Not content to make a fool of himself confusing weather and climate, Al has now decided to lecture empower women on how to reduce the population for the benefit of the planet. Watch the video below, now we know why he doesn’t allow recordings of his lectures. Darn those Flip Video Cameras.
Al Gore How Empowering Women Fights Climate Change
And here is his wisdom of weather and climate
Al Gore Talks Extreme Weather, Climate
Recorded June 20th by Brian Merchant, hat tip to Chris Horner.
UPDATE: Tom Nelson on his blog points out the bottled water next to Gore.
Flashback: Pour the bottled-water trend down the drain
it’s time for those of us who care about the environment and are concerned about global warming to stop buying and drinking bottled water.
2007: Bottled Water Ban Not Enough
Following the radically liberal traditions of San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom banned municipal departments from purchasing bottled water, even for water coolers.
GregS, re: your worry concerning doing something about Overpopulation, think about it: what-the-hell can we do about “overpopulation” in other areas of the World, except to show by example how the Constitution and Constitutional Capitalism is able to handle increasing populations via individual freedom and wealth creation? If we here in the U.S. focus on taking care of our own system and the integrity of our country, that’s certainly the first and probably the best overall thing we can do.
People who believe in Global Warming shouldn’t breed.
Right, Lichanos, Gore just wants to “help” us, just like he did in being integral to the disasterous, except to people like him, CO2 = CAGW Climate Science Propaganda Operation. Snap out of it! please
Richard S Courtney:
June 22, 2011 at 1:21 am
Your point makes sense, his/her comment made no point except to say all the people in the world could stand in a very small area. No mention of living conditions or anything else. It was very pointless.
Lichanos says:
June 22, 2011 at 6:45 am
Just what is so remarkable about Gore’s statements on women and population growth in the first video?
With Gore, you often have to look beyond WHAT he actually says to WHY he’s saying it. His goals, and those of his cohorts are far from being humanitarian. Like all snake oil salesmen, he’s just peddling a product.
Man, that’s qute a visual they’re presenting. Chairman Gore in his deeper brown Mao suit uniform, otherwise with no difference between male and female whose water bottles are also so touchingly bonded….that it almost makes me want to cry out, “Together we thrive!”
As I have said the great Greenie fear is healthy, happy and prosperous dark skinned children.
Al has some issues in that area -look at Daddy..
IT IS A REVOLUTIONARY THING TO TELL THE “TRUTH” WHEN ALL THAT IS BEING STATED ARE LIES! ALBERT “AL” GORE IS THE LEADER WHEN IT COMES TO LIES!
Texas is getting some serious rain. Keep talking Al.
Lichanos:
What is ridiculous about Al Gore’s statement is:
1. “empowering” women so that they have fewer children will NOT bring down CO2 emissions and (in Gore’s mind at least) prevent climate change. The Western Nations release the largest share of CO2 and our birthrates are now ALL below the replacement rate. Gore is urging lower birth rates for those producing the least CO2.
2. “Empowering” women can only take place in an environment of surplus. Western women became “empowered” when there was a large enough surplus to allow for education and an improvement in technology that allowed “women’s work” to be done more efficiently so that they had the leisure to be “empowered”. CO2 levels will have to go up.
3. Neo-Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren (they’ve been co-authoring papers for over thirty years) pay lip service to free, voluntary birth limitation and population control, but their writings make it perfectly clear that they consider the problem so urgent that they would not object to involuntary methods, if required. If that were done, then currently poor nations will STAY poor because they’re unable to reach a critical mass of non-subsistence laborers that allow them to engage in infrastructure projects that generate wealth and thus “empower” women.
Are you starting to get a clue?
Clearly female education is doing fairly well,…..his wife was smart enough to divorce him after all.
I am just grateful that Pres. Clinton remained safe and alive through his terms. The thought of this twit being a heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world is quite paralyzing. Let him eat cake, uh, streak, his life and his “message” are completely disconnected. Which one is real ?…. No, no, don’t tell me…..I have this one figured out.
In point of fact, there is a much better correlation between per capita CO2 emissions and birth rates than there is between CO2 and temperature rise.
Countries with the lowest birth rates have the highest per capita emissions of CO2. Countries with the highest birth rates have the lowest per capita emissions of CO2.
So, if Gore wants to control population, he is going about it the exact wrong way be suggesting we reduce CO2.
When people are wealthy they use lots of energy and have high CO2 emissions, but have relatively few children. When people are poor they use little energy and have low CO2 emissions, but have lots of children.
