An inconvenient truth- Mr. Gore, it's time to let us draft you.

After watching his movie yesterday, it's become clear as glass that he could indeed be our final hope. According to the facts, stats, charts, and trends he's been telling audiences about these past years, unless there's an immediate sea change worldwide the human race is doomed. Literally.

The republicans will not work to stop the madness- indeed, they seem to be bent on wiping away the few safeguards that remain in place. For reasons of money. FAST money. Fuck the following generations. Fuck the future suffering of the human race. Fuck you. Fuck me. Fuck us all.

Please, Mister Gore. You're intelligent. You're committed to the right thing. You're aware of the stakes. Now it's time to commit yourself to taking the final step. Please let us draft you, sir. It's time. Even if you may think it an inconvenient truth.

Please. The clock is ticking.

You are right. We need Mr. Gore to be involved in this government.

:bounce: :thumbsup: :hi:

gore's negatives are discouragingly high, and I don't believe people want to look back, something that would inevitably occur should he run. Nor do I believe that our only hope for humanity's survival is one particular politician

win, he already did. And that was before the country realized just how good they had it. A figgin monkey would win over the Bush cabal for crying out loud. Yes, the Bush cabal. Get ready for Pres. Jeb.

Does anyone really think this group is going to allow ANYONE who is not one of them to win the Presidency. GMAB

does not mean he will win in 2008, and he should have creamed bush. The truth is he was not a great campaigner; in fact his campaign fucked up six ways from Sunday, and I'll never forget watching the debates with about 15 other people. We were all sobered by the half assed job he did. I like Gore a lot. I wish he''d been President the last 5+ years, but I don't think he'll get the nomination if he runs. He reminds people too much of a painful election.

If he campaigns and doesn't let the dem elite "market" him like in 2000, he'd win by such a land slide that even the diebold machines couldn't fix it for the fascists.

It's just my idea. It could be wrong.

But the GOP played their moves on Gore. They couldn't repeat them. They would have to invent new ones. Gore has experienced their dirt, and would be ready to deal with them.

On the other hand, I can see someone like Clark who would fight like a tiger.


At any rate, I think Gore would be more aware of how the media operates, now that he's seen it. After all, he is a journalist.

Also, it would depend on whom he pics as a partner.

Well, this post certainly doesn't belong here. This could be a book of comments. I'm just posting between lunch and going outside. But I think Gore could be a strong contender. I do not think it would be looking back. But I think you are smart in pointing this out. I would hope that it would not be true. We can't afford to lose.

He was after all, elected to the presidency in 2000. You know the rest of the story. I don't see Gore running again as "looking back" a bit, but as the wise thing to do.

and he should have beaten the bejeezus out of bush in 2000. It shouldn't have been nearly as close as it was. Lest you forget, he didn't even carry his own state.

and was given bad advice to 'blend in' instead of being himself. The DLC steered him very wrong and he was foolish not to take help from his ever-popular former boss. I think he has every chance in the book to win, will be seen as a strong and smart leader and is ever so much more articulate than poor John Kerry. I think he learned from his mistakes from 2000. I for one, am hoping desperately that he will run.

*edit for using the wrong word!*

The recent incumbent VP elections have been close (Nixon-Kennedy, '60 & Nixon-Humphrey, '68) with the exception of Dukakis-Bush '88. Dukakis has admitted he ran a bad campaign, starting way ahead in the polls, but failing to respond to Willie Horton, etc.

At to Gore-Bush 2000, Gore started way behind in the polls (about 20 points in March 1999). If Gore should have won easily, he would have started way ahead, not way behind. Incumbent VPs historically have a very hard time getting elected. Before Bush 41 the last time was 1836 (Van Buren, if memory serves). After eight years of Coca-Cola, people want to vote for Pepsi & vice versa. That is presidential politics 101.

So, unless you can come up with some compelling arguments, I have to respectfully disagree with that old canard that Gore should have won handily in 2000.

As to high negatives in the general public, I agree that is a concern, as is continued MSM hostility. On the other hand, Gore's image and positive/negative numbers are in a state of flux right now due to the tremendous success of the movie. I saw it tonight in KC and people applauded. Gore is taking the MSM out of the equation and appealing directly to the people. Old-fashioned southern populism in a 21st century bottle!

if this new improved Al Gore steps up and more people start seeing him. He needs to stop joking around (lindsay lohan silliness) and seriously start addressing the mess Bush is leaving this country.

