How "Green" is Al Gore

[diamondD]

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

By Peter Schweizer


Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.




This reminds me of when Howard Dean was lecturing about this stuff and it turned out he owned a SUV. FORD-spin on the excuses was strong that day! :)

Guess Al's not quite as worried as he likes to make out to be. Not when it might cost him a few pennies or so.

[thome]

Who........ is this............. Al Gore........... you speak of ...?

Was he and is he still a nobody, of little mention..?

Fuk Him! and all who think like him..Yep, I said it........... All .

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by thome
Who........ is this............. Al Gore........... you speak of ...?



It is spelled "algore."

Kind of like Egore...another one of those despicable creatures.


http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e73/love_love_love_rhymeswithpity/theyoungfrankenstein.jpg

[thome]

"What, Hump" ?

"Maybe, i can do something about that Algore on your back."

"What, Hump"?

"The Hump on your back."

"What, Hump"?

"The Huge Hump on your back"!!!

"That's just a mindless Hump."

"Maybe, i can remove the mindless Algore on your back"!

"What, Hump"?

Young Al-Franken-Gore the Mindless Hump Movie ...........CLASSIC!

[thome]

Hump

[thome]

Originally posted by thome
Hump

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnn STIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEN!!!


I'll be your Frank-----------N!!!!!..................STIIIIIIIIIIIEN!!!!!

[Seshmeister]

Hybrids aren't green they are just a green fashion statement.

[Big Train]

From what I understand, his sci-fi story made him a lot of green.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Read that article in USA TODAY. It appears Mr. Gore is quite the hypocrite, like the rest of the political ilk.

[DEMON CUNT]

Shoot the messenger and avoid the message.

http://bbsnews.net/bbsn_photos/topics/hurricane_katrina/14800_G.sized.jpg

[Big Train]

Ask the messenger to bring a message that can be proved in fact, not in theory or speculation and he might live longer..

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Ask the messenger to bring a message that can be proved in fact, not in theory or speculation and he might live longer..

Are you really this stupid?

Who needs science when Baby Jesus is looking out for you?

[Big Train]

Are you really that much of a sheep too?

Experts far smarter than you and I on the subject can't agree on this...a claim Gore himself had to back off in his publicity of this, after some op-ed pieces exposed it.

But yes, I'm thinking of Baby Jesus, correct....sorry I actually think for myself.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Are you really that much of a sheep too?

Experts far smarter than you and I on the subject can't agree on this...a claim Gore himself had to back off in his publicity of this, after some op-ed pieces exposed it.

But yes, I'm thinking of Baby Jesus, correct....sorry I actually think for myself.

Nope.

OP-ED pieces? You read those and claim to think for yourself? "In USA Today Novak said that Al Gore is wrong about global warming and stuff." HA HA! That's precious!

Al Gore did what? Are you gonna back that up?

NASA (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/) is probably a more credible source than USA Today's editorial page.

[Big Train]

Really...it was the NY Times I believe, but I'm sure that is not credible enough for you that it was an MIT professor either.

On meet the press I believe I was watching, Al Gore was asked if ALL scientists agreed on his theory, as the press for the film claimed and he said flat out "No.". Backpedaled to say the majority, which isn't true either.

[Big Train]

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37904

As a matter of fact I posted this reprint of it recently

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Really...it was the NY Times I believe, but I'm sure that is not credible enough for you that it was an MIT professor either.

On meet the press I believe I was watching, Al Gore was asked if ALL scientists agreed on his theory, as the press for the film claimed and he said flat out "No.". Backpedaled to say the majority, which isn't true either.

So no reference for either of the above? Useless.

As with any important issue; there will be several points of view. Lindzen's (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) piece offers one of those opinions.

Again, I refer you to the NASA website which says: "While the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental, there are still some prominent scientists who feel that the threat of global warming has been greatly exaggerated."

To discount what Gore has to say just because you don't like him is just silly.

http://www.katrinahelp.com/hurricane-katrina-2.jpg

[Big Train]

I'm discounting him and NASA because until there is an actual provable theory, brand names don't mean shit to me. This is bad science period.

All I'm asking for is better science and nobody has that at this time.

Substitute NASA for Baby Jesus and you are just as much as sheep as anyone else.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Big Train
Are you really that much of a sheep too?

Experts far smarter than you and I on the subject can't agree on this...


True but the split is 90%/10%.

10& of Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens...

[madraoul]

You may believe the rantings of Al Gore or feel safe with the incoherent ramblings of our prestine, yet boy-like president. Either way, stop using so much gas and buying diamonds. Arabs = gas. Any questions?

[Satan]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
True but the split is 90%/10%.

10& of Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens...

And one of those 10%, who also happens to vote Republican, is none other than....

http://www.wfwi.com/images/concerts/sammy_hagar1.jpg

[ELVIS]

Is that a poster from your wall, FORD ??

[Satan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Is that a poster from your wall, FORD ??

Yeah, I made it into a dartboard for him. :D

[ELVIS]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FRqlLFvCp0M"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FRqlLFvCp0M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

:D
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IZSqXUSwHRI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>



:elvis:

[diamondD]

Where's this 10%? I've never talked to anyone in my life who claims to have been abducted. Of course, I don't run around with the tin foil beenie crowd either...