By telling people to reduce CO2 Gore is in effect trying to force people into poverty which will increase the worlds population. As a failed divinity school student, perhaps this is what Al really wants? To keep the women of the world barefoot and pregnant. While he emits as much CO2 as much CO2 as thousands of the earth’s poor.
Do as I say, not as I do.
“There is a correlation between womens education and child rates. Do you feel it is wrong for women to be empowered or girls to have education?”
Correlation is not causation. Women are better educated in rich countries. When you make people economically secure, they have less children, because they are more secure.
Educating poor people to have less children will not work if you live in a country where the future is not secure. You would need to force them to have less children, as in China. Otherwise, education will simply show them the reasons for what they already know from observation of other people.
That if you are poor the future is more secure if you have lots of children to take care of you as you age and less secure if you have no children to take care of you.
In my opinion, men on both sides of the political spectrum are clueless about family planning and how to encourage good decisions. It’s like watching gold fish flop around after being dumped out of the bowl.
@GregS,
“…I feel very uneasy about the continual push for growth and I can’t help wonder whether we should in fact be doing something to reduce population. So, I’m glad he is discussing this….”
The US among other countries has a huge debt. The interest on that debt is is increasing every year, requiring a greater and greater share of tax revenues simply to keep up with the interest.
Quite simply, without growth the US and a number of other countries are quickly reaching the point where any significant increase in interest rates would required more than 100% of tax revenues simply to service the interest of the debt.
Technically, the US at its current rate of borrowing is against the Federal Reserve is quickly approaching bankruptcy. You are pouring trillions of dollars into worthless projects that do nothing to increase the wealth of the nation.
Consider this. You are going to borrow $100 thousand from the bank. You can either spend this to built a factory, or go on an luxury world cruise. The US is spending to go on the world cruise. China is spending to build the build the boat to take you on the cruise.
DirkH says:
June 21, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Nashville had a 1000 year flood? That’s long. I think that qualifies as climate.
Nashville has had several of these 1000 yr floods since we’ve been keeping records.
http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=ohx&gage=nast1&view=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1”
Historical Crests for Cumberland River at Nashville
(1) 56.20 ft on 01/01/1927
(2) 53.90 ft on 01/26/1937
(3) 51.86 ft on 05/03/2010
(4) 49.70 ft on 02/18/1948
(5) 48.90 ft on 01/15/1946
(6) 48.60 ft on 02/10/1950
(7) 47.64 ft on 03/15/1975
(8) 47.30 ft on 03/01/1962
(9) 46.50 ft on 03/23/1955
(10) 45.80 ft on 01/05/1943
@ferd berple,
Outside of China, almost all nations with falling birthrates are doing so voluntarily. But, I do get your point. It is one thing for a generation to consume all of its wealth; it is something quite different to also consume the wealth of the next 2 generations as well.
@Pamela Gray,
To even use the phrase “family planning” evokes images of faceless bureaucrats sticking thier nose in one’s own bedroom. But on a more serious side, I think it is safe to say that secular organizations have been most successsful in changing the brithrates of both developing and developed nations. Artiifical birth control, and not abortion have caused birth rates to fall regardless of a nation’s religion, race, or politics. The birthrates in what were once traditionally Catholic nations are amazing (look at Poland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Mexico). Even Muslim nations like Indonesia, Algerial Turkey, and Iran have birthrates that are rapidly declining.
Whether both sides of the “Family Planning” debate have valid points is immaterial. Family Planning is a reality. I made this point at CA some years ago when the last IPCC SPM and TAR were published. I had a bone to pick with the IPCC population and GDP projections. If population trends continue, then the Alarmists have little to worry about. Industrial capacity of the globe will most certainly go down. Even if the Alarmists are right about CO2, thier projections are wrong. The only shortages to come in the future will be shortages of people.
Now Gore has moved on to attacking Obama for not doing enough on climate change. From Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57537.html
Personally, I think that the size of the population on earth is creating some stress, it’s just that I think it is more likely that natural processes have a better chance of creating a better world than have Algore and his ilk. By “natural processes” I mean the familiar – war, famine, pestilence, and disease.
Please understand, I do not long for these, I just fear the hand of man more. When totalitarians find that their schemes do not produce the paradise they intend they never doubt the validity of their schemes, they seek to destroy those who are “thwarting” the scheme, which is invariably people, lots and lots of people. Those who die quickly in such times are often to be envied.
