Al Gore

[Mikerotch]

As a Libertarian, I could care less how much the man makes or spends, but the hypocrisy is more than I can bear. It is similar to Bill Clinton advocating monogamy and G. W. Bush advocating fiscal restraint.

Mikerotch, Small Scale Hypocrit

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

[SeaAggie]

I like how his usage actually went up from '05 to '06. :thumps:

[Bill McIntyre]

And here is how it looks from the other side.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson-and-james-boyce/a-far-too-convenient-mea_b_42171.html

[Wayward Son]

I've had Gore blowing smoke up my ass since 1976. It's a wonder I don't have cancer from it.

[Mikerotch]

Bill, I must cry foul on this one. "The other side" is simply the left's planned response to the incredible problem that Al's lifestyle is creating. All arguments about "Global Warming" aside, it is incredibly two faced to tell the world (particularly all us low life underlings) to curb our activities that generate green house gases while at the same time leading a lifestyle that is creating multiple times the "problem" that we are. Just admit it, it shoots his credibility in the foot. Just like when Jimmy Swaggert got caught whore hopping, it shot what credibility he had. Or the guy out in Colorado who got caught with the male prostitute would be wise to lay off sermons about homosexuality.
It's not a "Democrat" vs. "Republican" thing, he's simply proven by his actions that he either doesn't believe what he preaches, doesn't care, or has a standard to live by which is different from what he would impose on us. I'm the first to admit that some of my actions don't live up to what I profess to believe, but this is, in my opinion, absurd.

Mikerotch, Advocate Of Attempted Minimization Of Hypocritical Behavior

[bgbill]

And here is how it looks from the other side.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson-and-james-boyce/a-far-too-convenient-mea_b_42171.html

Bill,

Al Gore is a Hypocrite, his "Carbon Footprint" is many times the national average, I could give a shit less how much fuel he consumes, but who the **** does he think he is to chastise other people who use far less resources than he does?

30 years ago the big deal was an early ice age, now it is global warming, didn't california just have an extremely colder than normal winter?

It seems to me that the ice age will cancel out global warming and everything will be just fine.

How much "Global Warming" is Al Gore responsible for with the invention of the internet?

What happened to Tipper? It looks to me like AL ate her. :eek:

[Bill McIntyre]

"Run, Al, Run." Here's Another Notable Case For Al Gore Running and Winning

In his February 8th Rolling Stone piece called "Run, Al, Run," Tim Dickinson begins with the following:

"A stiff vice president campaigns on his administration's legacy of unprecedented prosperity. Looks terrible on TV. Bows out, following a disputed vote count. Then, two terms later, with no incumbent in the race, he re-enters the fray. Promises to change the course of a disastrous war founded on lies. And charges to victory. I'm referring, of course, to the 1968 campaign of Richard Milhous Nixon. But four decades later, history has a chance to repeat itself for Albert Arnold Gore.

"If the Democrats were going to sit down and construct the perfect candidate for 2008, they'd be hard-pressed to improve on Gore. Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has no controversial vote on Iraq to defend. Unlike Barack Obama and John Edwards, he has extensive experience in both the Senate and the White House. He has put aside his wooden, policy-wonk demeanor to emerge as the Bush administration's most eloquent critic. And thanks to "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore is not only the most impassioned leader on the most urgent crisis facing the planet, he's also a Hollywood celebrity, the star of the third-highest-grossing documentary of all time."

Dickinson is dead on. As I've said for over two years now, Al Gore is the Democrats' best hope for regaining the White House in 2008. The will he or won't he charade has gone on too long, and Dickinson essentially predicts that The Goracle will soon toss his hat into the ring, and he cites several of the nation's leading political pundits to back up his contention:

"He's running in a nontraditional way, which has been powerful," says Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic consultant. "It has made him look much more interesting than if he had just been the former vice president sitting out there and thinking about a run...If Howard Dean could raise $59 million on the Internet, the mind boggles as to what Al Gore might do."

"Gore may have more money than anybody within days of entering the race," said
Joe Trippi, Dean's 2004 campaign manager, who believes Gore could raise $200 million or more on the 'net.

"There are millions of people who call themselves environmental activists, but until now, no one has ever been able to make the environment a voting issue," says GOP strategist Frank Luntz. "Gore took the environment from deep inside the newspaper and put it on the front page for the first time. He would be able to say to people, 'If you really care about global warming, you have to vote for me.'"

"Gore seems committed to being a late candidate," says Bill Clinton's former strategist Dick Morris. "He's not going to be out front as a playmaker. He's going to wait and see if there's room for him."

"Jumping in too early is a huge mistake for him," says Tony Coelho, who chaired Gore's 2000 campaign. "If the party wants to have Hillary, there's nothing Gore can do or say to stop it. But Barack Obama could be a godsend for Gore. Obama makes Hillary look like just another politician, as opposed to a fresh woman's face. He could slow her up, and John Edwards can create further doubts."

And the Hillary, Edwards, Obama slugfest could be a big boon to Gore, according to David Gergen, who's former bosses include Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. "If the three of them fight each other to a bloody draw, nobody emerges as the cherished front-runner. Then you to turn to Al Gore as someone who is not scarred up by the battle. He would look very formidable.....If Gore secures the nomination, his chances of victory would be strong."

The push for Gore is becoming louder and stronger. Clearly, the top strategists are really starting to stir, and the pressure on Gore--from a timing perspective--is intensifying. Make no mistake: Al Gore saying he's not running is not Al Gore not running. He will run. And he will likely win. As Dickinson writes, "he would also have history on his side: Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland, both of whom won the popular vote but lost the presidency, reached the White House on their next tries." And let's not forget Nixon, the other Comeback Kid. That Gore is now a Nobel Peace Prize nominee only makes him even more attractive.

2008 presents Al Gore with truly the best opportunity in his political career to capture his life-long dream of becoming president. Don't think for even one second that he will not seize the day. He's just playing it smart.

[bgbill]

Bill,

You want to make a friendly wager as to whether or not Al Gore will win the Presidency?

[Nate Baker]

This thread speaks volumes about how inane political discussion is carried out in this country. Three of the most articulate, politically aware posters on the board coming from three different philosophies, and you guys all missed it.

Mike, what's your point? How does the question of whether or not Gore is a hypocrite affect his message? Surely you're not saying that humans are no longer contributing to climate change because a politician has a big light bill. If the accusations are true, it makes him look bad, but so what? The message is about carbon emmissions.

And, as much as it pains me, I have to say Bill is just as guilty. For the most part, that Huffinton piece is as guilty as the original. It spends way too much time attacking the source of the release and very little time offering solid evidence of it's inaccuracy.

Bret, at least you brought someting to the discussion with that old 70's ice age arguement. Unfortunately, it isn't being taken seriously by anybody outside talk radio. Even the Bush administration is publicly acknowledging that human activity is contributing to climate change.

O.k., so I'm ranting. I feel a little better now, but I'm still frustrated at how hard it is to get solid discussion about important issues like this one without all the emotionally front-loaded political bs.

Or am I just taking you guys too seriously? :rolleyes:

[SeaAggie]

Al Gore has about the same chance of becoming President as Ted Kennedy....lol

[Marcus]

This thread speaks volumes about how inane political discussion is carried out in this country. Three of the most articulate, politically aware posters on the board coming from three different philosophies, and you guys all missed it.

Mike, what's your point? How does the question of whether or not Gore is a hypocrite affect his message? Surely you're not saying that humans are no longer contributing to climate change because a politician has a big light bill. If the accusations are true, it makes him look bad, but so what? The message is about carbon emissions.

And, as much as it pains me, I have to say Bill is just as guilty. For the most part, that Huffinton piece is as guilty as the original. It spends way too much time attacking the source of the release and very little time offering solid evidence of it's inaccuracy.

Bret, at least you brought someting to the discussion with that old 70's ice age arguement. Unfortunately, it isn't being taken seriously by anybody outside talk radio. Even the Bush administration is publicly acknowledging that human activity is contributing to climate change.

O.k., so I'm ranting. I feel a little better now, but I'm still frustrated at how hard it is to get solid discussion about important issues like this one without all the emotionally front-loaded political bs.


Dead nuts on. I haven't seen the film, "inconvenient truth" yet, but I'm sure that reducing the individual carbon emission footprint isn't the main tactic that Al is touting. Policy change would have the most enormous impact. Getting rid of coal power plants in exchange for zero carbon emissions nuclear plants would make an enormous impact. Government grants for furthering viable alternative energy sources that create low carbon emission, mandating hybrid vehicles, and furthering public transportation would be just a few off the top of my head that would have the most effect. Trying to get the consumer to change their habits, IMO, would be the least effective. The consumer will always choose the least expensive legal mode of transportation.

If I worked hard all my life to be in the position that Al is, you wouldn't catch me living in the carbon footprint of the average American. The article stated that he has taken some unique steps to reduce his carbon footprint. I'm sure that's more than anyone that you even know. His hard work and advocacy for reducing the carbon footprint of America is applaudable...somebody needs to do it. I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of the scientist on this planet and not Rush Limbaugh on this one...hope this doesn't offend anyone. :D

[Bill McIntyre]

Nancy and I were discussing Gore at dinner. When we have thought about Democratic candidates, we have thought about the obvious- Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

But if Gore were to seriously get into it, I think we would support him. He has so much more experience, gravitas, and proven ability than anyone else. Sure, he is a wooden speaker, but we haven't exactly had a silver tongue for the last 6 years, and at least I think he could run his own administration rather than sitting around waiting for the adults to tell him what he thought and what he should say.

Of course Hillary has certainly seen first hand how it should be done, but even if she could replicate it, I think there is too much gut hatred out there to let her be elected.

Both Obama and Edwards are certainly articulate and intelligent (and even clean), but there is not enough information to predict how well they would do.

I feel like I know Al better, and I don't give a shit how big his carbon footprint is.

PS: piss off Nate :)

[Steel Shootin']

Nancy and I were discussing Gore at dinner. When we have thought about Democratic candidates, we have thought about the obvious- Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

Do not forget Bill Richardson! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson) I know he is a long shot, but I like this guy a lot. I think once people get a chance to hear him, he can pick-up momentum. He is by far my favorite Democratic candidate at the moment. He possesses a certain common sense and political courage that is so rare to see anymore.

[Mikerotch]

Bill, Congratulations. You win the "Hijack of the Month Award." This thread was not intended as a discussion on potential democratic nominees. It was simply a slam dunk as to the hypocrisy and double standard lifestyle of arguably the world's leader in the "Global Warming" movement. You have done a wonderful job of not even hinting to the fact that your boy has been caught with his pants down. ( No Clinton pun intended )

Mike, what's your point? How does the question of whether or not Gore is a hypocrite affect his message? Surely you're not saying that humans are no longer contributing to climate change because a politician has a big light bill. If the accusations are true, it makes him look bad, but so what? The message is about carbon emmissions.

My point was simply Al is a typical politician, intent on cramming his philosophy into our lives, while excusing himself from the same. I have made no statement regarding humans contributing to climate change, but if they are, the objective truth is that Al is contributing more than most of us combined. Therefore, let's begin legislation with restrictions on Al, then move on to the rest of us. That should be fair.

Mikerotch, Not Really Advocating More Legislation

[Wayward Son]

Gore got busted nor not walking the talk again. the left won't care & will find ways to excuse or ignore it.

[Bill McIntyre]

Do not forget Bill Richardson! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson) I know he is a long shot, but I like this guy a lot. I think once people get a chance to hear him, he can pick-up momentum. He is by far my favorite Democratic candidate at the moment. He possesses a certain common sense and political courage that is so rare to see anymore.

I agree and like what I have heard so far. I suppose my omission of him was because he hasn't broken out yet, but I certainly will keep an open mind.

It would be so neat if we could have attractive candidates from both parties so that I wouldn't feel like it was the end of the world if the one that I voted for lost.

[Wayward Son]

It would be so neat if we could have attractive candidates from both parties so that I wouldn't feel like it was the end of the world if the one that I voted for lost.

have to agree, right now 2008 is shaping up to be a choice between a warm shit sandwich & a cold shit sandwich. Not one that I could really support for the job has broken out in either party. There are some people I could get behind but so far they haven't gotten any traction & historically, whoever comes out on top this year is going to be the person who takes the primaries for their party next year. they're running out of time to be a real player in the next election.