[diamondD]

I have noticed that the same crowd that's always putting "crickets chirping" in their posts are strangely absent when one of their own gets exposed for his hypocrisy.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'm discounting him and NASA because until there is an actual provable theory, brand names don't mean shit to me. This is bad science period.

All I'm asking for is better science and nobody has that at this time.

Substitute NASA for Baby Jesus and you are just as much as sheep as anyone else.

Yet you offer Lindzen's (now discounted by you) report as part of the argument.

What makes you such an expert at evaluating all the available science?

Or are you simply practicing avoidance?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by diamondD
I have noticed that the same crowd that's always putting "crickets chirping" in their posts are strangely absent when one of their own gets exposed for his hypocrisy.

An OP-ED piece from USA Today exposing Gore for his hypocrisy? HA HA!

Are you in the 6th grade?

[diamondD]

Are you? You never add anything worthwhile to any discussion except how gay you are for BBB.

Quick, post some more gay pics and pictures of shit and make a baby Jesus comment. That's all you seem to bring to the discussion.

[Guitar Shark]

Gore admits that he can improve a lot when it comes to what he preaches. I still don't see how that diminishes the truth of his message.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by diamondD
Are you? You never add anything worthwhile to any discussion except how gay you are for BBB.

Quick, post some more gay pics and pictures of shit and make a baby Jesus comment. That's all you seem to bring to the discussion.

You haven't been paying attention.

Except for the gay pics. You can get that stuff for yourself, you know. Don't depend on me for your spank material.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yet you offer Lindzen's (now discounted by you) report as part of the argument.

What makes you such an expert at evaluating all the available science?

Or are you simply practicing avoidance?

That the point numbnuts, I'm not, you aren't and neither is Al Gore.

Until there is a provable theory (I'll just keep repeating myself for you) that the experts agree on, we are talking boogeyman stuff.

As for discounted I'm sorry, let me quit my job and work as a researcher fulltime for you. I saw the guy on the Meet the Press and did a quick google to find the article.

Doesn't change a word of what he is saying or what his position in academia is. But feel free to run up that tree if you like.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Until there is a provable theory (I'll just keep repeating myself for you) that the experts agree on, we are talking boogeyman stuff.


Gosh, yer so smart!

So you need 100% of the scientific community to agree completely on global warming before you can accept it?

When you leave the house do you require an absolute guarantee that you won't be killed or injured?

When you eat at a restaurant do you need proof positive that you won't get sick because someone put shit in your dinner?

How can you be sure that one of your kids won't be abducted, fucked and then killed by some freak?

Are you a religious man?

[matt19]

Keep throwing out religion, you know what would be really funny if baby Jesus was real. What would you say then?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by matt19
Keep throwing out religion, you know what would be really funny if baby Jesus was real. What would you say then?

Yeah, that would be "funny" as you put it.

I would say "Hi Baby Jesus, nice to meet you!" Then I would gleefully shake his hand since that is the custom in our country.

What would you say if Baby Jesus "was real"?

[matt19]

Im saved.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by matt19
Im saved.

Of course you are.

[matt19]

O-K im glad we agree on that.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by matt19
O-K im glad we agree on that.

Best of luck with that.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Gosh, yer so smart!

So you need 100% of the scientific community to agree completely on global warming before you can accept it?

When you leave the house do you require an absolute guarantee that you won't be killed or injured?

When you eat at a restaurant do you need proof positive that you won't get sick because someone put shit in your dinner?

How can you be sure that one of your kids won't be abducted, fucked and then killed by some freak?

Are you a religious man?

Not particularly, althougth you sound very 16th century there. Just because everyone doesn't agree the world is flat, does it means it's not? If you leave your village tomorrow, are you not worried that you will fall off like the wizards predict?

Sounds retarded right....exactly.

Yes, I do need them to be scientific about it (that is what they do last I checked) and have actual provable theories, not this is the best guess we can come up with.

Just prove it.

Now don't think I'm discounting them completely, all I'm asking them to do is prove it. I'd like CO2 reduced for reasons like breathing and being able to jog in my city without getting sick. That's one issue.

Saying for CERTAIN that the CO2 is causing the earth to warm is another thing entirely. Something I want proven scientifically. They were able to do it for health issues, why can't they do the same for the larger envoirnment?

[Warham]

Al Gore has been doing this lecture for thirty years, each year stating that the Earth is going to be toast in ten years.

You figure it out.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
From what I understand, his sci-fi story made him a lot of green...


...Until there is a provable theory (I'll just keep repeating myself for you) that the experts agree on, we are talking boogeyman stuff.

LOL Why do the ignorant still pretend this isn't actual science when 99% of the scientific community substantiates it?

I guess we'll have to laugh at your "hypocrisy" the next time you slam Ford for one of his "inside job" theories.

[Nickdfresh]

Here's kind of a theory why guys like Sweitzer are usually full of shit.

I’m OK—You’re a Hypocrite
A little contradiction is good for America..
Jeremy Lott


Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, by Peter Schweizer, New York: Doubleday, 258 pages, $22.95

The leftist linguist Noam Chomsky has been a strident opponent of American foreign policy since his days protesting the Vietnam War. More than once he has called the Pentagon “the most hideous institution on this earth.” He has spoken out in favor of the state’s efforts to curb “corporate power” or to break up large estates by severely taxing inheritances. He’s the academic equivalent of a rock star, his ideas promoted by rock bands from Pearl Jam to Bad Religion.

