further down and paved the way for Bush the Junkie.  Not one of them deserves a mulligan. Obama has little to show for his two years in the Senate.  He has no chance until at least 2016, and  even then, only gets greenlighted if racism has shriveled.

    Hillary will (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:58:59 AM EST
    win the nomination and run in 2008. There's no stopping her now. If the Demos wanted another candidate they should have never elected her the first time. Money, friends and power count.

    Gore won't try for the nomination. At some point someone will set him down and explain the real world to him.

    Obama may give it a go. He won't get past Nebraska. No experience and and when he starts facing a hostile press, he'll fade.

    A year ago I would have said that Hillary couldn't win because she has well above 50% negatives, and people vote against, not for.

    Now, I don't know. After this midterm it appears that the MSN has been successful in carrying enough water for the Demos to convince the public that national security doesn't matter.

    So it will be Rudy vs Hillary a NY vs NY match.
    And given the toughness of both, the hardest fought election in years.

    Gore (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    Q. So is it fair to say that you think global warming is the most important issue of all -- ahead of, say, the war on terror?

    A. That is certainly the way I think about it, and that is the way the scientists [who study climate change] think about it. It is certainly a challenge to the moral imagination because it is so big and so threatening. It is the issue. If we choose not to act, the consequences would be unthinkable. We need to awaken people to how high the stakes are. We have everything we need to solve the issue except the will to act -- but that, too, as the movie points out, is a renewable resource.


    Yeah, funny. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:35:18 AM EST
    As long as it doesn't affect you personally, why should Gore or anyone else be concerned about your kids or grandkids? You won't be around to have to deal with it  after all, so f*** the kids, right?

    Makes perfect sense to me, Slado.

    I agree - let's definitely agree to disagree.

    slado (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:27:42 PM EST
    being legitimately skeptical is one thing, being stupid quite another. the only real "skeptics" are paid by the same companies who's profits depend on producing those items causing the problem, hardly objective.

    a good analogy would be those scientists, in the pay of tobacco companies, being "skeptical" about the link between tobacco use and various health problems.

    while many scientists may disagree on the extent of global warming, no legitimate scientist argues that it isn't occuring, none. to even argue that it's not happening shows a complete, willfull ignorance of all the research done over the past 30 years on the subject, not to mention the ever widening hole in the ozone layer.

    or, are you going to claim that isn't real either?

    you may not believe gore, but what you believe has little to do with reality. the reality is that we are having an adverse impact on the planet's environment.

    i'm certain a lot of people in hiroshima didn't believe in the atom bomb, they were vaporized all the same.

    There is a third category (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    of skeptics too, who are not just legitimatly skeptical, or even neccessarily just stupid (though they may very well be).

    They are the wilfully obtuse ones like slado and ppj here today, cpinva, who either won't read or just plain cannot comprehend the information presented to them, and figure they know better than scientists from places like NASA and the USGS.

    They don't ask for info that will pass some undefined "smell test", they ask only to keep the argument going to let them remain in denial. Trolls, in other words.


    To them... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:36:33 PM EST
    ...why should Gore or anyone else be concerned about their kids or grandkids? They won't be around to have to deal with it after all, so f*** the kids.

    They'll never have to look them in the eye. Not that they ever could anyway.


    How? (none / 0) (#38)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    What is Al Gore's idea on what to do about global warming. I'm fairly convinced that it is an issue b/c I took geology and meteorology classes in college. It could potentially be an enormous disaster, but all I've ever heard Al Gore talk about is how bad global warming could be. I've never heard any proposals about what to do to slow/stop it and return the earth's average temp back to it's average.

    Also, just for the sake of knowing, in geology classes back in my college days, we talked about average temperatures as far back as the ice ages, and it seems that my professor said that there has only been a difference of about 3-4 degrees  celcius in global temperature averages over the whole span of the recorded and estimatable history of temps. Does anybody know anything about that or know where I could find a website? b/c I cant find it on google and wanted to know if that was right. I have found a couple of links to some temp pattern research since about 1400 but cant find anything farther back than that.


    Do you guys (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    ever even click any of the links I and others give you? Including the ones today.? In this thread? Or even look around for answers? Obviously not.

    If you had, you wouldn't be asking things like: "What is Al Gore's idea on what to do about global warming"


    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    You just hide them so well :)

    Stupid or skeptic? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:01:53 PM EST
    I don't believe.  Calling me names won't make me.  

    The issue is not a closed one.  There is a legitimate argument against GW theory and that the prescribers to this theory are so offended that anyone would even challenge them shows how weak their argument is IMHO.

    Am I just supposed to believe it on faith?  

    Am I supposed to ignore the Al Gore's of the world when they are wrong, like they were about the last hurricane season?


