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.
>>>Sean Peake says: June 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm
>>>Not surprised. AGW solutions are linked with eugenics. Always have been.
Unfortunately not.
I contacted Greenpeace about population controls, and they said that have never and will never campaign on population issues.
Amazing. The biggest impact on and threat to the environment is the increasing pressure by overpopulation – and on that issue Greenpeace absolves itself of responsibility and ducks the subject. Anying to do with cuddly animals, they are there in an instant. A political hot potato like population control, and they run for the hills.
Political cowards, more interested in fleecing the gullible than saving the planet.
.
>>>Dave Worley says: June 22, 2011 at 3:43 pm
>>>Generally speaking, areas with high infant mortality correlate with higher birth rates.
Not exactly. If you look at the figures it becomes: “Generally speaking, areas with certain religious sects correlate with higher birth rates.”
That, is the problem we need to address. The high infant mortality is merely a symptom of the poverty, which is a symptom of the unsustainable birth rate, which is a symptom of the teachings of that religious sect.
.
@ur momisugly Lichanos
People just assume that they ‘know’ the agenda, then they riff on their assumptions about it and consider this to be incisive commentary.
Unless wearing exceedingly thick Warmist blinkers, anyone would know what Gore’s agenda is. He doesn’t care about women, or indeed about humanity. His brand of ideology, in fact, is most harmful to women and children in poorer nations. He is a liar and hypocrite of the highest order.
Seraphim Hanisch says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Oh yeah! I’ve thought about that a LOT! I totally agree with you. In fact, what you say about eugenics is one of my soapbox subjects. Don’t get me started…!
Sorry the link to what gore said or didn’t say is dead.
Voluntary population control is impractical in the long run because it will progressively deselect those genetically prone to follow this policy and favor those genetically prone to ignore it in the following generations.
This is one of my favorite websites, and it’s really disappointing to see how crazy many of the commentators are here. What in heck was Anthony thinking in joining the crazy-conservative bandwagon on this meaninglessly harmless quote from Gore? I mean, honestly, Gore has said many stupid things in his life, but this isn’t one of them. Parents being able to decide what size family to have and when – this is what we should all be afraid of? Tall about baseless alarmism…
“Voluntary population control is impractical in the long run because it will progressively deselect those genetically prone to follow this policy and favor those genetically prone to ignore it in the following generations.”
Not so. People who have fewer kids have a greater chance of them surviving, prospering, and passing on their genes. Furthermore, people who have a lot of kids have a greater risk that most of them won’t make it far, but that those who do will be genetically superior. Only people who have no kids drop the ball, but what makes you think such people are genetically superior to begin with?
Condrag,
The problem is Gore’s amazing hypocrisy. He’s got his kids and now he’s lecturing others to abstain. Also, Gore is not a population control expert. The Pope has more credibility.
Smokey,
I don’t see anything in that clip where Gore lectures anyone to abstain. He’s merely saying that by increasing women’s general educational and economic status, they naturally end up having fewer children, and the world benefits from that. It sounds like he’s lecturing governments and societies to help women achieve better educational and economic status, and great freedom to make their own reproductive choices, and that everyone will benefit from that. He’s basically saying we don’t need to lecture anyone about “population control”, we just need to improve their lives and they will naturally make choices the benefit society in general. What is so nefarious about this “agenda”? I’m in favor of it, and I’m not sure who wouldn’t be. Why does everything from Gore’s mouth have to be turned into some secret “evil” plan for world dominance?
@Conradg :Why does everything from Gore’s mouth have to be turned into some secret “evil” plan for world dominance?
Excellent question! The answer, however, is quite simpler. The ranting is not about Gore’s ideas, good or bad as they may be. It’s about the ranter’s ideas and obsses sions.
cf. my comment of June 22, 2011 at 6:45 am where I made more or less the same point.
Your criticisms of Gore lose their credibility when applied indiscriminantly. It makes even the valid criticisms look dogmatic and thus easily dismissed. Show a little discipline, and the effect of your valid criticisms will be multiplied.
The introduction of women’s education, combined with birth control, world-wide, has consistently led to a drop in birth rates. A *VOLUNTARY* drop in birth rates.
Why? Because the primary reason folks choose to have large families in the undeveloped world is: INFANT MORTALITY.
Why? Because when people have larger families, they are doing so in order that more children will survive. When three or four out of your seven children die before the age of twelve, you will want to have more children, thus maximizing the chance that you’ll come out ahead.
Why? Because in the undeveloped world, where most people are living on subsistence farming, people cannot afford even the cost of labor, and children are free labor. They also cannot afford nursing homes and/or in-home care when they become infirm. So, they have more children. More children = insurance.