[kmoose]

Getting rid of coal power plants in exchange for zero carbon emissions nuclear plants would make an enormous impact :D For one, there is no such thing as "zero" carbon emission nuke plants that use coal fired back up generation for maintainance, inspection and refueling. Depending on a nuke plants age and maintainance scedule this can represent more than 50% of a plants actual run time. In fact most of the existing nuke plants get a pass on how much emissions they can produce durring these down times because because the primary source of fuel is clean. Because of this, clean burn coal generation can be more "eco" friendly due to a consistant output of regulated lower carbon emissions. A good example of this is the Crystal River Nuke plant. The coal barges and trains run 24/7 to keep it supplied year round due to the fact the reactor spends more time offline than on.

I am certainly not against nuke plants, in fact to solve the above discribed problem we will have to double the amount of existing plants to cover Florida's ever increasing demand for energy. On top of this, any and all back up and peak demand co-generation should be fueled by natural gas.

So what is stopping us from moving foward with this??? NIBC (Not in my back yard) is what is stopping more progressive power generation. Before long, Florida WILL see the same power supply short fall problems other states have delt with in the past.

[Bill McIntyre]

have to agree, right now 2008 is shaping up to be a choice between a warm shit sandwich & a cold shit sandwich. Not one that I could really support for the job has broken out in either party. There are some people I could get behind but so far they haven't gotten any traction & historically, whoever comes out on top this year is going to be the person who takes the primaries for their party next year. they're running out of time to be a real player in the next election.

Expanding on this theme, I think the biggest problem is that if a Republican is someone who wouldn't cause me to slit my wrists if he got elected, and if a Democrat is someone who won't be called a Communist infiltrator by Republicans, then he won't get the nomination of his party.

As one for instance, Chuck Hagel looks pretty good to me, but I suspect that he won't get nominated because he does look good to me. He won't pass his party's purity test.

[Marcus]

So what is stopping us from moving foward with this??? NIBC (Not in my back yard) is what is stopping more progressive power generation. Before long, Florida WILL see the same power supply short fall problems other states have delt with in the past.

I understand the newer technology plants are whole lot more efficient and safer than plants like crystal river. The world's sentiment on viable energy is swaying back towards nuclear. It's being promoted as a 'green' fuel and is really about the only choice. I know there is about 60 that are being built or are in the planning stages currently around the world. There is also a large scale Fusion reactor being built.

[Mikerotch]

Nuclear power, coal burning, Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagel, it doesn't matter. Al Gore has still been caught with his pants down.

Mikerotch, Staying the Al Gore Hypocrite Course

[Steel Shootin']

Bill, Congratulations. You win the "Hijack of the Month Award."


Sorry for my part in contributing to the derailment of your thread. I just thought your original point lacked any substance, so did not care to comment.

[Mikerotch]

Sorry for my part in contributing to the derailment of your thread. I just thought your original point lacked any substance, so did not care to comment.

No problem, it was not intended to be any great philosophical discussion, just was pointing out the incredible inconsistency of the "global warming guru". By the way, it was in no way partisan, as I probably hold Republicans in greater disdain than Democrats. Hard for a former rabid republican to say, but it's true.

Mikerotch, Politician Disdainer

[bikewrench]

Maybe Al Gore has reduced his carbon footprint by 5% already. Heck maybe he has reduced it by 25%. Maybe the house he currently lives in has half the carbon footprint of the one he could live in. Al Gore is not telling anyone to forsake electricity, hot water, or automobiles. Neither he nor any other 'Prophet' of global warming is advocating that we all live in unheated caves and walk to work. Everyone I've read or listened to has simply said that we should be aware of the problem, consequences, and solutions. As individuals we should all try to find ways to reduce our emissions and as a nation we should pursue development strategies that are less harmful to the environment. As an example, the entire country of Australia is dumping the 19th century technology of the incandesent light bulb for the greatly more efficient compact fluorescent bulb. In an individual house that painless sacrifice will have a minor effect, but multiplied across millions of households the effect is enormous.
I would worry more about my own house than Al Gore's. Besides if Al Gore can get say, one million of us to reduce our output by only 1% each, that cumulative effect would be many, many times greater than anything he could do by himself. He has dedicated his life to doing that, what have you done?

[Bill McIntyre]

Well hell, if we are free to branch out a bit, here is what my girlfriend has to say about him, along with a few nice slaps at the present gang for comparison.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/opinion/28dowd.html?hp

[jackpine savage]

Al Gore, for all his faults is trying to make this planet a better place for everyone to live in. Compare that with what other Democrats and Republicans who no longer in office are doing and I will take Al anyday. I would say after reading that article that he should really attempt to make major changes in his household energy consumption to make his point on climate change more valid and to deny ammunition to his opponents.

[LakeHunter]

In the documentary, Gore's main target's are power plant's (specifically coal) and the current administration for not having more environmentally friendly policy, and not joining other coutries in doing the right thing and trying to fix the problem of global warming. (Why the **** did we not sign the Kyoto protocol???=retarded). He is more than making up for his utility bills with the work he has put into the environmental movement. :D :D :D

[Mikerotch]

I never cease to be amazed at how partisans will seldom if ever admit to their guys' faults. Trying to get a G.W. Bush proponent to admit his fiscal policy is worse than the drunkenest sailor in the history of time can only be accomplished using G.W.'s torture directives and trying to get an Al Gore proponent to admit that his lifestyle and policy recommendations are at odds with each other will obviously require similar techniques. Jackpine, my hat's off to you, you came real close to just outright saying that Al has created a dilemma with his hypocrisy.
I would not say that one could not still like or support the guy, I would just like for once for a left leaning individual to concur that he in fact is being disingenuous. Similarly, on another note, I'd love to hear a Bush supporter admit that he is the biggest spending president in over 40 years and that precludes him from being a "conservative."

Mikerotch, More Libertarian By the Day

[jackpine savage]

I think the size of his house and the utility bill are both over the top. I have been a builder for 6 years now and still can't understand what people do with all that space in these huge homes, and I have built a few. If Gore was really serious about his message he would be much more credible were he to live a more environmenteally sensitive lifestyle. I guess he is being hypocritical in the same way as the Hollywood stars who lecture people on various issues all the while flying from one place to another in their private jets. Ralph Nader is a man who at least lives according to his principles.

[bikewrench]

I never cease to be amazed at how partisans will seldom if ever admit to their guys' faults. Trying to get a G.W. Bush proponent to admit his fiscal policy is worse than the drunkenest sailor in the history of time can only be accomplished using G.W.'s torture directives and trying to get an Al Gore proponent to admit that his lifestyle and policy recommendations are at odds with each other will obviously require similar techniques. Jackpine, my hat's off to you, you came real close to just outright saying that Al has created a dilemma with his hypocrisy.
I would not say that one could not still like or support the guy, I would just like for once for a left leaning individual to concur that he in fact is being disingenuous. Similarly, on another note, I'd love to hear a Bush supporter admit that he is the biggest spending president in over 40 years and that precludes him from being a "conservative."

Mikerotch, More Libertarian By the Day
Ok Mike, "Al Gore is being disingenuous, as his lifestyle seems at odds with his message." Now how about you try to admit that his message is an important one and should be listened to and considered, regardless of his personal lifestyle? I'll wager you don't have it in you.

[LakeHunter]

try to admit that his message is an important one and should be listened to and considered, regardless of his personal lifestyle? I'll wager you don't have it in you.

nice

[Marcus]

So...should I not try to reduce my carbon footprint or think that anyone else should because the bringer of this message isn't? Does his hypocrisy negate the releventness of his message? I think not and don't really care about his hypocrisy. At least he's doing something worth while on this planet as compared to the rest of the bunch...and that gives him a free pass in my book. I'm a libertarian as well.
BTW, I've understood and have agreed with his message years ago. I'm just glad that someone is finally getting it out there.

[bgbill]

So...should I not try to reduce my carbon footprint or think that anyone else should because the bringer of this message isn't? Does his hypocrisy negate the releventness of his message? I think not and don't really care about his hypocrisy. At least he's doing something worth while on this planet as compared to the rest of the bunch...and that gives him a free pass in my book. I'm a libertarian as well.
BTW, I've understood and have agreed with his message years ago. I'm just glad that someone is finally getting it out there.

What exactly has he done, that is worthwhile? :rolleyes:

[ITSABOUTTIME]

So...should I not try to reduce my carbon footprint or think that anyone else should because the bringer of this message isn't? Does his hypocrisy negate the releventness of his message? I think not and don't really care about his hypocrisy. At least he's doing something worth while on this planet as compared to the rest of the bunch...and that gives him a free pass in my book. I'm a libertarian as well.
BTW, I've understood and have agreed with his message years ago. I'm just glad that someone is finally getting it out there.
I thought the libertarian doctrine was personal freedom and responsibility, not relying on the government or collective society to take care of things thats completely contrary to what Al Gore is doing.

[bgbill]

Al Gore is a Hypocrite just like Jimmy Buffet, they want everyone else to conserve energy and protect the environment, yet they do literally nothing to help other than criticize others.

[Mikerotch]

Now how about you try to admit that his message is an important one and should be listened to and considered, regardless of his personal lifestyle? I'll wager you don't have it in you.

I will hereby officially admit that IF his message is true, then it should most certainly be listened to and considered. However, based on his personal lifestyle, I can only conclude that he himself does not believe it , so I remain skeptical. Why would anyone believe the message of an individual who obviously doesn't believe it himself ? Lest anyone think that I am opposed to caring for the one earth we have, let me say categorically that it is not true. I just am certain that since our government does such a poor job of everything it attempts, mandates derived and enforced by them are not in our best interests or the earth's. By the way, I earn my living in the recycling business. It is a business I started after seeing an unmet need in an industry and figuring out a way to make a marketable product out of someone else's trash. The free market has a wonderful way of doing such. I would be able to do much more, were I not faced with the daily grind of dealing with government entities and their endless barrage of rules, regulations, and accompanying fees, licenses, fines, etc. In fact, I'd bet there's $ 3.00 or
$ 4.00 worth of minerals in ole Al that could be put to better use, but as a private property advocate, I'm content to say Al can do with his body what he'd like as long as he will stay away from mine.

Mikerotch, Free Market Recycler

[Marcus]

What exactly has he done, that is worthwhile? :rolleyes:


Uhmmm...promote an important message to the wasteful American public that we need to change our ways or suffer the consequences of our actions?

[jettyrat21]

What exactly has he done, that is worthwhile? :rolleyes:



Dont forget this bastion of gravitas invented the internet.

[Marcus]

Dont forget this bastion of gravitas invented the internet.


It's a pretty well known fact that he never said this and his words were taken out of context. Look it up on Snopes.com.

[Marcus]

I will hereby officially admit that IF his message is true, then it should most certainly be listened to and considered. However, based on his personal lifestyle, I can only conclude that he himself does not believe it , so I remain skeptical. Why would anyone believe the message of an individual who obviously doesn't believe it himself ? Lest anyone think that I am opposed to caring for the one earth we have, let me say categorically that it is not true. I just am certain that since our government does such a poor job of everything it attempts, mandates derived and enforced by them are not in our best interests or the earth's. By the way, I earn my living in the recycling business. It is a business I started after seeing an unmet need in an industry and figuring out a way to make a marketable product out of someone else's trash. The free market has a wonderful way of doing such. I would be able to do much more, were I not faced with the daily grind of dealing with government entities and their endless barrage of rules, regulations, and accompanying fees, licenses, fines, etc. In fact, I'd bet there's $ 3.00 or
$ 4.00 worth of minerals in ole Al that could be put to better use, but as a private property advocate, I'm content to say Al can do with his body what he'd like as long as he will stay away from mine.

Mikerotch, Free Market Recycler

Mike, I totally believe in letting the free market do it's thing...most of the time. But, you have to admit that the general market doesn't have the interest of our future generations in mind? Most people are only concerned with their selfish ambitions. They're going to choose the cheapest alternatives regardless of future consequences. Remember the love canal...the pollution from steel town? That wouldn't have changed without government intervention. The lobbiest have a death grip on our government officials. The profit driven nature of things is detrimental to our environment without government intervention.
Please explain how the free market will fix the current situation. I'd like to understand where you're coming from.
The way I see it, the free market will not change things until people are on the verge of dying...when people start to realize that the risk/reward ratio becomes too risky concerning their quality of life. Unfortunately the damage is too deep by then.

Being in Shanghai, let me give you a few examples. The water out of the faucet is completely orally unacceptable. You can't even use it to brush your teeth without the risk of a dental infection. Everybody knows that you can't eat anything that comes out of the river. Seeing the sun is not a common occurance. Somedays after walking through the city you can blow black shit out of your nose...and this is the most purest form of capatilism I've ever seen.

[Mikerotch]

Marcus, there's hope, but this one is going to take a few minutes and I've got to fill out some government forms before they castrate me. I'll respond with some thoughts that will fully restore your faith in the free market.