According to Do As I Say (Not As I Do) author and Hoover Institution hand Peter Schweizer, he is also a raging hypocrite. He once told an interviewer for National Public Radio that he didn’t want to discuss “the house, the children, personal life—anything like that.” According to Chomsky, “This is not about a person. It’s about ideas and principles.” Schweizer has a different take. He argues that Chomsky’s life is strikingly inconsistent with his stated ideals, and he marshals copious evidence to back up that claim:

• Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics. Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries, and extensive support staff. The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, “was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations.” The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from same and conducted research that the generals found useful.

• The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million. The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law. The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States, is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.

• Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality. And yet, “A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in ‘income-tax planning,’ set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam.” When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren.”

The author replies with what becomes a well worn refrain by the end of the book: that Chomsky “offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.”

It’s trite but true: If you go looking for hypocrisy, you’ll usually find it. Moralists and moralizers of every stripe make for particularly plump targets, because they often fail to live up to their creeds. This should not be surprising, but Schweizer often treats liberal hypocrisy as though it is shocking. A little subtlety would have made Schweizer’s argument more appealing, if not more persuasive.

An introductory chapter (“The Do-As-I-Say Liberals”) and a conclusion (“The End of Liberal Hypocrisy”) serve as bookends to 11 character studies of influential left-wing thinkers, activists, and politicians, from “Gloria Steinem: Hopeless Romantic, Dependent Female, Serial Monogamist” to “Ralph Nader: Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss.” Like many prosecutors, Schweizer is willing to take the let’s-see-what-sticks approach, in which a) you shape the facts to play to the jury and b) you lump questionable charges together with more rigorous assertions to bolster the overall case in the minds of impressionable readers.

In the case of the lefty filmmaker Michael Moore, the back cover of the book features the orotund sage from Flint’s pious declaration that “I don’t own a single share of stock.” Below the quote is an official looking financial disclosure form that appears to cast doubt on the statement. Shares in a number of companies are listed, including Eli Lilly and Company, Lucent Technologies, and Boeing. The 50 shares of Halliburton stock are highlighted in yellow, as is the signature of “Michael Moore.” Intended message: Michael Moore is a liar.

Moore may well be lying about his own financial dealings, but this form doesn’t prove that the author of Downsize This! owns a single share of stock as part of his private holdings. The allegedly damning document isn’t a list of Moore’s assets—they’re the assets of a tax-exempt foundation established and maintained by Moore and his wife Kathleen Glynn. As Schweizer explains inside the book, “The foundation allows them to donate funds tax free, make money on their investments, and give the proceeds to any cause they see fit.” In other words, it’s a vehicle to donate money to charitable causes and to roll up that money while it’s idling. What it’s not is money that Moore could use to buy groceries.

Granted, Moore does derive some indirect benefits from his bread and circuses routine. Schweizer studied the Fahrenheit 9/11 documentarian’s charitable contributions and found a few interesting patterns. Apparently, Moore is indeed flinty, as in cheap. He routinely gives away just enough of the foundation’s funds to satisfy the IRS’s requirements to maintain its charitable status. Publicly, he likes to brag about the foundation’s support for first-time filmmakers, women’s shelters, soup kitchens, and similar causes. But the actual grants tend to be either mad money for friends or donations to organizations that advance Moore’s interests.

In 2000 Moore gave $4,500 to the Film Society of Lincoln Center in New York and $1,000 to the Ann Arbor Film Festival. Both held events to promote his anti-gun documentary Bowling for Columbine. In 2002 he gave $25,000 to the American Library Association, a donation that Schweizer labels “particularly interesting given that Moore credits ALA members with getting HarperCollins to reconsider a decision to cancel his anti-Bush screed Stupid White Men after 9/11.” Sometimes philanthropy can be very good for business.

Schweizer huffs that Moore’s “hypocrisy runs so deep and the contradictions are so glaring that they border on the pathological.” Here’s a working-class Man from Flint who actually lives on a large estate on Michigan’s Torch Lake and owns a penthouse in New York; a noisy advocate of affirmative action whose own hiring practices are bleached white; a populist down-home Midwesterner who makes millions providing Europeans and America’s coastal elites with fuel for their anti-hick instincts. There’s plenty of material for Schweizer. He doesn’t need to add any exaggerated claims about Moore’s assets.

Schweizer claims throughout the book that while accusations of hypocrisy are routinely leveled at conservatives, liberals tend to get a free pass. One can only wonder, Has the man ever listened to talk radio? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and hundreds of other right-wing squawkers all over the dial long ago incorporated criticism of liberal hypocrisy into their normal routines. Hypocrisy accusations are a staple not just of left-wing rhetoric but on the right as well. Turn on Fox News and listen to Fred Barnes or Bill O’Reilly damn those inconsistent liberals. A Google search at the end of last October for the joined terms “liberal” and “hypocrisy” produced 2,570,000 results.

There is a practical reason why conservatives have picked up the “you’re a hypocrite” hammer: If your opponent is defending his integrity instead of his ideas, you’re winning the debate. If Noam Chomsky has to spend time and resources reconciling his paychecks with his politics, those are time and resources that he can’t expend attacking the Iraq War. If Ralph Nader has to square his consumer activism and his stock portfolio, then he might not be able to have the next Corvair recalled.