My son in college tells me, kids don't like Al Gore - and I say "why" - He can't name one damn reason. They know nothing about Al Gore, and don't like him - that's stupid.

But "cool" = "war-mongering", so Republicans are "cool" and Dems are "wimps".

Nor do I believe that our only hope for humanity's survival is one particular politician

;-)

so then you go and make a thread about how Clark is the only one who can win in 08. :rofl:

Poor devotees, can never see their own inconsistencies.

Julie

Are you talking about this thread by Cali?:

"It won't be Gore, Clinton or Kerry"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1455044&mesg_id=1455044

Here is how Clark is mentioned in the OP of that thread:

"Clark, if he runs a much better campaign than last time, has a shot, Mark Warner does, and though I know DUers don't want to hear this, Bayh, depending on the vigor of his campaigning, also has a shot. My one exception to the no retreads theory, is Edwards. He endeared himself to dem voters, and has a clear message on which to build."

Clark was mentioned as one of 4 count them, 4 Democrats that Cali thought might win in 2008. One of 4, not the only one, and that is only if Clark "runs a much better campaign than last time".

Is that what you mean by a Clark devotee starting a thread about how only Clark can win in 2008? Julie I think you are becoming obsessed with Clark supporters. You dragged Clark supporters into that discussion also from out of left field. If anything, I think YOU are the one who can not see your own inconsistencies. The identified Clark supporters on Cali's thread noted that Gore is one of the Democrats we can actively support for 2008. Can you please just go about your business of supporting Al Gore without always having to throw a jab at Clark supporters?

If you are talking about some other thread instead, I apolgize in advance, and can you kindly point me to it? Meanwhile, do you want me to start pointing out all the threads started by Gore devotees claiming only Gore can win in 2008? That is what I am talking about when I noted that you do not see your own inconsistencies. You have no problem with that type of devotion.

inquiring minds want to know. better yet who do you support

won in 2000. Further, in light of the terrible criminal direction that the thuggish Republican administration has led us, a man such as Mr. Gore looks all the more attractive now. American is very hungry for some honest, intelligent, courageous and caring leadership. Mr. Gore most definitely fills those needs. However, we have other great possible leaders such as Senator Feingold and others.

I don't necessarily agree that he is the only one who could lead. But, among the potential candidates, I think he would be the best choice.

Who do the Republicans have to run, Jeb, McCain?

you keep repeating the msm mantra about Gore - the more its repeated the more it's believed -
instead of focusing on negatives ( which I believe are artificially constructed by the right)keep repeating this

"Go and see the movie - for your children and their children's sake! NOW!!"

He could win....I have my doubts that he would run...but I think he would accept a draft....and I think he would win......I don't think it's looking back..it's looking forward and getting out of this mess.....the problem is I believe this group of thugs....have amassed all this power and they will be damned if they are going to give it up....so they will cheat again.....I believe in 2000 that they were prepared to do everything in their power to get the white house....no democrat could have won..... their hatred of clinton only fueled their desire to get the white house....unfortunately for gore it was damned if you do damned if you don't...any way he did win in 2000.... of course this is just my opinion.

Was it Tipper last week who said if Al is asked/drafted to run, it changes the whole equation? (paraphrased)

And that she is behind whatever he decides?

it was Kos on MTP last weekend that said if Gore decided to run it changed everything in the current 2008 Dem nomination race.

real elections anymore. I don't think I could handle witnessing a repeat of 2000 and I could never ask Gore to go through that againg.

:cry:

running against and have a genuine fight plan for the inevitable theft.

Gore couldn't beat the stupidest man ever to run for the office, he certainly won't be able to beat a real candidate.

Why do we insist on supporting losers???

Even with the corporate controlled media, GORE WON!!!!!!!!

The Dems could run Jesus Christ in an Uncle Sam suit and he wouldn't "win"!!!!!

How the Heck are we ever to educate the public on the state of our election system if we the supposed informed ones are still in such a state of denial?

He has more integrity in the tip of his little finger than any other politician in Washington has in their entire body.

wheels putting forth the well known losers (except for Clark-Hillary or John Kerry are not trustworthy) and announce late (with veep already picked, of course). Condi could run on her 'perpetual lying platform'--all the Dems have to do is keep showing (in EVERY AD that airs) her disasterous senate hearing testimony on pre-9-11 intel: "Bin Laden Determined to attack U.S..." you know the rest...
If Gore could keep it all natural (like he is now)and relax, like: The choice is yours America, you've been through the worst-want more of the same? Vote Repub OR vote for me.

