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.
@Robert E. Phelan at 8:28 am
What is ridiculous about Al Gore’s statement is…
Not defending Gore’s statements about CO2 at all – don’t agree with him on that! Some people may advocate forced birth control, but you don’t have to look far to find many who agree with Gore and regard that as impermissible. (There are people for any position you care to suggest.)
Regarding the comment of Bruce Cobb at 7:36 am:
With Gore, you often have to look beyond WHAT he actually says… This is positively wonderful. Extreme bonkers conspiratorial Right meets extreme conspiratorial Left. Yes, by all means, let’s hold people responsible above all for what they did NOT say. That is the tried and true Stalinist way!!
Family planning is what two people do, not some faceless organization. It’s another phrase taken from old common language and given some new fangled “modern” definition.
You can plan poorly or you can plan wisely. But trust me, men don’t have to worry too much about the planning part, or the 9 months part, or the child care part, or the call from the school part, or the home sick part. Some rare individual men do all that. Which is amazing.
What Al Gore is actually saying to women is that if they have children beyond some alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by ideological environmentalists (IEs) then there is only one of three possible alternative reasons for each childbearing instance. It would be only one reason for any given childbearing instance.
The first reason the IEs would give that a woman had children beyond the alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by the IEs is she was uneducated.
The second reason the IEs would give that a woman had children beyond the alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by the IEs is she is educated and judges that the IEs science and sociology is wrong..
The third reason the IEs would give that a woman had children beyond the alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by the IEs is she belongs to the ‘saving the planet’ EI high priesthood or sainthood, so the EI childbearing criteria should not apply to her.
Al Gore and the IEs want to provide their kind of social and scientific education (probably something like a PNS style education system) to women whom the IEs consider uneducated by the IEs own criteria. Al Gore and the EIs consider these easy pickings.
Al Gore and the IEs know they cannot succeed well in educating women from in certain objective educational situations and individual freedom social situations. But Al Gore and the IEs can do their negative PR regards those women.
On another thought track, I find it disgusting that the EIs assume women are some kind of social childbearing resource who can be molded at societies’ will. It does not occur to the EIs that they profoundly demean women categorically by saying women, whether uneducated or educated, do not have the capacity to independently and critically think for themselves on the issue of childbearing.
John
Lichanos comment above at 11:27 notwithstanding, I think one can get a better grasp of what Gore means if one substitutes the word “indoctrinated” every time Gore says “educated”.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
REPLY Thank you, Deborah, that was a useful and illustrative exercise!
I cannot take credit for the original equation, Katlab did that. I just put in a more comfortable square footage per person to make the point.
The matter really comes down to this: People live where they like to live. Some like hot weather and some like cold. Who would decide where everyone lives if it were to be assigned? I don’t like any ideas that dictate where or how someone is going to live. Several governments in recent history have tried to do that and it never ends well for the individual human life.
Al gore got it right on educating girls.
In the late 1970’s/early 80’s the US Government extracted universal education of woman from the Saudi Government in exchange for some tanks and the Saudi fertility rate has since declined rapidly…still higher then the world average…but considerably lower then the ‘uneducated Muslim world’ average.
The best way to control birth rates is to have a picture of Al gore on your bedroom ceiling.
“Aunty Freeze says: June 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm
The best way to control birth rates is to have a picture of Al gore on your bedroom ceiling.”
Good for weight loss too……. bleh!
If someones is gullible enough to think Al Gore knows all, they should not have kids anyways. lol
“Artiifical birth control, and not abortion have caused birth rates to fall regardless of a nation’s religion, race, or politics.”
I guess there is a first time for everything. I can’t think of a single country where the introduction of condoms has resulted in a drop in birth rate.
Generally speaking, areas with high infant mortality correlate with higher birth rates.
Societies with better shelter and transportation (fueled by hydrocarbons) tend toward low infant mortality for obvious reasons.