    Am I supposed to ignore the scientist who don't believe because edgar and cpniva say that they are shrills for Exxon when their experts are shrills for goverment agencies and grants?

    I'm no lawyer but in the lawyering buisness I believe this is called a "battle of experts" where both sides have "experts" give facts and figures that directly conflict eachother.   What winds up happening is the jury either believes one or the other or simply uses common sense.

    I've heard the experts and commons sense tells me the big yellow ball in the sky is what determines if it's warm or not.  


    The issue is not a closed one. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    For you it obviously is.

    Closed (none / 0) (#69)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:15:56 AM EST
    I'm closed because of the over the top predictions.  Your link shows me the global scare crowd is batting .100 on average.

    However if the science turns into science again instead of political pandering and scare tactics I'll take a listen.

    But when I learn that the media has gone through a cycle of scare tactics over the past 100 years I just can't get it out of my head that this is round 4.

    Fire and Ice


    Junk science (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    National Geographic
    Photo in the News: Arctic Ice Melting Rapidly

    September 14, 2006--The rate of ice loss in the Arctic is accelerating rapidly, scientists say.

    According to data from NASA's QuikSCAT satellite, between 2004 and 2005 the Arctic lost an unprecedented 14 percent of its perennial sea ice (shown in white)--some 280,000 square miles (725,000 square kilometers), or an area the size of Texas.

    Perennial ice remains year-round and has a thickness of ten feet (three meters) or more. That ice was replaced with seasonal ice 1 to 7 feet (0.3 to 2.1 meters) thick (shown in pink), which is much more vulnerable to melting in the summer.

    Since the 1970s summer ice in the Arctic has reduced at a rate of 6.4 to 7.8 percent per decade, the researchers write in the September 7 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. This suggests ice loss may now be occurring up to 18 times more quickly.

    Natural Resources Defense Council
    Global Warming Puts the Arctic on Thin Ice

    Answers to questions about the Arctic's shrinking ice cap and its global significance.

    1.) Why are global warming specialists watching the Arctic so closely?
    2.) What kinds of changes are taking place in the Arctic now?
    3.) How does this dramatic ice melt affect the Arctic?
    4.) Will Arctic ice melt have any effects beyond the polar region?
    5.) Can we do anything to stop global warming?

    Gore Unveils Global-Warming Plan
    Cutting Emissions, Restructuring Industry and Farming Urged

    Bad link above..... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:00:57 PM EST
    New Publishing Rules Restrict Scientists (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    December 13, 2006
    WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, the latest agency subjected to controls on research that might go against official policy.

    New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
    At the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists and advocacy groups alike are worried about closing libraries that contain tens of thousands of agency documents and research studies. "It now appears that EPA officials are dismantling what it likely one of our country's comprehensive and accessible collections of environmental materials," four Democrats who are in line to head House committees wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson two weeks ago.

    Fiction (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:38:49 PM EST
    Michael Crichton, on the other hand a science fiction writer is embraced by this Admin. Why support science when fiction supports your views?

    I remember about a year ago (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:42:03 PM EST
    reading about the closing down of the EPA libraries and destruction of documents and records by bushco. I think I posted something about it here... I'll try to find it again.

    Bookburning is an old trick... it was quite popular around the beginning of the last dark ages.


    And non-fiction (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:59:09 PM EST
    Bush Budget Stops Funding for EPA Libraries, Electronic Catalog
    WASHINGTON, DC, February 10, 2006 (ENS) - Under President George W. Bush's proposed budget, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would shut down its network of libraries that serve its own scientists as well as the public, according to internal agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national association of government employees in the natural resources agencies.

    In addition to the libraries, the agency will pull the plug on its electronic catalog which tracks an estimated 50,000 unique documents and research studies that are available nowhere else.

    Under the Bush budget, $2 million of a total agency library budget of $2.5 million will be lost, including the entire $500,000 budget for the EPA Headquarters library and its electronic catalog that makes it possible to search for documents through the entire EPA library network. These reductions are a small portion of the $300 million in cuts the administration has proposed for EPA operations.
    "Access to information is one of the best tools we have for protecting the environment," said Ruch, calling the cuts the "epitome of penny wise and pound foolish." "By contrast, closing the Environmental Protection Agency libraries actually threatens to subtract from the sum total of human knowledge."

    Slado (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    I don't know how you get 'political pandering' out of  NASA doing science that turns up trends and conclusions you don't like, but whatever floats yer boat I guess.

    Seems to me they want all the funding they can get, and would be slamming global warming as 'junk science' as you describe it.

    That is, if their studies could be twisted that far.

    I doubt you've even read the article(s). Or ever even looked for, or at, any real research. Awful dark in there?