Gore's Victory
By Robert Parry -- November 12, 2001
<http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html>

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide.





Al Gore did not win in 2000 "as far as the popular vote count" - He won period. Popular vote count and electoral college had *all* votes in Florida been objectively handcounted using any standard re: chads.

Media Matters: Barone repeated 2000 Florida recount falsehood
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200502220004>

U.S. News & World Report senior writer and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics Michael Barone repeated the false assertion that former Vice President Al Gore would have lost the 2000 presidential election under any recount scenario.

From Barone's February 21 nationally syndicated column:

In other words, Gore sought new counts only in areas where he was likely to gain votes and would not take the risk of a statewide hand count, where those gains might be offset by others for George W. Bush.

We know now that, thanks to the news media consortium that recounted ballots in every Florida county, recounting under any method and any criterion they tested would not have overturned Bush's exceedingly thin plurality.

In fact, the 2001 news media consortium study of the disputed ballots in the 2000 Florida recount found that there were at least four recount scenarios under which Gore would have won the state of Florida. A November 12, 2001, Washington Post article reported on the findings of the study: "If Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins."

The news media consortium that sponsored the study, which was conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, included the Associated Press, The New York Times, and CNN, as well as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post Company, and the Tribune Company (which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel).

Other conservatives who have repeated this false claim include Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist and author John Fund, FOX News host Bill O'Reilly, syndicated radio host Glenn Beck, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Spreading right wing lies doesn't help your horse in this race friend.

Julie

Vice-President Gore won the popular vote overwhelmingly.

If Gore ran he would win

I think he might and I would certainly vote for him. He did win once before and it's true everything has gone to hell in a handbasket since the SCOTUS selection. However, I don't think it's fair to put pressure on the man. Should anyone have to go through all the media crap and Rove crap again? I think he's doing what he loves to do now; actually, I think he may be more valuable to the world at large doing what he's doing now. Just sayin'.

Hmmm. Let me think... :shrug:

That's why it's called a DRAFT. ;-)

like he does. Man, THAT is the weight of the world on your shoulders. I believe people want a change. I believe they are pissed off from the last election stolen, on top of 2000. I think I will piggy back people to the poles if I have to, and so will MANY others that didn't do that the last time around. People are sorry now, and they are sorrier every single day for Bush being in office. Gore, IMO would win in a landslide during an attempted stolen election this time around. I think drafting him is harsh. I personally don't think he should do it, if he really doesn't want to... what good would that do us? I want someone who can't SLEEP over the pain the people in this country are in. I want him to have "the calling". Do I hope Gore has it? You bet I do.

Al Gore works damned hard to try and convince this nation that we have very little time left to try and reverse what Big Oil and our own energy gobbling habits have brought us to. He goes before groups who he knows ridiculed and skewered him when he ran in '00; he does this because he feels this work is vitally important. Arguably, just as important as another run for the WH. Personal comfort? Don't think your choice is a sound one.

truly great presidents. The GOP knows it too and they FEAR Al Gore! I agree that he is our best shot, to pull the country through the mess the GOP has created.

I've voted for Al Gore every time his name appeared on the national ballot without regret! It's hard to find anyone else in America who I could trust and respect any more. * Al and Russ 08!

Good to have you aboard!

He can dedicate his time as a citizen, to this important cause. But he can make changes, as president.

I think he needs to realize that being in office is going to be his most effective way of changing this very important problem.

Mr. Gore needs to run in '08.

but I find it so astounding that so many are playing the part of the musicians on the Titanic. Playing while the ship sinks, playing in the face of such blatant doom.

the denial reflex is so damn strong it controls not only repubs but many of the dems as well.

I saw the movie last night as well. I sure as hell hope a strong grass roots movement drafts our legit Pres. For those of you who scoff at my statement, go see the movie. If you are aware of the facts in the documentary, what else can you offer as an alternative? Any bright ideas in place of negative ridicule or are you just a true denial sufferer and fiddler.????


:nopity: :nopity: :thumbsdown:

And I have good reason to be. I have seen with my own eyes that this issue is not partisan. I have friends who are very liberal. But don't even mention taking their car away. They, like nearly all humans, are not willing to sacrifice. I have beat heads with these people over and over. I say, how can they justify their lifestyle if it infringes on the lives of those who live in the future? I get the same silent stare from them that I do from conservatives.