Mikerotch, Another Surf Off To Do Uncompensated Work For Government
Overseers

[Bill McIntyre]

Mikerotch, Another Surf Off To Do Uncompensated Work For Government
Overseers

Its not really uncompensated. It pays for a legal system that protects your assets, builds roads so that your trucks can carry recycled goods, provides water that is safe to drink, etc.

Or if you don't believe it, move to Shanghai.

[kmoose]

I can only conclude that he himself does not believe it , so I remain skeptical. Why would anyone believe the message of an individual who obviously doesn't believe it himself ? Lest anyone think that I am opposed to caring for the one earth we have, let me say categorically that it is not true. I just am certain that since our government does such a poor job of everything it attempts, mandates derived and enforced by them are not in our best interests or the earth's.

I couldn’t agree more.


Uhmmm...promote an important message to the wasteful American public that we need to change our ways or suffer the consequences of our actions?

It is very hard for me to buy "medicine" he won't take himself. On top of that, he is making money on this "Sky is Falling!" crusade which in turn makes him the worst form of hypocrite. Now that he has a voting mass that has bought his swill, lawmakers will be strong armed into creating legislation without proper and unbiased research to back their decisions. Sound familiar????

Marcus, would you hire a successful broker if he was up on charges of insider trading?

Nevermind……you’re still probably the president of the Milli Vanilli fan club. :D

[Mikerotch]

Mike, I totally believe in letting the free market do it's thing...most of the time.

We will now give you reasons to "totally" believe. One of the first items that should be addressed is the fact that there are no absolute solutions to the world's problems. Whether or not one is theistic or atheistic it is apparent that mankind has a proclivity to do evil and wrong. Granted, we have the option of doing "right", but many times that is the exception and not the rule. Please note the 100,000,000 plus (or whatever it is ) who died last century due to wars. Regardless of what the state may implement, people will still due as they will, after weighing the costs. (Please see war on drugs, and now more illegal prescription drugs than illegal non-prescription drugs being used) In my opinion, and many much smarter than me, a truly free market provides the best mechanism for maximizing liberty and wealth, while minimizing the effects of our "sinful" nature.

Most people are only concerned with their selfish ambitions.

Unfortunately, this is basically true. However; and this is important, this applies to ALL people when taken as a whole, including politicians and bureaucrats. The beauty of the free market (a market that protects private property rights) is that in order to obtain something, (money, something of value, etc.) one must first provide a good or service that the other party values more than what ever it is that they have. Example : The grocer values your money more than he values his gallon of milk, and likewise, you value his gallon of milk more than you value your money. You each "take advantage" of each other, but you both "gain" something in the transaction. When the state takes over any given enterprise, part of the equation goes away and is replaced by additional costs and inefficiency. For example, when the state passes "price gouging" legislation on gasoline, they artificially increase demand due to artificially lower prices. This leads to shortages and who knows what kind of domino effects. They (the state) see a problem (high prices) and want to fix it. Their solution; however, creates a bigger problem (no gas) and prolongs the entry of additional supply into the market. (no profit, who's going to enter a market with no profit?) The same principle applies to virtually everything, if not everything they do.


Mikerotch, To Be Continued.

[Bill McIntyre]

Long ago and far away in another thread, I delivered a lecture on what economists call "market failure," situations in which the unrestrained free market does not yield optimal results for society.

In every economics book from which I taught, pollution was listed as an example.

[Mikerotch]

Remember the love canal...the pollution from steel town? That wouldn't have changed without government intervention.

Bad problem, but the solution is not to make you and I pay for it, for that lessens the cost to the perpetrators, increasing the likelihood of more of the same. The guilty parties violated the rights of those property owners and under any reasonable justice system, they, along with shareholders if necessary, should have been liable. ( Corporate law and shielding of liability is another issue ) If private property rights are held in highest regard, anyone who violates another via pollution would be held accountable. For more, see :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/air-pollution.html

The lobbiest have a death grip on our government officials. The profit driven nature of things is detrimental to our environment without government intervention.

You spoke clearly here, and fortunately you provided the primary reason for free markets versus state. The second part of your statement puts control of any issue in the hands of the lobbiest. This, Marcus is the problem. The government becomes the instrument by which those with influence assume greater control over those without. Go over to the Florida Gulf Coast forum and follow the debacle with the state entity regulating grouper and it becomes painfully clear. Those with the deepest pockets buy their monopoly from corrupt, incompetent politicians. (not that all the on the water guys are corrupt, but the policies they are enforcing are purchased by the group with the most clout, in this case, the "longliners")

Being in Shanghai, let me give you a few examples.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Shanghai in China, the place where for all but the last few years there has been absolute government control ? Never been there, but I think this makes a better case against government control, than for it.

Mikerotch, Passing On Shanghai For The Time Being

[Mikerotch]

Its not really uncompensated. It pays for a legal system that protects your assets, builds roads so that your trucks can carry recycled goods, provides water that is safe to drink, etc.

Bill, not to argue, but my filling out paperwork justifying the firing of a thief for the Georgia Department of Labor in no way pays for a legal system, builds roads, or gets me a safe drink of water. In fact, like most government programs here is the effect : He stole, I fired him. Reasonable to most. I dare say 100 % of the readers of this post would have done the same thing in my shoes. ( Actually suspended him last time he stole with the stipulation that firing was next time. After a few years, he did it again ) Now, because I did not specify in writing that his particular form of thievery was prohibited, they intend to take my tax money and pay him for 17 weeks, tax free, to sit on his ass. I'm appealing. He stole, I fired him, and now I pay him for not working.
You may find this hard to believe, but I don't mind paying taxes. What I do mind is all the feces they use my taxes for that are outside the realm of courts, roads, and water.

Mikerotch, Advocate Of Safe Drinking Water

[stickitfishy]

For one, there is no such thing as "zero" carbon emission nuke plants that use coal fired back up generation for maintainance, inspection and refueling. Depending on a nuke plants age and maintainance scedule this can represent more than 50% of a plants actual run time. In fact most of the existing nuke plants get a pass on how much emissions they can produce durring these down times because because the primary source of fuel is clean. Because of this, clean burn coal generation can be more "eco" friendly due to a consistant output of regulated lower carbon emissions. A good example of this is the Crystal River Nuke plant. The coal barges and trains run 24/7 to keep it supplied year round due to the fact the reactor spends more time offline than on.

I am certainly not against nuke plants, in fact to solve the above discribed problem we will have to double the amount of existing plants to cover Florida's ever increasing demand for energy. On top of this, any and all back up and peak demand co-generation should be fueled by natural gas.

So what is stopping us from moving foward with this??? NIBC (Not in my back yard) is what is stopping more progressive power generation. Before long, Florida WILL see the same power supply short fall problems other states have delt with in the past.

Are you familiar with the Hines Energy Complex, that's where I'm working now. It seems to have very low emissions.

[Wayward Son]

Seeing as how the USA, having not signed Kyoto, has actually reduced emissions at a greater rate than most of the nations that did sign Kyoto, I'd say there is some empirical evidence that market forces can deal with the problems of pollution & emission.

Of course, the reality of it is the China, agreeing with Kyoto while being exempt from it (that's a damned easy thing to do, no?), is in the process of cranking up one shitload of dirty, polluting, coal fired power plants right now & for many years to come (as I recall, it's one new plant every couple of weeks or so for a total of 2500). We could cut our emissions is half & get nowhere, given what their plants are spitting out.

But no, America doesn't sign Kyoto & join in on the shell game = bad, evil, stupid USA, where China agrees that Kyoto is great while not being bound by its restrictions = good, smart, environmentally friendly China. Go figure.

[bikewrench]

I can only conclude that he himself does not believe it , so I remain skeptical. Why would anyone believe the message of an individual who obviously doesn't believe it himself ?
Where do you people learn how to think? That "logic" is asinine. What Al Gore does or doesn't do has nothing to do with whether Global Warming is real or not! I think it is a problem worth addressing not because Al Gore told me but because I have read about the science behind the theory and based on what I know about science, I believe it is a problem. You are clearly not an open mind waiting for real evidence one way or the other. You are clearly someone who believes GW is a sham (no doubt part of the liberal conspiracy designed to promote the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT:rolleyes: ) and has jumped upon Al Gore's lifestyle as "evidence" that it is a sham. Man are you clever! Can't get anything by you. If you are really in recycling and are such an advocate of the free market, then you of all people should realize the ecconomic potential of cleaning up the environment. Even if the global warming forcasts are wrong, removing pollutants from the environment is still a good idea. Again I repeat: worry more about your own house than Al's.

[Mikerotch]

Thank you, Wayward. I need to go to a basketball game, so I need a free market substitute.

Mikerotch, Wore Out and Tired From Government Forms

[jackpine savage]

Whether or not the US joins the Kyoto protocol is fast becoming a moot point due to two forces. The first is state governments which have been passing "green" legislation to deal with the issues of climat change. The second, more important, is American business. Since many countries, especially European ones, have signed onto Kyoto, American companies doing business in these nations must abide by the Kyoto protocol. Most fortune 500 companies are now implementing changes that will enable them to do business in these nations without being in violation of EU law.

[Man-O-War]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY

Nothing beats big oil

[Marcus]

Now that he has a voting mass that has bought his swill, lawmakers will be strong armed into creating legislation without proper and unbiased research to back their decisions. Sound familiar????

Nevermind……you’re still probably the president of the Milli Vanilli fan club. :D

Again, because he's a hypocrite does not make the message null and void.
Research shows that nuclear power is a much better solution than coal fired plants regarding carbon emmissions. Legislate the prevention of any more being built. Legislate a gasoline tax in which the money is given back to the people in the form of tax credits if they own a hybrid or use the money for government grants/awards to the development of zero carbon emmission vehicles.

Yes, I'm still the president and your fan club dues are late this month. ;)

[Marcus]

Bad problem, but the solution is not to make you and I pay for it, for that lessens the cost to the perpetrators, increasing the likelihood of more of the same. The guilty parties violated the rights of those property owners and under any reasonable justice system, they, along with shareholders if necessary, should have been liable. ( Corporate law and shielding of liability is another issue ) If private property rights are held in highest regard, anyone who violates another via pollution would be held accountable. For more, see :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/air-pollution.html



"The guilty parties violated the rights of those property owners and under any reasonable justice system, they, along with shareholders if necessary, should have been liable."

Uhmm..making the companies pay for the clean-up? Isn't that the government interfering with the free market? By doing so, the government would've placed that company at an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
Didn't the government just impose legislation that limited the pollution output into the water,by penalty of law, for all corporations? ...therefore keeping the even playing field in the market? How does that sort of legislation interfere with the free market? The free market is always going to have to play by some sort of rules, otherwise it would be a blood bath. Wouldn't legislation requiring all car companies to have zero emissions vehicles by 2020 have the desired effect without interfering with the free market?


Regarding Shanghai, the government interference in the free market is practically zero and has been for quite a while.

[Marcus]

Seeing as how the USA, having not signed Kyoto, has actually reduced emissions at a greater rate than most of the nations that did sign Kyoto, I'd say there is some empirical evidence that market forces can deal with the problems of pollution & emission.

Of course, the reality of it is the China, agreeing with Kyoto while being exempt from it (that's a damned easy thing to do, no?), is in the process of cranking up one shitload of dirty, polluting, coal fired power plants right now & for many years to come (as I recall, it's one new plant every couple of weeks or so for a total of 2500). We could cut our emissions is half & get nowhere, given what their plants are spitting out.

But no, America doesn't sign Kyoto & join in on the shell game = bad, evil, stupid USA, where China agrees that Kyoto is great while not being bound by its restrictions = good, smart, environmentally friendly China. Go figure.

Nobody raised a stink about China because they are the ones being utilized right now to increase the profits of corporations...low cost labor region. You're not going to stop a country from growing it's economy in order to abide by the Kyoto agreement. China is going pretty much all nuclear for it's energy needs though...as is India, the next region of enormous growth.

"We could cut our emissions is half & get nowhere, given what their plants are spitting out." So...we should stop trying? How about we keep trying, sign the accord, and get the rest of the members in the accord to place export tariffs on goods coming out of China until they abide?

[Marcus]

On topic...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_sc/un_climate_change_2

[grouper567]

I have an idea, on reducing our carbon foot print
stop all diving,fishing,spearing in the Fl keys
except for old plumbers using ltd 54 , or metaltech 3 s
that use 25 " sportcraft to get out to the reef
think how much fuel that would save

http://spearboard.com/newreply.php#
Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)

[Wayward Son]

If China is going all nuclear, then why are they cranking up about 2500 coal burning plants so fast as to seem impossible?