    Gore? Again? Please NO (none / 0) (#34)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    Gore will put everybody to sleep and they'll mess around and sleep through voting. He's not very, I guess, peoplesy (I've resorted to making up words now). He's incredibly hard to listen to b/c of his subject matter "global warm...blah blah blah monotone blah." (and now I have no idea what he said because I fell asleep with my hand in the Cheetos bag) I think he maxed out his chances in 2004.

    H. Clinton is seen by too many as an extremist and she's really scary. I'm almost scared to not support her b/c she'd come find me and tear off my arms Janet Reno style. She seriously does have a really good chance.

    Obama, IMHO, will get some support from sections of the African American community who've not voted before. I think he'd do great everywhere except the deep south. In the deep south, I think the engrained 'good ole boy' mentality may be strong enough to keep him out, but if he can appeal to the working class in the south and the African Americans who might be on the fence or who dont usually vote, he might be ok in the south too. Maybe an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket would give the Dems the best chance.

    Peacrevol (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Gore will put everybody to sleep... He's incredibly hard to listen to b/c of his subject matter "global warm...blah blah blah monotone blah.

    Is that your criteria for choosing leadership? You want someone who is not "boring"? You want someone who won't tell you things you find hard to hear or just don't want to hear?

    Would you prefer more glitz, less substance? To make it easier to swallow?

    How about a movie star and a creationist?

    They can go by their gut. Or talk to god through their fillings. Global Warming? Whazzat???


    Well, (none / 0) (#42)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    It's just harder to absorb what the guy's saying when he does not present it well. People tend to listen with the same enthusiasm with which the presenter speaks. If he's up there mumbling about something, people are less likely to be as concerned about it as maybe they should be. It really doesnt look like he's all that concerned about it due to the lack of inflection. That sort of thing will hamper his ability to lead his country and relate to other leaders. I mean, let's look at it this way, Bush beat him and he can hardly string a sentence together, but he's fun to listen to. For the record, I didnt vote for Gore the first time, and I didnt vote for Bush either. Didnt vote for Reagan or Bush, Sr.

    The greatest ideas in the world dont amount to a hill of beans if you cant have the conviction to convince others. His monotone voice makes it look like he lacks conviction of what he's saying.

    What I want in a leader is someone w/ a substantial message and good ideas who can give a speech and leave the listeners with a sense of 'wow he made some good points. now i should go research that'. I dont want to vote for somebody just b/c the Democratic or Republican party thinks that he/she gives them the best chance to put their party in the whitehouse.


    Tough. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    It's just harder to absorb what the guy's saying when he does not present it well.

    You know of any easy jobs that pay well?

    When you buy food what's important? The contents? Or the package?


    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#46)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    You know of any easy jobs that pay well?

    I'm not sure the reason for that question but I'll amuse you...
    ever hear of a banker complaining about his pay? or his hours? How 'bout a real estate professional? stock brokers? - easy high paying jobs are out there. what's your point?

    When you buy food what's important? The contents? Or the package?

    well, to use your analogy or metaphor or whatever, let's say that the contents are inside of a brown paper bag. Let's further assume that your paper bag has gotten wet and cant hold the food any more. both can be equally important. what you should look for is good groceries in a good bag. to me, al gore is an extremely wet paper bag trying to get the groceries home.


    C'mon peacrevol (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    It's just harder to absorb what the guy's saying when he does not present it well.

    So what if it's hard to listen. It's understanding what he's trying to get across that is the payoff.

    Listening is hard sometimes. Especially if you're hearing something uncomfortable.

    You know of any easy jobs that pay well?


    So....If it's harder to listen (none / 0) (#52)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:53:00 PM EST
    Ok edger...let's pretend for a little while.

    Let's pretend that you have never heard of Al Gore or knew any of his positions. you're flipping through your tv, eating cheetos, and you see him on the pres debate and you stop to see what he's talking about. You're by no means on the edge of your seat...hell you didnt even remember if they were going to do a debate this year. You planned to vote, and you usually vote republican, but you're on the fence. (remember we're pretending here)

    so you watch a few minutes of the debate and hear Al Gore say a few words on global warming and you've never paid much attention to global warming before. Al Gore is up there preaching about it and trying his best to convince you that it's of utmost importance, but it sounds like blah blah blah b/c he's not in the pound the fist parts of the speech yet. What are the chances that you're going to keep watching this guy talk about something that you dont understand in a completely monotone voice?

    He'll put people off b/c of his inability to present relevant material and I dont want that to happen in an extremely important meeting with high ranking govt officials of other nations.


    I get the picture (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by aw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    you're flipping through your tv, eating cheetos

    very clearly of where you're coming from.


    Hell yeah (none / 0) (#78)
    by peacrevol on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    Cheetos are the SH!*

    Right... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    Is that a reason? Or an excuse?

    You know what he's talking about.