My prediction- When there is a crisis, things will change. When I say crisis, I don't mean the crisis we are in now, which is serious. I mean, when we see the crisis. When it's too late. When the waters are rising. When it infringes upon our actions. There's a facet to this global warming that is not being addressed. And even if we do alter our ways, it's still going to be there. Actually there are several facets. The only thing that is of any importance is the one that no one is willing to talk about or accept. It begins with a P.

I am wasted, toasted, tired, head spinning, (finding excuses for being a necessary airhead) what begins w/ a P?( B**ass?)

I can't think right now. Help.

I feel compelled to point it out: The musicians on the Titanic knew full well their fate. They played despite this knowledge to try and ease the pain and panic. I've long admired them.

I am trying to figure out why the majority of people are unreactive, and as a result are immobile and accepting their present state and probable future.

the deer is immobile, unaware of impending doom.

Could it be that the general population is just perhaps like rats in a maze ....scurrying around w/ their inconsequential meanderings fueled by stress and adrenaline? and .... too tired to think for themselves.

I know most of my co-workers could care less about the planet's future. They need immediate self gratification...where do we lunch, where are the shopping buys, what are the rules of work for the day, week, ...where is the People Magazine for the break, ....

Who know full well that they're fouling the water for everyone. They're about to get out of the pool and don't give a rat's ass about their grandchildren and other people's grandchildren who have a long time yet to swim in the fouled water.

It's an old classic Sci fi novel, but you may want to read John Brunner's "The Sheep Look Up" to see what could happen if we keep shitting in the pool. The rich people who do most of the shitting will live in the only livable areas and breathe the only pure air and drink the only pure water while the rest of the population has to pay for oxygen tanks and water purifiers. A line in the story went something like: No I don't want to live like that. I can afford not to.

That attitude is all over the place among the short-sighted Republicans in Congress and the White House thief.

My sense is that he really doesn;t want to run. I don't blame him much for that.

But if he does decide to run, he has to do it yesterday.

Right now Al Gore has more visibility then any other democrat. He is also in a position where he is very hard to attack since he isn't officially running for anything. The longer that he can stay visible without jumping into the fray.

To make any announcement before the 2006 mid-terms elections would be down right irresponsible.

I decided this last year; when he first appeared on Leno to promote Current.
It's done; it's over--he is our only choice if we want to have a viable country.
I'm just waiting to be called upon to help with the campaign.

but a viable WORLD.

He needs to keep his credibility and continue on with this all-important fight.

instead of just talking about them.

As good a deed as his slide show is, and as many people see it and are aware of the facts, it changes nothing in official Washington. He needs the authority to change laws, sign accords, and take actions that the rest of the world will join in at the official level. THAT'S why he needs the Presidency. THAT'S why we need him to step back up.

The future of the planet depends on things he could do as president, but can't do otherwise.

Are these things Hillary would do? Are these things Dean would do? Are these things Kerry would have done? If you say "yes", you're dreaming.

I can't stand it.

I say: just go ahead and run. Just do it.

You will get so many votes it's unreal. This I know.

Sue

Any move towards the Presidency will awaken a chorus of "SEE! TOLD YA IT WAS JUST A SELF-PROMOTION!"

This movie is too important to be dismissed as the initial volley of a Presidential bid.

will likely occur in 2007 (mid November is the traditional filing date for New Hampshire). The movie will no longer be playing and the topic will have shifted to his candidacy & rightly so. So I don't think his candidacy would have any impact on the message of the movie.

As to motivation skeptics, they are enemies who will howl regardless of what he does. Any other Dem nominee will also be subjected to attacks by the GOP and MSM, if recent history is a good predictor. His announcement would create a tsunami of media that would create a huge buzz. Only one small segment of that buzz would be skepticism, ESPECIALLY if Gore is drafted by a groundswell of grassroots support.

There is simply nobody with the expertise or the committment to handle this global emergency as well as Gore. I don't want anybody else for president at this point because I think he is the best man to save civilization. Without a change from the people *and* great leadership, we are doomed in my view.

Sweet Jesus I know that sounds alarmist, but science supports my belief in the end of civilization, wouldn't you agree?

Run Al Run :patriot:

The naysayers are forgetting something: We are not really talking about the same wooden Al Gore we knew back in 2000 but liked anyway. He is both energized and committed now -- not to mention angry. That is going to be a tough combination to beat in a country so starved for real leadership as it is right now.

but Gore 2008 will be where I am!

Sorry, but Global Warming is a giant loser of an issue.

People say they care about it, but the majority of Americans aren't gonna sacrifice a dime to fight it.