But it used to be a common conservative belief that you could work within a system and still speak out against elements of the system. Logically, one could live in a rent-controlled apartment but still oppose rent control (as did the hard-core libertarian Murray Rothbard). This was the basic rationale for right-wing political activism—the golden mean between the Scylla of pietism and the Charybdis of more violent, revolutionary impulses. That the right would now criticize the left for the same approach is troubling.

Indeed, many conservatives, from Benjamin Disraeli to William F. Buckley Jr., have professed an appreciation for the moderating influence of hypocrisy. It’s the homage that vice pays to virtue, they would explain, quoting the 17th-century French noble Francois de La Rochefoucauld. There’s certainly a case to be made that liberal hypocrisy helps to restrain some fairly troublesome impulses by turning would-be revolutionaries into poseurs, clowns, and petty manipulators.

Teddy Kennedy may call for more government controls but, as Schweizer accidentally suggests, the desire not to harm his own clan’s extensive holdings has limited the damage. And when Ralph Nader calls for the abolition of the Taft-Hartley Act or rages against our “corporate paymasters,” he’s not making serious policy proposals. He’s playing a part while leaving his large stock portfolio relatively untrammeled. This sort of hypocrisy we can live with.


Jeremy Lott is the author of In Defense of Hypocrisy (forthcoming from Nelson current).

Link (http://www.reason.com/0604/cr.jl.im.shtml)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Al Gore has been doing this lecture for thirty years, each year stating that the Earth is going to be toast in ten years.

You figure it out.

Do you have his exact quote from that part of his lecture? I haven't seen the film yet, I'll wait 'til it's on DVD or somethin'....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Al Gore has been doing this lecture for thirty years, each year stating that the Earth is going to be toast in ten years.

You figure it out.


Liar.

:rolleyes:

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL Why do the ignorant still pretend this isn't actual science when 99% of the scientific community substantiates it?

I guess we'll have to laugh at your "hypocrisy" the next time you slam Ford for one of his "inside job" theories.

LOL because it isn't. 99% of them agree it's plausible. The hard science saying absolutely this is what is causing it is just not there. Plausible=this is the best guess we have. That is not science, that is conjecture.

Laugh all you want. I have 6 figures invested in alt. energy. I've put my money where my mouth is, where is yours?

[Big Train]

I appreciated your article Nick, but isn't the thrust of the article essentially your liberal Chickenhawk argument as well? I would think so.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
LOL because it isn't. 99% of them agree it's plausible. The hard science saying absolutely this is what is causing it is just not there. Plausible=this is the best guess we have. That is not science, that is conjecture.

It's based on SCIENTIFIC research and models that are turning out to be true.


Laugh all you want. I have 6 figures invested in alt. energy. I've put my money where my mouth is, where is yours?

That's nice. I recycle, drive a fuel efficient car, keep it tuned, use expensive synthetic oils (both in hopes I get better mileage and cut down on emissions), and I've worked in the Environmental clean up industry (which is good money on it's own). But I won't ever claim that I'm a perfect, I'm not really an environmentally conscious tree hugger, but I do try to minimize my impact a bit. But often that means that I just feel guilty throwing away potential recyclables.

It's funny though, I know you've indeed invested into alternate fuels, which I say is commendable, that's why I jumped you. You see, I've worked with environmental engineers, safety officers, laborers, operators, etc. And I've had numerous discussions regarding whether they believe in the Global Warming threat, and many say 'no.'

I just find it interesting and you are not alone. I guess I get irritated since there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in this country between science and the populace that finds scientific research to be alien, they often sound almost like almost like "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" to me.
http://myspace-101.vo.llnwd.net/00021/10/12/21892101_m.JPG
It seems that people are susceptible to charlatans like that clown that wrote for the National Review, that interject semantics in an effort to create an almost legalistic debate where there really is none. This issue is simply not debated in actual science, it IS considered irrefutable scientific fact by most scientists, even if it is technically categorized as a "theory." It just seems funny that people with little scientific training can use their common sense "just plain folks" wisdom, and a healthy dose of semantics, to circumvent or contradict people that have spent years of their lives focused on this stuff. Also, energy companies have manipulated this "debate" along with certain politicians. This goes for a whole host of 'inconvenient' issues like evolution, or the stem cell research, where literal-religionists try to use faulty, nonscientific arguments to make a case to the public, but have absolutely no scientific scholarship to back up what they say.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I appreciated your article Nick, but isn't the thrust of the article essentially your liberal Chickenhawk argument as well? I would think so.

Chickenhawk? I have no idea what you mean.

The article merely questions the book writers style and use of selective facts in an effort to prove hypocrisy of his marks. He may even have a point about guys like Moore. But this is about public policy, not about whether Gore heats his house with a wood stove or a coal factory.

It's funny how you completely lose all skepticism when it comes to Cheney's conflict of interest with his Halliburton ties, and his active participation in invading middle eastern countries and providing former his company a lot of work.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's based on SCIENTIFIC research and models that are turning out to be true.


It's funny though, I know you've indeed invested into alternate fuels, which I say is commendable, that's why I jumped you. You see, I've worked with environmental engineers, safety officers, laborers, operators, etc. And I've had numerous discussions regarding whether they believe in the Global Warming threat, and many say 'no.'