[Wayward Son]

Took a minute to dig it up, it's been reported that every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego & that they will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030. So I was a little high in what I recalled, thinking 2500. But not much.

Now, I don't think they'd need that many if they're going all nuclear. Do you?

[Wayward Son]

Now, as to how that impacts us, I suppose we should shut down our stuff so that China can enjoy growing their economy, right? I guess where you are, your local economy has grown all it needs to. so you & your neighbors are done & will happy to stagnate in order to allow China to enjoy it?

[Wayward Son]

Gore's bull squeeze gets even better. the Nashville Tennessean reports that Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

" Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . ."

Now, here's what you don't know about Generation Investment Management:

It's a firm that Gore founded. He is the chairman of Generation Investment Management.

So in short, he's buying his carbon blocks from himself.

And the more he runs around, consuming copious amounts of fuel & emitting carbon by the ton, getting people cranked up & buying into what he's saying, the value of the stock ho owns goes up, yes?

Follow the money. It runs full circle back to Gore. Hmmmmmmm

But I forget, we're not supposed to look at the man behind the curtain, we're supposed to focus on the show ;)

[Mikerotch]

You go Girl................................

Mikerotch, ROTFLMAO

[Christof]

How does the question of whether or not Gore is a hypocrite affect his message?

I know you are not serious with the above question..... Are you?


Let's see....... "Son, you should never, ever, do drugs... Drugs are bad for you. They will only lead you down a very ugly road and are no good for you...
Now can you pass me the bong?"


He should either live as conservatively as possible to do his part of lessening greenhouse effect, or STFU....

What he is doing, in effect, is classic "Let them eat cake" mentality...

[kmoose]

[QUOTE=Wayward Son]Gore's bull squeeze gets even better. the Nashville Tennessean reports that Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

" Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . ."

Now, here's what you don't know about Generation Investment Management:

It's a firm that Gore founded. He is the chairman of Generation Investment Management.

So in short, he's buying his carbon blocks from himself.

And the more he runs around, consuming copious amounts of fuel & emitting carbon by the ton, getting people cranked up & buying into what he's saying, the value of the stock ho owns goes up, yes?

Follow the money. It runs full circle back to Gore. Hmmmmmmm
QUOTE]

Now THAT, is an Inconvenient Truth!!!!! For Gore that is..........
Whether "Global Warming" is relevent or not, Gore has single handedly tainted all or any good data he has compiled by his own personal greed and underlying agenda. What a Dipsh*t! I was skeptical to begin with and now I know why.

[jackpine savage]

Took a minute to dig it up, it's been reported that every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego & that they will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030. So I was a little high in what I recalled, thinking 2500. But not much.

Now, I don't think they'd need that many if they're going all nuclear. Do you?

If I am not mistaken China has huge reserves of coal, unfortunately if I remember right it is high sulfur coal which is worse for air quality than the low sulfur type found out in Wyoming.

[Mikerotch]

Although I am not in the "Global Warming" Camp, I would be glad to admit that it may, in fact, at least theoretically, be an issue. As I try and absorb what information is out there that is considered evidence, I will limit sources to only those who believe what they say. I could speak volumes on the virtues of astrology, for example, but if I were all of you I wouldn't listen to a word I said on the subject after finding out I don't believe astrology has any virtues. Likewise, I would refuse to listen to George Bush talk on the subject of respecting our constitution.

Mikerotch, Seldom Listening To Politicians

[Mikerotch]

KMoose, Is your daughter still slaughtering the hogs ? Haven't seen any recent reports, maybe I missed them.

Mikerotch, Advocate Of Hog Slaughter

[riplipper]

ANYONE who takes Al Gore seriously...is seriously delirious.....

The only positive thing about Gore is he is so full of $hit, he one day will make a great pile of fertilizer to grow a nice tree......at that point in time he will make a contribution to the environment

[bgbill]

Although I am not in the "Global Warming" Camp, I would be glad to admit that it may, in fact, at least theoretically, be an issue. As I try and absorb what information is out there that is considered evidence, I will limit sources to only those who believe what they say. I could speak volumes on the virtues of astrology, for example, but if I were all of you I wouldn't listen to a word I said on the subject after finding out I don't believe astrology has any virtues. Likewise, I would refuse to listen to George Bush talk on the subject of respecting our constitution.

Mikerotch, Seldom Listening To Politicians

Don't drink the Kool Aid, even if you do buy the bullshit that global warming is happening, the temperature has only gone up 7/10 of 1 degree Celsius.

There have been more than a few global warming conferences cancelled due to snow and storms. :confused:

There has also been several temperature monitoring stations in the cooler climates that have been taken off line, that could account for the 7/10 of 1 degree temperature rise.

The sun has been having "Storms" which cause flares and that can also account for the temperature rise.

[chuam]

Don't drink the Kool Aid, even if you do buy the bullshit that global warming is happening, the temperature has only gone up 7/10 of 1 degree Celsius.

There have been more than a few global warming conferences cancelled due to snow and storms. :confused:

There has also been several temperature monitoring stations in the cooler climates that have been taken off line, that could account for the 7/10 of 1 degree temperature rise.

The sun has been having "Storms" which cause flares and that can also account for the temperature rise.

Weather (i.e. snow storms) and climate are actually two different things. Did you know that January was the warmest one for the entire US in recorded history?

We are talking about big picture here (climate) not the snapshot (weather).

Just a question for you guys. Do you really think that the deforestation, covering large tracts of land in asphalt and concrete and the massive amounts of emmissions that each country in the world is pumping into the atmosphere, aren't going to affect the climate or the environment?

If you can honestly tell me that these things aren't going to affect the environment and climate you really have your head in the sand

[Mikerotch]

Although I am not in the "Global Warming" Camp

Have no intentions of drinking the koolaid, do not at this time believe global warming is an issue. I was simply stating that it is at least theoretically possible, but even if it were a proven fact I would not want a government solution. The end result would be "Global Baking", because most government solutions make matters worse rather than better. I suspect after Al and his buddies milk this for what it's worth it will go the way of the "ozone" hole from a few years ago.

Mikerotch, Wishing For "Gulf Warming"

[bgbill]

Weather (i.e. snow storms) and climate are actually two different things. Did you know that January was the warmest one for the entire US in recorded history?

We are talking about big picture here (climate) not the snapshot (weather).

Just a question for you guys. Do you really think that the deforestation, covering large tracts of land in asphalt and concrete and the massive amounts of emissions that each country in the world is pumping into the atmosphere, aren't going to affect the climate or the environment?

If you can honestly tell me that these things aren't going to affect the environment and climate you really have your head in the sand

Look at a photo taken from a sattelite, the majority of the earth has not been developed.

Yes there is quite a bit of deforestation that has happened, but there are also a lot of new trees being planted.

If emissions are so bad, why is it OK for China to do it, but not the United States?

Al Gores buying carbon credits is bullshit, that is like saying it is OK to beat your wife, as long as you buy her roses and say you are sorry.

[khel]

Don't drink the Kool Aid, even if you do buy the bullshit that global warming is happening, the temperature has only gone up 7/10 of 1 degree Celsius.

There have been more than a few global warming conferences cancelled due to snow and storms. :confused:

There has also been several temperature monitoring stations in the cooler climates that have been taken off line, that could account for the 7/10 of 1 degree temperature rise.

The sun has been having "Storms" which cause flares and that can also account for the temperature rise.


:scratch: Hmm.. let me think, last time, when temperature was down 10C it was an Ice Age...
Or maybe you've heard about such thing as "Little Ice Age"? Guess, what was the drop of the temperature at that time? 1C....

Yep, definitely, 0.7C in the last 10 years is nothing to worry about, right??

Montana's Glacier National Park (was established in 1910), held some 150 glaciers now has fewer than 30 glaciers remain - I guess it's just all Kool Aid drinker's imagination or solar flare :lol: Do I need to post other example or you can find it by yourself?

I could understand when someone doesn't believe in "greenhouse effect" or "carbon emission causing it", but, but.... insisting that global warming is not happening, is just stupid.

p.s. and I hope you do not honestly believe that "global warming - means no snow storms" :)

[mcgyvry]

Check this site out it may enlighten some of you. http://www.oism.org/pproject
This will be a lot of reading for a few here and I'm sure all the facts listed won't get in the way for the faithful of the new environmental religion. Try not to be a bunch of lemings, or if you must try to find someone better than Gore to follow over a cliff.

[bgbill]

:scratch: Hmm.. let me think, last time, when temperature was down 10C it was an Ice Age...
Or maybe you've heard about such thing as "Little Ice Age"? Guess, what was the drop of the temperature at that time? 1C....

Yep, definitely, 0.7C in the last 10 years is nothing to worry about, right??

Montana's Glacier National Park (was established in 1910), held some 150 glaciers now has fewer than 30 glaciers remain - I guess it's just all Kool Aid drinker's imagination or solar flare :lol: Do I need to post other example or you can find it by yourself?

I could understand when someone doesn't believe in "greenhouse effect" or "carbon emission causing it", but, but.... insisting that global warming is not happening, is just stupid.

p.s. and I hope you do not honestly believe that "global warming - means no snow storms" :)

It has not taken only 10 years for the .7 C temperature rise, and it may not even be a temperature rise, it could be due to more accurate recording or instrumentation.

30 years ago they said we would be in an ice age, now we have global warming, which is it?

It can't be both, but if it is, won't they cancel each other out?

[jackpine savage]

You have to go to the extreme climactic zones to see how even a .7 C temperature rise affects the overall climate. While you would not notice the increase in an area such as Florida if you were to go to the Artic you would see ice free areas of the Artic Ocean for the first time in a lifetime, or if you were to go to Alpine climates like Switzerland you would see that 199 of 200 glaciers in that nation have shrunk dramatically over the past 30 years. Kilamanjaro will be totally ice free in the next 10 years or so. Carbon, which can be accurately measured in the atmosphere, has risen constantly over the past 200 years. You live in Florida, if they are right about climate change your children will experience more numerous and severe hurricanes in that state and they will see the sea levels begin to rise within their lifetime, destroying much of what you like about your state. Better hope Al Gore is wrong.

[bikewrench]

Check this site out it may enlighten some of you. http://www.oism.org/pproject
This will be a lot of reading for a few here and I'm sure all the facts listed won't get in the way for the faithful of the new environmental religion. Try not to be a bunch of lemings, or if you must try to find someone better than Gore to follow over a cliff.
Ah yes! The famous Dr. Seitz. He of the infamous RJ Reynolds tobacco coverup scam. Nice "source" mcgyvry. If anyone reads the "research" presented by Dr. Seitz in mcgyvry's link (I did, thanks mcgyvry) it will pay to do a google search on Dr. Seitz. Read a little of his resume' and figure out where he is coming from. He has basically been blackballed by the scientific community because he has a proven history of creating "results" for the highest bidder.

[bgbill]

Wouldn't "Global Dimming" help cancel out "Global Warming"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html

[chuam]

Check this site out it may enlighten some of you. http://www.oism.org/pproject
This will be a lot of reading for a few here and I'm sure all the facts listed won't get in the way for the faithful of the new environmental religion. Try not to be a bunch of lemings, or if you must try to find someone better than Gore to follow over a cliff.

How about we go to an unbiased source.

NOAA (http://ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

[mcgyvry]

Ah yes! The famous Dr. Seitz. He of the infamous RJ Reynolds tobacco coverup scam. Nice "source" mcgyvry. If anyone reads the "research" presented by Dr. Seitz in mcgyvry's link (I did, thanks mcgyvry) it will pay to do a google search on Dr. Seitz. Read a little of his resume' and figure out where he is coming from. He has basically been blackballed by the scientific community because he has a proven history of creating "results" for the highest bidder.

Oh yea sorry those neo con crazies from the dept. of ag. ,NOAA and NASA must have all made all of those reports he quotes :rolleyes: Hey can I sell you some carbon offsets :stupid:

[bikewrench]

Wouldn't "Global Dimming" help cancel out "Global Warming"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html
Good question bret, the answer is no it won't. In fact "dimming" will mask or hide the worst effects of global warming. The dimming is caused by particulate (man-made pollution) matter high up in the atmosphere blocking some sunlight from reaching the surface. Take that out and the reflected sunlight gets through and heats up the atmosphere even more. The particulate matter does not stay up, it is eventually (and quickly) washed out of the atmosphere. Particulate air pollution has basically risen along with CO2 levels so it has repressed warming from GW. The problem is the particulate matter will come out as soon as we stop producing it while the CO2 will stay for hundreds of years. So in order to keep or increase its "protective" effect you have to maintain or increase air pollution. Is that the best choice to stave off global warming?