The idea that Global Warming is a bigger threat to Americans than Islamic terrorism just won't sell. People can see terrorist attacks on a daily basis - headchoppers, suicide bombers, etc, etc. Global Warming is just not the kind of thing that is going to interest Americans unless they personally feel some threat from it. As of now, they don't. Period.

Make Global Warming the central focus of a Democratic campaign and the Republicans will annhilate us. They will run on protecting Americans from real scary Arabs with big knives and suicide belts. They will show video of 9-11. They will show some black clad Islamic radical screaming "Allah Akbar". And Gore is going to show what? A bunch of glaciers melting?

I'd rather Gore not be drafted and I really hope he doesn't run. I'd vote for him ofcourse, but I think most potential GOP presidential candidates would wipe the floor with him. If Gore is our 2008 nominee, get ready for at least 4 more years of Republican White House rule.

What does that have to do with anything? Had the levee's not been breached, Katrina wouldn't have even been as bad as countless hurricanes of the past.

Have you forgotten Hurrican Camille in 1969? How about the 1935 Labor Day hurricane in the Florida Keys? What about the FL SE/Lake Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928? What about the Great 1900 Galveston Hurricane? There are just too many to list.

All of those and many more were more powerful than Katrina at landfall.

While I believe in the idea of global warming and that humans are indeed contributing to it, your gonna be pretty hard pressed (and utterly misguided in my view) to try to blame every storm on it.

Trying to tie each natural disaster to Global Warming will get old and tired very rapidly. It's an attempt at alarmism instead of a real scientific discussion. Plenty of hurricane specialists, infact I'd say most, do not for a moment believe Katrina has beans to do with Global Warming. It is far more likely a cycle that the Atlantic Basin/Carribean/Gulf have gone through for centuries - some periods produce more storms than others.

I will say it again, Global Warming is a giant loser of an issue. Faced with a decision over which priority is most important - Americans are going to pick fighting terrorism and Islamic radicals every single time over the issue of Global Warming.

Global Warming is an issue a Democratic President and Congress address once they are in office, but to get there they will have run on issues more pressing to the American people.

And who said one should run EXCLUSIVELY on global warming?

Read this:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

And this:

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4343

And this:

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

And this:

http://www.rappdems.org/gore_politicalabuses.htm

And these too:

http://www.moveon.org/pac/gore-rumsfeld-transcript.html

http://www.rappdems.org/gore_dishonesty.htm

http://political.moveon.org/gore5/

http://political.moveon.org/algore/rally.html

And I especially love this one:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/10/ale05154.html

And this barnburner:

http://www.acslaw.org/node/2096

"Hurricanes have been getting more frequent and stronger every year."

Your statement is just not true. Globally, there has been no increase in strength or frequency of hurricanes, typhoons or cyclones. We've had a busy cycle in the Atlantic of late, but that is not historically unusual at all.

Here is information from the NOAA

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html

Subject: G4) Are we getting stronger and more frequent hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical cyclones in the last several years?

Contributed by Chris Landsea

Globally, no. However, for the Atlantic basin we have seen an increase in the number of strong hurricanes since 1995. As can be seen in section E9, we have had a record 33 hurricanes in the four years of 1995 to 1999 (accurate records for the Atlantic are thought to begin around 1944). The extreme impacts from Hurricanes Marilyn (1995), Opal (1995), Fran (1996), Georges (1998) and Mitch (1998) in the United States and throughout the Caribbean attest to the high amounts of Atlantic hurricane activity lately.

As discussed in the previous section, it is highly unlikely that global warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or intensity of hurricanes. We have not observed a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year. Instead of seeing a long-term trend up or down, we do see a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases for major Atlantic hurricanes on the scale of 25-40 years each (Gray 1990; Landsea 1993; Landsea et al. 1996). The quiet decades of the 1970s to the early 1990s for major Atlantic hurricanes were likely due to changes in the Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperature structure with cooler than usual waters in the North Atlantic.....(more)

"Thus far, scientific evidence does not link worldwide storm frequency with global warming. Individual ocean basins have multiyear cycles of storm activity. While the total number of storms in the tropics remained similar through time, the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes have increased over the past 30 years, according to a 2005 paper in the journal Science."

So right off the bat your own link debunks half of what you previously posted when you said:

"Hurricanes have been getting more frequent and stronger every year."

So, infact, Hurricanes have not been getting more frequent.

Now to whether they have really gotten stronger globally.