This issue is simply not debated in actual science, it IS considered irrefutable scientific fact by most scientists, even if it is technically categorized as a "theory." It just seems funny that people with little scientific training can use their common sense "just plain folks" wisdom, and a healthy dose of semantics, to circumvent or contradict people that have spent years of their lives focused on this stuff.

Nick,

I agree I'm no scientist (as I explained to Demon). I'm just saying the models that are "turning out to be true" take no consideration for things we can't measure easily. The guys I've quoted work for MIT and see the flaws in the model a whole lot clearer than I can explain to you. THAT"s my concern. It's irrefutable by lazy scientists. If you can't take into account other possibilities, your not offering the scienftic fact your offering a theory, that may or may not be true.

There is a reason those people you've talked to are skeptical.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Chickenhawk? I have no idea what you mean.

The article merely questions the book writers style and use of selective facts in an effort to prove hypocrisy of his marks. He may even have a point about guys like Moore. But this is about public policy, not about whether Gore heats his house with a wood stove or a coal factory.

It's funny how you completely lose all skepticism when it comes to Cheney's conflict of interest with his Halliburton ties, and his active participation in invading middle eastern countries and providing former his company a lot of work.

I just mean that the technique of proving hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do. Most of the libs cited do live that way. I don't see how they are "Selected Facts" as I don't see how further facts would change those in question.

The Chickenhawk argument is based on the idea of sending others to do what I would not do. Which in some people's book is hypocrisy (I don't believe it is). Pure hypocrisy is shown in these examples with Chomsky.

Just wanted to illustrate the difference.

On the subject of Cheney, it's amazing how certified documentation will sway my opinion. HE HAS NOT TIES. Show me documents saying otherwise.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Nick,

I agree I'm no scientist (as I explained to Demon). I'm just saying the models that are "turning out to be true" take no consideration for things we can't measure easily. The guys I've quoted work for MIT and see the flaws in the model a whole lot clearer than I can explain to you.

THAT"s my concern. It's irrefutable by lazy scientists. If you can't take into account other possibilities, your not offering the scienftic fact your offering a theory, that may or may not be true.

There is a reason those people you've talked to are skeptical.

I didn't see any "quote" from any MIT guys. By the way, I'm no scientist either. Is this like Warham's regurgitation of Al Gore?

And people don't want to think about it because they're uninformed and too "lazy" to read up on the subject, or only selectively read self-serving arguments against the idea of Global Warming. They clearly are skeptical mainly because making actual changes would drastically affect our consumerist economy in ways hard to predict. They fear this above all else in an almost childishly short sighted sort of way. When your done spouting your Caveman Lawyer arguments about "lazy scientists" that can't be trusted (because they tell you shit you don't want to hear), at the end of the day, it's apparent that global temperatures are increasing and have been in almost direct correspondence to the industrial pollution of the atmosphere. And there is no scientifically valid case against Global Warming other than those fraudulently purported as such by those on the payroll of big oil. As in the case of Creationists masking their anti-science agenda, they simply do not publish any real peer reviewed stuff to conferences and universities, but plea their cases to the public in order to manipulate opinion.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I just mean that the technique of proving hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do. Most of the libs cited do live that way. I don't see how they are "Selected Facts" as I don't see how further facts would change those in question.

Um, so do most "Jesus loving" Neocons. In any case, it changes little as far as the debate goes, it's just another way of not discussing it actually, which is the point of my article, in case you didn't read it.


The Chickenhawk argument is based on the idea of sending others to do what I would not do. Which in some people's book is hypocrisy (I don't believe it is). Pure hypocrisy is shown in these examples with Chomsky.

Um, no, you're wrong. In fact that's a contradiction. According to the author, Gore's advocacy of the Global Warming debate would actually negatively effect his own interests in his oil stocks, just like it would help your investment portfolio.

But I see why you'd think that. The Chickenhawk argument, is one of avoiding negative consequences, not of creating them for oneself. People that have no real knowledge of the impact of warfare or have little directly applicable military experience (Rumsfeld) and the true lessons learned, making critical warfighting decisions while often overruling combat veteran brass. Iraq is a case study of that. Chickenhawk argument only comes into play when people ironically use the patriot card to label politcal enemies as traitors, enemy sympathizers, and cowards of those that HAVE SERVED (like Max Cleland (http://memory.loc.gov/cocoon/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.03512/) was)! If you're a simpleton posting comfortably in his or her own home and labelling others' "traitors" that disagree with you, then you pretty much are what you are.


Just wanted to illustrate the difference.

On the subject of Cheney, it's amazing how certified documentation will sway my opinion. HE HAS NOT TIES. Show me documents saying otherwise.

He has no DOCUMENTED ties, but I'm sure he will after this is all over. And the documentation of Global Warming hasn't affected your opinion one iota. You just find ways to circumvent the documentation by attacking the message bearer.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
Sounds retarded right....exactly.

Yes, I do need them to be scientific about it (that is what they do last I checked) and have actual provable theories, not this is the best guess we can come up with.

Just prove it.

Now don't think I'm discounting them completely, all I'm asking them to do is prove it. I'd like CO2 reduced for reasons like breathing and being able to jog in my city without getting sick. That's one issue.