It appears that in the most developed societies the human population is growing very little, if at all.
Raising the cost of fossil fuels, as Mr Gore proposes, would make energy less affordable worldwide, perpetuating higher birthrates in less civilized societies.
Gore is arguing against his own argument here.
Well it sure seems that neo-malthusian or simply being a malthusian is making a comeback from the days of the 60’s and 70’s and well the 1770’s. I’m sure sure what bothers me more, that ideas like this are being entertained, or that people still blindly refuse that there is no shortage of agricultural land to support another 2-3B with current farming methods. If anything people like Norman Borlaug have proven that given the ability, time, and forethought you can solve food issues.
Deborah says:
June 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm
The matter really comes down to this: People live where they like to live. Some like hot weather and some like cold. Who would decide where everyone lives if it were to be assigned? I don’t like any ideas that dictate where or how someone is going to live. Several governments in recent history have tried to do that and it never ends well for the individual human life.
I’ve made my own choices on how and where to live; rebember “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” but it still needs to be mowed
Huh, population control for Gore, recently divorced, well, that’s a hard nut to crack, I mean I would suggest a condom, but then again it has a 50% failure chance for certain types of people.
Well, I think reasons for enviros using bottled water include:
– they are yuppies
– in the past they’ve got people scared about city water (it is crazy for people in cities Seattle WA, Vancouver BC, and Victoria BC to be spending money for bottled water at home
– drinking fountains aren’t sanitary
– people are drinking more liquid during the day
Sure is hypocrisy for types like alGore to be using plastis.
Chaiten volcano blew in May, 2008 and the south central U.S. including Texas got a LOT of rain that summer. Now that Puyehue-Cordón Caull blew it appears that is going to happen again.
Algore to the 3rd world; Please abort your babies because Al baby likes to run the air conditioners in his several palatial estates on full blast.
Video was taken down. Does anyone have a copy?
I’ve always found that one weird. The water stream doesn’t have dog germs that swam against the flow and got into the pipes! Maybe the handle is germy, but the water is unaffected.
And the “more liquid” is the result yet another health hoax. That famous “8 glasses of water a day” that so enriched the bottled water industry has no source; pure urban legend. There are some vague refs to estimates of the total water content of all foods and liquids consumed in a day, but whether it’s from the tap, coffee, or celery is immaterial.
Many time in politics when an agenda, campaign etc. flames out you have moments like this. AGW is on death watch already, the stars will liklely never line up again certainly in the Teams or Captain Al’s lifetime. Likely this is going to sink back to the university crank levels with the Population Bomb and the diehard Zero Growth crowd.
So this is part of the struggle to stay relevant and allow the usual suspects to make supportive claims and blame others for the failure to reach the goal line. Then another obscure period will begin and the MSM will put in life support but second and third shelf as the election will be operative priority #1. AGW is a clear loser for democrats so it will go silent or backshelf at least until 2013. As Kyoto washes out and ar5 ramps up they will try hard again but it will likely start to look like Peter, Paul and Mary Revival Concert with pathetic looking boomers trying to be hip. The cool of agw is gone and the lame name calling thrill is a dog that doesn’t so well. All the energy is going to go into saving the Messiah and he will repackaged for the duration like Ronald Reagan’s lost twin brother if required.
Like all bad ideas it will return. Hopefully the IPCC and investigations will be further developed in the mean time. The crushing burden of wild claims and phony doctrine aren’t going to age like fine wine either. Here are some wise words on PRIDE from Marsellus Wallace for the Team and Chairman Gore;
The morf from AGW to some new bogus regulatory agenda is well underway. For some of course they will never let go, consider the old women walking around Red Square carrying pictures of Stalin;
How”s that for rationalizing your politics?
Lichanos says:
June 22, 2011 at 11:27 am
This is positively wonderful. Extreme bonkers conspiratorial Right meets extreme conspiratorial Left. Yes, by all means, let’s hold people responsible above all for what they did NOT say. That is the tried and true Stalinist way!!