[khel]

Check this site out it may enlighten some of you. http://www.oism.org/pproject
This will be a lot of reading for a few here and I'm sure all the facts listed won't get in the way for the faithful of the new environmental religion. Try not to be a bunch of lemings, or if you must try to find someone better than Gore to follow over a cliff.

Some info on this if you are too lazy to look it up.

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol.

Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Petition was funded by private sources

[bikewrench]

Oh yea sorry those neo con crazies from the dept. of ag. ,NOAA and NASA must have all made all of those reports he quotes :rolleyes: Hey can I sell you some carbon offsets :stupid:
You guys will rabidly attack Al Gore based on his politics or electric bill all the while ignoring the science of his message, yet you will listen to a certified liar who has been shunned by his own scientific community for a lifetime carreer of lying about science. That report you posted is complete bull scrap! It is not an experimental report. It is a paper he wrote about other people's research and what he does in it is he takes a little piece from one guys report and another piece from another guys report and he stiches together a fairy tale that does not pass scientific rigor. He is selling you BS and you are buying it because you do not have the backgroung to understand what he is doing. There are THOUSANDS of climate scientists all over the world who actually do their OWN research and they all agree with each other. These are scientists who have credible, unblemished reputations. Yet you choose to listen to one liar. Why?
You can make up your own opinions but you CANNOT make up your own facts.

[jackpine savage]

Come on up here to Woods Hole this summer. I will take you all diving for Tautog and Flounder and when we are done we can go visit the Woods Hole Research Group (http://www.whrc.org/about_us/mission.htm), a world leader in climate change research. If they don't convince you then you still got a great couple of days diving in.

[Christof]

Heres my piece on global warming...
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that industrialization such as our country and the world has seen in the last 100 yrs can, and does affect our environment.. Saying it isnt so is as stupid as saying that if another person comes to live in your house every month, that in 10 yrs time your house will look different and probably not be the best environment to live in, the cleanest, and certainly not the healthiest... Yeah, you can adapt and cope, but you will reach a saturation point. I think that is the big concern here. How close are we to the saturation point where good ole' mother earth cannot take it without turning into something completely different? The environment is really quite fragile in it's balance needs... Now the big question... How will it affect us? Will it simply be a major adaptation that we will have to figure out? Maybe... Will it mean the end of all life on earth? I doubt it.. Our kind survived the ice age didnt we?
I myself would like to see San Fran, Miami, and other noteworthy cities get swallowed up by the ocean... The crabs and bottom feeders could use the food... LOL...

I will listen to Gore when he and Tipper give up the Lear Jets, 20 room mansions, and limosines... Ed Begley Jr. was on the other night and he actually lives very modestly and nearly 100% green.... Now he has a right to preach about change.. Not Mr. Internet and Mrs "Rock is Evil"....

[Christof]

Come on up here to Woods Hole this summer. I will take you all diving for Tautog and Flounder and when we are done we can go visit the Woods Hole Research Group (http://www.whrc.org/about_us/mission.htm), a world leader in climate change research. If they don't convince you then you still got a great couple of days diving in.Man JPS, that would be a blast.....
BTW, what the hell is a Tautog??

[jackpine savage]

Christof-Most of the year they are either lunch or dinner. A little boney but they are good eating.
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/recreationalfishing/tautog.htm

[bgbill]

Man JPS, that would be a blast.....
BTW, what the hell is a Tautog??


Christof,

Is you chin feeling better yet?

[bikewrench]

One of the biggest problems we have in this country is our incredible rate of scientific illiteracy. Most (and I mean overwhelmingly most) people have no idea what science is or what it does. Most people think science is just one other way to view the world, as good or bad, as any other way to view the world. They think it is no more valid than say religion, astrology, or even political philosophy as a way to explain the world. But it is not the same. It is much, much better and more accurate. It is, by far, the only way we have to accurately discover the nature of physical events. I am blown away when someone, who is hooked up to the internet,typing on a computer to someone half a country (or world) away, says that atoms have never been seen so we are not "sure" that they exist and therefore the concept of atoms can't be taken too seriously. :rolleyes: No religious teaching, no horoscope, no political ideology, not even a free market can invent a computer. Only a very accurate, unbiased knowledge of atomic theory and quantum dynamics could have ever led to that.
People think that scientists just make up stories that "sound good". If they don't "like" what science has to say on a topic (because it usually disagrees with their religious or political beliefs) they doubt what scientists tell them. They think that the scientist has "made up" his theory to suit some agenda. People will pick and choose what science they want believe. They will happily type on their computers (thanks to atomic and quantum theories) all day long about how Evolution is one of Satan's plans to get souls :rolleyes: . They will literally save their children's lives by giving antibiotics to end a bacterial infection (Germ Theory) but they won't even consider any evidence that humans might be damaging the Earth's climate. People think scientists are trying to "fool" them for some reason. Well that might be how religion works, and that may be how politics works but science was explicitly designed to not work like politics or religion. We all know that people can be biased, or mistaken, or purposely try to mislead (Dr. Seitz). The process of science is explicitly designed to remove those human behaviors from the final result in order to discover an accurate understanding of the world.

[Mikerotch]

Most (and I mean overwhelmingly most) people have no idea what science is or what it does.

Sounds like government run education must not be quite as good as some on this site have argued. That "overwhelmingly most" is particularly damning.

People will pick and choose what science they want believe

Assuming half of science says one thing and the other half says something exactly opposite, (which is quite common on difficult issues) would you be nice enough to always be there to tell us which one is right ? Thanks.

Mikerotch, Grateful In Advance For The Help

[jackpine savage]

When it comes to climate change I would argue that far more than half of climate scientists agree with the current consensus that the climate is indeed changing and man has a direct link to that change. Science is not 50-50 where half agree and half disagree on an issue, you say it is quite common, I disagree and would like to see evidence where it is so.

[bikewrench]

If they don't "like" what science has to say on a topic (because it usually disagrees with their religious or political beliefs) they doubt what scientists tell them. They think that the scientist has "made up" his theory to suit some agenda. .... People think scientists are trying to "fool" them for some reason.
Now I'm quoting myself :rolleyes: .
Let me give an example of what I'm talking about. Earlier in this thread, mcgravy posts his link to the Seitz report with his tacit endorsment of the "good" doctor's findings. About a month or so ago, a few hundred, well respected climate and physical scientists got together and reviewed the body of peer reviewed science on the topic of global warming. They all agreed to and signed a statement to the world that there is at least a 90% chance that global warming is human caused and will cause major changes to the environment. Mcgravy, for some reason, does not like that statement so he chooses to disbelieve it. Then he finds a paper written by a single person, who is well known to be a liar for big business, and he chooses to believe that guy. Why? Because he 'likes' what Seitz had to say. As I said earlier, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.

[bikewrench]

Assuming half of science says one thing and the other half says something exactly opposite, (which is quite common on difficult issues)

Mikerotch, Grateful In Advance For The Help
If you think this is true then you need to give an example.

[bikewrench]

You know, I would have so much more respect for people if they would only say, "Global warming might be real but I am so heavily invested in, and gain so much benefit from the current ecconomic model, that I don't give a hoot, I want things to stay the way they are."

[Wayward Son]

Part of the problem on this issue is getting to the actual science. The IPCC report recently in the news is an example. It is not a scientific report & it was not written by scientists. It was written by policy makers who have an interest in the results. Same thing was true with their report in 2001, they put an impressive list of scientists names on the cover. But it has since turned out that some of those esteemed scientists did not write any of the report, were not permitted input to it & in fact refute what it says.

Real science is about the facts. What are the facts? If you have a theory, how does the real world match it? Things like that. We are largely not getting the facts, we're getting what people want to tell us.

Gore's movie comes to mind. In it he claims that by the end of the century we're looking at a 20 foot rise in seas levels. However, there is no supporting science for that claim. Looking at this IPCC report, it has even revised it's prediction downwards from the 2001 report. It now predicts a maximum rise of maybe 36 inches, which they present as worst case. Well, that's 17 feet shy of Gore's claims & even at that we don't know if it's right.

History is rife with scientific predictions that turned out wrong. When it comes to the climate, I'm aware of at least 4 times in the past 100 years that major claims have been made, cooling, warming, cooling, warming.

The earth is a dynamic thing. It has both warmed & cooled many, many times over millions of years. It is in constant change, always doing one or the other. Most of that occurred long before man existed, so that history can't be blamed on us.

Now we're monitoring the change & it seems that we're in a warming tend. Which actually seems reasonable, given that we had an ice age not that long ago. The big difference is that we're here to actually record data & observe what happens.

That's a far cry from the premise that "it happened before & we weren't here, so it wasn't our fault, but this time it's happening and we're here, so that makes it our fault". And no, I'm not making that up, I've actually had that said to me.

Mars is warming & we're not there to cause it. It really & truly might just be an utterly natural occurance that we have absolutely no control over, but if you dare to suggest that you get portrayed as some sort of ignorant barbarian.

If there is no dispute allowed to even be considered, it's not science. It's religion.

There are too many people pushing the "man is doing it" side who clearly have their own interests for doing so. They want to pass laws controlling people. They want to force the creation of new taxes, they want more control over private property, the list goes on.

Those stakes are pretty big, for what's left of a free society to throw away. I for one want more solid proof than I have been presented with before I'm going to be willing to simply accept what they say without question.

[jackpine savage]

You are right on a lot of those points, however there is real science that shows the climate of the earth is indeed changing. The most debateable part of that is the "how", mst, although not all, climate scientists will agree that human activity does have a role just how much is what is controversial. The thing is by the time we have enough evidence to probe that they are right it will probably be to late. All one has to do is look at satellite imagery of the Amazon and Equatorial African rainforest degradation over the past 30 years to realize some bad mojo is happening.

[jackpine savage]

Wayward-The authors of the working group 1 of the IPCC who authored what is entitled "The Scientific Basis" are indeed scientists. That they work for government scientific research organizations doesn't take away from their credentials. My father has a PhD in microbiology but worked for the government, it didn't make him any less of a scientist nor did it make his research any less of science.

[bikewrench]

Wayward, I will certainly grant you that any predictions in this case are very difficult to get perfect. But there is virtually no question that human activity over the last 200 years has greatly increased what had previously been relatively stable CO2 levels. There is also (despite the BS in Dr. Seitz's report) virtually no question that average global temps have risen along with those CO2 levels. And finally, there is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes heat retention. Ergo Sum... we are causing a heating of the Earth. Questions remain about how, exactly, the Earth's systems can mitigate that CO2 and heat increase. Predictions of future events aside, observations and measurements of the recent past do not give comfort. Glaciers, sea ice, and polar caps are in fact melting for the first time in eons. That event alone, regardless of the reason, should cause concern. There is enough water locked up in the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps to get a 20ft rise in sea water levels. The reason for the dire warnings is that the results of inaction can be catastrophic. Again, you do not 'like' the message because of your strong conservative views, so you dismiss the facts as they are. To justify your dismissal you focus on any area of weakness in the theory.

[Marcus]

Took a minute to dig it up, it's been reported that every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego & that they will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030. So I was a little high in what I recalled, thinking 2500. But not much.

Now, I don't think they'd need that many if they're going all nuclear. Do you?

Didn't take but a minute to find this source buttressing my claims.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3208china_htr.html

I still haven't find any sources to support yours. Please help me out.

[Marcus]

" Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . ."

Now, here's what you don't know about Generation Investment Management:

It's a firm that Gore founded. He is the chairman of Generation Investment Management.

So in short, he's buying his carbon blocks from himself.

And the more he runs around, consuming copious amounts of fuel & emitting carbon by the ton, getting people cranked up & buying into what he's saying, the value of the stock ho owns goes up, yes?

Follow the money. It runs full circle back to Gore. Hmmmmmmm

But I forget, we're not supposed to look at the man behind the curtain, we're supposed to focus on the show ;)


I really don't care if he's making money off of it that still does not discredit the opinions of the majority of scientists on this planet.
At least he's making money off of something good for the world as opposed to the current administration.

[jackpine savage]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/science/03climate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[bgbill]

I really don't care if he's making money off of it that still does not discredit the opinions of the majority of scientists on this planet.
At least he's making money off of something good for the world as opposed to the current administration.

What good is he doing the world by pimping a non existent problem?

I think Al Gore could do the world a favor and STFU.

[jackpine savage]

Global Warming is a real problem, just because you decide not to believe the science doesn't make it any less real. Or are you hoping that in a few years you have waterfront property?