Saying for CERTAIN that the CO2 is causing the earth to warm is another thing entirely. Something I want proven scientifically. They were able to do it for health issues, why can't they do the same for the larger envoirnment?

Yeah, I sound 16th centrury while you wait for the "wizards" to offer absolute proof. That's funny.

Your avoidance scheme becomes more complicated with each post.

You say that CO2 makes joggers sick? Prove it!

You side stepped my questions.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Al Gore has been doing this lecture for thirty years, each year stating that the Earth is going to be toast in ten years.

You figure it out.

Oh yeah? How many times have you attended the lecture?

Or are you just stealing Hannity's talking points (LIES!) again because you lack the ability to form your own opinion?

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I didn't see any "quote" from any MIT guys. By the way, I'm no scientist either. Is this like Warham's regurgitation of Al Gore?

And people don't want to think about it because they're uninformed and too "lazy" to read up on the subject, or only selectively read self-serving arguments against the idea of Global Warming. They clearly are skeptical mainly because making actual changes would drastically affect our consumerist economy in ways hard to predict. They fear this above all else in an almost childishly short sighted sort of way. When your done spouting your Caveman Lawyer arguments about "lazy scientists" that can't be trusted (because they tell you shit you don't want to hear), at the end of the day, it's apparent that global temperatures are increasing and have been in almost direct correspondence to the industrial pollution of the atmosphere. And there is no scientifically valid case against Global Warming other than those fraudulently purported as such by those on the payroll of big oil. As in the case of Creationists masking their anti-science agenda, they simply do not publish any real peer reviewed stuff to conferences and universities, but plea their cases to the public in order to manipulate opinion.

why dont you scroll back a bit, the link is posted.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yeah, I sound 16th centrury while you wait for the "wizards" to offer absolute proof. That's funny.

Your avoidance scheme becomes more complicated with each post.

You say that CO2 makes joggers sick? Prove it!

You side stepped my questions.

How is a direct response avoidance? I don't get you.

There is ample evidence of the link between exhaust emissions and cancer via air pollution. Look it up.

I'm still searching for that proof conclusively for global warming.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37904

As a matter of fact I posted this reprint of it recently


Originally posted by Big Train
...

I'm still searching for that proof conclusively for global warming.

Here ya' go buddy, maybe they they have a job in Bush's cabinet for you...

So, you're going off one guys opinion editorial piece as a catagorical stance against science?

Here's a little primer for you on what is and is not disputed:

Climate Change: Instant Expert (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change)

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.

Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.

Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human activities and there are growing fears of feedbacks that will accelerate this warming.
Global greenhouse

People are causing the change by burning nature's vast stores of coal, oil and natural gas. This releases billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year, although the changes may actually have started with the dawn of agriculture, say some scientists.

The physics of the "greenhouse effect" has been a matter of scientific fact for a century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps the Sun's radiation within the troposphere, the lower atmosphere. It has accumulated along with other man-made greenhouse gases, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

If current trends continue, we will raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations to double pre-industrial levels during this century. That will probably be enough to raise global temperatures by around 2°C to 5°C. Some warming is certain, but the degree will be determined by feedbacks involving melting ice, the oceans, water vapour, clouds and changes to vegetation.

Warming is bringing other unpredictable changes. Melting glaciers and precipitation are causing some rivers to overflow, while evaporation is emptying others. Diseases are spreading. Some crops grow faster while others see yields slashed by disease and drought. Strong hurricanes are becoming more frequent and destructive. Arctic sea ice is melting faster every year, and there are growing fears of a shutdown of the ocean currents that keep Europe warm for its latitude. Clashes over dwindling water resources may cause conflicts in many regions.

As natural ecosystems - such as coral reefs - are disrupted, biodiversity is reduced. Most species cannot migrate fast enough to keep up, though others are already evolving in response to warming.

Thermal expansion of the oceans, combined with melting ice on land, is also raising sea levels. In this century, human activity could trigger an irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic glaciers. This would condemn the world to a rise in sea level of six metres - enough to flood land occupied by billions of people.

The global warming would be more pronounced if it were not for sulphur particles and other pollutants that shade us, and because forests and oceans absorb around half of the CO2 we produce. But the accumulation rate of atmospheric CO2 has increased since 2001, suggesting that nature's ability to absorb the gas could now be stretched to the limit. Recent research suggests that natural CO2 "sinks", like peat bogs and forests, are actually starting to release CO2.
Deeper cuts

At the Earth Summit in 1992, the world agreed to prevent "dangerous" climate change. The first step was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which finally came into force during 2005. It will bring modest emission reductions from industrialised countries. But many observers say deeper cuts are needed and developing nations, which have large and growing populations, will one day have to join in.

Some, including the US Bush administration, say the scientific uncertainty over the pace of climate change is grounds for delaying action. The US and Australia have reneged on Kyoto. During 2005 these countries, and others, suggested "clean fuel" technologies as an alternative to emissions cuts.

In any case, according to the IPCC, the world needs to quickly improve the efficiency of its energy usage and develop renewable non-carbon fuels like: wind, solar, tidal, wave and perhaps nuclear power. It also means developing new methods of converting this clean energy into motive power, like hydrogen fuel cells for cars. Trading in Kyoto carbon permits may help.

Other less conventional solutions include ideas to stave off warming by "mega-engineering" the planet with giant mirrors to deflect the Sun's rays, seeding the oceans with iron to generate algal blooms, or burying greenhouse gases below the sea.