    OK (none / 0) (#55)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    But if he's trying to get me to be concerned and do something about it, he'll have to get me to listen so that he can convince me that he's presenting a good case. The fact of the matter is, he's easy to tune out and if he's talking about something that i dont know about, he's hard to listen to. If he's talking about something I dont want to hear, he's easy to tune out.

    You have kids? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:07:39 PM EST
    Anybody you know have kids?

    You don't need Gore or anyone else to get [you] to be concerned and do something about it.

    You know about it. Take a look at your kids....


    Come on man (none / 0) (#59)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    Youre miles and miles away from the point. The point is not whether I'm concerned about it as much as it is whether Al Gore can convince the nation to be concerned about it enough to vote for him and support his ideas. Yeah it's an important issue, but try telling that to Bubba the shade tree mechanic from Alabama. Or Tex Johnson the oil tycoon from Texas. Or Big Mike the eighteen wheel rig driver from Louisiana. Or Jake the steel mill worker from Pittsburg. etc etc etc

    Also, perhaps if his biggest concern is global warming, his best platform might not be as president. Maybe he could best serve that cause from another position. Probably not as a movie maker though...


    The point? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:35:20 PM EST
    The point is that we'd better figure out we each do about it, on our own little levels, or there won't be any bubbas or tex johnsons or jakes left.

    There is a character named Ivan in Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich". He died wondering, "What if my whole life has been wrong?"

    What if.


    Right (none / 0) (#63)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    we'd better figure out we each do about it, on our own little levels, or there won't be any bubbas or tex johnsons or jakes left.

    Agreed. But I dont think Al Gore as president will be effective at doing both the global warming education of the masses and president at the same time. He'd spin his wheels if he ever did make it as president.


    Peacrevol (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    What is Al Gore's idea on what to do about global warming.

    Results 1 - 10 of about 1,650,000 for gore's solution.

    Jeeze, I'm worn right out. I had to type TWO whole words into google to find some answers to my question, pea.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#54)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    I found that shortly after I submitted the question. Perhaps I wouldnt have had to search if when Al Gore talks I could get past "Hi, I'm Al Go..."

    excuses (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    I have to get some work done today. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:09:49 PM EST
    C U ;-)

    Retail stock broker (none / 0) (#60)
    by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    is not an easy job.  Hours of cold calling for years before you can relax a bit.  The good ones have a gift for it, but I wouldn't call it easy.  One of my brothers is one and he has the gift.  He can even sell me anything (except Republicanism).

    Of course (none / 0) (#62)
    by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    it would be an easy job if Bush and the conservatives got their way and privatized Social Security.

    The deep south (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    Hillary has the same problem as Obama in that respect, southerners will be more resistant to a female president.  

    We don't generally vote Democrat down here anyway.  Obviously, whoever the Dems run will want to pick up some once-red states, but realistically it won't be from the deep south.


    I agree (none / 0) (#48)
    by peacrevol on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    I wonder if the resistance to the female pres idea would be as centralized in the south as racism. and which will have the smallest negative affect? That's a tough thing that the dems are going to have to figure out if Obama and Clinton arent on the same ticket.

    Gore (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    Then, he added: "I haven't completely ruled it out."

    I hope not. A boring president would be much more exciting than this.

    Cut to the chase.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    Does it matter?...lets cut to the chase and vote on a ballot marked D or R and call it a day like we do every 4 years.

    I'm holding my support for the first candidate that doesn't pledge allegiance to the DNC or GOP and lobbyists.

    Gore only looks and sounds cool when he isn't running for or holding office.  If he ran the party would over-starch him stiff again.


    Please put links in html format (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:31:26 PM EST
    Slado, use the buttons to post your links in html format.  They are skewing the site.  Had to delete one.

    HTML (none / 0) (#68)
    by Slado on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:10:19 AM EST
    Sorry, I'll try to remember to do that in the future. How's this? Junk Science

    Who funds JunkScience.com? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    I'm curious and couldn't find it anywhere.  And that's the thing, bud, virtually the only people disagreeing with the mass of climate scientists are those who have a financial interest in continuing to pollute.  The people warning about GW are not doing it for financial gain, or are you going to irrationally claim they are?  The big money is to be had in continuing the destructive status-quo.  Your failure to even acknowledge this obvious truth gives me serious pause when addressing your "arguments".

    Although, the economic benefits of renewable energy and cleaning up pollution are eternal, since we we need and have them forever.  Fossil feuls are finite, and are making the planet more finite every day -- along with the idiocy of humans, like you and me and all of us, who can't get their sh*t together because of selfishness and laziness.

    Remember how the establishment treated Gallileo?  That's how the American establishment, the real power and money, are treating climate scientists raising the alarm.

    The world is flat and we like it that way.


    The big industry money behind junkscience.com (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:19:16 PM EST
    Okay, a little googling and I found out more about who funds the site.

    JunkScience.com is just that, junk.