*Consistently*, folks, when a combination of A) easy access to birth control, B) better education and C) have been introduced into poorer countries, the birth rate drops, because people’s children aren’t dying left and right anymore; they become less worried about their childrens’ survival; they have fewer children to begin with.
This is what Gore is saying. This is ALL he is saying. He is not talking about forced sterilization, or abortion, [snip]. It happens to be a goddam fact. Man-made global warming also happens to be a very true thing, according to 90% of respondents in a very large survey of around 11,000 of the world’s actual climate scientists. Reducing the population would reduce global carbon emissions.
But HEY! YOU know better, don’t you? YOU know more about this whole “agenda” Al Gore and those eeevil scientists have, don’t you? YOU [snip] know more than *all those scientists*! Wow! I’m impressed, and I think you should be too. How many of you are PhD’s who publish in peer-reviewed papers? What’s that? Sorry I couldn’t hear you over the sound of that pin dropping.
[snip]
[Reply: Many gratuitous insults snipped. Strike one. ~dbs, mod.]
Correction:
C). Better sanitation.
RR,
That 90% survey figure is in relation to two extremely softball questions, such as “is the earth warming?” and “Have human beings had a significant contribution to that warming?” Most of the skeptics here would probably answer yes to those questions as well. What’s fascinating, is that 10% of surveyed scientists don’t even agree with this. Are you saying that those 10% are not real scientists, and that their opinion doesn’t matter? If the survey were worded more decisively as to their being an urgent problem that human beings must dramatically change their CO2 output to stave off, the numbers might even be reversed.
So yes, a lot of people here are indeed saying that they are smarter, at least on the evidence concerning this issue, than the people who are sounding the alarm. It happens, you know. Even scientists get a lot of things wrong, even for decades, before the “consensus” dissolves and reconstitutes itself on the other side. The key is the evidence, not who declares what to be true. IF you can argue the actual evidence, you might be able to sustain a conversation here. Most likely you can’t, however, and will just call everyone here “deniers”. That’s politics, not science.
RE: Conradg: (June 25, 2011 at 12:34 pm)
“’Voluntary population control is impractical …’
Not so. People who have fewer kids have a greater chance of them surviving, prospering, and passing on their genes.”
That latter comment is only true if an overall *involuntary* population control mechanism is in force. At the current state of general abundance and pax Americana, I believe world population has doubled between 1960 and 2000.
World Population “Hockey Stick”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Let us know when he decides which two of his four children to send prematurely to the Soylent Green factory. Geez what an incredible hypocrite.
Spector;
Not happening. It’s actually an S-shaped growth pattern: plateau, growth, plateau. Indeed, the most historically accurate prediction band of the UN Population projection, which is the lower edge of the lowest band, has population peaking at about 8bn in about 2030, then slowly declining. Mostly due to improved living standards and increased lifespan.
A completely non-functional hockey stick, believe me. You’d be laughed off the ice if you attempted to use it.
Brian H is quite right. As people become better educated and economically freer to make their own choices, they have fewer children, as is evidenced not just in every western industrialized nation, but in almost all developing nations, where birthrates decline as their economies improve, contrary to malthusian theory. This is in part due to an emphasis on raising fewer but more productive offspring, which is also a darwinian adaptation to changing environmental pressures and competition. It’s not going against darwinian principles, but adapting them to a very new cultural climate.
Conradg;
It’s interesting that it’s also happening in Russia, very drastically, but not in response to better living standards. By all accounts, it’s refusal to inflict Russia on another generation.
RE: Brian H: (June 29, 2011 at 5:38 am)
“… A completely non-functional hockey stick, believe me. You’d be laughed off the ice if you attempted to use it.
So far, like the CO2 concentration curve, the global human population curve has a basic hockey stick shape. The ‘S’ or ramp shapes you mention include estimated *future* projections.
Spector;
Learn some demographics. Age, fertility rates, earnings expectations, and many factors go into real world population trends. And, as I said, the “low band” has been right on for decades. The others are both error and propaganda.
Spector,
You’re making things up. The population curve in most countries, and the world at large, is already an “S” curve. It was a hockey stick at one point, but that’s changed, and now it’s a very pronounced “S”. No infinite exponential growth, but logarithmic growth set to actually decline before the end of the century. Every growth curve looks like a hockey stick at some point, before it slows and crests.
Mr. Gore was giving a very nuanced speech on a complicated subject. It’s not wonder conservatives didn’t understand it. Of course, that was not his audience. If it was, I’m sure he would have spoken in very short sentences using very small words so they could keep up…
RE: Conradg: (July 1, 2011 at 2:28 pm )
“Spector, You’re making things up.
The Wikipedia site curve for World (Global) Population including estimated and actual data from 1800 to about 2004 does have that (“Hockey Stick”) shape. This is the only basis for the descriptive claim that I made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png