In the link you've provided there is discussion of "simulated storm behavior". While that is interesting, facts are facts. NOAA says the power of storms globally has infact NOT increased. That is, they measure these things and see if there is any increase in the strength of tropical storms globally - the answer according to their data is no.

The link also tells us this:

"A 2005 study published in the journal Nature suggests that storm intensity and duration is linked to the recent ocean warming trends associated with global warming."

Suggests that storm intensity and duration is linked to recent ocean warming? Again, interesting that this particular bit of research suggests this, but NOAA says that infact their actual measurements of storm frequency and intensity has shown NO recent global increase in Hurricane, Cyclone and Tropical Storm power.

Lets look at this study in a little more detail:

"A 2005 study published in the journal Nature suggests that storm intensity and duration is linked to the recent ocean warming trends associated with global warming. Scientists tracked measurements of the destructive power of storms, termed the Power Dissipation Index (PDI), since 1950. The study, which combined each storm’s maximum wind speeds and storm duration, found that during the last 30 years, the destructive power of storms has doubled in the Atlantic and Pacific."

This is interesting, but again, NOAA, pretty much the authority on Tropical Weather systems, questioned whether this study was even remotely accurate.

I found what I appears to be discussion of the same or similar study. Here is what Chris Landsea of NOAA has to say:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0915_050915_hurricane_strength_2.html

"'I've got real concerns about whether this is a real change or whether it's an artifact of the data,' he said. 'I'm pretty skeptical that it's a real change.'

For one, Landsea said, scientists mostly use satellite data to measure hurricane intensity, a technique that has improved dramatically over the past 30 years. As a result, the measurements are likely skewed lower in the earliest years of the period studied.

He added that even though the researchers found an increase in the number of hurricanes reaching Category Four and Five, the maximum wind speed recorded did not creep up, as would be expected if the hurricanes were really getting stronger.

'That's a huge inconsistency in the study,' he said. 'Something is either wrong here, or there was no real change in Category Four or Five '

Lastly, the lowest up-tick in hurricane intensity—five percent—was found in the Atlantic Ocean, where hurricane data is most complete. Landsea said if the global data were better, the increase in intensity might be lower, if it exists at all.

Landsea is currently applying modern methods to historical Atlantic hurricanes to reassess their intensity. Before scientists can say with confidence that hurricanes are getting stronger worldwide, the reassessment must be done for all oceans, he said.

Webster and his colleagues note in Science that satellite techniques used to measure storm intensity have changed over the years. But the method for measuring maximum wind speeds, which they used for the study, has not.

In addition, the North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane data has been calibrated with aircraft reconnaissance. Where only satellite data is available, the authors say, the data is consistent with the measurements verified by aircraft."

As of now NOAA maintains that globally, there is no global increase in frequency or power of Hurricanes, Cyclones or Tropical Systems. That is, their measurements and gathered evidence simply doesn't show the increases that you claimed existed.

I will go ahead and trust NOAA.

...your posting?

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=53975

http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB3O90YVKE.html

These are the same story about the same study. Nothing new here and it references studies about storm intensity that NOAA's actual measurements dispute. Thanks, but I don't need to see it twice.

From this link you posted:

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/impact.htm

We have this gem:

"In recent years there has been an increase in both the number and severity of tropical storms."

We already know that NOAA flat out says this is not true. According to NOAA, globally there has been NO increase in frequency or severity of hurricanes, cyclones or tropical storms. NOAA is pretty much the world authority for tracking, record keeping and analysis of these tropical systems.

Again, I will go with NOAA over some group called "Seed" or even well intentioned advocacy groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I want actual facts. Real measurements. Not alarmist stuff, no matter how well meaning, meant to scare us all into action. According to NOAA, there has simply been no global increase in either the frequency or strength of Hurricanes, Cyclones and tropical storms. The Atlantic Basin has indeed gone through an active period, but that is historically normal.

First, while I don't leap to conspiracy theories, I have become quite skeptical about scientific conclusions expressed by agencies in the executive branch. The Bush administration's penchant for skewing scientific conclusions for political purposes is well documented. Is NOAA insulated from such pressures? Perhaps. But we already know Hansen at NASA is not. He has been muzzled.

I read not only the G4 section, but also the G3 section.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

I had two skeptical reactions. I didn't see any global data to support the conclusion that there is no increase in global activity. Did you?

Secondly, I saw waffling language which indicated that the dots had not yet been connected, rather than that there was no causality with respect to higher global temeratures.