The bottom line is that we will need to cut CO2 emissions by 70% to 80% simply to stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentrations - and thus temperatures. The quicker we do that, the less unbearably hot our future world will be.

Fred Pearce, updated 19 January 2006

[Nickdfresh]

This is all pretty academic stuff...

We're not talking Art Bell "Coming Global Superstorm," just basics...

[Warham]

Sure there's global warming, but that's been going on and off since time immemorial.

Where's the proof that it's 'man-made' global warming?

If there's another ice age in 20,000 years, that'll definately change their tune, won't it?

[Big Train]

Thank you for the primer of the obvious Nick, but it will be helpful in making my point.

The following article (the WSJ) illustrates what people in my line of thinking are concerned about.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

GLOBAL WARMING

The Press Gets It Wrong
Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Monday, June 11, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.

Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.

The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.

The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.

Mr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change.

[DEMON CUNT]

Mr. Lindzen is an energy industry consultant charging more than most of us make in a month for a single day of his consulting services.

If you want "evidence" to support either side you are going to find it.

To me the central issue here is the belief that we should be good stewards of the Earth. Take care of it as we do our homes, cars, children.

After all, each one of us is really only going to using this planet for a few years.

[Nickdfresh]

Lindzen is also one of the lone anti-Global Warming advocates. Funny how he keeps popping up in five-year-old op-eds.

He's a high end meteorologist that isn't necessarily a specialist in global warming trends. I've seen this guy profiled, and he revels in his outsider renegade status. The fact is that the world continues to heat up, and it follows the general pattern of civilized human society beginning with agriculture.

Interesting that he came out right around the Kyoto Treaty debate. Maybe he is consulting?

[FORD]

Does anybody really believe the Wall Street Journal would publish anything but a pro-corporatist spin on anything?

At least they have an excuse. Wall Street is all about corporatism. Unfortunately, the rest of the so called "mainstream media" isn't any better.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Lindzen is also one of the lone anti-Global Warming advocates. Funny how he keeps popping up in five-year-old op-eds.

He's a high end meteorologist that isn't necessarily a specialist in global warming trends. I've seen this guy profiled, and he revels in his outsider renegade status. The fact is that the world continues to heat up, and it follows the general pattern of civilized human society beginning with agriculture.

Interesting that he came out right around the Kyoto Treaty debate. Maybe he is consulting?


Yea interesting..CONSIDERING HE WAS ONE OF THE PANELISTS IN THE KYOTO MEETINGS. Jesus...

His questions are all valid and his points are never addressed. A huge renegade or the only guy in the room asking the logical questions.

I picked that article because it highlights the core issues in the fucking debate.

But if we want to practice what Demon likes to refer to as redirection (5 years old article-if you want a more recent one, fucking scroll up to the link I provided before) or avoidance (he is a renegade, it's in the WSJ not the Anti-Fascism Gazette) and ignore the core points, I suppose we can.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Yea interesting..CONSIDERING HE WAS ONE OF THE PANELISTS IN THE KYOTO MEETINGS. Jesus...

No shit? Why do you care that he was a panelist (from a country with a self-serving agenda, since we only create 50% of the worlds pollution) when you choose to ignore nearly everyone else that disagrees? Maybe he was a political cherry pick?

Jesus indeed!


His questions are all valid and his points are never addressed. A huge renegade or the only guy in the room asking the logical questions.

He may have valid questions, but some of his points are patently ridiculous and undercut whatever otherwise healthy skepticism he brings to the Global Warming debate, if indeed it is actually a scientific debate, which it isn't really.

It's a public policy debate actually.

Yeah, because there's always one guy that's right, no matter what everyone else says, right? Riiiight.


I picked that article because it highlights the core issues in the fucking debate.

You picked the article because it's an op-ed piece that supports what you, and George Bush, want to believe.


But if we want to practice what Demon likes to refer to as redirection (5 years old article-if you want a more recent one, fucking scroll up to the link I provided before) or avoidance (he is a renegade, it's in the WSJ not the Anti-Fascism Gazette) and ignore the core points, I suppose we can.

Well, what we can't "fucking" ignore is that he's either just stubborn or is full of self-serving shit. His "points" are undercut based solely on the empirical observations of disappearing ice caps, glaciers, and mountain snow caps, the slow desalination of the oceans, the retreat of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves, etc. All of which could theoretically have disastrous consequences according to the "Coming Global Superstorm," which I believe is also hyperbole on the other side of the isle.

He says that a temperature increase of 1C would have little effect? What what WTF is he talking about!?? We've have had a cumulative temperature increase of 1F this century, and it has had a dramatic affect. And he also fails to account for the continued deforestation of the earth, which means that there are less and less plants to absorb some of the CO2, which may accelerate the greenhouse effect.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Sure there's global warming, but that's been going on and off since time immemorial.

Where's the proof that it's 'man-made' global warming?

If there's another ice age in 20,000 years, that'll definately change their tune, won't it?

Actually, the extremist view of Global Warming is that IT WILL RESULT IN AN ICE AGE!

I think this is a bit alarmist stuff, but it was the premise of the book "The Coming Global Superstorm" and the resulting film, "The Day After Tomorrow." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/trailers-screenplay-E20669-10-2)

[Seshmeister]

I don't think that movie is in any way scientific so a bad example.