[bgbill]

Global Warming is a real problem, just because you decide not to believe the science doesn't make it any less real. Or are you hoping that in a few years you have waterfront property?

There are many scientists who say global warming is not a problem.

Whatever happened to the scientists who 30 years ago said we were going to be in an ice age?

[jackpine savage]

That wasn't accepted by the vast majority of scientists at the time. Also it isn't global warming, its climate change. While the globabl temp is rising the effects will be different around the globe, some places will get significantly wetter while other place will get much drier and hotter. Global Warming is accepted science by the vast majority of scientists not just in the US but in the world. Don't know why we continue to debate this thread.

[bgbill]

That wasn't accepted by the vast majority of scientists at the time. Also it isn't global warming, its climate change. While the globabl temp is rising the effects will be different around the globe, some places will get significantly wetter while other place will get much drier and hotter. Global Warming is accepted science by the vast majority of scientists not just in the US but in the world. Don't know why we continue to debate this thread.

The world goes through cycles, this "global warming" is one of them, one reason scientists of other countries believe in the theory is they blame the United States and we give out large sums of cash, like a lot of other issues, once money gets involved, they will do or say what they need to to keep their funding.

If Al Gore really believed in his message about global warming, why his he adding so much green house gas to the environment due to his lifestyle?

He is the typical hypocrite, doing the very thing he speaks out against.

There was also a lot of talk about Florida as well as California being lost due to the rise of the ocean, yet it has not happened.

If global warming is such a bad thing and Kyoto is so great, how come China signed onto it, yet they are exempt from it?

[mcgyvry]

Oh please forgive me o worshipers of the al gore I didn't mean to offend your religion. I should have relized that your scientists = good all others = bad, liars. Sounds alot like the politics on this forum. If you want to be sheep feel free just don't impose that B.S. on everyone else. I'm sure you all use hand pumps to fill you tanks and only dive out of row boats in an effort to reduce your carbon footprint. :sleep:

[jackpine savage]

First, there is a difference between Al Gore being a hypocrite and whether climate change is real. I think Gore is disengenuous by not having his actions follow his message. You would find something to bitch about Gore because you don't like Democrats, if it wasn't climate change it would be some other issue. The United States doesn't hand out money to ther nations due to the Kyoto protocol or any other global warmng related issue, why would you think that? The US produces 25% of emissions due to the fact that our eceonmy is the largest in the world so the pressure on the US to lessen its output is greater. Remember the US is almost teh size of Europe, if Europe were taken as a whole instead of as 25+ nations the numbers would be different. China not signing on, as well as India is the major flaw with Kyoto since their economies are growing the fastest and their emmision rates are increasing the most. I think it had a little to do with being PC by the Europeans. Can't have the developing world meet the same requirements because somehow that would be intentionally keeping them poor.

[jackpine savage]

Oh please forgive me o worshipers of the al gore I didn't mean to offend your religion. I should have relized that your scientists = good all others = bad, liars. Sounds alot like the politics on this forum. If you want to be sheep feel free just don't impose that B.S. on everyone else. I'm sure you all use hand pumps to fill you tanks and only dive out of row boats in an effort to reduce your carbon footprint. :sleep:

I try to keep my energy use to a minimum. Everyone should, saves money to spend on other more important things. As far a science, show me any peer revewed papers suuporting your position and I will more than happily read them. Blasting off with you rant shows your ignorance on the subject, instead of being able to produce facts to support your position you just rant. Proves the weakness of your argument.

[bgbill]

First, there is a difference between Al Gore being a hypocrite and whether climate change is real. I think Gore is disengenuous by not having his actions follow his message. You would find something to bitch about Gore because you don't like Democrats, if it wasn't climate change it would be some other issue.

Al Gore being a hypocrite or my dislike of him has nothing to do with him being a democrat, if he was a republican, an independent or a libertarian I would still not believe in his bs message.

Can you name some good things Al Gore has actually done while in Office?

He did at least go to VietNam, here is a picture of him.

[jackpine savage]

Like I said, his message would resonate more with the public if he actually lived it. Just because he is a fool doesn't take away from the real problems we face due to climate change.

[bgbill]

Like I said, his message would resonate more with the public if he actually lived it. Just because he is a fool doesn't take away from the real problems we face due to climate change.

What Real problems are we having due to climate change?

[jackpine savage]

Its a gradual phenomena and since I have to go to the lumber yard I will try to address it later.

[bgbill]

Its a gradual phenomena and since I have to go to the lumber yard I will try to address it later.


Like I said, and Scientists have said the earth goes through cycles, the "warming" can be attributed to solar flares, are green house gases responsible for solar flares?

The warming can also be attributed to better monitoring, and also due to some of the recording stations in the cooler climates being taken offline.

What other Country has done more to improve the lives of all people than the United States?

better not let the environmentalists know you are buying lumber :eek: , I hope you are using IPE because it comes from the rain forest. :D

[khel]

Like I said, and Scientists have said the earth goes through cycles, the "warming" can be attributed to solar flares, are green house gases responsible for solar flares?

The warming can also be attributed to better monitoring, and also due to some of the recording stations in the cooler climates being taken offline.



Bill, are you only seeing things that support your theory while reading posts?? So, can you answer this?

Montana's Glacier National Park (was established in 1910), held some 150 glaciers now has fewer than 30 glaciers remain

Is it solar flare? Or monitoring problem?


What other Country has done more to improve the lives of all people than the United States?



I hope you are not being serious here :)

[Wayward Son]

An interesting article on the shell game of trading emissions rights (and it also has a reference to China's coal plant construction):

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009740

Cap and Charade
The political and business self-interest behind carbon limits.

Saturday, March 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The idea of a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. has become all the rage. Earlier this year, 10 big American companies formed the Climate Action Partnership to lobby for government action on climate change. And this week the private-equity consortium that is bidding to take over Texas utility TXU announced that, as part of the buyout, it would join the forces lobbying for a cap on carbon emissions.

But this is not, as Lenin once said, a case of capitalists selling the rope to hang themselves with. In most cases, it is good old-fashioned rent-seeking with a climate-change patina.

Start with the name. Most of those pushing this idea want you to think about it as cap-and-trade with emphasis on the trading part. Senator Barbara Boxer touts all the jobs that would be created for people trying to game the system--er, save the planet. And her colleague Jeff Bingaman calls cap-and-trade "market based," because, you know, people would trade stuff.

But for that to happen, the government would first have to put a cap on CO2 emissions, either for certain industries or even the economy as a whole. At the same time, it would allocate quotas for CO2 emissions, either based on current emissions, or on energy output, or some other standard. If a company then "over-complied," which means it produced less carbon dioxide than it was allowed to under the rules, it could sell the excess allowance to someone else. That someone else would buy the right to produce CO2 if doing so cost less than actually reducing emissions.

In this way, emissions would be reduced in an relatively efficient way: Those for whom reductions were cheap or easy would reduce, and if they reduced enough, they could sell their excess allowance to someone for whom the reductions were harder or more expensive. This kind of trading works, and we've argued in these columns that cap-and-trade beats the pants off just plain capping by lowering the overall economic burden of a cap.

The difficulties don't lie with the trading, but with the cap, which is where the companies lobbying for restrictions come in. James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, put it plainly earlier this year: "If you're not at the table when these negotiations are going on, you're going to be on the menu." Translation: If a cap is coming, better to design it in a way that you profit from it, instead of being killed by it.

Which is why the emphasis really should be cap-and-trade. It's all about the cap, because without it there's no trading. We don't buy our daily ration of oxygen because it's in abundant supply. Same with carbon dioxide--there's no constraint on your ability to produce CO2 until the government creates one. When it does, it creates an artificial scarcity. What Duke, Entergy, TXU, BP, Dupont and all the rest want is to make sure that when the right to produce CO2 becomes limited, they're the ones that end up owning the allowances. Because that would mean they could sell them, and make money off something that previously wasn't worth a dime.

Thus, Entergy, a utility that relies heavily on natural gas and nuclear power and thus produces relatively less CO2, would love a cap that distributes the allowances based on how much electricity you churn out, rather than on how much CO2 you produce. Entergy's "carbon footprint" is small compared to some other utilities, so an electrical-output-based cap would be windfall city. Dupont, meanwhile, wants credit for reductions already made because it sees instant profit in costs already paid. It also wants a cap to cover as many industries as possible so it can make money selling emissions-reduction products.

We don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to make a buck. But there's a difference between making money by producing things people want and making money by gaming the regulatory process. There's no market here unless the government creates one, and who has the profit opportunity depends entirely on who the government picks as the winners and the losers in designing this market in the first place. So it's no wonder that almost any business that has ever put an ounce of CO2 into the atmosphere is rushing to show its cap-and-trade bona fides.

By far the biggest question, however, is where the cap is set. The trading of emissions credits does nothing to lower the quantity of emissions--it merely shifts around the right to emit. It's the cap that sets the amount of CO2 put into the air. And as Europe has learned, that figure is a political football unto itself. When the EU started emissions trading in 2005, the price of a ton of CO2 quickly tripled before cratering when participants realized that the cap hadn't been set low enough to create a genuine shortage.

The European Commission is now in the process of reviewing each country's plans for allocating emissions allowances for 2008, but in the first round it found that all but one national plan had set the cap too high to comply with Kyoto's 2008-2012 limits. Of course, even a stringent cap means nothing if countries don't comply, and so far Europe's commitment to Kyoto has been more hot air than action.

The reason is hardly a secret, though you rarely see climate-change activists admitting it. Despite all the talk of "alternative" fuels, some 80% of the energy that the world produces today comes from carbon-based fuels. Barring cold fusion or some other miracle technology, that ratio won't change much for decades to come. That means, in turn, that any stringent CO2 cap would inevitably have serious economic costs. We doubt voters will elect politicians who tell them the cost of reducing their "carbon footprint" is more blackouts or a lower standard of living. And in any case China is putting up a new coal-fired plant every week, raising emissions that will overwhelm whatever reductions cap-and-trade would yield in the U.S.

The emerging alliance of business and environmental special interests may well prove powerful enough to give us cap-and-trade in CO2. It would make Hollywood elites feel virtuous, and it would make money for some very large corporations. But don't believe for a minute that this charade would do much about global warming.

[bgbill]

I hope you are not being serious here :)

I am serious, please show me any other country that has done as much to help the world as the United States has.

Whenever and wherever there is a problem in the world, the United States is always there to help.

Where do the majority of the greatest advances in science and medicine come from?

[bikewrench]

Like I said, and Scientists have said the earth goes through cycles, the "warming" can be attributed to solar flares, are green house gases responsible for solar flares?

The warming can also be attributed to better monitoring, and also due to some of the recording stations in the cooler climates being taken offline.

What other Country has done more to improve the lives of all people than the United States?

better not let the environmentalists know you are buying lumber :eek: , I hope you are using IPE because it comes from the rain forest. :D
Every single time you post you display your ignorance and lack of open-mindedness. You keep bringing up irrelevent issues and you do not respond when someone explains why they are irrelevant. You have not added to this discussion anything worth reading . You have not responded directly to any argument against your position. Talking with you is like arguing with a child as to why he needs a bedtime. You and people like you are the problem. I am amazed that they let you be a "moderator". "Moderate" is just about the last word that comes to mind when reading anything you write.

[bikewrench]

Where do the majority of the greatest advances in science and medicine come from?
Absolutely no question on this one bret- Europe in the 16, 17, and 1800's.

[bikewrench]

Where do the majority of the greatest advances in science and medicine come from?
-Antone von Leeuwenhoek, Netherlands 1600's, first human to see microscopic life.
-Theodor Schwann and Matthias Schlieden, Germany early 1800's, develop the "Cell Theory" and recognize that all living things are made of cells and cells can only come from other, pre-existing cells. This theory has been tested literally millions of times over the last 200 years and has never failed.
-Luis Pasteur, France, mid 1800's, develops the "Germ Theory" of disease, this was initially met with great resistance because of prevailing conservative, religious beliefs about magic, curses, evil spirits, etc. This "Theory" has also been proven many, many millions of times.
-Sir Isaac Newton, England late 1600's. Simply figures out how everything moves.
-Gallileo, Italy, early 1600's, kindly informs the Catholic Church that what it believes and teaches about the nature of the solar system is incorrect. He also is not well recieved by the ultra-conservative religious establishment, but turns out he is right.
-Alexander Fleming, Scotland early 20th century, discovers antibiotics and subsequently saves hundreds of millions of lives.
-Gregor Mendel, Austria mid-1800's, discovers the nature of inheritance, his two laws of inheritance pre-date and predict several cellular features and processes that will not be discovered for 80 to 100 years later.
-Charles Darwin, England mid-1800's, in pehaps the greatest leap of genius ever, discovers the nature of evolution.
I could go on and on and on, but I am now going outside to play with my kid.