Some contrasting perspectives from Canada's leading scientific society:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0608-07.htm



Also this from Thomas Crowley, Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science at Duke:

http://www.realclimate.org/



Finally, the Gore movie left the clear impression that typhoon activity on the Pacific rim was very intense in 2005. Also, Gore noted the first occurence of a south Atlantic hurricane in recorded history, something previously delared to be impossible in at least one textbook. I may not be able to wade through all of the conclusions of NOAA with my limited knowledge, but things are clearly changing in bad ways for the US and other parts of the world. More storms are forming off the west coast of Africa. I want to see what NOAA says after Gore is inaugurated in 2009.

*as of today* Wishlist:

Edwards, Warner, Feingold, Gore, and Biden

The issue of global warming will only intensify and become more important in the national Psyche as it's affects become more apparent. Unless you believe Jesus is behind global warming, you do not want it to happen. Any other issue, means doodily squat if life as we know ends and societies collapse. The times are screaming like an alarm clock tied to a fire truck and we better wake the hell up.

:nuke: We don't have a global warming symbol so I used nuke, same thing just different method.

:kick:

We don't have a global warming symbol. Not just here, but a simple, striking "logo" that continues to remind all of us about this.

You know, SAVE OUR SHIP. works for me.

gather together 50 friends and take them to "An Inconvenient Truth".

Gore has a higher calling than the Presidency at the moment.

and I can't believe he won't run for President. And I firmly believe that if he does run, he will win in a landslide. There were a number of points in the movie that went off the climate change message and centered on Gore's journey...

A man who ran for president twice and the last time won but lost due to SCOTUS... can't believe he won't want to have that bully pulpit to get the global climate crisis addressed.

He is an honorable man. A smart man. If he ran for president, I would personally go door to door to help him get elected.

And as for the naysayers above. My family has resolved on a number of ways we can limit our contribution to the carbon dioxide levels - everyone can do this and more information is available at www.climatecrisis.net .

stance. I know if he runs he will win, just like he did in 2000.

There are many committed and talented DEMs considering a 08 run - I will support whoever wins the nomination - but the winner better have a plan on the climate crisis and ways to address it immediately.

This is an important issue (maybe the most important I can think of) and I would suggest that those who do not think it is **sexy** enough a platform to run on best go see the movie before they say any more.

:thumbsup: But I, like you, wants someone who has a plan to combat global warming. And I think that candidate is Al Gore. :woohoo:

AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08 AL 08

:applause:

...there was an operating oilfield head grinder. Here's a photo:

The very first thing I saw when I left the screening was one of the city's new hybrid gas-electric buses, as it zipped past the theatre.




http://www.bctransit.com/regions/kel/news/hybrid_electric.cfm

I haven't had the chance to ride one yet, though -- we don't have but a few, and they never seem to be used on the routes I ride.

:)

championing.

If he began any move towards running his movie would be dismissed as part of an election campaign.

This is his issue. He's given over 1000 presentations on it since 1990. It's OUR ISSUE. The most important one facing us. Allow him to maintain his credibility and forward this all-important issue.

Rest assured he will work closely with the next Democrat administration, he doesn't need to be President to make things happen.

His response to the 2008 question has been consistent:

1) he has no intention of running; and
2) he has not made a Sherman statement.

Only if he made the iconic Sherman statement would your assertion be true. But under the status quo it simply is not accurate.

The political effect is that he could declare his candidacy in 2007 without having to contradict the statements he is making in 2006. BTW, if Gore obtained the nomination would you enthusiastically endorse him?

As to the intention of the movie, it is clearly to educate the American public and spur it to action. We should all participate in that noble endeavor. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Gore, as the personal architect of the Kyoto Treaty is uniquely positioned to do more to fight anthropogenic climate change than any other potential candidate, both in terms of diplomatic experience, expertise and commitment. He may be civilization's last, best hope. I believe he is the Churchill of our time.

Straightforward, honest, intelligent, real. A human. He would make a great leader.

go to AlGore.org and volunteer. We are a campaign to draft him.

If we build it, he will come!

he won the presidency and made a choice that he would rather give it up than have civil war when the other man stole the seat

i don't think the man can be drafted, there is no bribe that can buy him if the highest office in the land -- legitimately won -- did not tempt him to put ambition before the cause of peace

i don't blame gore for his decision, he did what he thought right and stood down where almost no man in the history of the world would have refused the temptation to fight and create civil warfare

i just don't see how we can "draft" him, ultimately we have to respect his choice to be a teacher rather than a warrior

there may be some who think al gore could have been placed in the oval office through peaceful means in 2000, i honestly think those people naive, it was never going to happen without bloodshed, the GOP didn't wake up in november and say, hey think we'll steal an election today, it was planned from the get-go and they would have never backed down without huge loss of life and disruption of usa and world

the cause he's championing.