You don't go from ok to Ice Age overnight it was a silly premise and unhelpful.

That said the tiny, always American, naysayers on climate change(note change not warming) remind me of the guys the tobacco industry used to wheel out to defend smoking as harmless.

I say that as a smoker, regular flyer and car user.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't think that movie is in any way scientific so a bad example.

You don't go from ok to Ice Age overnight it was a silly premise and unhelpful.

That's pretty much what I've said all along. It's the flip side, the other side of the argument. However, most critics of Global Warming often state the same thing about ice ages and whatnot, and I was just pointing out the endgame. Too much heat will stop the jetstream and ironically that would result in drastic cold, but certainly it would take decades at the very earliest.


That said the tiny, always American, naysayers on climate change(note change not warming) remind me of the guys the tobacco industry used to wheel out to defend smoking as harmless.

I say that as a smoker, regular flyer and car user.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Jesus, they actually had a commercial over here on why "CO2 is our friend" and why we shouldn't fear it!

[Seshmeister]

Haha that and methane...

[Nickdfresh]

I found it! LOL

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0_VmMIbWKoo"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0_VmMIbWKoo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

And in case anyone is dumb enough to beLIEve this shit:

http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ads-funded-by-big-oil-portray-global-warming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/

New Ads Funded by Big Oil Portray Global Warming Science as Smear Campaign Against Carbon Dioxide

Yesterday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute – a front group funded by ExxonMobil and other big oil companies – launched two advertisements in response to Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The first ad portrays global warming science as a vicious smear campaign against carbon dioxide. The ad, which despite appearances is not an SNL parody, helpfully reminds us that carbon dioxide is “essential to life” because “we breath it out.”

Watch it:

It’s comforting to know that this is the best global warming rejectionists can come up with. There are plenty of things that are healthy and essential in reasonable quantities but harmful in extremely large quantities. (For example, drinking a few glasses of water is beneficial. Drinking 10 gallons of water can kill you.) We need some carbon dioxide, but too much causes global warming.

The second ad repeats the “carbon dixoide is our friend” theme but adds a new wrinkle. It attempts to show that the scientific evidence for global warming is in dispute, claiming a study found “Greenland’s glaciers are growing.” (Watch the second ad HERE)

Actually, the study (by Johanessen et al.) found that there was an increase in snow accumulation on Greenland’s interior. Meanwhile, other studies show that glaciers are thinning on Greenland’s coastal regions. This is exactly what you’d expect as the earth gets warmer. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain:

However, Johanessen et al. were not able to measure all of the coastal ranges. Indeed, the thinning of the margins and growth in the interior Greenland is an expected response to increased temperatures and more precipitation in a warmer climate. These results present no contradiction to the accelerated sliding near the coasts

Expect more of this kind of deception from the right as An Inconvient Truth hits theaters on May 24.

[Seshmeister]

Damn it stops after 14 seconds here...:(

[Big Train]

The simple fact is that there is WAY to much stuff that has not been ruled out and the people who say it is "obvious" via empircal evidence, I say amounts to bad science. A so do a few vocal naysayers who want to practice ACTUAL, fact based science.

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING. THis is becoming redundant.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
The simple fact is that there is WAY to much stuff that has not been ruled out and the people who say it is "obvious" via empircal evidence, I say amounts to bad science. A so do a few vocal naysayers who want to practice ACTUAL, fact based science.

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING. THis is becoming redundant.

LOL You sound more like the SNL parody of Bill O'Really, than Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!"

[Big Train]

What else do you want me to do, I've gone over this every single way possible.

It is what it is...I'm done now.

[Warham]

There's no definitive proof either way. It's a theory like evolution, and it'll stay that way.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
There's no definitive proof either way. It's a theory like evolution, and it'll stay that way.

Much like the Bible.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
There's no definitive proof either way. It's a theory like evolution, and it'll stay that way.

Um, actually there is "definitive proof." The only debate is how the models will work, but it is unquestionably accepted that the earth is heating up in correspondence with human activity.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Um, actually there is "definitive proof." The only debate is how the models will work, but it is unquestionably accepted that the earth is heating up in correspondence with human activity.

Do scientists know the atmospheric conditions the 4 billion years prior to humanity, or are they just using 'models'?

[Guitar Shark]

That video is hilarious. It has got to be a parody.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Do scientists know the atmospheric conditions the 4 billion years prior to humanity, or are they just using 'models'?

Don't you mean 6000 yrs?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Don't you mean 6000 yrs?

No, I said four billion.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
That video is hilarious. It has got to be a parody.

No Shark, CO2, like alcohol, IS your friend!

So let's go out and drink 60 bottles of scotch. More is better everytime!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I said four billion.



The Bible didn't.......


You're saying the Bible is wrong, and God created the world 4 billion years ago?

wow.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The Bible didn't.......


You're saying the Bible is wrong, and God created the world 4 billion years ago?

wow.

The Bible doesn't mention the Earth's age.

Nice try though. :)

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
The Bible doesn't mention the Earth's age.


Correct again, Warham! The Bible does not provide a "model" on which the Earth's age can be verified.

Although, Bible scholars, such as you, often use data contained in the texts of the Bible on which one can offer an estimate.

Got it, pube floss?