[Mikerotch]

BG, that's a nice picture of him in # 111. Next on the agenda, he'll be pushing legislation on "Gun Safety".

Mikerotch, Opposed To Muzzles In My Face

[Christof]

Christof,

Is you chin feeling better yet?Come one BG.... It would be a blast. Havent dove any of the Northeast...
Dont make me change my sig from the current to "BGBill is a retard". :D

[riplipper]

great debate.....we have a planet with a few billion years of climate change and a few scientist with less than 100 years of data tell us were gonna die in few years :crazy:
And....if I'm not mistaken there is evidence that part of the earth getting colder? So, do we have selective global warming with its own entity.... and.... if so could one of you Gore supporters tell me where I can purchase the next beach front property....I would like to go ahead and get my boat dock built...

[bikewrench]

BG, that's a nice picture of him in # 111. Next on the agenda, he'll be pushing legislation on "Gun Safety".

Mikerotch, Opposed To Muzzles In My Face
Ummm, put your glasses on and look a little closer.

[Mikerotch]

Contacts are in, muzzle seems to be pointed at his head. No apparent clip in, and I'm no expert on military weapons, but that still appears to be a no-no. Help me out here, what am I missing ?

Mikerotch, Former "I Spy" Champion, Stumped On This One

[jackpine savage]

So now we question guys who volunteer to serve their nation in times of war. I guess unless liberal democrats are actually killed in action you all will never be pleased.

[bikewrench]

Contacts are in, muzzle seems to be pointed at his head. No apparent clip in, and I'm no expert on military weapons, but that still appears to be a no-no. Help me out here, what am I missing ?

Mikerotch, Former "I Spy" Champion, Stumped On This One
Maybe I'm wrong, but is that really supossed to be AG?

[mcgyvry]

I try to keep my energy use to a minimum. Everyone should, saves money to spend on other more important things. As far a science, show me any peer revewed papers suuporting your position and I will more than happily read them. Blasting off with you rant shows your ignorance on the subject, instead of being able to produce facts to support your position you just rant. Proves the weakness of your argument.

You just don't like the facts presented because they go against your religion. So my scientist bad your scientist good bahhh bahhh. Hey what kind of row boat did you say you had? I've got a half price sale on carbon credits this week only you could buy enough to let you put a trolling motor on that baby. :thumps:

[khel]

I am serious, please show me any other country that has done as much to help the world as the United States has.

Whenever and wherever there is a problem in the world, the United States is always there to help.


Here's a link for you to study :)

USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they move up from last place, by one.) (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)

[jackpine savage]

You just don't like the facts presented because they go against your religion. So my scientist bad your scientist good bahhh bahhh. Hey what kind of row boat did you say you had? I've got a half price sale on carbon credits this week only you could buy enough to let you put a trolling motor on that baby. :thumps:

How old are you?

[khel]

You just don't like the facts presented because they go against your religion. So my scientist bad your scientist good bahhh bahhh. Hey what kind of row boat did you say you had? I've got a half price sale on carbon credits this week only you could buy enough to let you put a trolling motor on that baby. :thumps:

Facts?? What facts?? I haven't seen any from you. Show me at least ONE PEER-REVIEWED paper supporting your point of vew. (I hope you know what peer-reviewed means)

[riplipper]

And please show me data that proves the ocean has risen or is going to rise :rolleyes:

[jackpine savage]

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1125-climate.html

[Bill McIntyre]

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html

http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzx.html

[jackpine savage]

Its strange how people get all worked up when the issue of climate change is brought up. Because the United States needs to lower its carbon emissions they take that as a personal attack on the US. Europe, Japan, Australia, S. Korea are all accepting responsibilty for the emissions they put into the atmosphere. Noone, not even Kyoto, has demanded the US do anything that it isn't responsible for. If we produce 25% of he emissions why shouldn't we try to curb our emissions equal to their production. The problem with this country is noone is willling to accept responsibilty for their actions and now we are seeing it on a national level.

[bikewrench]

In my experience the people who deny global warming are the hard core conservatives. The main idea behind the conservative philosophy is to stop change, conserve the past ways of business. Change = bad, so resist it regardless of the reason for it. Conservatives fear change.

[bgbill]

-Antone von Leeuwenhoek, Netherlands 1600's, first human to see microscopic life.
-Theodor Schwann and Matthias Schlieden, Germany early 1800's, develop the "Cell Theory" and recognize that all living things are made of cells and cells can only come from other, pre-existing cells. This theory has been tested literally millions of times over the last 200 years and has never failed.
-Luis Pasteur, France, mid 1800's, develops the "Germ Theory" of disease, this was initially met with great resistance because of prevailing conservative, religious beliefs about magic, curses, evil spirits, etc. This "Theory" has also been proven many, many millions of times.
-Sir Isaac Newton, England late 1600's. Simply figures out how everything moves.
-Gallileo, Italy, early 1600's, kindly informs the Catholic Church that what it believes and teaches about the nature of the solar system is incorrect. He also is not well recieved by the ultra-conservative religious establishment, but turns out he is right.
-Alexander Fleming, Scotland early 20th century, discovers antibiotics and subsequently saves hundreds of millions of lives.
-Gregor Mendel, Austria mid-1800's, discovers the nature of inheritance, his two laws of inheritance pre-date and predict several cellular features and processes that will not be discovered for 80 to 100 years later.
-Charles Darwin, England mid-1800's, in pehaps the greatest leap of genius ever, discovers the nature of evolution.
I could go on and on and on, but I am now going outside to play with my kid.

Do you have anything from the 19th or 20th century?

What country even comes close to what the United States does for foreign aid and helping others in times of natural disaster?

Who put the 1st man on the moon?

Who invented the Atomic bomb and used it in an effort to end the war which not only saved american lives but 1 million or more of its enemies lives?

[bgbill]

great debate.....we have a planet with a few billion years of climate change and a few scientist with less than 100 years of data tell us were gonna die in few years :crazy:
And....if I'm not mistaken there is evidence that part of the earth getting colder? So, do we have selective global warming with its own entity.... and.... if so could one of you Gore supporters tell me where I can purchase the next beach front property....I would like to go ahead and get my boat dock built...

In Citrus County Florida they used to grow oranges, but it gets too cold, so now they don't grow as many there as they used to.

[bgbill]

Here's a link for you to study :)

USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they move up from last place, by one.) (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)

That study is like saying a $50 donation from a guy who makes $10,000 a year is more important than a $100 donation from a guy who makes $100,000 a year, the guy who donated the $100 still donated 100% more than the guy who donated $50.

It amazes me that people would complain that the United States is not generous enough, we give aid to people who need help, yet when we have natural disasters happen to us, where are they?

[khel]

Who invented the Atomic bomb and used it in an effort to end the war which not only saved american lives but 1 million or more of its enemies lives?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's just priceless :)

Now, just need a joke about french to complete the picture.

I tell you what, how about, all you guys, claiming that carbon emissions are not bad and even good , just move somewhere close to the coal-burning plant. After all, you don't really want people to think that you are exactly like that damn liberal AG, and that you don't do what you preach.
Oh, while at it, don't forget to pull a hose from exhaust pipe into your new house for better health benefits. Also, I've heard that fish grows really big at retention ponds.

http://www.emissioncreditbrokers.com/Graphics/Powerplant---Home.gif

[jackpine savage]

Bret-being responsible about carbon emissions on a national level isn't a bad thing. Carbon emissions is something we can record, there is plenty of evidence on the amount we produce, so why would you be against cutting those levels. Most large Amrican corporations are already implementing parts of the Kyoto accord so it must not be bad for business. If wwe could lessen our dependence on oil we wouldn't be continually drawn into conflicts in the Middle East, and lets be honest a clean environemnt beats the hell out of a dirty one. So why is it such a bad thing.

[khel]

That study is like saying a $50 donation from a guy who makes $10,000 a year is more important than a $100 donation from a guy who makes $100,000 a year, the guy who donated the $100 still donated 100% more than the guy who donated $50.

And that tells me right away that you didn't even read it... but whatever.....

[Bill McIntyre]

That study is like saying a $50 donation from a guy who makes $10,000 a year is more important than a $100 donation from a guy who makes $100,000 a year, the guy who donated the $100 still donated 100% more than the guy who donated $50.


Yep, it is like that, and I think it is important if we are talking big about how much we do for the world.

I'm much more impressed with the $50 from the poor guy than I am with the $100 from the rich guy, and the same goes for nations.

Maybe you can give me the exact quote, but I'm thinking of something from the bible that says more is expected from those who have more. Our foreign aid is peanuts compared to our capability to give.

Edit: you used to be able to make a case that our huge spending on national defense amounted to foreign aid since it made the world safer for other nations. I'm afraid that argument doesn't get it now that we are using our military to destabilize the world.

[khel]

Who put the 1st man on the moon?

Who invented the Atomic bomb and used it in an effort to end the war which not only saved american lives but 1 million or more of its enemies lives?

And who launched the first rocket into space?
And who launched the first human into space?
And who discovered radiation?
etc.

[bikewrench]

[QUOTE=bgbill]Do you have anything from the 19th or 20th century?

What country even comes close to what the United States does for foreign aid and helping others in times of natural disaster?

Who put the 1st man on the moon?
QUOTE]
Maybe you are refering to the Nazi-German scientists who moved here after the war to establish our jet engine, missle, and rocket programs. But be that as it may, I am not trying to argue that America does nothing positive in the world, scientific, social, or otherwise, I was responding to a specific statement from you (post #118) where you said, "Where do the majority of the greatest advances in science and medicine come from?" It is ok that American citizens did not do EVERYTHING, there are other people on Earth you know.

[spaghetti]

It's well said that China, India and even Europe are no less responsible than USA for pollution. But listen to me now: America has the biggest economy, the biggest political influence on the rest of the world, it's the biggest democracy of them all, so it's the only nation capable to play the role of the leader of the world.
Now, you expect much more from a leader. It's got to be wise guy who is spot on problems and gives everyone the wise example to solve them. But in this case, the only could-be-leader nation is the most reluctant of all to do something against our common problem.
I'm not saying that America should load on its shoulders all the problems of the world. But in this case, America is a big part of the problem and is not helping at all to solve it, while it is the only nation who could be strong enough to put the whole world on the right track.
It may sound I'm quite disillusioned about America, but it's just because I expect too much from it. And I still have a great opinion of America, but I should remember that you're only human too.

[Wayward Son]

spagetti, if you'll check the facts you will find that the USA has in fact reduced it's emissions at a rate exceeding what the majority of nations who signed Kyoto have done.

In short, we're not doing nothing about it. What we did do was refuse to become committed to a shell game (Kyoto) that is largely intended to reshuffle wealth & not do really anything about emissions.

[Mikerotch]

Montana's Glacier National Park (was established in 1910), held some 150 glaciers now has fewer than 30 glaciers remain

Amazing what government control of something can do.

Mikerotch, Glacier Advocate

[Mikerotch]

Maybe I'm wrong, but is that really supossed to be AG?

All joking aside, a rarety for Mikerotch, I don't know. Help me out here.

Mikerotch, Wondering If It's Al, And If So, When's The Gun Safety Legislation Coming ?

[bikewrench]

Amazing what government control of something can do.

Mikerotch, Glacier Advocate
You're on to them Mike. Every night for the last 50 years the Forest Service gets out there and uses hair dryers to melt them glaciers. I'm not sure why but I'll bet it has something to do with installing the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

Bikerench, saving the ice for the Margarita's.

[Mikerotch]

So now we question guys who volunteer to serve their nation in times of war. I guess unless liberal democrats are actually killed in action you all will never be pleased.

For the record, I don't want liberals to die. I would; however, appreciate it if they would stop compelling their socialist agenda on those of us who prefer liberty and the right to control property that we peaceably obtain. Free enterprise and liberty, to the extent we still have it, has an infinitely better record when compared to the command economies of the past and present. It may not solve all our problems to the extent some would like, but it is certainly the best option.

Mikerotch, Freedom Advocate, Al Gore Detractor

[Wayward Son]

The pic is supposed to be Gore. It's been making the rounds for years. But I don't know if it's really him or not. Gore has been in bed with the gun grabbers for quite a while. He used to not be but once he decided to run on a national platform he decided to change his position on guns, abortion & some other issues. These changes are a large part of the reason he didn't carry TN in the 2000 election.