I'm not asking that rhetorically. I really can't determine in my own mind which would have been worse -- to acquiesce, as we did, in Bush's "bloodless" coup and thereby extinguish the light which has inspired constitutional lawful democratic republican (small-d, small-r) liberty throughout the world for over two centuries (i.e., the U.S. Constitution)....
....or to call their bluff, line up in front of the tanks and dare them to gun down their own countrymen for defending electoral legitimacy. Would the Army have fired on us if we'd shut down the country until they did an honest recount? If Gore had given the word it would have happened; I remember how stunned I was that the word was never given.
The ultimate irony is that the Southern unreconstructed segregationist/secessionist Republicans (I grew up among them; that's what they are, for a fact; my Dad's one, so are my sisters) gambled correctly that the Northern liberal Democrats (led by a Vice President from Tennessee, deja vu) would choose to save the Union at the expense of losing the Constitution.
We'll never know, as far as 2000 goes, but what will we do if we get the chance in 2008? Knowing the guy next to you won't run is what makes it possible (also, knowing the guy behind you with the bullhorn won't cave when he sees you get it).

P.S. -- All this BS about "Gore can't beat a real Repug candidate" in '08 is hogwash for the simple reason of .... WHICH "real candidate" are you forseeing them run? George Allen? Hee hee hee! Bill Frickin' quack-quack-quack Frick? Har har har! Nepotists-R-Us Jeb? Ho ho ho! Rudy's health won't hold, and a New Yorker can't carry the South for EITHER side (take heed, Hillary). Haegel can't win THEIR primaries cuz he's too moderate. WHO, EXACTLY ARE WE AFRAID OF? Tommy-gun Franks? Frankly, I think the strawman-tilter who first posed that non-candidate boogaboo may be a GOP mole sent to set us at each other's throats. Way to go, dude.

I see I've neglected, in my GOP boogeymen litany, the Great McCain....who just whored himself by sucking up to Falwell, and then tried to peddle the same canned snake-oil at (where was it?) Cornell? Columbia? Whatever. The Great Moderate McCain, who was never any such thing. The Straight-Shooter who is a total BS artist, misogynist, and general Neanderthal. No, the bloom is off that turd-blossom, I'm afraid.

I ain't afraid of no boogeymen! McCain hasn't a chance as he has flip flopped too many times - and how any politician can suck up to people who did that to his family beats the heck out of me.

the few REAL POWER Repukes would let this go on.........


Unless, of course, they are just GREEDY SHORT SIGHTED PIGS that wallow in $$$$$$$.

He's got the resume, the skills, and the specific knowledge on the key points:

- survival of the planet;
- fradulent elections and the importance of real democracy;
- managing a government within limits that actually promote growth.

WHY NOT THE BEST? I can't think of any resason why not...

for the pic of Al I now sport in my sig line and a much larger thank you for all your tireless work getting the word out about the stolen elections.

I am very grateful for your many many posts on the subject - most of which I have bookmarked!

I'm actually tired now but will resume full energy later in the day and evening;)

:hi:

He is competent, SANE and knows what to do. I think he should have Wes Clark as his VP. They would be a GREAT combination.


Start the Revolution
Start the IMPEACHMENT

He now, more than before, has the ability to reach us like Bill C. did. But I believe Gore can be bigger, that he is the RFK for this time---someone who SPEAKS TRUTH brilliantly, learnedly, passionately AND compassionately. He no longer has hesitancy about speaking his beliefs, no longer agonizes over "what not to wear".

In sum, Gore AND his ideas resonate with Americans, and I believe millions of Americans crave that do-over; they "know", they intuit, that this is what is required in a tragedy: the fall of the usurper and the catharsis of the Universe made right.

Gore is our Macduff to Bush's Macbeth. And the curtain is about to open on Act Five.

One thing I would say to my fellow Gore supporters is this ...

When you post on Forums like this, why not include links to some pro-Gore websites?

It's something very simple that helps to spread the word.

I am not associated with any of these sites, but I do recommend them! :)

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.org
www.draftgore2008.org
www.draftgore2008.com
www.climatecrisis.org