Take a chill pill. There’s nothing extreme, no conspiracy, and nothing “Stalinist” (did you just break Godwin’s law?). Gore’s reputation precedes him. He has an agenda and everything he says is in service to that agenda. It takes someone with extremely thick blinders on not to see that.
@Cobb:
Gore’s reputation precedes him. He has an agenda and everything he says is in service to that agenda.
This is so obvious, it’s trivial. The same could be said for many of the people at this blog. It’s a neutral comment. People just assume that they ‘know’ the agenda, then they riff on their assumptions about it and consider this to be incisive commentary.
Watts’ posts are usually very productively focused on the controversies over the science of determining climate change, but this post is typical of the worst sort of ‘advocacy’ rhetoric that is the staple of both sides.
Right, Lichanos, the idea that Chairman Gore would say one thing and do another is simply unthinkable, unless thought by a whacko! /sarc Maybe more to the point is that you have to understand the concept of “word games”, especially when used in Propaganda Ops.. No word “carries meaning around on its back.” After all, words themselves are only appearances, sounds, sensations, and anything else that can be made to function towards the communication of some initially nonspecifc idea to an audience. Therefore you have to look at the way an “author” uses his/her words – what they mean in practice within the author’s own system of words and how the words are translated into actions, which is often not what a listener might otherwise assume, and something a deluding “preception is reality” Propaganda Op. where the idea is simply to achieve a certain desired effect, say, to profit or “win” by whatever means necessary, relies upon.
@ur momisugly JPeden June 23, 2011 – 6:36am
…After all, words themselves are only appearances, sounds, sensations, and anything else that can be made to function towards the communication of some initially nonspecifc idea…
Lo, semiotics comes to WattsUpWithThat:
Signifier and Signified
The signifier and signified, whilst superficially simple, form a core element of semiotics…
The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary (Saussure called this ‘unmotivated’). A real object need not actually exist ‘out there’. Whilst the letters ‘c-a-t’ spell cat, they do not embody ‘catness’. The French ‘chat’ is not identical to the English ‘cat’ in the signified that it creates (to the French, ‘chat’ has differences of meaning). In French, ‘mouton’ means both ‘mutton’ and a living ‘sheep’, whilst the English does not differentiate.
Saussure inverts the usual reflectionist view that the signifier reflects the signified: the signifier creates the signified in terms of the meaning it triggers for us. The meaning of a sign needs both the signifier and the signified as created by an interpreter. A signifier without a signified is noise. A signified without a signifier is impossible.
Language is a series of ‘negative’ values in that each sign marks a divergence of meaning betweens signs. Words have meaning in the difference and relationships with other words.
The language forms a ‘conceptual grid’, as defined by structural anthropologist Edmund Leach, which we impose on the world in order to make sense.
Lacan defined the unconscious as being structured like language and dealing with a shifting set of signifiers. When we think in words and images, these still signify: they are not the final signified, which appears as a more abstract sensation. In that we can never know the Real, the external signified can neither be truly known.
Jaques Derrida criticized the neat simplicity of signs. The signifier-signified is stable only if one term is final and incapable of referring beyond itself, which is not true. Meaning is deferred as you slide between signs.
Run, don’t walk to: http://changingminds.org/explanations/critical_theory/concepts/signifier_signified.htm
“I don’t like any ideas that dictate where or how someone is going to live.”
You mean like borders? So… what’s you position on Mexican immigration?
Gore: “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children. You have to lift child-survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families. And most important, you have to educate girls and empower women.”
How is this controversial? I’m stunned that anybody would come out against this position. Look at yourself and ask whether you’re attacking Gore just because you’re used to attacking Gore, or whether you actually disagree with this sentiment. If you disagree with this statement, then tell me why, specifically, you don’t want women to be able to make their own choices about fertility.