To quote Peter Weiss (Marat/De Sade)
“Fight on land and sea.
All men want to be free.
If they don’t, never mind,
we’ll abolish all mankind.”
David Falkner says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:47 am
Yes, isn’t that a shocker. Al wants to steer the ship by tossing Obama overboard.
It’s safe to say that Gore has reached his tipping point, and is preparing to go Full Steam Ahead.
In the world of politics, Gore now has the suit against Hansen as negative political baggage, plus Al is moored to adjusted rising sea levels. Oops… failure to maintain distance while navigating tricky waterways.
Folks should click the link provided by Constitution First: June 22, 2011 at 6:54 am.
http://www.freedom.org/board/articles/mims-506.html.
It is the opinion of experts in the field that man is only about a decade from being able to create the type of weapon mentioned in the article. If (when, IMO) these weapons are used, cities will be morgues. Whether they are used as a weapon of war or a tool for population control will not matter to the dead.
Of course, if used for population control one may rest assured that there will be a select vaccinated group.
“katlab says:
June 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I did a quick calculation to see how much space the world’s population would take up if they all stood side-by-side. Take a population of 6 billion, multiply by 3sq ft (space for them to stand) divide by 43560 (# of sq ft in an acre) then divide by 640 (number of acres in a sq mile) and it would only take 646 sq miles to hold the earth’s population.
Makes the over population argument seem a little silly.
Unless you’re the one in the middle.
Actually I find little exercises such as yours silly. Are you going to volunteer to live in a 500 sf apartment with 50 people? Didn’t think so.”
I tried the same equation only instead of 3 sq feet per person I went with 500 sq feet per person. If I did my math right the whole world could live comfortably in Nevada…. with almost 3000 sq feet to spare and the rest of the world empty of humans. Mind you, the whole world empty of humans seems to be the goal with algore and his ilk.
As every red-blooded Ultra-Progressive Liberal knows, the best way to control things is to control the cause of things, ergo –as they used to say in the good ol’ Soviet Union– control the population and you control everything (and everyone;-). Climate Control is just a little red stepping stone to the New World Order! AGW is an excuse that millions and millions are buying. Would you like to invest in the future too? (SarcOff)
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/video/series-95/episode-1/conservations-dirty-secrets
Follow the money
“Dispatches reporter Oliver Steeds travels the globe to investigate the conservation movement and its major organisations.”
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-95/episode-1
“Dispatches reporter Oliver Steeds travels the globe to investigate the conservation movement and its major organisations. Steeds finds that the movement, far from stemming the tide of extinction that’s engulfing the planet, has got some of its conservation priorities wrong.
The film examines the way the big conservation charities are run. It questions why some work with polluting big businesses to raise money and are alienating the very people they would need to stem the loss of species from earth.
Conservation is massively important but few dare to question the movement. Some critics argue that it is in part getting it wrong, and that, as a consequence, some of the flora and fauna it seeks to save are facing oblivion.”
@Deborah says:
June 22, 2011 at 10:59 am
“katlab says:
June 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I did a quick calculation to see how much space the world’s population would take up if they all stood side-by-side. Take a population of 6 billion, multiply by 3sq ft (space for them to stand) divide by 43560 (# of sq ft in an acre) then divide by 640 (number of acres in a sq mile) and it would only take 646 sq miles to hold the earth’s population.
—–
REPLY Thank you, Deborah, that was a useful and illustrative exercise!
There are vast tracts of land available, but many of them lack even the most basic resources to sustain a civilization.
For example, China….if you look at a map, it appears vast. However, the central and western regions of China are very mountainous, arid and unsuitable for much of anything, so the great majority of 1.3 billion Chinese live in cities and regions fairly close to the Pacific coast. Shanghai, the largest city in the world, has about 20 million souls.
Same for Canada….If I were Canadian, I wouldn’t be very anxious to live in Nunavut! However, the land area is vast.
People like Gore tick me off…..there are numerous technical fixes to all of these problems, including carbon emissions. Government just needs to provide a very small incentive to allow entrepreneurs to develop such technologies. Same for food supplies…..I see that Chicago has a burgeoning business for home-grown vegetables, tilapia and other boutique crops grown in abandoned city warehouses, using hydroponics.
What we don’t need are nattering, hectoring know-it-all hypocrites like Gore, Mann, Gavin, Holdren, Hansen etc.etc. imposing their brilliance upon the rest of us. Like nagging parents to unruly teenagers, they don’t understand when they are shut out & ignored.