[Marcus]

news just out...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_sc/global_warming_2

[riplipper]

Carbon emissions is something we can record, there is plenty of evidence on the amount we produce, so why would you be against cutting those levels. Most large Amrican corporations are already implementing parts of the Kyoto accord so it must not be bad for business.

this is not nessessarily true....many US corporations have moved to Mexico where many of the Kyoto rules dont go into effect since it is a developing country....I'm not saying its fair or good....I actually think it sux big time that big business can move its manufacturing plants and still spew the same crap out ....just in a different location on the planet...WTF

[bgbill]

this is not nessessarily true....many US corporations have moved to Mexico where many of the Kyoto rules dont go into effect since it is a developing country....I'm not saying its fair or good....I actually think it sux big time that big business can move its manufacturing plants and still spew the same crap out ....just in a different location on the planet...WTF

Why shouldn't a US Corporation be allowed move its manufacturing plants to foreign countries as along as they follow the laws there?

[bikewrench]

news just out...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_sc/global_warming_2
I was going to post this. I was wondering where Wayward got his information that the U.S. is reducing emisions. This report is from the Bush administration (of all places) and it says otherwise.

[riplipper]

Why shouldn't a US Corporation be allowed move its manufacturing plants to foreign countries as along as they follow the laws there?

your right, you cant blame them....the system sux
It just sad that we loose production in the US for really bogus Kyoto rules.....same company, same amount of polution, all weve done is move it to a new location.....globally nothing is gained, just the US loses....

[jackpine savage]

riplipper-I had read in the paper about corporations which either have European subsidiaries or do business in the EU having to abide by European environmental law. I don't know if that is only that part of, say GE, which does business in EU nations and the ones in S. America are free to pollute as they see fit.

[mcgyvry]

For those of you who haven't swallowed the kool aid you'll find this of interest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

also if you want to remeber how the scam worked in the 70's with global cooling

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

And for the rest of you I know these scientist's aren't a smart as your scientist's. :rolleyes:

[Mikerotch]

Interesting reading, mcgyvry. One of the items I've seen little discussion on that would stir the pot even more is the relationship between the planet's theoretical past with regard to volcanic activity. Given that 1 decent eruption puts out the equivalent of a billion cars for a century, or some ridiculous amount, why is it we had ice ages after times of intense volcanic activity ? It would seem the immense amount of "greenhouse" gases should have heated the earth's atmosphere tremendously. Perhaps "natural CO2" is better for the environment than this manmade version.
Meanwhile, could someone please give us an update on the ozone hole ? I can't seem to find it, but I know it's around here somewhere.

Mikerotch, Nearing Eruption, Can't Find The Hole

[Mikerotch]

You're on to them Mike. Every night for the last 50 years the Forest Service gets out there and uses hair dryers to melt them glaciers.

It's a double whammy. The heat from the hair dryers is causing the globe to warm along with the spike in electrical usage to run the dryers, driving up emissions from the generating plants. We're screwed, screwed I tell you.

Mikerotch, Coalition To Save The Glaciers

[firefyterx]

Wanna talk about global warming. Explain these 2 facts. The polar icecaps on Mars are melting at about the same rate as the earths are melting. The temperature of the sun is higher than it has been in recorded history. These statistic were sited on the Mike Galligar Radio Show. How do greenhouse gasses contribute to these 2 things.

[Bill McIntyre]

I don't know who Mike Galligar is, so I hardly know how much weight to give to something quoted on his show.

However, I'm baffled about the reluctance of conservatives to give any weight to the fact that the big majority of scientists, including people from all over the world, seems to think that the earth is warming and that man is causing it. Sure, scientists are sometimes wrong, but until they are proven to be wrong, shouldn't we go with the best knowledge available?

I don't see why this is a conservative/liberal issue. We all live on the same planet and will all go down the shitter together if the predictions of the majority of scientists are borne out. Shouldn't we hedge our bets?

I hesitate to believe that wealthy businessmen are so focused on their short term profits that they don't care about the future. After all, most of them have kids who will have to bear the brunt of it.

Come to think of it, an even more cynical possibility occurs to me. No matter how bad it gets, the rich will always be more able to adapt. If the sea level rises and inundates my home, I'll be in deep shit, but a rich guy will be able to relocate to a hilltop and probably figure out a way to profit from the situation by owning a moving company and a construction firm.

Hallelujah!

[Wayward Son]

I don't think the onus belongs to skeptics to "prove them wrong", the skeptics are not the ones demanding massive changes to our economies. Given the cost & intrusions into our lives involved it seems to me it's up to them to prove they're right.

[firefyterx]

Heck I'm just wishing for beach front here in South Dakota...let the ocean rise! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mcgyvry]

Hey Mikerotch
Yea it’s amazing what 3 mins of research on google will turn up. But I hope you didn’t miss the part of the U.K. article that talked about the researcher who had to sue the U.N. to have his name removed from their global warming report because he never supported the findings. It illustrates an interesting phenomenon with fanatics of any position as soon as you get two of them to agree in a room full of people they all of a sudden are able to speak definitively for the entire room. Which is when you’ll hear the famous refrain (from Al Gore down to the hacks on this forum say) “everybody knows (fill in the blank)”. So it makes you wonder how many more names on these lists of global warming supporters were just added because “everybody knows global warming is man made”. :confused:

[Bill McIntyre]

Its obvious I lack imagination and am too trusting. Would someone please explain why all these scientists would be trying to lie and pull the wool over our eyes on global warming? What is in it for them?

[jackpine savage]

Hey Mikerotch
Yea it’s amazing what 3 mins of research on google will turn up. But I hope you didn’t miss the part of the U.K. article that talked about the researcher who had to sue the U.N. to have his name removed from their global warming report because he never supported the findings. It illustrates an interesting phenomenon with fanatics of any position as soon as you get two of them to agree in a room full of people they all of a sudden are able to speak definitively for the entire room. Which is when you’ll hear the famous refrain (from Al Gore down to the hacks on this forum say) “everybody knows (fill in the blank)”. So it makes you wonder how many more names on these lists of global warming supporters were just added because “everybody knows global warming is man made”. :confused:

So if you are so damn intelligent show me where I can find scientific, peer-reviewed research articles that support your argument that climate change is a fraud. The ball is in your court, time to put up or shut up.

[bgbill]

Its obvious I lack imagination and am too trusting. Would someone please explain why all these scientists would be trying to lie and pull the wool over our eyes on global warming? What is in it for them?


$$$$$$$

[mcgyvry]

So if you are so damn intelligent show me where I can find scientific, peer-reviewed research articles that support your argument that climate change is a fraud. The ball is in your court, time to put up or shut up.

I have you just don't like the facts because the go against your religious beliefs and are you looking for the type of peer review that was used for the global cooling scam of the 60's-70's.
BG your 1/2 right it's about $$$$ and power. Now as it was in the 70's politicians used it to advance their own agenda's. They discovered herding stupid is like herding cats it can't be done. However you drag something big and shiny in front of them to get their attention they'll follow you everywhere.

[jackpine savage]

I have you just don't like the facts because the go against your religious beliefs and are you looking for the type of peer review that was used for the global cooling scam of the 60's-70's.
BG your 1/2 right it's about $$$$ and power. Now as it was in the 70's politicians used it to advance their own agenda's. They discovered herding stupid is like herding cats it can't be done. However you drag something big and shiny in front of them to get their attention they'll follow you everywhere.

Learn to spell and I will take what you say a little more seriously, as it is you have no means to support your argument.

[mcgyvry]

Don't worry jackpine I'm sure you're still the smartest person your friends know so praise be to the al gore and have a nice day. Hey are gonna by any of the offsets or what maybe some of the pinheads at woods hole will want a few help a brother out will ya.

[khel]

Don't worry jackpine I'm sure you're still the smartest person your friends know so praise be to the al gore and have a nice day. Hey are gonna by any of the offsets or what maybe some of the pinheads at woods hole will want a few help a brother out will ya.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[riplipper]

$$$$$$$

exactly....research grants = job security

[jackpine savage]

Don't worry jackpine I'm sure you're still the smartest person your friends know so praise be to the al gore and have a nice day. Hey are gonna by any of the offsets or what maybe some of the pinheads at woods hole will want a few help a brother out will ya.

Guess you go tme on that last one. Hard to win when going up against such a witty guy as yourself.

[khel]

exactly....research grants = job security

Soooo, all the scientists that are "pro-global warming" doing it for money, and those that against it - doing it for free? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, and btw, some of you are making me confused here,
in one post you are claiming that there's no global warming,
in another - that it does exist, but caused by the sun and humans have nothing to do with it. Make up your mind at last - do we have it or not??

p.s. something tells me, that if it wasn't AG that came out with that movie but one of the republicans, you'd have an opposite point of view.

:)

[riplipper]

p.s. something tells me, that if it wasn't AG that came out with that movie but one of the republicans, you'd have an opposite point of view.
:)
No not really, shit stinks no matter who shovels it.....Gore just shovels more than the average politician

[Wayward Son]

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary
Sunday, 4th March 2007, 11:04

A rather long but interesting read about a new documentary about to air in the UK:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_docume ntary

[khel]

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary
Sunday, 4th March 2007, 11:04

A rather long but interesting read about a new documentary about to air in the UK:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_docume ntary

Interesting read and interesting comments to the article :) BTW, the name of the article is kind of misleading. They just claim that it's a natural phenomenon and not caused by humans.. Anyway, I'm tired of this topic, I guess we have to live and see who is right.

p.s. (just venting) I'm so f.king tired of democrats/republicans BS being mentioned/pulled in every single argument, that I think I'm going to puke next time I see it :mad:

[Mikerotch]

democrats/republicans BS

Puke Yet ?

Mikerotch, No Use For Democrats Or Republicans

[inletsurf]

.

[thecrab87]

At least he's doing something worth while on this planet as compared to the rest of the bunch...and that gives him a free pass in my book.

Dude.

No one, not even Mother Theresa, should get a free pass. That kind of thinking with politicians (and Gore is a politician) can go nowhere good.

Besides, I thought the sun was now proven to be a much greater cause of global warming. :D

[thecrab87]

Its obvious I lack imagination and am too trusting. Would someone please explain why all these scientists would be trying to lie and pull the wool over our eyes on global warming? What is in it for them?

I guess the point is, the "experts" often flop back and forth.

For years, pediatricians warned of letting your child sleep on their back (or was it stomach?). SIDS was bound to happen!

Then they flip flopped. Don't let your child sleep on their stomach (or back, I just can't remember). SIDS is bound to happen.

The recent data about the Mars ice caps undermines their conclusions. I get the feeling that people are waiting for the "scientists" to say... "Wait a second, we got it wrong, beware! The ice age is coming!"

[thecrab87]

OK, so everyone worried about excess energy use leading to global warming... get off your damn computer! Just think, if everyone stopped using the internet, how much electricity would be saved?


;) ;) ;) ;)

[khel]

Puke Yet ?

Mikerotch, No Use For Democrats Or Republicans

Yep, feeling much better now :D

[Bill McIntyre]

Mikerotch, No Use For Democrats Or Republicans

But I just heard that your man Ron Paul has announced that he is running for the Republican nomination for President.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-paul.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Mikerotch]

But I just heard that your man Ron Paul has announced that he is running for the Republican nomination for President.

Thanks, Bill for the update. I have looked forward to the announcement for some time. For those who are interested in what he believes, please see the following list of his articles and speeches.

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

Mikerotch, Excited Ron Paul Supporter

[Bill McIntyre]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?8dpc

[Wayward Son]

Ron Paul is a libertarian that runs as a republican. I like him.

[Marcus]

So...you wouldn't like him if he ran as a democrat??

[Wayward Son]

I dunno, but given his positions on major issues & don't think we'd ever see him run as one. There have been quite a few libertarians that held elected office as republicans, but I'm unaware of any who have done so as democrats. It's possible some have but I've not heard of any.

[Bill McIntyre]

Why isn't he running as a Libertarian?

[Wayward Son]

I assume he sees the same problems with the LP that I do, but that's just a guess.

[Wayward Son]

Fred Thompson is making noises about running. I could support him if he'll make up his mind & get going.

[Bill McIntyre]

Fred Thompson is making noises about running. I could support him if he'll make up his mind & get going.

I read yesterday that Law and Order may not get another season, so I guess he needs another job.

[Wayward Son]

It'd be quite a pay cut though.

[Dive4Blood]

How about you guys (that dive in the Gulf of Mexico) focus on the fact that we could very likely have some pretty draconian regulations for gag grouper and amberjack shoved down on throats in the near future based on very poor data? Keep up the apathy, and you'll have plenty of time for this mental masturbation.

http://www.spearboard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42458&page=1